Converting to Euros

I was reading the NBA rumors this morning, trying to absorb all of the trade talk when I read one particular piece of news that could signal trouble brewing down the road.  Previously, I mentioned my dislike for the age limit, but I hadn't considered the financial repercussions thoroughly.  The news item was about Brazilian forward Tiago Splitter reneging on his agreement to join the San Antonio Spurs next season in favor of a four year extension with his current team, Tau Ceremica of the Euroleague, primarily because they can pay him several times what the NBA's rookie pay scale would allow.

Now consider, you're a LeBron James or a similarly gifted young American coming out of high school.  Your choices are play in the NCAA for peanuts, sit out a year and wait for the NBA (two years soon, if David Stern has his way and increases the age limit) or go play in the Euroleague right now for big bucks.  And after your initial contract with a Euroleague team is up, even if you're a star, you will still have to be restricted by the NBA rookie cap to come back home.  And that doesn't even consider that, in the Euroleague, you'll get paid in Euros, which are currently running pretty strong against the dollar.

What's to stop the best and brightest of American basketball youth from bolting overseas?  Patriotism?  And how difficult will it be to get them back in the NBA with the rookie wage scale?  How many stars will it take before Euroleague ball starts to compare favorably to the NBA in quality of play and competition?  It would be a bit ironic if David Stern's emphasis on international marketing of the game created a competitive market where the NBA would suffer, similar to what happened to the NFL in the early '80s with the USFL plucking stars, including several eventual Hall of Famers, right out of college.  The rookie wage scale could be a problem with NCAA stars, as well. 

As it is now, bolting overseas is seen as a last ditch effort by players who want to continue their careers but can't get on an NBA roster.  Most high schoolers and college players don't even consider the option.  But if it becomes more difficult to even get into the league, and can take up to five years from high school graduation to get paid what you're actually worth, that option may not stay with just fringe players.  A big-name talent, someone weighing these options, is going to open that door eventually and take the money.  And my guess is it will happen soon.  And when America's best start to spurn the NBA to go overseas, how long will it be before the international players that pepper NBA rosters today head back to their homes?  Now, the NBA is unquestionably the best league in the world, and everyone who's anyone wants to play with the best.  What happens when that designation is no longer so clear cut?

Stern would do well to carefully consider his decisions on these issues and cut it off before it becomes a possible nightmarish reality for the League, or we soon could be forced to watch late night feeds from Europe to see the best basketball in the world.

MVP: Most Valuable Player or Most Valuable Postseason?

It seems like nearly every year, the NBA's MVP voting would turn out remarkably different if it were held after the playoffs instead of after the regular season.  How many people still would have voted for Dirk Nowitzki last year after the Mavericks' historic collapse in the first round?  This year's MVP Kobe Bryant has a much stronger case after taking his team to the Finals, but, in my opinion, he wasn't a clear cut runaway with the award in the first place.  Not to say he didn't deserve it, I would have voted for him after the regular season, but why should the league's MVP award be given out before the most important and meaningful games of the season are even played?  Yes, there is the Finals MVP Award, but that discounts the performances of all of the players whose teams didn't reach the finals, a result often dictated by the relative strength of their supporting casts rather than any individual performance.

In my opinion, the MVP was a four-man race this year.  Here is how I would have voted after the regular season:

Player                             Points          Assists           Rebounds          Steals          Blocks
1.    Kobe Bryant            28.3               5.4                  6.3                        1.84            0.49      
2.    Chris Paul               21.1             11.6                 4.0                        2.71             0.05
3.    Kevin Garnett          18.8               3.4                  9.2                        1.41            1.25
4.    LeBron James       30.0                7.2                  7.9                        1.84            1.08   

Now,  after watching the playoffs, I've rearranged my thinking a bit.  I had LeBron 4th primarily because his team only won 47 games.  And Kobe beat out Chris Paul primarily because the Lakers beat out the Hornets for the top spot in the west.  And I wasn't yet a believer in the Celtics defense as the best in the league, despite 66 wins, so Garnett's efforts were downgraded a bit in my mind.

Now, it's pretty clear that both Chris Paul and LeBron James did more with less than Kobe Bryant (significantly less, in LeBron's case).  Garnett really did completely change Boston's approach, being instrumental in making them a truly excellent defensive team.  And Kobe led the way for a Laker team that handily beat the Nuggets, Jazz and Spurs on the way to the finals. 

But I suspect, had Manu Ginobli been healthy and his normal self, the Lakers might not have won that series with the Spurs.  Three of the four losses could have gone either way, despite some pretty miserable play from San Antonio, and the Spurs won the one game where Ginobli did look healthy pretty handily.  Against Boston, Kobe seemed to get worse as the series went on, as most of his teammates shrank as well, and did a disappearing act for long stretches of games 5 and 6.  Some of that was Boston's defense, but I think some of it was Kobe being too willing to launch long jumpers rather than find a way to adjust to the defense.

Chris Paul and the Hornets rolled through Dallas in the first round, and looked like they were going to do the same to San Antonio before the Spurs dug deep and fought to win the series in 7.  Their efforts against the Spurs sapped some of the juice from San Antonio's aging or ancient legs, making them further vulnerable to a much fresher Laker team that had cruised relatively untested through the first two rounds.  Paul's final assist of the playoffs was in wearing down the Spurs for the Lakers to take advantage.

I had only seen the Celtics a handful of times in the regular season, but after watching all 26 postseason games they played, it's was clearly apparent that Garnett, even though his stats weren't always fantastic, had truly reshaped what was a miserable team into a championship caliber club.  Admittedly, he clearly had the most talent around him by a pretty wide margin of any of the candidates, but talent doesn't win championships alone, the ability to merge that talent for a common goal does.  And Garnett led the way for the Celtic rejuvenation.

Unlike Kobe Bryant, LeBron James was able to adjust to the Celtics defense, going from completely baffled early in the series to completely dominant late in the series.  If it hadn't been for Paul Pierce putting up 41 in game 7 of their series with the Cavs, the Celtics wouldn't be hoisting any trophies.  And being that the Cavs beat Detroit last season, and nearly beat them the year before, it's not a stretch to suggest that LeBron could have returned to the Finals.  And with a team that plays the same kind of stifling defense that the Celtics used to beat the Lakers, who knows how that Finals matchup would have ended?  LeBron could be the one with the title surrounded by a team that would struggle to win 20 games all season without him in uniform.

So, here's how I would vote now, after watching the postseason, along with the player's post season stats:

Player                             Points          Assists          Rebounds          Steals          Blocks
1.   Kevin Garnett          20.4              3.3                 10.5                      1.35              1.12
2.   LeBron James       28.2               7.6                   7.8                      1.77              1.31
3.   Chris Paul               24.1              11.3                 4.9                       2.33              0.17
4.   Kobe Bryant            30.1               5.6                   5.7                       1.67              0.38

Any way I look at it, these four guys are all neck and neck.  I could arrange them in just about any order and it wouldn't be wrong.  So, just on gut instinct, after watching the post season, I would give it to Garnett.  It seems a little odd as he wasn't even the best player on his own team in the playoffs, but I just think his game changed the entire basis under which the Celtics play, the very essence of Most Valuable Player. 

By the way, I'm not a Kobe Hater.  I like Kobe Bryant as a player.  If anything, I think he defers his game too much.  I don't really think the Lakers roster is particularly well-suited to take full advantage of his skills.  They need big guys with heart to play physical inside, finish strong at the basket and rebound, unlike the Charmin-soft duo of Gasol and Odom.  But even liking a guy doesn't mean I'm not going to be critical if he deserves it.