Guard Nate Robinson of the New York Knic

Nate Robinson thinks the dunk contest is rigged


Nate Robinson is as much an authority on the dunk contest as anyone. He’s the only three-time winner of the thing, even if, well, he’s not really mentioned among the great dunk legends of our time. Part of that is he always seems to win when the competition is weak or someone better slips up. But maybe it’s just height-ism. Regardless, he’s decided to speak out about this dunk contest.

From’s Steve Aschburner:

“Of course. They set it up like that. They set it up for Blake to win it like that,” Robinson said before the Boston Celtics faced the Chicago Bulls Saturday night at United Center.

B-b-but why would the almighty “they” do that? Because it’s in L.A.? Because Griffin is the likely Rookie of the Year? Because he finally has given the Clippers a budding star with national and global marketing appeal?

“Everything. It’s all set up,” said the Celtics’ guard, who “retired” from the dunk contest after winning in Dallas last February. “But we’ll see. I’m not saying he can’t dunk, because he can. Though we’ll see how it goes. Hopefully the guys that are in there with him will give him some competition and put on a show. Because that’s all it’s for — it’s a show. That’s the whole meaning of the dunk contest.

via Nate: Dunk contest ‘set up’ for Griffin « | Hang Time Blog.

Nate’s kind of got a point. It is a show, and there’s been some instances of ridiculous obviousness in years past. Like Dwight Howard and the whole original Superman thing. And then the Nate Robinson “Krypto-Nate” sequence. Last year was just a disaster as LeBron James turned it down and the remaining contestants all… well… sucked. But it’s obvious that narratives are built into the contest.

It doesn’t really matter, but Robinson seems kind of right, here. Blake Griffin is a media darling, playing in a huge market, with gigantic media highlights, against a field of no real compelling challengers, in his home building (or at least the Lakers’).  He’s got an advantage in athleticism, name recognition, home court, and marketing advantage. When we consider that the judges have rarely accurately judged some of the best dunks, it does appear that Griffin has an edge.

But the league needs him to win. The contest otherwise features Serge Ibaka, JaVale McGee, and Brandon Jennings. Jennings is the biggest star of those, and he’s faded in his second year. Ibaka and McGee are both more traditional bigs. The only reason you want great competition in this event is if you have multiple stars. And since LeBron James punked out… again, it’s got to be Griffin. The dunk contest needs to be a signature event, and Griffin is their signature player for the event.

That said, we’ll continue to lobby for fair judging, and if McGee does something ridiculous (and actually lands it), he, or any of the other participants, deserve the trophy. There’s a difference between setting Griffin up to win, and granting Griffin the win.


Report: Rockets will try to sign Alessandro Gentile next summer

Alessandro Gentile, Paulius Jankunas
1 Comment

The Rockets tried signing Sergio Llull this summer, but he opted for a long-term extension with Real Madrid.

So, they’ll just turn to another player in their large chest of stashed draft picks – Alessandro Gentile.

Marc Stein of ESPN:

Gentile, who was selected No. 53 in the 2014, is a 22-year-old wing for Armani Milano. He’s a good scorer, but he primarily works from mid-range – an area the Rockets eschew. He can get to the rim in Europe, but his subpar athleticism might hinder him in the NBA.

If Gentile comes stateside, he’ll face a steep learning curve. But he’s young enough and talented enough that he could develop into a rotation player.

Report: Hawks co-owner made more money by exposing Danny Ferry’s Luol Deng comments

Michael Gearon, Bruce Levenson
Leave a comment

A terribly kept secret: Hawks co-owner Michael Gearon Jr. wanted to get rid of general manager Danny Ferry.

Many believe that’s why Gearon made such a big deal about Ferry’s pejorative “African” comment about Luol Deng – that Gearon was more concerned about ousting Ferry than showing real concern over racism.

Gearon had another, no less sinister, reason to raise concern over Ferry’s remarks.

Kevin Arnovitz and Brian Windhorst of ESPN:

While Gearon felt that Ferry, as he wrote in the June 2014 email to Levenson, “put the entire franchise in jeopardy,” Gearon also figured to benefit financially from a Sterling-esque fallout.

In the spring of 2014, Gearon was in the process of selling more of his interest in the team to Levenson and the partners he had sold to in September. The agreed-upon price for roughly a third of Gearon’s remaining shares valued the Hawks at approximately $450 million, according to reports from sources.

“We accept your offer to buy the remaining 31 million,” Gearon wrote in an email to Levenson on April 17, 2014. “Let me know next steps so we can keep this simple as you suggested without a bunch of lawyers and bankers.”

Approximately five weeks later — just a little more than a week before the fateful conference call — Steve Ballmer agreed to pay $2 billion for the Clippers, a record-smashing price that completely changed the assessed value of NBA franchises. Gearon firmly maintains he was acting out of the sincerity of his convictions to safeguard the franchise from the Sterling stench, but such a spectacle also allowed him to wiggle out of selling his shares at far below market value.

Gearon and his legal team later challenged the notion that the sell-down was bound by any sort of contractual obligation and that any papers were signed. Once the organization became involved in the investigation, the sale of the shares was postponed.

Arnovitz and Windhorst did an incredible amount of reporting here. I suggest you read the full piece, which includes much more background on the Gearon-Ferry rift.

Considering the Hawks sold for $850 million, Gearon definitely made more money than if he’d sold his shares at a $450 million valuation.

Did that motivate him? Probably, though it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Most likely, his actions were derived from at least three desires – making more money, ousting Ferry and combating racism. Parsing how much each contributed is much more difficult.

What Ferry said was racist, whether or not he was looking at more racism on the sheet of paper in front of him. His comments deserved punishment.

But if Gearon didn’t have incentive to use them for his own benefit, would we even know about them? How many other teams, with more functional front offices, would have kept similar remarks under wraps or just ignored them?