Marc Stein's article assays 6 possible destinations for Kevin Garnett this summer. Like many a lazy article on this topic, however, Stein doesn't bother to check whether his scenarios are even possible under the salary cap - although he does mention that all of Garnett's trade kicker ($6.75 million) must, as of July 1, be added to his $22 million salary for 2007-08 to make the deal work under the cap. That is, if traded, Kevin is owed $28.75 million next season, and so a team must come within 25% of that in what salary it sends out - a minimum of about $23 million.
So, most of the deals Stein mentions ARE NOT POSSIBLE under the salary cap. That makes most of his article bogus. For example, to pair KG with both Paul Pierce and Ray Allen, Boston would have to trade virtually the rest of the team - including bad contracts like Scalabrine's - to get the deal to work. In a league that has 5 players on the floor at a time, 3 man rosters aren't a winning strategy.
For Phoenix, Amare plus the expiring contracts of Thomas and Piatkowski aren't enough either - Phoenix would have to add more, non-expiring contracts, like Diaw and Barbosa. Only the Lakers could easily absorb the hit without losing most of their roster, and even they don't have enough expiring contracts (only Kwame). It looks like Minnesota will need a 3 or 4-team trade or must give up its hope of dramatic salary cap off-loading - once more, it looks like McHale waited too late to make a deal.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Doomsday, nanotechnology, grey goo and the ice-nine scenario
Ice-nine is a fictional substance, invented by Kurt Vonnegut in his novel Cat’s Cradle. In the novel, a fictional Nobel laureate physicist, Felix Hoenikker, creates ice-nine as a secret weapon. Ice-nine takes the form of an alternative structure of water, one solid at normal room temperature. When a single crystal of ice-nine is brought into contact with regular liquid water, a phase transition ensues that causes the molecules of liquid water to arrange themselves into a solid, ice-nine, that is similar to regular ice, but will only melt at temperatures above 114.4 degrees Fahrenheit (45.8 degrees Celsius). The result, of course, is that all the water in the world will freeze and life as we know it would cease to exist.
Vonnegut was using ice-nine as a metaphor for the potential doomsday effect of nuclear weapons; when scientists in the Manhattan Project were first developing the atomic bomb, they first had to do calculations to make sure that the first atomic explosion would not burn so hot as to ignite all the oxygen in the atmosphere (and hence kill us all). Their calculations soon showed, as we all now know, that nuclear weapons have no such ability to cause a runaway effect. But nanobots that feed on carbon and self-replicate will.
The key is the self-replication – like cells in a human body, their internal instructions will include a program for taking materials from the environment (‘food’) and making copies of themselves. Except, well, nanobots will be made of carbon, and have no natural enemies. Hence, if they begin making copies of themselves, they will do so in an exponentially explosive manner, and will presumably take carbon from wherever in the environment they can get it. And guess what – our bodies are made of a great deal of carbon! Hence, the ‘grey goo’ scenario – not long after the first self-replicating carbon-based nanobot is created, we (and everything else made of carbon) will become nothing but a ‘grey goo’.
Hence, in a field called the ethics of ‘existential risk’, a key point of my practical research is to encourage laws that prohibit the development of self-replicating nanotechnology, and closely regulate nanotech in general. Otherwise, self-replicating nanotechnology will be the last invention we humans ever make.
Vonnegut was using ice-nine as a metaphor for the potential doomsday effect of nuclear weapons; when scientists in the Manhattan Project were first developing the atomic bomb, they first had to do calculations to make sure that the first atomic explosion would not burn so hot as to ignite all the oxygen in the atmosphere (and hence kill us all). Their calculations soon showed, as we all now know, that nuclear weapons have no such ability to cause a runaway effect. But nanobots that feed on carbon and self-replicate will.
The key is the self-replication – like cells in a human body, their internal instructions will include a program for taking materials from the environment (‘food’) and making copies of themselves. Except, well, nanobots will be made of carbon, and have no natural enemies. Hence, if they begin making copies of themselves, they will do so in an exponentially explosive manner, and will presumably take carbon from wherever in the environment they can get it. And guess what – our bodies are made of a great deal of carbon! Hence, the ‘grey goo’ scenario – not long after the first self-replicating carbon-based nanobot is created, we (and everything else made of carbon) will become nothing but a ‘grey goo’.
Hence, in a field called the ethics of ‘existential risk’, a key point of my practical research is to encourage laws that prohibit the development of self-replicating nanotechnology, and closely regulate nanotech in general. Otherwise, self-replicating nanotechnology will be the last invention we humans ever make.
Wisdom and the meaning of life, part 1
This is a version of a talk I've given to freshmen honor students....
Philosophy - gets to ask Big questions: where the universe come from? Does God exist? Who and what am I? And, the biggie - what’s the Meaning of Life?
1 Recursive pun-ishment - the meaning of life in a meta-language is `life; not exactly what we want, though ...
2 Then - perhaps we want a definition of life as that which uses energy for homeostasis, has a cellular structure and organization based on DNA, and reproduces itself.
Still no? ...
3 Then perhaps existentialism: the meaning of life is whatever we give it - it has no prior meaning, but the ‘meaning’ in life is what is given it by persons.
4 Or: the meaning of life is to fulfill our purpose or destiny - doing what we, as persons, ought to be doing, fulfilling our role excellently (an attitude common to both theism and virtue ethics).
5 So what is a person? Animals are alive, but their lives have (as far as we know) no intrinsic meaning - so meaning requires a particular kind of consciousness involving self-awareness and rationality.
6 Agency - the capacity for rational exercise of free will - and hence autonomy - being a law unto oneself - are the key.
7 So how does one successfully give meaning to life? Is there a right answer? Existentialism - no, it’s our free choice - this bs, as there are clearly lives more and less worth living, as every existentialist actually believes.
8 So God? Meaning derived from relationship to transcendent being, a Creator and Sustainer? But unclear answer at best - and only works if it’s really true. Finding out the God you believed in doesn’t exist/ doesn’t work or act as promised is deflating, and through our natural inclination to disregard negative evidence (confirmation bias), often causes war and irrationality over human history - and lots of unclear thinking, re ambiguity and vagueness.
9 Re the problems of argument about God(s) from religious experience - at most one interpretation can be correct, and hence logic dictates that everyone else has been fundamentally mistaken about the true nature of their experience – at most one of the tens of thousands of religions in world history can be entirely right about God. If there’s no way to choose between them, we have an overwhelming inductive argument that everyone is thus mistaken, and hence there is no God.
10 To argue otherwise first demands clarity of terms: First, what is (one’s concept of) God? It makes no sense to argue about whether or not something exists if you have no clear idea of what one is arguing about. Discussing the existence of horses is a different topic than the existence of unicorns, and if you're not sure which you're discussing, not much profitable will ensue. Further (and to return to our topic), even if God exists, why should Its Will determine the meaning of our lives - re the fallacy of Divine Command Theory - the good is what it is not because of god’s will, but god’s will is good, if it is, because it follows the Good? (Compare Moral order argument for God - we discover a moral order to things, and best explanation is to postulate a god creating a preexisting moral order in universe, as designer - but did piss-poor job, as crappy history of life on earth and evolution suggests.)
If these choices don't work to explain the meaning of life, what does? My answer comes in Part 2 - stay tuned....
Philosophy - gets to ask Big questions: where the universe come from? Does God exist? Who and what am I? And, the biggie - what’s the Meaning of Life?
1 Recursive pun-ishment - the meaning of life in a meta-language is `life; not exactly what we want, though ...
2 Then - perhaps we want a definition of life as that which uses energy for homeostasis, has a cellular structure and organization based on DNA, and reproduces itself.
Still no? ...
3 Then perhaps existentialism: the meaning of life is whatever we give it - it has no prior meaning, but the ‘meaning’ in life is what is given it by persons.
4 Or: the meaning of life is to fulfill our purpose or destiny - doing what we, as persons, ought to be doing, fulfilling our role excellently (an attitude common to both theism and virtue ethics).
5 So what is a person? Animals are alive, but their lives have (as far as we know) no intrinsic meaning - so meaning requires a particular kind of consciousness involving self-awareness and rationality.
6 Agency - the capacity for rational exercise of free will - and hence autonomy - being a law unto oneself - are the key.
7 So how does one successfully give meaning to life? Is there a right answer? Existentialism - no, it’s our free choice - this bs, as there are clearly lives more and less worth living, as every existentialist actually believes.
8 So God? Meaning derived from relationship to transcendent being, a Creator and Sustainer? But unclear answer at best - and only works if it’s really true. Finding out the God you believed in doesn’t exist/ doesn’t work or act as promised is deflating, and through our natural inclination to disregard negative evidence (confirmation bias), often causes war and irrationality over human history - and lots of unclear thinking, re ambiguity and vagueness.
9 Re the problems of argument about God(s) from religious experience - at most one interpretation can be correct, and hence logic dictates that everyone else has been fundamentally mistaken about the true nature of their experience – at most one of the tens of thousands of religions in world history can be entirely right about God. If there’s no way to choose between them, we have an overwhelming inductive argument that everyone is thus mistaken, and hence there is no God.
10 To argue otherwise first demands clarity of terms: First, what is (one’s concept of) God? It makes no sense to argue about whether or not something exists if you have no clear idea of what one is arguing about. Discussing the existence of horses is a different topic than the existence of unicorns, and if you're not sure which you're discussing, not much profitable will ensue. Further (and to return to our topic), even if God exists, why should Its Will determine the meaning of our lives - re the fallacy of Divine Command Theory - the good is what it is not because of god’s will, but god’s will is good, if it is, because it follows the Good? (Compare Moral order argument for God - we discover a moral order to things, and best explanation is to postulate a god creating a preexisting moral order in universe, as designer - but did piss-poor job, as crappy history of life on earth and evolution suggests.)
If these choices don't work to explain the meaning of life, what does? My answer comes in Part 2 - stay tuned....
Friday, June 29, 2007
What the Clippers should do, 2007-8
The Clipper nightmare imagined:
Summer 2008 – Shaun Livingston has made only a halting recovery in the 20 games played since he returned from his knee reconstruction, and signs are the Clippers are unconvinced he’s worth the money and will allow him to leave via restricted free agency this summer, joining Sam Cassell, Quentin Ross, Corey Maggette and Elton Brand as free agents on the way out of town. The hot rumor has the Spurs after Brand, who at this time (pending the draft and other possible re-signings) have only have three players under contract -- Parker, Ginobili and Duncan. Now that KG and Marion have re-upped with their teams, all signs are that Elton Brand will be a Spur soon and help Tim Duncan in his quest to catch Bill Russell’s record of 11 titles….
How can the Clippers avoid such a return to NBA laughingstock? They will have to take some chances, but there are plausible scenarios for so doing. Let’s begin by assessing the team, and then laying out some scenarios for improving the Clippers.
First, a retrospective: 2005-6 was easily the best season in Clipper history – they crushed Denver in the first round of the playoffs, and took Phoenix to 7 games in the second round; if not for a brain cramp by Daniel Ewing in allowing a literal last-second Raja Bell 3 (or by Coach Dunleavy for putting him in the situation), the Clippers would’ve played Dallas in the conference finals. They then added Phoenix playoff star Tim Thomas to augment a powerful frontcourt rotation, and figured Corey Maggette would have to be healthier than the year before.
So, hopes were thus high heading into the 2006-7 season; pundits universally saw the Clippers as a playoff team, and many saw them making the second round again and winning at least 50 games. The reality was quite a bit different. At the start of the season, every single rotation player (except Cuttino Mobley) was playing worse than the season previous, even Elton Brand, who after an arduous summer playing for Team USA (and then producing a movie and getting married) descended from the stratosphere of a top-5 player in the league to merely all-star level. (And Mobley fell off in the second half of the season.)
Without Elton carrying the team by himself, the dropoff of all the average players to something less spelled big trouble. Especially disappointing was the lack of progress by presumed prodigy Shaun Livingston (and then his season-ending, career-threatening injury), which when combined with Sam Cassell’s regression and renewed fragility made PG play a millstone that sunk their playoff hopes (to mix metaphors).
Meanwhile, Corey Maggette was feuding with Coach Dunleavy over his role (he wanted to start, not be a 6th man) and his defense, and Zeljko Rebraca, a valuable offensive force off the bench in 2005-6, was injured and out for the season, and later released. The Clippers were a dysfunctional bunch, made worse by the evident lack of compatibility in the frontcourt between the star Brand and the prospect Kaman – both played better when the other was out of the game, largely because Kaman selfishly forced shots and disrupted the offense whenever Elton was in the game.
With the season going down the tubes and Daniel Ewing the only healthy PG on the roster, the Clippers signed Jason Hart off waivers and put him in the starting lineup – and miraculously, the Clippers began playing much better. (Maggette started playing much better at this time too, perhaps because the trade deadline passed and he knew he would remain a Clipper for the rest of the season – and injuries forced Dunleavy to reinsert him in the starting lineup.) With a week to go, the Clippers were in 8th place in the West, and despite their vicissitudes, controlled their fate for a playoff spot. But a terrible home loss to Sacramento on the final Sunday of the season (in which everyone but Brand stunk up the joint) meant Golden State would have to lose one of their final two games for the Clips to sneak in – and the Warriors didn’t. The conclusion:
40-42, 4th place Pacific Division, 9th in Western Conference
Being the best team to miss the playoffs only means one gets the last pick in the lottery.
...
In an article entitled “NBA Market Watch: Los Angeles Clippers” by Heather N. Allen, Paul Gearan, and Bradley Sutton, they have a scale that maps players from below to above league average on both offense and defense. I can use their scale to summarize the Clipper roster (and contract status) as follows – using (!) to indicate disagreement with their conclusions:
EB – 2 more seasons, good (well above average) on offense and defense
Cuttino – 3 more, near average on offense but worse on D
CMag, 2 more, good O, average D
QRoss, 1 more, same as Maggette (!! - this is a prima facie rejection of their method, as Ross is clearly better on defense than offense!)
TThomas, 3 more, average on both
Kaman, 4 more, good D (!), bad O
Cassell, 1 more, average on O, bad on D
SLivingston, 2 more, below ave, especially on O (perhaps the trade rumors bothered him, or his knee hurt more than let on, even before the official injury)
Other players - Non-rotation (not enough minutes for meaningful evaluation) with 1 more year on contract –Aaron Williams, Paul Davis
Possible re-sign/ team option: Jason Hart, D Ewing, JSingleton, WConroy, YKorolev
Contract rights to players overseas: Guillermo Diaz, Sofoklis Schortsianitis
Usage (% of possessions) in order, greatest to least:
SCassell, CMag, EB, TThomas, SLiv, Kaman, Mobley, Hart, Ross
(it’s a problem when easily your most efficient player is only 3rd in usage %, despite being the ‘star’ - teamwork and PG play killed the Clips last year.)
....
The Clipper draft – Chad Ford's summary:
It seems safe to say that Thornton could be in the rotation, perhaps even a starter, next season, but duplicates Maggette's skills and role on the team; and Jordan should make the team and could become a backup PG soon.
...
What to do?
If Minnesota wanted to reload with young up and comers, rather than just take expiring contracts, the Clips could make a moderately enticing offer for KG:
KG for Corey Maggette, Tim Thomas, Chris Kaman, Shaun Livingston, and the return of the future Minnesota 1st rounder owed to the Clippers.
That would leave a Clipper team of – EB, KG, PDavis, and AWilliams up front; Cuttino Mobley, AlThornton, QRoss, and JSingleton at the wings, and at PG- Sam Cassell, Jared Jordan, Jason Hart and perhaps Conroy or Ewing. If they signed Papaloukas (likely to require the full midlevel to do so) and brought Schortsianitis over, they would even have experience and depth.
Kaman, Livingston, and Maggette have all been deemed untouchable at various points last season, but the drafting of Al Thornton makes clear that Maggette is on the block, and Livingston’s injury means he is surely dealable if the team wants to win this season. If the Clips do nothing, they appear headed for the lottery again in an increasingly loaded West, and Elton Brand isn’t getting any younger. If owner Donald Sterling is willing to spend, then the pieces above could get a KG, Jermaine O’Neal, or another upgrade from a team looking to build for the future. Otherwise, they should keep Livingston and look at dealing at least Cassell, Brand and Maggette and begin to rebuild themselves.
Summer 2008 – Shaun Livingston has made only a halting recovery in the 20 games played since he returned from his knee reconstruction, and signs are the Clippers are unconvinced he’s worth the money and will allow him to leave via restricted free agency this summer, joining Sam Cassell, Quentin Ross, Corey Maggette and Elton Brand as free agents on the way out of town. The hot rumor has the Spurs after Brand, who at this time (pending the draft and other possible re-signings) have only have three players under contract -- Parker, Ginobili and Duncan. Now that KG and Marion have re-upped with their teams, all signs are that Elton Brand will be a Spur soon and help Tim Duncan in his quest to catch Bill Russell’s record of 11 titles….
How can the Clippers avoid such a return to NBA laughingstock? They will have to take some chances, but there are plausible scenarios for so doing. Let’s begin by assessing the team, and then laying out some scenarios for improving the Clippers.
First, a retrospective: 2005-6 was easily the best season in Clipper history – they crushed Denver in the first round of the playoffs, and took Phoenix to 7 games in the second round; if not for a brain cramp by Daniel Ewing in allowing a literal last-second Raja Bell 3 (or by Coach Dunleavy for putting him in the situation), the Clippers would’ve played Dallas in the conference finals. They then added Phoenix playoff star Tim Thomas to augment a powerful frontcourt rotation, and figured Corey Maggette would have to be healthier than the year before.
So, hopes were thus high heading into the 2006-7 season; pundits universally saw the Clippers as a playoff team, and many saw them making the second round again and winning at least 50 games. The reality was quite a bit different. At the start of the season, every single rotation player (except Cuttino Mobley) was playing worse than the season previous, even Elton Brand, who after an arduous summer playing for Team USA (and then producing a movie and getting married) descended from the stratosphere of a top-5 player in the league to merely all-star level. (And Mobley fell off in the second half of the season.)
Without Elton carrying the team by himself, the dropoff of all the average players to something less spelled big trouble. Especially disappointing was the lack of progress by presumed prodigy Shaun Livingston (and then his season-ending, career-threatening injury), which when combined with Sam Cassell’s regression and renewed fragility made PG play a millstone that sunk their playoff hopes (to mix metaphors).
Meanwhile, Corey Maggette was feuding with Coach Dunleavy over his role (he wanted to start, not be a 6th man) and his defense, and Zeljko Rebraca, a valuable offensive force off the bench in 2005-6, was injured and out for the season, and later released. The Clippers were a dysfunctional bunch, made worse by the evident lack of compatibility in the frontcourt between the star Brand and the prospect Kaman – both played better when the other was out of the game, largely because Kaman selfishly forced shots and disrupted the offense whenever Elton was in the game.
With the season going down the tubes and Daniel Ewing the only healthy PG on the roster, the Clippers signed Jason Hart off waivers and put him in the starting lineup – and miraculously, the Clippers began playing much better. (Maggette started playing much better at this time too, perhaps because the trade deadline passed and he knew he would remain a Clipper for the rest of the season – and injuries forced Dunleavy to reinsert him in the starting lineup.) With a week to go, the Clippers were in 8th place in the West, and despite their vicissitudes, controlled their fate for a playoff spot. But a terrible home loss to Sacramento on the final Sunday of the season (in which everyone but Brand stunk up the joint) meant Golden State would have to lose one of their final two games for the Clips to sneak in – and the Warriors didn’t. The conclusion:
40-42, 4th place Pacific Division, 9th in Western Conference
Being the best team to miss the playoffs only means one gets the last pick in the lottery.
...
