The Dude Abides
Here's 20 minutes from the PBS American Masters about Jeff Bridges. An interesting character. On a side note, the opening ad about Downtown Abbey almost seems like a parody of PBS.
Watch the full episode. See more American Masters.
« January 2011 | Main | March 2011 »
Here's 20 minutes from the PBS American Masters about Jeff Bridges. An interesting character. On a side note, the opening ad about Downtown Abbey almost seems like a parody of PBS.
Watch the full episode. See more American Masters.
While a lot of teams were bragging about grabbing 2011 draft picks, you have to wonder: why would any legit underclassmen enter the draft this year? There will be a lockout looming (and I think it's 90% going to happen) so you might not even be able to play basketball for a year, unless you move overseas, and unless something crazy happens in the lottery, your prospective destinations are: Cleveland, Minnesota, Sacramento, Washington, Toronto, Utah, and Detroit.
Now Washington's not a bad place to live and you'd be teamed with John Wall but seriously, who wants to leave being a god on a college campus and having fun in college to get into the middle of a labor disagreement while house hunting in Cleveland or Minnesota? Some guys might want to leave while their stock is high or would rather have the basketball version of a year abroad by playing in Italy or something while the NBA sorts out their finances but I think most kids might opt to stay in school.
Rick Reilly lost it years ago but he's still writing away and his latest column was more annoying than usual. First off, he seems to hate the Nuggets trade, which is odd, since the Nuggets are still a legit playoff team and they have more than enough assets to acquire a superstar in the next offseason, if they want to go that route. But more bothersome is the fact that he says that Carmelo "betrayed" the Nuggets. Sports are a business. That's what we tell people like Kendrick Perkins when he has his heart broken by being traded by the one team he's played for in his career. But when players have power? Well, when it's their choice to go somewhere else, it's a betrayal! Loyalty is a two way street and while the owners and some writers are bemoaning the fact that superstars are leaving their original teams, David Stern and his cronies are pushing for a system more like the NFL, a league in which loyalty is almost dead since veterans are waived like it's no big deal.
Anyway, because Reilly is one of the two ESPN writers who don't allow comments on their pages (Sports Guy being the other) and because the e-mail Rick section of ESPN wasn't working, I'll just go and rant a bit here and post an open letter to Rick Reilly. I wrote it during my lunch break so it isn't perfect but I think it makes the point that Rick's assertion that the NBA isn't fun anymore because some stars are bolting town is just plain silly..
----So KG trapped in Minnesota is fun? Bosh stuck up north is better for the league? This hasn't been one of the most entertaining seasons in recent memory? Player movement has its drawbacks but I think most fans would agree that the league is more fun when superstars can position themselves onto better teams as opposed to having their primes wasted by clueless GM's like Kevin McHale, Jim Paxson, and (yeah I'm saying it) Bryan Colangelo.
Also, players forcing their teams' hands to move them elsewhere is nothing new. It's what's made the Lakers the Lakers for all of these years, most recently with Kobe and Shaq. In terms of free agency, the Magic tried it with T-Mac and Grant. And as for your poor, victimized Denver Nuggets, they didn't seem to mind it too much when Kenyon Martin betrayed the his successful Nets squad by taking the money and running.
The most surprising thing about your rant is your take on the Nuggets. Denver has limited funds and would NEVER be able to build around a full 2nd max deal, which 'Melo wanted. They are better off now with a Pistons-esque squad of good-but-not great players and they have enough trade assets to acquire a superstar or two very good players in the coming offseason. (Of course, if they blow their money on more scrubs like Al Harrington, then it's on them, not 'Melo)
The main problem with the NBA's current financial situation (well, besides that there's at least two too many teams eating into the profit sharing) is the luxury tax which makes most small market/cheaper owners afraid to make that final push to greatness. If New Orleans couldn't make it happen with CP3 on a first max contract, they'll NEVER build a good enough team when he's making even more money. Teams like Utah might be just a player away but since their owners are more worried about their ledger than their trophy case, they refuse to spend the extra coin to acquire that last piece of the puzzle.
