Below are my questions to a somewhat suffering Raptors fan (one the one hand, the Raptors are worse record-wise than the Knicks; on the other hand, they have Chris Bosh, Jose Calderon and Andrea Bargnani; and one the third hand, those guys may or may not all be there together for much longer).  For my responses to his questions, check out Pete Marasmitch later today.

Here we go:

SML: The Shawn Marion question... where do you feel the Raptors' management will go with Shawn?  Will they try to re-sign him, or let him walk?  What do you think they should do?  It seems that they don't have much of a role for him, especially with Bargnani's emergence this season (more on that next question), but don't you think he could have played more of a role in Toronto than he did, or is this really all Shawn's capable of?

PM: I get the impression that Bryan Colangelo will let Marion walk, then use that cap space to sign someone(s). Seems to me the Raptors value Marion's experience, athleticism and leadership (apparently he's vocal about what they're doing right and wrong), but he may not be the right fit.

The Raptors need either a guy who can slash and create his own shot from the backcourt, or a defender who doesn't demand touches, since they have the Killer B's (Chris Bosh and Andrea Bargnani) to score 25+ points each, plus a healthy Jose Calderon to chip in 15+ points a game. Matrix is no shot creator, and he seems to get down when he's overlooked on offense. 

Defensively, he's fine. But it's like a drop in the empty bucket that is the Raptors' D.
 
SML: On an aside, I've been among the first to note the D'Antoni effect (David Lee's 20/20 games are ridiculous) on certain player's stats, but I always thought Shawn Marion was underrated while in Phoenix.  Having watched him play a bit this year, do you think there is a possibility of seeing the old Matrix at some point, or is he just done (i.e. no longer an All-Star caliber player)?

PM: I think Mike D'Antoni's system is a big factor on Marion's success, as is Steve Nash. That Suns team had a chemistry and sympatico so hard to duplicate. Also, some have noted that Marion's greatest years came when he played as an undersized power forward. Maybe now he just doesn't have the athleticism to do it anymore, nor the running mates to do it with.
 
SML: What have you thought of Jose Calderon's first year as a full-time starting point guard?  He's looked pretty good when he's been healthy, but it seems like he's always plagued by nagging injuries (the hamstring, for example).   Do you think he'll be able to withstand the rigors of an 82-game season (plus playoffs) in his career, or is he going to be a Baron Davis (or TJ Ford, ironically) type point guard?  Any other thoughts about his first year?

PM: Some Toronto fans were souring on Calderon this year, when he played significant stretches on a bad hammy, resulting in mediocre point guard play (especially on D); they were even lamenting the loss of Ford! Now that Calderon's healed and more comfortable, he's a force.

I don't know if he'll be forever injury prone as a starter. I think playing an 82-game schedule, plus playoffs, plus however many international games in the summer take their toll. But a little bird named Doug Smith said that Calderon's time with the Spanish nationals is coming to an end (http://thestar.blogs.com/raptors/2009/03/as-a-onetime-event-that-one-yesterday-was-a-doozy.html), so that should help.

For sure, though, the Raptors were deadly when they had Forderon (or Caldeford? http://caldeford.blogspot.com), able to change up the attack dramatically from the point position. Maybe a healthy Jose plus a quickly improving Roko Ukic will make that memory fade.
 
SML:  One more player of intrigue: Bargnani.  He's emerged a bit this year, showing much more of his game and potential.  Just want to hear your general thoughts on Andrea, from what you have seen of him this season.  Is he still worth the #1 pick?

PM: Bargnani's emerged, alright, and not just a bit. I'm glad to see him prove the doubters wrong.

I've been a big Bargnani booster since interviewing Caliper's CEO, Dr. Herb Greenberg (http://petemarasmitch.com/2008/10/gratuitous-photo-day-andrea-bargnani.html). You might remember that post, SML -- I remember you were quite high on it.

Now that Bargnani's got his health problems corrected, his body bulked up, his centre position solidified (formerly a forward), his mind acclimated ... he can build on his impressive rookie campaign. Last year was just a blip.

