NBA Playoffs 2004

I'm expecting a nice playoffs..in the west that is. I could care less about the east. As far as the west goes Timberwolves and Spurs. Wolves taking it in 7 and then wolves taking it all this year. Kings and Mavs and Lakers and Rockets look to be the most interesting games of the 1st round. Should be interesting.

The Lakers looked awful last night. There's no way that team gets by San Antonio.

Houston looked awful too. Both teams looked like they could go down. But, it is only one game. Detroit, though playing a terrible team, looked sufficating on defense.

Man, I sure wish the Knicks could look as awful as your Lakers...

Shaq is the only thing between the Pacers and a title.

San Antonio looks awfully good.

I've given up trying to predict how the Lakers are going to play.

I agree...Jim Gray is a frightening creature. Harmless, but frightening.

Jim Gray lost my respect when he ruined Pete Roses All-Century team. Not that those questions did not need to be answered, but not at that time or that place. It was an ambush. Plus, he sucks at reporting.

I pick Minnesota, not because they are the best, but because it would be nice to see them win. If not, it will be San Antonio.

out of 8 games this weekend, only 2 had any drama at all, and only 1 was well played by both teams. do they really need to drag this out for 2 months?

I am a huge NBA fan, but 2 months? wth

Anyways, Sam Cassell was insane, and Garnett played his usual game (30 points 20 rebounds, no problem!)

Wolves are gonna be fun to watch...for 2 months.

Lakers all the way.

Really think about it. Gary, Shaq, Karl, Kobe, Coach Phil.

Honestly how can you bet against them.

You can beat the Lakers with a bench that contributes. If your boys get in foul trouble, then your supporting cast really hasn't shown they can play like they use to.

Actually this is the only time they really ever start playing for real. If anything these playoffs show that. The NBA regular season is pointless. If anyone has shown that over the last 4 years its been the Lakers.

Saying that I feel sorry for regular season ticket holders.

Doesn't the NHL playoffs go on at least as long?

Another sport where the regular season means jack and shit.

Someone really has to explain to me why these two sports have such long regular seasons.

Money. Money is the reason. The baseball season must cut out 10 games. Hockey: must cut 15. Basketball: must cut 15. The seasons are ridiculous.

Ah, but see, I can understand Baseball having such a long season when so few teams make the postseason. What's the reason for an 80 game season when half the leagues going to the postseason?

More then half the teams make the playoffs. Its a disgrace. Getting the eighth seed is really not something to celebrate.

I do not like the long baseball season because of its playoffs being played in the snow. I would rather them cut out 8 games and never have a playoff game being played in November.

It could still snow, but November is ridiculous.

the Knicks vs. the Nets could be a good series if someone lit a fire under Isiah Thomas and his troops. Fact is, they don't have a single player that gives a damn.

The Knicks have exceeded expectations, though. Not to say that they should not expect to win, but their team is in better shape with the cap, got rid of McDyce (sp?), traded away Van Horn (who I thought was playing pretty well and got shafted), and pretty much reworked this team from being hampered by salaries for four more years, to making the rebuilding process hopefully come much sooner. If they could only get rid of that terrible Houston deal (what were they thinking???). For them to even have this chance must make you smile after how you thought the season was going to go in October.

You know what though, Marbury does care... Kurt Thomas on the otherhand hasn't since he signed his extension. And don't get me started on Allan freaking Houston.

Oh, and the Knicks in regard to the cap are pretty much where they were, cept younger and more atheletic. The only contract they're hampered with past Houston's is Marbury, but they'd have been closer to the cap had they simply not traded for anyone (not that I'd have wanted them to, they're far to far away from the cap to simply wait it out).

If Marbury cared, then why are his teams better off without him? I don't think Marbury is a winner.

You know, you're right, the Suns were so much better this season without him. And look, the Knicks have only gotten worse, I don't see why anyones even interested in the guy.

Did you even watch the Spurs-Suns series last year? Stephon Marbury was the reason it was even close.

