Pierce Needs To Be Careful Next
Time He Puts His Fingers On His Bird
Those are the ominous words tweeted by Paul Pierce after the Boston Celtics beat the Miami Heat twice to start their 2010-2011 season. I smelled trouble. People jumped right on the hate wagon and thought it was 'so hilarious.' I could not understand for the life of me why Paul Pierce wanted to start a feud with the best player alive or why he chose open and dis-respectful mocking to publicly fire shots at Lebron.
Not just a shot at Lebron. Also an indirect hit on the SS Wade as their team had been dealing with intense hate all summer. Did he forget that Wade is arguably the second best player alive: the same rules apply? The mud slung in the Heat's general direction from fans and the media was unprecedented. And Pierce wanted to join in? I have a few questions I'd like to ask...
Why?
Why kick a fellow player who's down? Every word of Lebron's was being dissected under a media scalpel, a knife Pierce knows well. There's a code most players seem to follow (and/or should follow) that stipulates NBA players and media members are on opposite teams. You shouldn't join in with your opponent to attack one of your own.
How Do You Gut Punch A Man Like This?
He Has A Car Bed
Therein lies the irony. Pierce is all too familiar with negative press. Years at the helm of a laughing stock in Boston put him on the receiving end of scorn, blame and shame. Pierce isn't better then Lebron either. He demanded a trade that got pre-empted by the arrival of Ray Allen and KG. The difference was the Cavs had destroyed their cap and lacked assets, could not right the ship and lost their star player.
So little class. A stomach punch in the midst of the messiest sports divorce in history... while smugly happily married after years on the rocks? Lebron was emotionally down so Pierce pushed his face in the dirt. My father taught me at a young age, mocking others hardship is classless.
That's the court of human decency. This is not Dr. Phil. So lets examine this on the court of hoop. Did Pierce Believe He Was In Their Heads?
Why in Red's name would you want to take a cheap shot like this at the best player in the world? Someone who is by all counts flat out better at the game then you are. Why take a cheap shot at the second best player in the world and best friend on his team? Not even to mention, take a cheap shot at one of the best power forwards in the league who's also on that team.
Wade/James have a history of their seasons ending to a massively stacked Celtics team. It's been amplified by a massive fall from grace. Both James and Wade were media darlings. James especially had become a media villain. The fuel has been set all around these two teams. Why give Lebron a match? Why go out of your way to provide extra motivation to a guy who's so damn good and has so much to prove? It's like teasing a ravenous dog with a pork chop.
They had the talent to beat Miami. They didn't have the right attitude. Lebron had the right attitude though, and he used it to eviscerate them out of the series in 5 games. Over-confidence in your own ability, and not respecting your opponent is always a recipe for disaster. It makes arrogance pie. If Pierce really did think he was in their heads, it back fired in the grandest of fashion.
Did The Britches Fit?
The FMVP Tropy: Something Else That Didn't Fit
Take a look at those first two games. Was this over-confidence justified? Did Pierce put on a spectacular show? He was mostly a spot up shooter and that had a lot to do with Lebron's smothering D.
In game 1, of his 4 makes, 3 were 3 pointers. Rondo dominated with 17 dimes and Ray Allen went 5/8 from 3. Game 2 was very much a repeat. Pierce scored 6 more points. Pierce was still totally unable to prevent Lebron from a 35 point triple double (-1 dime) and BBQing the Celtics 20 point lead on a 4'th quarter spit for the second time.
Despite the Celtics being up 20 points for the vast majority of both games, Bosh playing terribly, Wade playing hurt and being invisible, despite all these things the Heat were down by a mere basket with less then a minute left. Twice. Lebron took over, he had an answer for Rondo and slowed him down. The Celtics had no answer for James. So why when you were lucky to hang on twice would you want to slap a guy like that in the face once?
Did The Tweet Cost The Celtics?
Close To PP: Consider This
Motivational Gift For Next Season
People talk about the Perkins trade as being the turning point in the Celtics season... perhaps their last chance to win another championship. I don't think this is true. No one will talk about it, but it was the tweet. Not merely 140 charterers but everything each letter represented in their approach to this season and the new look Heat.
Upon reading Pierce's tweet I thought the Celtics were in trouble. In sports you can often see story arcs taking off long before they gain altitude. What goes up, must come down, and Paul Pierce threw his blatant mockery as high as he could for the world to see. While he was looking up at it, he participated in a 7 game series with the Heat, and it landed right back in his face at the end of game 5.
