(Site note: If you missed the set up to this debate, click here. If you missed why the Magic will win, click here. If you missed how the Cavaliers will win (below), click here. Read Loyal Homer’s argument for the Lakers, then vote!).

I can see it now… puppet LeBron hoisting a puppet O’Brien Trophy over his weeping puppet head, chugging a big ol’ bottle of puppet Vitamin Water, while Kobe Bryant officially joins the ranks of “We”, who are all Witnesses (by the way, it’s sad to watch a grown puppet cry). There will be much rejoicing on the shores of Lake Erie!

That’s right, I said it. The Cleveland Cavaliers will be the 2009 NBA Champions!

The formula is a simple one…

The best PLAYER in the NBA + the best TEAM in the NBA + the best COACH in the NBA = CHAMPIONSHIP!

Let’s break that down…

LeBron is undeniably the best player in the NBA. This year, he racked up career bests in field goals (48.9%), free-throws (78%), assists/game (7.2), turnovers (2.98), and blocks/game (1.1). He also saw his second-highest totals for points/game (27.5), rebounds/game (7.6), and 3-point field goals (34.4%). He was nearly a unanimous MVP winner, and was named to the NBA All-Defensive team. Most remarkably, though, is that he accomplished this with the lowest minutes-per-game average he’s ever had (37.7)!

He’s producing more, in less time… how can that be?!

It’s because of the elevated play of his supporting cast, who will ultimately allow LeBron to claim his first (of many) titles. More specifically, it boils down to the addition of Mo Williams.

It was evident that LeBron was missing something. He couldn’t take on the NBA powerhouses alone, no matter how hard he tried. A supporting cast which included guys like Ira Newble, Larry Hughes, and Drew Gooden just wasn’t cutting it. Mo, however, came to the team and turned in an All Star year of his own, totaling personal bests in 3-pointers (43.6%), free-throws (91.2%!!!), and points per game (17.8). His field goal percentage (46.7%) was the second highest of his career.

I hate to draw the comparison, but it sounds a lot like Jordan – Pippen to me…

Last, Coach of the Year Mike Brown’s philosophy has been one of defense first, and 2008 was the year it paid off. Under Brown’s direction, the Cavaliers led the league in allowing just 91.4 points per game, and had the greatest scoring differential at +8.9. They DOMINATED on defense! That domination was even more evident in their regular-season record of 66-16, and a 39-2 home record, which is second best in history.

So, why have they struggled against the Magic? People are quick to point out that the Cavs are only alive because of LeBron’s 3-pointer at the end of game 2. Yet, Orlando is only alive because of Rashard Lewis’ shots in the final seconds of games 1 and 4. Cleveland has carried a lead into the final 30 seconds of 4 out of the 5 games this series, and the Magic have relied on miraculous 3-pt shooting that CANNOT be sustained.

After the first 4 games, the Magic averaged 43% from 3-pt land, compared to 36% during the season. They lived by the sword, and will surely die by that same sword. In game 5, the Magic shot their second-highest number of 3-pointers in the series but suddenly couldn’t hit anymore, sinking only 8 of 25. The result was their worst defeat of the series. Is this a sign that the hot-streak has ended? I think so.

Looking ahead to the Finals, then, it comes down to a question of whether or not the LeBron-aliers continue to struggle as they did against Orlando, or will they return to the level of domination demonstrated during the first two rounds? My answer (obviously) is a return to the form they have sustained through the ENTIRE season!

Cavs over Orlando in 7, Cavs over the West Champs in 5!

Así es. Tras el terrible terremoto que sacudió China el pasado 12 de mayo y que dejó a todo el país conmocionado, las autoridades chinas han considerado que el baloncesto profesional americano no era el tipo de emisión adecuada para un país que sigue de luto. Originalmente se suspendió la emisión de eventos deportivos durante tres días, pero luego se reanudaron las emisiones con normalidad… sólo para que, después de empezar a dar la final de conferencia entre Spurs y Lakers, sin previo aviso desaparecieran las retansmisiones del resto de partidos. Los responsables de la cadena CCTV han declarado que se debe precisamente a que deben “elegir cuidadosamente qué emiten y los partidos no se ajustan al tono establecido ahora mismo”.