As for 'Melo "betraying" the Nuggets, it's ridiculous. He wanted out. He let people know. Now, he probably should have been quieter about it but, regardless, the Nuggets got fair value for him and they will be good enough to make the playoffs and scrappy enough to win a couple games in the second season. (They're basically the Knicks with Nene in for Amar'e and a deeper, better bench.) Next offseason, they'll be able to make the decision of whether to try to build a Detroit Pistons-esque title team built around very good but not great players or they can move some of their assets for a replacement superstar. What happened with 'Melo is a sign that the system works; not that players should forced to have their fates tied to braindead GM's and cheap owners.
Oh, and like with every other change the NBA has made to protect front offices from themselves, be careful what you wish for. A franchise tag? So you'd rather have watched 'Melo pull a Logan Mankins/Vincent Jackson move and sat out half the year? You want to see Chris Paul and Deron Williams pout their way through the 2012 season? Rather than finishing up their contracts and possibly careers on their current teams, you'd rather see guys like Derek Fisher waived unceremoniously ala Bob Sanders or the countless other players who experienced the apparently acceptable disloyalty of the NFL?
So while you dream of an NBA in which Kevin Love can realize that there's no hope of him escaping Minnesota or a league in which Dwight Howard can look at the aging, mediocre, overpaid team that's been built around him and realize that it's never getting better than it is now, I'll sit back and enjoy one of the most memorable seasons in the league's history.
Dre's new song is kind of like a meta modern version of LL Cool J's back from the brink "Mama Said Knock You Out" although instead of LL's blanket braggadocio, Eminem unleashes a kind of love letter to Dre and then Dre lashes out at his doubters. The chorus is a little too on the nose for my liking but it's a nice first single from the long awaited "Rehab"
But most notably, the opening is amazing. Great little Inception-esque moment of 'Dre thinking back on his career.
So it turns out that the Melo-Drama was actually just foreplay. After Carmelo Anthony finally made it to NYC, the floodgates opened and teams started trading players like they wanted to get in as many trades as possible before the possibly lockout. So teams did well, others did poorly, and most just ended up exactly where they started. So where do the teams stand after their moves? Here's my stream of thoughts.
Portland: The Blazers acquired Gerald Wallace for Dante Cunningham, two first round picks (their own 2013 pick and the 2011 pick they got from New Orleans for Jerryd Bayless), and Joel Pryzbilla's expiring contract. The odd thing about this trade is that the Blazers refuse to deal Nic Batum but now they've traded for a guy who plays his position and makes 30+ million over the next three years. While I like Batum's potential, if you were going to make a move for a small forward, why not see what adding Batum into the mix could have fetched you? Instead of Wallace, might they have added Danny Granger? The Blazers have solidified themselves as a playoff team but are they really a threat to the Spurs, Mavs, Lakers, or Thunder? I also don't know how well Wallace fits in with Brandon Roy who prefers a slow down game. The bottom line is that until the Blazers are willing to move one of their key assets, they'll be stuck being a team with a second round ceiling.
Charlotte: Charlotte, a game and a half out of the playoffs, just jettisoned arguably their best player for a mid-first round pick in this year's draft and what will likely be a future late first rounder and an backup forward in Dante Cunningham. They also shipped out their on-and-off starting center Nazr Mohammed for Morris Peterson's expiring deal and low-ceiling prospect DJ White. There's basically no reason to watch the Bobcats for the rest of the year and next year isn't looking much better unless they can pull off some miracle deals. Also, it's hard to get fired up about adding draft picks given the fact that the Bobcats have squandered most of their picks in the past. In the end, these trades might have made Charlotte the East's best option for contraction in the near future.
