Man, Bill Simmons really does not like Syracuse players

[Knicks411]

Not that it is a huge deal, but I think you only need to pay a guy for 2 years, right? I believe the third and fourth years are both options? Also, you have the option of making him a restricted FA after the fourth year, which almost always means you can bring him back.

Anyway, it's hard not to pick projects in the 20's of the draft sometimes. It's not like there are 25-30 guys in the draft who are ready to play in the NBA the next year.

Here are the guys picked from 20-30 last year

Nolan Smith
Kenneth Faried
Nikola Mirotic
Reggie Jackson
Marshon Brooks
Jordan Hamilton
JaJaun Johnson
Norris Cole
Cory Joseph
Jimmy Butler

A bunch of those guys were juniors and seniors; not really projects. They just aren't that good. It doesn't get much better if you go into round 2 either.

 

[moqui]

Anyway, it's hard not to pick projects in the 20's of the draft sometimes. It's not like there are 25-30 guys in the draft who are ready to play in the NBA the next year.

if I was in charge, I would trade out of the first round any time I wasn't in position to get a sure fire player . . . accumulate other teams's young talent and a bunch of 2nd rounders

 

[Knicks411]

if I was in charge, I would trade out of the first round any time I wasn't in position to get a sure fire player . . . accumulate other teams's young talent and a bunch of 2nd rounders

Ok I can see that then. I don't think the guaranteed money is that much, and I think there are times that it's worth taking a shot on a guy, but I can see what you're saying.

The one counter to that is if you take a guy in the seocnd round and he blows up then you could be paying him the mid level after 2 years, instead of controlling him for 4 years.

 

[heresjohnny88]

Simmons doesn't really have anything against Cuse. He really liked Wes leading up to the 2010 draft, but simply did not like Minnesota picking him over Cousins. Fair criticism. As someone mentioned in this thread, he also liked Flynn, but didn't like the Minnesota picking him over Curry. As you can see, Simmons hates David Kahn.

He doesn't like the Fab pick for good reason. I have a couple friends of mine who are Celtics fans. Both of them texted me saying how they didn't like the pick. The prevailing view in Boston is that they simply don't need another project (JaJuan Johnson, another project, already glued to the bench). I do think the Fab pick means KG is absolutely coming back next year (my boston friends feel the same way). Ainge knows Fab needs that kind of mentor. He should force Fab to move in with KG for the summer. I would definitely watch a "KG and Fab" reality show.

 

[moqui]

Not that it is a huge deal, but I think you only need to pay a guy for 2 years, right? I believe the third and fourth years are both options?

I thought the first 3 years were guaranteed

Ok I can see that then. I don't think the guaranteed money is that much, and I think there are times that it's worth taking a shot on a guy, but I can see what you're saying.

I would certainly have taken a chance on Perry Jones that late in the first round

The one counter to that is if you take a guy in the seocnd round and he blows up then you could be paying him the mid level after 2 years, instead of controlling him for 4 years.

if you play it this way, you are hoping to strike that kind of gold and when it is money well spent, you spend it (and you wont have a bunch of guaranteed rookie contracts sucking cap space at the low end)

 

[Knicks411]

First 2 years are guaranteed, just double checked.

Funny, I'm not really enamored with Jones. Though late in round 1 I can see it.

I think you may be overestimating a little the rookie contracts. This year, for instance, if you take a guy with the #20 pick, you guarantee him a total of $2.2 million over 2 years. You can be out after that. So basically $1.1 million per year. Not really a whole lot.

 

[RF2044]

First 2 years are guaranteed, just double checked.

Funny, I'm not really enamored with Jones. Though late in round 1 I can see it.

I think you may be overestimating a little the rookie contracts. This year, for instance, if you take a guy with the #20 pick, you guarantee him a total of $2.2 million over 2 years. You can be out after that. So basically $1.1 million per year. Not really a whole lot.

Limiting rookie salaries [based upon draft slot] really helped in that regard.

 

[Knicks411]

Limiting rookie salaries [based upon draft slot] really helped in that regard.

You mean it wasn't good when Glenn Robinson came into the league and tried to get $100 million before he played a game?

