It's Our Time

I am not a fan of the Suns marketing campaign this season. I understand the idea behind Planet Orange - the tie-in to the science museum or whatever, embracing a population of fans outside Arizona, staying away from the "pressure" of an Eyes on the Prize billboard - but the whole thing smacks of cold and tentative thinking. It says nothing about the path the Suns have taken over the last three seasons (let alone the 36 seasons prior to those), and it doesn't speak to the sense of urgency and determination the team is sure to show us this season.

It's Our Time. That's my marketing slogan for this season. Three words that say everything that every Suns fan already knows.

1. We've been through hell, and we're not going back.

2. We've been robbed of too many chances.

3. We're not giving it away, and no one is taking it away. Not this time.

4. We're not waiting to win anymore. We're taking this one, once and for all.

I've been telling myself those things all summer long, trying to remain optimistic in light of the biggest travesty of (in)justice in Suns history. After watching the Suns in action tonight (sans Barbosa), that optimism has turned to pure confidence.

Yes, it was "just a preseason game." But we learned a lot about this season's Suns in those 48 meaningless minutes of basketball. This was our first look at the new components of the team, and a lot of the question marks are now exclamation points.

Amare Stoudemire.

It was obvious from the start that D'Antoni's goal was to get Amare Stoudemire into the flow of the game as quickly as possible. Despite a few early miscues (three turnovers in his first five possessions), I have no doubt in my mind.

He's back. No question about it, Amare showed the athleticism and at least flashes of the dominance that put him in elite status the first year of the Nash experiment. He also showed signs that he stuck to his word that he would improve his defense over the summer.

Early in the first quarter, Stoudemire found himself guarding Carmelo Anthony. Carmelo tried to drive. Amare was there. Carmelo spun around to free himself. Amare was there. Carmelo went up for a shot. Amare was there. All in one sequence, Amare Stoudemire defended Carmelo Anthony better than anyone I've seen in the last four years. Stat was so quick on Anthony, he made Shawn Marion look like . . . well, Amare Stoudemire.

Grant Hill.

At the end of the season, the "experts" will be lauding Steve Kerr for pulling off the best free agent signing of the summer, forgetting that they ever downplayed it in light of the Kurt Thomas trade. Hill showed the quickness, finesse, and court savvy that made him a seven-time All Star.

A few weeks ago, near the end of training camp, Mike D'Antoni posited that Grant Hill would take around 150 three pointers for the season, and would make around 40%. Hill was 1-2 from downtown (would have been 2-3 if not for the tip of his sneakers on the line). If those numbers pan out for the season, then D'Antoni will be called a prophet by the same "experts" that criticized his assertion.

Marcus Banks.

What can I say? We all wanted him traded last February, and the sentiment held throughout the off-season. It seems, though, that a year in D'Antoni's system under his belt just might pay off. He maintained his focus, didn't get called for any stupid touch fouls, and he kept the ball and himself moving on offense. He only took six shots from the field and made two, but one make was a three pointer in the flow of the offense, and one miss was a slashing lay up that spun off the side of the rim. We forgave Leandro for that last year in Utah, we can let a few of those slide with Banks.

He also recorded the game winning assist, milking more than 20 seconds off the clock in the process. We didn't see that last year - at all.

DJ Strawberry.

Banks looked especially good when paired with the late second round rookie, who showed us all why he was so coveted by the Suns. He also showed 29 other teams why they were fools to pass on him 58 times. The kid can play defense, for sure, and questions about his poor shooting seem completely unfounded, as he shot 6 for 9 from the field, including 2 for 4 behind the arc (both of them long, high-arching rainbow bombs).

Consider that his second three-ball turned out to be the game winner, and we can only conclude that DJ Strawberry is indeed the steal of the draft. Was I the only one who jumped out of his seat yelling "DEEEEEEE JAYYYYYYY" after that shot? (And we're expected to believe that GMs are better judges of league talent than every day sports writers? Please.)

As for his defense - believe the hype. DJ knows the meaning of "no easy baskets," as at least two of his five fouls were committed knocking a driving guard out of the air at the basket. The kid is certainly tough. To top it off, he had an amazing sequence early in the game where he guarded Allen Iverson - one of the quickest players in the league with THE deadliest cross over. As Amare did with Carmelo, DJ did not give an inch to AI. The current killer cross over became Iverson's fight for life as he tried to maintain his dribble with Strawberry covering like a wet blanket on a burn victim.