Houston: The Rockets have been on the decline the last couple of years but they had a decent cache of middling prosects and a lot of expiring of money to throw around... and they ended up adding nothing but a few more middling prospect to their roster. They ended up dealing Shane Battier, Aaron Brooks, and Ish Smith for Hasheem Thabeet, Goran Dragic, and two future first round picks (which one would think are lotto protected.) The reason this is worrisome is that Kevin Martin (28) and Luis Scola (30) aren't getting any younger while the Rockets aren't getting any better and if they don't pull the trigger on a deal for those two soon, they'll end up getting nothing special for them (ala the Bobcats and Gerald Wallace.) If the Rockets can't make a blockbuster trade next year (which doesn't seem very likely), it may be time to blow the team up and start over from scratch.
Phoenix: I was really hoping that the Suns would make a crap contract swap of Josh Childress and Hakim Warrick for Baron Davis because then Baron and Nash could make more silly videos together and Baron & Vince Carter would form arguably the biggest waste of talent backcourt in the history of the NBA. Plus, as lazy as Baron may be, he seems like a nice guy and he's going to be miserable in Cleveland. As for what the Suns did do, it wasn't much. Brooks is a bit more exciting but he's just as flawed as Goran Dragic so it's not like the team is going to be improved. And while I would knock them for trading a first round pick in the deal, they usually end up selling their picks on draft night anyway so it's not like that really a loss. This one would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic but let's be real, the 2010 Suns' expectations weren't as good as the Titanic's.
Thunder: Oklahoma City added some bulk in the middle with Nazr Mohammed and Kendrick Perkins but my fear is that Perkins isn't just banged up a bit but that he's slowly deteriorating. While he's only 26, Perkins is an 8 year veteran who has now has knee issues to go with his shoulder problems. Is Sam Presti really going to want to invest a long term deal on Perk? Because that's what it will take to keep him since lord knows that some other GM will gladly throw a stupid deal at the defensive minded big man. And while adding a defensive anchor is nice, I still think the Thunder could use a low post offensive threat and neither Nazr nor Perk fills that need. The trade should solidify the Thunder's lineup this season but it probably won't get them past the second round.
Celtics: As the one time proprietor of the Can Danny! website, some might expect me to bash Danny Ainge's move but I think it was too good to pass up. Boston probably wasn't going to be able to re-sign Perk and I don't know if he was ever going to be even 90% this season. Yes, the C's are now relying on an injury prone trio of Shaq, Jermaine O'Neal, and Nenad Krstic in the middle (and maybe Troy Murphy if they can sign him after his buyout) but I think those guys plus KG in spot minutes should be enough. And adding Green will give the C's someone to spell Paul Pierce, which is key. Also, the Celtics got a Clippers top 10 protected first round pick which should help them restock the roster a bit for the future. The deal that doesn't really make sense, however, is just giving away Semih Erden and Luke Haragody for nothing. And I'm not just saying that because Semih-Pro and Luke Nukem were two of my favorite nicknames on the team. Erden was a nice emergency backup and now they have to hope that they can sign someone who is bought out to fill the void. Still, the C's were the best team in the NBA, in my opinion, when Perk was out and they bolstered that lineup with Green and Krstic. It's a definite risk but, then again, so was relying on Perk's knees this season.
Cavs: At first I thought that the Cavs were idiots for taking on Baron Davis's deal but after getting the facts straight and thinking about it for a second, all they did was pay 12 million over the next two years to get an unprotected lottery pick. If that pick lands in the top 3, it's a steal. If it doesn't, it's still something for nothing (but money.) Which might be the best thing for Cavs fans - it's clear that Dan Gilbert isn't afraid to spend money on his team and a willing owner means almost everything. And they added a decent backup in Semih Erden for shits and giggles as well. Baron might be a huge headache but if he, Rashard Lewis, and Gilbert Arenas can be traded in the same season, I see no reason why the Cavs couldn't find another crap for crap deal or take back a longer deal and grab another pick for Davis. The Cavs still suck but they're trying!
