Grind City Media’s Lang Whitaker and Kelcey Wright Johnson weigh in on the most pertinent news from around the NBA. What’s lit? What’s lame? Find out each week right here.
From: Lang Whitaker
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 9:16 AM
To: Kelcey Wright Johnson
Subject: IMHO
Well, Kelcey, as we turn the corner from All-Star break, pass the trade deadline and begin heading toward the home stretch, I think we are officially in buyout season (#BUYOUTSZN). What this essentially means is that players who were making too much money to get traded take a bit less to become free agents, and then they sign with a contender for the stretch run. We’ve seen the Brooklyn Nets add Blake Griffin and LaMarcus Aldridge, and last night the Lakers picked up Andre Drummond, all for minimum prices, which is pretty wild.
According to my main man Howard Beck, smaller market teams are pissed, perhaps rightfully so, because these bigger teams are getting great players without giving anything up.
At the same time, one could argue, those teams put themselves in a position to be attractive to those vets by going all in and making trades involving a lot of future assets that were mostly criticized at the time (for AD, for Harden, etc) which put them in position to contend, and which made them a destination worth watching for these vets.
Bigger picture, Kelcey, it feels like #BUYOUTSZN is now a real thing, year after year. But should it be? Or should teams, regardless of market size, be able to make these midseason pickups without having to make major moves?
From: Kelcey Wright Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 9:53 AM
To: Lang Whitaker
Subject: Re: IMHO
What’s up, Lang?!
I can definitely see both sides of this argument (unlike the argument that Steph Curry is ruining basketball, but I digress…). On one side, the rich continue to get richer, right? But on the other side, are we just supposed to buyout old vets and let them disappear into early retirement and cold weather?
The buyout market has been around for a long time; look at PJ Brown for the Celtics back in 2008. However it has really become a more controversial (and common) thing as of the last few years as big name vets are chasing rings and helping to build superteams at very low costs. Does it suck for small market teams who aren’t living in warm weather on the beach? Heck yes. But does that mean that it shouldn’t exist? Nope.
The way I see it is that trade deadline is meant for TEAMS to make their moves and get things aligned with their goals. #BUYOUTSZN (love your hashtag) is meant for PLAYERS to make themselves happy too. Because at the end of the day, they’re still human beings and they still want a championship and nice weather and to hoop with their friends. Maybe I’m just a sucker or feeling too much empathy, but whatever … go play with who and where you want to play for your last few years.
Looking at some of the available vets on the market right now who have been bought out, as I’m writing this I can’t believe Austin Rivers hasn’t been picked up. Do you think there are any teams *ahem small market perhaps* that could use a solid vet point/shooting guard?
From: Lang Whitaker
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 9:12 PM
To: Kelcey Wright Johnson
Subject: IMHO
Well, considering the Grizz waived big man Gorgui Dieng, my guess is they might be in the market for a center? That’s just a guess, though. If anything, the Grizz have a surplus of wings right now (Brooks, Winslow, Allen, Bane playing regularly, with Melton sorta on the edge and, right now at least, Konchar out of the rotation). Adding someone like Austin Rivers would only muck up that wing rotation, and keep someone like Bane or Melton, who need playing time, on the bench.
I’d love to see the Grizz find a versatile bigger player who can shoot and defend. And I know that’s the role Jaren Jackson Jr. will fill once he’s back, but considering he could be out a few more weeks, getting someone who could give you some minutes in the meantime would be helpful. And I know they’ve been using Brandon Clarke as a backup 5, but there are going to be nights you need that extra body, and maybe someone like Otto Porter will hit the buyout market and could be a nice stopgap.
(As for a destination for Rivers, let the man go back to play with his dad, this time in Philly.)
Switching gears, did you see all the new pictures of LeBron in his Tune Squad uniform for the Space Jam sequel?
How do we feel about this movie? Sequels are rarely as good as the original—can we trust LeBron to break the rule and turn in a sequel tops the original?
From: Kelcey Wright Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 8:59 AM
To: Lang Whitaker
Subject: Re: IMHO
Can we trust Lebron? Come on. Look at everyone who has put their trust in him – it’s always worked out. Just ask Cleveland.
All kidding aside, I am so excited for this movie. I was obsessed with it growing up, and I hope that this is the same type of classic for a newer generation. I hope this new Space Jam is to your son, what the original was to me. And if I’m being even more honest, Lang, I am more worried about Lola Bunny than I am about Lebron.
Lola was my girl growing up. As you can imagine, I have three brothers and I was always the only girl out playing basketball at the park with the boys—I saw myself in Lola (kinda I guess, just because she was a girl and I also had a pet bunny named Lola), and so I know there was a ton of controversy around how she wasn’t as “sexy” this time around. But I think that’s way better for the female population to see that women in sport aren’t always a sexualized being, but instead she’s a tomboy who is out there ballin’!
I sound too excited about this movie, don’t I? I swear no one is paying me to promote this.
The original came out in 1996, so I was 5 so I quite literally grew up with it. What was the one sports movie that you watched 1,000,000,000 times growing up? And would you be down for a 2021 sequel?
From: Lang Whitaker
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 9:26 AM
To: Kelcey Wright Johnson
Subject: IMHO
To be honest with you? I’m older than you, so I didn’t really grow up watching Space Jam. I was in middle school when Michael Jordan signed with the Birmingham Barons, and when my parents went to visit my grandparents in Alabama, my Dad actually went to a Barons game and saw MJ play (and hit a home run!). I remember the movie being released and all the hubbub around it, but I was juuust old enough to think it was corny instead of cool at the time.
But what’s interesting to me is I now have a son, and a few years ago when he was about four years old, he discovered Space Jam, and he now believes that Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all-time. He never watched MJ play in an actual NBA game, and I don’t know if he’s even seen many highlight videos of Jordan. But he has seen Space Jam, a few times, and for the last few decades, that movie has basically served as MJ propaganda for millions of kids around the world.
This sounds like a crazy question to ask, but I wonder how LeBron’s legacy will be affected by being in Space Jam 2?
To your question, what sports movie did I watch a million times as a kid? Two come to mind: One would be Rocky IV, which was on HBO on a loop when I was a kid, and I must’ve watched it a million times, not even aware of the first three Rocky movies. But the one I really revered was Hoosiers. In retrospect, Hoosiers might be considered somewhat problematic, but I loved the story of a bunch of ragtag basketball players coming together and competing at the highest level. When I made it to high school and we had a game in the Atlanta Hawks’ arena—RIP, Omni—before we left our gym, our coach pulled out a tape measure and showed everyone that the free throw line was 15 feet from the basket, that the rim was ten feet off the ground. As we boarded the school bus to go to the Hawks’ arena, I asked him if he was stealing a trick from Coach Norman Dale in Hoosiers.
“Shh,” he said, “you might have seen it, but I don’t know if everyone else has.”