Does anyone have the Insider article on off-season losers?

[Amuseddaysleeper]

It oddly has Kobe on the front page, which is weird since the Lakers seem to have a solid off-season shoring up their bench.

[Cane]

Seems like he dogged LA because three stars signed their talents with South Beach and so the Lakers are no longer THE best team in the league FWIW.





Biggest offseason losers
By John Hollinger
ESPN.com


Kobe Bryant's Lakers and Mikhail Prokhorov's Nets can thank LeBron for their disappointing summer.
In the NBA offseason, for every winner there must also be a loser.

I wrote Monday about the six teams that improved themselves the most so far this summer, but now it's time to look at the seamy underside: the teams that find themselves in a tougher position. In several cases, this isn't necessarily of their own doing, but rather from circumstances that were either somewhat or entirely out of their control.

Nonetheless, they're worse off for it, starting with our biggest loser from the summer:


Cleveland Cavaliers


Does anyone else want to hug a Cleveland fan "Good Will Hunting" style and remind them that it's not their fault? LeBron James' impossibly painful exit was made worse by the Cavs' inability to give anyone their money. Houston matched a generous offer sheet to Kyle Lowry, Matt Barnes took half the money to play for the Lakers, and they can't even find a workable sign-and-trade for Shaquille O'Neal.

The only major change so far has been a swap of Delonte West for Ramon Sessions, which means the Cavs are basically the same team that won 61 games a year ago … albeit with one glaring omission. Cleveland still has a huge trade exception and may be able to get something done before opening day, but at best this looks like a borderline playoff team.

Los Angeles Lakers


What, you ask, did the Lakers do wrong? Nothing -- in fact, they shored up the point guard spot with Steve Blake and got a tough gamer for peanuts in Matt Barnes. And, of course, they coaxed Phil Jackson to stay on the bench for one more season.

All that would have made the Lakers overwhelming favorites to repeat as champions next season, except for a little thing that went down in Miami. With the Heat looking like a super team, the Lakers find themselves downgraded to co-favorites at best, through no fault of their own.

Had James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh aligned themselves in any other combination with any other team, that wouldn't be the case. Thus, L.A. lost ground this summer, even though, in narrower terms, it won with the additions of Barnes and Blake.

Los Angeles Clippers


Not a great summer for basketball teams in SoCal. While the Lakers' misfortunes were entirely external, in the case of the Clippers, the offseason has been a full-on disaster. L.A. created enough salary-cap room to sign a big-fish free agent to a maximum contract, and walked away with Ryan Gomes and Randy Foye.

Yeesh. While I appreciate the Clippers' efforts to reconstruct the 2008 Minnesota Timberwolves (they also re-signed Craig Smith; can Greg Buckner and Mark Madsen be far behind?), those two additions do little or nothing to improve their prospects for this season.

L.A. added to its woes with a puzzling coaching hire, selecting the barely adequate Vinny Del Negro over the vastly more qualified Dwane Casey. The Clips have some talent, and if Blake Griffin delivers, they might contend for a playoff spot anyway, but they missed out on a glorious opportunity to rise among the elite in the Western Conference.

Toronto Raptors


Losing Bosh was bad enough, but that wasn't the only thing in Toronto that left us scratching our heads. The whole Matt Barnes saga was jaw-dropping: It appears both Barnes' agent and the Raptors' front office leaked to the media that Barnes would sign a two-year, $9 million deal with the Raptors in a sign-and-trade -- in fact, every major outlet reported it.

Only one problem: The deal wasn't even remotely legal under the salary-cap rules, revealing a shocking ignorance of a very important piece of the business on the part of NBA professionals.

Look, this is pretty basic stuff. I've seen stories suggesting this was some inscrutable piece of salary-cap arcana, and it's just not true. For starters, a sign-and-trade deal has to be at least three years. Has to. That's not a difficult rule to understand. I'm pretty sure all of you got it immediately. That's why every single sign-and-trade deal that any of these guys has ever done has been for at least three years. You'd think they'd at least know from experience. But right there, much energy was spent negotiating a deal that couldn't happen.

Second, Orlando couldn't sign-and-trade Barnes under those terms. He had no Bird rights because he had played only one year on his current contract; the most he could be offered by the Magic this season was about $1.9 million. Again, this isn't some obscure footnote; it comes up every single year because so much of the league's rank and file are on one-year deals.

