The Official Washington Wizards Thread

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/jodie-meek...gency-options/

Jodie Meeks Weighing Free Agency Options
By Alex Kennedy
NBA Writer

Every day, Jodie Meeks is asked the same question: “Where are you going to sign?”

For the past month, the 24-year-old has received countless phone calls and text messages from people asking for updates, but that’s to be expected when you’re one of the best free agents remaining on the market. Meeks, an unrestricted free agent, is talking with a number of teams and weighing his options.

“I’ve gotten interest from the Lakers, Bucks and Wizards,” Meeks told HOOPSWORLD. “There are five or six teams, but those three are at the forefront right now because I’ve been talking to them the most. I really like those teams and I like what they bring to the table. I’m looking forward to signing, whenever that may be.”

Meeks has proven that he can start in the NBA, which separates him from many of the remaining free agents. He has started 114 games in his 200-game career, averaging 8.1 points over the last three years. Last year with the Philadelphia 76ers, Meeks started 50 games. While he has shown that he can be a significant contributor in the NBA, he believes his best basketball is still ahead of him.

“I feel like I still have a lot to develop,” Meeks said. “I’m still young, only 24 years old, and I have a lot of things to show in my career. I’m looking forward to, whatever team I go to, showing what I can do and trying to win as much as possible.”

Meeks has been training and spending time with his family in his hometown of Atlanta in an effort to keep his mind off of free agency. Rather than worrying about his next contract, he’s working on his game and making sure that he’ll be ready to play at a high level for his new team.

“I’m just trying to find the best fit for myself,” Meeks said. “I just have to be patient. I know that when it comes time to sign, I’ll be ready to help the team that picks me up. I’m staying in shape and keeping myself busy this summer. I’m keeping a winning attitude. I’m very upbeat and positive. I don’t worry about these kinds of things. I’m just letting it play out and I’m looking forward to next season.”

“I’m from Atlanta and I come here every offseason,” Meeks said. “My family is here and I’m down here working out. I’m just working on all aspects of my game. I think you can always improve. There’s never a time when a player can’t get better. I’m working on my lateral quickness and ballhandling, and I’m putting up a lot of shots. I’m just keeping a positive attitude and waiting to see where I end up.”

While Meeks wouldn’t rule out a return to Philadelphia, it seems unlikely since the 76ers didn’t extend a qualifying offer to Meeks prior to the start of free agency and then proceeded to sign shooting guard Nick Young to a one-year deal worth $6 million.

“I loved playing in Philadelphia,” Meeks said. “It was a great city and I was there for two and a half years. I have nothing but great things to say about those guys. They gave me an opportunity to play and I wish them the best of luck.”

Now, Meeks is looking forward to signing his new contract. This was his first time going through the free agency process and while he has had a positive experience, he’s looking forward to focusing on basketball again rather than business.

“Free agency hasn’t been bad,” Meeks said. “I’m just staying patient and positive. I’m just looking forward to seeing what happens. I know I’m going to go to a good situation where I can win as much as possible. That’s the main thing for me, winning.”

“Teams that I’ve been on in the NBA have always made the playoffs, except for my rookie year,” Meeks added. “I was with the Bucks for most of my rookie year and they made the playoffs, but then I went to Philly for end of the season and they didn’t make it. But for the last two years, we made the playoffs. I bring a lot of positive energy on and off the court, and I think that carries over to winning.”

Los Angeles, Milwaukee and Washington seem to be the frontrunners to land his services as of right now. In the coming days, Meeks will weigh his options and then make a decision.

[stevemcqueen1]

Anyone read the story by Wilbon about the NBA and FIBA potentially pulling out of the Olympics to go start their own World Cup style event?

My favorite part:

At the opening ceremonies Friday night I met a young reporter, Yiwang Pindarica, from Thimphu, Bhutan, which is bordered to the south, east and west by India and to the north by China. She's the only reporter from Bhutan, a nation of 700,000 that sent a grand total of two athletes to these Olympics, a shooter and an archer. Archery is the national sport of Bhutan, and to chronicle its athletes' adventures Pindarica paid her own way to the Olympics to write for her publication, Business Bhutan. It took her essentially two days to get here, from Thimphu to Paro, Bhutan, to Kolkata, India, to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, to London Heathrow.