Clippers: The Clippers cut salary so they can go after a couple of high priced free agents in 2012 and they also added Mo Williams who will be easier to dump than Baron. Could the 2011 pick bite them in the ass? Most definitely. If this deal costs them Kyrie Irving or another top prospect, it'll hurt. But it also strikes me a bit like of the Celtics dumping the #7 pick in the draft to cut a year off of Raef Lafrentz's deal. The Blazers landed Brandon Roy but the Celtics used Ratliff to land KG and become an elite team. The Clippers still have Chris Kaman as a trade asset and own the rights to the Timberwolves unprotected 2012 draft pick so it's not like the trade asset cupboard is bare either. If Donald Sterling screws up having Blake Griffin and Eric Gordon and loads of cap space, the NBA might as well contract the Clippers and send Blake and Eric to real franchises.
Hawks: Short story shorter: Bibby was washed up, Hinrich has a little gas left in the tank and plays defense so it improves the team. It doesn't, however, improve them enough to get them out of the second round. It was a small tweak on a roster that needs a major move. If Josh Smith is still a Hawk at this time next year, then the Hawks aren't trying to win it all; they're just happy to get a handful of playoff game ticket sales and call it a day.
Wizards: Getting a first round pick and Jordan Crawford isn't terrible but this is a team that needed to make a bigger move. Maybe they tried and nobody wants Aundray Blatche or everyone just wanted to wait for Josh Howard to be bought out but they're really no better than they were before.
Hornets: Earlier in the year, I proposed Thornton for Jason Thompson and I think that's a better deal since Thompson could play alongside either center Emeka Okafor or PF David West. Instead, they got Landry, an older power forward who is also a free agent and might fly the coop at the end of the year (just like West.) This is a team that needed to use their assets to keep Chris Paul happy and they've now dealt a potential future backcourt of Darren Collison and Marcus Thornton for Trevor Ariza and Carl Landry. In other words, unless there is a franchise tag, Chris Paul is gone next season. I know winning this year has been fun but I think they seriously should have considered going after Philly's young talent in a deal for CP3. Something like Paul for something like Jrue Holiday, Evan Turner, Thad Young and filler. CP3 still has to carry this team and it'll take everything he's got to get it to the second round.
New Jersey: While I do think that the Nets had to make a move, they now put themselves on the other side of the free agent circus. Instead of wooing Melo, they'll have to do everything in their power to keep Deron Williams happy, which might not be that easy. The Nets don't have a lot of prospects to deal for more help and the best free agent haul might be Nene or David West and Jason Richardson and I'm not sure Deron will be thrilled about tying his future to a bunch of 30-somethings when he can wait a year and head to Los Angeles and run with Blake and Griffin or head somewhere alongside Dwight Howard. Avery Johnson's head coaching style probably isn't going to make Deron any happier to be in New Jersey either. It's a tough call. Getting a superstar for Derrick Favors and two middling lottery picks is almost impossible to pass up but I just don't have faith in Billy King to make the right moves to keep Deron. In the start of 2012, I think the Nets are going to be back at square one.
Utah: I like that they learned from Toronto's mistake and moved their obviously erstwhile star. But I feel like they could have gotten a better deal than Devin Harris, a project in Derrick Favors and two likely mid-lotto picks in this year's underwhelming draft (that could get even worse if a lockout is looming and prospects opt to stay in school.) Still, it's not a horrible and they can make some noise in the offseason (if there is one) by dealing Harris, Al Jefferson, Paul Millsap, or Mehmet Okur's expiring deal. I can't say that it was an ideal trade but they got decent talent and have assets that might just be able to land them a new star player.
Denver and New York: So much has been said of his trade but I think it's a win-win. The Nuggets got good talent back for 'Melo and the Knicks landed a marquee star who will excite the fan base and make them, at least, a top five team in the East. I know that a lot of people don't think that they can add the missing piece to make them an elite team but this is a team that people were laughing at in the offseason so just being in the conversation is good enough for now. It is kind of upsetting that neither Amar'e nor 'Melo would take less money so the Knicks could add one more star but beggars can't be choosers and a few months ago, the Knicks were most certainly begging. As for Denver, they made the most out of a bad situation; can't fault them for anything.