The true turning point came long before the trade deadline. It came after game 9 of 82. Pierce thought he could make some headlines at Lebron's expense and took a cheap shot. Instead of a few laughs, he made it personal and lacked the talent to compete on that level. Mid-thirties post-prime players should all learn not to make it personal with guys in their prime.
I'm sure Pierce soon forgot about it as he moved on to Memphis. I can assure you, Lebron did not forget. I'm sure he thought about it repeatedly while practising his jumpers and lifting weights. Something in me knew the Celtics weren't going to win when I read the missive. I would not be surprised if the tweet is taped to a mirror in the Heat locker room. Realistically, I'd be surprised if it's not. And that's The Truth.
During a David Stern interview the other day he was discussing changesthey were considering for next season. He stated people were 'very excited' about the new Euro-style cylinder rule. Once the ball has touched the rim a player may scoop it off without penalty.
My brain bleeds a lot but never so much as when I hear Stern's occupational pretenses. His job supposedly has to do with basketball and it's quality. His paid for interviewers are about as hard on him as Vanity on Smurfette.
With the league in dire straits, scandals and economics that's the best they've got? There's bad refs, a founded perception of rigged games, refs working for the mob, rules who's threat to negatively alter the outcomes of games/series increases with competitiveness.
So here at Full Court Pest we'll do a bit of Commish work free of charge. If only he would accept it. Without further adeiu, 5 sure fire ways to fix (or at least improve) the NBA for next season.
5. The 'Leave The Bench' Rule And Near Automatic Suspensions MUST Be Changed
An authoritative 'judge' (aka: commissioner) is charged with making calls on issues that are not self-evident. That's why you have the position. Thats why its a 'ruling' and not a 'summary of obvious events.' Mandatory sentencing (and suspensions) are a cop out removing the onus of decisions from that appointed decision maker. David Stern has got to grow a pair and accept the responsibility of simply doing his job.
Stern is afraid of image. He made the leave the bench rule to hide both NBA fights and his ineptitude behind. Countless NBA series have been ruined. The best in recent memory, Suns/Spurs, was over and ruined the moment Amare left the bench even though realized what he was doing and turned around before reaching the fracas and contributing to it.
Which Jersey Got Punished For Plays Like This?
David Stern's reaction was "How am I supposed to be able to know his intentions? I can't read his mind!" You're the freaking commissioner... you're job is to make a judgment in the interests of the league and competition. Instead he issued automatic suspensions handing the series to the Spurs and ruining a fair outcome. Stern had his mandatory rule to follow and put his own stubborn image as ruler of the league in front of the game itself.
How many series have been ruined by this rule? The great Knicks/Heat showdown in the 90's. Shot dead when most of the team was thrown out for an entire game. Its a rule that punishes emotion in Stern's childish fear of the thug image. The higher the competition gets, the more drama and emotion build up, the better the games. That's a fact. The side effect is the chances of an incident also increase. That increases someone's foot crossing a line by an inch and nothing else happens, yet that can determine who wins a series. I call bullshit.
Its a strategy now. Get a less important player to sucker punch the other team's leader in front of their bench. When their players naturally react and cross the line they are suspended. Thats how Robert Horry, premeditated or not, essentially won the Suns series for the Spurs. Its pathetic and needs to be fixed as it was the Spurs irresponsible intense physicality that causes the blow up yet the Suns were punished.
This along with the suspending players for 'unsportmanlike' acts that really don't make impact on other players or the game have to go. Elbows and punches happen when you play intense sports at the highest levels. Punishing a player for being blatantly violent makes sense. Punishing a player for being blatantly competitive to be consistant with punishing the violent player is absolutely another.
Lastly, the suspension based on tech's rule will ruin an entire series/playoffs. Its coming. Do we even want the chance of that? A tech is given indiscriminately for minor things as small as TD laughing on the bench. I don't want that turning an epic series of finals. Do you? And that's why we should get rid of it before it inevitably happens. 4. Call Flops... NOW! Make Them Competitive
Call Flips Too NBA! I Bring You The First 65 Year Old League MVP!
Drawing a charge is coaxing/fooling a player into knocking you down. A skill I respect. You anticipate the spot, get there before the offensive player does and do all this craftily enough that his momentum knocks you off the position. Pure sports.
