Motivated to contemplate the relative strength of the Eastern and Western NBA conference, I return to this key phrase from my beloved Shanghai Noon.  At least at the present time it is a bit of an overstatement.  And the highest draft picks haven't consistently gone east during this run of western superiority.  So the pendulum may have cheated to the left this tick.  Still, the ongoing rhetoric about the vast chasm separating the exalted West from the lowly East is more lingering odor than reality.

Consider the comparison in terms of the following five categories, submitted for your merciless abuse:  Legitimate Title Contender, Strong/Could Surprise, Playoff Expectations, Lottery Bound, Just Plain Bad.  A warning out of the kindness of my heart - though it pains even me, the Kings are in the category that sounds like old yogurt.

LTC

The defending champions are just ridiculous, and that's all I have to say about that.  The San Antonio Spurs are aging but just that good, and would surprise no one if they entered the playoffs as a five seed and ran the table.  The Boston Celtics are also of the long tooth, but surely no one thinks they cannot and/or will not make this year count.  The Orlando Magic are serious and are doing it all right, except for the inexpicable casting off of Hedo Turkoglu, a piece they will certainly discover to have been much more important than they estimated.  Cleveland just went all in, and I wouldn't bet against LeBron bouncing back from being bounced back a notch with vengeance.

In the all-important category of Legit Contender, that's East - 3, West - 2.

S/CS

Portland may or may not be here, but they are so truly on the rise that they do not fit in any other stable.  Youth plus very good veteran point guard makes them my favorite door knocker.  Dallas is still pretty solid, and they don't stop making moves to get the most from what's left of Dirk and the Kidd.  I suggest they aren't falling yet.  The New Orleans Hornets have had one stellar year and one hung in there year, and belong here by virtue of one Chris Paul.  The Denver Nuggets could storm the castle gates or drown in the moat.  Gotta love 'em.  The Chicago Bulls have a man driving the truck, and have done good things to mix a very valid group around him.  My favorite Bad Boy will simply not let the Detroit Pistons go away, and they will not go away.  If Miami succeeds in collecting Lamar Odom along with D-Wade and Co., how do you ignore them?  I can't get enough of the roller coaster Florida professional sports fans ride.

In Category Think-I-Can, that's East - 3, West - 4.  Or, overall, in the two top categories, 6-6.

PE

Call this group Playoff Expections or just PE for getting our exercize, it goes like this:  Utah will be as good and as bad as they are every year in the history of professional basketball, except for a few dazzling months of Stockton/Malone.  That is, they are in the playoffs, probably 50 wins, going nowhere.  The Phoenix Suns are a giant question mark in the sand, too good to likely miss the second season, but not too good.  The Houston Rockets are misfiring badly.  A good organization with a great coach and some pretty nice pieces that just can't catch a break (or has sadly caught another break).  Notably, not one of these teams is on the rise.  The Toronto Maple Leaf-Wearing Dinosaurs are really good, and should be disappointed if they don't start making it count.  This off-season might be the real corner-turner in making it count.  If Bosh somehow stays, they may leapfrog into Legit Zone after this season.  The Atlanta Hawks and our dear friend Mike Bibby are sound and may have the ingredients to rise into S/CS territory one day.  This is a city and franchise that just doesn't get higher than that, period.  Can't explain it.  The Philadelphia 76'ers and Washington Wizards have nice pieces that barring health concerns (which haunt these clubs like few other) can be entertaining and provide competitive, albeit losing, playoff series'.

This category would be the Irrelevant Category except for one important thing.  The risers are in the East.  For the record, it's East - 4, West - 3 in the last arguably positive slot.

LB

You must be thinking, isn't this everyone else?  But three things make it not so.  1)Significantly, this is my post and I say it's not. 2) There is a lowlier fifth category that I choose to address and assert that it is meaningful in terms of West vs. East. 3) If you are counting you have noticed that one team from the West and two from the East in Category PE are also by mathematical necessity Lottery Bound. 