Pues bueno. Pues vale. Sin entrar en otras consideraciones, al parecer esa misma moralina no les ha impedido emitir fútbol femenino, o resúmenes de baloncesto femenino o de los partidos de tenis de Roland Garros. No sé si habrían dejado de emitir los playoffs si siguieran por ahí los Houston Rockets con un Yao Ming en buen estado, pero bueno… Dicen también las malas lenguas que en realidad la acción no es más que una pequeña vendetta tras la carta pública escrita hace unos meses por el “Laker” Ira Newble y firmada por varios jugadores NBA en la que se criticaba la política china en la zona de Darfur: en la carta, Newble cuestionaba cómo el país que organizaba los Juegos Olímpicos podía proveer de armas al gobierno del Chad para mantener la situación en la zona. En fin, las implicaciones del tema quedan un poco fuera de la temática de este blog, pero a estas alturas de la vida ya me lo creo todo… Más información aquí, aquí y aquí.

Note: Since this post was published, the Winshares formula has undergone some revisions of some substantive import, as well as a renaming. To see the most current iteration and accurate tables and graphs, please see the BoxScores page.

This post is a lengthy discussion of the theory and methodology behind the Winshares player value metric. If you are already familiar enough with Winshares, or are impatient, read the “In brief” section just below, and then you might want to skip ahead to the payoff graphics at the very end of this post. As always, comments and criticisms are encouraged!

In brief

Winshares are a statistic developed to estimate a player’s value in terms of wins. Combining individual statistics with team performance, Winshares allocate credit for team wins according to each team member’s contributions to team total production. As of the end of the 2007-08 regular season, Winshares are calculated as follows:

winshr = (val / team val) * team wins

val = pts – fgx*0.5603802 – ftx*0.9345311 + as*0.7697530 + or*0.8709732 + dr*0.7111727 + st*0.9190908 + bk*0.9495596 – to*0.8473544 – pf*0.7729732

Motivation

Why create yet another statistic that attempts to reduce all of player value to one number? Especially when there are so many other good and widely accepted measures already in use? Because the theory is sound, the operationalization is elegant, and the results appear valid.

Why use boxscore stats, ignoring plus/minus and everything that modern science now knows about possessions and efficiency, especially since defense is so poorly captured and other statistics, like assists, are arbitrary? Because boxscore stats go back to the beginning of professional basketball. Plus/minus is extremely data-intensive to calculate, and we have no way of getting that kind of data for most historical games. I’m ignoring possessions, and not emphasizing defense, because it is my belief that comparing one player’s boxscore stats to those of his team gives a reasonable estimate of player contributions–sometimes overestimating, other times underestimating, but on average, getting it approximately right. Mostly, though, calculating Winshares is possible as long as the same stats are tracked for all players on a team, and we know how many times the team won–meaning it can be applied very generally.

Why even try to use statistics to measure player value? You can’t capture that with a number! There is much to be said on both sides of this issue. I am of the opinion that statistics ought to be considered within a larger context of other data, qualitative and quantitative. However, I do feel strongly that numbers have a lot to tell us–they allow us the hope of greater objectivity, and therefore possibly less subjective, more accurate assessments. When applied identically to all players, Winshares will adjudicate “fairly,” paying no attention to max contracts, shoe endorsements, nicknames, or “intangibles.” Intangibles are tricky–they may indeed be part of player value, but they are also, by definition immeasurable, and may therefore expand to fill the role required of them? Was your favorite player not voted league MVP? Certainly they failed to consider his intangibles, which would have easily put him over the top…

Why are Winshares measured in that specific way? Don’t you know that linear weights are no good, or that assists are worth much more than you give them credit for? Read on…

