February 7, 2011
What Does It All Mean?

This past week we saw the Cavaliers lose their record 24th straight game…

We saw the Orlando Magic lose to the Boston Celtics and the Miami Heat… 

And we just saw the Pittsburgh Steelers lose Super Bowl XLV to the Green Bay Packers. 

What does it all mean? 

I honestly have very little idea. 

(When was the last time you saw a sports columnist admit that?)

Truth be told, my interest in professional sports is sagging. This is natural. Like all of us, I only have a limited amount of free time. The Cleveland teams - those that my dad raised me on, and that became something for me, him, and my brother to bond over once we became adults - are, at the moment, uninteresting.

The Browns’ season is over. I’m not going to analyze the draft. The Cavs are pathetic enough that I’m considering writing a new post every day on how awful Antawn Jamison is at defense. Free agency, for the Indians, is non-existent. Spring training is not that far off … and also not that compelling. 

The Browns, the Cavs, and the Indians have always been my gateway to the rest of the NFL, NBA, and MLB, respectively. Therefore, I haven’t been following the leagues in general very closely. So I’m not comfortable writing posts about why LeBron’s advanced stats are down this year, or, theoretically, why I think Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback than Ben Roethlisberger. 

When we started this website, our intention was to supply fans of Cleveland sports with an outsider’s perspective, one that wasn’t hopelessly tied to a “woe is me” attitude. We all like to feel special. Making yourself out to be the king of losing is one way to do that. Clevelanders, in my opinion, do this spectacularly. 

It does not make me fond of them. 

Not “them” per se, but rather, their pervading attitude. At Mesa, we’ve tried to be realists since the beginning. I think we’ve done that. Has it mattered? I don’t know. Have we made an impact?

As much as I’d like to say otherwise, I don’t think we have. 

Why is this? 

Realism isn’t commercially appealing. I know this because I work in the movie business. Narratives that sell to mass audiences aren’t based on what we know is true but rather on what we want to believe is true (and I’m paraphrasing William Goldman when I say that). Moreover, these stories need to be wrapped in tight little packages with just enough of a twist so that they feel different - but can still be consumed in a familiar fashion. 

What I’m saying, essentially, in this admittedly somewhat rambling post, is that Mesa is an indie movie screening for a city full of people who were hoping to see TRANSFORMERS 3. 

What does it all mean? 

I have a few ideas … but if anyone else is out there, I’d be curious to hear what you think.

5:00am  |   URL: http://www.josemesaisdead.com/post/3163148631/what-does-it-all-mean
(view comments) 
(No. OF NOTES: 3)
  
FILED UNDER: Cleveland 
February 3, 2011
Anthony Parker Trade Scenarios

Rumors surfaced this week that Chicago’s front office has registered serious trade interest in Anthony Parker, contingent on the health of his back. The outlines of a deal aren’t in place, so there’s no indication of compensation on the Cavs’ side yet. But since all I think about with the Cavs nowadays are trades, I figured I would spend some time trying to figure out what would be realistic for Chris Grant to get back in an A.P. swap.

Ironically, the Cavs are still dealing with the same trade dynamic they’ve been dealing with for the past few seasons. They just happen to be on the opposite side of it. Contenders are now looking to the Cavs to supply key role players that can help push their nucleus to the next level.

Of course, the hitch is that the contending teams want to give up relatively little to acquire that key role player.  They’re also generally pretty asset-light. Their rosters are normally stocked with stars, veterans, and a few developmental young players on contracts complicated by Base Year Compensation rules. In short, even if they were willing to be generous, contending teams often don’t even have many of the assets a rebuilding team wants. Chicago is no different.

Let’s clear this up immediately: there are basically no actual Bulls players that the Cavs would both really want and likely be able to acquire.  Taj Gibson (the anti-Glitch, as far as I can tell) is a significant contributor averaging about 23 minutes per game; Chicago’s not giving him up. Omer Asik could possibly be available, but he’s a base year player and thus difficult to incorporate into a deal. Plus, the Cavs already have one developmental 7’ center in CSKA Moscow’s Sasha Kaun. They’d be better served in trying to fill the other myriad holes in the roster.

