Pay Your Rates

The Warriors have bought out the last two years (via this Tom Ziller FanHouse article) of Adonal Foyle's albatross contract, signifying the end of Chris Mullin's purge of his less-than-stellar first few years as GM. I'm guardedly excited to get arguably the worst contract in the NBA off the books, but, without knowing the exact terms of the buyout, I will reserve judgment and simply lament that I won't get to say that one of the best guys in the league plays for my favorite team. What really excites me about this buyout is that it suggests another move will occur soon. If that doesn't happen, though, I fear Mullin will have missed a chance to take advantage of one of next offseason's best expiring contracts.

On Draft Night '97, I remember yelling at the radio (we did not yet have cable) that the Warriors should have taken Tracy McGrady. History has proven me correct, but I've always been a fan of Adonal, even if more for his off-court personality than for his on-court performances. That said, he was a decent rebounder/defender in his best years, and I still think he could be moderately productive on a slow-it-down team. The Warriors are not constructed to do anything close to slowing it down, of course, so getting rid of the contract was a good move if only for that reason. I'll miss the guy, but only on an emotional level.

In terms of depth, I'm not sure the buyout really changes anything. The Warriors had little post depth last year and weren't going to have much this year either. The deal could have some effect on team chemistry and general locker room morale, but this team belongs to Baron Davis. I'm not even sure any players have been around long enough to truly appreciate what Adonal's ten years of service stood for.


The roster implications of this deal are quite interesting. Before buying out Adonal, the Warriors had 15 players under contract. That number does not include Mickael Pietrus, who was given a qualifying offer at the beginning of the summer and thus has the choice to return. So, as of now, the Warriors have 14 players under contract, leaving one spot open. That means one of the following things has to happen: (1) a trade that brings back one more player than they give up, (2) Pietrus comes back, (3) a sign-and-trade involving Pietrus, (4) the team keeps an open roster spot (unlikely). Of these options, I think (2) and (3) are the most likely, although I won't speculate about the specifics of any deal right now.

I want to make it clear that this buyout needs to lead to a real trade for it to be an incredibly smart move instead of just a good one. The buyout money still applies to the salary cap, so there's not a great difference between paying Adonal for sitting on the bench and paying him for sitting at home; this situation is not analogous to that of Steve Francis, who the Blazers brass thought might be a bad influence on the young 'uns in Portland. If no move happens, Mullin just squandered an opportunity to hold one of the most coveted expiring contracts in the league next offseason. The Lakers outright released Brian Grant instead of waiting for his expiring contract a few years ago, and I bet Kupchak now wishes he'd kept and moved it for a serviceable player.


But that's all idle speculation. For now, let us appreciate one of the most impressive people in the NBA and perhaps the only GM in the NBA with the balls to admit that he made five poor decisions in his first years on the job. Quite shockingly, Mullin has rectified all of those mistakes, and the Warriors' future looks brighter for it.

For those of you haven't already, it's worth checking out Adonal's website democracymatters.org. Some good work going on there.

Human, All Too Human

After the Warriors' upset of the Mavs last spring, commentators all over the internet, print, and television media claimed that Dirk Nowitzki had a lot of soul-searching to do. Well, it seems like he took that advice to heart. NBA.com's Johannes Berendt reports:

"We [Dirk and longtime coach Holger Geschwindner] toured five weeks through Australia, New Zealand and Tahiti. With a rucksack. That was about the only place in the world where nobody would recognize me and I could move somewhat freely," Nowitzki stated. "At Ayers Rock a few tourists noticed me but the trip was just right to clean my mind."

Down under, the Dallas Mavericks star was looking for answers.

"I have been exploring the sense of life. I haven't entirely found it yet but I will keep looking," he said with a smile.

Yes, Dirk spent five weeks on a life-considering backpacking trip through Oceania. Once I got over the hilarity of imagining Dirk on his form of an Australian walkabout, I decided that Dirk's introspective qualities are admirable, and I bet few NBA stars share them. However, this story also points to why he doesn't seem cut out for leading a team to a championship.It's possible that this trip will clear Dirk's head enough that he achieves some kind of zen relationship with the Larry O'Brien Trophy, but history has shown us that the most successful basketball players have had an unnatural obsession with doing everything possible to win. Namely, they spend the entire offseason working on their jumpers and shoring up their weaknesses.