Perhaps the craziest thing about the craziest trade deadline ever is that I don't think it really made any difference. A couple of low end playoff teams might have solidified/sold out their playoff spots but other than that, the powers that be are still the powers that be and the next level teams are still chipping away at that glass ceiling.
Blake Griffin's dunk might just have some competition for Sports Highlight of the Year.
'Melo is finally a Knick. And while some people seem to think that the Knicks gave up too much in the deal, I'm just not seeing it. Also, I just have a hard time seeing how Donnie Walsh is somehow a victim here. While Landry Fields has somewhat saved Walsh's reputation for drafting, he set the Knicks back by rolling the dice on Danilo Gallinari instead of taking the more obvious picks in Eric Gordon or Brook Lopez. He then had a lotto pick in one of the better point guard drafts in recent memory but passed on Brandon Jennings, Jrue Holiday, Darren Collison, etc. to take Jordan Hill. But the move that really makes me lost any sympathy for Walsh was last year's cap slashing deal in which he gave up Hill, the right to swap his 2011 pick and the rights to his 2012 pick just to dump one year of Jared Jeffries contract. When you push all in to go after LeBron like that, I just find it hard to a year later, after missing out on LeBron, to go crazy about the Knicks offering too much for 'Melo (especially when "too much" is the so-so prospect of Timofey Mozgov. (Also, the Knicks managed to hold on to the one prospect they really liked, Landry Fields.)
Also, the Knicks didn't really lose anyone. Wilson Chandler was gone after this year, Anthony Randolph was never in the plans, the 2014 pick will likely be a late first and those picks can be easily bought for 2 or 3 million, and the Knicks would probably have had to renounce the rights to Gallinari if they were going to go after Chris Paul and Deron Williams in 2012. And since CP3 in 2012 is the main goal, Felton vs. Billups is inconsequential. Chauncey is about as good as Ray right now and neither of them are in the future plans.
All this being said, the real question is how much better the Knicks will be with Carmelo? Financially, they'll be a lot better since the Knicks will be selling out, can probably raise ticket prices and still sell out, and will be selling a lot more 'Melo jerseys than Gallo shirts. But is Amar'e THAT much better than Nene that the Knicks will have a better fate than the Nuggets? For this year, I'm not really seeing it. New York could be able to take down the Magic but I think they're still a notch below Boston, Miami, and Chicago. Still, I don't think the Knicks could have waited since the Nets could have made a deal this offseason to bolster their roster and 'Melo might have realized that going to the Clippers was actually the smartest move for him, talent-wise. The Knicks didn't make the shrewdest of deals but they made a trade that they needed to make and one that Walsh had already sold out for.
I was meaning to respond to Mark Harris's GQ article about the Marketing Era and how it's killed movies but between work and wasting time on Twitter (damn you, Melo!) I haven't gotten around to it. So I'll just jot down some quick thoughts. In fact, SoulHonky.com might become more and more just quick notes and what not as I try to do more work on my spec scripts (and work itself has been a beast of late, taking up a lot of hours.)
Anyway, Harris writes that we're now in the marketing era of film, which is odd because we've been in that era for about 20 years now. He even cites 1993 as the good ol' days, ignoring the fact that that year helped launch the marketing era with the top three films being: the adult friendly kid film (Mrs. Doubtfire), the somewhat obscure TV remake (The Fugitive), and the kid friendly grown up movie (Jurassic Park). Also, he complains about too many comic book movies but in 1993, critics were complaining about too many pulpy novels by the likes of Crichton, Grisham, and Clancy being turned into movies. Furthermore, Harris completely ignores the fact that we're now in a global economy. I used to bitch about big movie stars not being worth their salaries but the fact of the matter is that while Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie might not be worth 20 million in domestic box office, their presence can make a stinker like The Tourist into a $200+ million movies overseas.
