This is something that should spark a lot of debate given the discussion on twitter yesterday. ESPN is ranking all of the players that should be in the league next season starting at #500. Yesterday they released numbers 500-401 and our own Jeremy Evans shows up on that list at #430.
The criteria for ranking the players was as follows,
We asked 91 experts to rate each player on a 0-to-10 scale, in terms of "the current quality of each player."
Here is the full list of voters from ESPN.com, the TrueHoop Network, TrueHoop TV, Daily Dime Live, ESPN TV, ESPN Radio, ESPN Deportes, espnW, ESPN The Magazine, ESPN Insider, ESPN Fantasy, ESPN Games, ESPN Dallas, ESPN Los Angeles, ESPN Chicago, ESPN New York, ESPN Stats & Information, ESPN Topics and ESPN Analytics.
Evans comes in with a 2.18 rating overall. Someone has to fill in those bottom 100 spots but I think this is absurdly low for Evans. With this scale, he's listed behind such players as Bobby Simmons, Earl Barron, Sasha Pavlovic, Joey Graham, and Jarron Collins.
With a 2.18 average, it would appear that he received a lot of 2 votes with a few 3s. He would have received either 198 or 199 votes total depending on whether they rounded up or down. I'm going to assume nobody gave him a 1, so that would be approximately 75 2 votes and 16 3 votes.
In my mind, he's at least a 3 and more likely a 4. This ranking is a bit different in that the the players are scored and then ranked according to that score rather than saying who's the best or worst player in the NBA and going from there.
If you were to apply the draft method to these rankings, regardless of position and need, I think you take Jeremy Evans above most players that are currently ranked above him. He had a fantastic line in his rookie season with a PER of 18.8. Even if you say that he earned most of those stats in garbage-time minutes, wasn't he playing against other garbage-time players? He should be listed above them.
David Stern was on last week with Bill Simmons. One of the surprising things that came out of it was the fact that both the league and the players are apparently willing to contract a couple of teams. CBS Sports breaks it down,
"[Contraction] is not a subject that we're against," Stern said. "In fact, when you talk about revenue sharing, a number of teams have said that if you have a team that is perpetually going to be a recipient, aren't you better off with the ability to buy them in? Because between the revenue sharing and the split of international and the TV money, we could almost buy them in with their own money.
"The players actually have been heard to suggest that as well, which was interesting because that means they are suggesting that we eliminate 30 jobs, or the potential for 30 jobs. So we've said to the players, you know, 'Give us the right to contract, let's agree upon what the basis will be. Let's make this deal and then let's continue to look at that subject.'"
That's very surprising news on the part of the players. They do everything they can to preserve jobs in the league and according to Stern, they're open to it. The impact wouldn't just be losing the players on those teams. There are going to be around 15 players that will remain in the league and there would likely be a dispersal draft. That means around 15 players that are currently on other teams wouldn't be back in the league If you're looking to improve the overall quality of play in the league, this would help a bit.
Another thing to consider would be how much money the league overall would save. The teams that are often brought up when it comes to contraction are the Kings, Hornets, and Bobcats. In the podcast though, Stern remains committed to those teams. Let's just say it's two of those teams though.
The total savings in just payroll relief would be between $80-90m a year. Of course if the Hornets are going to be contracted, Chris Paul and Emeka Okafor aren't going to be out of work. It's going to be a scrub that gets cut. So the league isn't going to realize the full $80-90m. My rough estimate though would be around $50m.
Where the league is crying poverty is in non-salary related expenses though. Shutting down two teams would eliminate 100% of that for two teams. I don't have the exact figures for how much that would save, but a combination of salaries and other expenses for two teams represents a good chunk of the $300m the league claims to have lost last season. That's just the league as a whole though.
The two biggest candidates in my mind to get the ax would be New Orleans and Charlotte. The league is currently running the Hornets right now and have yet to find a buyer that would keep the team in New Orleans. With Chris Paul likely leaving after next season, there's not much of a team left.
Charlotte only has $29m committed in payroll for the 2012-13 season. There will be some added to that with their two first-round draft picks from this season.
Both teams though have had two franchises and none of them have worked out well. If there is contraction, someone has to go. The biggest losers in contraction would be the non-basketball jobs in each franchise and their respective cities.
I'm currently plowing through Parks and Recreation on Netflix right now. I came across this story where Pacers' center Roy Hibbert is going to be on the show next season. It makes sense in the fact that the show takes place in Indiana.
I'd like to see Indiana's favorite son Gordon Hayward on the show. Following the theme of the show, he could be brought in to put on a summer basketball camp and maybe grace the cover of the catalog? We find out Ann has had a crush on Hayward. Leslie Knope for some reason has no idea who he is. Tom tries to use Hayward to land some groupies. Andy tries to show Gordon he has comparable basketball skills. And of course we find out that Pawnee has no Olive Garden.
It's the lockout; sue me.
One of the first games back from the last lockout, the Jazz took on Shaq and the Lakers.
Jazz at Lakers - 2/7/99 (Highlights) (via JazzBasketball1)