To a certain extent, Dirk is doing just that: the article mentions that he's been working with Geschwindner quite intensely over the last few weeks. Of course, it also says that he's living at home, getting "the full-service treat from [his] mother," who irons his shirts, does his laundry, and tells him when to get haircuts. Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like the best way to improve one's toughness. Can you imagine Kobe doing the same thing?

I can't blame Dirk for wanting to go to Australia to clear his head. The trip actually sounds pretty cool, and he sounds fairly down-to-earth about the whole thing. I'd actually probably like him as a person. Unfortunately, his personality is exactly the kind of thing that makes him a frustrating basketball player; Dirk would rather get his mind right instead of learning some post moves. This trip might be the best thing for him in the long run, but I'm almost sure next spring we'll all see the same picture we did this playoffs: a confused, upset Dirk, wondering where everything went wrong.

We Demand To Be Taken Seriously

The news of Reggie Miller’s possible return to the NBA confused and upset me quite a bit this morning. Should this move happen, I wouldn’t begrudge Reggie’s wanting to play another year, or even his hypocrisy. But why, with the little cap room they have left, would the Celtics want a player who needs plays run for him and doesn’t fill one of the team's many needs? Even outside of these issues, picking up Miller runs the risk of turning this year’s Celtics into a sideshow attraction when Pierce, Garnett, and Allen all appear to be on a collective mission.

While I’m not entirely certain why Reggie would want to return to a team that’s still a few players away from being a real championship contender, I have no idea why Ainge would be the one to approach him. Remember when Scottie Pippen wanted to work out for the Lakers last winter. There’s a reason Mitch Kupchak didn’t jump at the chance to sign him. (Danny, you know things are bad when I’m comparing you unfavorably to Kupchak.) As Tom Ziller said earlier today, Miller’s not a difference maker in any situation. The Celtics have too little room under the cap to use it on another scorer, particularly one who hasn’t played in a while and has always needed to get the ball coming off of screens in structured plays. On a related note, SimonOnSports pointed out that the Celtics already signed Eddie House, another player who needs to shoot, after the Garnett trade. What does Reggie bring that isn’t already there?

There isn’t a bevy of terrific role players on the market right now, but Boston should at least take a chance on a guy at a position of need. Plus, if Ainge wanted to spend the veteran minimum on Miller, then he should have just shelled out the extra money to bring on Brevin Knight, who recently jumped to the Clippers for $2 million/year, to play point and mentor Rajon Rondo. I’m not a fan of Ainge’s Scot Pollard signing (you know, because Scot Pollard’s ridiculous and couldn’t get off the bench in Cleveland), but at least he fills a need and doesn’t have to shoot to be successful.


Last week, when the Celtics traded for Garnett, I praised Ainge for finally providing an identity for the organization. It’s impossible not to have a semblance of a game plan now that the roster boasts three players of all-star caliber, but Ainge is doing his best to throw in role players that don’t fit the ostensible blueprint. Now, it is the end of the summer, and Ainge certainly doesn’t have a full list of pieces from which he can pick and choose his players. However, that doesn’t excuse him from making sensible moves. Reggie Miller is not a sensible move.

Luckily, it doesn’t appear that there’s a great chance of Miller heading to Boston. He still hasn’t made up his mind, and in the end I think he’ll end up back on TNT talking like a bad Bill Cosby impersonation and using words like “adversadility.” Ainge, though, should not get a free pass should this deal not work out. Pierce, Garnett, and Allen do not deserve Scot Pollard and Reggie Miller. I’ve already echoed Billups’s comments on this trade, but I’ll quote him this time: “It's about about three guys getting one more chance.” Don’t screw it up for them, Danny. Don’t make this team a joke.

Damn Right I'll Rise Again

So maybe he didn't exactly demand a trade, but "It's time for me to move on, and the Lakers are the team I want Indiana to trade me to," sounds close enough for me. From everything Jermaine has said, and Bird's responses, it seems to me that they have to be past the point of no return. I agree with Abbott that you don't even entertain the thought of trading your superstar in the media unless you've already resigned yourself to pulling the trigger. And despite Jermaine's attempt to backtrack, you can't really ever come back from saying that you'd like to be somewhere else.


So now that we've agreed Indiana is moving JO sometime soon, the only questions remaining are to where and at what price. (Hint: the answers I want to hear are "the Lakers" and "for cheap," so the rest of this post will be my wishful thinking/predicting why that's going to happen)

First off, why the Bulls haven't entered the conversation is a total mystery to me. JO is exactly what that team needs to make it over the top, they have much better pieces to offer than anyone, and he's probably going to be had in a firesale. But Paxson never really seemed too anxious to get Garnett or Gasol, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by his complacency now.