Golden State could be putting together another Nelson special, ie great regular season, exciting first round playoff team.  And the Oklahoma City Thunder may be creating quite a storm on the plains.  They're not going anywhere this year, but they will put a whuppin' on some unsuspecting higher flyers and then maybe own the neighborhood some day...Oklahoma City.  No disrespect to any self-respecting Sooner-type, but it's just wrong.  The New Jersey Nets, whom I may be overestimating.  The Indiana Pacers, who should again be just good enough to get the 13th pick in the 2010 NBA draft.  And the Charlotte Bobcats, who are temporarily coached by Larry Brown, so they will be better than they ever were or will be again, briefly.

Because I'm doing this with every category, for what it's worth: East - 3, West - 2.

JPB

You may have noticed that you haven't run across the name Sacramento, or the plural noun Kings.  I offer this comfort, coming from a meaningless source (except that it is the only source writing this post):  The Kings are risers, just not with jets.  I am convinced that this is the last year in this category.  Next year Category LB.  The following year Category PE, and so on.  Keeping company with ours truly...ouch!...are Memphis, Minnesota and the Los Angeles Clippers, three of the most inept organizations in professional kid games.  I believe that the New York Knickerbockers will again reside in the basement, despite the very fine people who have been put in place to excavate them from the muck.  And I just cannot accept any notion that Brandon Jennings will be the difference maker to lift Milwaukee, Wisconsin from Just Plain Bad..

To summarize, the elite of the NBA is populated by three Eastern Conference  and two Western Conference franchises. the dungeon is the home of two Eastern Conference and four Western Conference disasters.  Portland and Oklahoma City have real up-and-coming potential from the West, while four teams, Chicago, Detroit, Miami and Toronto can make upward movement that might stand the test of more than a couple seasons. 

No longer accept the notion of "the loaded West."

Tossed a chew toy out there yesterday ("Ricky Rubio rookie stats") pretending that Ricky Rubio was, in fact, picked by the Kings and offering some first season numbers.  Threw in some second season figures for good measure.  I got the idea a little late, really just doing something with the anxiety and the ticking of the clock up to Draft Day besides chewing my nails and reading everything else in the universe about every potential, as well as not even within the realm of reality, scenario.

Having waited until 48 hours before The Draft, and now wanting to do same with some of the other potentials (?), they all get jumbled into one FanPost Soup.   All of this is predicated on the guy being the Kings' pick.  Come one, come all, lovers and haters alike, and offer your rebuttals.  Try to rise above things like "Thabeet sucks!", and replace my stats with your own.  Have fun.

Tyreke Evans - year one

20 minutes        8 points        2.5 rebounds        1.8 assists        1.0 steals        2.0 turnovers

-year two

30 minutes        12 points      3.5 rebounds        3.0 assists        1.4 steals        2.0 turnovers

Stephen Curry - year one

22 minutes        10 points      1.0 rebounds        2.0 assists        1.0 steals        1.5 turnovers

-year two

30 minutes        14 points      2.0 rebounds        3.0 assists        1.2 steals        1.5 turnovers

Jonny Flynn - year one

17 minutes        5 points        1.0 rebounds        2.4 assists        0.4 steals        1.2 turnovers

-year two

26 minutes        8 points        2.0 rebounds        4.0 assists        1.0 steals        1.5 turnovers

Hasheem Thabeet - year one

16 minutes        4 points        5.0 rebounds        0.2 assists        0.2 steals        1.2 blocks        1.2 turnovers

-year two

25 minutes        8 points        8.0 rebounds        1.0 assists        0.6 steals        1.7 blocks        1.5 turnovers       

To help pass the next 50 hours or so, let's pretend that it's the end of next season.  Since we're pretending, the Kings won 35 games!  I know, I couldn't believe it either!  We're also pretending that one Ricky Rubio was the fourth overall pick in the 2009 NBA draft, "the Sacramento Kings select..."