I asked Pindarica what sport she wanted to see while she was attending her first Olympics, and "basketball" was her quick and definitive answer. They watch NBA games in Bhutan. Live. There's an 11-hour time difference from New York, so do the math. The games come on there at 6 a.m. "Yes, we watch them live," she said. The Lakers, Celtics and Spurs, she said, are the teams people in Bhutan obsesses over -- and LeBron James, though there was a lot of rooting for Oklahoma City in the NBA Finals. People there -- the capital city has a population of 80,000 -- could, for obvious reasons, identify with a small-market, underdog team.

I asked her if the channel that carries NBA games ever televises baseball or pro football from the U.S., and she said no, she's never watched them. You ever hear of Tom Brady, I asked her. "Tom Brady? No."

It's crazy to me that the people of Bhutan got up at 6 in the morning to root for the Thunder. It's a strange world we live in. The NBA has absolutely killed the NFL, MLB, and NASCAR in globalizing. Like Soccer, there is something special about basketball.

[nuposse87]

^ I think it is mostly socio-economics...basketball game is an easier game for school systems to adapt and introduce to kids. Part of it also may come down to a "coolness" factor...when kids aspire to be like prominent athletes I doubt they think of baseball players...at least I didn't growing up.

* on the meeks thing, he is an upgrade over Roger Mason that is for sure, but outside of being a 3 point specialist he doesn't do much else. I would love to see him be the 2nd guard in when Beal is ready to start since Meeks has fairly good 3 pt%s.

[stevemcqueen1]

^ I think it is mostly socio-economics...basketball game is an easier game for school systems to adapt and introduce to kids. Part of it also may come down to a "coolness" factor...when kids aspire to be like prominent athletes I doubt they think of baseball players...at least I didn't growing up.

Football is my favorite sport, but Basketball is a special kind of fun. You're right about the coolness factor. Basketball has heroes like other sports can't. Baseball and football are more team oriented and the individual stars don't shine as bright. Plus football careers are so short relatively speaking. And there is something breathtaking about NBA players. They're literally larger than life. Over the years, their sport has cultivated freakish levels of speed, hand-eye and foot coordination and body control in them. You're going to be blown away by stuff they do several times a game.

Basketball is also the most played sport in America at the youth level IIRC. Probably second most played worldwide after Soccer. One of the things that makes American football so inaccessible to many is how only a small portion of its market played the sport as a kid.

[Destino]

Basketball has EXPLODED internationally. Where isn't there a basketball league these days? When I heard the nba considering sending their younger stars to the Olympics I immediately thought "World Cup".

The question I have is when will the euro leagues have enough money to shut down the xenophobia and start stealing talent. Without the rules the US has they can do what soccer teams do and buy teenage athletes and their parents.

[pjfootballer]

Football is a very difficult sport for anyone outside of the country to understand. It's like us trying to figure out what's going on in Cricket. Like Cricket, if you are someone watching the game for the first time, you can kind of try and figure out what's going on. Basketball, while not simple on our level, is basically a simple game to watch and comprehend. Bounce ball, shoot in orange thing, score points. Even though as Americans, we know there is more to basketball than that, just imagine someone watching for the first time and I think they'd catch on faster than they would watching football or baseball.

[stevemcqueen1]

Football is a very difficult sport for anyone outside of the country to understand. It's like us trying to figure out what's going on in Cricket. Like Cricket, if you are someone watching the game for the first time, you can kind of try and figure out what's going on. Basketball, while not simple on our level, is basically a simple game to watch and comprehend. Bounce ball, shoot in orange thing, score points. Even though as Americans, we know there is more to basketball than that, just imagine someone watching for the first time and I think they'd catch on faster than they would watching football or baseball.

I think there is truth in this. I'd go so far as to say football is a very difficult sport for people in this country to understand.

I think football is the most misunderstood of the major sports by far. I think it's got the worst media coverage which is a big part of it. Think about how much better the coverage and analysis for Baseball and Basketball are. Especially from the mainstream sources. Think about how much better it is for NASCAR and MMA. I can't speak to Hockey, but I would imagine it can't be worse than the NFL coverage we get. How many NFL reporters or talking heads do you truly respect as a commentator? I can think of maybe five, from thousands. Mangini, Mayock, Collinsworth, Billick, and Gruden are good. Jaws is acceptable. 3/5 on my list were former head coaches. Apparently that's what it takes to know the sport, and more importantly, know how to talk about it. The journalists are almost all terrible.