So I'm going to operate from the unsubstantiated assumption that only the two teams I've consistently heard in the rumor mills are serious suitors: New Jersey and Los Angeles. Apparently New Jersey already offered Jefferson, Krstic, and Collins, but Indiana wanted Marcus Williams instead of Collins. With or without Marcus in the package, that's probably significantly better talent-wise than anything the Lakers can offer that doesn't include Odom.

Despite that, there are a few factors that put the Lakers over the top in my mind. First off, if Indiana's going to trade their franchise cornerstone (which we've already agreed they're doing; no going back now), then they have to commit fully to rebuilding. In Kwame the Lakers have a fat expiring contract to offer that New Jersey doesn't. Bynum is younger than Krstic and has a higher ceiling. Same to a lesser extent holds for Crittenton compared to Marcus. Furthermore, if you're going full-on rebuilding, I'm not sure why you'd want to commit to the 54 million owed to Jefferson over the next four years. Finally, while I've never bought into the don't-trade-in-conference rule, GMs seem to pretty consistently. With all that in mind, I think it's safe to say that the Lakers get the edge.

So now that we can all agree that a) Jermaine is going to be traded, and b) it's going to be to the Lakers, all that leaves is: at what cost? I'll spare you most of my full-blown shitty logic this time around, but basically because of Jermaine's quote, "I want to make it clear that I don't want to gut a team that I come to because then it'll be like I'm in Indiana all over again," I've pretty much decided that Lamar's not going to be included. I guess I'll save my analysis for how fricking awesome that will be for when it happens, but suffice it to say, the thought of a Fisher/Kobe/Luke/Lamar/JO lineup has me (and most Lakers fans) officially stoked.

New Skin for the Old Ceremony

This post marks the start of a new feature on Plissken, one I’ve titled “Bloggin’ to the Oldies” in a delicious pun. Essentially, I (and possibly Carter, too) will watch one of the many NBA’s Greatest Games we have on our DVR and write about our impressions. Because this kind of exercise has the potential to devolve into a bunch of comments reiterating that Michael Jordan was really good at scoring, I’ll do my best to relate the style of play and players’ games to the NBA of today. This feature is still a work in progress, though, so please feel free to comment with some constructive criticism.

Today, I’ll tackle Game 7 of the 1969 NBA Finals between the Lakers and Celtics. This game doubled as the last game for both Sam Jones and Bill Russell, although the announcers’ reactions at the end of the game suggest that only Jones had announced that he was playing for the last time.

Unfortunately, NBATV massacred this game by only showing the fourth quarter. For a channel that usually does a great job with replays, it seems odd that they’d choose to show just one quarter of a game featuring Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, John Havlicek, and Sam Jones. As far as I can tell, this game’s also the only one from that era in the regular rotation. This choice wouldn’t be so bad if Wilt hadn’t hurt his knee midway through the quarter; essentially, viewers are robbed of watching one of the greatest players in league history. Did the tape get destroyed in a mysterious vault fire? Were the Pete Maravich dribbling drills on after the game really necessary? (Okay, those are actually pretty cool.)



What’s here is actually quite interesting, though. The most obvious thing about the game is that there’s no three-point line. Oddly enough, offenses still operated mostly the same way—or at least the way they do when teams have excellent post scorers. The Lakers regularly worked it inside to Wilt with the intention of sending it back outside for open jumpers. The clearest difference, though, is that those shooters set up much closer to the basket. Thus, you get situations like this one: Wilt passes out from the block to Jerry West at the free throw line. Would that ever happen now? It wasn’t even an odd angle, and there were four defenders in our right around the paint on the play. With no three-point line, everything happens in a much tighter space.

I’m no fan of what three-pointers have done to current players’ midrange games (or lack thereof), but watching this game made it clear to me that the NBA currently needs the three-point line if it wants offenses to score. Today’s extremely athletic players simply could not play in a confined space; defenders would roam all over the place and block many more shots. Teams likely would have adjusted and moved outside, but it’s still way too tempting to stay close to the basket when there’s no incentive to shoot from outside. If the purists got their wish, I think they’d see a very ugly brand of basketball for quite a while.