Theory

Imagine a cooperative grocery store, owned by those who work there. At the end of one year, the store’s revenues exceed its expenditures by a large margin, and the workers are to be paid out of this surplus. One concept of fairness might dictate that a worker who worked p% of the total man-hours for that year ought to receive p% of the surplus. Arguably, he contributed p% of whatever effort determined whether or not the store would succeed, and should be rewarded accordingly. A worker working a large number of hours could be said to have contributed more to the store’s success or failure than another who only worked one shift a month–if the store profits by a large margin, that employee should receive a larger share of the windfall, just as if the store loses money, that employee should be held culpable for a larger share of the deficit.

Now imagine another similar store competing in the same market. Its surplus at the end of the year is twice that of the first store. Is it possible to compare the value, in terms of surplus, of employees from the two different stores? I would argue that it is possible: if pay is allocated in the same manner in both stores, with worker i in store j receiving payment in proportion to his labor contribution, the worker who receives the highest paycheck is the most valuable. That is, if pay is equal to worker man-hours over store total man-hours times store surplus, we can compare employees across any two firms in the same market.

But wait–what if some employees are more efficient workers than others? What if Alice can generate three times the revenue that Bob can generate in the same number of hours? Doesn’t our payment formula then overpay Bob and under-reward Alice, and doesn’t this complicate yet again the comparison across firms? Yes it does, and so we might try to find better measures of worker contributions to the surplus. Perhaps we could keep statistics on the number of cans shelved, or the number of transactions tendered, or the number of smiles flashed–if we could figure out even just the relative value of each of these things (that is, not necessarily how they each translate into surplus, but whether one smile is worth two cans shelved, etc.), then we are back on track. It doesn’t matter whether or not we can measure exactly how much revenue is brought in by each additional shelve stocked (although this would be interesting and useful), but if we know that it’s worth more (by some scalar factor) to clean the bathroom than it is to check receipts at the door, we can still estimate each workers contribution to the total amount of valuable work being done at the store.

This analogy carries over very well to sports, and specifically here, to basketball. A player who plays fully 1/5th of total team minutes played (that is 48 minutes per game for 82 games) ought to be credited with approximately 1/5th of his team’s success or failure–both of which can be measured in terms of wins. Using minutes to assess contributions runs into the same problem as in the stores above–they say nothing about efficiency–and as such, it is useful to find other statistics that more accurately estimate contributions to team success. The statistics employed in Winshares are boxscore stats, such as points, rebounds, assists, missed shots, etc. These are imperfect measures, but to the extent their relative value can be assessed, they may be useful in estimating each player’s contribution.

Calculation

Unfortunately, this relative evaluation is very difficult. It is often claimed by more “sophisticated” observers of the game that most fans fail to look past point-per-game numbers, giving infinitely more weight to scoring than to any other contributions. Yet, it is exceedingly difficult to identify just what the appropriate weights might be. Multiple regression analysis yields somewhat unsatisfactory results when applied in a straightforward manner–typically finding, for example, that offensive rebounds are actually detrimental to team success. Other work, including that done by Berri and Hollinger, is much more thorough, but leaves something to be desired (a topic which has been covered better elsewhere than can be possibly done by this author in this exposition).

As for Winshares, it would be disingenuous to claim that the ideal and true set of values has been found, but it is my belief that the reasoning is sound, and the results pass the “laugh test,” that is, given a subjective assessment of the sport, the relative importance of each boxscore statistic seems to be, at the very least, in the right order.