(SML Note: I do remember that post.  And I still wonder, even with Bargnani's break out year, whether he's worth the #1 pick overall.  That's generally reserved in my opinion, for a multiply all-star type player.  Unless you make the mistake of drafting a Kwame Brown type player #1.) 

 
SML: What's the offseason plan for the Raptors?  Do you think they will make any moves?  What do you do with a team that many expected to be in contention, but ended up not only missing the playoffs, but is currently the second-worst team in the Eastern Conference (heck, even the Knicks are ahead of them!).  Do they make major moves to rebuild the team?  Perhaps shop Bosh?  What do you see the team doing, and what would you like to see them doing?

PM: Oh yeah, the Raptors will make moves! I'm looking forward to this summer.

We know this team can score, with Bosh, Bargnani and Calderon, and has decent depth at those positions. The things Colangelo must address revolve around the "2" and the "3" ... that is, if he doesn't trade Bosh.

Last I heard, Colangelo clearly said Bosh is still the cornerstone of the franchise. But I wonder if it makes sense for all the scoring to come from the frontcourt. On the other hand, I have some reservations about moving him (http://petemarasmitch.com/2009/03/will-this-be-the-summer-of-bye-bye-bosh.html). Very conflicted.

If the Raptors can somehow trade for Pete Maravich in his prime, I'm all for it. Perhaps Bosh could use his Texas car dealer connections (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7IZP7u9FE) to borrow a DeLorean (http://www.delorean.com/) with a flux capacitor. Or it could require moving the island (http://www.abc.com/lost).

Aside from that solid, solid plan, there are expired deals (Marion, Anthony Parker), maybe-movable contracts (Jason Kapono) and a high 2009 draft pick to play with. But whatever happens, I trust Colangelo.

***********

Okay everyone, go check out www.petemarsmitch.com (just in case we didn't give it enough linkatude).

SML Called It: On Monday of last week, I was chatting with MC Bias and DWil of Sports On My Mind when the conversation turned to the Knicks' hot start.  I pointed out that Jamal Crawford and Zach Randolph were both playing like potential All-Stars, and that now their trade value was probably as high as it's going to get.  They'll vouch for me.  The Knicks, and Coach D'Antoni, were purposely pumping up - inflating - their stats.  After a horrible preseason in which Crawford struggled to play in the new system, D'Antoni gave him a green light to chuck away.  The result is that Crawford leads the NBA in 3-pointers at the time of the trade, and is averaging close to 20 ppg.  Randolph?  Apparently also given a green light, on that extends all the way to the three point line, too.  Randolph was shooting from anywhere, even attempting numerous three-pointers, without nary a complaint from the coach.  Thanks to their inflated, offense-heavy numbers, their trade value was as high as they ever were while wearing Knick uniforms.

Knicks GM Donnie Walsh must have felt the same way, too. Bottom line: yes, the Knicks didn't get back much talent for their top two stars; on the other hand, what talent could they reasonable expect to get back?  Randolph's lack of trade value had already been established - the Knicks acquired him from the Blazers purely for cap space... in 2009!  Remember, they trade Steve Francis straight up for Randolph, and Francis' contract is on the Blazer's books for $17 million this season, even though the Blazers cut Francis before last season even begun.

Crawford had maybe a bit more value, but combo guards have a bad rep in the NBA, and are the most plentiful position out there.  No less than 15-20 teams have SGs with better "value/talent" than Crawford, so there isn't that big a market for Jamal.  The Knicks were rumored to have come close to a TJ Ford for Crawford trade last offseason, but the Raptors ended up trading TJ Ford to Indiana for Jermaine O'Neal, a better talent and shorter contract than Jamal Crawford. 

In the end, it's hard to argue that the Knicks could have gotten a better deal than the two deals they got.  In fact, these deals are so improbably good for the Knicks, you really have to wonder if Commissioner David Stern didn't pull some strings.  If I was a fan of another team, I might formulate a conspiracy theory.

