Major Basketball News. And I Make Fun Of The World Cup

Finally, the long wait is over: we now know that.... Vinny Del Negro is the next head coach of your Los Angeles Clippers!  Possession after possession of the team's best player not getting the ball, inbound plays that end with the center trying to create off the dribble from 5 steps above the key, and not having timeouts left at the end of the game are all West Coast Bound!  Congratulations, Clippers.  You're in for a treat.

Oh, Lebron James is announcing where he's going next year this Thursday at 8pm central time.  It will be part of an hour long special that, I'm guessing, will include pyrotechnics, dancing horses, Stuart Scott saying "Boo-yeah" to as many James highlights as possible, the Cleveland Tabernacle Choir, Patrick Kane, Lebron descending from the ceiling, and the finest in cross-promoting synergetic advertising ESPN/ABC/Disney can put together (Remember, Jimmy Kimmel Live-late night on your local ABC affiliate).

It is not known which team James will join or where the announcement will take place.  

I can only assume this means it will happen at James' underground lair as he will acquire the Batcave as part of his max contract.

I might be a little David Haugh intensive lately, and Jim O'Donnell was let go by the Suntimes, and I've missed Frank Deford, so I decided to be kind of lazy and make fun of soccer.  Bill Simmons did a Q&A on the World Cup trying to make a case that its soccer's coming out party.  Article after the new Wolf Parade song.  Enjoy.



Soccer is ready to capture our attention 
By Bill Simmons
July 1, 2010
Via ESPN.com 

Question No. 1: What's been the single best thing about the Cup so far?

I love the Cup because it stripped away all the things about professional sports that I've come to despise. No sideline reporters. No JumboTron. No TV timeouts. No onslaught of replays after every half-decent play. No gimmicky team names like the "Heat" or the "Thunder." (You know what the announcers call Germany? The Germans. I love this.)

So no things like being able to see the ball in the stadium, no replays to see how a play broke down.  And no team names.  Although Germany is kind of a well-known brand.  

No announcers breathlessly overhyping everything or saying crazy things to get noticed. 

GOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAL!!!!  That's a bit of overhype.  Although there are some announcers (Gus Johnson, Bill Rafferty) that get too carried away, so I agree with his point in theory.

The World Cup just bangs it out: Two cool national anthems, two 45-minute halves, a few minutes of extra time and usually we're done. Everything flies by. Everything means something.

(Hang onto this one for a later question).

Question No. 2: What's the second-best thing?

Never during the CEO's reign of early-morning terror have I watched anything decent other than morning "SportsCenters" as I waited for 20 ounces of coffee to kick in. This month? I had the second half of every 4:30 a.m. PT game in Round 1, followed by the 7 a.m. game a little bit later. No offense, Hannah Storm and Josh Elliott, but it was nice to spend a few mornings watching a real sporting event instead of highlights of things that had happened eight hours before. For that reason alone, the 2010 World Cup will always be near and dear to my heart.

You know, there's soccer packages available through Directv.  You can watch soccer in the morning all the time.


Question No. 3: Why do we wait every four years to have the World Cup?

When I argued recently that the Cup should be every three years, readers flooded me with reasons it couldn't work: It's too expensive (apparently the Cup always loses money for whichever country gets it);

Wait, you want us to get excited for the World Cup when its a financial blackhole for the host country?

they'd have to do too much reconfiguring for smaller tournaments already in place (note: I don't get that argument; that's like saying you can't have the Oscars interfering with the SAG Awards or something); people like having it every four years because it's more meaningful that way (by that logic, you should have sex every four years, too); and most importantly, FIFA never wants to go head-to-head with the Summer Olympics.

So, instead of having smaller tournaments that might make money, you should push forward the World Cup to lose money?  Its like not having the Oscars every year because the Oscars are too damn expensive.  I don't get his argument here.