Finally, Orlando could have re-signed Barnes using its midlevel exception, except that (A) the Magic had already used it, and (B) you can't do a sign-and-trade using the midlevel exception. Toronto couldn't use its midlevel on Barnes either, since it had already been bestowed on Linas Kleiza.

In a nutshell, the deal had to be a sign-and-trade for at least three years, starting at no more than $1.9 million a year, or it couldn't happen. This was obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the salary-cap rules. That it wasn't to the two parties involved is disturbing.

When the Raptors weren't trying to use imaginary exceptions to sign players they couldn't get, they were giving Amir Johnson a five-year, $34 million deal that's among the summer's most questionable. They used their midlevel exception on Kleiza, adding another bad defender to the league's worst defensive team.

Toronto did salvage a Hedo Turkoglu-Leandro Barbosa trade that dumps last year's big mistake, albeit for another guy who can't guard anybody. Unfortunately, an offseason-saving steal of a deal with Charlotte fell through, and they're left with a star-less team that still is the worst defensive squad in basketball.

New Jersey Nets


The Nets had all that cap space, and the new Russian oligarch owner, and they were coming to Brooklyn to make a big splash. Everybody was talking about them. Two months later, they have Billy King as their GM, Travis Outlaw as their big free-agent score and a lot of questions about whether new coach Avery Johnson is really the one calling the shots.

Outgoing GM Rod Thorn called it quits and almost immediately hinted he wouldn't mind working someplace else, a sure sign that Mikhail Prokhorov's regime isn't engendering great morale. It's equally puzzling why Prokhorov didn't push for a change; instead, he allowed the architect of a 12-win team to execute the Nets' draft and free-agent strategy before heading out.

New Jersey did one thing right: All its free-agent dollars went on players age 25 or younger, an admirable piece of restraint from a franchise that realistically is a couple of years away from doing anything noteworthy. In one case in particular (sharpshooter Anthony Morrow), the Nets got unbelievable value. Unfortunately, the deals for Outlaw ($35 million for five years) and Johan Petro (three years, $10 million) are ridiculous.

As a result, there will be no quick fix in New Jersey. The Nets have a decent foundation with Devin Harris, Brook Lopez and rookie Derrick Favors, and they'll at least double their win total, but Prokhorov's arrival as a power player appears to have been wildly overstated.

Minnesota Timberwolves


KAAHHHHNNNN!!! OK, had to get that one out. No, nobody is quite sure what the strategy is under Timberwolves general manager David Kahn.

I'd say they're rebuilding, but their big free-agent pickup was a 30-year-old point guard, and they traded their first-round pick for Martell Webster.

I'd say they're focusing on value contracts, but they just gave Darko Milicic a four-year, $20 million deal.

I'd say they're trying to corner the market on point guards, but the league has about 70 of them and the Wolves can hoard only 15 at any one time.

I'd say they're acquiring players who can thrive in coach Kurt Rambis' triangle system, except they're not -- they keep acquiring small pick-and-roll point guards with iffy outside shots.

I'd say they're building around character and discipline, but they traded for Michael Beasley and Milicic.

I'd say they're focused on opportunistic trades, except that they unloaded their best player for 50 cents on the dollar and repeated the exercise with Ramon Sessions.

The only thing I can confidently say is that they'll be terrible again this year, and probably for several years afterward. The Wolves have a rising star in Kevin Love and a couple of other interesting pieces (keep an eye on Euro import Nikola Pekovic), but it's not clear whether they're coming or going right now. I'm not sure they know, either.

• Also see: Hollinger's offseason winners

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Thanks a lot Cane, much appreciated!

[Don Ready]

Orlando should be on their as well. TE and Gorat should've been moved. The corpse of Vince Carter is still on the team. On top of it all Otis thinks he needs to match everyone no matter how over paid. Maybe its just me but there's a lot that could've been done but wasn't.

[Venti Quattro]

lmao hollinger

[SomeCallMeTim]

Seems like he dogged LA because three stars signed their talents with South Beach and so the Lakers are no longer THE best team in the league FWIW.

Interesting logic. He has a point, but to be consistent, he'd have to write an article describing how there was only one winner in the offseason and 29 losers.

[MavDynasty]

:cry too fucking inconsistent

[Venti Quattro]

Interesting logic. He has a point, but to be consistent, he'd have to write an article describing how there was only one winner in the offseason and 29 losers.

Yes, the only reason why the Lakers are bad in Hollinger's eyes are because of the Heat and not something that the organization did or did not do.