Donnie Walsh Collects: In all likelihood, though, what really happened here is that Donnie Walsh called up two of his good friends, and two people whose basketball careers he has heavily influenced, to collect a favor.  In Chris Mullin of the Warriors, it can legitimately be argued, as I did when discussing the T-Wolves trade of Kevin Garnett to the Celtics, that something almost shady took place.  Namely, Mullin is leaving the Warriors front office at the end of the season, and seems a good bet (at least according to the local NY newspapers) to end up in the Knicks' front office.  Did he help his future team at the expense of his current employee?

Short answer: Not really.  Al Harrington didn't have much value, and was openly feuding with Don Nelson, coach of the Warriors.  He clearly stated he wanted to play for the Knicks and "father figure" (Harrington used that exact phase in the introductory press conference) Donnie Walsh.  Chris Mullin, even if he didn't want to trade Harrington to the Knicks, really couldn't have gotten a much better deal.

The Clippers Always Suck, Part 205:  Clippers coach and acting GM, Mike Dunleavy, on the other hand, is harder to explain.  Seriously, WTF?!?  Adding Zach Randolph, when the Clips already have Marcus Camby and Chris Kaman... someone is going to the bench.  Why make that move?  Do they have something else in the works?  Kaman's deal is long, as is PG Baron Davis, meaning the Clippers are over the cap until 2011.  This deal beats the hell out of me.  Best I can figure, the Clippers are going for it now, even though they haven't proven they are even a .500 team.  More likely, we are seeing the value of having a GM, like Donnie Walsh, who has accrued favors and goodwill throughout his 20 plus years in the NBA.  I said this at the time of the still inexplicable trade that Walsh made, sending Renaldo Balkman to the Denver Nuggets for absolutely nothing.  Nothing.  Balkman has had some strong games for the Nuggets thus far this season, and has worked his way into their 8-man rotation.  A talented player, too talent and cheap to give away for nothing.  My guess at the time?  Walsh was either paying back a favor to Denver coach George Karl, or building good will towards a future favor.  Such transactions must take place in NBA.  The Randolph trade seems like such a transaction, from the Clippers perspective.  Especially when they happily agree to throw in Cuttino Mobley for Mardy Collins, which clearly was meant to give the Knicks another guard, so they wouldn't have to play Stephon Marbury (more on that later).

Clearing Space For 2010 Free Agents: With these two trades, the Knicks are now $40 million below the $64M salary cap in 2010.  There are only two players left with guaranteed deals in 2010 for the Knicks: Eddy Curry and Jared Jeffries. You can bet they will both be gone.  Well, Eddy Curry definitely.  The Knicks will keep him off the court (where his value can only diminish by struggling in the uptempo offense, in Walsh/D'Antoni's opinons) with his "injury".  How to get rid off Curry?  Well, presuming Walsh has used up all his favors, the most likely scenario is to inflate David Lee's stats next, and use him as the bait in a trade to get rid of Curry.  Perhaps something like Lee and Curry to Sacramento for Brad Miller?  Miller is another 2010 expiring contract whose style of play is more effective for D'Antoni's system than Curry's is. 

It is, in my opinion, a good move to trade Lee before he has to sign a multi-year extension.  One of my pet peeves is how people - media people and fans - quickly classify someone like Zach Randolph as "lazy", yet call David Lee "hard-working".  Both are 6'10.  Randolph has no jumping ability whatsoever.  I can say that in 90+ games as a Knick, I have not seen him dunk.  Maybe he did, and I missed it, but either way... he's got zero vertical leap.  The Knicks have used David Lee and even Wilson Chandler for the opening jump ball, but not Randolph.  Yet, despite having less ups than most forwards (including most SFs) and centers in the NBA, Randolph still gets his 10 rebounds every single night.  The reality is that he works hard... at rebounding.

And Randolph gets his 20 points every night, too.  He works hard... at scoring.  He has moves, and range that improves every season.

What Randolph doesn't work hard at, and barely tries really, is defense and team-oriented passing.  He's a notorious ball hog with poor defensive habits.

