New Orleans Pelicans v Cleveland Cavaliers

Who should get Kobe’s All-Star spot: Goran Dragic or Anthony Davis?


Whatever new NBA Commissioner Adam Silver does, he’s going to make some people angry, while others will say he’s an idiot. (He should get used to it, pretty much everything he does in the big chair will turn out that way.)

Who does he choose for Kobe Bryant’s All-Star spot?

Kobe is still out with a fracture of his knee and will not play in the Feb. 16 All-Star game, where fans had voted him a starter. It is up to the Commissioner to appoint a player to the team to replace him (the coach gets to choose who takes the starting spot, and as that coach is Scott Brooks I would bet it’s James Harden.)

The two most likely candidates: Goran Dragic and Anthony Davis.

Dragic is the point guard who has been a key spark for the surprising Phoenix Suns. He has averaged 20 points a game with a fantastic true shooting percentage of 60.4 percent (his traditional shooting percentage is 50.5 percent) and is dishing out 6.4 assists a game. His relentless pushing of the pace has been at the heart of the Suns strong play. Plus, bringing in Dragic replaces a guard on the roster with another guard.

The Suns are one of the great stories of this season and for them to not have an All-Star representative would be a shame.

And we may well have that shame.

Because not having Anthony Davis in the game representing the host city also would be a shame.

Davis is averaging 20.4 points, 10.3 rebounds and a league-leading 3.3 blocks a game this season for the Pelicans. To show you just how efficient he has been in just his second NBA season, he has a PER of 27.1 — fifth best in the NBA on the season. He has been a monster for the Pelicans, one of the bright spots for a young team still trying to live up to its potential.

(Note: Yes, you can make a good case for Mike Conley and DeMarcus Cousins to get that spot as well. However, both of them seem to be half a step behind Dragic and Davis in the race for the spot, so the Grizzlies and Kings fans can be first in line to call out Silver on his first big decision).

ESPN’s Marc Stein noted over the weekend the momentum seems to be behind Davis getting the spot.

Silver is different than David Stern in style, but not that much in substance — they think alike. Stern understood marketing — having the games bright young stars on the biggest stages, giving the hometown fans what they want. Which is why the signs point toward Davis.

Which is just going to make a lot of people mad at Silver.

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?