Recent Trades Look-back

Jamal Magliore (to Milwaukie) for Desmond Mason and a #1 (to New Orleans) On first glance this looks for a coup for Milwaukie. They've established a solid front line and look like a legitimate playoff team. New Orleans has played above expectation as well, but that has pretty much nothing to do with Desmond Mason who's everaging 9 points on 39% shooting. Magliore is a good rebounder (10 a game), but is not a low post threat (9 points a game) and there are rumors Milwaukie is already shopping him. If Milwaukie can't keep it up and they drop into the lottery, Mason and a lottery pick might end up tipping this deal to New Orleans. But if things continue as is, Magliore has helped them get to the play-offs, taken some pressure of Bogut, and all they gave up was an average swingman and a pick in the 20's. Advantage Milwaukie

Eddie Curry and Antonio Davis (to New York) for Tim Thomas, Sweetney, Jermaine Jackson, a 2006 #1 pick, a 2007 #2 pick, a 2009 #2 pick, and the right to switch in 2007 (to Chicago). Ahhh, the glories of trading with Isiah Thomas. Although Chicago has been hurting in the post department, this has to be considered a huge victory for Chi-town. Eddie Curry might be offensively skilled and have all-star potential but he can't rebound, defend, is injured a lot, has a bad heart, and a questionable work ethic. It still would have been a bummer to lose him for nothing though, and Isiah came through and gave them a nice player (Sweetney who's averaging 11 points and 6 rebounds) and New York's probable lottery picks for the next 2 years. Advantage Chicago

#3 pick (to Utah) for #6, #27, and Detroit 2006 pick (to Portland). Sounded pretty good to me at the time because I assumed the 2006 pick was Utah's. Now I'm thinking this was a bad trade for Portland. Granted, Utah stupidly did not draft Paul, but they should have. So this really ends up being a trade of Chris Paul for Martell Webster, Jarrett Jack, and what's looking to be the 30th pick in the draft- a superstar for potential, okay, and probably bad. I think Portland could have done better. Or, better yet, drafted Paul and traded Telfair. But Utah went to all this trouble for Deron Williams, who is looking solid, but I don't think is all that. Advantage Neither

Wes Anderson: Graded

1. Rushmore: A+
2. Bottle Rocket: A-
3. Royal Tenenbaums: B
4. Life Aquatic: D

Rushmore is one of my all-time favorites and IMO (I'm using blogger shorthand- I've arrived!) a perfect movie. Great story, great characters, great moments... Pure genius. Bottle Rocket was his first movie and I also thought it was very good. It doesn't have the aesthetic of his last three, but the oddly inspiring characters are there in full force.

Which brings me to my problems with his last 2 movies. I read an interview with him before "Royal Tenenbaums" and he said one of his main movie-making goals was to show people with unrelenting passion. It didn't matter quite what direction or how weirdly they went about it, but he wanted his characters driven. He did this masterfully in his first 2 movies and then it began to change. In "Tenenbaums", every character other than Gene Hackman was defined as past their primes. And, again, in "Life Aquatic", Bill Murray is trying to capture his old glory again. Why not show us when they were inspired people? It's as if when Wes Anderson finally made it, he lost some of his passion and it is playing out in his movies.

Another thing that bothers me about his last 2 movies is he has gotten more obsessed with how it looks than writing a good story. "Tenenbaums" has a decent (but not great) story, while "Life Aquatic's" is a rambling boring mess. But a guy is singing David Bowie in Brazilian! And every taxi-cab in New York is retro! And look at the red velour! And... Who cares? The aesthetic should add to the story (as he does so brilliantly in "Rushmore"), not be randomly added to show how quirky and kitschy he can be.

Downtownericbrown once said, "It's as if Wes Anderson has gotten lost in metaphor.' I'm not exactly sure what he meant by it, but it sounded profound. Come down from your indie-chic cloud Wes, we need you!!!

Loose Women = Big Balls = Small Brains

at least in bats...

I'm not exactly sure why, but Scott Pitnik of Syracuse University decided to look at the relationship between female promiscuity, testicle size, and brain size. The first two variables had already been studied in primates and a correlation had been discovered. For example, the virtuous and chaste female gorillas have small-balled males, while the slutty female chimps have large testied men (humans landed in the middle of these two).

This was also found to be true in bats (with the extreme of the African yellow-winged bats' balls taking up 8.4% of their body weight). But the scientists went one step further, hypothesizing that there would could be a trade-off between testes and brain tissue, since bats are very compact fellows. This also turned out to be true. So in the end it appears, evolutionarily speaking, when forced to choose, that balls trump brains.

A Really Dumb Idea

I read that they are going to release a hybrid SUV, which has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If you want to have a more fuel efficient car there are much easier ways to go about it. Like, you know, buying a smaller fucking car. Or better yet, Congress could refrain from kissing Detroit ass and stop allowing SUVs to be classified as Semi-trucks for fuel-efficiency standards. And who would buy this gas-guzzling hybrid anyway? A retarded environmentalist? A do-gooder housewife who will finally be able to balance her need for ample car space, 4- wheel drive, and a better mother earth? I just don't see how this will work economically or environmentally for anyone.