In an article entitled “NBA Market Watch: Los Angeles Clippers” by Heather N. Allen, Paul Gearan, and Bradley Sutton, they have a scale that maps players from below to above league average on both offense and defense. I can use their scale to summarize the Clipper roster (and contract status) as follows – using (!) to indicate disagreement with their conclusions:
EB – 2 more seasons, good (well above average) on offense and defense
Cuttino – 3 more, near average on offense but worse on D
CMag, 2 more, good O, average D
QRoss, 1 more, same as Maggette (!! - this is a prima facie rejection of their method, as Ross is clearly better on defense than offense!)
TThomas, 3 more, average on both
Kaman, 4 more, good D (!), bad O
Cassell, 1 more, average on O, bad on D
SLivingston, 2 more, below ave, especially on O (perhaps the trade rumors bothered him, or his knee hurt more than let on, even before the official injury)
Other players - Non-rotation (not enough minutes for meaningful evaluation) with 1 more year on contract –Aaron Williams, Paul Davis
Possible re-sign/ team option: Jason Hart, D Ewing, JSingleton, WConroy, YKorolev
Contract rights to players overseas: Guillermo Diaz, Sofoklis Schortsianitis
Usage (% of possessions) in order, greatest to least:
SCassell, CMag, EB, TThomas, SLiv, Kaman, Mobley, Hart, Ross
(it’s a problem when easily your most efficient player is only 3rd in usage %, despite being the ‘star’ - teamwork and PG play killed the Clips last year.)
....
The Clipper draft – Chad Ford's summary:
"Al Thornton slipped because of his age (24) and questions about his wrist -- but he has an NBA-ready game. His arrival makes it appear that Corey Maggette is back on the trading block.
Jared Jordan is one of the best pure point guards in this draft class. He's not big or athletic, but he has a sixth sense for seeing the floor that's akin to the way injured Clippers point guard Shaun Livingston does."
It seems safe to say that Thornton could be in the rotation, perhaps even a starter, next season, but duplicates Maggette's skills and role on the team; and Jordan should make the team and could become a backup PG soon.
...
What to do?
If Minnesota wanted to reload with young up and comers, rather than just take expiring contracts, the Clips could make a moderately enticing offer for KG:
KG for Corey Maggette, Tim Thomas, Chris Kaman, Shaun Livingston, and the return of the future Minnesota 1st rounder owed to the Clippers.
That would leave a Clipper team of – EB, KG, PDavis, and AWilliams up front; Cuttino Mobley, AlThornton, QRoss, and JSingleton at the wings, and at PG- Sam Cassell, Jared Jordan, Jason Hart and perhaps Conroy or Ewing. If they signed Papaloukas (likely to require the full midlevel to do so) and brought Schortsianitis over, they would even have experience and depth.
Kaman, Livingston, and Maggette have all been deemed untouchable at various points last season, but the drafting of Al Thornton makes clear that Maggette is on the block, and Livingston’s injury means he is surely dealable if the team wants to win this season. If the Clips do nothing, they appear headed for the lottery again in an increasingly loaded West, and Elton Brand isn’t getting any younger. If owner Donald Sterling is willing to spend, then the pieces above could get a KG, Jermaine O’Neal, or another upgrade from a team looking to build for the future. Otherwise, they should keep Livingston and look at dealing at least Cassell, Brand and Maggette and begin to rebuild themselves.
Kobe to Chicago
Apparently (reading between the lines of the Mitch Kupchack/ Jim Gray interview) KG is not gonna be a Laker, and Kobe will not relent from his trade demand. LA might have to strike quickly to trade Kobe to Chicago, as the Bulls have interest in KG, but I'm sure they would prefer Kobe - younger, a better fit and (unbelievably) a salary (after KG's trade kicker) of about $10 million less, making the salary cap and player implications much easier to manage.
Here's a deal I think the Lakers would swallow hard, but accept for Kobe:
Tyrus Thomas, Chris Duhon, Joakim Noah, Luol Deng, and Ben Gordon
That would still leave Chicago (if they're willing to spend to re-sign their own players) with a very strong, vet-heavy lineup: Ben Wallace/ Aaron Gray, PJ Brown/ Sweetney/ Malik Allen, Nocioni/Khyrapa/ (maybe Grant Hill!), Kobe/ Sefolosha/ JamesOn Curry, Hinrich/Andre Barrett. They could let Nocioni go if need be to sign Grant Hill, who is making noises about playing another year or 2 for a title contender - Detroit and the Spurs are the most rumored. If the Kobe deal occurred, I'm sure Chicago would qualify.
The Bulls would no doubt try to offer Brown and/or Nocioni in sign and trade deals before including Thomas/ Noah and especially Deng, but I don't believe the Lakers would bite for a second - if they trade Kobe, they're rebuilding. Likewise, I can't imagine the Lakers taking the huge and long contract of Ben Wallace back in any deal.
But the Lakers could sell getting Deng, Gordon, Thomas and especially Noah (a charismatic figure perfect for Hollywood) as a bounteous return for Kobe, portending a return to greatness in a few years. To me, the real question is if GM Paxson would make the deal. Should he, if this is what it would take (and assuming Reinsdorf opens the wallet to resign the other pieces to make it work)?
Here's a deal I think the Lakers would swallow hard, but accept for Kobe:
Tyrus Thomas, Chris Duhon, Joakim Noah, Luol Deng, and Ben Gordon
That would still leave Chicago (if they're willing to spend to re-sign their own players) with a very strong, vet-heavy lineup: Ben Wallace/ Aaron Gray, PJ Brown/ Sweetney/ Malik Allen, Nocioni/Khyrapa/ (maybe Grant Hill!), Kobe/ Sefolosha/ JamesOn Curry, Hinrich/Andre Barrett. They could let Nocioni go if need be to sign Grant Hill, who is making noises about playing another year or 2 for a title contender - Detroit and the Spurs are the most rumored. If the Kobe deal occurred, I'm sure Chicago would qualify.
The Bulls would no doubt try to offer Brown and/or Nocioni in sign and trade deals before including Thomas/ Noah and especially Deng, but I don't believe the Lakers would bite for a second - if they trade Kobe, they're rebuilding. Likewise, I can't imagine the Lakers taking the huge and long contract of Ben Wallace back in any deal.
But the Lakers could sell getting Deng, Gordon, Thomas and especially Noah (a charismatic figure perfect for Hollywood) as a bounteous return for Kobe, portending a return to greatness in a few years. To me, the real question is if GM Paxson would make the deal. Should he, if this is what it would take (and assuming Reinsdorf opens the wallet to resign the other pieces to make it work)?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Quick draft thoughts
1. Zabian Dowdell (PG, Va Tech) and Kyle Visser (beefy C, Wake Forest) were undrafted, but I (and Hollinger) were relatively high on both of them. So I hope they go to camp with a team I like....
2. Maybe Danny Ainge isn't a complete idiot. Under pressure to improve rapidly and with only the #5 pick and an expiring contract (Ratliff) as major bait, he tried for KG and Shawn Marion, but both made clear through their agents they would be only one year rentals. So he trades the pick for an amazingly efficient scorer who complements Pierce's driving game beautifully in Ray Allen, AND gets a potential starting C/PF in Glen Davis at 35 in return! If no more deals are made, I expect BOTH players to start for Boston next year (alongside Pierce, Rondo, and Jefferson), and for Boston to make the playoffs next season. And because he traded Wally S. instead, Ainge still has Ratliff's expiring contract to facilitate another deal - or to give him some cap room next summer.
3. The deep pockets of Paul Allen and shrewd moves by Kevin Pritchard over the past 2 drafts mean Portland may have the brightest future of any team in the league. They have an embarrassment of riches in prospects at practically every position. Here's their roster as of now:
PG Jarrett Jack, Sergio Rodriguez, Petteri Koponen, Taurean Green
SG Brandon Roy, Rudy Fernandez, Martell Webster, Steve Francis
SF Ime Udoka, Travis Outlaw, Darius Miles
PF LaMarcus Aldridge, Channing Frye, Josh McRoberts, Raef LaFrentz
C Greg Oden, Joel Przybilla, Jamaal Magloire, Luke Schenscher
Jamaal Magloire, Ime Udoka, Travis Outlaw and Luke Schenscher are free agents and may not return, Steve Francis might be bought out, and Rudy Fernandez and Petteri Koponen may well stay overseas for now, but there is still a wealth of young talent and even possibly cap room in a couple of years, when LaFrentz and Miles come off the books. And obviously moves could still be made - SF is the position most clearly still needing an upgrade, and they have a plethora of young PGs, a position of need for many teams - perhaps Atlanta would trade a Josh Smith or Marvin Williams for a PG or 2? They may not be able to make the playoffs in the loaded West next season, but they look to have a bright future.
4. Meanwhile, how are Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph going to share the low block - or play any defense? And is there any possibility Zach could get in trouble in the NYC nightlife? Isiah may have outdone himself this time.... surely he'll trade David Lee for some overpriced vet next. Or worse, just not give him any minutes.
5. Finally, congrats to my childhood fave, the Atlanta Hawks. They did the right thing in picking Horford at 3, and Acie Law is defensible at 11. If they simply stay the course and don't screw things up, they will be a playoff team soon, perhaps even this season - if Horford is a serious ROY candidate, as I expect him to be.
2. Maybe Danny Ainge isn't a complete idiot. Under pressure to improve rapidly and with only the #5 pick and an expiring contract (Ratliff) as major bait, he tried for KG and Shawn Marion, but both made clear through their agents they would be only one year rentals. So he trades the pick for an amazingly efficient scorer who complements Pierce's driving game beautifully in Ray Allen, AND gets a potential starting C/PF in Glen Davis at 35 in return! If no more deals are made, I expect BOTH players to start for Boston next year (alongside Pierce, Rondo, and Jefferson), and for Boston to make the playoffs next season. And because he traded Wally S. instead, Ainge still has Ratliff's expiring contract to facilitate another deal - or to give him some cap room next summer.
3. The deep pockets of Paul Allen and shrewd moves by Kevin Pritchard over the past 2 drafts mean Portland may have the brightest future of any team in the league. They have an embarrassment of riches in prospects at practically every position. Here's their roster as of now:
PG Jarrett Jack, Sergio Rodriguez, Petteri Koponen, Taurean Green
SG Brandon Roy, Rudy Fernandez, Martell Webster, Steve Francis
SF Ime Udoka, Travis Outlaw, Darius Miles
PF LaMarcus Aldridge, Channing Frye, Josh McRoberts, Raef LaFrentz
C Greg Oden, Joel Przybilla, Jamaal Magloire, Luke Schenscher
Jamaal Magloire, Ime Udoka, Travis Outlaw and Luke Schenscher are free agents and may not return, Steve Francis might be bought out, and Rudy Fernandez and Petteri Koponen may well stay overseas for now, but there is still a wealth of young talent and even possibly cap room in a couple of years, when LaFrentz and Miles come off the books. And obviously moves could still be made - SF is the position most clearly still needing an upgrade, and they have a plethora of young PGs, a position of need for many teams - perhaps Atlanta would trade a Josh Smith or Marvin Williams for a PG or 2? They may not be able to make the playoffs in the loaded West next season, but they look to have a bright future.
4. Meanwhile, how are Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph going to share the low block - or play any defense? And is there any possibility Zach could get in trouble in the NYC nightlife? Isiah may have outdone himself this time.... surely he'll trade David Lee for some overpriced vet next. Or worse, just not give him any minutes.
5. Finally, congrats to my childhood fave, the Atlanta Hawks. They did the right thing in picking Horford at 3, and Acie Law is defensible at 11. If they simply stay the course and don't screw things up, they will be a playoff team soon, perhaps even this season - if Horford is a serious ROY candidate, as I expect him to be.
The tier system and the Hawks’ incompetence
In drafting by tiers, one selects the player that most fits one’s needs from the highest tier available; so if only one player from the highest tier is available when you pick, you automatically take him. But if several players in the highest tier are available, you take the one that best fits your team’s needs.
Chad Ford explains by an example:
As the Hawks actually had the second pick, then by using the tier system they would’ve drafted Deron Williams, and so far, that looks much wiser than Marvin Williams – though Marvin remains very young, so the jury is still out.
This year’s draft tiers, according to Ford:
But in practice, teams seem to really have only 3 players in Tier 2 – Conley, Horford, and Yi. If mock drafts can be trusted, the rest of tier 2 seems to blend into tier 3.
In any case, by Ford’s logic, to continue the case of Atlanta, this year they would pick Conley (biggest need is PG) with pick #3, and probably Hawes (or Noah, if somehow he fell that far – not likely) with pick 11, as center is their second biggest need. But if I’m right, that would be disastrous; Conley may be a defensible pick, but Hawes is a BUST waiting to happen. Far better would be to take Horford and pray for Noah at 11, or if he's gone, Brewer (if he drops), Law, or Stuckey. Or, of course, I would pick Glen Davis, aka Big Baby, as the highest rated player on my mock likely to be around at #11. Perhaps that eventuality would be reason to go with Conley at 3 - but better would be to trade down from 3 to 5 or 6 and take Conley, as many teams want to go up to 3 for Horford. Honestly, if he's really going to be an all-star quality PF like Elton Brand, I wouldn't take the chance. The Hawks should take Horford, and damn the tiers.... this year.
Unless the Hawks miracle occurs and Amare really does become a Hawk....
Chad Ford explains by an example:
“Let me give you an example from the worst-drafting team over the last few years, the Atlanta Hawks.
Hawks GM Billy Knight has stated that he takes the best player on the board, regardless of team need. He's proven that the last few years by taking Marvin Williams ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams in 2005, and taking Shelden Williams ahead of a point guard such as Rajon Rondo in 2006.
A source formerly with Atlanta's front office told me that the Hawks had Marvin Williams ranked No. 1, Andrew Bogut ranked No. 2, Deron Williams ranked No. 3 and Paul ranked No. 4 in 2005. So on draft night, Knight took Marvin Williams with the No. 2 pick after the Bucks selected Bogut No. 1 overall.
In a tier system, however, the source conceded that all four players, in his mind at least, would have been Tier 1 players -- in other words, the Hawks thought all four had equal long-term impact potential. If the Hawks had employed a tier system, they would have ranked inside the tier based on team need and fit, rather than just ranking the prospects from one to 30.
In that case, the Hawks likely would have ranked either Bogut (they needed a center) or Deron Williams (they still need a point guard) No. 1. Marvin Williams actually would have been ranked No. 4 under that scenario.”
As the Hawks actually had the second pick, then by using the tier system they would’ve drafted Deron Williams, and so far, that looks much wiser than Marvin Williams – though Marvin remains very young, so the jury is still out.
This year’s draft tiers, according to Ford:
TIER 1 – Oden and Durant(Ford has 36 players for 30 slots because he claims he included in Tier 6 every player that a team told him was in its first round.)
TIER 2- Corey Brewer, Mike Conley, Jeff Green, Al Horford, Yi Jianlian, Brandan Wright
TIER 3- Spencer Hawes, Joakim Noah, Al Thornton, Julian Wright
TIER 4- Javaris Crittenton, Acie Law, Rodney Stuckey, Nick Young, Thaddeus Young
TIER 5- Morris Almond, Josh McRoberts, Gabe Pruitt, Jason Smith, Tiago Splitter, Sean Williams
TIER 6- Arron Afflalo, Marco Belinelli, Derrick Byars, Daequan Cook, Glen Davis, Jared Dudley, Nick Fazekas, Rudy Fernandez, Marc Gasol, Taurean Green, Petteri Koponen, Marcus Williams
But in practice, teams seem to really have only 3 players in Tier 2 – Conley, Horford, and Yi. If mock drafts can be trusted, the rest of tier 2 seems to blend into tier 3.
In any case, by Ford’s logic, to continue the case of Atlanta, this year they would pick Conley (biggest need is PG) with pick #3, and probably Hawes (or Noah, if somehow he fell that far – not likely) with pick 11, as center is their second biggest need. But if I’m right, that would be disastrous; Conley may be a defensible pick, but Hawes is a BUST waiting to happen. Far better would be to take Horford and pray for Noah at 11, or if he's gone, Brewer (if he drops), Law, or Stuckey. Or, of course, I would pick Glen Davis, aka Big Baby, as the highest rated player on my mock likely to be around at #11. Perhaps that eventuality would be reason to go with Conley at 3 - but better would be to trade down from 3 to 5 or 6 and take Conley, as many teams want to go up to 3 for Horford. Honestly, if he's really going to be an all-star quality PF like Elton Brand, I wouldn't take the chance. The Hawks should take Horford, and damn the tiers.... this year.
Unless the Hawks miracle occurs and Amare really does become a Hawk....
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Keith's first annual mock draft (2007)
Now, my first annual official mock draft – SI or anyone, care to join me? (First round only, and what teams should do, assuming they keep their picks – i.e., day of draft trades cannot be incorporated. So I’m assuming e.g. that Atlanta has picks 3 and 11). My rationale – when we look back in 5 to 8 years, who will be the best players from this draft? Position matters only insofar as that player will get an opportunity over that 5-8 year timespan – so position almost never makes a difference, unless you’re, say, a PG drafted by the Hornets or a SG drafted by the Lakers (assuming Kobe stays) .....
1. Portland - Greg Oden, Ohio St – a no-brainer, likely to be somewhere between Ewing and the Admiral in effectiveness
2. Seattle - Kevin Durant, Texas – Carmelo Anthony plus a few more rebounds. Will lead the league in scoring, but never be a legit MVP.
3. Atlanta - Al Horford, Fla – think Carlos Boozer to Elton Brand – hope he stays healthy.
4 Memphis - Mike Conley Jr., Ohio St – a young Tony Parker with better D. He and Horford are very close on my board, but Parker learned how to shoot after coming into the league – will Conley?
5 Boston - Joakim Noah, Fla – Varejao crossed with Rodman – terrific D, should board well, a leader, no scoring
6 Milwaukee – Glen Davis, LSU – vastly underrated because of weight issue – if he keeps it off, he’s a beast, a real ‘Baby Shaq’ – a 20/10 monster. I considered him as high as 2nd.
7 Minnesota – Corey Brewer, Fla. Worst case scenario is Bruce Bowen, not Todd Day – because he’s not a headcase.
8. Charlotte - Brandan Wright, UNC. More promise (because better freshman year) than Marvin Williams, an otherwise similar super-raw frosh out of UNC
9 Chicago -Thaddeus Young, GT. Looks like a 20 pt scorer on the wing for a long time – Mitch Richmond?
10 Sacto - Rodney Stuckey – combo guard does a little bit of everything. Best case scenario is Joe Dumars, but likely less – which is still darn good
11 Atlanta – Sean (Pothead) Williams, BC. Half the league tokes, so... why not take a Rasheed Wallace-type talent (though without the outside shot).
12 Philly - Josh McRoberts, Duke. They need everything, but esp. a PF – but all the good ones are gone; they hope Hollinger and the scouts from the last 2 years are right about McRoberts, and not the Duke fans.
13 New Orleans – Jared Dudley, BC. The Shane Battier lite of this draft, and they need wing players.
14 LA Clippers – Acie Law, Texas A&M. He and Brewer are my first major disagreements with Hollinger’s rankings. He may never be a star, but given NBA PGs, I think he can be a starter and clutch player – Sam Cassell lite.
End of the lottery – and no Yi, you may notice.
15. Detroit - Nick Fazekas, Nevada. Think Keith van Horn, who could shoot and help a team when surrounded by sound defenders. Detroit fits perfectly.
16. Washington - Jeff Green, Georgetown. Local kid should be a solid but unspectacular pro.
17. NJ Nets - Herbert Hill, Providence. They need a bigtime rebounder who’s overlooked – cf. Paul Millsap last year.
18. Golden St. - Julian Wright, Kansas. A tweener who can’t shoot, but should defend well and contribute as marginal starter/ solid bench force.
19. LA Lakers - Zabian Dowdell, Va Tech. I like him best of the remaining point guards – sorta like Acie Law, solid at several things, great at none.
20. Miami – Nick Young, USC. Hollinger is way down on him, but uberathletic guards often outperform their college stats – see Gerald Wallace. Young would be higher, but I don’t see him having Wallace’s defensive ability, making him closer to Dahntay Jones than Wallace. And I see D. Wade leaving Miami after Shaq retires...