To identify the weights used, we may begin with a simple but strong assumption: the most valuable “good things” are those that opponents are most resistant to allowing, and thus are relatively rare, while the most detrimental “bad things” are those that a player is most trying to avoid, and thus are similarly relatively rare. With this in mind, I present counting sums for each of 8? boxscore counting stats from 1979-80 through 2007-08 (which I call the Modern era, characterized by the introduction of the three point shot to NBA play):

* field goals missed and free throws missed

Dividing each of these totals by the sum of the totals (17,008,507), we arrive at the following frequencies:

Normalizing these frequencies to that of points, we get:

Then, subtract each of the above from 1, so we are placing more weight on the rarer occurances, and set the points coefficient to 1, because the ultimate aim of all defense is to prevent scoring, and the ultimate aim of all offense is to score:

Assign positivity and negativity according to whether each is helpful or deleterious to team success, and we arrive at a set of scalars for estimating valuable contributions (often abbreviated val):

val = pts – fgx*0.5603802 – ftx*0.9345311 + as*0.7697530 + or*0.8709732 + dr*0.7111727 + st*0.9190908 + bk*0.9495596 – to*0.8473544 – pf*0.7729732

Any player’s val less than zero is then set to zero, but val is rarely a large negative number. Compared to the difficulty of valuable contribution assessment, the final steps in Winshare calculation are extremely simple: merely find each player’s percent contribution to his team’s total sum of valuable contributions from all players, and multiply this by team wins:

winshr = (val / team val) * team wins

We are left with an estimate of individual player value that combines individual contributions and team success, and allocates the most credit to those players who did the most to win the most. There is just one adjustment made to allow comparisons across all NBA seasons: for seasons prior to the official distinction between offensive and defensive rebounds, the formula is adjusted to incorporate total rebounds in their stead.

Discussion

The first thing to note is that as we apply the formula increasingly further back in time, we might become somewhat less certain of its absolute accuracy as the boxscore statistics on which it is based drop from the official record. Thus, for the very earliest years of the BAA, we might not be as confident in our estimate as for most years since, but the results are still very compelling, and seem to hold up to scrutiny despite the relative dearth of data. One of the merits of Winshares as a measure is that it is relatively flexible across a variety of situations, relying as it does on player percent contributions, which can almost always be measured in some manner.

Another caveat is to bear in mind that Winshares is a season-cumulative statistic, and so the ceiling varies by the number of games played in a season. Winshares for the strike-shortened season of 1998-99 are much lower than other contemporary seasons, due to the fact that all teams won fewer games than they normally would have. Adjustments can easily be made, however, by finding per-game or per-minute Winshare rates, and making comparisons at that level. This helps, too, in determining the impact of an injured player, given that he has played fewer games. However, the initial impetus for constructing Winshares was to estimate player value in terms of wins, and this is best done on a season-cumulative scale.

One thing done relatively poorly by Winshares in its current iteration is measurement of the value of players traded during the season. To do this completely accurately, it would be useful to isolate only the games the player appeared in for each of his several teams, looking at individual statistics and team wins within those sub-season units. However, this sort of analysis requires data not generally available in convenient form, and truly, the logical extension of this idea is fairly well captured by the plus/minus statistic. As it stands, Winshares still does a relatively good job (subjectively assessed) in measuring traded players’ value, but it is something worth noting.

Winshares in application

Often understanding is best achieved through application, and so I present

The Top 1,000 Winshare Seasons

covering the NBA, ABA, and BAA from 1946-2008. Keep in mind the above caveats about data availability, especially for seasons prior to 1951-52. In a similar vein, here is a list of

The Top 100 Winshare Careers

again, this is cumulative across the entirety of each player’s career, and so players with longevity are advantaged. I have included games played in this listing, to allow the reader to make his or her own adjustments.

Finally, every player, every team played for, 2007-08 season.

Geometric representation

One of the more useful ways to conceptualize Winshares is as player percent valuable contributions * team success. This has a particularly interesting expression in geometric terms, where Winshares can be thought of as the area of the rectangle created by multiplying valpct by team wins. The following series of visualizations depicts Winshares as a geometric comparison of player value. The color scheme is based on playing style–more detail on this classification may be found here.

2007-08 NBA: Chris Paul edges out Kobe Bryant as most valuable player according to Winshares, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce turn in stellar seasons for the Celtics, and LeBron James carries a huge load for his team, and is rewarded in terms of Winshares, if not in post-season success.