Referees still appeared to control the game way too much in 1969: Russell, Wilt, Jones, and Havlicek each had five fouls with about 7:30 left in regulation, and Sam Jones fouled out thirty seconds later. As such, no Wilt/Russell banging inside, and the legitimately thrilling (and series MVP) Jones didn’t get to finish out his career on the floor.

Jones, by the way, was the biggest revelation for me. I’d always heard about him as an important member of the Celtics championship teams, but history seems to have put him a notch or below Havlicek, Cousy, and Russell in the Boston pantheon, subsequently leaving him out of the history books for the casual fan. This might be an odd thing to say about one of the 50 Greatest, but I wish he got talked about more often and hope I get the chance to see more of his games.


The Wilt injury made it nearly impossible to see his full game (damn you NBATV!), although the few minutes I saw made it clear that he’d be able to hang with any franchise center of the modern era. Watching guys like Wilt make it clear that while the game has changed a lot in the last forty years, it’s still basically played the same way.

Bill Russell is a more difficult case, although I fully understand that I’m fairly ignorant on this case. Russell’s defense was clearly awesome, particularly on one play in the last minute during which he forced Mel Counts (Wilt’s replacement) to drive behind the basket and force up a hideous scoop shot. Russell’s offense was another story. On two separate occasions, he made a decent move to get clear looks from two feet, and in both he cases he bricked each attempt. This might seem like blasphemy, and please correct me if I’m just being stupid, but at this point in his career Russell seemed to have the same offense/defense split as Ben Wallace. Or maybe he just never worked on offense because he had Jones and Havlicek there to do most of the scoring.

Perhaps the worst part of having NBATV truncate the game was that I didn’t get a great feel for Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and John Havlicek. All three were clearly very good (and West and Havlicek’s unreal stat lines from the series prove it), but I can’t make any intelligent comments on any of them.

As a Warriors fan, I was very interested to see Don Nelson. Watching him play, one can see why he’s so good at teaching players to shrug off their mistakes. During one offensive possession, Nellie took the ball at the top of the key facing the near sideline so that he was looking right at Jerry West, who already had defensive position. Nelson then ran right into West, executing one of the worst charges I’ve ever seen. Instead of getting down on himself, though, Nellie hit a tough jumper with a hand in his face on the very next possession. Just goes to show that there’s always some continuity in the NBA.

A true prince of the tubes has uploaded the fourth quarter of this game to YouTube. Embedding's been disabled, but check out these links to Part 1 and Part 2.

New Paths to Helicon

Preetom Bhattacharya of hoopsworld.com is reporting that the Warriors will sign Matt Barnes tomorrow to a one-year contract (article found via GSoM). Once it looked like Mullin had no chance of getting Garnett, I made it clear that I think resigning Barnes--particularly for just a year or two--would be the best move for this offseason. Now that it looks like things have turned out exactly that way, I don't think I have much to add on the Barnes subject, but the way that the Warriors have gone about their free agent business this offseason bears some deeper analysis. Along with the recent signing of Austin Croshere for one season, the Barnes deal exhibits the foresight that Mullin has brought to his dealings this summer.

As I said last month, Barnes is a much better option than Mickael Pietrus for the Warriors if only because he appears to have turned into a decent outside shooter. (No idea what happens with Pietrus now, by the way. I wouldn't mind seeing him signed-and-traded along with Sarunas Jasikevicius or Patrick O'Bryant, though. Doesn't matter who we get in return.) Barnes also becomes an important rotation player when he contributes the sort of floor game he did in last year's playoffs, although I wouldn't run to Vegas to bet on that becoming a regular occurrence.

It's that uncertainty surrounding Barnes's play last year that left him few options other than to take the Warriors' offer. Most teams likely took issue with Barnes being a probable "system player," but I applaud Mullin for not buying that Barnes is a sure thing just because he was successful last season. Barnes was good, but his season still had its valleys. The one-year deal gives the Warriors the chance to judge if Barnes can be consistent while also giving him the chance to make big money on the open market next season.

The other recent deal by the Warriors shows similar smarts. To be sure, I'm not ecstatic about Austin Croshere considering KG's name has been thrown around the whole summer,
but I don't see many bad things about this signing. Basketball-wise, Croshere can hit some threes and has experience playing with Nelson. As Say Hey said a few days ago, it might have made more sense for Nelson to take a chance on a possible sleeper, but I really don't see anything awful about picking up an older player, either. Croshere was considered especially bad when he was with the Mavericks because he was way, way overpaid. That's not an issue now that he's been signed for the veteran minimum. (The one thing I really don't get about this deal is that Baron and Croshere are known to dislike each other. Hopefully they'll get things right during camp.)