21. Philly - Kyle Visser, WF. Philly needs power players, and here I defer to Hollinger’s rankings – he’s the best left on the board.
22. Charlotte – Tiago Splitter, Brazil – should be a solid defender and non-scorer akin to countryman Varejao.
23. Knicks - D.J. Strawberry, Maryland. Isiah won’t take anyone as defensively ept as this legacy. He could easily have Eric Snow’s career.
24. Phoenix - Al Thornton, FSU. He should be a solid bench scorer with little else to contribute and have a relatively short career, as he’s old for a rook and will be worthless once he loses a step.
25 Utah - Petteri Koponen, PG, Finland. A better and taller version of Beno Udrih. Or, if you prefer, Steve Blake.
26 Houston – SG Rudy Fernandez, Spain. Good Eurostats but painfully skinny, so will be manhandled and a poor defender here. Could still be good rotation player as long as coach is aware of matchups – i.e., don’t guard a Kobe or Bonzi Wells or Maurice Evans.
27 Detroit – SG Marco Belinelli, Italy. See Rudy Fernandez.
28 Spurs – Jason Smith, Col St. Much higher if he could shoot 3s or was bulkier – but he isn’t. Somewhere between Brad Sellars on the low end and Keith van Horn on the high end.
29 Phoenix - Taurean Green, Fla. We’re into the Jacques Vaughn backup PGs who don’t kill you and play decent D phase now.
30 Philly - Derrick Byars, Vandy. A mediocre backup swingman – best case is Mo Peterson.
And finally, some words of warning -
Predicted BUSTS – These fellows may go in the lottery to mid-first round, but I predict they will suck!
YI JIANLIAN – failed to dominate in inferior Chinese league and is probably 22 – if the Hawks use the #3 on him instead of getting Amare Stoudamire in trade, Billy Knight may go down as worst GM ever.
Javaris Crittenton, PG, Ga Tech – big points who aren’t quick, and turn it over when they penetrate, don’t work out – see my review of Jeryl Sasser from 2001.
Spencer Hawes, C, Washington. Will be lucky to be as good as his journeyman uncle Steve Hawes was – a career backup. Will be routinely abused on defense, sure to be seen as the dunkee in many posters to come. Shawn Bradley, minus 6 inches?
Gabe Pruitt, PG, USC – surrounded by better players in college, not really very good.
Arron Afflalo, SG, UCLA – see Gabe Pruitt.
1. Portland - Greg Oden, Ohio St – a no-brainer, likely to be somewhere between Ewing and the Admiral in effectiveness
2. Seattle - Kevin Durant, Texas – Carmelo Anthony plus a few more rebounds. Will lead the league in scoring, but never be a legit MVP.
3. Atlanta - Al Horford, Fla – think Carlos Boozer to Elton Brand – hope he stays healthy.
4 Memphis - Mike Conley Jr., Ohio St – a young Tony Parker with better D. He and Horford are very close on my board, but Parker learned how to shoot after coming into the league – will Conley?
5 Boston - Joakim Noah, Fla – Varejao crossed with Rodman – terrific D, should board well, a leader, no scoring
6 Milwaukee – Glen Davis, LSU – vastly underrated because of weight issue – if he keeps it off, he’s a beast, a real ‘Baby Shaq’ – a 20/10 monster. I considered him as high as 2nd.
7 Minnesota – Corey Brewer, Fla. Worst case scenario is Bruce Bowen, not Todd Day – because he’s not a headcase.
8. Charlotte - Brandan Wright, UNC. More promise (because better freshman year) than Marvin Williams, an otherwise similar super-raw frosh out of UNC
9 Chicago -Thaddeus Young, GT. Looks like a 20 pt scorer on the wing for a long time – Mitch Richmond?
10 Sacto - Rodney Stuckey – combo guard does a little bit of everything. Best case scenario is Joe Dumars, but likely less – which is still darn good
11 Atlanta – Sean (Pothead) Williams, BC. Half the league tokes, so... why not take a Rasheed Wallace-type talent (though without the outside shot).
12 Philly - Josh McRoberts, Duke. They need everything, but esp. a PF – but all the good ones are gone; they hope Hollinger and the scouts from the last 2 years are right about McRoberts, and not the Duke fans.
13 New Orleans – Jared Dudley, BC. The Shane Battier lite of this draft, and they need wing players.
14 LA Clippers – Acie Law, Texas A&M. He and Brewer are my first major disagreements with Hollinger’s rankings. He may never be a star, but given NBA PGs, I think he can be a starter and clutch player – Sam Cassell lite.
End of the lottery – and no Yi, you may notice.
15. Detroit - Nick Fazekas, Nevada. Think Keith van Horn, who could shoot and help a team when surrounded by sound defenders. Detroit fits perfectly.
16. Washington - Jeff Green, Georgetown. Local kid should be a solid but unspectacular pro.
17. NJ Nets - Herbert Hill, Providence. They need a bigtime rebounder who’s overlooked – cf. Paul Millsap last year.
18. Golden St. - Julian Wright, Kansas. A tweener who can’t shoot, but should defend well and contribute as marginal starter/ solid bench force.
19. LA Lakers - Zabian Dowdell, Va Tech. I like him best of the remaining point guards – sorta like Acie Law, solid at several things, great at none.
20. Miami – Nick Young, USC. Hollinger is way down on him, but uberathletic guards often outperform their college stats – see Gerald Wallace. Young would be higher, but I don’t see him having Wallace’s defensive ability, making him closer to Dahntay Jones than Wallace. And I see D. Wade leaving Miami after Shaq retires...
21. Philly - Kyle Visser, WF. Philly needs power players, and here I defer to Hollinger’s rankings – he’s the best left on the board.
22. Charlotte – Tiago Splitter, Brazil – should be a solid defender and non-scorer akin to countryman Varejao.
23. Knicks - D.J. Strawberry, Maryland. Isiah won’t take anyone as defensively ept as this legacy. He could easily have Eric Snow’s career.
24. Phoenix - Al Thornton, FSU. He should be a solid bench scorer with little else to contribute and have a relatively short career, as he’s old for a rook and will be worthless once he loses a step.
25 Utah - Petteri Koponen, PG, Finland. A better and taller version of Beno Udrih. Or, if you prefer, Steve Blake.
26 Houston – SG Rudy Fernandez, Spain. Good Eurostats but painfully skinny, so will be manhandled and a poor defender here. Could still be good rotation player as long as coach is aware of matchups – i.e., don’t guard a Kobe or Bonzi Wells or Maurice Evans.
27 Detroit – SG Marco Belinelli, Italy. See Rudy Fernandez.
28 Spurs – Jason Smith, Col St. Much higher if he could shoot 3s or was bulkier – but he isn’t. Somewhere between Brad Sellars on the low end and Keith van Horn on the high end.
29 Phoenix - Taurean Green, Fla. We’re into the Jacques Vaughn backup PGs who don’t kill you and play decent D phase now.
30 Philly - Derrick Byars, Vandy. A mediocre backup swingman – best case is Mo Peterson.
And finally, some words of warning -
Predicted BUSTS – These fellows may go in the lottery to mid-first round, but I predict they will suck!
YI JIANLIAN – failed to dominate in inferior Chinese league and is probably 22 – if the Hawks use the #3 on him instead of getting Amare Stoudamire in trade, Billy Knight may go down as worst GM ever.
Javaris Crittenton, PG, Ga Tech – big points who aren’t quick, and turn it over when they penetrate, don’t work out – see my review of Jeryl Sasser from 2001.
Spencer Hawes, C, Washington. Will be lucky to be as good as his journeyman uncle Steve Hawes was – a career backup. Will be routinely abused on defense, sure to be seen as the dunkee in many posters to come. Shawn Bradley, minus 6 inches?
Gabe Pruitt, PG, USC – surrounded by better players in college, not really very good.
Arron Afflalo, SG, UCLA – see Gabe Pruitt.
The draft – first, a statistical look
First, the draft according to John Hollinger’s formula – it only includes collegians, so we’ll have to guess/ interpolate where he would rank foreigners. His formula includes a significant age adjustment, so if Yi is really 19, he would probably be a lottery pick; if he’s actually 22 (as most believe), then drop him towards the end of the first round… I would guess (and this is just my guess, with nothing explicit from Hollinger - and assuming he’s 19, as the Chinese officials insist) that Hollinger would have him somewhere in the 7-10 range; and in some more wild-ass guessing, a few foreign guards (Petteri Koponen, Rudy Fernandez, Marco Belinelli, Renaldas Seibutis) and bigs (Kyrylo Fesenko, Sun Yue, Stanko Barac, Ali Traore) might conceivably be in the 20s….
Partial explanation – again, for a full one, see his original article –
Space between picks = at least 14 pt difference between consecutive picks (so no space between means the players are very close in talent, e.g. #s 4-6); his system has an over 500 score = traditional lottery to mid-first round pick, with 16 (above average) college players over 500 this year
1. Kevin Durant (with a bullet - way ahead of Oden!)
2.Greg Oden
3. Mike Conley Jr.
4.Thaddeus Young
5.Brandan Wright
6. Al Horford
7. Nick Fazekas
(Yi?)
8.Josh McRoberts
9. Rodney Stuckey
10. Jared Dudley
11.Joakim Noah
12.Glen Davis
13.Sean Williams
14. Jeff Green
15. Kyle Visser
16. Herbert Hill
17. Javaris Crittenton
18. Wilson Chandler
19. Julian Wright
20. Daequan Cook
21. D.J. Strawberry
22. Jason Smith
23. Alando Tucker
24. Corey Brewer
25. Al Thornton
26. Marcus Williams
27. Acie Law
28. Aaron Gray
29. Zabian Dowdell
30. Spencer Hawes
Other notables
31 Morris Almond
32 Derrick Byars
33 Gabe Pruitt
34 Nick Young
35 Taurean Green
36 Arron Afflalo
37 Ramon Sessions
Partial explanation – again, for a full one, see his original article –
Space between picks = at least 14 pt difference between consecutive picks (so no space between means the players are very close in talent, e.g. #s 4-6); his system has an over 500 score = traditional lottery to mid-first round pick, with 16 (above average) college players over 500 this year
1. Kevin Durant (with a bullet - way ahead of Oden!)
2.Greg Oden
3. Mike Conley Jr.
4.Thaddeus Young
5.Brandan Wright
6. Al Horford
7. Nick Fazekas
(Yi?)
8.Josh McRoberts
9. Rodney Stuckey
10. Jared Dudley
11.Joakim Noah
12.Glen Davis
13.Sean Williams
14. Jeff Green
15. Kyle Visser
16. Herbert Hill
17. Javaris Crittenton
18. Wilson Chandler
19. Julian Wright
20. Daequan Cook
21. D.J. Strawberry
22. Jason Smith
23. Alando Tucker
24. Corey Brewer
25. Al Thornton
26. Marcus Williams
27. Acie Law
28. Aaron Gray
29. Zabian Dowdell
30. Spencer Hawes
Other notables
31 Morris Almond
32 Derrick Byars
33 Gabe Pruitt
34 Nick Young
35 Taurean Green
36 Arron Afflalo
37 Ramon Sessions
Garnett and Nash together?
KG to Phoenix is the hot rumor, with Amare Stoudamire, not Marion, leaving for Atlanta. That complicates the budget picture for Phoenix because Stoudamire is a base-year compensation player, especially if they want to keep Kurt Thomas – which looks almost impossible. Here’s a version that meets the salary cap restrictions:
Phoenix: gets KG
The Suns give up: Stoudamire to Atlanta, James Jones, Piatkowski and K. Thomas (all expiring contracts) to Minnesota
Atlanta gets: Stoudamire
Hawks trade: Lorenzen Wright, Tyronn Lue, Anthony Johnson (all expiring contracts), #3 and #11 pick, all to Minnesota
Minnesota gives up KG, and gets all expiring contracts and the #3 and #11 pick
If Atlanta wants more, like Barbosa (I think they’re giving up too much for Stoudamire alone), it gets more complicated, but still doable:
Phoenix gets: KG, Josh Childress, Zaza Pachulia, and Salim Stoudamire
Phoenix loses: Stoudamire, Leandro Barbosa, Marcus Banks to Atlanta; James Jones, Piatkowski and K. Thomas (all expiring contracts) to Minnesota
Atlanta gets: Stoudamire, Leandro Barbosa, Marcus Banks
Atlanta loses: Josh Childress, Zaza Pachulia, and Salim Stoudamire to Phoenix; Lorenzen Wright, Tyronn Lue, Anthony Johnson (all expiring contracts), #3 and #11 pick, all to Minnesota
Minnesota is unchanged - gives up KG, and gets all expiring contracts and the #3 and #11 pick
Childress and Pachulia is a lot for Barbosa, but the new rosters make more sense for both teams – Pachulia is a much needed center for Phoenix after they deal both Kurt Thomas and Amare, and Childress fits well on the wings – a shooter who should flourish in the Suns system. Likewise Salim Stoudamire should enjoy chucking 3s for the Suns, who also went to Arizona for college and could back up Nash. Atlanta meanwhile addresses its PG problem with Barbosa and Banks, along with a C in Amare.
And it might actually happen…..
Phoenix: gets KG
The Suns give up: Stoudamire to Atlanta, James Jones, Piatkowski and K. Thomas (all expiring contracts) to Minnesota
Atlanta gets: Stoudamire
Hawks trade: Lorenzen Wright, Tyronn Lue, Anthony Johnson (all expiring contracts), #3 and #11 pick, all to Minnesota
Minnesota gives up KG, and gets all expiring contracts and the #3 and #11 pick
If Atlanta wants more, like Barbosa (I think they’re giving up too much for Stoudamire alone), it gets more complicated, but still doable:
Phoenix gets: KG, Josh Childress, Zaza Pachulia, and Salim Stoudamire
Phoenix loses: Stoudamire, Leandro Barbosa, Marcus Banks to Atlanta; James Jones, Piatkowski and K. Thomas (all expiring contracts) to Minnesota
Atlanta gets: Stoudamire, Leandro Barbosa, Marcus Banks
Atlanta loses: Josh Childress, Zaza Pachulia, and Salim Stoudamire to Phoenix; Lorenzen Wright, Tyronn Lue, Anthony Johnson (all expiring contracts), #3 and #11 pick, all to Minnesota
Minnesota is unchanged - gives up KG, and gets all expiring contracts and the #3 and #11 pick
Childress and Pachulia is a lot for Barbosa, but the new rosters make more sense for both teams – Pachulia is a much needed center for Phoenix after they deal both Kurt Thomas and Amare, and Childress fits well on the wings – a shooter who should flourish in the Suns system. Likewise Salim Stoudamire should enjoy chucking 3s for the Suns, who also went to Arizona for college and could back up Nash. Atlanta meanwhile addresses its PG problem with Barbosa and Banks, along with a C in Amare.
And it might actually happen…..
Kahn Winery, RIP
Since I mentioned Kahn Winery in my last post, a bit more about it.
The Kahn Winery was located in the "smallest tasting room in the state of California", a tiny building on the north end of Grand Avenue, the main drag through the arts and wine town of Los Olivos. It was a blast - with an outdoor patio, where vintage jazz was often heard and people would smoke fine cigars (although I hate the smell!) next to the turtle ponds outside, all tucked into a cozy location next to the John Cody Art Gallery. A typical upstart small winery, it began in 1996 as the dream of Andrew Kahn, who had been the assistant winemaker for the Fess Parker Winery (one of the "Sideways" wineries). He and his partner, Christian Garvin, made premium exemplars of varietals such as Cabernet Franc (which they dubbed "Cab Frank" and sent to the funeral of Mr. Sinatra, gaining them some needed notoriety), and their exquisitely delicious Syrah (sourced from the estimable Bien Nacido and Stolpman Vineyards) and Nebbiolo, as well as odd whites and roses like Grignolino and Viognier. My darling Michelle enjoyed using their postcards to send out news of our adventures. Unfortunately, like many small wineries, it appears to have gone out of business. A new winery, called Carhartt, has taken over the tiny tasting room... alas. But never fear - there are probably over 200 wineries within 70 miles north and south of SLO. A few more of them to come....
The Kahn Winery was located in the "smallest tasting room in the state of California", a tiny building on the north end of Grand Avenue, the main drag through the arts and wine town of Los Olivos. It was a blast - with an outdoor patio, where vintage jazz was often heard and people would smoke fine cigars (although I hate the smell!) next to the turtle ponds outside, all tucked into a cozy location next to the John Cody Art Gallery. A typical upstart small winery, it began in 1996 as the dream of Andrew Kahn, who had been the assistant winemaker for the Fess Parker Winery (one of the "Sideways" wineries). He and his partner, Christian Garvin, made premium exemplars of varietals such as Cabernet Franc (which they dubbed "Cab Frank" and sent to the funeral of Mr. Sinatra, gaining them some needed notoriety), and their exquisitely delicious Syrah (sourced from the estimable Bien Nacido and Stolpman Vineyards) and Nebbiolo, as well as odd whites and roses like Grignolino and Viognier. My darling Michelle enjoyed using their postcards to send out news of our adventures. Unfortunately, like many small wineries, it appears to have gone out of business. A new winery, called Carhartt, has taken over the tiny tasting room... alas. But never fear - there are probably over 200 wineries within 70 miles north and south of SLO. A few more of them to come....
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Inside the Justin Reserve Isoceles Room
A tour of a few of the wineries I frequent.... first, Justin Winery: to be found on the far west of Paso as one nears mountains near the coast and Cambria, it is the very furtherest out of the "Far Out Wineries' of Paso, and the best known internationally, and probably most highly regarded by the Robert Parkers of the world. Their flagship Isosceles wine (a traditional Bordeaux blend) now sells out each year on the day of release, although you may be able to find it in your hoity-toity wine stores at a nice markup. As a member, I get two bottles a year; I recently went to a 5-year vertical tasting of the 2000 through 2004, and was frankly unimpressed, especially by the 2000, although I think the 2001 and 2004 will be outstanding with a bit more age.
Here I am in the inner sanctum of Justin, the Reserve Isosceles Room, where Justin and his wife themselves pour the wine at their once a year gala. You can see the special lighting as they display the sacred liquid to my right. (The Reserve Isosceles is so expensive I don't even think about buying it). I know Steve seemed to prefer a Kahn Nebbiolo to the Isosceles I poured him last summer - or is it just because Nebbiolo is an Italian varietal?
KG to Dallas?
It could work, but only if they get Atlanta involved -
Minnesota Timberwolves
Incoming Players: DeSagana Diop, Speedy Claxton, Marvin Williams, Lorenzen Wright, Josh Howard, Tyronn Lue, Anthony Johnson, and #3 pick (from Atlanta)
Outgoing Players: Troy Hudson, Kevin Garnett, #7 pick
McHale gets his top-3 pick to choose Horford (or Conley) and a terrific selection of youngsters – Diop, Williams, Howard. It beats any offer so far on the table for KG.
Dallas Mavericks
Incoming Players: Salim Stoudamire, Kevin Garnett
Outgoing Players: Greg Buckner, DeSagana Diop, Erick Dampier, Josh Howard, Devin Harris, Maurice Ager
Dallas strips its bench and youth but teams KG with Dirk (along with Jason Terry, Stackhouse, MBenga, and a few others). If injury-free, obviously a title contender.
Atlanta Hawks
Incoming Players
Greg Buckner, Erick Dampier, Devin Harris, Maurice Ager, Troy Hudson, #7 pick
Outgoing Players: Salim Stoudamire, Speedy Claxton, Marvin Williams, Lorenzen Wright, Tyronn Lue, Anthony Johnson, #3 pick
The Hawks, as is their deep desire, become a playoff team overnight – they get a center in Dampier and a PG in Harris, and lose only Marvin Williams among their highly regarded youngsters. Meaning they still have Joe Johnson, Joshes Smith & Childress, and Pachulia, and Buckner/ Ager/ Hudson for backcourt help. They loved Joakim Noah in workouts, and he’d likely still be there at #7, and they keep the #11 for another good youngster.