1986-87 NBA: A season featuring more all-time greats than perhaps any other (as noted here), we see Larry Bird and Magic Johnson at the height of their rivalry, Michael Jordan and Hakeem Olajuwon coming into their own, and too many other star players to even mention.

1971-72 NBA & ABA (combined): Classic Lakers and Celtics teams, a young Dr. J, Kareem’s greatest year, an almost-as-great year from Artis Gilmore, and countless other NBA past greats.

Sacramento Kings Franchise History: This storied franchise didn’t quite make the playoffs in a very competitive 2007-08 Western Conference, but its history is littered with greats such as Oscar Robertson and Chris Webber.

It probably got a bit of attention when Ira Newble was still playing in Cleveland and circulating a letter to China about the genocide in Darfur that then teammate LeBron James refused to sign, but more is fine by me.  The L.A. Times has gotten around to profiling the Lakers’ bench player (although not a regular one), his trips to the Darfur region, and his advocacy against the genocide and countries funding it. Essentially, this is one of those stories you really can’t repeat enough, so it’s good on the Times for getting this feature going.

Basically, Newble read a story about a professor working for relief for the region from his sickbed, got a quick course in the genocide, and got in touch with the group Aid Still Required, which puts forth relief efforts and recently did a series of ads with NBA players including Newble’s current teammate Kobe Bryant.  Newble circulated a protest letter to China (whose money funds much of the genoicide) and got a bit of a firestorm going when James (a Nike endorser) didn’t sign it.

Newble took a trip to the region last August with actress Mia Farrow and several others:

“We spent three days in one camp in Chad and two in another. I saw kids, ages 8 to 13, drawing stick figures of women running, holding babies, getting shot in the back by soldiers. They drew pictures of helicopters dropping bombs. There was red scrawled everywhere to show blood. These were their mothers and sisters, family members and friends they watched die in front of them.”

Newble tried to remain stoic while listening to these stories. “One individual said to me, ‘I’m telling you this because I believe you are going to go back and speak about it so we can get help from the international community.’ “

Upon his return, Newble hugged his own two kids, put a picture of one of the little girls he had met on his computer screen and cellphone and began a campaign to spread the word among fellow NBA players.

It may be old news to some of you, it may be hard to take, it may be kind of hokey to the cynics among you — but Newble’s expansion of the boundaries is something we all ought to strive for.

Lakers’ Newble opens NBA eyes to Darfur [L.A. Times]

__________________________________________________________________________

Vendredi 21 mars 2008

Sonics 105 -Lakers 130

Private Practice

Démo

Quartier libre

Le troisième quart n’est pas des plus passionnants. Mise à part la surprise Walton dans le cinq sur le poste de Vlad’, la seule grosse info reste la présence d’Ira Newble sur le banc et en tenu s’il vous plaît ! L’ancien Sonics pourrait jouer si toutefois ses nouveaux coéquipiers daignaient écourter le suspens et infliger au moins 20 points aux sloppy Sonics. Los Angeles continue de dérouler son jeu et de gérer leur avance. Le niveau de jeu est très satisfaisant mais l’engagement laisse parfois à désirer. On fait l’impasse en défense, on « gamble » un peu trop. En tout cas pour les novices Kobe Bryant se lance dans un court particulier de fade away pour les rookies (Green principalement) qui se relaient tour à tour. Farmar et KB24 enflammeront ces 12 minutes par période. 93-76 Lakers, aller Phil, offre nous Coby II et Ira dans le dernier quart !!!La seconde unit baby-sitter par Radmanovic vient finir le travail. Au rayon des surprises, une exécution parfaite entre Radma et Luke donne le rythme à l’attaque californienne. On compte bientôt 19 points d’avance ! Si je vous dit que DJ MBenga par au alley hoop vous me croyez ou pas ? Et bien si ! Le 6ème de la soirée pour LAL. Après l’atelier alley hoop on passe au trois points. Chacun son tour les enfants. On appel d’abord Famar (3/4) Sasha (1/1) puis Radmanovic (1/1). Seattle demande un temps mort… + 25 pour Los Angeles ! Retour au alley hoop, Walton envoie Farmar sur la lune ! A 5 minutes de la fin Coby Karl fait son entrée. Walton retrouve son shoot ce soir, 15 points à 7/10 ! Newble is in, fier de son numéro 14 ! Il provoque immédiatement une faute offensive. Les tacos sont ratés de peu. Newble profite d’une entry pass de Walton pour inscrire ses deux premiers points sur un lay up renversé. Coby Karl devra lui se créer une opportunité d’un dribble dans le dos pour obtenir deux unités. Fin du match, 130-105 LAL, (Oh et pendant ce temps, Houston va chercher une victoire importante face aux Warriors, did I mention that ?)