My counter for the last argument: Why not? So … we'd have MORE sports on? Wow, that sounds terrible! I'd hate to have all those exciting things to watch. And by the way, the Olympics should switch to every three years as well. I never understood the "No, it has to be every four years, that's the way they've always done it" argument. That's like saying "I'm not getting an HD plasma; I'm sticking with my old-school TV, that's the way I've always watched it." It's stupid. It's a loser's mentality.


Yeah, more sports.  Sports that end in a tie!  Didn't the U.S. team have a remarkable run and only win one game?  That's excitement.  And move the Olympics to every three years?  Awesome, Greece would've gone bankrupt sooner and London could be that much closer.

Question No. 4: How many times did you regret not ditching your family, ditching the NBA Finals, ditching the Celtics and flying 20 hours to South Africa for the World Cup?


Four times and four times only...

Wait, this World Cup is the greatest thing and you, as a reporter, didn't head over?

Question No. 6: Was it good or bad for the World Cup that Italy and France got bounced in the group stage?

Keeping USA, Spain, Germany, England, Italy and France around as long as possible makes me think about the Boston Tea Party, the War of 1812, Neville Chamberlain, Napoleon getting overthrown, multiple wars, Thomas Jefferson throwing his genitals around France like a boomerang, Benedict Arnold switching sides, all the times France surrendered or withdrew, and basically everything good and bad that's ever happened between those six countries. It's like having four solid weeks of AP History flashbacks.

So there's a French surrendering joke, that's always a fan favorite.  And I would've gone with Ben Franklin getting crazy and going all LiLo and/or Lady Gaga in France. What was the War of 1812 reference?  A war that was fought, had battles after it ended and ended up doing nothing but defining the US-Canadian Border?  Soccer flashed you back to a war with no point. 

Question No. 7: You haven't handled Boston's Game 7 loss to the Lakers very well. What was the snarkiest e-mail or text you sent to a Boston friend after hearing that Kobe was attending the USA-Ghana game?

It was a tie between "Since Kobe is attending this game, does this mean we're gonna get all the calls?" and "Kobe watched only six of the first 24 minutes but was still named MVP of his luxury suite."

Okay, some shots at Kobe.  He did at least go to the game...

Question No. 8: After a few legitimately horrendous World Cup officiating moments, as well as FIFA's bizarre refusal to incorporate instant replay haunting the Cup multiple times, do you feel better or worse about officiating and leadership in American professional sports?
 

I have slowly come to grips with the fact that officiating will probably be excruciating in whatever sport I happen to be watching. If it's better than "excruciating," it's a bonus. If it's better than "mediocre," you practically won the lottery. So the shaky officiating didn't change anything for me. FIFA's stance is that "we can't have instant replay in soccer, it's important that every FIFA-sanctioned game plays by the same rules, and we can't afford to have instant replay for every FIFA game, so instead, we won't have it at all, even though these World Cup games are 100 times more important than any other FIFA event."

So officiating always sucks, so that's okay.  At least he didn't include "The Human Element"- the euphemism for "Referees fucking things up."  And you don't want replay in soccer-- especially on plays that can easy be corrected-- like whether goals go in or not.  Yeah, there's some pics of replayable things here.

The next few questions don't have much to them...


Question No. 13: If you could change anything about soccer, what would it be?

I hate how teams milk leads in the last 15-20 minutes by faking injuries and taking forever to sub players. When that Ghana player had to be carried off on a stretcher at the tail end of the America game, then hopped off like nothing ever happened as soon as the stretcher was out of bounds, I thought that was appalling. Actually, it made me want to go to war with Ghana. I wanted to invade them. I'm not even kidding. That's another great thing about the World Cup: Name another sport in which you genuinely want to invade other countries when you lose.

So, going back to question one, where you loved the speed and straight forwardness of the World Cup-- now you say you hate teams milking leads and flopping and then miraculously recovering?  That sounds like the World Cup just banging things out.  Everything flies by. Everything means something.

Question No. 14: What's been the strangest thing about the 2010 World Cup?

To hear Germany described in such likable, underdoggy tones. Who would have thought these young upstarts would jell this fast? It's like the announcers were talking about the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays or something … if the Tampa Bay Rays had started two world wars and nearly brought down Europe.

You realize Germany hasn't started any wars in about 70 years, right?  I know they have a past but I think you can separate that from a soccer match.  Have some schnitzel and enjoy. (The Germans demand it).

Skipping to Q#19...

Question No. 19: Thanks to last year's Confederations Cup and Donovan's extra-time goal last weekend, do you think soccer is finally taking off in America?

Put it this way …

When I was in the third grade (1978), people thought soccer was taking off in America.

When I was a freshman in college (1988), people thought soccer was taking off in America.

When I was a barely employed wannabe sportswriter in Boston whose life revolved around the O.J. Simpson trial and partying every night (1994), people thought soccer was taking off in America.

When I was living in Boston with my fiancée and writing for ESPN.com (2002), people thought soccer was taking off in America.

I am 40 years old. I live in Los Angeles. My hair is turning silvery white. I have a wife, two kids, a mortgage and that same ESPN column. Guess what? People think soccer is taking off in America. Only this time … I agree with them.

We'll see how that works.  U.S. can build off the one historic win.


The Q#20 is one long winded answer defending his vision of the soccer revolution.  Its about the world getting smaller and sports being more accessible.

Being all cynical, I'm just going to say that until you can easily bet on the low-scoring/tie laden world of the World Cup, it won't be as popular as The Super Bowl or fantasy baseball or other fun betting.

Bill Simmons: Welcome to bad sports thoughts and thanks for contradicting yourself several times in your Q & A

Bulls Year End Wrap Up: Part III

Vinny is finally out as Bulls coach- And Gar Forman and John Paxson had a press conference.  They praised Vinny.  Paxson apologized for the tie-pulling incident.  Forman announced the Bulls didn't necessarily have a list of coaching candidates or a time-line or any plan they wanted to articulate.  In the end, we all learned a little bit more about ourselves.  And life itself.

So with Vinny finally in the rear view mirror, the search for a new coach is on.  Until free agency starts, then there's new madness.  I expect plenty of odd thoughts for that.

For now its Bad Sports Thoughts' favorite David Haugh.  Shockingly, he wrote a good basketball article.  Check it out here. (I will give credit where its due.  When I can).  Still, there was his thoughts on the Bulls and not hiring Doug Collins for a second term as Bulls coach.

Here's some more new Hold Steady and the column.  Enjoy.




Bulls can't pass on Collins this time
By David Haugh
May 3, 2010

Hope for the sake of the Bulls that Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf's trip into Chicago over the weekend to plot the future of the franchise was no sentimental journey.

That's how the Bulls got into this mess two years ago. Reinsdorf followed his heart, which eventually caused his head to throb.

He made the mistake of deciding against hiring Doug Collins as Bulls coach out of fear that one day he would have to fire his close friend. Reinsdorf probably doesn't buy flowers either because they just die.

So your story is on the fact that Reinsdorf didn't do what was best for the Bulls by letting his friendship with Doug Collins get in the way of hiring him.  Except that's not the entire story-- Doug Collins also backed out.  It was a mutual decision-- not just one by Reinsdorf.  That was in the John Jackson column-- see, I told you I'd come back to it.

The only people who appreciated Reinsdorf's gesture more than Collins may have been the teams ahead of the Bulls in the Eastern Conference. As much as Vinny Del Negro got out of the Bulls in two straight playoff seasons, it's natural to wonder whether an experienced coach such as Collins would have gotten even more. 

Actually, if Collins was hired and fell apart like he's done in past gigs, it might be something for all fans to appreciate.  That being said, Collins probably would have gotten more out of the Bulls since he's a better coach.  Not really much to wonder.

"It's not a great thing for friends to jeopardize a relationship for business,'' Reinsdorf said when passing on Collins in June 2008.

The chairman probably still believes that. But what if sticking to that principle now jeopardizes the relationship between that business and, say, the Eastern Conference finals?

Lets' try to remember what actually happened.  As I remember, after D'antoni went to New York and the Bulls search stalled, Collins emerged from nowhere to be considered for the job.  I think it was actually a favor to Reinsdorf.  The friendship is what created the situation in the first place.

And the important thing would be the development of Derrick Rose.  And an NBA championship.  Eastern Conference finals is too small a goal.


The thought of Reinsdorf changing a course the Bulls have charted since December by inviting Del Negro back is as crazy as the notion of Vinny and Pax singing "Take Me Out To The Ball Game'' at a Cubs game. A businessman as good as Reinsdorf quickly should realize that, according to people who have worked around both recently, there was no creative tension produced between Paxson and Del Negro — just tension.

Yes, Vinny's gone-- but they'll pretty much have anyone do the seventh inning stretch.  So don't count that out. 

The Bulls need to stop overanalyzing this. Due perhaps to legal questions lingering over the March 30 physical altercation, it has already taken longer than necessary to make official the conclusion reached long ago. Whether Del Negro earned another season for the admirable way he embraced his role as NBA martyr, changing head coaches benefits everybody.

Wait, benefits everyone?  Weren't you fighting for Vinny's job a week ago?  Like here.  If you were willing to commit a column to Vinny's great coaching ability, why wouldn't you keep making the argument for him to stay?

Don't say the Bulls have ample time to find a coach before the draft and free agency. That's true if you are limiting your imagination to the relatively uninspiring pool of candidates such as Lawrence Frank, Byron Scott and Eric Musselman, whom the Bulls contacted in December to gauge his interest in Del Negro's job, a source said.

Scott boldly made public his interest while Del Negro still was figuring out how to stop the Cavaliers during the playoffs. Usually when a coach says he would pick up the phone, it never rings.

On second thought, maybe Scott would be the perfect Reinsdorf candidate — an easy guy to fire.

Seriously, the longer the Bulls drag this transition process out, the more they risk losing their most obvious and qualified candidate. That is Collins, naturally.

Yes, the coaching options aren't quite awe-inspiring.  But don't make a move out of panic or just because you feel you need to do it.  That's how the 5 year $72 million Deng contract came about.   And I thought Jerry and Doug were buds-- wouldn't that buy a little bit of time?


Move fast. Tempt Collins with a $5 million salary offer. Let him bring respected NBA scout and ex-assistant Brian James, the former Glenbrook North High School coach who knows Collins as well as anybody and the roster from scouting it all season. Keep Lindsey Hunter, who played for Collins from 1996-98 in Detroit, on the staff to help bridge the gap between the new coach and his players.

Don't the Bulls already have a scouting department?  And what do you care how much he gets paid?  And Lindsey Hunter?  Is the guy who bravely played about 6 minutes this year the next great bridge guy?  I didn't realize all the coaches were leaving-- Pete Myers might have a say with the current roster.


Collins last coached the Bulls in 1989, fired after losing in the Eastern Conference finals. If Reinsdorf insists on injecting any nostalgia into the equation, sell Collins on the idea of getting a chance to take the Bulls where he couldn't 21 years ago — Point C, if you will.

Wait, shouldn't the Bulls try to get to Point B first?  And nothing says good business decision like chasing the white whale that got away over 2 decades ago.  Wait, is the Bulls gig a symbol of Collins' own mortality?  I take it back, this column is probably the deepest, most intricate, most layered column print journalism has ever seen.

Reinsdorf needs to approach Collins quickly without worrying about what may happen under the worst-case scenario. How about considering the possibilities of pairing the best available head coach with Derrick Rose?

Emotion never should enter the equation. It's business — the business of winning — and the Bulls can get closer to their industry's bottom line by hiring the right guy this time.

Who just happened to be the right guy the last time too.

Yes, Rose should be coached by the best coach possible.  That's understood-- but there's no way emotion won't play a role when talking about Collins. But the emotion will be there-- there's more than 2 decades of history.  And, no matter how much it should be all business, it becomes tougher with Collins involved. 