Left-handed prediction: per game

28 minutes          7.5 points        5.0 assists        2.0 steals        2.0 turnovers        2.5 rebounds

Just for even more kicks (isn't this fun!?), sophomore season:

36 minutes          11.5 points     9.5 assists        2.8 steals        2.0 turnovers         4.0 rebounds

Give me a second to put on my helmet and cup.................OK.

Scott Howard-Cooper is one of my favorite basketball writers.  It was enjoyable to spar a bit on sacbee.com, and it'sgreat to see him at si.com.  But, today...?  Actually, the content of the article was reasonable.  The closing statement, "it doesn't take a dominant point guard to win [the title]", who can argue?  But the tag, "why it's a waste to draft a point guard in the lottery", insane.  In all fairness, he probably didn't write that, and probably had the same reaction when he saw it.

The evidence offered, going back to 1994, merits consideration.  Only two teams, the Spurs and Pistons, had a point guard among their top two players, and only arguably so.  However, the sweeping statement that a lottery point guard pick would be a waste is a wildly spastic over-simplification that has more holes than substance. 

The Celtics and Spurs had their big dogs at power forward and then small forward and shooting guard, respectively.  Apologies, sincerely, to Tony Parker, who I believe I just seriously dissed, especially considering that he was the Finals MVP once.  The Rockets, Lakers and Heat have had Olajuwon and O'Neil as their rocks at center, and with some of the all-time great shooting guards to boot.  Kobe, though I nauseate to say it, rose to the level of the uber-wing player along with Jordan - great 2's that took their teams to the pinnacle, and sans significant point guard.  Only Motown carries the banner for true team championships led there by true point guards.

The crux of the article is this: "It does not take a great talent at point guard to win the title."  Cannot argue, but here's the rub.  A) It does take a great talent to win the title. B) That fact is totally irrespective of position. C) Even great talents cannot ever win a championship without excellent supporting casts.  In any generation there are not really that many great talents, always a handful.  Among them, there are not that many great point guards, always one or two.  Among the great talents, there are not that many excellent supporting casts.  I would offer that it does not take a great talent at any specific position to win the title.  Hence, don't take anyone in the lottery on this premise.  Certainly never select a small forward in the lottery!  That position has never led it's team to a title, with the possible exception of Paul Pierce, though I think not.  I humbly submit that Pippen and Pierce were the second best players on their championship teams, therefore partly comprising the excellent supporting casts.

Lottery (indeed, draft) rule #1 and only.  Take the best player.  Teams with the best player frequently win.  If your guy doesn't turn out to be a great talent, do your darnedest to make sure he will be part of a future excellent supporting cast, position be flipped.  This year there is ONE GUY who reasonably stands to become a great talent...ONE.  He will be taken first overall; then there are 13 more picks in the lottery.  If, as a stretchy for instance, the next best 13 players were all point guards, would any of those picks be "a waste"?  Not.  Now, if the next 13 players were Jordan, O'Neil, Olajuwon, Duncan, Wade, Bryant, Garnett......?  OK.  Don't take a point guard.  Don't do it.  Total waste.

How bright does our own Kevin Martin shine in the galaxy that is the NBA?  A case can be made that every team has at least one star, with the possible exception of the Knicks, and giving maybe too much credit to the Bucks.  Some have more than one who would be THE star on another team, notably the Celtics and, oddly, the Suns, who each have no less than three.

Jerry Reynolds made the point that the Kings will be "looking for a star" in this draft.  This would presumably be because a) they have a very high draft pick, b) he concludes that this team really has no star, or c) that this team has a very high draft pick because, at least in large part, because it has no major star.  I would make the argument that the Kings have a star in Kevin Martin, leaning on a premise that every team has A star.

Kevin Martin is a huge star here because he is OUR star.  He is also a legitimate league star, or near to being one.  But line him up with the other teams' stars and where does he fit in?  Another way to ask the question would be, if he was on [fill in the other team] would he be the star?