If Dallas really wants KG, it’s a no-brainer for all 3 teams…..
Minnesota Timberwolves
Incoming Players: DeSagana Diop, Speedy Claxton, Marvin Williams, Lorenzen Wright, Josh Howard, Tyronn Lue, Anthony Johnson, and #3 pick (from Atlanta)
Outgoing Players: Troy Hudson, Kevin Garnett, #7 pick
McHale gets his top-3 pick to choose Horford (or Conley) and a terrific selection of youngsters – Diop, Williams, Howard. It beats any offer so far on the table for KG.
Dallas Mavericks
Incoming Players: Salim Stoudamire, Kevin Garnett
Outgoing Players: Greg Buckner, DeSagana Diop, Erick Dampier, Josh Howard, Devin Harris, Maurice Ager
Dallas strips its bench and youth but teams KG with Dirk (along with Jason Terry, Stackhouse, MBenga, and a few others). If injury-free, obviously a title contender.
Atlanta Hawks
Incoming Players
Greg Buckner, Erick Dampier, Devin Harris, Maurice Ager, Troy Hudson, #7 pick
Outgoing Players: Salim Stoudamire, Speedy Claxton, Marvin Williams, Lorenzen Wright, Tyronn Lue, Anthony Johnson, #3 pick
The Hawks, as is their deep desire, become a playoff team overnight – they get a center in Dampier and a PG in Harris, and lose only Marvin Williams among their highly regarded youngsters. Meaning they still have Joe Johnson, Joshes Smith & Childress, and Pachulia, and Buckner/ Ager/ Hudson for backcourt help. They loved Joakim Noah in workouts, and he’d likely still be there at #7, and they keep the #11 for another good youngster.
If Dallas really wants KG, it’s a no-brainer for all 3 teams…..
More on KG to the Lakers
If reports can be believed, Minnesota owner Glen Taylor is leaving soon to go to China for his honeymoon and wants the deal done immediately, but GM McHale is still holding out for more – and Boston (and probably Indy) are out of the deal. LA will probably have to take on at least one more bad contract to get it done – here’s a scenario:
To the Lakers: Mark Madsen, Kevin Garnett, and Marko Jaric
To Minnesota: Andrew Bynum, Sasha Vujacic, Brian Cook, Kwame Brown, Lamar Odom, #19 pick in 2007 draft, Lakers 2009 1st rounder
If Minnesota wanted to save an extra $400K in the short term, the deal could also include Troy Hudson and Vladimir Radmanovic – but Radman’s contract goes a year longer than Troy’s. Might still be worth it to Minny to get rid of him. The major holdup seems to be McHale’s desire for a top-5 pick in Thursday’s draft, which is why the Celtics were involved. There remains some craziness involving the Hawks dealing their picks (#3 and #11) and most of their team for KG, but I don’t see how it could work for the Hawks. Even Billy Knight isn’t that crazy, is he? – especially when Conley and Horford, one of which will go #3, both look like future studs. Conley looks a bit like Tony Parker with better defense, and Horford is getting lots of comparisons to Carlos Boozer and Elton Brand. In Atlanta’s shoes, I wouldn’t trade the #3 for KG straight up – it makes no sense at all – much less everything else they’d have to give up.
More on John Hollinger’s very interesting means of ranking prospects for the draft soon…. (by tomorrow, anyway)
To the Lakers: Mark Madsen, Kevin Garnett, and Marko Jaric
To Minnesota: Andrew Bynum, Sasha Vujacic, Brian Cook, Kwame Brown, Lamar Odom, #19 pick in 2007 draft, Lakers 2009 1st rounder
If Minnesota wanted to save an extra $400K in the short term, the deal could also include Troy Hudson and Vladimir Radmanovic – but Radman’s contract goes a year longer than Troy’s. Might still be worth it to Minny to get rid of him. The major holdup seems to be McHale’s desire for a top-5 pick in Thursday’s draft, which is why the Celtics were involved. There remains some craziness involving the Hawks dealing their picks (#3 and #11) and most of their team for KG, but I don’t see how it could work for the Hawks. Even Billy Knight isn’t that crazy, is he? – especially when Conley and Horford, one of which will go #3, both look like future studs. Conley looks a bit like Tony Parker with better defense, and Horford is getting lots of comparisons to Carlos Boozer and Elton Brand. In Atlanta’s shoes, I wouldn’t trade the #3 for KG straight up – it makes no sense at all – much less everything else they’d have to give up.
More on John Hollinger’s very interesting means of ranking prospects for the draft soon…. (by tomorrow, anyway)
Monday, June 25, 2007
The answers - are you a supertaster?
Remember, take the quiz (previous post) first.....
ok, all done - don't cheat!
If your answers are (in order) no, no, yes, and yes, that indicates you are either a very sensitive taster or a supertaster. (BTW, those are indeed my answers, which may help explain my persnickety oenophilia). The test is not foolproof, and a biological and chemical test is available to determine for certain - see the excellent Slate article for a fuller explanation and much more -
http://www.slate.com/id/2168768/
ok, all done - don't cheat!
If your answers are (in order) no, no, yes, and yes, that indicates you are either a very sensitive taster or a supertaster. (BTW, those are indeed my answers, which may help explain my persnickety oenophilia). The test is not foolproof, and a biological and chemical test is available to determine for certain - see the excellent Slate article for a fuller explanation and much more -
http://www.slate.com/id/2168768/
Are you a supertaster?
1 Do you like Scotch (the liquor, not the people)?
2 Do you take your coffee black?
3 Do you think that artificial sweeteners taste different than regular sugar?
4 Are you a heavy salter?
Answer the questions, then check the next post to see if, indeed, you might be a supertaster (unclear if, as rumored, it's inversely correlated with answers to "you might be a redneck if ...")
2 Do you take your coffee black?
3 Do you think that artificial sweeteners taste different than regular sugar?
4 Are you a heavy salter?
Answer the questions, then check the next post to see if, indeed, you might be a supertaster (unclear if, as rumored, it's inversely correlated with answers to "you might be a redneck if ...")
KG to the Lakers (and Kobe stays)?
Here’s one version of the rumored 4-way that gets KG to the Lakers. Chad Ford’s version (by his own admission) did not get enough to Minnesota or the Celtics – I’ve fixed that. Of course, there are 3-way and 2-way version that could still occur, but I think my version may be more plausible than any other rumored thus far.
Indiana Pacers
Incoming Players: Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum, Vladimir Radmanovic
Outgoing Players: Shawne Williams, Jermaine O'Neal, Mike Dunleavy Jr.
For Indy, they end up with Odom and Bynum for O’Neal, just as they wanted all along; they also get a Dunleavy-similar player for Jr. at over 2 mil a year less.
Minnesota Timberwolves
Incoming Players: Sebastian Telfair (expiring contract), Shawne Williams, Wally Szczerbiak, Gerald Green, Tony Allen, Theo Ratliff (large expiring contract), Kwame Brown (large expiring contract).
And the #5 pick in the 2007 draft (from Boston) and #19 pick (from LA)
Outgoing Players: Marko Jaric, Trenton Hassell, Troy Hudson, Kevin Garnett
- Minny gets a real rebuilding group of various youngsters, expiring contracts, and picks, plus an old fan favorite to help draw the crowds in the interim in Wally Szczerbiak. Rumor has it that K. McHale wants a top-5 prospect in this year's draft, and now he gets it, along with their own #7 pick and the #19 from the Lakers. Plausibly, that could be Mike Conley or Yi Jianlian, along with Brandan Wright or Joakim Noah at 7 and perhaps a big like Tiago Splitter or a PG like Javaris Crittendon at 19 - in a few years, they could be a powerhouse again.
Boston Celtics
Incoming Players: Jermaine O'Neal, Mike Dunleavy, Trenton Hassell
Outgoing Players: Sebastian Telfair, Wally Szczerbiak, Gerald Green, Tony Allen, Theo Ratliff (and #5 pick)
Boston keeps Jefferson and becomes an immediate playoff contender – O’Neal/ Perkins/ Jefferson/ Gomes up front, Pierce/ Dunleavy/ Hassell on the wings, Rondo and West at the point. Danny Ainge saves his job (and Doc Rivers'), and Bill Simmons is temporarily mollified.
Los Angeles Lakers
Incoming Players: Marko Jaric, Troy Hudson, Kevin Garnett
Outgoing Players: Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum, Vladimir Radmanovic, Kwame Brown
And the Lakers have to swallow a couple of awful contracts to do it, but they get KG (and a big PG in Jaric) – presumably enough to pacify Kobe. Assuming they re-sign Mihm and Luke Walton, they would still have plenty up front, and Maurice Evans and Farmar could back up Kobe and Jaric in the backcourt. (Troy Hudson could shoot 3s at the end of the half, perhaps). That team could make a playoff run, if KG is up to the task. Outside shooting would be their biggest problem.
Indiana Pacers
Incoming Players: Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum, Vladimir Radmanovic
Outgoing Players: Shawne Williams, Jermaine O'Neal, Mike Dunleavy Jr.
For Indy, they end up with Odom and Bynum for O’Neal, just as they wanted all along; they also get a Dunleavy-similar player for Jr. at over 2 mil a year less.
Minnesota Timberwolves
Incoming Players: Sebastian Telfair (expiring contract), Shawne Williams, Wally Szczerbiak, Gerald Green, Tony Allen, Theo Ratliff (large expiring contract), Kwame Brown (large expiring contract).
And the #5 pick in the 2007 draft (from Boston) and #19 pick (from LA)
Outgoing Players: Marko Jaric, Trenton Hassell, Troy Hudson, Kevin Garnett
- Minny gets a real rebuilding group of various youngsters, expiring contracts, and picks, plus an old fan favorite to help draw the crowds in the interim in Wally Szczerbiak. Rumor has it that K. McHale wants a top-5 prospect in this year's draft, and now he gets it, along with their own #7 pick and the #19 from the Lakers. Plausibly, that could be Mike Conley or Yi Jianlian, along with Brandan Wright or Joakim Noah at 7 and perhaps a big like Tiago Splitter or a PG like Javaris Crittendon at 19 - in a few years, they could be a powerhouse again.
Boston Celtics
Incoming Players: Jermaine O'Neal, Mike Dunleavy, Trenton Hassell
Outgoing Players: Sebastian Telfair, Wally Szczerbiak, Gerald Green, Tony Allen, Theo Ratliff (and #5 pick)
Boston keeps Jefferson and becomes an immediate playoff contender – O’Neal/ Perkins/ Jefferson/ Gomes up front, Pierce/ Dunleavy/ Hassell on the wings, Rondo and West at the point. Danny Ainge saves his job (and Doc Rivers'), and Bill Simmons is temporarily mollified.
Los Angeles Lakers
Incoming Players: Marko Jaric, Troy Hudson, Kevin Garnett
Outgoing Players: Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum, Vladimir Radmanovic, Kwame Brown
And the Lakers have to swallow a couple of awful contracts to do it, but they get KG (and a big PG in Jaric) – presumably enough to pacify Kobe. Assuming they re-sign Mihm and Luke Walton, they would still have plenty up front, and Maurice Evans and Farmar could back up Kobe and Jaric in the backcourt. (Troy Hudson could shoot 3s at the end of the half, perhaps). That team could make a playoff run, if KG is up to the task. Outside shooting would be their biggest problem.
The last Kobe trade scenarios?
These may all be moot soon if KG makes it to the Lakers, but a last few semi-plausible Kobe trade scenarios:
To Charlotte:
Kobe for a sign-and-traded Gerald Wallace, Raymond Felton (or Brevin Knight), Adam Morrison (or Sean May, or both), and both the 2007 Draft #08 Pick and #22 Pick
Charlotte should easily be competitive in a weak East with Okafor/ May/ Brezec/ OHarrington/ Voskuhl up front, swingmen of Kobe/ WHermann/ MCarroll, and Brevin Knight running the show. The Lakers might throw in Turiaf and Vujacic to enhance depth. The Lakers get multiple pieces for rebuilding here. If the Lakers insisted on Okafor and Wallace and the picks, then even if Charlotte would still do it, I doubt Kobe would go to a team without a real center. It's dubious anyway, given Kobe's apparent preference for a major market.
Speaking of which:
Kobe to the Knicks:
Kobe plus Radmanovic for Channing Frye, Randolph Morris, Renaldo Balkman, Quentin Richardson, Jared Jeffries, David Lee, Nate Robinson, and the Knicks 1st rounder in 2008, 2010, and 2012.
The Laker rebuilding begins in earnest, taking every desirable young cheap Knick and future draft picks. I'm sure Isiah would do it - he'd be roasted alive if he turned it down if offered. And after all, the Knicks would still have a lot of big names left - Kobe and the Radman would join Eddy Curry, Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, Jamal Crawford - you get the idea. All the overpriced and overrated Knicks.
Or something that might actually make more sense for both teams:
To the Hawks-
Kobe plus Radmanovic for Tyronn Lue, Josh Childress, Marvin Williams, Joe Johnson and the #3 and 11 picks in the 2007 draft.
The Lakers would expedite their rebuilding and would even get back a stud at Kobe's position (Joe Johnson) to boot. If I'm the Lakers, I'd do this deal even if Kobe hadn't requested a trade! Meanwhile, the Hawks are desperate - their draft pick in 2008 is Phoenix's, and to avoid that being a high lottery pick and looking terrible, they need to win games - this season. Zaza Pachulia, Shelden Williams, Josh Smith, Kobe, and Speedy Claxton ... uh... is that enough to make the playoffs, even in the East? At least they'd sell some tickets, another major factor that would incline the Hawks to make this deal - if they only had a clear ownership sign-off to do so.... and while Atlanta is a top-10 market, its NBA profile is low enough that Kobe might veto the deal anyway.
To Charlotte:
Kobe for a sign-and-traded Gerald Wallace, Raymond Felton (or Brevin Knight), Adam Morrison (or Sean May, or both), and both the 2007 Draft #08 Pick and #22 Pick
Charlotte should easily be competitive in a weak East with Okafor/ May/ Brezec/ OHarrington/ Voskuhl up front, swingmen of Kobe/ WHermann/ MCarroll, and Brevin Knight running the show. The Lakers might throw in Turiaf and Vujacic to enhance depth. The Lakers get multiple pieces for rebuilding here. If the Lakers insisted on Okafor and Wallace and the picks, then even if Charlotte would still do it, I doubt Kobe would go to a team without a real center. It's dubious anyway, given Kobe's apparent preference for a major market.
Speaking of which:
Kobe to the Knicks:
Kobe plus Radmanovic for Channing Frye, Randolph Morris, Renaldo Balkman, Quentin Richardson, Jared Jeffries, David Lee, Nate Robinson, and the Knicks 1st rounder in 2008, 2010, and 2012.
The Laker rebuilding begins in earnest, taking every desirable young cheap Knick and future draft picks. I'm sure Isiah would do it - he'd be roasted alive if he turned it down if offered. And after all, the Knicks would still have a lot of big names left - Kobe and the Radman would join Eddy Curry, Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, Jamal Crawford - you get the idea. All the overpriced and overrated Knicks.
Or something that might actually make more sense for both teams:
To the Hawks-
Kobe plus Radmanovic for Tyronn Lue, Josh Childress, Marvin Williams, Joe Johnson and the #3 and 11 picks in the 2007 draft.
The Lakers would expedite their rebuilding and would even get back a stud at Kobe's position (Joe Johnson) to boot. If I'm the Lakers, I'd do this deal even if Kobe hadn't requested a trade! Meanwhile, the Hawks are desperate - their draft pick in 2008 is Phoenix's, and to avoid that being a high lottery pick and looking terrible, they need to win games - this season. Zaza Pachulia, Shelden Williams, Josh Smith, Kobe, and Speedy Claxton ... uh... is that enough to make the playoffs, even in the East? At least they'd sell some tickets, another major factor that would incline the Hawks to make this deal - if they only had a clear ownership sign-off to do so.... and while Atlanta is a top-10 market, its NBA profile is low enough that Kobe might veto the deal anyway.
Why should Kobe have to move, just to get traded?
Kobe, Radmanovic, and Turiaf to the Clippers for Cuttino Mobley, Corey Maggette, Chris Kaman, and Shaun Livingston, plus the 2007 Draft #14 Pick
Kobe decides that he should’ve gone to the Clips 3 years ago after all. Despite this trade giving the Lakers four/fifths of the original Clipper starters from 2006, Kobe would join a reasonably good team – Elton Brand/ AWilliams/ PDavis (and perhaps Sofocles Schortsianitis, aka the Greek ‘Baby Shaq’ – if they buy out his contract and bring him over) at 5, Tim Thomas/ Turiaf at 4, QRoss/ Singleton/ Radmanovic at 3, Kobe (and Ross) at 2, SCassell/ JHart/ DEwing/ WConroy at 1. The main Clipper problem last year, of having no consistent second scorer besides Elton, is suddenly, completely fixed. And their defense would likely be better by subtraction, with Ross and Thomas playing more minutes than they did last year behind inferior defenders, and Turiaf presenting a needed boost of energy off the bench. Sofocles killed the American team running the pick and roll at the World Championships in 2006, so he might be a real contributor and let EB play PF. If they also signed his Greek teammate (and key to that killer pick and roll), 6-7 free agent PG Theo Papaloukas, or if Sam Cassell could just stay healthy, this is a team that could make a serious playoff run.
The Lakers, meanwhile, would greatly augment their considerable depth, and would have a wealth of options at every position to decide between; Phil could go big or small, shooters, slashers or passers, and everything in-between with these 4 newcomers plus his leftovers. And there’s an extra draft pick to boot – a superathletic Kobe wannabe, Nick Young from USC, is likely available at #14, but not at the Lakers #19. Just look at the Laker centers in this scenario: Kaman, Bynum, Kwame, Mihm. That’s more than enough fouls to use on Shaq! And assuming Livingston recovers fully, they could even have their new Magic-man at the PG, for Jerry Buss’ dream of reviving Showtime, which more than anything requires the right sort of floor leader (and Steve Nash isn’t available). It looks like a win-win; too bad the Lakers would never do it.
Kobe decides that he should’ve gone to the Clips 3 years ago after all. Despite this trade giving the Lakers four/fifths of the original Clipper starters from 2006, Kobe would join a reasonably good team – Elton Brand/ AWilliams/ PDavis (and perhaps Sofocles Schortsianitis, aka the Greek ‘Baby Shaq’ – if they buy out his contract and bring him over) at 5, Tim Thomas/ Turiaf at 4, QRoss/ Singleton/ Radmanovic at 3, Kobe (and Ross) at 2, SCassell/ JHart/ DEwing/ WConroy at 1. The main Clipper problem last year, of having no consistent second scorer besides Elton, is suddenly, completely fixed. And their defense would likely be better by subtraction, with Ross and Thomas playing more minutes than they did last year behind inferior defenders, and Turiaf presenting a needed boost of energy off the bench. Sofocles killed the American team running the pick and roll at the World Championships in 2006, so he might be a real contributor and let EB play PF. If they also signed his Greek teammate (and key to that killer pick and roll), 6-7 free agent PG Theo Papaloukas, or if Sam Cassell could just stay healthy, this is a team that could make a serious playoff run.
The Lakers, meanwhile, would greatly augment their considerable depth, and would have a wealth of options at every position to decide between; Phil could go big or small, shooters, slashers or passers, and everything in-between with these 4 newcomers plus his leftovers. And there’s an extra draft pick to boot – a superathletic Kobe wannabe, Nick Young from USC, is likely available at #14, but not at the Lakers #19. Just look at the Laker centers in this scenario: Kaman, Bynum, Kwame, Mihm. That’s more than enough fouls to use on Shaq! And assuming Livingston recovers fully, they could even have their new Magic-man at the PG, for Jerry Buss’ dream of reviving Showtime, which more than anything requires the right sort of floor leader (and Steve Nash isn’t available). It looks like a win-win; too bad the Lakers would never do it.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Kobe to the Spurs?