Evidence now suggests that Mullin focused on giving the team long-term flexibility once the Garnett deal fell through. (Actually, taken out of the Garnett context, everything from this summer seems to have been about keeping the future open.) Given the options, these one-year contracts are exactly what Mullin needed to do. This next season likely won't result in a better finish than the conference semifinals, but nothing short of Garnett would have bettered last year's showing. Golden State still has an excellent shot at making the playoffs next season, especially now that Elton Brand will be gone until February at the earliest.

Most importantly, giving people long-term contracts would have been a problem considering that Nelson probably won't be back in 08-09. I would bet that the team hires another coach who likes to run, but no one does anything close to what Nellie does, so creating the roster of the future based on his specifications would be a mistake. As I've said before, with a lot of important players coming off the books next summer (even Adonal will turn into an expiring contract!), Mullin can mold the next version of the Warriors without having to worry about players picked specifically for Nellieball.


One other Warriors-related note: everyone should check out this immeasurably terrible LA Times article on Baron's respective relationships with Oakland and LA. Fear the Beard and Tom Ziller have both written excellent reactions, so I will defer to them for analysis. I just can't believe Kurt Streeter's editors published this monstrosity.

Pendulous Skin (West Edition)

The Plissken Mascot Spectacular reaches its exciting conclusion today with the breakdown of the Western Conference. For those who missed my look at the Eastern Conference mascots, I’m interested in how mascots match up with their respective franchises. The only mascots to get my arbitrary “perfect fit” ranking in the East were Benny (Bulls), Hooper the Horse (Detroit), and Harry Hawk (Atlanta), so the West teams have the chance to assert dominance in this field, too. However, I imagine they'll have a tough time rivaling the supreme insanity of Stuff the Magic Dragon (Orlando), Rufus Lynx (Charlotte), Bowser the Dog (Indiana), Hip Hop the Rabbit (Philly), and Burnie (Miami). Let’s git to gittin’.

Northwest Division


Denver Nuggets
Mascot: Rocky the Cougar
Description: Golden boy cougar
Strengths: Clean, classic mascot look.
Weaknesses: Must have some skeletons in his closet.
Fit with Current Team: Pretty awful. AI, Melo, and JR Smith all have less-than-clean reputations.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Eduardo Najera (aesthetically)



Minnesota Timberwolves
Mascot: Crunch
Description: Asshole wolf
Strengths: Being a dick.
Weaknesses: Making friends.
Fit with Current Team: Pretty good. I can’t imagine anyone’s too excited to be playing for the T-Wolves these days, so reactions like these from Crunch make sense.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Rashad McCants


Portland Trail Blazers
Mascot: Blaze the Trail Cat
Description: Gray mountain lion modeled on the Pink Panther
Strengths: Appears to be a solid mascot with no awful history.
Weaknesses: A bit uninspiring.
Fit with Current Team: Decent. “Good citizen” label fits, but this Blazers team is going to eat faces. Blaze needs to find his animal core if he wants to roll with Oden and Roy.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Channing Frye



(many thanks to Bethlehem Shoals for recently posting the video)
Seattle SuperSonics
Mascot: Squatch
Description: Hairier Chewbacca or taller, cleaned-up Cousin Itt
Strengths: The coolest-looking mascot in the league.
Weaknesses: Image threatens to eclipse solid skills as mascot.
Fit with Current Team: Up in the air. New ownership appears to be looking for fresh start with rookies and new city, which would render Squatch irrelevant. (Note: Squatch is maybe the best reason to keep the Sonics in Seattle.)
Closest Match on Current Roster: Robert Swift


Utah Jazz
Mascot: Bear
Description: Karl Malone in bear form; “The Energy Solutions Arena of mascots,” according to Carter
Strengths: Riding motorcycles. Getting the job done.
Weaknesses: Gets said job done in as boring a way as possible. Any endorsement opportunity.