That leaves James Johnson as the only available young gun on the Bulls’ bench who could fit. He’s no longer on a base year deal. He plays a position of need (SF). But unfortunately, he’s been back and forth to the D-League this year, and his numbers in the majors have not been impressive. 

In light of all that, the only appealing offer for Chris Grant revolves around the draft. Chicago still owns their 2011 and 2012 first-round picks. They also hold a future first rounder from Charlotte, but I assume they’d be more prepared to deal one of their own first-round picks than the Charlotte pick because of likely draft order. Meanwhile, Chicago’s second-rounder in both 2011 and 2012 is owed to Milwaukee.

Theoretically then, the best scenario for the Cavs is to demand one of Chicago’s next two first-round picks as the centerpiece of the trade.

After mulling it over, I think Chicago’s front office can justify that pay-out. Right now the Bulls conservatively project to have one of the top five records in basketball, meaning their 2011 first-rounder will be #26 at best. The incoming draft class is weak by most accounts I’ve seen, and the danger of a lock-out grows by the day. With Parker as another serious three point threat to pair with Kyle Korver, the Bulls become a championship-level team with minimal sacrifice.

On top of the “basketball reasons” for the Bulls to pull the trigger, Parker’s status as walking salary relief adds to his trade value. His $2.9M salary comes off the books at the end of this season. This gives the Cavs some bargaining power, as keeping Parker would have clear benefits and should force the Bulls into sweetening the deal with a pick they may not otherwise want to include.

So what’s the likely trade? I can see two possibilities. One would be A.P. for Chicago’s 2011 #1, James Johnson, and Brian Scalabrine. In that case, the Cavs get Johnson as a low-risk project ($1.7M this year, with team options for the next two at about $1.8M each). They would likely buy out Scalabrine’s one-year veteran minimum contract, thereby saving some cash and allowing Scal to return to the end of the Bulls’ bench before the playoffs as an even more translucent version of early 2000s Mark Madsen.

The other possibility would be for the Cavs to replace Johnson in the deal above with Keith Bogans ($1.6M). This is the cleaner deal for the Bulls, since Bogans and Parker play the same position and roughly the same quantity of minutes. Having both players on the roster would be redundant. Bogans (career 107 Defensive Rating) is a slightly better defender than Parker (career 109 Defensive Rating), but not nearly the dead-eye from distance (35% 3P career to Parker’s 41.2% 3P career). The Bulls can live with any minor defensive drop-off to gain the serious bump in firepower.

For the Cavs, there’s little difference between the two versions of the deal. Both are a wash from a financial standpoint. Bogans’s contract for next year is a non-guaranteed $1.73M—basically identical to the $1.8M team option on James Johnson’s contract.  Scalabrine would be bought out in either scenario. Bogans would probably do more for the Cavs’ quest to avoid the worst record in NBA history, whereas Johnson has more potential for the future.

But in all likelihood, neither player matters.  At their cores, both versions of the deal amount to a 40% off sale on a first-round pick. (The established going rate for straight-up selling a first-rounder is $3M.) Hardly inspiring when defined that way, but still a net positive for the Cavs.

None of this matters if Parker’s back gives out again in the next two weeks, or if a third team gets involved. But if a deal does materialize strictly between the Cavs and Bulls, the over-arching point is that it’s not going to alter the Cavs’ immediate future in a significant way. However, the asset stockpile will grow, and that’s about all we can ask for at this point.

-T

10:00pm  |   URL: http://www.josemesaisdead.com/post/3100915886/anthony-parker-trade-scenarios
(view comments) 
FILED UNDER: NBA Cavs Cleveland Chicago Bulls Trades Anthony Parker Tom Thibodeau 
February 2, 2011
Return of the Double Standard

I watched last Thursday’s “Inside the NBA” over the weekend. During the course of the broadcast, I was reminded of something that I’m sure we noted at the beginning of this season (though I’m not going to spend the time trying to dig back into our archives and prove it).

