Bleacher Report - Articles by Michael McCarthy

What The Richard Jefferson Trade Really Means

Michael McCarthy — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:07:08 -0400

I've been weighing the Spurs-Bucks trade over in my mind now for the past two days. I've been thinking about what it means to the Spurs and their title chances for 2010. I have heard numerous objections and dismissals about this deal from other fans (I'm looking at you, Laker fans), but I believe this deal is just what the Spurs need.

The most common objections I hear to this deal are: Jefferson is a selfish gunner who plays for stats, now the Spurs have no defense, the Spurs are too old, and it doesn't matter anyway because they're always hurt. I would like a moment to refute each of these arguments, one by one.

As for Jefferson's stats mongering, who honestly believes that Gregg Popovich will allow that? It's true that Jefferson has been the type to post big numbers on bad teams, but that is about to change.

Popovich has created a team-first culture in San Antonio, and every player has to know their role. I find it hard to believe that the front office of the most consistently successful franchise in American professional sports over the past decade didn't do their homework and talk to Jefferson and his agent about what is expected of them before green-lighting this trade.

The second objection I hear is that by trading Bowen, Oberto, and Thomas, the Spurs have depleted their defense in favor of scoring more points.

That may be true, but consider this: Bruce Bowen is considered such a defensive asset nowadays, that the Bucks are expected to buy out his contract and cut him.

In other words, a perennial title contender dumped him to a perennial lottery team, and they thought his best value was to cut him and save them money. How is that a giant loss?

Oberto was promptly shipped to Detroit for Amir Johnson. The Bucks didn't want him either. They just wanted to save money.

The only part of this deal that will stay in Milwaukee is Kurt Thomas.

Any time you can move an over the hill perimeter defender (Bowen), an automatic turnover or cover your eyes awful shot on the offensive end (Oberto), and an aging backup power forward (Thomas) for a legitimate 20 ppg, athletic wing player, you mean to tell me you don't make that deal?

As for the Spurs recent injury issues, I do not feel as if that will be as much of a problem next year as in the past. A number of different solutions help to resolve this issue.

The first is the Spurs abnormal early playoff exit. For the oldest team in the NBA to get an extra month of rest before next season is huge.

You forget, but the Spurs big three didn't just play 82 games and then five playoff games in the past year.

They went to Game Five of the Western Conference Finals against the Lakers last year (last game on May 29), after going five games with Phoenix, then seven games with New Orleans.

Then Duncan played for Team USA, Ginobili played for Team Argentina, and Tony Parker played for Team France in the Olympics. More wear and tear.

Then they played the grind of another 82 game season, with no time off to recover from last year's grind, and they just broke down. This summer, there are no Olympics, and they get an extra month of time off.

That doesn't mean injuries can't still occur. They can happen at any time on the court. But a rested athlete is less susceptible to injury than an exhausted one.

The Spurs had injury issues in 2006 (Duncan, Ginobili), 2008 (Ginobili), and 2009 (Ginobili). They were bounced in all three years, although they reached the conference finals in 2006 and 2008. They were healthy in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007, and they won titles in three out of four of those years.

If everybody stays healthy, this is a title-contending team. That's a big if, but luck with injuries is part of every championship run. What would have happened to the Heat in 2006 if Dwayne Wade got hurt? Or in 2008 with Boston if Kevin Garnett got hurt? Or 2009 with the Lakers if Kobe or Gasol got hurt?

In Miami's case, they would have been the 2007 or 2008 Heat, Boston would have been the 2009 Celtics, and do I really need to spell out where the Lakers would be without Kobe?

The fact is, the Spurs are closer to being their 2007 championship self than sliding into obscurity. The core pieces are all still there, and they can still play. What Peter Holt and R.C. Buford did was add one more piece to make another run while Tim Duncan still has some gas left.

Even though he's not the same player he used to be, he doesn't have to be. Now he has three legitimate other scoring options to fall back on if he can't do it himself.

I'm not going to be foolhardy enough to guarantee a Spurs title in 2010. But I can tell you that they just got a lot better, and with some rest and relaxation before next season to recharge the batteries, they should give the Lakers a run for their money.

What the Richard Jefferson Trade Really Means

Michael McCarthy — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:00:15 -0400

I've been weighing the Spurs-Bucks trade over in my mind now for the past two days.

I've been thinking about what it means to the Spurs and their title chances for 2010. I have heard numerous objections and dismissals about this deal from other fans (I'm looking at you, Laker fans), but I believe this deal is just what the Spurs need.

The most common objections I hear to this deal are: Jefferson is a selfish gunner who plays for stats, now the Spurs have no defense, the Spurs are too old and it doesn't matter anyway because they're always hurt.

I would like a moment to refute each of these arguments, one by one.

As for Jefferson's stats-mongering, who honestly believes that Gregg Popovich will allow that?