The defense, the shooting, the passing, the toughness . . . I'm convinced. It is a personal tradition to choose one Suns player at the beginning of the season as my designated favorite for the year. In 2004, it was Amare Stoudemire. In 2005, it was Boris Diaw. Last year, it was Leandro Barbosa. DJ Strawberry earned the honors this year.

Although the Nuggets put up a 66 point first half, mostly due to lackadaisical defense by the starters, there really isn't much to worry about on the defensive end. The Suns came out flat, which is understandable considering the magnitude of the meaninglessness of the game. The Nuggets seemed to be taking the game very seriously, though (Iverson and Anthony weren't even going to play, apparently, until they found out that TNT picked up the game).

So the 12 point first half deficit didn't bother me, especially when the starters came out of half time with a completely different attitude. Suddenly, it was a game. It seemed as if they didn't take too kindly to the bench crew outplaying them. The starters were responsible for both double digit deficits in the half. And the bench (particularly Diaw, Banks, and Strawberry) were largely responsible for the recovery in between.

Some question marks still have to be straightened out, though.

Alando Tucker.

He definitely has an inside game, but Alando Tucker is not ready for prime time with the Suns. Like Strawberry's defense, Tucker's shooting came as advertised. All of his points came underneath the basket, where he showed some nice moves, spinning and juking defenders out of their socks and onto his back. But that's not the Suns' style, even though the offense curiously went through his post-ups late in the fourth quarter. It may be a handy skill come playoff time, but Tucker surely won't be in the rotation when the games mean something. A year of working on his perimeter game (and that godawful jump shot) and absorbing all things Grant Hill, and he definitely has a bright future on the team. But this is now, and his place is on the bench.

Sean Marks and Brian Skinner.

We didn't get to see much of Brian Skinner aside from a couple of nice rebounds, a blocked shot, and his woeful free throw shooting. He at least seems to have a good attitude, cheering his team mates from the bench and giving congratulatory high fives going into time outs.

I have to be honest...I'm not liking Sean Marks. The offense that I saw from him against the Nuggets didn't make up for the lack of defensive presence. He finished with eight rebounds, but none of them memorable. More on my mind are the moments that he forgot to box out or the times he got beat to the basket. The energy is there, but the results aren't.

One key moment came in the fourth quarter, with the Suns holding onto a five point lead. Marks was on the floor with the smallest lineup possible (Banks, Strawberry, Tucker, and Piatkowski), and he ended up shooting a three from the corner that clanked off the side of the rim and ricocheted back to him. Unfortunately, he had already released, leaving Tucker and Strawberry to fend for the rebound. Not a good sign when the only big man on the floor is shooting threes and guards are forced to fight for rebounds.

Yes, it was a preseason game. I know it. You know it. But the point of the preseason is to get the team in shape, as well as to work out the rotation. Aside from some sloppy first half play, the gang did alright.

The team scored 116 points, and the high scorer was Grant Hill -- with 17 points. They also converted 26 assists, less than half of them by our main man and 3* time MVP Steve Nash. Ball movement and balanced scoring are the hallmarks of Mike D'Antoni's system, and this team looks to have a better handle on it than all of the previous teams.

There were some negatives to the game, to be sure. The rebounding was mostly atrocious, but Amare and Shawn played a combined 41 minutes for the game. It did seem to pick up in the second half, though, when the Suns decided to turn on the intensity. And like the scoring, there was nice balance all around. As long as Marks stays closer to the paint, and Skinner stays healthy, the rebounding should be no worse than previous years. Hey...we're Suns fans. We should be used to it by now.

For now, I'll be happy with what I witnessed during our lone televised preseason game this year. It was a good snapshot of what we have to look forward to this season, and I think the Suns are going to be a lot better than most people are predicting. Sure, many "experts" have the Suns winning the Pacific Division (duh) and finishing among the top three in the Western Conference, but they all seem to stop there.

We've not been given a chance to advance deep into the playoffs this year due to the loss of Kurt Thomas ("the only guy who did a decent job on Tim Duncan"). But the Suns aren't playing Tim Duncan for the title. They are playing 29 other teams, and will be facing the usual suspects in the playoffs - except the Lakers, who will be watching from the ESPN Zone in San Bernardino.

I'll remind everyone that these same "experts" picked the Suns to claim the eighth seed and get knocked out of the first round in the 2006 playoffs. If that doesn't jog your memory, then I'll have to say that the Suns were a torn calf away from making it to the Finals that year. That team also did it without the services of Kurt Thomas. Now we have Amare Stoudemire, Grant Hill, an improved Marcus Banks and Leandro Barbosa, and my new favorite Sun, DJ Strawberry.