Scoreboard à la fin du match

Médias

Versus Sonics

Retrouvez les photos du match dans le forum en Cliquant ici

“Why can’t America realize that falling in love with Kobe doesn’t mean breaking up with Michael?” Rick Reilly

__________________________________________________________________________

News:

Welcome to L.A Ira

Secret de polichinelle, Ira Newble s’engage avec les Lakers pour le reste de la saison. Les doutes concernant le retour de Trevor Ariza cette saison commençant à planer, les Lakers préfèrent assurer le coup et engager un nouveau défenseur. Newble pourra rejoindre l’effectif dès aujourd’hui et ce pour la fin de la saison Playoffs inclus puisque les Sonics l’ont coupé avant le 1er mars. Il touchera approximativement 175 000$.

__________________________________________________________________________

The title is the name I would have gone with, but Aid Still Required works — and getting names like Kobe Bryant and Grant Hill behind PSAs, photo shoots, and other work to bring attention to the genocide in Darfur is a Good Thing, particularly when athletes are not viewed as socially and politically active people. The Darfur campaign (they also have pages for Katrina relief and the 2004 Southeast Asian tsunami) also has Steve Nash, Baron Davis, Derek Fisher, Emeka Okafor, Matt Barnes,, Andrew Bynum, Ira Newble, Eric Snow, and Luol Deng involved.

I was watching ESPN’s Outside the Lines, in a rare break from the network’s day of Favre fellatio (they went right back to Favre in the next segment), and Hill was explaining why he and other athletes got involved, and much it harkened back to the old chestnuts we rely on and love: because players like Jim Brown got involved in these issues, and he felt like he was compelled to speak out and support it. Hill acknowledged that with how things are problematic in the U.S., we forget about injustices abroad — and he wanted to help put more notoriety behind it.

Hey, if the PSAs get enough traction, make it on serious TV rotation, and get more people to pay attention to brutality across the world, I’m all for it.

__________________________________________________________________________

Vendredi 22 février 2008

Noises et Rumours:

NBA Fantasy League

Ca se bousculait au portillon NBA hier soir ! La dead line des transferts approchant, il fallait faire vite pour soumettre les dernières offres et les faire valider par la ligue une fois un accord trouvé. Dans cette course effrénée et sans précédent dans l’histoire de la NBA, d’autres dinosaures ont migré, suivant les traces de Kidd, Webber, Gasol ou Bibby.

Premier à ouvrir le feu hier, Houston qui envoie (au grand damne de T-mac) Bonzi Wells et Mike James à New Orleans ainsi que du cash et leurs droits sur Malick Badiane à Memphis. En échange, les Rockets reçoivent Bobby Jackson et Adam Haluska des Hornets, et les droits sur Sergei Lishouk des Grizzlies. Enfin, la ville du Tennessee reçoit Marcus Vinicius en plus.

Second recommandé pour Stern, Gerald Green quitte le Minnesota pour le Texas en échange de Kirk Snyder des Rockets, un second tour de Draft et du cash.

