Doc Rivers’ 2010-2011 wish list
Jay King | September 8, 2010 at 1:15 pm | 0 Comments
Despite briefly contemplating retirement, Doc Rivers decided to return for another year of coaching the Boston Celtics. And what does he have waiting for him? A locker room full of crazy egos and personalities. Joy. But he also has championship aspirations and a deep, talented team.
As the season draws near (only a month and 18 days until opening night, not that anyone’s counting), here’s one man’s thoughts on Rivers’ wish list for 2010-2011.
The Celtics are going to kick ass in NBA Jam
Jay King | at 8:00 am | 2 Comments
I’m as big an NBA Jam fan as the next guy. Boom Shaka Laka, heating up, he’s on fire; the game was an integral part of my childhood and, with NBA Jam rules in beer pong, just as important to my college days. But I don’t know if I’ll be able to play the new NBA Jam when it comes out on October 5th. The Celtics are simply too stacked.
Despite only being able to play with two players, the Celtics have four players on their current squad to choose from: Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnet, Rajon Rondo and Ray Allen. On top of that, the Celtics also have two legends to choose from, Larry Bird and Kevin McHale. So my problem is, who the hell do I choose?
Larry Legend is a no-brainer. You can’t possibly make an argument that he should be left out of the lineup. After Larry, though, I’ve got problems. Do I tell Paul Pierce he has to sit on the bench? What about Kevin Garnett? Does Kevin McHale get splinters? Rondo, the newest face of the Celtics? Ray Allen’s the only guy who I don’t mind sitting, but damn it!, I’m even guilty about that. Where I come from, making any of those guys sit the bench is sacrilegious.
Which is why I’m not going to play the new NBA Jam, not even once. Even though it’s going to kill me not to. I can’t disrespect Celtics legends, even if it’s in favor of other Celtics legends.
P.S. – There’s at least one legend available on almost every team. But I think NBA Jam wants to redefine the term “legend.” Otherwise, they wouldn’t have used that term to describe Rony Seikaly, Kenny Anderson and Manute Bol.
(h/t @MrTrpleDouble10)
Danny Ainge, the magic man
Jay King | September 6, 2010 at 11:00 am | 5 Comments
Five. That’s how many players the Celtics had under contract at the beginning of this offseason, including the soon-to-retire Rasheed Wallace. So make that four.
Zero. That’s how much cap space the Celtics had to spend, unless they wanted to renounce the rights to Ray Allen and/or Paul Pierce. Fat chance of that happening.
Eleven. That’s how many players Danny Ainge signed, and many of them quality pros. Just another summer at the office for Ainge, another offseason spent making wine out of water.
Read more >>
On Kevin Durant, Lebron James and the love of the game
Jay King | September 3, 2010 at 11:38 am | 0 Comments
I was reading Andrew Sharp’s piece about Kevin Durant’s media-driven throne of righteousness, and I completely disagreed with one of Sharp’s points. Oddly enough, considering it was a piece about Durant, the actual point I disagreed with had little to do with the spindly, 6’9″ scorer. Sharp wrote this: (SB Nation)
Jerry Seinfeld once said sports fans are basically “cheering laundry,” and in a literal sense, he’s right. But in a literal sense, sports are a complete and utter waste of time. That’s Seinfeld’s point. Only by taking things to the deeper level, adopting certain guys as heroes and others as villains… Only then does it become something worth going crazy over.
We create this dynamic—LeBron as villain, Durant as hero—because otherwise, they’re just two oversized gentleman that run up and down a wooden court 100 nights a year, wearing different laundry. Projecting character onto these guys may be naive, but it’s also what makes sports fun. And that’s the essential truth missed by both Craggs and all the writers lavishing Durant with praise.
If NBA players could all be more like Kevin Durant… Basketball would be incredibly boring.
I don’t know about all of you, but I don’t watch basketball, I don’t follow basketball, and I don’t love basketball because the players have character. I don’t care about the NBA because Lebron James is a villain and Kevin Durant is a hero. If that was why I cared about sports, I wouldn’t care about sports at all. I’d merely watch soap operas all day, preferably All My Children.
In fact, I hardly care about what NBA superstars are like off the floor. I don’t watch Lebron James play basketball because he’s a villain, or because he used to be seen as “the unselfish superstar,” just as I don’t watch Kevin Durant play basketball because he seems like a fun guy to play Madden against. I watch Lebron because he is the biggest, strongest, fastest package of athleticism ever created by the hand of God, and I watch Durant because I’ve never seen someone his height with that mind-blowing package of skills. Watching them, regardless of how the media portrays them or how I feel about them as individuals, not only brings me awe that a human being could be THAT good at basketball, but that he could push the limits of human accomplishments so far.
Greatness, no matter who does it or what avenue of life it appears in, is special. It’s why I watched the Olympics and became attached to Michael Phelps. I didn’t know the first thing about Phelps and I didn’t know the first thing about executing a proper flip turn, but I understood that what he was doing was extremely special, and that was good enough for me. I returned to my television every time Phelps had a race, because I knew there was always the potential for greatness. I didn’t care whether Phelps was a bank robber or Mother Theresa; he was doing something better than it had ever been done before, and that was enough for me.
But watching basketball is different than watching the Olympics, different than watching Phelps. Not only do I watch for the potential greatness each game brings, but I watch because I appreciate the intricacies of the game. I watch because a simple bounce pass can leave me breathless. I watch for the sound of a swish, the thwap of a dribble, and because the squeaking of sneakers sounds like heaven. I watch for the perfectly executed screen-and-roll, the beautiful no-look pass, and because “damn, did you just see that guy fly?” I watch because you never know when you’ll see a close game, a great comeback, or an astounding play. I watch because I don’t ever want to miss something special, and I watch because I see greatness even in the smallest, most normal plays.