Essentially, TNT’s studio team was lauding Boston’s play and discussing what a tough out they’ll be in the playoffs this spring. One of the essential components of their argument: just think of what they’ll be able to do when they have a healthy Shaquille O’Neal back on the court.

Whomever made this point was greeted with a loud round of agreement. Shaq was indeed going to be a handful in the post-season.

Compare this to the reaction of NBA analysts last year when The Big Aristotle was in a Cavs uniform. All we heard about during that time was how old Shaq had gotten, how he’d lost several steps, how he didn’t have any lift, couldn’t be depended on to deliver in a major way during the playoffs, etc. 

However, with his 38th birthday looming in 34 days, Shaq has somehow been thrown into some kind of analyst rejuvenation machine. Somehow, by putting on a different uniform, he has once again become a force to be reckoned with. 

I’ll admit that I haven’t been paying as much attention to the league as a whole this season as I have in previous years. My sense from what I had seen up to today was that Shaq was largely doing the same things in the same quantities with Boston as what he did for the Cavs last year. But in the interest of fairness, I decided to check the numbers tonight to be sure.

Here’s what I found:

2009-10 Shaq Vs. 2010-11 Shaq

Games Played: 53 Vs 35

Minutes Per Game: 23.4 Vs 20.9

FGA per 36 min: 13.4 Vs 9.6

FG%: 56.6 Vs 66.7

FTA per 36 min: 6.6 Vs 6.4

FT%: 49.6 Vs 55.8

Offensive Rebound %: 9.4 Vs 8.8

Defensive Rebound %: 24.0 Vs 20.2

Total Rebound %: 17.0 Vs 14.8

Assist %: 11.3 Vs 5.8

Turnover %: 15.7 Vs 17.1

Offensive Rating (Points scored per 100 possessions): 104 Vs 113

Defensive Rating (Points allowed per 100 possessions): 102 Vs 98

Fouls: 4.9 Vs 5.8

In summary, Boston Shaq shoots a much higher percentage from the floor and a slightly less terrible percentage from the stripe; is no better at getting to the line; rebounds worse (particularly defensively); assists about half as much; turns the ball over more frequently; and fouls more often than Cleveland Shaq, with a negligible difference in minutes per game (-2.5 this season).

So while his offensive rating has improved noticeably, and his defensive rating somewhat, the category by category breakdown suggests that this is not a dramatically different player than he was a year ago. Even the current upticks in his offensive and defensive ratings are likely to settle before the end of the season. Case in point: in his last 4 games, Shaq has totaled 10 points…combined.

This isn’t a column meant to bag on Shaq, who I still root for on an individual level. The point is that, once again, the same phenomenon can look a whole lot different to the sports media depending on whether it’s happening in the TD Banknorth Garden instead of The Q. Some things never change.

-T

1:13am  |   URL: http://www.josemesaisdead.com/post/3065039035/return-of-the-double-standard
(view comments) 
FILED UNDER: NBA Shaq Boston Celtics Cleveland Cavaliers 
January 30, 2011
Colt Vs Kolb

 

Adam Schefter is reporting that the Philadelphia Eagles have decided to franchise Mike Vick and trade Kevin Kolb.

More importantly to us, sources are listing the Browns as one of the teams potentially interested in trading for him.

You’re not going to find a bigger proponent than me of the notion that until your NFL team has a quarterback, they’re just not important. You’re also not going to find anyone more unsure than me about whether or not Colt McCoy is the real deal at the position.

Then why am I adamantly opposed to the possibility of Holmgren & Company dealing for Kolb?  Two simple reasons.