David Lee, just for reference... the hard worker... is a poor scorer who had yet to develop any moves.  He leads the team in getting his shot blocked.  His defense is just as bad as Randolph's.  He rebounds pretty well, though not so much this year as he is hampered by a foot injury (bone spur).  That's because while Randolph uses quickness and basketball acumen to get his rebounds (like Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman did), David Lee uses his elite second and third jump skills (few players in the NBA can match Lee's ability to jump back up after the first jump) to grab rebounds.  Lee is the prototypical "lazy NBA player who relies on his natural abilities and doesn't work hard at his game", yet he reputation is the opposite.  But I digress.  Back on topic.

Curry will be gone.  He will be traded solo, or with David Lee if necessary.  Or, if it really comes down to it, the Knicks may even package Curry with their most valueable asset right now - Wilson Chandler.  Whatever it takes, you can bet Curry will not be on the cap come 2010.  Jared Jeffries is insignificant.  His $6M in 2010 mean nothing.  D'Antoni has stated that he sees Jeffries as his starting center, in the "mold of Boris Diaw".  If he really means that, then Jeffries will stick around, maybe even until 2010 and beyond.  Or maybe the Knicks are just trying to pump up his value.  His value will be pumped up (remember: Jeffries has a long contract, but not that expensive) that the Knicks could likely trade him if they want to.

2010 Is Not All About LeBron James:  First things first.  Yes, the first option for the Knicks come July 1st, 2010, with the $40 million in free space, will be LeBron James.  But if it does not work out, remember this: July 15, 1996 (I bet Frank Isola loves the link to his old archives... homeboy has been at the NYDN that long?!?). 

The Knicks freed up a ton of cap space that year.  It was the last time they were under the cap, in fact.  They set out initially to team Patrick Ewing up with the foe that defeated him so many times: Michael Jordan.

It didn't work out that way, though. So the Knicks went with plan B: sign a second tier SG - a little known sweet shooter from the Pistons who just finished his rookie contract named Allan Houston; a third tier PG from the crosstown Nets team that just had a break out year - Chris Childs; and use the rest of the cap space to trade for a fading, but still premier, forwards in the league - Larry Johnson.

In 2010, LeBron James will chose between the Knicks and the Cavs.  The Nets, thanks to their inability to get to Brooklyn (a huge break... if the Nets had made it to BK, I honestly believe that would have been his number one choice), have turned this into an even, two team race.  The Knicks may not win LeBron, though. 

Even if they don't, though, consider these names (among others): Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, Manu Ginobili, Joe Johnson, Amare Stoudemire, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, Yao Ming, Tracy McGrady, Michael Redd, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce. 

The most underrated star of the class: Joe Johnson - desperate for a relevant market, entering his prime (29), and undervalued, meaning he wouldn't be signed at first banana money.  Wouldn't $15 million a year make it work?  How about Amare + JJ teaming up to reunite with ex-coach Mike D'Antoni?

How about aging Nash taking a discount, and once again teaming up with Dirk Nowitzki, only also with Manu Ginobili?  You don't think $40 million is enough to sign all three players, especially when they are all on the decline?

Or even if the Knicks can't sign too many free agents, they still have enough cap room to take someone else's cap clogger.  Think of the Orlando Magic, for example.  They tied up too much money in Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis.  Considering that the team is likely stuck in a rut, one where they win their division every year, but get knocked out in the second round every year... until they acquire a legit point guard... they may come to the point in July 2010 where they decide they need cap flexibility to retool around D-Ho.  They may be happy to give the overpriced Rashard Lewis up for nothing, much the same way Zach Randolph has now been traded twice in the last 18 months for little in return other than salary cap space down the line!

Or the Nuggets may entertain a similar decision about Carmelo Anthony.

The point is: 2010 isn't necesarily about LeBron James.  It's about all the moves that can happen that will allow the Knicks, just like they did back in 1996, to rebuild the team.