 

[moqui]

First 2 years are guaranteed, just double checked.

Funny, I'm not really enamored with Jones. Though late in round 1 I can see it.

I think you may be overestimating a little the rookie contracts. This year, for instance, if you take a guy with the #20 pick, you guarantee him a total of $2.2 million over 2 years. You can be out after that. So basically $1.1 million per year. Not really a whole lot.

add that to the list of reasons why I will never work in a front office

 

[billsin01]

I also wouldn't be surprised if he ends up panning out like a bunch of recent first round centers who get drafted on projecting, like Saer Sene or Robert Swift, who don't pan out at all.

I laughed when reading this sentence, not b/c it' inaccurate, but b/c I think it's the first time I've heard of either of these two players. I am so out of it in terms of NBA knowledge that I think the only opinion I can really offer on Dion is this -- he's not in the mold of any SU guard we've sent to the next level in the sense that he is an absolute physical specimen who's got a nose for scoring.

In that sense the typical scouting report on SU players doesn't apply. I would tend to guess that his success (or lack thereof) will likely depend more on his maturity level and commitment than questions about the true nature of his skills.

 

[billsin01]

You mean it wasn't good when Glenn Robinson came into the league and tried to get $100 million before he played a game?

Give him some credit -- maybe he just knew what was going to happen when he did start playing games.

 

[billsin01]

I've never been a Simmons fan, I don't like his self-referential and self-satisfied writing style, but I have to grudgingly admit that he knows the NBA.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I can certainly understand that people aren't huge Simmons fans. In fact, I've cooled on him a bit as I've transitioned into a job where I'm working during lunch and on the road a lot (i.e. less time to read long columns).

But I'm surprised to hear people don't like his style simply b/c I feel his style is the strongest part of his resume. I mean it's really an original form. He's not trying to keep it to 20" or remove his own opinions or claim to be an insider who knows everyone in the league ... He has fun, doesn't take it too seriously, readily admits when he's way off on something, does a pretty good job capturing the voice of the fan. And in this day an age when displaced fans still watch all their team's games and the amount of sports coverage available through TV, the Interwebs and radio is obscene -- being a beat reporter and talking to coaches, players and front office is really only part of the experience. Realizing that there is huge experience of pro/college athletics outside of that -- i.e. we're all watching the same commercials, listening to the same commentators, viewing games with buddies, online gambling ... -- is something Simmons did first. Well, I guess you never who was was really first, but he clearly was a pioneer in this sense and, IMHO, has left guys like Rick Reilly behind as relics of a bygone era.

 

[moqui]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I can certainly understand that people aren't huge Simmons fans. In fact, I've cooled on him a bit as I've transitioned into a job where I'm working during lunch and on the road a lot (i.e. less time to read long columns).

But I'm surprised to hear people don't like his style simply b/c I feel his style is the strongest part of his resume. I mean it's really an original form. He's not trying to keep it to 20" or remove his own opinions or claim to be an insider who knows everyone in the league ... He has fun, doesn't take it too seriously, readily admits when he's way off on something, does a pretty good job capturing the voice of the fan. And in this day an age when displaced fans still watch all their team's games and the amount of sports coverage available through TV, the Interwebs and radio is obscene -- being a beat reporter and talking to coaches, players and front office is really only part of the experience. Realizing that there is huge experience of pro/college athletics outside of that -- i.e. we're all watching the same commercials, listening to the same commentators, viewing games with buddies, online gambling ... -- is something Simmons did first. Well, I guess you never who was was really first, but he clearly was a pioneer in this sense and, IMHO, has left guys like Rick Reilly behind as relics of a bygone era.

I stopped reading him years ago because I don't give a about his friends or his personal tastes in music and film . . . taking it as a sports column, I have to wade through thousands of words of self involved chaff to find a few bits of relevant wheat. taking it as literature, there are dozens of writers who are funnier, more cogent and wittier than Bill Simmons.

a good sports editor could take the typical 7500+ word Simmons effort and carve out a nice, clean informative 800 word piece on the NBA. a good literature agent would take the same piece and craft a nice 40 word rejection letter.