I will select ONE star from each team (except the Knicks; what can I say?).  I know this will already start some fights.  Using the two earlier examples, I would make Paul Pierce the Celtics' star, with more than a nod toward Kevin Garnett; and Steve Nash, recent two-time MVP is my Suns choice despite the obvious merits of Stoudamire and past-his-prime-but-still-impossible-to-ignore Shaq.

CATEGORY BETELGEUSE

If Betelgeuse was in our solar system it would extend nearly to Jupiter.  LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade. 

I have to put Dwight Howard and Chris Paul almost there.  And I'm not ready to take Tim Duncan and Steve Nash down to the next level.  However, not with the light of the first three.

That's seven of thirty.

CATEGORY MU CEPHEI

If Mu Cephei was where our sun is it would swallow Saturn.  I have Carmelo Anthony, Paul Pierce, Dirk Nowitzki and Kevin Durant (already!) in this realm. 

I rate Chris Bosh, Al Jefferson, Brandon Roy and Derrick Rose (already!!) close but no Mu. 

Allen Iverson would be there but a) as great as he truly is, he is also perhaps the primary reason his teams haven't gotten over the hump, and b) he's about to go nova.

That' nine more. Sixteen down and no Martin.

STARS IN THEIR OWN SOLAR SYSTEM

Take Yao Ming, Deron Williams, Baron Davis, Andre Iguodala, Vince Carter, Danny Granger, Joe Johnson, Monta Ellis, Gilbert Arenas, OJ Mayo, Gerald Wallace, Micahel Redd, and, OK, how about David Lee to fill out the galaxy along with our sun, Kevin Martin.

Kevin is better than the bottom third of this group, maybe the bottom half, at this point in his ascending career.  Aligning the stars, generously he could come in about number 20 IF you take only one from each team.

He's our star and I love him.  He's on his way up this list, I believe.  Right now he's a C-list star, and we need more.  Can he become a B-list star?  Can we pair him with another B-list man?  Those are dizzy heights.  Top twelve would be more than awesome and hard to picture.

Can we believe in the purity of sport, or anything on which millions (billions?)  of dollars ride?  W can't, but we must.  I have never been one to put any stock in the conspiracy theories.  I want to believe the beauty of the competition on the court, field or pitch is the whole of it.  But there are those moments...and Kings fans know some of them well.

Oddly, my theory is that this year a conspiracy works in our favor, so just for once...

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the lottery is fixed on some level.  Since it is for the sake of argument, all arguments are accepted, nyet, invited.  How I see it follows, beginning with a weak effort at a legend:

MR     =  Must Reward (or $$ Invested)

NR     =  No Reward (or Not Again)

CRE  =  Cannot Reward Everyone

WC    =  Wild Card

Ordered inversely for more entertainment value:

WC

Indiana Pacers -  Larry Bird.  Beautiful yet struggling new building in one of  the three great basketball regions of the country (Kentucky, North Carolina).  Good history and following.  This is my wild card to displace the Wizards, or vice versa.

CRE

Oklahoma City Thunder -  Vibrant new market.  Exciting young players already in the fold.

Memphis Grizzlies -  Some young studs in a questionable, middling market.

Toronto Raptors -  A couple of great young players.  Need to be motivated to re-sign existing stars.

New Jersey Nets -  B team in the market.  A couple of young studs.

Minnesota Timberwolves -  Many opportunities.  A young stud or two.  If it was a more important market there would be more pressure to fill the KG semi-void.

NR

Phoenix Suns -  Only winning team in the lottery may not mean much given some history of the draft, but already there are three of the highest profile stars in the league.  No playoffs?  And recent management has been dismal.

Charlotte Bobcats -  Ineptitude.  ALWAYS, literally, in the lottery, even at the top of the lottery, with no results.  Not particularly important market.  Larry Brown and Michael Jordan.  Great basketball region doesn't apply with the Heels and Devils right down the street and all of the brainlessness in play.