2008 Isn't Done Yet:  The most popular argument against these trades is that the Knicks seem to be giving up on their current season, one in which they are, for all intends and purposes, still in the running.  They got off to a good start (6-3), and seemed to be on their way to playoff contention.

I'm inclined to believe that the Knicks will still win close to 40 games, and compete for the 8th seed. First off, the guys traded - Randolph and Crawford - weren't great defenders. The new guys are much better (Mobley, Harrington, and thomas). The Knicks now lack an inside scorer, but they'll probably set some sort of record for 3PT attempted this year that make even Nellie wanna puke. Has an NBA team ever attempted more threes than twos?

Still, D'Antoni gets an extra 10 wins a season out of his teams based on pure stupidity/lack of disclipline by other teams. Those Suns teams really shouldn't have run more than 50-55 games every year, but they got 60-65 thanks to other teams making bad decisions and trying to run with them. That's a big part of why they never lost to bad teams (teams that typically lacked disclipline).

The Knicks have already done the same so far this season to bad teams - the Grizzlies, Bobcats, Heat, et al - and again yesterday.  They they were down to a seven man rotation (with the bench being Malik Rose and Anthony Roberson!!), they still beat a more talented Wizards team (we'll quote Seth from Posting and Toasting on this one: "they still had two All-Stars, size, and a bench over the Knicks") because the Wizards thought they could run with the Knicks.  

End result: 122 pts for the Knicks and a win.  D'Antoni's system guarantees the Knicks will win way more games than their talent dictates they should... and for that reason they will compete hard for that 8th spot. Al Harrington and tim thomas are good fits for D'Antoni's system... they can handle the ball, pass it well, rebound above average for their size, and shoot the three while playing aggressive defense (read: ball hawking and jumping lanes versus fundamental style defensive, like the Spurs).  The Knicks should remain an interesting, fun team to watch play.  D'Antoni's style won't make the Knicks legitimate contenders (much like I never though the Suns were true contenders), but it will make the Knicks bigger winners than their talent might indicate. 

Interesting Final Sidenote: Both tim thomas and Al Harrington used the word "freelance" to describe their skills in interviews during yesterday's game.  Are they consultants? 

And just how nice was this play, early in the second quarter?:

Anyway, let's just call this game on of those games - there are about 2 to 4 of them a season.  If you've watched the NBA enough over the past 10 years, you'll know what I'm talking about.  It's the Violet Palmer game. 

Here's what ESPN's Bill Simmons once wrote about Violet Palmer:

D'Antoni tried sweet talking Violet Palmer early in the first half... the MSG network had the mics on, and it was one of their spotlight conversations. 

But here is how you know it was a Violet Palmer game:  when none of the calls (and non-calls) seemed to make sense, or have any rhyme or reason to them.  When the other two refs in the crew are unable to make proper calls, either, because they are either too busy double-checking Violet, or staying out of it because they don't know what she is going to call.

I was going to go through the footage of the game and highlight some of the spottier calls, but honestly... I don't feel like watching that game a second time.  Here are some of the calls I took notes on during the game:

-Quentin Richardson late in the fourth, failed to draw a charge despite clearly having his feet planted and being outside the restricted zone.  It's generally an easy call.  Instead Q-Rich was hit with a blocking foul.

-The odd play in which Nate Robinson went up to tip in a shot by Wilson Chandler.  The ball was still over the cylinder, so Nate did not touch the ball, but he did hit the rim.  At first Violet whistled him, correctly, for offensive interference and negated the basket.  Then she changed her mind when the Knicks argued that Nate did not touch the ball (which it appeared he did not).  

That she changed her mind seems pretty odd.  Nate touching the rim alone was sufficient to let the offensive interference call stand.  Even if most refs wouldn't call it (unless the rim touch effect it enough to have caused the bouncing basketball to go in), it was still the correct call initially.  So why change it?  Did she really think Nate might have touched the ball at first, until the other refs told her that was not the case?  If that's what happened, then she must not visually be able to tell that a Nate's hand hitting the front of the rim was nowhere near the ball, which was on the back iron of the rim?!?