It's true that Jefferson has been the type to post big numbers on bad teams, but that is about to change.

Popovich has created a team-first culture in San Antonio, and every player has to know their role.

I find it hard to believe that the front office of the most consistently successful franchise in American professional sports over the past decade didn't do their homework and talk to Jefferson and his agent about what is expected of them before green-lighting this trade.

The second objection I hear is that by trading Bowen, Oberto, and Thomas, the Spurs have depleted their defense in favor of scoring more points.

That may be true, but consider this: Bruce Bowen is considered such a defensive asset nowadays, that the Bucks are expected to buy out his contract and cut him.

In other words, a perennial title contender dumped him to a perennial lottery team, and they thought his best value was to cut him and save them money.

How is that a giant loss?

Oberto was promptly shipped to Detroit for Amir Johnson. The Bucks didn't want him either. They just wanted to save money.

The only part of this deal that will stay in Milwaukee is Kurt Thomas.

Any time you can move an over-the-hill perimeter defender (Bowen), an automatic turnover or cover-your-eyes awful shot on the offensive end (Oberto), and an aging backup power forward (Thomas) for a legitimate 20 ppg, athletic wing player, you mean to tell me you don't make that deal?

As for the Spurs recent injury issues, I do not feel as if that will be as much of a problem next year as in the past. A number of different solutions help to resolve this issue.

The first is the Spurs uncharacteristically early post-season exit. For the oldest team in the NBA to get an extra month of rest before next season is huge.

You forget, but the Spurs' big three didn't just play 82 games and then five playoff games in the past year.

They went to Game Five of the Western Conference Finals against the Lakers last year (last game on May 29), after going five games with Phoenix, then seven games with New Orleans.

Then Duncan played for Team USA, Ginobili played for Team Argentina, and Tony Parker played for Team France in the Olympics. More wear and tear.

Then they played the grind of another 82 game season, with no time off to recover from last year's grind, and they just broke down.

This summer, there are no Olympics, and they get an extra month of time off.

That doesn't mean injuries can't still occur. They can happen at any time on the court. But a rested athlete is less susceptible to injury than an exhausted one.

The Spurs had injury issues in 2006 (Duncan, Ginobili), 2008 (Ginobili), and 2009 (Ginobili). They were bounced in all three years, although they reached the conference finals in 2006 and 2008.

They were healthy in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007, and they won titles in three out of four of those years.

If everybody stays healthy, this is a title-contending team. That's a big if, but luck with injuries is part of every championship run.

What would have happened to the Heat in 2006 if Dwayne Wade got hurt? Or in 2008 with Boston if Kevin Garnett got hurt? Or 2009 with the Lakers if Kobe or Gasol got hurt?

In Miami's case, they would have been the 2007 or 2008 Heat, Boston would have been the 2009 Celtics, and do I really need to spell out where the Lakers would be without Kobe?

The fact is, the Spurs are closer to being their 2007 championship self than sliding into obscurity. The core pieces are all still there, and they can still play.

What Peter Holt and R.C. Buford did was add one more piece to make another run while Tim Duncan still has some gas left.

Even though he's not the same player he used to be, he doesn't have to be. Now he has three legitimate other scoring options to fall back on if he can't do it himself.

I'm not going to be foolhardy enough to guarantee a Spurs title in 2010. But I can tell you that they just got a lot better, and with some rest and relaxation before next season to recharge the batteries, they should give the Lakers a run for their money.

Look For University of Houston to Emerge as a Football Power

Michael McCarthy — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:47:47 -0500

When was the last time that the University of Houston Cougars were relevant?

The days of the run-n-shoot with David Klingler and Andre Ware flinging the ball around seem like a lifetime ago.

It may seem strange now, but there was a time when UH was a Texas football power. They won four Southwest Conference championships in the late 70's and early 80's and as recently as 1990 they were ranked third in the country by the AP (they finished that season ranked 10th).

After a decade of irrelevance marked by NCAA sanctions, a move to a small-time conference, and a winless season, UH looks to re-emerge as a viable football school.

The sanctions set UH back, but they have recovered and now have no reason not to be a bigger deal than they are. In fact, I see in them some of the same potential that Miami had prior to the 1980s. I'm not saying I expect UH to win five national championships and become a dynasty, but the two schools are very similar.

Both schools rest in incredibly fertile recruiting grounds. In fact, the greater metro areas of Miami and Houston rank No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, in terms of current NFL players produced.

Miami has always had to make do with subpar facilities, as Houston does, and both schools are saddled with apathetic alumni and inadequate boosters/fans (have you ever seen the number of empty seats at non-Florida State Miami games?).

The one thing Houston has going for it that Miami didn't before it's rise to prominence is a rich football history. Houston had an outstanding program from the 1960s through the early 1990s, first as an independent under Bill Yeoman, then as a member of the Southwest Conference.