First, by almost every statistical category I’ve checked, McCoy was better than Kolb last season. From our friends at Advanced NFL Stats:

2010 COLT McCOY vs. KEVIN KOLB

Games played:  8 vs. 7

Win Probability Added: -0.18 vs -1.02

Expected Points Added: 16.5 vs 4.4

Completion %: 60.8 vs 60.8

Pass Yards per Game: 197 vs 171

INT per Game: 1.125 vs 1.0

% of Pass Attempts Over 15 yards: 20.3 vs 19.6

Adjusted Yards Per Attempt: 4.2 vs 3.8

In summary: McCoy played one more game than Kolb last season, but apart from throwing .125 more interceptions per game, was as good or better in every way.

I would highlight Completion Percentage, Percentage of Pass Attempts over 15 yards, and Adjusted Yards per Attempt in this comparison, because they illustrate that McCoy and Kolb are both West Coast style quarterbacks. In other words, both are equally well-suited toward the type of O that Pat Shurmur is going to run.

Add to the above that we were bombarded with report after report about McCoy’s leadership ability and presence in the huddle as a rookie, and I just don’t see a logical argument for the idea that Kolb is a superior quarterback.

This leads us to the second reason that I’m against the idea of a trade: compensation. If memory serves, the Eagles are supposedly asking for multiple picks, including at least one first rounder, for Kolb. The Browns need talent all over the field, with the possible exception of RB and the center to left side of the O line. Given that reality, shipping off multiple picks in order to acquire a quarterback who is not markedly better than your incumbent seems like about as good an idea as wearing capri pants to a UAW bar.

So while I’m not yet sold on McCoy, I hope the Browns brain / mustache trust recognizes that they need a talented, deep draft class more than they need another unproven quarterback.

-T

10:00pm  |   URL: http://www.josemesaisdead.com/post/3026845884/colt-vs-kolb
(view comments) 
(No. OF NOTES: 4)
  
FILED UNDER: NFL Colt McCoy Trades Draft Browns Cleveland 
January 25, 2011
NFL: the Official League of Non-Major Markets(?)

Yesterday, Mike made an excellent point about what dark clouds the new NBA free agent circus may hold for small-to-mid-market franchises. His conclusion syncs up nicely with something I’ve been thinking about since the end of the Browns season.

The question is this: Is it possible that in a few years, the NFL will be the only sustainable pro sport in non-major markets, i.e. the only one where cities like Cleveland can legitimately hope to compete for a title?

Based on the available evidence, I believe the answer may be ‘yes.’

I’ve considered a few crucial differences between the NBA and NFL in this regard. I’ve ignored Major League Baseball because their system is currently so far out of wack—see: the complete lack of a salary cap—that it hardly seems worth addressing. (Let alone that MLB’s largest problem is that almost no one in contemporary American life wants to watch 162 regular season games that last 3.5+ hours each.)

Unless the parameters change in the new CBA, rookie contracts will be one major determinant of the answer. The current rules dictate that a player drafted in the first half of the first round can be signed to a 6-year contract; players in the second half of the first round to a 5-year contract; and players after the first round to a 4-year contract. (Thanks to Ask the Commish for the details.)

The contrast with the NBA is evident immediately. For first-round picks, the longest contract a team can extend is 4 years, with the latter 2 years both existing as team options. If a contract extension isn’t worked out by the end of the 4th year, the team can put forth a qualifying offer for a 5th year—but that only makes the player a restricted free agent. Further, if the player decides to play out the 5th year, he obtains veto power over any trades, then becomes an unrestricted free agent the following summer. (Thanks to Hoopsworld for the low-down.)

Perhaps counter-intuitively, NBA second round picks gain leverage even faster than their first-round cohorts. The longest contract an NBA team will normally negotiate here is 2-years of nonguaranteed money. However, if a second round pick pans out in a major way, he’s free to test the market as quickly as his sophomore, or at worst, junior season in the league.

The end result of this comparison? Current NFL rules protect their franchises by providing longer guarantees for potential star players than their NBA counterparts.

Consider the following:  In 2010, the St. Louis Rams signed Sam Bradford to a 6-year contract. Meanwhile, LeBron was a Cav for only 7 total seasons: 4 on his rookie contract, another 3 thanks to an extension.