If you didn't see the play, then my description probably isn't helping.  Let's just say it was a weird call, and a weirder reversal, and leave it at that.

-There was a lot of contact on Quentin Richardson's attempt to take the lead with about seven seconds to go in the game.  Check it out for yourselves, at the 1:35 mark of this recap:

 Now the general "rule" on most end of game shots is a) there has to be sufficient contact (no touch fouls will be called, unless you are a superstar).  But one could argue both that Q-Rich was suffiicently contacted, and that there was more than enough time on the clock for the Mavs to call timeout, and set up a decent shot of their own to tie/win the game (provided Q-Rich hit his free throws).  I would wager that maybe 60-70% of the refs in the league would have called that foul.  I could be wrong.

The larger point: the whole second half was bizarrely officiated.  As is generally the case when Violet Palmer is an official, the calls don't really make sense.  And no, they weren't necessarily anti-Knicks, or pro-Mavs.  That's not really the point of my post.  The Knicks probably benefit has much from the weird calls as they suffered.  It's just that it becomes really hard to figure out what is going on.

The Knicks attempted 10 free throws in the 2nd quarter.  They attempted 3 in the 3rd quarter, and NONE in the fourth. 

In the second quarter (during which Violet Palmer was stationed under the Dallas Mav's basket, not the Knicks) the Knicks weren't even driving that much.  Most of their shots were from the outside. Only one shot - a miss - was from inside the paint, and that was a failed attempt to tip the ball in.

In the fourth quarter (Violet Palmer's basket is now the one the Knicks are attempting to score on), the Knicks missed four shots in the paint area, and in general took more shots inside.  See for yourself.

Despite playing more aggressively in the fourth than in the second, the Knicks did not draw any free throws.  This is a hallmark of a Violet Palmer game.  The tendency in those games, from what I've noticed, is that teams tend to get more calls on outside shots than in inside shots (which is counterintuitive, since inside shots generally tend to lead to more contact than outside shots). 

In summary:  Whether you win or lose a Violet Palmer officiated game, the best thing to do is disregard any deep meaning, and just treat it like an exhibition game or something.  You do what you can to win the game, but you also have to accept that whatever it is that you did to win (or lose) the game might not work the same way if this game had been managed by "real" officials.

File under: whining about one particular ref; things that make me grudgingly agree with Bill Simmons; who watches the watchmen?  

21^st in the NBA

2008-2009 NYK average points per game: 105.7

1^st in the NBA

Take a chance on me:

2007-2008 NYK games in which they had at least 23 assists as a team:  13

82 possible games (15.9%).

Top games: 29 vs the Milwaukee (OT game), and 28 vs. the Chicago Bulls.

Undeniably true: Only had 7 assists in a game against the Lakers last season. 

2008-2009 NYK games in which they have had at least 23 assists as a team:  5

10 possible games (50%).

Top games: 36 vs. Washington, and 30 vs. Dallas.  Both are higher than last season’s “high”.

2008-2009 NYK possible All-Stars?  2

Possible Coach of the Year (if the Knicks finish at or above .500):

Possible speech upon winning award: "Y'all thought I was an idiot for taking the money in New York over the Bulls job.  Well, if I had taken the Bulls job, all the credit would have gone to Derrick Rose, and the young talent, and nobody would have handed me an award, even if they had won 55 games.  In New York, on the other hand, I look like a genius for winning 40 games at the NBA's version of Chenobyl!  Crown me, media schlubs.  You can put me in your Hall of Fame now."

My favorite alternative colour: BLUE, no wait... PURPLE.

Number of months that weird kid singing "Su-su-studio" was on the front page of SML.com: 4

We back.  Maybe.

Not the architect:

Unless you think that drafting a 19-year version of 35-year old Peja Stojakovic and picking up Chris Duhon (a lovely point guard, but still a second stringer on most teams) is the reason for the Knicks marked improvement.

In the starting lineup that month: Wilson Chandler 

Must have been paying attention: Mike D'Antoni.

Finally, from 82games: