NBA Playoffs: If the Lakers are inevitable, do you want them early or late?


Take a look at our NBA’s Race to the Playoffs. Go on. Acquaint yourself. It’s a mess. Particularly the Western Conference.

There are seven teams that could end up in the 8th spot, staring down the Lakers (we’re tossing out the Grizzlies, love them as I do. No way anyone’s going in the tank like they need them to). Denver, Dallas, Utah, Phoenix, San Antonio, OKC, Portland. Any one of them could wind up under the crosshairs of the defending champions.

One of the things Greg Popovich has talked about extensively is the imperative of avoiding that eighth seed, of not ending up in a tussle with LA in the first round. It’s a fairly easy idea. Try and avoid the best team as long as possible, hope someone else does the dirty work for you, hope they get tired, hope they get banged up, go as far as you can, get as much playoff money as you can, stay away from the big, bad Lakers.

And pardon me if I sound like Owen Wilson in The Royal Tenenbaums (“What this book presupposes is… ‘What if he didn’t?'”), but I do keep having the same thought.

Isn’t it better to get LA sooner rather than later?

Hear me out. LA has shown three things this season. One, when they’re plugged in, they can beat anyone in the league, with only the possible exception of Cleveland. Two, they are prone to long periods of boredom and uninspired play. Three, they don’t respond well to adversity, often going into the tank if it feels like things aren’t going their way.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at the Rockets series last year, going seven games without Yao Ming for much of it. Or take a look at the blowout to OKC, or the Cleveland games. They have a counterpunch, but if that counterpunch is met and matched, they struggle to trade blows.

So why not try and get them early? Imagine this scenario. The Spurs get the Lakers in round one. The mighty Lakers, facing a Spurs team that’s given them some trouble, but really, hasn’t been all that good this year. And the Spurs come out, and unload in Game 1. Drop everything they possibly have. Empty both barrels.

Now, obviously the Lakers will respond, because when put in a corner, they fight back. Because nobody puts Baby Gasol in a corner. The Spurs should rope-a-dope Game Two. Let ’em have it. Lay down. Let them go up by 30. Get comfortable. Allow them to blow you out completely. Because giving them that confidence is a good thing. You want them thinking the first game was a fluke and they have it on lockdown. Because if you can respond in Games 3 and 4, you can push them.

Isn’t that a better approach for any team, not just the Spurs? Dallas, Phoenix, Portland, any team with playoff experience. Face the Lakers in the Western Conference Finals and they have their playoff legs under them. Kobe smells that fifth ring. Your guys are tired. And the Lakers are expecting you. And if you lose, well, you were going to lose regardless.

Give yourself the best chance. Go at them early. Don’t run from the Lakers. Draw the line in the sand, and challenge them to maintain focus in April, not May and June, when they’re used to it. It’s a risky scenario, but given the success they’ve had, the talent, the advantages, isn’t it time to think outside the box a bit?

Gordon Hayward goes behind Jordan Clarkson’s back with dribble

Gordon Hayward, Nick Young
Leave a comment

Utah’s Gordon Hayward abused the Lakers’ Jordan Clarkson on this play.

First, Hayward reads and steals Clarkson’s poor feed into the post intended for Kobe Bryant, then going up the sideline he takes his dribble behind Clarkson’s back to keep going. It all ends in a Rudy Gobert dunk.

Three quick takeaways here:

1) Gordon Hayward is a lot better than many fans realize. He can lead this team.

2) It’s still all about the development with Clarkson, and that’s going to mean some hard lessons.

3) Hayward may have the best hair in the NBA, even if it’s going a bit Macklemore.

(Hat tip reddit)

Could Tristan Thompson’s holdout last months? Windhorst says yes.

2015 NBA Finals - Game Five
1 Comment

VIZZINI: “So, it is down to you. And it is down to me.”
MAN IN BLACK nods and comes nearer…
MAN IN BLACK: “Perhaps an arrangement can be reached.”
VIZZINI: “There will be no arrangement…”
MAN IN BLACK: “But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.”

That farcical scene from The Princess Bride pretty much sums up where we are with the Tristan Thompson holdout with the Cleveland Cavaliers, minus the Iocane powder. (Although that scene was a battle of wits in the movie and this process seems to lack much wit.) The Cavaliers have put a five-year, $80 million offer on the table. Thompson wants a max deal (or at least a more than has been offered), but he also doesn’t want to play for the qualifying offer and didn’t sign it. LeBron James just wants the two sides just to get it done.

Brian Windhorst of ESPN thinks LeBron could be very disappointed.

Windhorst was on the Zach Lowe podcast at Grantland (which you should be listening to anyway) and had this to say about the Thompson holdout:

“I actually believe it will probably go months. This will go well into the regular season.”

Windhorst compared it to a similar situation back in 2007 with Anderson Varejao, which eventually only broke because the then Charlotte Bobcats signed Varejao to an offer sheet. Thompson is a restricted free agent, meaning the Cavaliers can match any offer, but only Portland and Philadelphia have the cap space right now to offer him a max contract. Neither team has shown any interest in doing so.

And so we wait. And we may be waiting a while.