Fit with Current Team: Frustratingly solid. Current team is capable of playing an exciting brand of basketball (see Warriors series), but Sloan will always make them retreat to structure.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Carlos Boozer

Southwest Division



Dallas Mavericks
Mascots: Mavs Man and Champ the Horse
Description: Man made out of a basketball and his blue horse
Strengths: Mavs Man always gets first pick on playground because it’s his ball. I’ve never seen a blue horse before, and I wanted to see a blue horse.
Weaknesses: Least imaginative names ever. Bring nothing new to the table.
Fit with Current Team: Awful. Call Dirk a loser if you want, but the Mavericks are fun. DeSagana, Dirk, and Pops are great names, too.
Closest Matches on Current Roster: Josh Howard (Mavs Man if he were a real player) and Greg Buckner (Champ the Horse)


Houston Rockets
Mascot: Clutch the Bear
Description: Most adorable bear in the universe on the surface, absolute terror underneath
Strengths: Harmless facade tricks victims into false sense of safety.



Weaknesses: Occasionally takes the joke too far, albeit hilariously.



Fit with Current Team: Almost perfect. Most of team looks extremely harmless/disinterested on surface (T-Mac, Yao, Franchise), but amazing talents lie dormant just waiting to strike. The only issue is that Clutch’s name doesn’t jive with recent performances in the playoffs.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Tracy McGrady


Memphis Grizzlies
Mascot: Griz
Description: A bluish grizzly bear
Strengths: Eating Timothy Treadwell.
Weaknesses: Even more unimaginative name than “Mavs Man.” Sandwiches.
Fit with Current Team: Poor. Will need to improve conditioning if he wants to run with Iavaroni.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Damon Stoudamire


New Orleans Hornets
Mascot: Hugo
Description: A slightly effeminate teal hornet
Strengths: Funny without being inexplicable.
Weaknesses: Feels like a holdover from another era.
Fit with Current Team: Poor. Hornets are clearly going in another direction, but Hugo’s still in the spotlight.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Peja Stojakovic


San Antonio Spurs
Mascot: The Coyote
Description: Basehead coyote
Strengths: Ruthless killer.
Weaknesses: Kills for drug money.
Fit with Current Team: Egregiously terrible. Lacks even keel needed to play in Pop’s system.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Marcus Williams (the one from Arizona)

Pacific Division


Golden State Warriors
Mascot: Thunder
Description: Anthropomorphized blue spandex
Strengths: Extremely athletic.
Weaknesses: Way too clean of a look.
Fit with Current Team: Could do worse. Athleticism would buy him minutes on the wing, but not rough enough around the edges to be a team leader.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Mickael Pietrus (and even he’s too rough. That makes me proud.)


Los Angeles Clippers
Mascot: Frankie Muniz (Billy Crystal a better choice as a fan, but Frankie is more of a mascot and needs the work)
Description: Has-been actor at age 21
Strengths: Apparently owns a lot of fast cars.
Weaknesses: Clearly became a Clippers fan just so he’d be a recognizable celebrity. No longer a celebrity.
Fit with Current Team: Solid. Only time will tell if the playoff success of two seasons ago was a fluke, but for now I’m willing to put the Clippers way above Frankie on the Hollywood power rankings.
Fit with Historical Team: Perfect. The Clippers will always play fifth fiddle to the Lakers in LA.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Jared Jordan



Los Angeles Lakers
Mascot: Mulholland Man
Description: Jack Nicholson
Strengths: Coolest guy in his profession. Winner of multiple Academy Awards.
Weaknesses: Devolved into self-parody. Drugs.
Fit with Current Team: Perfect. Lakers still hold a lot of sway over the NBA landscape, but they’re seriously diminished when compared to their past champions.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Phil Jackson


Phoenix Suns
Mascot: Go-Rilla
Description: Trampolining gorilla in people clothes
Strengths: Experience. Flashy without being obnoxious.
Weaknesses: Hasn’t changed game much in recent years.
Fit with Current Team: Nearly perfect. Suns have spent a few years in D’Antoni Ball, but it may be time for them to admit they need some new pieces.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Steve Nash


Sacramento Kings
Mascot: Slamson the Lion
Description: Entirely nondescript lion
Strengths: Fairly regal look. Unintentionally hilarious name.
Weaknesses: Boring in its simplicity.
Fit with Current Team: Great. The Kings haven’t been too interesting for a while now.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Spencer Hawes

What Did We Learn?
The West might be the vastly superior conference on the court, but—with a few notable exceptions (e.g. Squatch, Clutch, Mulholland Man)—it can’t compete with the East in terms of sheer mascot lunacy and relevancy.