So no, Andrew Sharp, I don’t watch basketball because Lebron James is a villain and Kevin Durant is a hero. In fact, if they were “just two oversized gentleman that run up and down a wooden court 100 nights-a-year, wearing different laundry” that’d be A-okay with me. As long as they still played the game I love and played it better than just about anyone else on earth. As long as they still showed me what greatness looks like, as long as they still tested the boundaries of human accomplishment.
Even my unabashed love for certain players has no basis in personality. Paul Pierce isn’t my favorite player because he’s a great guy, or because he’s known as The Truth, or because he smiles from time to time in postgame press conferences; he’s my favorite player because he’s been a Celtic the longest, because his on-court skills have helped my favorite team win games for years. The same thing goes for my favorite non-Celtic, Steve Nash. I don’t give a damn that Nash makes funny videos or seems really down to earth, or that some people view him as the underdog because he’s small and white. Those things are all cool by me, but I try to watch Nash as often as I can because he makes at least three or four passes per game that make me wish I was a soccer-loving Canadian originally from South Africa.
I watch sports in general for the potential of seeing something prodigious, but I watch basketball more often than I watch any other sport because I appreciate every intricate detail roundball has to offer. I certainly “root for laundry” when I cheer on the Celtics, but I’ve got a confession: even if Lebron, Durant and every other player in the NBA were nothing more than bland, boring, over-sized gentlemen who run up and down a wooden court 100 nights a year, I’d still love this game.
What can I say? I’m an addict.
Celtics, looking to forge chemistry, will hold training camp in Waltham
Jay King | September 2, 2010 at 9:06 am | 4 Comments
Say cheese on three, Perk.
Paul Pierce wanted to go away for training camp, far, far away. He felt a training camp vacation would benefit his Celtics, who could use a bonding experience to gain some chemistry.
“When you got new guys and these types of personalities, I think it’s good for all of us to get out, be at a dinner table — me, Shaq, Kevin [Garnett], Ray [Allen], Jermaine,” he told the Boston Globe. “I think it would be good for that relationship, building that chemistry. We get away and go somewhere, that’s something we’ll definitely do.”
Pierce continued, “I’m really getting tired of Newport. I want to go somewhere else.”
Somewhere else… as in Waltham, where the Celtics normally hold practices? I’m pretty sure that wasn’t what Pierce had in mind when he said he wanted to get away. I’m also pretty sure that Waltham, where most of the players have houses and some have families, isn’t the best place to forge chemistry. And the Celtics, who signed an astonishing 11 players this offseason, need to build a bond.
“Chemistry is a delicate thing. I understand that, and I’m as cautious as anyone with it. I guarantee you, I’ll be keeping my eye on it,” Doc Rivers told NBA Fanhouse. “I don’t know yet if we can make it work. It is going to be interesting, that’s for sure.”
Interesting, indeed. With Shaq, Delonte West and Von Wafer among the C’s offseason additions, the locker room should have its own reality show. Seriously. I’d watch that 24/7.
But I’m not sure chemistry should be so trying. Shaq’s ego could be problematic, but West knows his role and he plays it well. Personal issues aside, West has already proven himself to do whatever his coach asks of him. He’s also, all unfounded rumors aside, a player who gets along with his teammates. The last few years, you could find Delonte cheesing for the fake photographs Lebron James snapped before games or joking around with teammates on the bench. Before that, he was a fan favorite in Boston, beloved for his endless energy and spunk. His depression is worrisome, to say the least, but when mentally healthy, Delonte has always been a player coaches and teammates enjoy. He was never a problem in Cleveland, where the Cavaliers had unrivaled chemistry as they joked and danced their way to 60+ wins each of the last two seasons.
Wafer has been a problem in the past, but he isn’t in any position to be one this year. He’s down to his last chance, and he must know it. If Wafer can’t get along with Doc Rivers, a player’s coach if there ever was one, then he’s probably won’t ever find his way back to the NBA. With that in mind, I’m sure Wafer will be on his best behavior. Either that or he’s an even bigger headcase than anyone could imagine.
Besides Wafer, the one big spot where I see a potential chemistry meltdown is when Kendrick Perkins returns in February. Then, three guys who have always been starters need to split the minutes of two men. Seriously, what happens when Perk gets back? Does Shaq get the first DNP-CD of his career? Does Jermaine O’Neal? Does Perk? There won’t be many minutes to split between the three centers, and somebody’s bound to be the odd man out. How will everyone handle it? I have no idea, but I could see it becoming a problem.
Other than that, chemistry may not be as volatile as some might think. As Rivers noted, “If your goal is anything other than winning a championship, you’re going to have a problem with chemistry.” But with a team that prides itself on possessing the ultimate winner’s mentality and additions that, for the most part, want to do nothing but win, maybe chemistry shouldn’t be such a worry.
Rivers said, “I think we’re getting [the new additions] at the right time. They’re not coming to be stars. They are coming to be role players trying to help us win a championship.”
As long as that sentiment remains true, the Celtics will be a force to be reckoned with. Even if they went against Pierce’s wishes and will hold training camp in their own backyard.
10 Reasons why the Boston Celtics will win the 2011 NBA Championship
Tommy King | September 1, 2010 at 12:15 pm | 46 Comments
The skeptics, the doubters, the haters say the Celtics are a team of the past. Miami is the team to beat in the East. The Celtics are too old, too hobbled. They have too many egos, too many personal agendas. Assistant coach Tom Thibodeau left, and the defense won’t be the same. Especially with Shaq.
I say, they’re wrong. The Celtics are not a team of the past, but the team of the present. If you don’t believe me, I’ll even give you 10 reasons why the Celtics will win the ‘ship. Read more >>
Follow Us