This example is one where simple subtraction simply doesn’t tell the story. Yes, we’re only talking about a net 1 year difference between the Rams’ agreement with Bradford and the Cavs’ two agreements with LeBron. But the difference is continuity. After going 7-9 and barely missing the playoffs in his rookie season, the Rams’ front office knows that Bradford is a franchise player that they have for the next 5 seasons, guaranteed. As we all know too well, the Cavs didn’t have such a long-term safety net. Instead, they allowed themselves to be forced into a series of panic upgrades that were never conducive to a strong, long-term foundation.

The reason was obvious: LeBron’s free agency was always pending, so they had to prove they could win now in order to keep him around. The Rams, meanwhile, have half a decade to build around Bradford.

The contrast carries through the lower branches of each sport’s draft: by the time a second round NFL pick can become a free agent, a second round NBA pick will have had the free agency option two or even three years earlier.

All of this plays into the viability of pro football versus pro basketball in cities like Cleveland. As proven by LeBron and Chris Bosh, young NBA stars are no longer prone to take slightly more money to stay with the franchise that drafted them. Their desire to build “super teams” is hardly surprising, given the (Mesa favorite) fact that only 8 different NBA franchises have won the title in the past 30 years.

But young NFL stars are basically locked into their first franchise for a substantial time period from the starting gun. With a skillful personnel department, NFL teams have the time they need to convince budding stars to stick around via complementary moves. Given the numbers, those players also have less incentive to migrate to specific alternatives than their NBA counterparts anyway; in the same 30 year period, 14 different NFL teams have won the Super Bowl.

These rookie contract considerations aren’t the only elements that empower small-to-mid-market NFL teams. Their ability to “franchise” a player otherwise ready to hit the open market is another powerful tool in the quest for competitive balance.

For the uninitiated, the franchise tag essentially blocks a player at the end of his contract from entering free agency. If he’s hit with an exclusive franchise tag, the player cannot negotiate with other teams, but is compensated by receiving one year’s salary equal to either the average of the top 5 salaries at his position in the current NFL season, or 120% of his previous contract year, whichever is greater. If he’s hit with a non-exclusive franchise tag, the player is compensated by receiving either the average of the top 5 salaries at his position in the previous NFL season, or 120% of his previous contract year, whichever is greater.

However, non-exclusive franchise players also maintain the right to negotiate with other teams. If they sign an offer sheet elsewhere, the original franchise has the right to match the offer, or else refuse it and receive two first-round draft picks from the franchise player’s chosen destination. In comparison to the NBA equivalent, this system is vastly preferable to any franchise unable to maintain a star player. Two first rounders in the NFL draft is a HUGE bounty. By contrast, the best an NBA team can do when a star chooses to go elsewhere is normally a few infinitely less valuable future draft picks and a trade exception. (We can all see how much that trade exception has helped the Cavs this season.)

If all of the above weren’t enough, also consider the prevalence of undrafted NFL free agents or late round picks not only making an NFL roster, but becoming impact players. (Peter King examines this phenomenon briefly in his most recent Monday Morning Quarterback - just scroll down to “The [Super Bowl] match-up is a reward to two organizations that built teams.”) The probability of a second round pick or undrafted NBA free agent having the same kind of effect on a team’s fortune seems to be much rarer—and again, even when it does happen, the team that took a chance on the player in question almost immediately has to work to try to retain his services.

Admittedly, I have no idea what the new NBA and NFL collective bargaining agreements will look like. However, if current rules and current trends largely remain, then I sincerely believe that we are rapidly approaching a time when the NFL is the only legitimate game in town for cities like Cleveland. Here’s hoping I’m dead wrong.

-T

2:20am  |   URL: http://www.josemesaisdead.com/post/2922866064/nfl-the-official-league-of-non-major-markets
(view comments) 
FILED UNDER: NFL NBA LeBron James Sam Bradford Cleveland Browns St Louis Rams Free agency Contracts