 

[Scooch]

It's very important to note that everything Bill Simmons writes is meant to be taken extremely seriously.

 

[billsin01]

I stopped reading him years ago because I don't give a **** about his friends or his personal tastes in music and film . . . taking it as a sports column, I have to wade through thousands of words of self involved chaff to find a few bits of relevant wheat. taking it as literature, there are dozens of writers who are funnier, more cogent and wittier than Bill Simmons.

a good sports editor could take the typical 7500+ word Simmons effort and carve out a nice, clean informative 800 word piece on the NBA. a good literature agent would take the same piece and craft a nice 40 word rejection letter.

Ha! I enjoyed the last line in particular. Maybe I just respect his style more as a failed journalist. Perhaps I'm a weird sports fan in that way. I always loved that Kornheiser never really seemed to care that much about sports but always was ready to go on and on about the latch on his back door. I like that guys like this poke fun at sports and sports fans and how much weight we put on things like dissecting all the ways Miami 'ed up when in reality they lost a playoff game by 6 points b/c they missed a few jumpers.

And, in his defense, most of those good "sports editors" are the ones that pumped out the same formulaic sports sections for decades and most of those good literary agents throw out as much good literature as they publish.

But I can see your point and I don't mind that people don't like his stuff. I guess I just like him as a foil to 3 hours of Mike & Mike bringing in endless guests to break down the minutiae of sports on a daily basis.

 

[billsin01]

It's very important to note that everything Bill Simmons writes is meant to be taken extremely seriously.

Yeah, I feel he's gone more down that path. But I feel he'd be the first to admit his trade value columns or draft diaries, etc. are meant to be fun and not gospel. Or at least he used to be that way.

 

[creatorsgam]

I have only written one letter to the editor in my life, and that was in response to a Simmons column. Back in the summer of '04 or '05 I was working a night shift while home from college stocking shelves at a Tops grocery store. When I got home around 8 I was always irritable as I never got used to the night shift. In my fresh copy of "the Mag" that morning, I found a scathing attack on A-Rod, calling him a quitter on Texas. Of course this was sour grapes, at the time it seemed that he was incapable of writing a legitimate piece of "journalism" without several references to his love for the Red Sox, and he was clearly upset that the trade never went through. That said, I responded immediately and when I woke up that evening I had an email from ESPN letting me know that they we're using my letter in the next issue (happened to have that horse Smarty Jones on the cover). Anyway, the point of all this is that Simmons, although occasionally hilarious, is a self-absorbed tool, and his writing often stinks of "homerism." If I cared about Boston sports, I would just buy the Globe. More often than not he cannot comprehend that he works for a national publication. Maybe that has changed, but at the age of 30 I find myself turning away from ESPN, little by little.

 

[LennX6]

Also keep in mind that a lot of people on this board don't watch much of the NBA.

His point about Dion being the 6th man was a pretty bad one. He played plenty of minutes.



Which puts him in the same boat as everyone else.

The best part about Dion was he wasn't really a 6th man. Rarely was he the first man off the bench. That spot was for whomever was replacing Rak, most times C.J.

 

[LennX6]

I just keep thinking back to 2009 when James Harden got picked 3rd overall. I believe I said it was a reach and he's not that good. He proved me wrong. So I'm going to choose to think that Waiters will succeed... It's just unfortunate that the Cavs suck.

You weren't the only one. As Simmons views things through NBA-goggles, we view things through SU-goggles. I put my stock on the NCAA tournament game we played vs. ASU that we waxed Harden. Guess he had an off-game.

 

[pfister1]

His point about Dion being the 6th man was a pretty bad one. He played plenty of minutes.

Except that was comedic gold, if you are talking about his draft diary comment.

 

[Melancer46]

Except that was comedic gold, if you are talking about his draft diary comment.

This comment about the Cavs was legit hilarious:

"That means the Cavs just parlayed four top-33 picks (including the no. 4 overall) into a sixth man and a backup center, winning this year's Baxter Burgundy Award for the team that pooped in the fridge and ate a whole wheel of cheese, only you can't be mad at them because it was kind of amazing."