Experts, indeed. Someone should remind them . . . It's Our Time.

Red Stern

10-26 Update: A more rational take from *gasp* a corporate media outlet.


Stern told the truth about one thing. Regarding the report that six NBA referees were punished for violating league gambling rules, Der Kommissar insisted that it wasn't the case, that the investigation is ongoing.

As it turns out, not six but ALL of the referees gave admitted to rules violations, and not a single one of them will be punished. I repeat -- NOT A SINGLE PUNISHMENT IS FORTHCOMING!

Why?

"Our ban on gambling is absolute, and in my view it is too absolute, too harsh and was not particularly well-enforced over the years," Stern said. "We're going to come up with a new set of rules that make sense."

Now, every Suns fan on the planet (Earth, not Orange) can look at this and wonder aloud with absolute validity, what happened to strict enforcement of the rules? Rules is rules, and they are not open to interpretation, let alone absolute dismissal. But here we are, facing a controversy that strikes the very core of the league's integrity, and suddenly the rules do not apply.

Worse, they are "too absolute."

I have made it clear in previous entries that I shy away from expletives on my blog because I am well aware that it is read by the professional media. That being the case, I want to set a good example and show them that it is OK to link to A Clockwork Orange if they so desire (this has yet to happen, of course, but still I hold out hope). But I have also made it clear that there are exceptions to the rule -- ANY rule. So here goes . . .

Are you fucking kidding me?!

A rule that cost the Suns their best shot at a title was said by Stern to be set in stone. It is not open to interpretation, and the only way to change it is if the owners tell him they want it changed, public outcry notwithstanding.

It seems Stern fancies himself a clever man, as he chooses his words carefully. It "was not well-enforced," thus opening the door to act in a manner contrary to recent history. The "leaving the bench rule," after all, had precedent (though it wasn't needed). Ten years of precedent. And it had been "well-enforced" consistently.

Not to open that racial can of worms again, but exactly why is a rule governing an 85% black population so well-enforced, but a rule governing a (roughly) 70% white population not so well-enforced?

I've been down the racial road too often recently, so I will leave that argument for someone less qualified to tackle (that's your cue, cosellout). I just wanted to throw it out there, since it just conveniently popped into my mind.

Back to Stern's double-speak.

"It's too easy to issue rules that are on their faith violated by $5 Nassau, sitting at a poker table, buying a lottery ticket and then we can move along," Stern said. "And by the time I got through and I determined going into a casino isn't a capital offense ... I'm the CEO of the NBA and I'll take responsibility."

It's too easy to issue rules like that? What does that even mean?

How about rules that are, on their faith, violated by natural human instincts, such as leaping to a team mate's side when he's been body checked into the scorer's table? Was that too easy? And since we're on the subject of his dictatorship, why did Stern not take responsibility for Robert Horry's game four actions and distribute justice...well...justly?

I don't want to get into what I think about David Stern's thought processes, as they are ugly and almost inhuman, in my opinion. He cares more about protecting his ego than he does about the league of which he is the CEO (an inaccurate statement, to be sure). He blew up when Dan Patrick dared question his authority, and openly lied to Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon on Pardon the Interruption.

In sum, I am not surprised in the least at Stern's reaction to the news that all of his referees are crooked. They may not have been "hanging crimes," but they were clear rules violations. I am also not shocked that a majority white population is allowed to determine the validity of these rules on his own, while a majority black population is constrained by "the letter of the law."

What does surprise me is that players, coaches, general managers, and owners across the league aren't stopping in their tracks and saying, "Wait...what the fuck did you just say?" I'm surprised that they would let a man control their incomes with such singularity that anyone who questions his actions is destined to lose said income. This is, after all, a business. Teams are in the business of winning championships, because it is through championships that marketing deals are struck and ticket prices increase.

Capitalist competition requires a level playing field wherein each entity has an equal shot at burying the competition, so long as its strategy is sound. A dictatorial leader (commissioner and CEO are NOT equivalent in the least) handing out arbitrary rulings that differentiate each entity within the capitalist structure serves the purpose, not of the league and its components, but that leader. Thus, market capitalism has become totalitarian socialism, where the society serves the purpose of the dictator, and any dissension is met with swift and blinding retribution within "the letter of the law," above which stands his personal security force. If they can't break the rules, then what's the point of even having rules?

