I think it is obvious to everyone that player we most want to draft at #8 it Bismack. That point has been talked to death around here. But consider this-- last year the general concensus for #7 was Cole Aldrich. No one could forsee someone like Monroe dropping to us. This year's draft is at least as convoluted as last year. It is totally possible someone we assume will be gone before #8 will drop down to us. Or.... in a perfect world JOD will somehow trade Rip, CV, and the #8 pick to Minnesota for the #2 and a rotting corpse with an expiring contract. In that case we could draft ANYONE we wanted. Who would you pick?

When in doubt, I'll be happy to make up a half-assed game-thread to satisfy the masses when no one else remember to make one. At least until Packey or someone usurps mine with one of their own.  Anyway...

Nets: Really bad

Pistons: Also bad, but not quite as bad according to the records

Do we really want to win this game? Does anyone really care? Is there any reason to pay attention to this game at all? What's the point? Either the team I love loses to a crappy team, or we lose a chance to get better lottery position. No matter what happens, win or lose, I'll be pissed. Why should I bother?

If it wasn't for the Moose, I'd be totally emo right now. And I hate emo people. Ugh.

Now your thoughts.

Somehow the editor types seemed to have forgotten that the game is really early today. And since no one else signed up for it, it seems to be up to me to provide a game thread. So let's see....

Atlanta 26-15

Detroit 17-22

Atlanta  is a decent team, but they aren't all that good and I don't think they have much of a plan going forward. They seem to have been a middling playoff for the last several years and with all the money they have tied up in Joe Johnson et. al. I don't see them getting much better anytime soon. I still like their future better than ours though.

Lets get this over with..

[Ed. Note: Interesting idea, especially since most folks seem to take for granted Kuester's status as a lame duck coach. Bumping to front page for discussion -- MW]

I'm just going to throw this pet theory of mine out there. I have no evidence to back it up and I'm not even sure I believe it myself, but it is a very interesting thought regardless.

Kuester has made plenty of mistakes this and last year, and he gets plenty of flack for it here on this site. I'm not going to try to justify any of it. But consider this: the man is only in his second year of being a head coach, and he has made progress. Benching Rip permanently took balls. Benching half his team for missing a practice took balls. He is being creative (at times TOO creative) with his line-ups and is willing to see what happens. He has shown a willingness to play the young guys.  He is far from perfect, but he has shown potential in what has been undoubtedly a difficult situation.

Why is everyone willing to be patient with inexperienced players but so quick to judge inexperienced coaches? Austin Daye showed almost nothing last year and not even his harshest critics were saying we should dump him. We just waited a year, and now look what we got? What if we were willing to have the same patience with our coach? What if Kuester is still working through some rookie mistakes and needs time to develop?

I don't know if this is the least bit true. But I do know that I am REALLY tired of having a string of coaches that are here for a year or two before they get canned. What have we got to lose if we give him another year? It's not like we're going to be contenders anytime soon anyway. 

College sports in general have always made me feel kind of icky. Why should schools and college coaches be able to make tens of millions of dollars while the students are banned from any money what-so-ever? I get the idea that going to college should  - in theory- make the players more mature and well rounded, not to mention better educated. But all to often the schools themselves don't seem to care at all about the maturity and development of their students, they only care about winning and the money that comes with it. When was the last time a school fired a winning coach because he wasn't doing enough to make sure his players were getting a good education? Sure there are plenty of quality programs who really do seem to care about the well-being of their players, but most seem to only to care about draining the students of all the money they can provide.

But what can we do to fix the problem? The MLS and adidas have come up with a totally different system where the shoe company pays students to play in professional youth leagues before they turn pro. Adidas even provides all the players with grant money to attend the college of their choice if/when they ever want to. Everyone- the league, the players, the coaches- seem to think its a great idea.

Check out the article. I'm not saying it is a perfect idea, but it could be much better than our current system. What do you think?

How about a really simple trade idea to help clear up our logjam at SF without losing cap flexibility? The Mavs just lost Caron Butler to a significant (possibly season ending) injury and will be needing a replacement if they have any hope of contending for a title this year. How about a really simple trade swapping Tay for Butler and some sort of draft pick (perhaps a lottery protected first rounder?) The salaries match up and both are expiring so it should be really easy. Getting rid of Tay would hurt (at least for me) but we need to get rid of someone if Daye or Summers ever want  to see the light of day. Plus it would encourage Q to play Jonas at SF instead of PF when he comes back. 

Granted this is not the sexiest trade idea ever, but I think it makes a ton of sense. What do you think?

(FWIW, I posted the same trade idea over at Mavs Moneyball to see what they thought of it.