A flop is none of this. When the ref's vision is partially obscured and its 'tough to call' you use your own force to fall down and/or pull his jersey into your mirage of a foul. Cue wildly flailing arms facial expressions worthy of an Oscar. No charge there. Its actually drawing a bad call from impartial refs in an attempt to undermine the game's rules and their spirit. Some say flopping is an art. Most do not.
I actually agree with the former. Flopping is an art. It's already part of the game. A properly executed flop will frustrate the hell out of your opponent. You get to snicker. He attacks/defends less aggressively because he has an extra foul and worries you will flop again. On the fly flopping is hard. Players who complain the most are never very good. Typical jealous critics.
The problem: its already part of the game but outside the rules. The worst flop outcome is an easy path to the basket with a no-call. I say let them flop. Reward skill and the flop masters. Its not easy to do afterall. Punish the unskilled. The result will increase the quality of flops to be entertaining.
You get called for a flop? Thats foul. The flopee gets 2 free throws. If they scored on the play they keep their points. If they didn't score on the play they keep the ball. The refs get fooled a lot on flops but see plenty of them. I say call what you see. If a player is slick enough to get away with it that's his skill. How does this not make the game better (and more attractive in European markets :) ) right away? It cuts down bad flops and leaves them as a secret weapon for the craftiest players. More flops please! 3. Change The Salary Cap, Add Profit Sharing
PS: Apologies in advance but this takes time to explain. If you've made it this far I hope you bear with me. I think there's some meat. If you don't care about the cap feel free to skip.
The salary cap helps small market teams compete. NBA is not MLB and its a good thing. Unfortunately the side effects are horrible for basketball. If you sign one player to a max deal and he has a major injury you're screwed. It takes a decade: 7 years to expire and 3 to rebuild. If you mistake a player's potential or he can't reach it you're screwed again.
Why Should This Define A Franchise For A Decade?
The Magic had 7 straight losing seasons predominantly due to Grant Hill. His was useless amid his injuries and his contract untradeable. They had talent too. Dwight Howard was there for 3 years. T-Mac's own injuries were traded to Houston in 03. It was their inability to pick up other players who could contribute due to the luxury tax line that Hill's contract pushed them over.
Unless your owner does not care about money (Knicks/Mavs/Blazers) winning means GM's making virtually 0 mistakes before players developing together on the court. Bargian players and signing vets to minimum contracts rather then building the best possible squad produces wins. When a players does develop the work put in and the commitment made by fans gets sold out. They can't afford him anymore and his chemistry/continuity with him. Pro sports fans used to enjoy cheering 'their' players to reach their potential. Now signing a player is akin to filling your plate at an all you can eat buffet. By the time you're sitting you've already "If I don't eat this I can get more of that on the next trip.
Take Joe Johnson. After he became good PHX let him go just before his prime. That was followed by selling Rondo, giving away Kurt Thomas and ultimately having to choose between $Amare$ and Marion. They took Amare under the guise of 'getting better defensively.' Every move was made to avoid the tax.
San Antonio are the anti-Suns. Lots of championships. Not the best team they can be though. Crazy? They won 4? Nope! The Spurs win by surrounding one all-time great player with 2 good players and a bunch of scrubs playing for peanuts.
Mind you, the Spurs still got Manu for a KILLING. He puts up better clutch stats then Kobe on half the salary. They pay Parker under 10 to be an all star. Past that the Spurs are a group of okay but bargain basement ballers. Matt Bonner can hit 3's for 2 mil. Bruce Bowen can D up for 4 mil. The Spurs have had an amazing 18 players on their roster this year making below the league average salary. Thats their team. Great, good, good, fill the gaps. They win. Why?
Not great Spurs teams. The same Spurs team. Greece beat USA due to years of preparation. The Spurs beat more talented teams with consistency. Tim Duncan deserves all his credit, but his value has been over-inflated as the only visible great on this team that wins by buying low, keeping low and selling high. All credit to them. However...
I watch sports to see elite physicial competition... not the stock market moves which is where the real action in the NBA takes place. The NYSE is not in Madison Square Garden and the Knicks in offices are they? Fans tended to agree as the Spurs produced some of the weakest ratings in decades while ratings for things like the NBA draft has sky rocketed.