But perhaps my biggest beef with Harris's article was that it had no eye to the future. Hell, he barely looks at the present. While he's upset that the top box office grossing films are all kid-ish fare, he ignores the fact that the Oscar fare this year did surprisingly well. The King's Speech, True Grit, and Black Swan all made over 100 million. The Social Network is almost there and The Figher, with an Oscar push, might even get there (it's at 88 million now). We're in a new era in which the main studios are going to make mainstream fare that appeals to as many quadrants as possible and the smaller indie companies (many of which aren't exactly small anymore) are going to do the heavier fare. When studios pump 200 million into a film, they are obviously going to hope that it can sell some toys, clothes, and launch a franchise. And honestly, given the studio's eye on the bottom line, it's probably better that the more serious fare doesn't have to go through their notes process.
The one thing that might hold the more serious fare back is that, because the smaller places will be making it, people are going to have to take a pay cut. While it's fun to blame studios for the problems in Hollywood, it's not like the actors and directors are free of blame. Sandra Bullock finally got some power and she used it to make All About Steve. It seems like fewer and fewer stars are willing to produce other people's movies. Even Spielberg doesn't seem to be putting his neck out; making weaker fare like Eagle Eye or only working with established guys like JJ Abrams.
In the end, it's easy to sit back and say things were better 20 years ago but back then we were seeing terrible Batman movies, a Flintstones franchise, and the Home Alone franchise sitting near the top of the box office lists. The studios are definitely worried about marketing but their blockbusters are aimed at the global market. The serious movies, the smaller fare, can be treated as such, which should make it better. People aren't going to try to water down dramas in order to make them four quadrant films anymore. We're on the brink of a new era in film; I think it is better to find ways to push forward rather than look back and complain "Well, back in my days..."
I have a few ideas but I'd like to think them out more and not plop them in this rant. Sorry for the online spew; I'll try to do better in the future. Just wanted to get this off my chest, even if it was in a rather stream of conscious form rather than a more well thought out discussion.
And Thom Yorke's "dancing" is still somewhat hypnotic.
Their new album King of Limbs is available for download at Radiohead.com (or just google King of Limbs.)
Since one of my dream jobs is to be an NBA general manager, I love making up fake trades and trying to find deals that help both teams. I often scoff at the national pundits' trade articles because half of them don't make a lick of sense and most of the time they are horribly one-sided deals. This year, however, I'm not able to stand on a high horse because this is one of the toughest seasons to find deals that both teams might actually pull off. Yes, the Chicago Bulls want a two guard but unless they get a sweetheart of a deal or are willing to move Taj Gibson (which they don't seem to be) then I can't find a trade to make it happen. The Memphis Grizzlies want to move OJ Mayo but right now I'm not seeing a fair deal out there.
So what deals did I come up with?
1. Nene for Josh Smith:
Atlanta would have to get the big Brazilian to agree to an extension before the deal went down but this seems like a nice move for both teams. The Nuggets move their big man, who is probably gone this offseason, while the Hawks add the true center that the team has been missing (and that Al Horford has been praying for.)
2. Hasheem Thabeet and Demarre Carroll for Marreese Speights and Darius Songaila
The Grizzlies probably hoped for more for Thabeet but swapping him out for another project center and a useful enough bench player isn't too shabby. The deal also cuts a little money off of their cap for next year and every penny counts since they have to re-sign Z-Bo and Marc Gasol. The Sixers could use a defensive minded big and since Speights is out of their rotation already anyway, it's not like they are losing too much in the swap. If need be, the two teams could also agree to swap picks with Memphis.
3. Michael Redd, Chris Douglas-Roberts, and a protected 2011 first round pick for Anthony Parker and Antawn Jamison
The Cavs would like to get a late first for Parker and should want to dump Jamison so this deal works out perfectly for them. I just can't see too many contenders opting for Jamison after he came up little for the Cavs last season but he could help the Bucks add some offensive punch and Anthony Parker can give them some good minutes at the 2. The deal does eat up Milwaukee's cap space next season but after throwing substantial long term deals at John Salmons, Corey Maggette, and Drew Gooden last year, Milwaukee might be better off with less to spend. As for Cleveland, they welcome local kid Redd home for half a season, take a flyer on CDR, add a decent mid-first round pick, and clear off 10+ million from their ledger.
