Kobe and LeBron babysit

Puppets are funny. This one is the best so far.

Why the Gasol trade should be talked about more

In February of 2008, the Lakers traded Kwame Brown and some crumbs to the Grizzlies for Pau Gasol. I've ranted about that move several times since, and if you read my blog, you're familiar with my arguments.

But apparently there are those who don't see the Gasol trade as being any worse than say, the Billups for Iverson move or how Portland traded the pick that was Deron Williams to Utah.

Let me outline why this was a horrendous trade that, in my mind, completely invalidates this Laker team. Without Pau, there is no way they beat Houston or Denver. And as a disclaimer, as much as I disliked the Shaq and Kobe Lakers, I didn't see that team as illegitimate.

What makes the Kwame for Pau trade egregiously inequitable?

The key here is that both players were proven commodities. Pau is an All-Star level forward. Kwame is a major, major bust who contributes little to nothing to whatever team he is on.

That's what bugs me. LA gave away nothing in exchange for a player who has proven he can play extremely well for an extended period of time at the highest level of basketball.

People play the Deron card, but Deron was an unknown commodity coming out of college. There was little to no proof that he could succeed at the professional level. The Jazz took a risk trading up to pick him, just like the Blazers took a risk trading that pick away. It worked out for the Jazz.

In the same way, I do not begrudge the Lakers for having Bynum. Putting aside how ineffectual he's been in the playoffs, that kid has a bright future ahead of him, and I hate that he'll probably be making the Lakers good for another 10 years or so.

But you know what? The Lakers took a chance on an unproven kid coming out of high school. Plenty of bigs cannot take their size and translate it into NBA excellence. LA risked it with Bynum, added a lot of good coaching, and now it's paying off. That's how the game is played.

The Allen Iverson for Chauncy trade was also fine. Detroit made no bones about the fact that they were blowing up the team in order to have cap space this summer. They tanked the season. As they won two championships in the last decade, I think they probably have the right to do so. And in the end, Iverson is a proven commodity in the league... he's a scorer with decent passing skills who can get you 20 points plus per game if you let him have shots.

Chauncy is also a known commodity: a point guard who can score and run an offense well. Denver thought he could help their team, so they took a chance on trading for him.

Was the trade 100% equitable for both teams? Not really, no. Iverson has proved to be more of a problem that Detroit probably imagined, and Chauncy has been better for Denver than I think anyone expected. This is fine.

But when teams are able to give up what amounts to a pile of garbage in exchange for a great player, I don't think that's fair.

And there you have it. Find me another trade in NBA history that is egregiously inequitable as this one was.

Most spoiler-iffic trailer ever

Warning: if you are interested in the upcoming TV miniseries (TV show? Made-for-TV movie?) V on ABC, then you probably shouldn't watch this. I realize it's a remake from a 1983 two-part miniseries on NBC, but I was an infant then, and I had no knowledge of it before today. 

However, if you don't care about being spoiled, then watch away, and then read below.

I've never seen a more spoiler-iffic trailer in my life. Earthquake happens! Juliet (don't know the actress' name nor her character's name here, so she's Juliet) freaks out, calls her son, says she'll come get him. Meantime, it's revealed the earthquake is due to a big ol' Independence Day ship hovering over NYC and there are more over every major city on Earth. Scene of Juliet trying to get to her son, says she's an FBI agent, drama! Will she get to her kid! Then the drama is entirely removed as she finds her son no problem ten seconds later. 

See the pattern here?

Aliens appear to be friendly (and hot), but there's this movement among some humans to resist their involvement on Earth. There's a big science vs. faith motif. Juliet's son gets involved with the aliens. Turns out the aliens aren't really hot, they're just wearing hot costumes and are actually slimy and gross. 

End of trailer, and now you know everything about this thing except for how it ends. Does Earth triumph against the alien invaders, or not? 

It's the polar opposite of how Abrams handles thing. There is no mystery box here. 

So yeah. What could have been an interesting show for me is now entirely ruined because whoever is producing/directing this thing has no problems revealing the entire story in a two-minute trailer. And maybe they don't care. Maybe they know they're just remaking a 1983 miniseries and assume most people know what will happen already. 

It just bugs me. 

Greg Oden Flickr stream

Just check it out. Be sure to Show Info.

J.J. Abrams owns me

J.J. Abrams owns me. I'm a devoted fan of Lost and Fringe, I liked Cloverfield a lot and Star Trek, which I saw yesterday, blew me away. Okay, so I never watched Alias, but I suspect I wouldn't like it much, anyway. 

Abrams' ability to excel at every aspect of film and television is remarkable. Technical excellence in special effects as well as outstanding performances from (usually) unknown actors and a good story... to achieve all of this consistently indicates 1.) he works his tail off, 2.) he surrounds himself with good people and 3.) he's gifted. 

I think he's working his way to becoming a name that will be known for a long time to come.

I was linked to this Youtube video on a comment for a movie review of Star Trek. I don't think I'd ever seen Abrams speak before... anything from Lost usually comes from Damon Lindelof or Carlton Cruse, the show's producers. 

So here's the presentation. If you're an Abrams fan, I think you'll find it interesting.

Analysis of the Dallas/Denver series

A comeback