Troisième et pas des moindres, les Pistons qui récupèrent le shooteur des Raptors Juan Dixon contre Primoz Brezec.

Quatrième enveloppe pour Portland et Denver qui s’échange l’ancien Lakers Von Wafer contre Taurean Green.

Et enfin dernier trade blockbuster de la saison pour Cleveland et le King, enfin comblé après sa demande publique de renforts ! Le transfert implique trois équipes et pas moins de 11 joueurs. Chicago, Seattle et Cleveland donc en tant que protagonistes principaux.

Les Cavs envoient Ira Newble et Donyell Marshall à Seattle, Chicago envoie Ben Wallace, Joe Smith et un second tour de Draft 2009 aux Cavs. Seattle envoie également Wally Szczerbiak et Delonte West à Cleveland alors que Cleveland envoie Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden, Cedric Simmons et Shannon Brown aux Bulls. Enfin, les Bulls se séparent d’Adrian Griffin qui part pour l’état de Washington. Méli-mélo ? non… prenez le comme ça :

Cavs >>> Wally Szczerbiak, Delonte West, Ben Wallace, Joe Smith et un second tour de Draft 2009

Sonics >>> Ira Newble, Donyell Marshall et Adrian Griffin

Bulls >>>  Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden, Cedric Simmons et Shannon Brown

Un beau mois de février en NBA….

__________________________________________________________________________

Here it is:

CAVALIERS GETS:
F/C- Ben Wallace
F- Joe Smith
G- Delonte West
G/F- Wally Szczerbiak
2009 Chicago 2nd Rounder

CHICAGO GETS:
F- Drew Gooden
G- Larry Hughes
F/C- Cedric Simmons
G- Shannon Brown

SEATTLE GETS:
F- Donyell Marshall
F- Ira Newble
G- Adrian Griffin

I love this deal for the Cavaliers, I absolutely do. I know some people questioned Ben Wallace, and the Chicago thing was a disaster, but I think it will energize him, energize LeBron even more and make this team possibly get back to the Finals.

More on this later, I promise.

Holy crap, the Cavs just made a huge trade with the Bulls and the Sonics! According to multiple sources, the Cavs will give up Larry Hughes and Drew Gooden, Shannon Brown and Cedric Simmons to the Bulls. They will send Donyell Marshall, and Ira Newble to the Sonics. The Cavs will get Ben Wallace and Joe Smith from the Bulls, and Wally Szczerbiak and Delonte West from the Sonics! Big Ben’s a center, but can play power forward, and Joe Smith is a competent forward. Szczerbiak has a great 3 point percentage and is a good shooter. Delonte West is a good point guard and can free up Daniel Gibson to be a shooting guard. This is a very interesting trade. I think there are a few more details that aren’t hammered out, but this is the general trade. This gives the Cavs a great opportunity to step it up and make the finals for the second year in a row. Finally, LeBron has some help.

In a blockbuster, three-way trade involving Cleveland, Chicago, Seattle and including 11 players, the Cavaliers acquired center Ben Wallace from the Bulls and forward Wally Szczerbiak from the SuperSonics, two players to possibly get James and the Cavs through the Eastern Conference and back to the finals.

Cleveland general manager Danny Ferry, unable to finalize major deals in the past, pulled off a colossal one in the final hours before Thursday’s 3 p.m. deadline.

The Cavaliers sent guard Larry Hughes, forwards Drew Gooden and Cedric Simmons, and guard Shannon Brown to Chicago for Wallace, one of the game’s top inside enforcers, and forward Joe Smith.

Cleveland acquired the sharpshooting Szczerbiak and guard Delonte West from Seattle for forwards Ira Newble and Donyell Marshall.

The Cavaliers will also get Chicago’s second-round pick in 2009. The SuperSonics will receive guard Adrian Griffin from the Bulls.

SI

Just a heads up as this one may take more than a minute to digest.