NFL profit sharing works so why not emulate it? The luxery tax boils down to a wealth redistribution mechanism. Just be blatant. Instead of a tax make a minimum profit threshold. Those above share with those below. The direct result: bringing in Jason Kidd to make the NBA product better in two seperate cities does not cost almost 50 million dollars simply because you signed Eric Dampier and got stuck with him. Punishing your successful franchises rather then helping ones in trouble is a stupid, moronic way to operate when good teams are what you're selling. It does not work either as teams have still folded/moved in Seattle, Charlotte, Vancouver, New Jersy (soon) and Indiana (possibly).
Its killing the league. Anything that makes Donald Sterling one of the most successful owners in the books and the worst on the court is just wrong. Blatantly wrong. Wake up. Figure it out. Simply trying to lower the cap/salaries will NOT fix their problem. But I seriously doubt they view anything as a problem except decreased profits.
Okay, that all needed to be said. Finally... 2. Follow The D-Lead
D-League "Founder". Isiah Thomas Corollary: If Isiah Is Wearing A Suit, Your Organization Will Fail.
Just short of NCAA style selection the D-League's playoff seeding is nothing but fantastic. Let the higher seed pick. It allows truly elite teams to face off later in the playoffs. I'm sick of team A escaping team B because of a bracket. Not only that it adds new drama.
Who's to say that a team will always pick weak? Say the Wizards were 5'th and the Cavs were first how great would it be for basketball if they said "No, we want to embarras our rivals out of the first round. We're good enough that it doesn't matter if they're better then Detroit." What a way to build swagger for a championship run.
It adds a whole other level of strategy. Orlandos dominant but have trouble matching up with Detroit. Should they pick Detroit first and take their biggest challenge when they're fresh at the start of the playoffs? Giving teams control will let them create their own fate and create an new competitive facet as upsets will always be 'chosen' by the losers.
If Detroit is the easiest match up for the Cavs however a hard match up for another team they fear more, who's to say they don't take a better team in the first round and throw a monkey wrench into the real contender's first round? It should continue right through the playoffs. With 4 teams left in each conference the highest seed lets you pick who #2 will face. An advantage that teams WILL play for rather then one extra game at home in a series or two. As it stands now every year end is highlighted by fans going to games to find out the all stars they came to see are sitting on the bench cheering on teh scrubs... except tickets are the same price. This rule alone will improve the dead period from all star to the start of the playoffs. 1. Add A Few Ref Challenges
There Has Got To Be A Better Way To Get A Few Fair Calls
One of the major problems for the entire history of the NBA has been bad calls deciding games. In the course of a game a ref has the ability to 'make up' bad calls by giving a 50/50 call back to the team who lost out on a previous mistake. Its not perfect but this nuance of reffing the games, when executed properly, keeps things under control, competition high and frustration low.
Its not enough. When players with 6 fouls are out one bad call will affect a team for an entire half or more. When there's critical end game possessions or key players in early foul trouble a gimme later is meaningless. The margin of error in basketball at this level is so tight a single blown call will ruin the game's integrity: a ref often has a larger impact the competitors themselves. Sometimes its a game, sometimes its a playoff series, and if the series is important a single call can destroy the whole point of the playoffs and thus an entire season.
A coach could ask his player "are you SURE?" If the player says absolutely they challenge the call. 10-30 seconds later the critical mistake is erased and everyone is happy. If he's wrong the other team gets a couple of technical free throws and the home/away fans have something to cheer/jeer about. If the call prevents Duncan from getting his 3'rd or 4'th foul in the first half then he can stay on the floor and play untentative D as he would have if the right call was made.
Of Course, Rick Adleman Would Have Needed 30 Challanges To Make This Game Fair: It Took 3 YouTube Clips Just To Show The Fix, Umm... Bad Calls
The only result is stronger competition and enhanced fan experience. Nothing kills a city's fanbase like bad calls. The Kings had the best franchise in the NBA and now are the worst team in the league: rumored to be in financial trouble. Does that happen if they didn't get jobbed by the refs vs the Lakers? Probably not.
We've already seen video replay improving games this season. Corrected flagrant and 3 pointer calls at the end of quarters are forcing better officiating and less blown calls. No one is unhappy when the right call is made. Theres nothing to complain about, right?
So why only extended replay to such limited circumstances? Only in the last 2 minutes. Only to see if its a 2 or a 3. Only for flagrant. We've already seen that it makes the games better and reduces player frustration so why not do this on more important calls? Due to rules refs who are reviewing a play and notice a mistake are not even allowed to correct it if its not within the defined limits of what can be changed.