Just for funs and grins – but would either team have the cojones to do it?
Lakers get: Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Jackie Butler, and rights to Luis Scola for Kobe and Jordan Farmar.
Pop gets another young point guard to mold and a Duncan-Kobe combo; Lakers stay competitive and get high Q ratings with Mr Eva Longoria. But I don't see either team doing it.... which sometimes means it's plausible. But probably not in this case.
Lakers get: Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Jackie Butler, and rights to Luis Scola for Kobe and Jordan Farmar.
Pop gets another young point guard to mold and a Duncan-Kobe combo; Lakers stay competitive and get high Q ratings with Mr Eva Longoria. But I don't see either team doing it.... which sometimes means it's plausible. But probably not in this case.
Vegans and the Intrinsic Moral Community, Part 4
The final part:
So how do we specify adequate and coherent moral thought about our obligations to non-persons? Examining the ethics of sustainability will help us focus on the right answer. In the late 1960s a philosopher named Garrett Hardin publicized the so-called 'tragedy of the commons' as an illustration of a general problem called the prisoner's dilemma, in which the action that is collectively rational for a group does not map onto what is individually rational for each person involved.
Hardin's example was medieval English common land, which, with no private ownership, suffered from overgrazing, to the eventual ruin of all involved. This ruin occurred because, for medieval peasants owning cows that grazed on the commons (owned by no one), the benefits that each extra cow brings were reaped solely by its owner, but the costs of the extra strain it put on the grass (and water, etc.) were shared among all the users of what is held in common. In economic jargon, the costs were (partially) externalized - not borne by the producers of the product, but by others. There is never an economic incentive to internalize external costs.
So everyone selfishly had an incentive to raise as many cattle as possible, although they knew if everyone did as they did, it would ruin everyone. But voluntarily refraining from use simply puts you at a competitive disadvantage with someone who selfishly grazes more. So individually rational behavior deteriorates into collective ruin. Such prisoner’s dilemmas are exceedingly common, and help explain why the free market cannot form a coherent basis for ethical behavior.
Solutions to such prisoner’s dilemmas in real life, claim Hardin, are either privatization or more likely mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon - as clean air and water, e.g., can't be privatized. So, Hardin believes that the government must simply pass and enforce laws to coerce people to act in their own long-term interest, even when some suffer as a result. One version of this view amounts to a kind of longer-term utilitarianism, in which numerous humans are sacrificed at present to save more later on - or to prevent many would-be miserable ones from ever being born. But even long-term utilitarianism fails, as we shall see in examining sustainability.
In his "Lifeboat Ethics", Hardin generalized this approach to examine the conditions for the sustainability of the whole biosphere, especially as regards human (over)population. He asserts that feeding the starving when such practices are unsustainable is unjustified. In particular, if we feed people and they reproduce and their children starve and we feed them... We cannot do so forever, and sooner or later everyone will be starving. I.e., Malthus was right. As one commentator put it,
It is moral to haul shipwrecked swimmers out of the water until one more swimmer sinks the whole boat. The answer to how many swimmers we can save is a scientific question. Thus, scientific morals.
Of course, it’s not really that simple. A better commentary follows rules drawn from Hardin’s work:
(1) An acceptable system of ethics is contingent on its ability to preserve the ecosystems which sustain it.
(2) Biological necessity has a veto over the behavior which any set of moral beliefs can allow or require.
(3) Biological success is a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition for any acceptable ethical theory. In summary, no ethics can be grounded in biological impossibility; no ethics can be incoherent in that it requires ethical behavior that ends all further ethical behavior. Clearly any ethics which tries to do so is mistaken; it is wrong.
I believe that these last 3 laws are basically correct, with some caveats as to wording. But they don’t validly generate the conclusion that we must allow millions of people (or non-human animals, for that matter) to starve because at present we don’t know how to create a sustainable economy for their area. But of course, Singer’s utilitarianism is misguided too – as seen in part 2, it flagrantly violates the third law above. Both Hardin and Singer fail sufficiently to appreciate how technology and human cooperation can change the nature of the game.
The ‘demographic transition’ that occurs as literacy levels and other indicators (particularly female education, contraception, and other types of female empowerment) move form a Third to First World has always included a drop in birthrate, largely coincident with but lagging behind (by 30-50 years) a drop in death rate. So populations boom for a while as health care and food production get better and people live longer, then stabilize as birth rates fall. I believe that the necessary conditions for such a transition are predicated on high literacy and other education, the emancipation of women from solely traditional childbearing roles into active social / work life, and expectations of reasonable health and longevity for oneself and one’s children. So I think the first focus of responsibility around the world is to create such conditions everywhere. They are prerequisites for long-term sustainability and quality of life, and thus inculcating such virtues trumps trying to save every single starving person.
We need a rich tapestry of the virtues that constitute the highest form of human life, and to educate people into seeing their value, instead of simply allowing market forces and advertising to pervert the values and preferences of the masses into short-term prisoner’s dilemmas. Virtue ethics, rather than utilitarianism, hence guides inquiry into future obligations. It helps us realize that such values as conduce to human flourishing – people playing proper roles, and learning how to play those roles excellently - are virtues, which will be self-authenticating - they will be the preferences people have under conditions of free and informed inquiry, the values of a self-sustaining and self-correcting society. They will always have the *truth* as their overarching goal, not the maximization of profit or any other lesser end.
Effecting this transition to an entire society which values the truth about everything, from how much to consume to how much to read to how much to give to famine relief, crucially depends on our ability to apply our education; that is, it depends on technology, and new technology changes what is ‘sustainable’. And so it makes perfect sense, e.g., to save as many lives as possible in a truly transitioning economy, because even if their lives are unsustainable under conditions *at present*, *if* the transition continues, their lives will become sustainable in the future. So it becomes a matter of priorities: to a first approximation, we should save as many starving people as possible, *as long as* they could also be given health care and educated to an awareness of the basics of free inquiry, self-government and democratic rule with resources available.
And so I hold that our primary duty to any future Jane Doe is to assure that she will be born into a society with those values. And likewise, our responsibilities to non-persons depend on whatever our proper role in a properly functioning society would be – so a butcher should carve up animals, and is virtuous to do so; but a troubled teenager should not carve up the family pet – for that is not the proper role for either the teen or pet to play in a flourishing society.
Selfishness can be rationally defeated, because, in the end, one can defeat prisoner’s dilemmas with education - one can get people to see what is selfishly rational is collectively irrational, and in the end, will bring them down too. Prisoner’s dilemmas only work when people don’t understand the difference between collective and individual (selfish) rationality - when they do not know how to reach a sustainable consensus, to inculcate the virtues that lead to flourishing in lived society. Inculcating those values, for treating both other persons and the rest of our natural environment, rather than any narrow short-term utilitarian calculus, or a misguided emphasis on the impossible ascription of “rights” to non-persons, will lead to the eventual solution to the problem of specifying our duties towards the rest of creation.
So how do we specify adequate and coherent moral thought about our obligations to non-persons? Examining the ethics of sustainability will help us focus on the right answer. In the late 1960s a philosopher named Garrett Hardin publicized the so-called 'tragedy of the commons' as an illustration of a general problem called the prisoner's dilemma, in which the action that is collectively rational for a group does not map onto what is individually rational for each person involved.
Hardin's example was medieval English common land, which, with no private ownership, suffered from overgrazing, to the eventual ruin of all involved. This ruin occurred because, for medieval peasants owning cows that grazed on the commons (owned by no one), the benefits that each extra cow brings were reaped solely by its owner, but the costs of the extra strain it put on the grass (and water, etc.) were shared among all the users of what is held in common. In economic jargon, the costs were (partially) externalized - not borne by the producers of the product, but by others. There is never an economic incentive to internalize external costs.
So everyone selfishly had an incentive to raise as many cattle as possible, although they knew if everyone did as they did, it would ruin everyone. But voluntarily refraining from use simply puts you at a competitive disadvantage with someone who selfishly grazes more. So individually rational behavior deteriorates into collective ruin. Such prisoner’s dilemmas are exceedingly common, and help explain why the free market cannot form a coherent basis for ethical behavior.
Solutions to such prisoner’s dilemmas in real life, claim Hardin, are either privatization or more likely mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon - as clean air and water, e.g., can't be privatized. So, Hardin believes that the government must simply pass and enforce laws to coerce people to act in their own long-term interest, even when some suffer as a result. One version of this view amounts to a kind of longer-term utilitarianism, in which numerous humans are sacrificed at present to save more later on - or to prevent many would-be miserable ones from ever being born. But even long-term utilitarianism fails, as we shall see in examining sustainability.
In his "Lifeboat Ethics", Hardin generalized this approach to examine the conditions for the sustainability of the whole biosphere, especially as regards human (over)population. He asserts that feeding the starving when such practices are unsustainable is unjustified. In particular, if we feed people and they reproduce and their children starve and we feed them... We cannot do so forever, and sooner or later everyone will be starving. I.e., Malthus was right. As one commentator put it,
It is moral to haul shipwrecked swimmers out of the water until one more swimmer sinks the whole boat. The answer to how many swimmers we can save is a scientific question. Thus, scientific morals.
Of course, it’s not really that simple. A better commentary follows rules drawn from Hardin’s work:
(1) An acceptable system of ethics is contingent on its ability to preserve the ecosystems which sustain it.
(2) Biological necessity has a veto over the behavior which any set of moral beliefs can allow or require.
(3) Biological success is a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition for any acceptable ethical theory. In summary, no ethics can be grounded in biological impossibility; no ethics can be incoherent in that it requires ethical behavior that ends all further ethical behavior. Clearly any ethics which tries to do so is mistaken; it is wrong.
I believe that these last 3 laws are basically correct, with some caveats as to wording. But they don’t validly generate the conclusion that we must allow millions of people (or non-human animals, for that matter) to starve because at present we don’t know how to create a sustainable economy for their area. But of course, Singer’s utilitarianism is misguided too – as seen in part 2, it flagrantly violates the third law above. Both Hardin and Singer fail sufficiently to appreciate how technology and human cooperation can change the nature of the game.
The ‘demographic transition’ that occurs as literacy levels and other indicators (particularly female education, contraception, and other types of female empowerment) move form a Third to First World has always included a drop in birthrate, largely coincident with but lagging behind (by 30-50 years) a drop in death rate. So populations boom for a while as health care and food production get better and people live longer, then stabilize as birth rates fall. I believe that the necessary conditions for such a transition are predicated on high literacy and other education, the emancipation of women from solely traditional childbearing roles into active social / work life, and expectations of reasonable health and longevity for oneself and one’s children. So I think the first focus of responsibility around the world is to create such conditions everywhere. They are prerequisites for long-term sustainability and quality of life, and thus inculcating such virtues trumps trying to save every single starving person.
We need a rich tapestry of the virtues that constitute the highest form of human life, and to educate people into seeing their value, instead of simply allowing market forces and advertising to pervert the values and preferences of the masses into short-term prisoner’s dilemmas. Virtue ethics, rather than utilitarianism, hence guides inquiry into future obligations. It helps us realize that such values as conduce to human flourishing – people playing proper roles, and learning how to play those roles excellently - are virtues, which will be self-authenticating - they will be the preferences people have under conditions of free and informed inquiry, the values of a self-sustaining and self-correcting society. They will always have the *truth* as their overarching goal, not the maximization of profit or any other lesser end.
Effecting this transition to an entire society which values the truth about everything, from how much to consume to how much to read to how much to give to famine relief, crucially depends on our ability to apply our education; that is, it depends on technology, and new technology changes what is ‘sustainable’. And so it makes perfect sense, e.g., to save as many lives as possible in a truly transitioning economy, because even if their lives are unsustainable under conditions *at present*, *if* the transition continues, their lives will become sustainable in the future. So it becomes a matter of priorities: to a first approximation, we should save as many starving people as possible, *as long as* they could also be given health care and educated to an awareness of the basics of free inquiry, self-government and democratic rule with resources available.
And so I hold that our primary duty to any future Jane Doe is to assure that she will be born into a society with those values. And likewise, our responsibilities to non-persons depend on whatever our proper role in a properly functioning society would be – so a butcher should carve up animals, and is virtuous to do so; but a troubled teenager should not carve up the family pet – for that is not the proper role for either the teen or pet to play in a flourishing society.
Selfishness can be rationally defeated, because, in the end, one can defeat prisoner’s dilemmas with education - one can get people to see what is selfishly rational is collectively irrational, and in the end, will bring them down too. Prisoner’s dilemmas only work when people don’t understand the difference between collective and individual (selfish) rationality - when they do not know how to reach a sustainable consensus, to inculcate the virtues that lead to flourishing in lived society. Inculcating those values, for treating both other persons and the rest of our natural environment, rather than any narrow short-term utilitarian calculus, or a misguided emphasis on the impossible ascription of “rights” to non-persons, will lead to the eventual solution to the problem of specifying our duties towards the rest of creation.
Your daily Kobe deal, June 24
Kobe to the Hornets of New Orleans for:
Tyson Chandler (LA native), Chris Paul (personable young star), Rasual Butler, Hilton Armstrong, and the 2007 Draft #13 Pick
The Hornets would be looking for a center (unless they thought 2nd year man Cedric Simmons was up to the task), but their other 4 starters would be the underrated David West, Peja Stojakovic/ Desmond Mason, Kobe, and Bobby Jackson – they could make some noise. The Lakers get 2 young up and comers and a draft pick. The trade looks better for the Hornets if they could include Peja instead of Chandler, but I don’t see the Lakers going for that.
Tyson Chandler (LA native), Chris Paul (personable young star), Rasual Butler, Hilton Armstrong, and the 2007 Draft #13 Pick
The Hornets would be looking for a center (unless they thought 2nd year man Cedric Simmons was up to the task), but their other 4 starters would be the underrated David West, Peja Stojakovic/ Desmond Mason, Kobe, and Bobby Jackson – they could make some noise. The Lakers get 2 young up and comers and a draft pick. The trade looks better for the Hornets if they could include Peja instead of Chandler, but I don’t see the Lakers going for that.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Painted Ceiling 2006 - the beginning
It began with harvest at Golden Oaks vineyard in Paso in fall 2006. Paul, Steve, Jim and I picked the grapes, then took them to Ciro's workhouse to crush and destem, making a mess and having a grand time; the fermentation process began. Later, after the first racking, we each took a bottle home; Jim warned us to drink it quickly, as the fermentation was not finished and the bottle might pop its cork as the pressure built. Paul waited a couple of days and opened it for guests at his house - and as he popped the cork, a cabernet explosion followed! (For Youtube fans, think Coke and Mentos.) And our wine's name was born - Painted Ceiling (2006). Paul's ceiling has since been repainted, but the wine is still a work in progress. Bottoms up to everyone!
Aesthetics in practice
Philosophy and Religious Studies does wine-tasting in Paso:
As the end of the quarter finally arrives, it’s time for the Philosophy Department oenophiles to do some tasting, before heading up to join our friend Jim (who actually knows what he’s doing) to rack our own cabernet sauvignon that we’re making, the 2006 Painted Ceiling (name to be explained in a later post). Leaving SLO on a typically gorgeous sunny 75 degree afternoon, we drove north over the grade to start the afternoon at Cass Winery, northeast of Atascadero and southeast of Paso Robles. After traversing confusing and winding back roads for a while, we finally arrived; with a Putomayo collection of CDs playing and various expensive drawings hanging from the walls underneath a mammoth red sail from someone’s luxury boat over the bar, the tasting room was designed to give off an expensive ambience. We actually sat outside on a lovely shaded patio for the tasting. Too bad the wine didn’t live up to the surroundings. The whites were decent – a Tablas Creek style Rhone blend and a decent Viognier, but the Mourvedre and Grenache were horrid, and the Syrah, while clearly the best of the lot, was merely average.
The person pouring at Cass was very helpful, however, and recommended trying Still Waters next. So we headed there, and were immediately impressed on the drive in with the 100-year-old olive grove overlooking a 60-acre vineyard, with little trails for walking, a small cottage, and a lawn with bocce balls outside the tasting room – it was truly an idyllic little scene. Inside, a beautiful former Poly student ascertained we weren’t big on whites, but still had us collectively try the Viognier, Chardonnay, Pinot Gris, and Sauvignon Blanc – all very solid. Then the reds – a Merlot that was actually quite drinkable was the first sign we had stumbled on an excellent winery. The zinfandel was actually very tasty (and I'm not a big zin fan), and was the only non-estate wine; the cabernet sauvignon and syrah were quite good, and their special cabernet-syrah-merlot blend, Reflections (2003), was enough to get me to think about joining the wine club. That, and the incredible olive oil we were snarfing down the entire time – grassy and pungent and absolutely delicious, I think we must have gone through most of a baguette with it! She brought out a Malbec at the end, and that and the Reflections were the best things we had tried. I’m definitely going back to Still Waters.
Next, we drove carefully through Paso to the Garretson Wine Company, where we tried several Syrahs, including "The Luascáin" (90 points, Robert Parker), "The Aisling" (92 points), and "Mon Amie" (94 points), a Grenache and Mourvedre, as well as their flagship blend, "The Reliquary". But despite the snooty praise of Robert Parker (and corresponding prices), I thought only the "Mon Amie" compared to what we had drunk at Still Waters, and my departmental compatriots thought not even that. But our pourer was extremely cordial, and related that (despite no ambition to become a major winemaker herself) she had made her own Grenache, which her co-workers termed “Wet Monkey” – at least, that was their nicest name for it! We nonetheless expressed curiousity, and she brought out an unlabelled bottle of it for us to try. What do you know – I thought it was the second best thing there (after "Mon Amie"), and everyone else thought it was the best! Flattered, and having found out it was Paul’s birthday, our pourer generously gave us the rest of the bottle for use at our racking later. However, it never made it that far.
Dinnertime was almost upon us, but we quickly stopped at Falcon’s Nest, a new winery run by an immigrant Italian with an attitude, and his wife, who would turn around to make odd comments and tell us to swirl our wine in our glass sideways, all while searching the ‘Big Lots’ website. It was an odd place – and looked a bit like a place one shouldn’t stop in a Western horror movie. And the wine itself was, well, awful – well, everyone except Todd thought so, and we’ve established he is most favorable to Italian style reds amongst us. So, in an attempt to quickly cleanse our palates, we hurried back to downtown Paso for dinner at a fabulous new place, Artisan. We realized that the Grenache our friend at Garretson gave us would be a splendid dinner wine, so we enjoyed it with a truly elegant meal; after a magnificent appetizer of crusty bread, spicy sausage, and a porter ale and gouda fondue-like dip, for a main course I had a terrific sirloin with spinach and shoestring potatoes, while Steve had a Kobe steak, Paul a venison Wellington, and Todd a scrumptious chicken breast and spinach. All were most pleased.
Afterwards, Todd returned home while the rest of us drove on to join Jim and begin the racking, at the workhouse of another Italian immigrant, Ciro (a terrific breadmaker) and his wife Kim. Lugging huge glass jars and washing and testing and adding wood chips and testing and more washing and… well, a few hours later, we were finally through; Ciro and Kim had invited us to come on up to the main house for a drink and a chat afterward. We brought a bottle of our newly racked wine and ascended the hill, through perilous hairpin turns until the gate opened and we saw what must be one of the best views west of Paso Robles. We entered what looked like a large Italian villa, with a magnificent backyard view over the wooded valley below, although it could not quite make out the ocean (there’s another mountain ridge in the way), but could see a glimpse of Hearst Castle, many miles away. Under the gathering stars, we drank and ate and listened to Ciro attempt to explain in English his views on BTUs and a life force – none of us quite sure what he was saying, but feeling as if he was a poet anyway. We looked through his telescope – outside the city, the stars and planets are so much more visible – and marveled at the craters of the Moon. Finally, full of good food, drink, and company, we headed back to SLO, remembering there’s a reason many call the Central Coast region “Paradise.”