A change for the better occurred at UH with the hiring of Art Briles in 2003. Briles worked a small miracle at Houston, taking a team that went winless in 2001 (my freshman year at UH, bad times) to a triple-overtime classic bowl appearance two years later and a conference championship three years after that.

After Briles jilted Houston for Baylor following the 2007 season, UH got it right again with the hiring of Kevin Sumlin.

The team finished up the 2008 season with a misleading 7-5 record. It's misleading because two games were affected by Hurricane Ike midseason.

The Air Force game was changed from a 2:30 kickoff at home to a 10:00 am kickoff in Dallas with only two days notice to beat the advance of the storm, and after that the team stayed in Dallas for the rest of the week before leaving to take on Colorado State in Fort Collins.

Both games were decided by three points, and I believe that the distractions provided by the storm proved to be the difference in both games, and the difference between a 7-5 season and a 9-3 season.

UH showed what it could do when focused for big opponents, beating then No. 23 East Carolina 41-24 on the road, and then beating No. 25 Tulsa 70-30 at home.

Houston has always had a tradition of having entertaining, high-octane offenses, and under Briles and Sumlin they have continued that tradition.

Offensive coordinator Dana Holgorsen came from Texas Tech and employs a similar passing attack, which should prove to be an attractive option to recruits that wouldn't have normally considered Houston.

It seems that UH is on the right path, and provided they can hold on to their up-and-coming coaches, should be poised for big things in the near future.

Bright Side For Texas Fans

Michael McCarthy — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:24:58 -0500

Sometimes, life just isn't fair.

Just like Notre Dame in 1993, Miami in 2000, or Auburn in 2004, someone in the national title picture is about to get hosed.

As everyone knows by now, Oklahoma passed Texas on Sunday in the BCS rankings, thereby winning the Big XII South, and a shot at Missouri and a Big XII title. The only problem is that Texas beat Oklahoma, had an identical record, was ranked higher going into the weekend, and beat their rival by 40. In what world does that team get passed by a team that it beat?

In the event of a three way tie, there is no inherent problem with using the BCS rankings per se. After all, after four other tie breakers have failed, there has to be some sort of way of determining a champion, doesn't there?

The problem is the subjectivity of the BCS rankings. Here's how I see it: the BCS is the formula used for determining a national champion. Alright, so in the race between Texas, Tech, and Oklahoma, we're using national title eligibility as the determining factor.

Tech eliminates itself because no national title contender should ever lose by 44 points. Therefore, it becomes a two team race between Texas and Oklahoma. Here, Texas is the clear winner, having beaten Oklahoma by 10 on a neutral field. End of discussion.

The problem is how flawed the BCS is in determining it's positioning. After the Oklahoma State game, Bob Stoops was being interviewed with "65-21, 39-33" signs behind him. This seems to say, the best argument for OU's case is a flawed logic argument.

It's been six years since the first day of logic 101, but let's see if I can remember: Let A=OU beats Tech. Let B=Tech beats Texas. Let C=OU beats Texas.

The first fundamental argument of logic is, if A then B, if B then C, so if A then C. Except, oh yeah, OU didn't beat Texas! OU's argument is based entirely off what is known in logic as an incogent argument.

It sucks for Texas, but let's keep a little perspective. Take a look back to any preseason magazine, and the consensus would be that this year would not be Texas' year.

What is unfolding in the BCS race is a travesty, but keep in mind, Texas wasn't even supposed to be in this situation this year. Just for example, if you take a look in Dave Campbell's Texas Football annual, you would see a prediction for an 8-4 Sun Bowl season for the burnt orange.

I offer this to pained Texas fans: take heart. The fact that Texas is even in the national title discussion is a bonus this year. Remember that next year was supposed to be Texas' year.

Keep this in mind, Texas fans. Will Muschamp will be back next year. Colt McCoy, in all likelihood, will be back next year. Brandon Collins, Malcolm Williams, Deon Beasly, Earl Thomas, Fozzy Whittaker, Blake Gideon, and the entire young secondary and receiving corps will all be seasoned with big game experience.

It may seem like a little thing, but tight end Blaine Irby will be back from an injury next year. Sam Bradford is a likely first round pick in a weak 2009 quarterback draft class (he's just a sophomore, but there's a good chance he's gone).

So keep the faith, and remember miracles could still happen. If Florida wins the SEC, there's a chance the computers will keep Texas ranked ahead of them in the BCS with the possibility of an OU-UT rematch for the national championship.

Texas could win the AP national title (they're currently ranked 3rd, and if USC gets to claim their 2003 AP title, then damn it, Texas should be able to claim an AP championship, too).

But whatever happens, Texas is BCS bound for the third time, so get ready for a big game, remember that you've beaten OU three out of four years, and next year looks like it'll be even better.