In that case this article is bullshit. All teams are offseason losers because of what Miami has been able to achieve.

[HarlemHeat37]

I'm a fan of Hollinger's, but ya, this logic is stupid..the Lakers were a relatively weak champion last year, they had to get better, and they did, so they definitely aren't "off-season losers"..

Obviously Miami has taken over as the top team in the NBA, but it doesn't make the Lakers losers of the off-season..

[Venti Quattro]

Obviously Miami has taken over as the top team in the NBA, but it doesn't make the Lakers losers of the off-season..

Miami = offseason champions :toast

[Don Ready]

I'm a fan of Hollinger's, but ya, this logic is stupid..the Lakers were a relatively weak champion last year, they had to get better, and they did, so they definitely aren't "off-season losers"..

Obviously Miami has taken over as the top team in the NBA, but it doesn't make the Lakers losers of the off-season..

How has a team that has not played one game together taken over as the top team in the NBA? Are the games played on paper now?

[Kindergarten Cop]

Interesting logic. He has a point, but to be consistent, he'd have to write an article describing how there was only one winner in the offseason and 29 losers.


Yes, the only reason why the Lakers are bad in Hollinger's eyes are because of the Heat and not something that the organization did or did not do.

In that case this article is bullshit. All teams are offseason losers because of what Miami has been able to achieve.


I'm a fan of Hollinger's, but ya, this logic is stupid..the Lakers were a relatively weak champion last year, they had to get better, and they did, so they definitely aren't "off-season losers"..

Obviously Miami has taken over as the top team in the NBA, but it doesn't make the Lakers losers of the off-season..

While I agree that it is a pretty weak argument - especially considering my comment on his article regarding the "winners" of this year's off season - I see the point that he is trying to make (not that I agree with it). While it is true that all 29 of the other teams were hurt by the trio joining up in Miami, the Lakers are the only team that went from being the odds on favorite to win in 2011 to one of the "other 29 teams" looking up at the number one spot. By that logic, every other team was already looking up at the Lakers atop the pinnacle and now they're just looking up at a different team (at least according to the Vegas odds makers).

[Killakobe81]

Taken over as the top team ...much like the Cavs after the Jamison trade
Or Orlando when they signed TMAC and Grant hill ...

LOL pre-mature ejaculation ...

Look Miami has the POTENTIAL to be scary ...

But I wouldnt plan any parades in south beach just yet ...

[spursncowboys]

Maybe if the Lakers weren't reloading. They are the defending champs and the lil bitches got better.

[DPG21920]

How are the Suns not on this list?

[Basketballgirl25]

Hollinger is a moron, he put the Lakers in it, they are the best team till someone beats them

[SomeCallMeTim]

While I agree that it is a pretty weak argument - especially considering my comment on his article regarding the "winners" of this year's off season - I see the point that he is trying to make (not that I agree with it). While it is true that all 29 of the other teams were hurt by the trio joining up in Miami, the Lakers are the only team that went from being the odds on favorite to win in 2011 to one of the "other 29 teams" looking up at the number one spot. By that logic, every other team was already looking up at the Lakers atop the pinnacle and now they're just looking up at a different team (at least according to the Vegas odds makers).

Fair point.

If you look at the NBA season and playoffs as a binary, win-or-lose proposition, where winning the Finals is success and anything but winning the Finals is failure, then it's fair to say the Lakers stand to lose more than most other teams since they have much greater odds of actually pulling that off than most other teams.

Wolves are rebuilding. Kings are rebuilding. Warriors are just trying to get something going again. For those teams and a lot of others, this season being a success won't be judged on those all-or-nothing terms.

[SomeCallMeTim]

How has a team that has not played one game together taken over as the top team in the NBA? Are the games played on paper now?

Isn't 80% of what we write here speculation, prediction, and up for debate?

There are no sure bets in sports, but Miami seems like a pretty safe bet to be a great, great team. Pretending/hoping otherwise would be ignoring everything we know about past performance predicting future outcomes, what makes for great basketball teams, etc.

However, again there are no sure bets... even if you give Miami fantastic odds in all its prospective playoff matchups, something like:

First round: 95%
Semifinals: 85%
Conf finals: 75%
Finals: 75%

that still only adds up to a 45% chance Miami wins it all this year. If you accept those numbers as realistic and are given the choice between betting on Miami or betting on the field, take the field.