This option has been open to the NBA for decades. Its been 30 years at a bare minimum since the advent of video tape. So why is it ignored? Not wanting to review every call is normal: there are enough stoppages and you can bet coaches would. That's why you give them a few challenges to be managed the same as timeouts, still use replay at the ref's discretion and the game is instantly improved.
Take it to your coach' disarms any complaining players. Gone is the pretentious bullshitting players and coaches constantly engage in when they argue calls they know they have no business getting. "Think I'm wrong? Put your money where you mouth is" is what every ref will be able to credibly say with a single glance. Failed challenges can only boost drama and make the refs look even more credible to help their image crisis of the past 50 years. It does not just help it, it dissolves it overnight. No blown games no bad image no conspiracy theories.
5 massive problems with the NBA that are simple to fix. The talent has recovered from it's post Jordan slump. No excuse there anymore. One meeting and vote by the competition committee and next year's NBA comes back stronger and better then it's ever been.
The Next NBA Ball?
Will any of them be implemented? Not likely. While Stern is into surprise changes like introducing a new ball from a secret box that drops shooting percentages while cutting player's hands he avoids rules that are 1. obvious 2. easy to implement and 3. dramatically improve the game.
We can only sit and hope that maybe, just maybe they'll start to get it. Its so damn simple NBA suits. Simple! The issues fans complain about the most are the ones you should be addressing. Could you please just do it? Fix our league? We are your customers. Please???
Feedback Additions I'm happy to add some feedback on some rules that readers have suggested. Check them out... any more suggestions send them in and I'll add them. Cheers!
1. Flopping has to go. No need for it at all. Its annoying as hell. 2. If a defensive player stays in one spot and jumps straight up in the air and the offensive player jumps into him=No call. 3. Five referees each game so that there can be a 2 to 1 player to referee ratio. 4. Ticky tack fouls should not be called. 5. If there is a loose ball on the floor and you dive first, you should not be called for a foul. 6. If some one catches an air ball as the shot clock expires, dont make them inbound the ball, just play on. 7.Consistency, the referees have to be consistent at all times. If you are going to allow physical play, dont just do it for the first three quarters, do it for the whole game. 8. Make the game more physical. Stop playing a soft brand of basketball no one can identify with. To a certain extent, the more physical a game is, the better. 9. Revert the defensive rules to allow more physical defense to be played. 10. Traveling, this has to be remedied right now. Its terrible and needs to be called better.
Is Marbury's likely addition to the Celtics going to be sweet and sticky or soft and brown? Gotta be the question on most people's minds in Beantown these days. While most reactions to this move is quite violently against (and some for) I'm reminded of why I like basketball in the first place. Its every bit as much an athletic game as it is a social/political/mental affair.
In no other team sport can one player so drasticly affect an outcome or demeanor of a team for better or for worse. Witness Rasheed Wallace moving from Portland to Detroit and promptly delivering a championship as the massive underdogs vs a team with 4 hall of famers. Witness Allen Iverson dimantle that same team with his swap for Billups. The Gasol trade put the Lakers into the finals and every team Marbury has done much better on his exit. Team chemistry and it's prerequisite for rings is what led Jerry Krause to state "Management wins championships" with history's greatest player on his team. (Maybe the greatest overstatement in NBA history.)
He had a point though: no poorly managed team has ever won. So whats the secret to the Krause Keibler Kookies. (you tell me he doesn't look like he's about to take the apron and hat off. http://www.nba.com/media/bulls/krause_050819.jpg or for that matter, Jerry Reinsdorf. http://chicagofantasybaseballcamp.com/images/ReisndorfJerry010.jpg)
Its really not that difficult a formula to steal. All successful teams do one thing.
They research players to match their personalities at this specific time with a role on their team. And thats all. If it doesn't match, they don't do it. Sheed's contending team had been destroyed and populated with children. He wanted to go to work with men and win. Dumars saw that. He saw Wallace and Larry Brown both being Dean Smith diciples and already agreeing on how the game should be played. He saw someone angry at all the bullshit and wanting to harden a team that wouldn't be intimidated by him. Which is exactly what the Pistons were, and sheed what they wern't. It was as much Sheed's attitude as his skills that put them over the top and made them one of the best defensive teams of all time. It was his identity they needed to bring out Ben Wallace's hard hat that held so many teams under 70 and 80 points.
