Maybe next time.....

When I tune into NBA broadcasts on ESPN, I never expect to learn anything significant from the studio show. The most insightful information is primarily provided by the dot com crew. Henry Abbott, Chad Forde, John Hollinger and Ric Bucher do the yeoman's work of analyzing the inner workings of front office and team dynamics. So, when something like the NBA Draft comes along I know it promises to be more sizzle than steak. I have no idea why this is the case. ESPN's NFL coverage offers draft gurus such as Todd McShay and the grand poobah of all gurus, Mel Kiper, Jr. Meanwhile, NBA fans are left with the lead color commentators for NBA broadcasts (Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson), who incidentally do fantastic work calling games, but seem slightly unprepared for this particular role. In addition, viewers get to listen to the dulcet tones of Stephen A. Smith interview the draftees in attendance. I'm not entirely convinced that he watches any more NCAA basketball than Angela Merkel (Germany's PM, so not too much if you're scoring at home). What chaps me off more than anything is the complete and utter lack of common sense on display. This was never more evident than the severe tongue lashing that Dick Vitale gave to the Knicks upon their selection of The Big Rooster, Danilo Gallinari, from Italy. The "experts" were quick to get in line to agree with the Bald Wonder. Vitale alleged that the Knicks organization and Knick fans need a player who can produce right away. There is no interest in developing a talent that might take a year or two to blossom. Excuse me while I lustily boo these morons. That line of thinking is precisely why the Knick organization is one of the top 3 worst run franchises in the sport. That is why the Knicks haven't had a first round pick in a few years, why Jared Jeffries makes $6 million a year, why they traded for Eddy Curry, Zach Randolph, Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis. They are an absolute laughing stock. When a team starts making moves to appease its fans it is a sure sign of an organization that has lost its way. The only time you mortgage your future for the sake of the present is if you have a REALISTIC shot at making the finals. I’m still not convinced that Dick Vitale watches more than 10 NBA regular season games a year. He’s become a parody of himself and not worth listening to unless he’s calling college games involving the best teams in the country.

So, to wrap this up, we've got one guy, Dick Vitale, who might not watch any NBA games and another guy, Stephen A. Smith, who might not watch any college games providing the viewer with expert analysis. To quote the Geico Caveman, "Maybe next time do a little research".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have one thought on what actually happened in the draft. I think the Celtics missed a golden opportunity to draft a player with untapped potential in DeAndre Jordan. This is a guy with a million dollar body and a ten cent head. Motivation and experience are two factors working against him. The Celtics represent the perfect opportunity to remedy both of those characteristics and the risk at taking him on at pick 30 is minimal. The team already has their top eight rotation guys returning from a 66 win team that went on to win the Championship. Essentially Jordan would serve an apprenticeship position under Kevin Garnett for the next few years. If ever there was a guy in the league who could motivate a young big it is the newly certified Kevin Garnett. This is a guy whose cylinders are always firing on full bore even to the point that some reporters question the results of such an attitude. I think Giddens selection is similar, but the ceiling isn’t as nearly as high

VEEP, VEEP

As the long, arduous primary race has finally concluded on the left it is time to turn our attention to the candidates' first official act as leaders of their respective parties. Oftentimes the selection of a running mate serves as balancing of skills. Young paired with experienced (old just doesn't inspire as much confidence as experienced), domestic with international expertise, geographic considerations also come into play. It's all about making as many people as possible feel confident that a voice similar to their own will have the ear of the person sitting in the oval office.


Traditional campaign tactics would have John McCain select a running mate with a consistent conservative background in order to quell the fears of the base and ensure that he would win the votes of the religious right. I've heard on a number of news programs and read articles promoting this line of thinking. I think this is a horrible idea. This election can not be won using the Karl Rove playbook of 2000. Apathy will not reign supreme and invigorating your base will not be sufficient to win the Presidency. Gas is fast approaching $5, unemployment took an enormous leap, confidence in the banking industry is low and the war continues. Needless to say, people are looking for something different. Barack Obama modeled his entire campaign around one word: change. Whether or not he truly represents it is neither here nor there. He has been succesful by beating the drum of change for months. I would encourage John McCain to challenge Obama by actually representing change. I think he should select Sen. Joseph Lieberman from CT as his running mate. Lieberman is suffiently hawkish to fit in with the fundamental ideals of the McCain camp. This old running mate of Al Gore's from the 2000 election would signal an important change in the Republican party and would speak to the voters. The siren call of bipartisanship would speak to the undecideds and independents that may swing this election.

As for Barack Obama, I think that he should pull a page out of the land of Lincoln playbook and select his rival, Hillary Clinton, as his running mate. Most people don't fully appreciate the greatness of Lincoln. Sure he helped end slavery and was a tremendous orator, but what people don't realize is that he held the country and his administration together by including individuals who ran against him. Why? Because they were the best people for the job. His Sec. of Treasury, Salmon Chase, even ran against Lincoln in his election for a second term. This kind of behavior would immediately be met with a pink slip in today's world. Lincoln calmly held his position and refused to accept Chase's resignation as Secretary of the Treasury. That kind of equanimity is the change that this country craves. The fact that Obama and Clinton don't get along is not a concern to the American public. What is a concern is that Barack Obama is ambitious in his goals of alleviating the ills of the nation and surely could use the help. Whilst he is dealing with the poor economy and our poor foreign relations, how exactly does he intend on instituting a national health care plan that doesn't bankrupt the nation and actually works? Perhaps he should look to the person who spent the majority of her professional career working towards that very goal. Someone who already has a working relationship with the Senate (which is where the VP's office is located) and would be fully equipped to push the legislation. By pushing aside their differences they would represent change. I think Americans are looking for a change. They are looking for the end of cronyism. They are looking for qualified people to fill important positions in government. This certainly would count as change on that front.

If anything, this would make for terrific political theater. Just imagine Clinton and Obama standing shoulder to shoulder on stage smiling for the camera. Just imagine after the last eight years and think about a Republican and a Democrat sharing the spot light and the work load, fighting for a common goal. It would certainly make the TV studios happy. And after all, in this day and age, isn't that most important thing?