As the end of the quarter finally arrives, it’s time for the Philosophy Department oenophiles to do some tasting, before heading up to join our friend Jim (who actually knows what he’s doing) to rack our own cabernet sauvignon that we’re making, the 2006 Painted Ceiling (name to be explained in a later post). Leaving SLO on a typically gorgeous sunny 75 degree afternoon, we drove north over the grade to start the afternoon at Cass Winery, northeast of Atascadero and southeast of Paso Robles. After traversing confusing and winding back roads for a while, we finally arrived; with a Putomayo collection of CDs playing and various expensive drawings hanging from the walls underneath a mammoth red sail from someone’s luxury boat over the bar, the tasting room was designed to give off an expensive ambience. We actually sat outside on a lovely shaded patio for the tasting. Too bad the wine didn’t live up to the surroundings. The whites were decent – a Tablas Creek style Rhone blend and a decent Viognier, but the Mourvedre and Grenache were horrid, and the Syrah, while clearly the best of the lot, was merely average.
The person pouring at Cass was very helpful, however, and recommended trying Still Waters next. So we headed there, and were immediately impressed on the drive in with the 100-year-old olive grove overlooking a 60-acre vineyard, with little trails for walking, a small cottage, and a lawn with bocce balls outside the tasting room – it was truly an idyllic little scene. Inside, a beautiful former Poly student ascertained we weren’t big on whites, but still had us collectively try the Viognier, Chardonnay, Pinot Gris, and Sauvignon Blanc – all very solid. Then the reds – a Merlot that was actually quite drinkable was the first sign we had stumbled on an excellent winery. The zinfandel was actually very tasty (and I'm not a big zin fan), and was the only non-estate wine; the cabernet sauvignon and syrah were quite good, and their special cabernet-syrah-merlot blend, Reflections (2003), was enough to get me to think about joining the wine club. That, and the incredible olive oil we were snarfing down the entire time – grassy and pungent and absolutely delicious, I think we must have gone through most of a baguette with it! She brought out a Malbec at the end, and that and the Reflections were the best things we had tried. I’m definitely going back to Still Waters.
Next, we drove carefully through Paso to the Garretson Wine Company, where we tried several Syrahs, including "The Luascáin" (90 points, Robert Parker), "The Aisling" (92 points), and "Mon Amie" (94 points), a Grenache and Mourvedre, as well as their flagship blend, "The Reliquary". But despite the snooty praise of Robert Parker (and corresponding prices), I thought only the "Mon Amie" compared to what we had drunk at Still Waters, and my departmental compatriots thought not even that. But our pourer was extremely cordial, and related that (despite no ambition to become a major winemaker herself) she had made her own Grenache, which her co-workers termed “Wet Monkey” – at least, that was their nicest name for it! We nonetheless expressed curiousity, and she brought out an unlabelled bottle of it for us to try. What do you know – I thought it was the second best thing there (after "Mon Amie"), and everyone else thought it was the best! Flattered, and having found out it was Paul’s birthday, our pourer generously gave us the rest of the bottle for use at our racking later. However, it never made it that far.
Dinnertime was almost upon us, but we quickly stopped at Falcon’s Nest, a new winery run by an immigrant Italian with an attitude, and his wife, who would turn around to make odd comments and tell us to swirl our wine in our glass sideways, all while searching the ‘Big Lots’ website. It was an odd place – and looked a bit like a place one shouldn’t stop in a Western horror movie. And the wine itself was, well, awful – well, everyone except Todd thought so, and we’ve established he is most favorable to Italian style reds amongst us. So, in an attempt to quickly cleanse our palates, we hurried back to downtown Paso for dinner at a fabulous new place, Artisan. We realized that the Grenache our friend at Garretson gave us would be a splendid dinner wine, so we enjoyed it with a truly elegant meal; after a magnificent appetizer of crusty bread, spicy sausage, and a porter ale and gouda fondue-like dip, for a main course I had a terrific sirloin with spinach and shoestring potatoes, while Steve had a Kobe steak, Paul a venison Wellington, and Todd a scrumptious chicken breast and spinach. All were most pleased.
Afterwards, Todd returned home while the rest of us drove on to join Jim and begin the racking, at the workhouse of another Italian immigrant, Ciro (a terrific breadmaker) and his wife Kim. Lugging huge glass jars and washing and testing and adding wood chips and testing and more washing and… well, a few hours later, we were finally through; Ciro and Kim had invited us to come on up to the main house for a drink and a chat afterward. We brought a bottle of our newly racked wine and ascended the hill, through perilous hairpin turns until the gate opened and we saw what must be one of the best views west of Paso Robles. We entered what looked like a large Italian villa, with a magnificent backyard view over the wooded valley below, although it could not quite make out the ocean (there’s another mountain ridge in the way), but could see a glimpse of Hearst Castle, many miles away. Under the gathering stars, we drank and ate and listened to Ciro attempt to explain in English his views on BTUs and a life force – none of us quite sure what he was saying, but feeling as if he was a poet anyway. We looked through his telescope – outside the city, the stars and planets are so much more visible – and marveled at the craters of the Moon. Finally, full of good food, drink, and company, we headed back to SLO, remembering there’s a reason many call the Central Coast region “Paradise.”
Your daily Kobe deal
To Lakers: Wally Szczerbiak (contract expires summer 2009), Theo Ratliff (contract expires summer 2008), Al Jefferson, Gerald Green, Rajon Rondo, Leon Powe and the #5 pick in the draft (plus a 2009 first-rounder)
To Boston: Lamar Odom and Kobe Bryant
Boston rotation (pending further deals): KPerkins, Odom/ Gomes, PPierce, Kobe, DWest/ Telfair - enough to contend in the East.
Lakers get re-loaded for the future... A Rondo and Green backcourt, Jefferson at 4, Luke at 3 and Bynum at 5 gives them a young nucleus for a long time....plus they can get a terrific player (Corey Brewer?) with the #5 pick.
To Boston: Lamar Odom and Kobe Bryant
Boston rotation (pending further deals): KPerkins, Odom/ Gomes, PPierce, Kobe, DWest/ Telfair - enough to contend in the East.
Lakers get re-loaded for the future... A Rondo and Green backcourt, Jefferson at 4, Luke at 3 and Bynum at 5 gives them a young nucleus for a long time....plus they can get a terrific player (Corey Brewer?) with the #5 pick.
Vegans and the Intrinsic Moral Community, Part 3
So what are the ramifications of claiming only persons are members of the intrinsic moral community? First, back to the argument from marginal cases – ‘person’ and ‘biological human’ are not coextensive concepts – so are some humans not intrinsically valuable?
The honest answer is ‘yes’. The concept of a moral person – one due moral consideration, a being capable of morality - is often confused and conflated with genetic humanity, but a moment’s reflection on the status of corpses or possible extraterrestrials (Mr. Spock, say) shows such ‘speciesist’ understandings cannot be correct. To clarify the concept of a moral person, we first need to understand the nature of moral 'rights' - they are entitlements (being entitled to certain considerations and/or freedoms), which in themselves place me under no obligation. Rather, a right grants me a liberty – I may claim it, if I so choose; but I am under no compunction to make the claim - it is up to me. So freedom or liberty is built into the concept of ‘a right’. My right to free speech does not require me to speak – it instead simply means that I may speak, if I so choose – regardless of what others wish. (Of course, that doesn’t mean they have to listen!)
But rights claims I make do logically entail responsibilities – not for me, but for other persons. So, the correlativity thesis: any ascription of rights to oneself involves correlative obligations for other persons. If I am free to speak, then, at a minimum, you have an obligation not to shut me up. My ‘right’ is hence a freedom to avoid being interfered with – it constitutes a restriction on the ability of others to thwart my freedom. Such ‘negative rights’ require merely autonomy for oneself and non-interference by others. Some rights theorists also assert the existence of ‘positive rights’, which impose even stronger obligations upon others – they are required to assist me (if I so choose) in the exercise of my right. (Federal ‘equal time’ laws for campaign advertising are understood as a positive right – they require the assistance of the media to be exercised.) It follows that rights claims logically require autonomy, the ability to be a law unto oneself, which requires the capacity for the rational exercise of free will, or agency; and rights, as seen, also require moral responsibilities, on each other person whenever I claim a right. So without autonomy, one cannot have rights; without rights to be free from some interference in at least some parts of life, autonomy is impossible.
Of course, the correlativity thesis applies to all rights claims - not just my own. So if anyone else has a right, I am under a correlative obligation; the only scenario under which I have rights but no responsibilities is if no one else has rights at all - except me. Likewise, in the absence of culpability - assignations of moral responsibility - claims of rights are a mirage; I have no rights if others do not thereby have obligations to respect those rights.
In slogan form, ‘No rights without responsibilities’ - per the correlativity thesis, universal rights entail universal responsibilities/duties. There is a related slogan form for compensatory justice: ‘No right without a remedy’ - a social right only exists insofar as social means for compensatory justice exist. If my rights can be violated with impunity, they do not really exist. If you can ruthlessly silence me without fear of punishment, the claim that I have a ‘right to free speech’ is a hollow illusion.
With all this in mind, the diagnosis of what ails rights discourse is enabled. In rights theory, moral persons are all and only those capable of moral responsibility. Given the correlativity thesis, there are no rights without responsibilities; that is, every ascription of a right to one involves correlative obligations for all other … persons. Not everything has obligations – lions, giraffes, tables and chairs have no obligations to respect my right to free speech. That’s because they are incapable of it – they cannot be morally responsible, hence are simply not a person. Now, mind you, the converse of the correlativity thesis does not hold – obligations can exist for persons without some person thereby being given a right. You and I arrive simultaneously at a four-way traffic stop, facing head-on; we are both obligated to stop, but neither of us has a ‘right’ to go first. (Someone will go first, of course, but not because they had a right to do so.) Rights entail duties, but not all duties entail rights. And, to address our obligations to non-persons, we persons may well have duties to the environment or babies or future generations, without those things thereby having moral rights.
So the essential problem occurs because those who confuse morality with legalism or due process often also confuse moral consideration with moral rights. The defenders of animal rights, environmental rights, fetal rights, and so forth are trapped in moral discourse that disguises their true concerns and legitimate claims because their theoretical vocabulary embodies a deep incoherence. Simply put, animals, fetuses, and the environment have no rights. They cannot have rights, because they can neither exercise agency, nor undertake obligations - they are not held responsible for what they do. And as seen, rights claims logically require both autonomy (for the bearer of rights) and autonomous responsibility (for all those who recognize a right).
Non-human animals (as far as we know) can neither rationally exercise free will nor bear responsibility for infringing on the rights of others - hence they cannot be bearers of or respecters of rights. Non-human animals can neither make rational claims nor be tried for their failures to respect the claims of others. My cat or dog, whatever their other abilities, do not have the capacity for autonomy or taking responsibility - and hence logically cannot have rights. If animals such as dolphins or bonobos eventually do demonstrate such abilities, then they would be considered rights bearers - and correlatively, citizens of the moral community with obligations to us. In short, they would be persons. I have encountered no convincing evidence of such abilities by them, so henceforth I assume they have no rights. Occasionally legal fictions are created that ascribe rights to things without autonomy - a recent suit was filed on behalf of cetaceans against the US Navy, claiming that whales and dolphins ‘have a right’ not to have noise pollution from submarines endanger their health. But of course, in reality the cetaceans were not making the claim – a human was, in effect, asserting his right to save the whales. (By the way, the case was dismissed.)
Similarly, fetuses - and infants, for that matter – cannot have moral rights. They too can neither exercise agency nor undertake obligations. And likewise for ‘the environment’, or any other mistakenly reified rights holder. But of course, no one likely believes that the fact that infants and pets have no rights means that morally we may do as we like with them. That is, the moral community - the set of things to which moral consideration is due - is certainly larger than the set of rights holders - those who can rationally demand such consideration as a right, and hence as my obligation. And it is the tendency to conflate ‘having a moral right’ with ‘being due moral consideration’ that has poisoned intellectual discourse on these topics and created such ethical confusion. Stem cells, pets, ecosystems, zygotes, fetuses, infants, and research animals all plausibly are due varying degrees of moral consideration - but not because they have any rights.
A Kantian holds that they are due consideration merely instrumentally, because rights holders care about them - as is clear with the treatment of pets versus other animals. Their value, says Kant, is merely instrumental: because some rational agents care about Fluffy, it is wrong to harm Fluffy - but the harm is not directly to Fluffy, but indirectly to the agent, the holder of rights. Kant thought it wrong to torture dogs or cats, not because of the harm to the dog – there is none – but because of the harm to the persons who care about the dog (and the harm to the torturer himself). Some seriously believe that such an analysis can be extended to explain all moral consideration - that is, non-rights holders are due moral consideration only insofar as rights holders care about them – or insofar as they affect the interests of rights holders.
But I think it obvious that such an approach cannot succeed; it requires radical revision and supplementation, as the discussion below will demonstrate. Its remnant plausibility rests on the fundamental confusion about who can and cannot have rights, which both law and Kantian moral theory have continually obfuscated. This is especially clear when discussing ‘potential persons’ – things that are not persons now, but (if all goes well) can become persons at some later time. A fetus is obviously such a potential person, but so are the later generations that sustainability theorists worry about – they do not exist now, but could in the future.
Take Jane Doe, a hypothetical 25 year old, normally functioning citizen of the year 2100. As a merely potential (future) person here in 2007, she has no rights now – how could she? She does not even have the right to exist, we assume; her hypothetical great-grandparents here and now do no wrong in choosing not to have a child, in which case she never will exist. But in the year 2100, as an actual person, she certainly will have rights – so she potentially, but not actually, has rights now. What are my obligations, here in 2007, towards her – and her environment? Do I have a responsibility to avoid global warming or asteroid strikes or nuclear fallout polluting her environment or even making it unliveable? If so, we cannot say it is because she has a right now that specifies my duty. Yet we do believe that causing e.g. massive pollution or crop failure or intense radioactive fallout of future habitations or enormously adversely affecting other aspects of sustainability is deeply wrong. We cannot specify that wrongness in terms of current rights, or even in the interests or cares of current rights holders. A Kantian or rights approach simply will not work, and as seen, a utilitarian approach will not work either. How then do we specify adequate and coherent moral thought about our obligations to non-persons? Stay tuned for the conclusion in Part 4....
The honest answer is ‘yes’. The concept of a moral person – one due moral consideration, a being capable of morality - is often confused and conflated with genetic humanity, but a moment’s reflection on the status of corpses or possible extraterrestrials (Mr. Spock, say) shows such ‘speciesist’ understandings cannot be correct. To clarify the concept of a moral person, we first need to understand the nature of moral 'rights' - they are entitlements (being entitled to certain considerations and/or freedoms), which in themselves place me under no obligation. Rather, a right grants me a liberty – I may claim it, if I so choose; but I am under no compunction to make the claim - it is up to me. So freedom or liberty is built into the concept of ‘a right’. My right to free speech does not require me to speak – it instead simply means that I may speak, if I so choose – regardless of what others wish. (Of course, that doesn’t mean they have to listen!)
But rights claims I make do logically entail responsibilities – not for me, but for other persons. So, the correlativity thesis: any ascription of rights to oneself involves correlative obligations for other persons. If I am free to speak, then, at a minimum, you have an obligation not to shut me up. My ‘right’ is hence a freedom to avoid being interfered with – it constitutes a restriction on the ability of others to thwart my freedom. Such ‘negative rights’ require merely autonomy for oneself and non-interference by others. Some rights theorists also assert the existence of ‘positive rights’, which impose even stronger obligations upon others – they are required to assist me (if I so choose) in the exercise of my right. (Federal ‘equal time’ laws for campaign advertising are understood as a positive right – they require the assistance of the media to be exercised.) It follows that rights claims logically require autonomy, the ability to be a law unto oneself, which requires the capacity for the rational exercise of free will, or agency; and rights, as seen, also require moral responsibilities, on each other person whenever I claim a right. So without autonomy, one cannot have rights; without rights to be free from some interference in at least some parts of life, autonomy is impossible.
Of course, the correlativity thesis applies to all rights claims - not just my own. So if anyone else has a right, I am under a correlative obligation; the only scenario under which I have rights but no responsibilities is if no one else has rights at all - except me. Likewise, in the absence of culpability - assignations of moral responsibility - claims of rights are a mirage; I have no rights if others do not thereby have obligations to respect those rights.
In slogan form, ‘No rights without responsibilities’ - per the correlativity thesis, universal rights entail universal responsibilities/duties. There is a related slogan form for compensatory justice: ‘No right without a remedy’ - a social right only exists insofar as social means for compensatory justice exist. If my rights can be violated with impunity, they do not really exist. If you can ruthlessly silence me without fear of punishment, the claim that I have a ‘right to free speech’ is a hollow illusion.
With all this in mind, the diagnosis of what ails rights discourse is enabled. In rights theory, moral persons are all and only those capable of moral responsibility. Given the correlativity thesis, there are no rights without responsibilities; that is, every ascription of a right to one involves correlative obligations for all other … persons. Not everything has obligations – lions, giraffes, tables and chairs have no obligations to respect my right to free speech. That’s because they are incapable of it – they cannot be morally responsible, hence are simply not a person. Now, mind you, the converse of the correlativity thesis does not hold – obligations can exist for persons without some person thereby being given a right. You and I arrive simultaneously at a four-way traffic stop, facing head-on; we are both obligated to stop, but neither of us has a ‘right’ to go first. (Someone will go first, of course, but not because they had a right to do so.) Rights entail duties, but not all duties entail rights. And, to address our obligations to non-persons, we persons may well have duties to the environment or babies or future generations, without those things thereby having moral rights.
So the essential problem occurs because those who confuse morality with legalism or due process often also confuse moral consideration with moral rights. The defenders of animal rights, environmental rights, fetal rights, and so forth are trapped in moral discourse that disguises their true concerns and legitimate claims because their theoretical vocabulary embodies a deep incoherence. Simply put, animals, fetuses, and the environment have no rights. They cannot have rights, because they can neither exercise agency, nor undertake obligations - they are not held responsible for what they do. And as seen, rights claims logically require both autonomy (for the bearer of rights) and autonomous responsibility (for all those who recognize a right).
Non-human animals (as far as we know) can neither rationally exercise free will nor bear responsibility for infringing on the rights of others - hence they cannot be bearers of or respecters of rights. Non-human animals can neither make rational claims nor be tried for their failures to respect the claims of others. My cat or dog, whatever their other abilities, do not have the capacity for autonomy or taking responsibility - and hence logically cannot have rights. If animals such as dolphins or bonobos eventually do demonstrate such abilities, then they would be considered rights bearers - and correlatively, citizens of the moral community with obligations to us. In short, they would be persons. I have encountered no convincing evidence of such abilities by them, so henceforth I assume they have no rights. Occasionally legal fictions are created that ascribe rights to things without autonomy - a recent suit was filed on behalf of cetaceans against the US Navy, claiming that whales and dolphins ‘have a right’ not to have noise pollution from submarines endanger their health. But of course, in reality the cetaceans were not making the claim – a human was, in effect, asserting his right to save the whales. (By the way, the case was dismissed.)
Similarly, fetuses - and infants, for that matter – cannot have moral rights. They too can neither exercise agency nor undertake obligations. And likewise for ‘the environment’, or any other mistakenly reified rights holder. But of course, no one likely believes that the fact that infants and pets have no rights means that morally we may do as we like with them. That is, the moral community - the set of things to which moral consideration is due - is certainly larger than the set of rights holders - those who can rationally demand such consideration as a right, and hence as my obligation. And it is the tendency to conflate ‘having a moral right’ with ‘being due moral consideration’ that has poisoned intellectual discourse on these topics and created such ethical confusion. Stem cells, pets, ecosystems, zygotes, fetuses, infants, and research animals all plausibly are due varying degrees of moral consideration - but not because they have any rights.