As I mentioned below, the Cavaliers’ Shannon Brown being sent to the Developmental League will likely be overlooked by many.  To a lot of the casual fans, he is just some guy who looks a bit like Ira Newble, but he can finish on offense.  To others, he is just that – offense. 

Many of times, Brown looks for the highlight dunk instead of the smart basketball play.  But you’ll have this with a player who has failed to crack the 17 minutes per game mark in this, his second season with the team.  You are looking at a kid who just turned 22 years of age that was once thought to have the upside of Gilbert Arenas.

Obviously, this will never be the case as Arenas has produced more thus far in his career than any pundit – aside from Gilbert, himself – had ever expected.  But what he is is a very athletic swingman with good speed and a physical presence on defense.  But what he also is is a guy that plays the same position as Larry Hughes, a guy who makes considerably more money, but also a guy that was added to the team a year earlier. 

Which poses the question: Why was he drafted?  Just add it to the list called “Danny Ferry’s First Rounders.”

In 2003, Cleveland won the draft lottery and landed one of the current Mount Rushmore-esque faces of the NBA in LeBron James.  While this was great and all, it gets ugly from here.  Real ugly.

In 2004, the Cavaliers used the 10th overall selection on Luke Jackson, a shooting guard out of Oregon.  They needed an outside presence, so this makes sense.  The fact that Jackson has since been a part of the Boston Celtics, Toronto Raptors and Miami Heat since then, however, does not. 

In 2005, Cleveland did not have a draft pick.  We would have been able to protect it if it had fallen within a certain range, but after trading for Jiri Welch, the Cavs were forced to remove the restrictions.  The selection wound up being 13th overall.  This could arguably be considered one of the biggest botches in recent history considering some of the names taken after the 13th slot: Rashad McCants (14), Danny Granger (17), Hakim Warrick (19), Nate Robinson (21), Jarrett Jack (22), Francisco Garcia (23), Luther Head (24), Jason Maxiell (26), David Lee (30), Monta Ellis (40), Louis Williams (45) and Andray Blatche (49). 

In 2006, Cleveland desperately needed to pick up a player that could run the point.  Damon Jones had been recently added, but he was not going to be the ball-handler of the future.  Thus, the Cavaliers used their 25th overall selection on the topic of conversation: Shannon Brown.  Three point guards were taken soonthereafter with Jordan Farmar going to the Lakers at 26, Sergio Rodriguez to Portland at 27 and Mardy Collins to New Yorkat 29.  Couple this with Craig Smith at 36th overall and it gets a bit worse. 

Moving the most recent first round selection in the Sasha Pavlovic trade, only to have Pavlovic himself hold out for some of the season as he wanted more money adds insult to injury.  Needless to say, Brown moving to the D-League this week is icing on the cake for Danny Ferry’s drafting abilities.  Taking LeBron James first overall in 2003 is the equivalent of the guy in your fantasy football league saying that he drafted a good team this past year because he “landed” LaDainian Tomlinson.  Has there been a bigger no-brainer in recent drafting history?

This Brown to the D-League can go one of two ways. 

Brown will join Rio Grande Valley and likely get a ton of minutes.  His option was not picked up during this past off-season, so he will undoubtedly test the free agent market.  He will showcase his offensive abilities while attempting to prove that he can do it on the defensive end as well.  He’ll get picked up by a running team, and he’ll flourish as a slasher-type, similar to what Hughes did in Washington.

Or, he’ll head to the NBDL, never to be heard from again.  He may toss in 12 per game, but that will not get you signed by another squad.  If this is the route we see, it is simply another draft failure for the Cavaliers and the Ferry regime.  While hindsight is 50/50 on the past few season’s, it’s easy to say what we could have had.  But it’s also tough to say that we would have been able to use that 2005 pick to our advantage if it would have likely been tossed towards someone more Julius Hodge rather than one of the abovementioned. 

If one thing is clear, it is that “Ferry” and “First Round” definitely do not mix.