Denver Post sports writer Benjamin Hochman posts his Nuggets Mailbag every Wednesday during the 2007-08 NBA season on DenverPost.com. The next installment, however, is slated for March 12.
To drop a Nuggets- or NBA-related question into the Nuggets Mailbag or visit DenverPost.com’s .
Hey, Ben. Just wondering why Denver never made a trade on Thursday? It almost seemed that the entire Nuggets organization played with the hearts of the Nuggets fans. They were involved in every trade discussion throughout the entire month.
— Justin Robinson, Fort Collins
Justin – Obviously, this is a hotly debated topic within Nugget Nation. I think it comes down to one simple fact – no trade would have made the Nuggets a title contender WITHOUT jeopardizing pieces that will help them compete next year, too. Of course, Ron Artest might have improved Denver. But, as we’ve reported and discussed often in February, it’s unlikely that Artest would have re-signed in the summer, so Denver would have entered next season without Artest or Linas Kleiza – and Artest doesn’t guarantee you a championship this season.
We will see if the non-trade strategy works out for Denver. Chucky Atkins and Nene are expected to return next month. No, that’s not like adding Jason Kidd or Pau Gasol, but as we’ve seen in the past, sometimes the teams with the most talent aren’t the champions. Denver is banking on this (even though the Nuggets are pretty talented).
Who do you still see on the team in four to five years? Who will be gone? Maybe an NBA championship?
— Bruce Wayne, Gotham City
Bruce – Well, the fact is, Denver has a lot of thirysomethings (which, come to think of it, was a hit TV show when your first movie came out). In four to five years, it’s hard to believe that Anthony Carter and Marcus Camby will be in the lineup. Allen Iverson, who is eternally 22, could still be around, but that would take some contractual restructuring. My crystal ball would say that Carmelo Anthony and Linas Kleiza would still be key parts to the lineup. My guess is Denver will make a title push either this season or next season, but it’s hard to predict anything in a sport like basketball after that.
What was the motivation behind the plans for ?
— Steve, Lakewood
Steve – Well, it’s not everybody’s dream to play this game, but it will be a fun novelty and will give the Nuggets some fun exposure during a month generally dominated by another sport generally played outdoors. Hopefully, it won’t rain. And, as George Karl joked, hopefully it will be windy, because the Suns are a 3-point shooting team.
In terms of avoiding the East/West schism of talent, how about this restructure: Five divisions with six teams each. The five division leaders and the next best three teams become the top 8 of the 16 playoff teams. The divisions would be:
WEST: Sea., Port., Sac., G.S., L.A.C., L.A.L.
MWEST: Utah, Den., Pho., Dal., S.A., Hou.
CENTRAL: Minn., Mil., Chi., Ind., Det., Clev.
EAST: Tor., Bos., N.Y., N.J., Phil., Was.
SOUTH: Memp., Char., N.O., Atl., Orl., Mia.
What do you think?
— Frank, Sacramento, Calif.
Frank – I like your creativity. Clearly, the status quo is frustrating. I mean, the Hawks and the 76ers are legitimate playoff contenders in the East. They couldn’t even get tickets to the playoffs in the West.
If I’m reading you right, you want to get rid of conferences all together and just have five divisions. It’s a fun strategy, but, like any system, there are questions. Such as – would it be a balanced schedule? And if so, wouldn’t that take away from some of the regular-season rivalries we currently have (with conference teams playing one another four times – and the other conference just twice)? In your system, wouldn’t the division teams have to play each other more, so there can be some substance with winning a division? And would the playoffs just be 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc. (which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, especially with re-bracketing after each round)?
But anything to shake up the East-West disparity is worth looking at. One would hope that with the upcoming draft – Michael Beasley, Derrick Rose and maybe Eric Gordon – that three Eastern teams could get a franchise player. Then again, we thought that last year, and the West’s Seattle and Portland got future all-stars instead.
Regarding the East/West disparity, how about a one game “play-in” where a team out of the playoffs in one conference could challenge a team with a worse record in the other conference for its playoff spot in that conference?
— John Sears, Cody, Wyo.
John – It’s fun to hear all these ideas. So basically, you’re saying if, for instance, the Warriors and Trail Blazers finish 9th and 10th in the West, they should be able to challenge any East playoff team with a record worse than the their own? It’s a fun philosophy, especially when some bad teams could be playoff teams in the East. But, I’d have to say that there could be some question marks with your system.
For one, it’s not the fault of those Eastern teams that they’re in the East, so why should they be penalized by making the playoffs (even if they did so with an average record)? And a one-game playoff goes against the sanctity of a playoff series, where anything could happen (whereas in one game, anybody can beat anybody). And what if the eighth team in the East has a superstar player, but that guy was injured for most of the season, so that’s why that team is eighth and not higher. But – by playoff time, that player is back. If they had to play the one playoff game, and they lose (even with their start player playing), then a possible Eastern contender wouldn’t even get to be in the playoffs.
All this said, I think what you’re implying would be a change to the playoffs where the 16 best teams are in the playoffs, regardless of what conference the teams are in. Because this season, a team with a good record – in fact, two or three – will not make the playoffs in the West.
Benjamin Hochman covers the Nuggets for The Denver Post. To drop a question into his Nuggets Mailbag, or visit DenverPost.com’s .
