2010 Playoffs: Post Game 5 Thoughts

1. Paul Pierce: Can he quit the act and stop pretending to be hurt by every bump? He's trying too hard to be Larry Bird and looking more like Bill Laimbeer. Pierce's act is only believable when the hit comes from Dwight Howard or Ron Artest. It's as if he actually expects people to believe that scrawny Kobe can hurt his broad shouldered ass. I know Derek Fisher does it but he's no star so nobody cares.

2. Pau Gasol: It's time to stop complaining about the physical game and start playing physical also. A finesse game won't be enough to win the title. With Bynum injured, he needs to plant himself in the paint and force Boston to move him out. Doesn't he realize that's why the Phoenix Suns have not been champions yet?

3. Ray Allen: I can't believe he took on Derek Fisher. Allen doesn't seem to realize that he's worth much more to Boston than Fisher is to LA. A double ejection works in LA's favor.

4. Andrew Bynum: Lakers are feeling the need for Bynum now. Among their 3 bigs (Gasol, Odom), Bynum is the only banger and physical player. With him ineffective due to injury, Celtics bigs are dominant inside while Gasol and Odom seem out of sync when the banging starts.

5. Celtics Bigs (Perkins, Garnett, Davis, Wallace): Celtics have the lead because they have managed to neutralize what was or should be a Lakers advantage. What should have been a mismatch in the Lakers favor has been turned into a Celtic strength with the injury to Bynum and Gasol and Odom unable to play physical. Meanwhile, Celtic bigs thrive in a physical game and were more active and quicker to the ball than their Laker counterparts.

2010 Playoffs: LeBron-Is He A Winner?

With the elimination of the Cleveland Cavaliers, the LeBron sweepstakes are on. Despite his talent, LeBron hasn't shown he has what it takes to be a winner. At this point, he looks like the biggest star to join the ranks of Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller, and the other NBA greats who never won a title.

Based on what I saw in the playoffs this year, James doesn't seem to have what they call the heart of a champion, particularly in Games 5 and 6 of the Cavs-Celtics series. LeBron never seemed to have that sense of desperation that they were going to lose. He continued to play in his usual manner. This gives me the impression that he doesn't want to go all out and lose...perhaps he'd rather say he quit rather than he got beat. Kobe Bryant's Game 5 performance in the Finals is the perfect contrast to LeBron. In the last minute or so of the game, Kobe started getting desperate. He was nearly reckless in attacking the rim, and as the game wound down, he took desperate shots in a gamble to try and go for the win. For those who watched LeBron, he never did this in their losses. It seemed as if he didn't want people to know he really tried and just lost.

If LeBron really wants to prove he is a winner, I would suggest he start off by staying in Cleveland and building a contender there. I think Cleveland has done enough to show that they are willing to do this for him and with him. I'd go so far as saying that Cleveland management has done its part in showing their commitment to building a champion, it is actually LeBron (through his heart-less play) who actually needs to show he is on the same page. With the firing of Mike Brown and departure of Danny Ferry, Cleveland pretty much offers LeBron a blank check in building a contending team.

Aside from a new management team, Cleveland also appears to be in a good position in terms of their line-up and the salary cap. The key decisions in my opinion are as follows:

1. Can Mo Williams be James' Number 2? Williams has come up short the past 2 playoffs, coming up short when the Cavs are eliminated. If Williams is just a role player, the Cavs may be better off trading him for a cheaper player for the same role.

2. Is Antawn Jamison's salary slot commensurate to his role? Jamison is, at best, a third scorer on a contending team. If Williams does not pan out as James' sidekick, that leaves Cleveland with about 20 million tied to a couple of role players. As an expiring contract in 2010-11, he may have value for a team that plans to rebuild by next season, but he may be a bit overpriced as a 12 million third scorer. For that role, they would be better served to replace him with someone that costs half as much.

3. Re-sign Shaq and Ilgauskas to minimum contracts as role players. If these two big men are serious about winning being their only goal at this point in their careers, the Cavs should be able to convince them to sign for one year contracts at the veteran's minimum. Even if they cost the Cavs the mid-level exception, I'd say 5 million is a good investment to solidify your middle. They can also re-sign Shaq for the minimum and go for a younger center to team up with him.

4. With the additional money freed up, sign a worthy wingman to LeBron. Ideally this would be a power forward or center, to complement LeBron on the perimeter. I'd go for a sign and trade, offering Jamison (expiring contract next year) and Varejao (also in a sign and trade) for Chris Bosh. This gives them a worthy number 2 for LeBron, and places Mo Williams in a less critical role as the third scorer. For Toronto, this allows them to be a player in next year's free agent market and get something back for Bosh.

These are just some options that are ahead for them, but the key is LeBron's decision to stay. That will greatly impact their ability to convince players to sign for less than their value. As for LeBron, I think staying will do more for him proving he is a winner.

2010 Playoffs: Lakers-Celtics 2K Version

Despite the current NBA Finals being yet another championship to be settled by the Boston and LA franchises, I have to say that I don't get much of a feeling of rivalry between the modern version of these two teams. Having witnessed, or perhaps more appropriately, enjoyed, the 80s rivalry between Larry Bird's Boston Celtics and Magic Johnson's LA Lakers, I don't feel anything special for these two teams. My impression is the impact is no different than if it were an Orlando-LA series or a Boston-Phoenix matchup. I have to say that, except for the fans of Boston and LA, there is just nothing special about this championship matchup that would differentiate it from any other championship matchup in the last decade. There just isn't any "rivalry" between KG's Celtics (or Pierce's/Allen's/Rondo's Celtics) and Kobe's Lakers (or Gasol's/Artest's/Phil Jackson's Lakers). They just happen to be two teams who happen to face each other for the championship. There just doesn't seem to be the same "flavor" in the current version of teh matchup (or even the 08 version for that matter).

Looking back at the 80s version, it was Boston's bet for the all-time greatest player Larry Bird against LA's version of the all-time greatest player Magic Johsnson. It was LA's showtime, fastbreaking game against Boston's fundamentally sound, grind it out game. The key players of the teams also remained mostly constant. Boston featured Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dennis "DJ" Johnson, and Danny Ainge. LA backed-up Johnson with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy, Byron Scott, Michael Cooper, and Kurt Rambis. Aside from the main rivalry, there were numerous subplots: Cooper on Bird, McHale on Worthy, DJ on Magic, Parish's rebounding against Abdul-Jabbar's scoring.

So while this finals may end up being a classic in terms of how the teams and individual players perform, it just doesn't strike me the same way a Lakers-Celtics game did in the 80s. This is simply a match-up between the two best teams in the league this year, and it just happened that one was Boston and the other was LA. It's a matchup, but not much of a rivalry.