Safeties

Am I the only who thinks the 2-point safety is pretty cool? I think it's partly because they're so rare, but it's also because there's something so daring about trying to take someone down in enemy territory. I think it gives me flashbacks to Capture The Flag. So it really annoys me that they're worth so little. 2 points? For something that is only accomplished a few times a year? Their only purpose seems to help explain why a score is so weird (16-3? 4 field goals and no.... 2 field goals a touchdown w/0 an extra point and no... Oh maybe it was 2 touchdowns and safety!). And it shows just how piddling they are when teams purposely get a safety so they can put the other team in bad field position. That's just mocking the whole concept of safety. I think safeties should at least be equal to a touchdown, if not more. Or maybe make it 5 since football seems obsessed with differentiating each score. Either way, let's give the safey the respect it has long deserved!

Eternal Question #3: Black Midgets

My sister brought this up to me a while ago, and I have not found a satsifying answer yet. What was with our obsessions with Black midgets in the 80's? It's weird enough to have one popular sitcom with a growth disordered black star, but 2? You could argue it's just another example of TV writers' lack of imagination, but I think something else was going on. Any ideas?

Eternal Question #2

Why Was Kid Rock Ever Popular?

I find this eternal question much more vexing. And I think it reminds me that everything does not happen for a reason. I mean, what's the trend here? White-trash cool? Nope, never happened. Rap-Rock redefining popular music? Not really. Midget side kicks sweeping the musical nation? I sure hope not.

I guess you could argue that he was part of a white rap off-shoot that carried in Eminem (trailer rap), and Limp Bizkit (Rock and Rap). And that people tired quickly of the rock angle. But that doesn't explain it to me. Limp Bizkit at least had multiple successful albums and Eminem was always a rapper first and foremost. But Kid Rock has one hit song, and years later he's sleeping with Pamela Anderson and being cheered for at Pistons Games?

Was it his name? His one great line "I'm not straight out of Compton, I'm straight Out of The Trailer"? I think it was dumb weird luck. I think if you replayed life 1,000 more times, Kid Rock would have made it only one of those times. I think a confluents of random events happened just so and Kid Rock (along with Billy Bob Thornton now that I think of it) just happened to drop into our national conscience. And, thanks to shows like Surreal Life (can't you see it?) he might just never leave...

Eternal Question #1

Why Are The Atlanta Hawks So Bad?

No offense to my Atlanta contingency (2/3 of the people who comment), but the Atlanta Hawks are off to a terrible start this year and help does not seem to be on the way. They have no veterans, an over abundance of raw swingmen, and their most consistent player probably won't be there next year (Al Harrington). Even worse, they've wasted a max contract on a guy who will probably never make an all-star team (Joe Johnson). The argument that they needed to overpay now to convince future free-agents to come later, seems very weak now in light of their terrible record most likely scaring away any potential free-agents. But how did it get to this? How could an expansion team (the Charlotte Bobcats) have a better record and a brighter future in their second year of existence?

I think Atlanta made two mistakes, at two different times. It is hard to remember, but in the recent past Atlanta was good. The Nique years were quickly followed by the above-averageness of the Mookie - Steve Smith - Mutombo- years. And they tried to ease out of this gracefully. Instead of just accepting terribleness they made some decent trades: an aging Mookie for Jason Terry and a leaving Mutombo for the young shot blocking Theo Ratliff. Only the Smith for Isiah "Aluminum Can" Rider was a bad one. But this wasn't enough, and here was they made their first mistake, trading high draft picks for not-quite all stars. First they swapped a pick that became Pau Gasol and Lorenzen Wright for Shareef "Solid but never great" Rahim, then, a bigger mistake, a future pick (which ended up being TJ Ford) for the Big Dog.

After they realized this team would not never make the playoffs, they started a two-year campaign to rid themselves of all of these contracts and just make as much salary cap room as possible. Salary cap flexibility is a good thing, but if that's the only thing you have, no one is going to come (see post-Jordan Bulls). Also, I can't think of one team that has rebuilt successfuly this way. Looking over every team that made the playoffs last year, I can only find 2 free-agent coups (Steve Nash, Gilbert Arenas). In general, the great majority gets better by getting super-stars in the draft, making trades that make sense, and filling holes with free-agents.

The future does not look any better. As well as wasting 1/2 their cap money on an above-average player, they traded away two future picks. I realize these are lottery protected, but there must be some statutes of limitation on that clause. Even if they don't lose these in the lottery, it is telling that whereas they should have been stockpiling picks, they're giving them away with the attitude of "We've had enough high draft picks." Not a great strategy. Think of how fun this team could be with TJ Ford running the break with a solid Gasol, Wright, Ratliff front court. Oh Atlanta Hawks, I wish you luck. You will certainly need it.