So what are the Celtics thinking? Why waste a roster spot on a team cancer? Is Danny Ainge crazy? Is Marbury crazy? Steph has been team cancer's GOAT for years now however I think Danny is not looking at his past. When pondering his team he knows he's got the best starting 5 in the L. But past that, Tony Allen (injured)/Scalenbrine/House/Big Baby, they're the question mark. Their body language on the court screams they feel lucky to play with the first 5 guys and are just killing time till the real team gets on the court so they could stop inconviencing everyone with the bench let down.
But only last year some of these same players would bring it. Big Baby had pivotal stretches where he carried the team. But then they also had vets like PJ Brown/Posey/Cassall who as pros, know how to enter a game and play motiviated. So again, Marbury??? He's never been that.
Marbury is however one pissed off guy. He's been stewing for a year on a career thats been made a spectacle of in his home town. Except this one is not all his fault due to the worst GM in NBA history. His sex life was dragged through a court of justice and opinion in the papers by the same GM/Owner who built a terrible team around him and let him take the heat for it. Then told him to go away when they hired someone competent (Dantoni) to finally run the team. More face lost.
He's always produced great numbers but always ruined his teams. So what's in the kool aid Ainge? Here it is. When Steph gets on the court he's going to have the largest chip on his shoulder a player can have. He's out to prove something. And he's gonna have the munchies. But all that anger is going to be directed away from their team outward, so inwardly he's going to smile at the opportunity to finally let off his steam.
Whats boston lacking on the bench? Someone who's got anything to prove. The current bench knows they win and lose with the starters. Its Marbury's x-factor. He's got so much to prove coming off the pine he just might take a few of the scrubs along with him and form a second unit. Theres no hunger in Boston 6 through 12 and Marbury (capable or not) is champing at the bit. He's the NBA's equivelent of Micky Rourke stealing the spotlight in Sin City. He wanted to be back so much after so destroying everything around him he just needed the right situation to prove he still had it.
And thats what Danny Ainge knows he has: a situation perfectly suited for the most malaigned player in the league to right the ship. No team is better from Marbury's stand point. Ainge is just hoping he can deliver and that the reasons outweigh the excueses for his Stephon's past failures.
You also have to consider how GM's in the past have failed, as I'm sure Ainge has. Does Marbury deserve all the blame? Looking to put Marbury in a leadership situation on a young team (Phoenix) when he's proven he's quite immature himself is not how to be successfull and catagorically a management mistake. When you consider that his past PHX team had Marion on it (whom Kerr gave away for Shaq due to his own immature issues) and Amare (who's immaturity is well documented) you have to wonder what the suns were thinking at the time.
The other glaring GM error tainting Marbury's career is how teams were bulit around him. Surrounding him with weak big men and players way past their prime like Penny Hardaway, Eddy Curry, undersized (and trigger happy) Jayson Williams, Gheorge Mursean, Steve Francis. Just a few examples of who teams have experimented with and not surprisingly to their detrement.
Then you also have to consider that Marbury's prime existed mostly before the rules were changed. Had he been drafted in 2003 instead of 1996 he would be in the crop of totally dominant perimeter players we see today. Marbury was dominant in an era where rules dictated that big men dominated the game and Marbury's center was the aforementioned Big Gheorge who's career year was the one you entered the league. Not to make excuses for him: his own behaviour is the worst card his career hand has been dealt, but its tough to win when your starting center goes in and out of games because his 'giantism' is acting up.
So, do we need to cut Marbury, unquestionably the most recgonized NBA team killer in the world, some slack? Maybe not: Steph has done a lot of dumb stuff. Thats before you consider 'Stars On Stars' his talk show that rivals Chevy Chase and Magic himself for worst hour of tv ever. Keep in mind how easy it is for Steph ro redeem himself too. All he needs to really do is simply take over and win one playoff game. Maybe even one third quarter. Thats it and he will be a playoff hero akin to PJ Brown last year.
But maybe, just maybe, Steph is a little misunderstood. He did have history's worst GM. Point Marbury. He broke up him and KG, but he was a stupid kid at that point: I'm sure he'd admit as much. None the less: point team killer. But things are different this time around, because he's going to a championship team with so much to prove, so little pressure to lead and lots to play for. Don't be surprised if Steph finishes this season by shuting up a lot of doubters and finding a new contract. If he does, Danny Ainge will looks like a genius for filling his roster out with the perfect role players and bring home another championship. If not, he cuts Marbury and loses nothing more then he had. Low risk, high reward. And thats how you win.