As I said in my last entry, it is no wonder that Stern has so excitedly cozied up to a traditionally dictatorial socialist regime in China. It seems that he has modeled the league in the image of Mao Tse Tung's red giant. Only one question remains.

Which of us will stand before the tank?

I humbly volunteer.

Mao's the Time for Change

Check this out.

Six of the alleged twenty referees Donaghy named in his Federal Court soul cleansing have been "reprimanded and punished" by the league, according to the NBA's version of Major Hochstetter, Stooge Axin'. That's all well and good, but what happened to the league's promise of transparency after the whole Donaghy scandal blew up in the first place?

Not only is Stern and Co. not releasing the names of the referees in question, they are refusing to expound on the infractions, as well as leaving the punishments to mere speculation. There are so few clues, Scooby and Shaggy couldn't figure this one out.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that ANY gambling activity is a terminable offense. The whole point is to maintain the integrity of the league's officiating so that no one can even question a referee's motivations after a dubiously called game. Tim Donaghy was supposed to have ruined the non-transparency privilege for everyone involved, including the commissioner and his hired goons.

I understand that it is a person's right to maintain his privacy to the extent that the law allows (not stepping on THAT slippery slope, thank you). But it is part of the NBA officials' collective bargaining agreement, as well it is in each contract, that any type of gambling activity is off limits. An NBA ref isn't even allowed inside a casino, except in the off season, and then only for shows. They are not allowed to be in the gambling arena. Coupled with the entire concept of "integrity," does it not stand to reason that he surrenders that particular right the moment an official scribes his name onto the parchment?

If the infractions are so minor, then there certainly should be no issue in at least releasing those details. But Stern only relates that the rules violations were "not hanging crimes." In light of the Game 3 debacle, should that not be for the fans to decide? A parolee can't even get a DUI without being tossed back into jail, and, in basketball terms, this is far worse than driving home drunk from a bar.

At this point, with Stern in Europe and his mouth-piece tightly sealed until his return, I can only assume that we will have to wait for any relevant details to leak out over time - whether by design or through public pressure. (Not that Stern ever bends to the will of "his" league's fan base.)

This is, indeed, a disturbing turn of events that only serves to exacerbate the frustration felt by fans in general - and Maverick fans in particular - as the league decided to send another mixed message to its players and fans. OOPS!

If you haven't heard - and you probably have - Josh Howard got into a little scrum during Dallas' preseason game against Sacramento when *surprise!* Brad Miller floored little Devin Harris. Apparently, the comparably sized rookie Nick Fazekas proved too tough a match. Howard punked Miller from behind with a forearm (just ONCE can't one of these guys face up like men?), and that was pretty much the end of it - the "worldwide leader in sports" glossed over the rest.

Not surprisingly, Howard found himself suspended for the first two games of the regular season, just enough time for him to return for the home opener against -- Sacramento. I hope it's televised, as well the league's marketing guru's do, I'm sure. Now, I don't know if this next part surprises me or not, considering recent history. Miller has not been, and will not be suspended for two games . . . or one game . . . or at all.

It was our determination that the penalty of an FFP-1 assessed at the game was appropriate.

Typical Stu Jackson quote, isn't it? I'm sure the Flagrant-1 foul was appropriate at the time it was called. But it directly lead to a retaliatory response from the opposing team. Why is it that the league does not take into consideration the full effects of a player's actions when determining punishments? Why does it always seem to start and end with that player's own two hands?

The league is essentially telling us (and however many kids watch the games nowadays) that there is nothing wrong with throwing a blow, so long as nobody throws one back.

"Go ahead, kids. If someone frustrates you, or if you're upset for some reason only known to you, go ahead and shove the first person you see to the ground. But make sure he's smaller than you. We don't want any fights to break out."

Too glib?

So the Robert Horrys and Brad Millers of the world get free reign on all the Devin Harrises and Steve Nashes, apparently. And god forbid a bigger guy comes to the little guy's rescue. As the league has shown us, there is nothing worse than standing up for the defenseless -- literally.

No wonder David Stern is so busy trying to sweeten relations with China. After all . . . one good dictator deserves another.

Update: Now the league says that the New York Daily News report that six officials have been reprimanded is untrue.

"There is no truth to this report," [league spokesman Tim] Frank said. "The commissioner has made it clear that we will have details to share once the review is completed."

Fine. So no one was punished...yet. That doesn't change what Stern has already said on the matter, that they're not "hanging crimes."

My ego likes to think that he read this entry and realized that what was reported would be unacceptable. He'd better realize that, even if he isn't literate enough to read this.