To get into specifics though, in what way did the Timberwolves improve? They managed to lose in the first round with him, I don't see how losing without him is an improvement of any sort.

And please don't bring up the Nets, Keith Van Horn missed half the season (49 games played) and Kerry Kittles missed the entire season (0 games played) due to injury, hell Richard Jefferson wasn't even on the roster (0 games played).

But yeah, they were a better team the following season. Getting full seasons out of Keith Van Horn (81 games played) and Kerry Kittles (82 games played) while adding a Richard Jefferson (79 games played) for good measure probably had more to do with it though.

The Knicks are around the same range with the cap, but they are not shackled with the long-term deals. In two years or so they will be capable of spending some money again on free agents. Isiah did a great job of breaking up the team, but I think he broke it up too much. That last deal with Van Horn was overkill because the team was just starting to gel and play well when they shipped him out. It may be just a matter of opinion that they were about to gel, but I think the Tim Thomas and Nazi Muhammad deal was unnecessary.

The good thing, for you at least, is that hte Knicks are on the upswing in the terrible Eastern Conference.

You know you're right Marbury made that series. You forgot to include Shawn Marion and the outstanding play of the super rookie Stoudamire. The series wouldn't have even been close without those 2 and Marbury. They still lost though and Marbury's new change of scenery every spring really is weird. I mean this guy has serious game yet teams don't want him? Doesn't make sense. Oh well he's home with the Knicks now we'll see what happens.

The Indy bench was dyno-mite tonight. Welcome to the playoffs, Fred Jones!

Look at the record. A year later, the Knicks really aren't much better with Marbury at the helm then they are with Charlie Ward and Howard Eisley. Plus, the East, always crappy, is far worse this year than last and they still didn't show improvement.

And the Suns are bound to suck after they give Marbury and Hardaway away for some issues of Penthouse Forum and a box of Krispy Kremes.

First, the East is a better conference this year from top to bottom, so going by record is kind of silly. They're a playoff team with him, and were just coming off of a few years of not making the postseason without him. Hell, they weren't a playoff team this season before they got him.

And second, which is it? Do teams get better without Marbury, or do they get worse? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

The east is anything but better right now. There is only 3 teams that can play let alone compete with the west. Pro basketball is in the dark ages right now. Just ask Chicago.

Well, as for the East being better this year, I just flat out disagree. Sure, Indiana is a top notch number one seed and the Nets and Pistons are tough to beat, but after that, the falloff is drastic. ONE team in the Atlantic Division finished over .500.

And second, I was noting that you can't use Phoenix's ineptitude as an effect of Marbury leaving, being that he was traded for nothing on a stick.

There were eleven teams in the East vying for the playoffs during the final week of the season, who were the eleven teams in contention last year?. Where you see mediocrity, I see parity.

Anyway, to get back to the original tangent we went off on... You say: "why are his teams better off without him?"

I bring up Phoenix, and suddenly I can't use them because they break some made up rules of yours? hrmmm...

I ask how could the Timberwolves have gotten better if they never went any further into the postseason, no response.

The only team I could think of, were the Nets, and I gave you ample reasons for why they improved. Without even bringing up the fact that Jason Kidd is a flat out better point gaurd than Stephon Marbury (not much of a insult in my book).

What exactly are we talking about right now?

Well, okay, as far as eleven teams, I wouldn't use the term "vying" for anything. Hell, they were stumbling all over the place, the majority of them with 30 something wins. The Celtics traded everyone away, sabotaged their season and STILL accidently made the playoffs. Yes, the East is so bad that a team tried to tank it for the lottery and FAILED.

As far as the "made up" Phoenix rule, how could Phoenix get better by making a trade simply to clear up cap space? The team wasn't even intending to get better in the short term, therefore it's kinda difficult to say they are either worse or better off without him. It may be too early to say. Regardless, it's like saying the Bucks were better off without Sam Cassell and Gary Payton, even though Payton was lost to free agency and Cassell was dealt for... well, shoot, I don't remember.