A Kantian holds that they are due consideration merely instrumentally, because rights holders care about them - as is clear with the treatment of pets versus other animals. Their value, says Kant, is merely instrumental: because some rational agents care about Fluffy, it is wrong to harm Fluffy - but the harm is not directly to Fluffy, but indirectly to the agent, the holder of rights. Kant thought it wrong to torture dogs or cats, not because of the harm to the dog – there is none – but because of the harm to the persons who care about the dog (and the harm to the torturer himself). Some seriously believe that such an analysis can be extended to explain all moral consideration - that is, non-rights holders are due moral consideration only insofar as rights holders care about them – or insofar as they affect the interests of rights holders.
But I think it obvious that such an approach cannot succeed; it requires radical revision and supplementation, as the discussion below will demonstrate. Its remnant plausibility rests on the fundamental confusion about who can and cannot have rights, which both law and Kantian moral theory have continually obfuscated. This is especially clear when discussing ‘potential persons’ – things that are not persons now, but (if all goes well) can become persons at some later time. A fetus is obviously such a potential person, but so are the later generations that sustainability theorists worry about – they do not exist now, but could in the future.
Take Jane Doe, a hypothetical 25 year old, normally functioning citizen of the year 2100. As a merely potential (future) person here in 2007, she has no rights now – how could she? She does not even have the right to exist, we assume; her hypothetical great-grandparents here and now do no wrong in choosing not to have a child, in which case she never will exist. But in the year 2100, as an actual person, she certainly will have rights – so she potentially, but not actually, has rights now. What are my obligations, here in 2007, towards her – and her environment? Do I have a responsibility to avoid global warming or asteroid strikes or nuclear fallout polluting her environment or even making it unliveable? If so, we cannot say it is because she has a right now that specifies my duty. Yet we do believe that causing e.g. massive pollution or crop failure or intense radioactive fallout of future habitations or enormously adversely affecting other aspects of sustainability is deeply wrong. We cannot specify that wrongness in terms of current rights, or even in the interests or cares of current rights holders. A Kantian or rights approach simply will not work, and as seen, a utilitarian approach will not work either. How then do we specify adequate and coherent moral thought about our obligations to non-persons? Stay tuned for the conclusion in Part 4....
Friday, June 22, 2007
Kobe for Oden?
Portland could win NOW - Kobe and Lamar O. for Darius, LaFrentz, Zach and the #1. It's been since 1977 and a Big Redhead that Blazers fans have seen their team win it all, and with Odom and Kobe joining Roy, Jack, Aldridge, etc., it could be 1977 revisited. Championship banners fly forever... and the Lakers rebuild with a franchise C.
Kobe to Orlando?
Could Kobe follow Shaq to the other Sunshine State? The scenario is frighteningly plausible if the Lakers choose to start over, which they should if keeping Bynum and dealing Kobe. So, the Lakers rebuilding scenario:
To Lakers:
Dwight Howard
Salary: $4,806,720 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 17.6 REB: 12.3 AST: 1.9 PER: 21.19
Hedo Turkoglu
Salary: $5,883,600 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 13.3 REB: 4.0 AST: 3.2 PER: 14.26
J.J. Redick
Salary: $1,860,720 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 6.0 REB: 1.2 AST: 0.9 PER: 13.05
Trevor Ariza
Salary: $3,100,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 8.9 REB: 4.4 AST: 1.1 PER: 16.27
Keyon Dooling
Salary: $3,348,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 7.9 REB: 1.3 AST: 1.7 PER: 11.16
Carlos Arroyo
Salary: $4,100,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 7.7 REB: 1.9 AST: 2.8 PER: 14.48
Keith Bogans
Salary: $2,510,000 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 5.1 REB: 1.6 AST: 1.0 PER: 9.25
And a future #1 pick or 2
Lakers get serious about rebuilding, with 2 young centers in Dwight Howard and Bynum – a potential Twin Towers scenario. They could even insist on Darko via sign and trade instead of some of the minor pieces here, if so inclined, and load up the pivot even more. Ariza likewise is an outstanding prospect, and Turkoglu and Redick (shooters), Bogans and Dooling (defenders) and Arroyo (sorely needed PG) could all have roles to play in the rotation. Only Turkoglu and Bogans have non-expiring contracts, so the Lakers could have cap flexibility by this summer, and certainly over the next few seasons, to entice serious free agents to join an exciting core. And look at the depth - Starters/ main rotation could be any of: Post players: Howard/ Bynum/ Kwame/ Mihm/ Cook; Swingmen: Ariza/ Luke/ Mo Evans/ Turkoglu/ Redick/ Bogans; and PG – Farmar/ Arroyo/Dooling
To Magic:
Sasha Vujacic
Salary: $973,920 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 4.3 REB: 1.5 AST: 0.9 PER: 11.67
Lamar Odom
Salary: $12,348,596 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 15.9 REB: 9.8 AST: 4.8 PER: 16.20
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
Ronny Turiaf
Salary: $664,209 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 5.3 REB: 3.6 AST: 0.9 PER: 15.54
Orlando suddenly becomes a serious Eastern conference power, giving Grant Hill every reason to stay home and play for a title contender, just as he’s dreamed all these years. Magic rotation suddenly looks powerful, with a solid defender at C and possible all-stars in the East at each of the other 4 positions: 5 Battie/ Milicic, 4 LOdom/ Turiaf, 3 GHill/ Garrity/ Outlaw, 2 Kobe/ Vujacic, 1 JNelson/ TDiener
Comments?
To Lakers:
Dwight Howard
Salary: $4,806,720 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 17.6 REB: 12.3 AST: 1.9 PER: 21.19
Hedo Turkoglu
Salary: $5,883,600 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 13.3 REB: 4.0 AST: 3.2 PER: 14.26
J.J. Redick
Salary: $1,860,720 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 6.0 REB: 1.2 AST: 0.9 PER: 13.05
Trevor Ariza
Salary: $3,100,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 8.9 REB: 4.4 AST: 1.1 PER: 16.27
Keyon Dooling
Salary: $3,348,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 7.9 REB: 1.3 AST: 1.7 PER: 11.16
Carlos Arroyo
Salary: $4,100,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 7.7 REB: 1.9 AST: 2.8 PER: 14.48
Keith Bogans
Salary: $2,510,000 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 5.1 REB: 1.6 AST: 1.0 PER: 9.25
And a future #1 pick or 2
Lakers get serious about rebuilding, with 2 young centers in Dwight Howard and Bynum – a potential Twin Towers scenario. They could even insist on Darko via sign and trade instead of some of the minor pieces here, if so inclined, and load up the pivot even more. Ariza likewise is an outstanding prospect, and Turkoglu and Redick (shooters), Bogans and Dooling (defenders) and Arroyo (sorely needed PG) could all have roles to play in the rotation. Only Turkoglu and Bogans have non-expiring contracts, so the Lakers could have cap flexibility by this summer, and certainly over the next few seasons, to entice serious free agents to join an exciting core. And look at the depth - Starters/ main rotation could be any of: Post players: Howard/ Bynum/ Kwame/ Mihm/ Cook; Swingmen: Ariza/ Luke/ Mo Evans/ Turkoglu/ Redick/ Bogans; and PG – Farmar/ Arroyo/Dooling
To Magic:
Sasha Vujacic
Salary: $973,920 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 4.3 REB: 1.5 AST: 0.9 PER: 11.67
Lamar Odom
Salary: $12,348,596 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 15.9 REB: 9.8 AST: 4.8 PER: 16.20
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
Ronny Turiaf
Salary: $664,209 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 5.3 REB: 3.6 AST: 0.9 PER: 15.54
Orlando suddenly becomes a serious Eastern conference power, giving Grant Hill every reason to stay home and play for a title contender, just as he’s dreamed all these years. Magic rotation suddenly looks powerful, with a solid defender at C and possible all-stars in the East at each of the other 4 positions: 5 Battie/ Milicic, 4 LOdom/ Turiaf, 3 GHill/ Garrity/ Outlaw, 2 Kobe/ Vujacic, 1 JNelson/ TDiener
Comments?
Vegans and the Intrinsic Moral Community, Part 2
There is another influential view in ethics on the size and membership of the intrinsic moral community, one that can be seen to turn the argument from marginal cases about humans on its head. For, you see, even ‘marginal humans’ with extraordinarily severe cognitive deficits can still feel pleasure and pain – if those parts of the brain that register such feelings die, so shall the human being. So perhaps sentience – the ability to feel pleasure and pain – is the key to intrinsic moral considerability. One of its earliest and most influential exponents of this view was the father of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham – but in order to include all humans in the intrinsic moral community, it turns out a lot more will have to be included as well:
“The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
Bentham, J., 1781, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, edited b J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart, London: Methuen, 1982. [Available online at http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/bentham/ipml/)
Contemporary utilitarian Peter Singer picks up on Bentham’s claim, stating that just as civilized society has realized the moral wrongness of sexism and racism (despite its pervasiveness in history), so shall we gradually awaken to the wrongness of speciesism – of treating only the species Homo sapiens sapiens as having intrinsic moral value. For Singer, morality is about producing pleasure and avoiding pain, and hence all sentient creatures – all creatures capable of feeling pleasure and/or pain – are intrinsically valuable. That is, as civilizations progress in their ethics, they will abandon the treatment of other sentient species as having merely instrumental value every bit as much as they have quit institutionalized racism or sexism. Then, for example, the institutional murder at factory farms of non-human animals for food consumption will be seen as every bit as vile as slavery – or even worse.
Thus, Singer’s view claims that sentience (the ability to experience pleasure/ pain) is the key moral attribute, and all sentient creatures should be treated in utilitarian fashion - more or less, we ought to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for all sentient creatures. To a first approximation, morality thus involves minimizing sentient suffering – suffering is only permissible when it produces greater net pleasure in the long run. This view, alas for Singer, leads to a reductio ad absurdum.
Singer’s utilitarianism implies that animal experimentation or consumption is wrong except in a case in which we would be willing to experiment on or consume a human with similar capabilities (sentience) to the animal. But, taken seriously, this view undermines all ethics, as usually understood. For let us be clear - our (human) obligation then is to minimize the total suffering of all sentient creatures, which means that ‘wild animals’ are most certainly NOT to be left to their own devices, with nature red in tooth and claw. No one disputes wild cats and dogs/ wolves endure far more suffering than domesticated ones, and so, if Singer is to be consistent, the human obligation to avoid suffering implies immediately that we should domesticate as many species as possible.
Further, a great deal of suffering occurs in the context of hunting and killing associated with meat eating, so it makes sense that we should not merely become vegetarians (and indeed vegans), but indeed should (as painlessly as possible!) sterilize and even euthanize all predators and carnivores, so that we drive them to extinction. Animal suffering would surely be alleviated in a world in which only peaceful herbivores exist. (We assume, of course, that plants cannot feel pleasure or pain).
But in truth, for a consistent Singer, we ought not stop there. The insects certainly behave as if they register pain, and self-conscious mental states are unnecessary for suffering on Singer’s view… so it appears crystal clear that the untold billions or even trillions of numbers of insects, including termites and roaches, are far more morally considerable than the entirety of the mammals, reptiles, amphibians and others more commonly called animals. A million roaches would certainly be more valuable, in terms of sentience, than a human life.
Indeed, a moral view would logically bid all ecological niches occupied by animals be vacated as well, so that the far more numerous insects could occupy them without suffering. Even the predatory insects should be extinguished, leaving only bees and their ilk. Hence, a world with only insect and plant life would have far less suffering, and all animals hence should be (again, as painlessly as possible!) driven to extinction. And of course, humans are animals – and as omnivores, we have a taste for meat. Singer’s ethics, consistently applied, would demand our extinction. Hence, for a consistent Singer, the culmination of ethical obligation is to remove all creatures capable of it!
This self-defeating conclusion is forced upon those who would have anything other than moral valuers – agents - in the intrinsic moral community. Inconsistency, indeed incoherence, is the ultimate fate of any position in ethics that has non-agents as part of the intrinsic moral community. So what then – how to address the argument from marginal cases and the moral status of non-human animals? Part 3 will provide one solution …
“The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
Bentham, J., 1781, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, edited b J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart, London: Methuen, 1982. [Available online at http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/bentham/ipml/)
Contemporary utilitarian Peter Singer picks up on Bentham’s claim, stating that just as civilized society has realized the moral wrongness of sexism and racism (despite its pervasiveness in history), so shall we gradually awaken to the wrongness of speciesism – of treating only the species Homo sapiens sapiens as having intrinsic moral value. For Singer, morality is about producing pleasure and avoiding pain, and hence all sentient creatures – all creatures capable of feeling pleasure and/or pain – are intrinsically valuable. That is, as civilizations progress in their ethics, they will abandon the treatment of other sentient species as having merely instrumental value every bit as much as they have quit institutionalized racism or sexism. Then, for example, the institutional murder at factory farms of non-human animals for food consumption will be seen as every bit as vile as slavery – or even worse.
Thus, Singer’s view claims that sentience (the ability to experience pleasure/ pain) is the key moral attribute, and all sentient creatures should be treated in utilitarian fashion - more or less, we ought to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for all sentient creatures. To a first approximation, morality thus involves minimizing sentient suffering – suffering is only permissible when it produces greater net pleasure in the long run. This view, alas for Singer, leads to a reductio ad absurdum.
Singer’s utilitarianism implies that animal experimentation or consumption is wrong except in a case in which we would be willing to experiment on or consume a human with similar capabilities (sentience) to the animal. But, taken seriously, this view undermines all ethics, as usually understood. For let us be clear - our (human) obligation then is to minimize the total suffering of all sentient creatures, which means that ‘wild animals’ are most certainly NOT to be left to their own devices, with nature red in tooth and claw. No one disputes wild cats and dogs/ wolves endure far more suffering than domesticated ones, and so, if Singer is to be consistent, the human obligation to avoid suffering implies immediately that we should domesticate as many species as possible.
Further, a great deal of suffering occurs in the context of hunting and killing associated with meat eating, so it makes sense that we should not merely become vegetarians (and indeed vegans), but indeed should (as painlessly as possible!) sterilize and even euthanize all predators and carnivores, so that we drive them to extinction. Animal suffering would surely be alleviated in a world in which only peaceful herbivores exist. (We assume, of course, that plants cannot feel pleasure or pain).
But in truth, for a consistent Singer, we ought not stop there. The insects certainly behave as if they register pain, and self-conscious mental states are unnecessary for suffering on Singer’s view… so it appears crystal clear that the untold billions or even trillions of numbers of insects, including termites and roaches, are far more morally considerable than the entirety of the mammals, reptiles, amphibians and others more commonly called animals. A million roaches would certainly be more valuable, in terms of sentience, than a human life.
Indeed, a moral view would logically bid all ecological niches occupied by animals be vacated as well, so that the far more numerous insects could occupy them without suffering. Even the predatory insects should be extinguished, leaving only bees and their ilk. Hence, a world with only insect and plant life would have far less suffering, and all animals hence should be (again, as painlessly as possible!) driven to extinction. And of course, humans are animals – and as omnivores, we have a taste for meat. Singer’s ethics, consistently applied, would demand our extinction. Hence, for a consistent Singer, the culmination of ethical obligation is to remove all creatures capable of it!
This self-defeating conclusion is forced upon those who would have anything other than moral valuers – agents - in the intrinsic moral community. Inconsistency, indeed incoherence, is the ultimate fate of any position in ethics that has non-agents as part of the intrinsic moral community. So what then – how to address the argument from marginal cases and the moral status of non-human animals? Part 3 will provide one solution …
Thursday, June 21, 2007
One more Kobe deal
If Kobe must be dealt to the East, there may be a better fit than any so far mentioned:
Kobe and Radmanovic to Toronto, for
Anthony Parker
Salary: $4,150,000 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 12.4 REB: 3.9 AST: 2.1 PER: 14.52
Rasho Nesterovic
Salary: $7,280,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 6.2 REB: 4.5 AST: 0.9 PER: 13.92
Andrea Bargnani
Salary: $4,501,200 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 11.6 REB: 3.9 AST: 0.8 PER: 12.85
Juan Dixon
Salary: $2,550,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 9.6 REB: 2.0 AST: 1.5 PER: 11.82
Jose Calderon
Salary: $2,333,334 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 8.7 REB: 1.7 AST: 5.0 PER: 19.19
The Lakers get lots of nice pieces (including last year's #1 overall pick) for their rebuilding, and cap room come next summer; Kobe gets to go to a division winner from last season, one that would have a rotation of Chris Bosh, Jorge Garbajosa, TJ Ford, Mo Peterson, and Kobe as starters, with Radmanovic, Joey Graham, Carlos Delfino and Kris Humphries off the bench. The team would be Phoenix East and an immediate contender for the Eastern conference title, and Kobe could well become the most popular player in all of Canada!
Kobe and Radmanovic to Toronto, for
Anthony Parker
Salary: $4,150,000 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 12.4 REB: 3.9 AST: 2.1 PER: 14.52
Rasho Nesterovic
Salary: $7,280,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 6.2 REB: 4.5 AST: 0.9 PER: 13.92
Andrea Bargnani
Salary: $4,501,200 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 11.6 REB: 3.9 AST: 0.8 PER: 12.85
Juan Dixon
Salary: $2,550,000 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 9.6 REB: 2.0 AST: 1.5 PER: 11.82
Jose Calderon
Salary: $2,333,334 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 8.7 REB: 1.7 AST: 5.0 PER: 19.19
The Lakers get lots of nice pieces (including last year's #1 overall pick) for their rebuilding, and cap room come next summer; Kobe gets to go to a division winner from last season, one that would have a rotation of Chris Bosh, Jorge Garbajosa, TJ Ford, Mo Peterson, and Kobe as starters, with Radmanovic, Joey Graham, Carlos Delfino and Kris Humphries off the bench. The team would be Phoenix East and an immediate contender for the Eastern conference title, and Kobe could well become the most popular player in all of Canada!
Kobe and KG?
To keep Kobe, try adding Garnett:
KG turned down a rumored Boston trade by refusing to sign an extension there, and his agent indicates there’s only a few teams he’d play for – and the list starts with Phoenix. Assuming Phoenix refuses to put Stoudamire in the deal, the Lakers may well have a better offer:
To Minnesota:
Andrew Bynum
Salary: $2,030,280 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 7.8 REB: 5.9 AST: 1.1 PER: 15.44
Vladimir Radmanovic
Salary: $5,215,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 6.6 REB: 3.3 AST: 1.2 PER: 11.02
Kwame Brown
Salary: $8,287,500 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 8.4 REB: 6.0 AST: 1.8 PER: 13.79
Lamar Odom
Salary: $12,348,596 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 15.9 REB: 9.8 AST: 4.8 PER: 16.20
Jordan Farmar
Salary: $939,120 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 4.4 REB: 1.7 AST: 1.9 PER: 10.79
To Lakers:
Ricky Davis
Salary: $6,364,400 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 17.0 REB: 3.9 AST: 4.8 PER: 15.97
(Trenton Hassell or Troy Hudson would work instead of Davis, btw)
Craig Smith
Salary: $412,718 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 7.4 REB: 5.1 AST: 0.6 PER: 15.72
Kevin Garnett
Salary: $21,000,000 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 22.4 REB: 12.8 AST: 4.1 PER: 24.20
Marko Jaric
Salary: $5,525,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 5.3 REB: 2.6 AST: 2.1 PER: 9.57
New Lakers rotation: Mihm, KG, Luke, Kobe, Jaric; bench rotation players – Turiaf, Cook, CSmith, Mo Evans, RDavis, Sasha Vujacic. That should be good enough to assuage the Kobe’s fears of a crappy team. Good enough to challenge the Spurs/Mavs/ Suns? Hmmm... Your thoughts….