4. Travis Outlaw for Josh Childress:
One teams overpaid player is another teams... overpaid player. Outlaw and Childress will probably never earn their keep but they have to be able to do better than they have been this season. A change in scenery could make them seem slightly less overpaid than they are.
5. Jermaine O'Neal for Andres Nocioni:
The only thing riskier than the Celtics trading away their big man depth is having Jermaine O'Neal be said depth. You just can't be an emergency backup if you spend most of your time in the emergency room. The C's add to their wing depth with Nocioni and the Sixers add another big body to rotate wit Hawes and the newly acquired Thabeet.
6. Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Nick Collison for Emeka Okafor and Chris Paul:
I probably should have led with this blockbuster but it's completely unrealistic so I'll bury it in the middle. But the fact of the matter is that this deal makes a lot of sense for both teams (if the Thunder can get Paul to re-up immediately.) For the Hornets, they dump Okafor's monster deal and, rather than sitting around waiting for the CP3 Derby to start next season, they get a young star point guard whose rights they'll control for years to come. The Thunder get an MVP candidate who is a perfect fit for their squad. They also add Okafor who can help improve their defense. Again, it'll never happen but I think both franchises would be in a better place if it did.
7. Vince Carter and Mickeal Pietrus for Kenyon Martin and JR Smith
Because of league rules, I think this deal would have to be two separate deals but I like what it does for both teams. Like everyone else Phoenix picked up recently, Vince isn't working out and could use a new address. The Nuggets could also use Vince as a warning sign for 'Melo - See what happens when you force a trade to the Tri-State area? K-Mart, meanwhile, would add some toughness to the Suns frontcourt and I think he still might be able to get up for a few Nash alley-oops. Pietrus gives the Nuggets a defensive minded swingman which is what they need more than JR Smith. Smith, however, could put up some big numbers ala Leandro Barbosa did when he ran with Nash.
8. Al Jefferson for Aundray Blatche, Yi Jianlian, and Hamady Ndiaye
Basically, this is a swap of lazy for crazy. Al Jefferson simply doesn't fit alongside Paul Millsap so he needs to be shipped elsewhere. Washington might not be a bad fit since he could be alongside a mobile defender in Javale McGee there. On the other hand, Aundray Blatche has worlds of talent and could be a nice fit alongside AK-47 and Millsap and running with Deron Williams. The deal cuts some money off of next year's cap for the Jazz. The Wiz can afford to add the year's since they should focus on 2012 when Big Al and Rashard Lewis will be expiring deals.
9. Carl Landry for protected 2011 Pacers pick
The Kings probably want more for Landry but I'm not sure anything more is out there. And since Landry isn't in their long term plans now that DeMarcus Cousins is around, they probably should look to move him and get something rather than losing him for nothing. The Pacers were talking about dumping their #1 pick for Anthony Randolph but I think that Landry is a better gamble. He can step in right away and help out and should add some offensive punch that Hansbrough and McRoberts just can't deliver right now. The Pacers have a trade exception so I don't think they need to move anything in the deal.
As for 'Melo, I've kind of stopped caring. The Nets probably won't field a team better than his current Nuggets and I don't love his fit with the Knicks. The team that makes the most sense is the Clippers but Donald Sterling is too cheap to re-up 'Melo to a 2nd max deal.
IMDB posted up the Making Of Documentary from the DVD of The Social Network. Very cool insight into the making of the film that should win Best Picture (since Kick-Ass probably won't get nominated.)
The Talking Points Memo website pointed out a ridiculous gaffe that was made on the Rachel Maddow show the other night. Here's the report.
Now the problem that TPM and most other people will talk about is the fact that ChristWire, the site that Rachel quoted in the report, is actually a satirical website. Their quote wasn't serious and, in fact was kind of intended to cause this kind of mistake, as one of the founders explained in a NY Times interview, ""There's just rampant idiocy in the media sometimes," Mr. Watson said. "People watch their favorite news channels, don't question it and will regurgitate it the next day at the office. That is no good at all.""