As for the Timberwolves, I think the difference in their play was negligible once Marbury left. Hard to say there was any difference there, but they weren't exactly world beaters there with Marbury as opposed to the following seasons' alternatives, which I believe consisted of the likes of Chauncey Billups and Troy Hudson.

And even with the "healthy" angle, I think Marbury was in NJ long enough (three/two years?) to be able to at least make that team somewhat better, something that didn't happen. Sure, there was the initial excitement of his arrival, but after that, his body language, his unhappiness and his refusal to push the ball upcourt hurt his teammates and they grew stagnant.

Marbury hasn't played for a true winner, and I can't see that ever changing. He is one of the five most talented players in the league, but he's not even one of the twenty BEST.

He was a Net for two and a half (50 game season) years. For the two full years that he was a Net, the team consisted of him, Kendall Gill, Kerry Kittles, Keith Van Horn and Jamie Feick. I'm still not entirely sure what you wanted him to do there. Mind you, it's not like he was replacing a stiff, he replaced Sam Cassell (18PPG, 6.5APG).

The times I've seen him on teams with the talent to make the postseason, he's always been the catalyst. If your going to judge him entirely by what he did with some putrid Nets teams, fine, but I find it to be a highly dubious position to say the least.

And to correct your Timberwolves statement, they replaced him with Terrell Brandon, and the guy put up some impressive numbers (16PPG 8APG) as his replacement in the following seasons.

Did I mention that Kendall Gill was out for most (51 games) of Marbury's second full season as a Net? I actually forgot about that.

So is your entire arguement based on the Nets going 31-51 in the 1999-2000 season? Just curious is all.

I mean, sure, I have irrational hatred for certain players too... but at least I know my reasoning isn't sound. Hell, I thought the Lakers were done the instant they signed that loser Karl Malone.

Okay, if healthy, a starting lineup with that Nets team is pretty good. At that time, Van Horn was putting up 20 ppg, while Kittles and Gill were successful role players and, at the time, Feick had 12 rpg potential, if you look at the numbers.

I still think Marbury set that franchise back a couple of years.

jesus, I hope the knicks get swept so this discussion can end!

back on the topic of playoff ball and teams that matter (ie not the Knicks), garnett put up another so-so performance tonight with 20 points, 22 rebounds and 10 assists.

I really think the nuggets are the perfect warm-up team for them, and they'll be firing on all cylinders for the second round.

they managed to contain Cassell tonight (After his 40 point performance in game 1), but the wolves just went with another weapon and Sprewell (all the talk about the Knicks in this thread and he hasn't even been mentioned?!) went off for 31 points.

This team is really balanced, and has great depth with Olowokandi and Szczerbiak coming off the bench. Only weakness really is backup point guard, with a guy who was playing in a YMCA gym 4 weeks ago filling that role.

for the record, Kenyon Martin is a fugazy!

LOL... I still like the trade, but Tim Thomas opening his yap when he wasn't even out there to back it up was pathetic.

At least there was a competitive game this series, kinda ironic how it was the game with the fewest Knick starters.

I don't know what was funnier yesterday Bonzi Wells pathetic fade away shot on Bruce Bowen or Mike Miller's last heave at the hoop in the Spurs/Grizzlies game.

Lakers win! Next meet the Spurs in what ought to be the best series of the playoffs. Hopefully.

Anything could happen. No predictions from me, just excitement and a bit of worry.

Savin' you a seat on the bandwagon Mr. Beaks.

Real physical game between the Lakers and the Spurs right now, I sure hope they call the entire series like this.

8 minutes left, great game so far.

Yeeesh... when did Kobe Bryant forget how to miss a shot?

Probably at the same time he forgot what the word "No" means.

Either way, he was a stud tonight.

Heh...Kobe may give the Jordan legacy a run for it's money.

That is if he ain't runnin...

how bout the heat? hopefully they can steal the next game in indy.

Heat are showing real promise and purpose. I like it. What happened to that Pacer toughness?

Perhaps everyone just underrated the Heat, I mean... since they've made their run, they've probably got the best record in the NBA.

It's not like they don't have the talent.

WOW.