KG turned down a rumored Boston trade by refusing to sign an extension there, and his agent indicates there’s only a few teams he’d play for – and the list starts with Phoenix. Assuming Phoenix refuses to put Stoudamire in the deal, the Lakers may well have a better offer:
To Minnesota:
Andrew Bynum
Salary: $2,030,280 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 7.8 REB: 5.9 AST: 1.1 PER: 15.44
Vladimir Radmanovic
Salary: $5,215,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 6.6 REB: 3.3 AST: 1.2 PER: 11.02
Kwame Brown
Salary: $8,287,500 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 8.4 REB: 6.0 AST: 1.8 PER: 13.79
Lamar Odom
Salary: $12,348,596 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 15.9 REB: 9.8 AST: 4.8 PER: 16.20
Jordan Farmar
Salary: $939,120 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 4.4 REB: 1.7 AST: 1.9 PER: 10.79
To Lakers:
Ricky Davis
Salary: $6,364,400 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 17.0 REB: 3.9 AST: 4.8 PER: 15.97
(Trenton Hassell or Troy Hudson would work instead of Davis, btw)
Craig Smith
Salary: $412,718 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 7.4 REB: 5.1 AST: 0.6 PER: 15.72
Kevin Garnett
Salary: $21,000,000 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 22.4 REB: 12.8 AST: 4.1 PER: 24.20
Marko Jaric
Salary: $5,525,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 5.3 REB: 2.6 AST: 2.1 PER: 9.57
New Lakers rotation: Mihm, KG, Luke, Kobe, Jaric; bench rotation players – Turiaf, Cook, CSmith, Mo Evans, RDavis, Sasha Vujacic. That should be good enough to assuage the Kobe’s fears of a crappy team. Good enough to challenge the Spurs/Mavs/ Suns? Hmmm... Your thoughts….
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
More Kobe trade possibilities (revised order)
(After some thought, I changed the order below and added one to Dallas - otherwise unaffected).
Kobe has reiterated his trade demand, and even has a video out trashing GM Kupchak and team darling Bynum. But none of the current rumors – to Chicago, or the Knicks – make sense. So, if there's no Jermaine O'Neal, Rasheed Wallace, or KG coming to the rescue… then....
Here are 5 possible Kobe trades – all work under the salary cap, and to me make sense, to varying degrees, for both parties in the transaction. I think #1 makes the most sense (is most likely to actually occur, has highest plausibility), then in roughly descending order. See if you agree – rank-order them yourselves and explain in the comments. Here I go- I say the best scenario for both sides is Dallas- Lakers:
1 To the Lakers:
Greg Buckner
Salary: $3,240,741 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 4.0 REB: 2.1 AST: 0.9 PER: 7.77
Devin Harris
Salary: $3,153,120 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 10.2 REB: 2.5 AST: 3.7 PER: 15.96
Dirk Nowitzki
Salary: $15,101,622 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 24.6 REB: 8.9 AST: 3.4 PER: 27.70
To Dallas:
Vladimir Radmanovic
Salary: $5,215,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 6.6 REB: 3.3 AST: 1.2 PER: 11.02
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
Jordan Farmar
Salary: $939,120 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 4.4 REB: 1.7 AST: 1.9 PER: 10.79
Ronny Turiaf
Salary: $664,209 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 5.3 REB: 3.6 AST: 0.9 PER: 15.54
Rationale: For LA: The Lakers need a star attraction in return if they are to deal Kobe, and the league MVP certainly counts. Devin Harris gives the Lakers a sorely needed PG, and Buckner can help fill in at SG and provide defense. The front court is huge, with Lamar starting at SF; Mo Evans can step in at SG nicely. New rotation: Bynum/Kwame/Mihm, Dirk/Cook, Odom/Walton, Mo Evans/Buckner, Harris/ S. Vujacic
For Dallas: With his playoff collapse, Dirk is the most unpopular MVP in his home city in history. The Lakers give them an inferior version of Dirk back in Radmanovic (who at least will play somewhat the same role in the offense) and a young energy guy in Turiaf, a good young PG in Farmar, and a stone cold killer in Kobe, the kind of guy who could push them over the top. Cuban didn’t get where he is by refusing to take chances, and Dallas may well believe they’ll never win a title with Dirk as the centerpiece, and so take a shot at trading up for Kobe – without losing glue guy Josh Howard. New rotation: Diop/ Dampier/ Mbenga, Radmanovic/Turiaf, JHoward/DGeorge, Kobe/JStackhouse/Ager, JTerry/Farmar
2 The alternative: if Dallas is unwilling to deal Devin Harris and wants some salary reduction (Kwame's expiring contract) next summer, increasingly in tune with Cuban's new modus operandi-
Lakers get:
Greg Buckner
Salary: $3,240,741 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 4.0 REB: 2.1 AST: 0.9 PER: 7.77
Jason Terry
Salary: $8,100,000 Years Remaining: 6
PTS: 16.7 REB: 2.9 AST: 5.2 PER: 18.97
Dirk Nowitzki
Salary: $15,101,622 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 24.6 REB: 8.9 AST: 3.4 PER: 27.70
Dallas gets:
Kwame Brown
Salary: $8,287,500 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 8.4 REB: 6.0 AST: 1.8 PER: 13.79
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
Jordan Farmar
Salary: $939,120 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 4.4 REB: 1.7 AST: 1.9 PER: 10.79
Other possible Kobe trades:
3 Houston deals:
Tracy McGrady
Salary: $16,901,500 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 24.6 REB: 5.3 AST: 6.5 PER: 23.28
Shane Battier
Salary: $5,393,300 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 10.1 REB: 4.1 AST: 2.1 PER: 12.05
For Vladimir Radmanovic
Salary: $5,215,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 6.6 REB: 3.3 AST: 1.2 PER: 11.02
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
Rationale: Yao and Kobe together! That explains it for Houston - shades of Shaq-Kobe revisited, and the Rockets hope for titles as well. For the Lakers, TMac is the closest Kobe equivalent, and Battier would be a wonderful fit in Phil’s triangle. As stated above, Maurice Evans' availability means the Lakers don't have to get a 2-guard back in return.
…
4 Or Phoenix deals:
Shawn Marion
Salary: $15,070,000 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 17.5 REB: 9.8 AST: 1.7 PER: 20.87
Boris Diaw
Salary: $1,870,501 Years Remaining: 6
PTS: 9.7 REB: 4.3 AST: 4.8 PER: 13.02
Leandro Barbosa
Salary: $1,679,733 Years Remaining: 6
PTS: 18.1 REB: 2.7 AST: 4.0 PER: 18.49
For Vladimir Radmanovic
Salary: $5,215,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 6.6 REB: 3.3 AST: 1.2 PER: 11.02
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
Phoenix would become the most lethal triumvirate in the league with Nash/Kobe/Stoudamire (with Banks/ J.Jones/ K.Thomas and others left to play roles), and Radmanovic again would nicely fit, spotting up for 3s. The Lakers get a star in Marion and an electrifying youngster in Barbosa, and a great triangle player (a big who can pass and defend multiple positions) in Diaw.
5 Golden State deals:
Adonal Foyle
Salary: $8,125,000 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 2.2 REB: 2.6 AST: 0.4 PER: 13.58
Monta Ellis
Salary: $664,209 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 16.5 REB: 3.2 AST: 4.1 PER: 15.06
Jason Richardson
Salary: $9,999,999 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 16.0 REB: 5.1 AST: 3.4 PER: 15.55
Andris Biedrins
Salary: $1,986,960 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 9.5 REB: 9.3 AST: 1.1 PER: 16.23
and a 1st round pick (#18 in 2007) plus another in 2009
For Vladimir Radmanovic
Salary: $5,215,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 6.6 REB: 3.3 AST: 1.2 PER: 11.02
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
If the Lakers want to rebuild, getting Biedrins and Ellis and the draft picks would help, and JRich gives them a star in return as well to fill the Kobe void. And Foyle's statesmanlike presence would help a divisive locker room. For the Warriors, Nellie-ball with Baron, S. Jackson, Al Harrington and the rest becomes the most exciting show in the league with the addition of Kobe (and Radmanovic would nicely fit, spotting up for 3s).
What do y’all think?
Kobe has reiterated his trade demand, and even has a video out trashing GM Kupchak and team darling Bynum. But none of the current rumors – to Chicago, or the Knicks – make sense. So, if there's no Jermaine O'Neal, Rasheed Wallace, or KG coming to the rescue… then....
Here are 5 possible Kobe trades – all work under the salary cap, and to me make sense, to varying degrees, for both parties in the transaction. I think #1 makes the most sense (is most likely to actually occur, has highest plausibility), then in roughly descending order. See if you agree – rank-order them yourselves and explain in the comments. Here I go- I say the best scenario for both sides is Dallas- Lakers:
1 To the Lakers:
Greg Buckner
Salary: $3,240,741 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 4.0 REB: 2.1 AST: 0.9 PER: 7.77
Devin Harris
Salary: $3,153,120 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 10.2 REB: 2.5 AST: 3.7 PER: 15.96
Dirk Nowitzki
Salary: $15,101,622 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 24.6 REB: 8.9 AST: 3.4 PER: 27.70
To Dallas:
Vladimir Radmanovic
Salary: $5,215,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 6.6 REB: 3.3 AST: 1.2 PER: 11.02
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
Jordan Farmar
Salary: $939,120 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 4.4 REB: 1.7 AST: 1.9 PER: 10.79
Ronny Turiaf
Salary: $664,209 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 5.3 REB: 3.6 AST: 0.9 PER: 15.54
Rationale: For LA: The Lakers need a star attraction in return if they are to deal Kobe, and the league MVP certainly counts. Devin Harris gives the Lakers a sorely needed PG, and Buckner can help fill in at SG and provide defense. The front court is huge, with Lamar starting at SF; Mo Evans can step in at SG nicely. New rotation: Bynum/Kwame/Mihm, Dirk/Cook, Odom/Walton, Mo Evans/Buckner, Harris/ S. Vujacic
For Dallas: With his playoff collapse, Dirk is the most unpopular MVP in his home city in history. The Lakers give them an inferior version of Dirk back in Radmanovic (who at least will play somewhat the same role in the offense) and a young energy guy in Turiaf, a good young PG in Farmar, and a stone cold killer in Kobe, the kind of guy who could push them over the top. Cuban didn’t get where he is by refusing to take chances, and Dallas may well believe they’ll never win a title with Dirk as the centerpiece, and so take a shot at trading up for Kobe – without losing glue guy Josh Howard. New rotation: Diop/ Dampier/ Mbenga, Radmanovic/Turiaf, JHoward/DGeorge, Kobe/JStackhouse/Ager, JTerry/Farmar
2 The alternative: if Dallas is unwilling to deal Devin Harris and wants some salary reduction (Kwame's expiring contract) next summer, increasingly in tune with Cuban's new modus operandi-
Lakers get:
Greg Buckner
Salary: $3,240,741 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 4.0 REB: 2.1 AST: 0.9 PER: 7.77
Jason Terry
Salary: $8,100,000 Years Remaining: 6
PTS: 16.7 REB: 2.9 AST: 5.2 PER: 18.97
Dirk Nowitzki
Salary: $15,101,622 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 24.6 REB: 8.9 AST: 3.4 PER: 27.70
Dallas gets:
Kwame Brown
Salary: $8,287,500 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 8.4 REB: 6.0 AST: 1.8 PER: 13.79
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
Jordan Farmar
Salary: $939,120 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 4.4 REB: 1.7 AST: 1.9 PER: 10.79
Other possible Kobe trades:
3 Houston deals:
Tracy McGrady
Salary: $16,901,500 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 24.6 REB: 5.3 AST: 6.5 PER: 23.28
Shane Battier
Salary: $5,393,300 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 10.1 REB: 4.1 AST: 2.1 PER: 12.05
For Vladimir Radmanovic
Salary: $5,215,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 6.6 REB: 3.3 AST: 1.2 PER: 11.02
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
Rationale: Yao and Kobe together! That explains it for Houston - shades of Shaq-Kobe revisited, and the Rockets hope for titles as well. For the Lakers, TMac is the closest Kobe equivalent, and Battier would be a wonderful fit in Phil’s triangle. As stated above, Maurice Evans' availability means the Lakers don't have to get a 2-guard back in return.
…
4 Or Phoenix deals:
Shawn Marion
Salary: $15,070,000 Years Remaining: 3
PTS: 17.5 REB: 9.8 AST: 1.7 PER: 20.87
Boris Diaw
Salary: $1,870,501 Years Remaining: 6
PTS: 9.7 REB: 4.3 AST: 4.8 PER: 13.02
Leandro Barbosa
Salary: $1,679,733 Years Remaining: 6
PTS: 18.1 REB: 2.7 AST: 4.0 PER: 18.49
For Vladimir Radmanovic
Salary: $5,215,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 6.6 REB: 3.3 AST: 1.2 PER: 11.02
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
Phoenix would become the most lethal triumvirate in the league with Nash/Kobe/Stoudamire (with Banks/ J.Jones/ K.Thomas and others left to play roles), and Radmanovic again would nicely fit, spotting up for 3s. The Lakers get a star in Marion and an electrifying youngster in Barbosa, and a great triangle player (a big who can pass and defend multiple positions) in Diaw.
5 Golden State deals:
Adonal Foyle
Salary: $8,125,000 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 2.2 REB: 2.6 AST: 0.4 PER: 13.58
Monta Ellis
Salary: $664,209 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 16.5 REB: 3.2 AST: 4.1 PER: 15.06
Jason Richardson
Salary: $9,999,999 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 16.0 REB: 5.1 AST: 3.4 PER: 15.55
Andris Biedrins
Salary: $1,986,960 Years Remaining: 2
PTS: 9.5 REB: 9.3 AST: 1.1 PER: 16.23
and a 1st round pick (#18 in 2007) plus another in 2009
For Vladimir Radmanovic
Salary: $5,215,000 Years Remaining: 5
PTS: 6.6 REB: 3.3 AST: 1.2 PER: 11.02
Kobe Bryant
Salary: $17,718,750 Years Remaining: 4
PTS: 31.6 REB: 5.7 AST: 5.4 PER: 26.13
If the Lakers want to rebuild, getting Biedrins and Ellis and the draft picks would help, and JRich gives them a star in return as well to fill the Kobe void. And Foyle's statesmanlike presence would help a divisive locker room. For the Warriors, Nellie-ball with Baron, S. Jackson, Al Harrington and the rest becomes the most exciting show in the league with the addition of Kobe (and Radmanovic would nicely fit, spotting up for 3s).
What do y’all think?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Vegans and the intrinsic moral community, Part 1
Vegans (as represented by groups like PETA) find it morally abhorrent to eat or use animals, demanding instead we give them rights - that is, treat them with respect and dignity, like other persons. In my June 16 post, I went though why a version of that view is incorrect about personhood, as no nonhuman animals (that we know of) qualify as persons or can have rights. The mistake in that view infects the typical PETA argument, often made by otherwise respectable philosophers as a version of the 'argument from marginal cases'. For one example, see Lori Gruen’s “The Moral Status of Animals” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/).
My view maps onto the sophisticated account of personhood by Christine Korsgaard, who argues that humans uniquely (as far as we know) face a problem, the problem of normativity. This problem emerges because we alone can have rational reflection upon our desires – that is, we can reflect on our desires, and so can have ‘second-order desires’ about our first-order desires – I desire the ice cream, but I also desire to lose weight, so I desire (second-order) to no longer desire that ice cream. Of course, our reason may not win out – as I inhale the cone anyway – but we alone in Earth’s animal kingdom are capable of this kind of reflection, which is required for moral valuing. (An interesting side note: did the Neandertals have such an ability – were they persons? Or any other species in Earth’s past? If so, we have no evidence of it – we appear to be the first.)
So, as we endorse a description of what we want ourselves to be, we constitute what is usually termed our ‘practical identity’; this practical identity is then required for moral identity because without it one could never view a life as worth living or an actions as worth doing. That is, rational beings alone are capable of normative attitudes – of moral valuing. As such, only rational beings could be part of the intrinsic moral community (or moral persons), because without such agents, morality would cease to exist. If humans overnight became extinct from the Earth, leaving the rest of the flora and fauna of the planet intact, there would be no more moral community. Hence, none of the rest of the planet could be part of the intrinsic moral community – things morally valuable in themselves, without any external relationships, regardless of how others instrumentally value them.
As such, other (non-rational) animals can only be valued instrumentally. They are not valuable in themselves. But this conclusion, though sound, is almost unanimously denied by philosophers, who oft find it founders on the ‘argument from marginal cases’. Here is Gruen’s exposition:
“Personhood is not, in fact, coextensive with humanity when understood as a general description of the group to which human beings belong. And the serious part of this problem is not that there may be some extra-terrestrials or deities who have rational capacities (It seems likely that Kant recognized this when he wrote "man, and in general every rational being"). The serious problem is that many humans are not persons. Some members of humanity—i.e. infants, children, people with advanced forms of autism or Alzheimer's disease or other cognitive disorders—do not have the rational, self-reflective capacities associated with personhood. This problem, unfortunately known in the literature as the problem of "marginal humans," poses serious difficulties for "personhood" as the criterion of moral considerability. Many beings who's positive moral value we have deeply held intuitions about, and who we treat as morally considerable, will be excluded from consideration by this account.”
So either the argument that includes only agents in the intrinsic moral community is flawed, or else some humans are not intrinsically valuable – specifically, ‘marginal humans’, the humans who are not agents. So what’s the right answer? Does the previous argument mean that it’s all right to eat an aborted fetus or a severely retarded child – or Grandpa with Alzheimer’s? Stay tuned for the next installment soon…
My view maps onto the sophisticated account of personhood by Christine Korsgaard, who argues that humans uniquely (as far as we know) face a problem, the problem of normativity. This problem emerges because we alone can have rational reflection upon our desires – that is, we can reflect on our desires, and so can have ‘second-order desires’ about our first-order desires – I desire the ice cream, but I also desire to lose weight, so I desire (second-order) to no longer desire that ice cream. Of course, our reason may not win out – as I inhale the cone anyway – but we alone in Earth’s animal kingdom are capable of this kind of reflection, which is required for moral valuing. (An interesting side note: did the Neandertals have such an ability – were they persons? Or any other species in Earth’s past? If so, we have no evidence of it – we appear to be the first.)
So, as we endorse a description of what we want ourselves to be, we constitute what is usually termed our ‘practical identity’; this practical identity is then required for moral identity because without it one could never view a life as worth living or an actions as worth doing. That is, rational beings alone are capable of normative attitudes – of moral valuing. As such, only rational beings could be part of the intrinsic moral community (or moral persons), because without such agents, morality would cease to exist. If humans overnight became extinct from the Earth, leaving the rest of the flora and fauna of the planet intact, there would be no more moral community. Hence, none of the rest of the planet could be part of the intrinsic moral community – things morally valuable in themselves, without any external relationships, regardless of how others instrumentally value them.
As such, other (non-rational) animals can only be valued instrumentally. They are not valuable in themselves. But this conclusion, though sound, is almost unanimously denied by philosophers, who oft find it founders on the ‘argument from marginal cases’. Here is Gruen’s exposition:
“Personhood is not, in fact, coextensive with humanity when understood as a general description of the group to which human beings belong. And the serious part of this problem is not that there may be some extra-terrestrials or deities who have rational capacities (It seems likely that Kant recognized this when he wrote "man, and in general every rational being"). The serious problem is that many humans are not persons. Some members of humanity—i.e. infants, children, people with advanced forms of autism or Alzheimer's disease or other cognitive disorders—do not have the rational, self-reflective capacities associated with personhood. This problem, unfortunately known in the literature as the problem of "marginal humans," poses serious difficulties for "personhood" as the criterion of moral considerability. Many beings who's positive moral value we have deeply held intuitions about, and who we treat as morally considerable, will be excluded from consideration by this account.”
So either the argument that includes only agents in the intrinsic moral community is flawed, or else some humans are not intrinsically valuable – specifically, ‘marginal humans’, the humans who are not agents. So what’s the right answer? Does the previous argument mean that it’s all right to eat an aborted fetus or a severely retarded child – or Grandpa with Alzheimer’s? Stay tuned for the next installment soon…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