But this gaffe shows a deeper problem and that is: why is Maddow reporting on this anyway? Apparently, she has someone just scouring the 'net for the craziest stories from the right wing, which makes no sense because it's pointless. The only reason for it is to give something for her and her viewers to laugh at but why even give the far right this face time? It's not like someone thought that ChristWire was some imminent threat or had some sort of huge corporate support that made it matter. It was a random website someone found (and apparently didn't check up on) that seemed like they could laugh at. Yet when someone comes out and starts bashing the liberal or intellectually elite, I'm sure Maddow will get all up in arms because people are acting like being smart is a bad thing. Well, in the case of this little bit on Rachel's show, it kind of is. It's just pointing and laughing at someone dumber than you. There's nothing to gain.
Once again, we're in a time where power seems to be shifting to the side of fear-mongerers who feed off of the ignorance of the people. It's hardly a laughing matter and by laughing at it, Maddow actually play into the hands of those who want to discredit her and the liberal views she champions. Even worse, this seems to be just another example of a Sarah Palin related attack blowing up in the Left's face.
I mean, the Right gives so many opportunities to point out it's mistakes, doesn't it start getting old after a while? I'm sure that Mike Huckabee's comments which were basically the epitome of hypocrisy will get some press on the Left but the actual discussion should be about what in the world to do with the West Bank as well as the issue of Israel's growing population and defined borders. But that's a legit discussion which doesn't fit into a quick eight minute segment (which is also why I think no opinion show will ever truly have any sort of legitimacy until someone changes up the format to one or two topic discussions per episode. With 24 hour news channels out there, you'd think they could offer five hours a week that truly reports/investigates/discusses a single topic that is of major importance in the world. Of course, people will immediately claim that people wouldn't watch it because it's too boring but most of these stories have fascinating angles that could be discussed. The reason nobody does this isn't because of the viewers, it's because the opinionated talking heads method is faster, easier, and cheaper.
A number of people were talking about the "Bridesmaids" trailer online and I have to say that I don't get the love for this one.
Most of the jokes fell flat and it fell into the trap that too many female comedies fall into - the main issue is just other women. Whereas movies with men behaving badly often have a basic premise and hijinks ensue, films starring women often have the premise of women are annoying and let's see how they annoy one another. That just doesn't usually make for a very enjoyable movie. Breaking it down to the basics of storytelling, this film seems to break the "Get to tha Choppa!" rule.
Most every movie, save for slice of life films or character studies, need to have a goal. Even if that goal is as simple as getting to the chopper before you get killed. Many people seem to be comparing this to "The Hangover" but that movie was not at all about men acting crazy and not getting along; it was about trying to find their friend before the wedding and THAT is what got the hijinks to ensue. This movie is about... a woman trying to make it through a weekend... because... other women are annoying? That seems to be all there is to it from the looks of this.
Even a barely there goal like "Getting beer to the party" in Superbad helped the film be exponentially better (and I didn't even like it that much.) A great example is the McLovin joke. In "Bridesmaids", the joke wouldn't have been as good because someone would have just held up a fake ID and said, "Hey look! Here's my ID. It says McLovin" and people would have rolled their eyes because it's stupid. In Superbad, the stupidity is amplified because the guys were relying on this ID to get them the beer that would get them the girls.
On the other hand, a film like the horrible "Bride Wars" failed because it had no point. There was a ready made plotline in there - Two women try to sabotage their best friend's wedding so they can get the wedding date/location that they are fighting over - but instead of that it was just about two "friends" who keep being mean to one another because the other one was just mean to them. Because there's no point, the women's antics just seem vindictive and not very funny.
A better comparison for this might be "Death at a Funeral" although even that one seemed more focused and the family aspect (secrets, personal issues between brothers, etc.) seemed to have more going for it. Oh, and the whole Peter Dinklage blackmail plotline.I thought that this might have someting more to it when the trailer started (I was thinking it would be a Father of the Bride type affair) but it quickly devolved into a generic, pointless, slapstick comedy. Oh well.