Sorry to here about your loss of Butler. I am not a Mavs fan by any means, but I would much prefer them to win it all than LA or Miami. Losing Butler would appear to hurt your chances, but maybe we can help each other. You need to acquire a replacement SF who won't screw up your chemistry and won't cost an arm and a leg. We have at least a dozen players who can play SF we would be happy to get rid of. What are your thoughts on a trade switching Tayshaun Prince for Caron Butler and some sort of draft pick (future lottery protected first rounder, perhaps?). The salaries match up and both have expiring contracts so it would be easy. We still love Tay (at least most Pistons fans do), but we have a serious logjam and would probably be helped by simply getting rid of him. 

Tay might not be as exciting as Melo or Iguodala, but he is still a solid defender and a capable scorer and he's a good locker room guy who won't screw up your chemistry . Plus he can be gotten for much less than Melo. What are your thoughts?

Pistons vs. Bobcats. One of Larry Brown's former teams vs. another one of Larry Brown's former teams. How many times a year can that be said? I probably should do some real research into writing a quality game preview but I'm lazy. So I'l write a few things off the top of my head. Let's see... T-mac is looking really good lately, much better than anyone could have expected at the beginning of the year... The Babcats not only suck, they are also really boring and have no real hope for the future- not unlike a certain team from Detroit. I think I've got the required 75 words here, so this is all you get. 

I can't think of anything I'd rather do on a Friday night than sit at home in front of my computer watching the Pistons play the Clippers. Seriously. I am that pathetic. Who wants to join me? Anyone??? 

I still need to add words to make it up to 75, so lets see.... I hear that Blake Griffin is good. He makes watching the Clippers bearable. At least until he blows out his ACL like all good Clippers. The Monrobocop should be starting next to Ben Wallace again which should be nice. We'll also get a chance to see Wilcox blow some random easy play which is always entertaining in a really depressing way. What else?

(I mentioned this a bit in a recent thread, but I'll repeat myself here because I think it warrants further discussion.)

What exactly do we need most in order not to suck? For quite a long time the answer was easy- we need a quality big man, someone who can defend and rebound missed shots. But Monroe's defense and rebounding are much better than advertised. And with CV and and Ben still playing "well" or at least "well enough to deserve significant minutes and with Max still playing competently, are we still in desperate need of a big man? 

If we can't blame all of our misery on a lack of big men, what can we blame it on? I look at our roster and I see a ton of average to above average talent at every position with plenty of quality depth. Why can't we at least be an average team? Why do we suck SOOOO hard? What is our problem? What is the missing ingredient?

I've noticed something strange about my own personal preferences. Whenever I look back and try to determine which Pistons team is my favorite, I never think about the championship teams. I'm too young to really remember the Bad Boys, so I have an excuse there, but even the 2004 team isn't tops on my list. For me personally, I'm all about the 2001-2002 team. That team's only "star" was Jerry Stackhouse, but it had lots of plucky role players who would not quit- Chucky Atkins, Jon Barry, Uncle Cliffy, Zelly, and the then unheralded Ben Wallace. That year all the experts looked at our roster and predicted mediocrity but we surprised everyone on our way to 50 wins and the second round of the playoffs.

Does anyone else have an "unusual" favorite team? Or does everyone else just prefer the championship years?

FWIW- my least favorite year was easily 2008-2009: nothing is worse than MCIAFI and AI. 

In Bill Simmons latest column, he suggests this trade trade:

"Here's the three-teamer I love: Chris Kaman to the Pistons; Tayshaun Prince, Al-Farouq Aminu (the eighth pick in this year's draft), Detroit's 2011 No. 1 (top-11 protected) and Minnesota's unprotected 2012 No. 1 (currently owned by the Clips) to Denver; and Carmelo to the Clips. Name me a better trade chip than Minnesota's No. 1 pick in 2012. That's a top-3 pick at worst."

That trade sound incredibly reasonable. Plus, it helps loosen our glut of SF and actually gets us a decent center. I'm not sure I like having to give up any sort of first round pick, but I'd certainly consider it. What do you think?

Instead of more tanking and draft talk, how about something a little different? In today's Truehoop Bullets, they quote an article in which Shane Battier is suggesting that the league should shorten the season from 82 games to something like 58-- essentially only playing each team twice. He says that because the season is so long the players have a hard time keeping a high level of intensity for every game and as a result the fans occasionally get to witness some ugly basketball. His idea has some merit. Think about all the potential positives from shorter seasons: fewer games mean fewer injuries, more time for practice which should mean more polished game play and rookies who are better able to contribute, every game is much more meaningful, possibly more upsets in the playoffs.... I like the idea. I doubt the owners would ever consider it, but still.

What do you guys think? Should the league consider shortening the season? If so, how many games should we have?