Bulls Year End Wrap Up: Part I

The Bulls have finally decided to officially fire Vinny Del Negro (really this time) so I thought I'd take some recent articles on the Bulls and figure out which is the worst.  Our candidates are two of my favorites: David Haugh and Jim O'Donnell as well as the Suntimes' Bulls write-by-numbers beat writer John Jackson.  We'll get their thoughts lost on not having a real coach around to help Derrick Rose's game at the pro level.

I know I've been basketball heavy, but there's been too much basketball stupidity to ignore.  I'd try to make fun of some hockey thoughts but they aren't really that far out there-- or as frequent. 

In a drawing held before I wrote this, Jim O'Donnell won and will be mocked first.

Last week, he took time out from covering horses and sports media to be an extra writer for the historic and memorable Bulls-Cavs five game round one best of seven series.  He makes a case for Vinny as good coach based on what Lebron James and Derrick Rose say.  Granted, they are good sources for supporting an argument-- but there's really nothing else making his case.  So, here's some new Hold Steady and some bad thoughts.




2 huge thumbs up
by Jim O'Donnell
April 28, 2010


 The campaign is over for the 2009-10 Bulls. Now the electoral college results over the future of Vinny Del Negro as head coach will be announced.
Many say it already has been decided -- nay instead of yea -- by the ruling council of two-and-a-half chiefs -- chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, executive vice president-basketball operations John Paxson and general manager Gar Forman.

Yes, VDN is on the way out of town.  You didn't need two sentences to say this.

Rose was asked first. After scoring 31 points in Cleveland's surprisingly difficult 96-94 closeout in Game 5, Rose was targeted with the media question: ''If you were given a vote on the retention of Vinny, would you vote yes or no and why?''

''I would vote yes,'' Rose said without pause. ''We both came in together, and he lets me have my freedom but still coaches me. He let me make my mistakes. I watch film with him almost every day. He taught me a lot about defense and offense and what I was supposed to do.

''But the decision isn't really up to me. It's up to the front office, so I'm just going to let them worry about that and just deal with it.


Alright, the star player likes Vinny.  But has Rose ever said anything negative about anyone?  Have you ever heard a player say, "Yeah, this coach blows.  No one was listening to him.  We ran 5 plays all year, and the only bigger joke than our half-court offense was our inbound plays."?  Although that would be nice.  And if he really wanted Vinny back, Rose could've just said-- "I demand him back."  That would've gone a long way.  He just left it for the front office.

For James -- who just missed a triple-double with 19 points, 10 rebounds and nine assists despite a troublesome elbow -- the question was tweaked.

''After the five games,'' James was asked, ''did you think the Bulls were particularly well-coached, poorly coached or just in between?''

''I think they were well-coached,'' James said. ''Vinny and his staff had that group ready. They have a group of young talent that can really play the game of basketball, and they played hard. There was not one point where they were laying down.

Very kind words.  To be fair, they did slow James down to 31.8 pts, 9.2 rebounds, and 8.2 assists per game for the series (I think, my math may be off).  Well prepared indeed-- he could have gone for 40-15-12 if they hadn't played so hard.  There's a difference between playing hard and being well coached.  You really expect a team to play hard in the playoffs, you expect the coach to add a little more value.

But it was kind words from a guy who was really had kinds words about the Bulls players and coaches the entire series.  He even went out of his way to say he enjoyed the city of Chicago itself.  Even while he almost averaged a triple double.  Quite kind of him, actually.

At the Bulls game-day shootaround, Deng told Jim Rose of WLS-Channel 7: ''Whatever the organization wants, I want what's good for the organization. But of course I would love to see Vinny come back as my head coach. He's done a marvelous job these last two years with us under the situations he's been handed.''

But Deng added, ''The organization has to move on. We have to figure out what we're going to do. And hopefully they'll get it all resolved.''