Golden State Warriors -  Don Nelson and...need I say (read:dysfunction).

Los Angeles Clippers -  .......need I say.

Milwaukee Bucks -  Outpost.  Recent top pick.

MR!

New York Knicks - Starless team in the most important market in the world, especially the NBA part of the world.  New, very solid leadership that might have a clue what to do with a star or two.  The league needs a sexy star here more than anywhere. Absolute Must Reward.

Washington Wizards -  I don't know.  Relatively important market.  Really bad record looks good at top of draft.  Default selection that created the need for the wild card category.

Sacramento Kings! - Worst record in the league.  Big, recent NBA investment of various sorts.  Recent darling of the casual fan and famously local popularity.

Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but this year I want to be.  My prediction, like it or not:

1. Kings - Griffin     2. Knicks - Rubio      3. Wizards - Thabeet

I have donned my helmet and cup, and eagerly anticipate my beating.

A Byron Scott musing.

A little harsh.  I'm not sure he would qualify as a dictator.  We know he has tried the patience of a few players.  Doubtless, said players first tried his patience.  So perhaps he doesn't have the same patience and tact others might have.  He wouldn't be a good politician.  Yep, he'd be a better dictator.

Aileen Voisin offered these interesting thoughts:

a) Scott  "puts up with little nonsense."  A young team needs this, and any player who truly wants to become great and his team to become great does not chafe under this.  All of this assumes that we are talking about nonsense and not anything that doesn't agree with him 100%.

b) Scott is evidently the "obvious best choice."  Says who?  He may be.  He is certainly among the obvious best choices if he becomes available.  I will concede that Voisin is entitled to her opinion.  I just have trouble with the idea that any other choice would be an "obvious" mistake.  I can't buy that.

c) Scott was evidently "immensely popular" while an assistant coach while here.  My question has to be, With whom?  No disrespect, but I cannot think of an assistant coach that is immensely popular with the general population, or the fans.  Especially if he has never been a successful coach before, he's probably virtually anonymous.  So was he "immensely popular" with the rest of the staff?  If so, who cares?  The players?  If so, what has happened since then, and would that even be considered an "obvious" and important characteristic for a head coach candidate?  Maybe he was "immensely popular" with the media?  Again, who cares, Reggie Theus?  Maybe he was immensely attractive to Ms Voisin.

My wildly speculatory assessment:

re: Beno Udrih and Spenser Hawes - Pick and roll, baby.  Our deservedly demonized point guard would find himself in this system, and Spenser would flourish.

re: Andres Nocioni, Francisco Garcia and Jason Thompson - the hustle guys will hustle, will want to, and will be appreciated and rewarded for it.  Big positive.  JT may not become the important part of the offense that he might like, but I believe he would accept a role in an improving invironment and on an increasingly successful team.

re: Kevin Martin - hmmm.  Supposedly he is focusing this summer on becoming a leader.  I don't think that flies if he assumes he will be the first option on offense.  If he embraces becoming a 17-18 PPG scorer and saving some energy for the other end of the floor and the passing lanes, win.  if he becomes a brooding third wheel, not win.

re: Donte Greene - I'm sorry that I just don't care as much as so many others seem to, and don't we all wonder about "nonsense"?  In any event, I don't know if his gifts, should they ever present themselves, would be developed in a Byron Scott system.

re: potential rookies -

Griffin - could develop a nice inside-out game with Martin, making all happy in the Kings-dom.

Rubio - would he thrive in a pick and roll dominated world?  He would be creative enough to make the offense more diverse, breaking down defenses and opening the floor for players who move without the ball and understand spacing (Martin, Thompson, Hawes)

Thabeet - totally loses value in a Scott offense, but did we expect that anyway?  Can concentrate on anchoring rim defense.

I refuse to go past  #3 or to toss the PG salad.

So, if he's available is he the "obvious best choice", and do you vote for a dictator?