Thanks for the exclusive quote from Jim Rose.  It was a real eye opener.  Seriously, the players have known Vinny's days were numbered.  I've figured out that his days our numbered.  My casual basketball fan girlfriend knew it (Visit here fantastic cooking blog here).  What do the players quotes add now?

But if and when Del Negro is discarded -- perhaps to become the NBA's answer to ex-White Sox skipper Tony La Russa, perhaps merely to become a personable ''recyclable'' -- one word apparently won't be appearing on the cover of the 2010-11 Bulls media guide.

And that word is ''continuity.''

Continuity?  Yes, I want a third straight year of a team going 41-41 and being in the bottom part of the Eastern conference playoff teams.  And I don't understand the La Russa reference.  Is La Russa actually "personable"?  Hasn't he threatened reporters with a fungo bat?  Is he saying that Vinny is going on to a long career coaching roided up players- the NBA's personable answer to Canseco, McGuire, and others?  Well done Jim O'Donnell.  You've wasted my time.  And I've wasted all of yours.  

Only The Bulls

The groundswell of support to save Vinny Del Negro's job has come to a deafening roar. Actually, it's just Charles Barkley saying that VDN has done a better job than people give him credit for, and the Suntimes' John Jackson carrying the torch for the cause. Since I haven't picked on the Suntimes yet, its time to welcome them.


Vinny Del Negro merits third season
Del Negro has shown enough to be brought back
By John Jackson
March 25, 2010

Back in December, the future of coach Vinny Del Negro was a daily hot topic around the Bulls. The talk at the time was it was a matter of when -- not if -- he would be let go this season.
A winning streak in late December and early January shelved that speculation, and the issue of Del Negro's job status was pushed to the back burner.

Actually, it was Gar Forman not even giving VDN a vote of confidence after that losing streak that quieted the talk of firing. Most people just assumed it was only a question of when the Bulls would get a new coach.

The Bulls certainly have had their injury issues this season, whether it was Derrick Rose's ankle at the start of the season and sprained wrist earlier this month, Tyrus Thomas' broken arm, Kirk Hinrich's sprained thumb, Joakim Noah's plantar fasciitis or the strained right calf that has Luol Deng sidelined.

You can't possibly ask a coach to coach when things aren't ideal. While there have been injuries, you can still evaluate the coaching job done with the players available. Not necessarily win-loss record, but how the team executes their offense and plays defense.

Still, we've seen enough of Del Negro's work over the last two seasons to make a judgment.

He famously was hired with no coaching experience, and that was apparent at times during his first season on the bench. But Del Negro continued to grow throughout his rookie season, and there's no question he's better at making in-game changes and adjustments (and saving timeouts) this season.

He also has shown an ability to deal with adversity and stay focused on doing his job -- a trait that served him well when his job status was a daily topic. He deserves some credit for not losing the team during the losing streaks in December and earlier this month

We have seen enough to make a judgment. That whole "whoops, we're out of timeouts and could really use one right about now" thing in the playoffs was pretty bad. And not losing his team during long losing streaks? What do you consider losing a team? I'd consider two long losing streaks in a season losing a team.

I don't know what management's thinking is on bringing Del Negro back. The organization clearly wasn't ready to commit back in December, but there was no reason for them to make that decision then.

You're the Bulls beat writer, right? You don't have any sources you could call to get an inkling of an idea about VDN's future? You couldn't call the old beat writer and ask him? Or email Sam Smith on the Bulls' website- maybe he could help you in his next mailbag column.

While NBA coaches are let go for no good reason routinely, Del Negro has shown enough to earn another season. The perception held by many that he doesn't know what he's doing isn't reality.

You really didn't make a case for that in the article. There was some excuse making about injuries, but no proof of things he's done to show he knows what he's doing. Regardless of that, the question isn't whether the Bulls make the playoffs - that bar's set way too low in the Eastern Conference. The question is will the coach help make Derrick Rose the best player he can be, or at least stay out of his way.