But I wonder if it's a chicken and egg kind of thing? The media coverage of the sport is bad contributing to a lack of understanding of the sport. Or the media coverage of the sport is bad because the sport is so hard to understand.

Football is an opaque game. It's too dynamic. In the descendants of Cricket like baseball, you've really got 90% of the action/variables happening at the ball. In the Rugby descendants like American football, you've got the large majority of the action happening away from the ball. But even in Rugby, you've almost always got several players not involved in the action at a given time, usually backs. Throw in the down system with American football, and now every single player on the field is involved in every single play. 22 dynamic elements all creating variables in the outcome of a play. It's hard to track.

Statistics are generally used to explain what happens on the field in concrete, general terms. Statistics tend to be based around what happens at the ball. How do you come up with good statistics for a game where 91% of the action on every play happens away from the ball? How do you explain what's happening in a general way? You have to anecdotally describe what every player does play by play to paint the whole picture, which is of course untenable for the media.

Now you've also got a lot of action happening away from the ball in Basketball too, but that's only 10 players at a time. Plus there is a whole lot more standing around doing nothing in basketball.

I also think football is the toughest sport to get a player's perspective of from watching at home or in the stands. You get a decent idea of the speeds and forces involved in Baseball and Basketball from watching, the cameras are more intimate. You get a lot of ground level shots in Tennis and you have cameras inside the cars and on the ground level in NASCAR. You can feel the thrilling speed.

You don't see what happens from the eyes of NFL players. The best they've got is that camera on the wire above the field but it's not the same. You get this remote, bird's eye view of the field and have no real sense of the speeds and forces involved in the game. No other non combat sport even begins to approach the violence of collisions/contact in the NFL, and it's hard to get a sense of this. You don't see the bone shivering contact between an NFL linemen and NFL defensive player on a routine block.

Those are some reasons why I think the NFL is so much less accessible to a general audience. It's amazing to me it's the most mainstream sport in the country.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

I disagree about the coverage football gets in America. It gets great coverage, probably better than every other sport. The analysts are better, better analysis, and they master the cameras.

but its way too complicated and nuanced if you havent grown up in the culture.

The other issue with football is that it takes too long.

[Warhead36]

Football is like the english language-hard to learn if you're not born into it.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

takes too long with nothing actually happening is what I meant. There is so much inactivity in football, its why I dont enjoy watching it at a stadium.

[stevemcqueen1]

I was thinking about how the Thunder built their team through the draft and how they basically got lucky the ideal players were available to them in their three important draft classes (07, 08, 09).

What if Russell Westbrook had gone before OJ Mayo in 2008 and James Harden had gone before Hasheem Thabeet in 2009? Or the biggest one, what if Kevin Durant had gone before Greg Oden in 2007?

OKC is a juggernaut with four Olympians under the age of 24. What would it be like if just one of their big three got drafted one or two spots earlier?

They'd be the Wizards...

Think about it. Let's grant them their man Durant because we got our guy in Wall in 2010. What if Westbrook is the third pick in 2008. They have to choose OJ Mayo or Kevin Love? Or I guess Brook Lopez or Eric Gordon would be possibilities. Gordon is probably the closest thing like Westbrook, maybe he'd be the pick. But he's a SG, not a PG, so they wouldn't have a PG yet and would be taking touches away from Durant adding another off ball scorer. The fit wouldn't be nearly as good. Lopez is a bit of a stiff and Love is the far superior player. The pick would have to be Love or Gordon, which are only obvious from hindsight. OJ Mayo was a much higher regarded prospect by almost every source. What a ruinous pick that could have been.

Or let's say Harden goes second in 2009 and they're forced to choose between Rubio, Thabeet, Steph Curry, or Tyreke Evans. If you've got Westbrook, you can't really take Rubio. And Westbrook + Durant would make Tyreke a terrible fit. It'd have to be Steph Curry and keep him at the 2. That's actually not a terrible fit since he's such a great shooter and fits the offense of the team. But he's not the seamless fit James Harden is. He doesn't have the same playmaking skills even though he even plays PG in GS. And he needs shots whereas Harden doesn't. Between Westbrook, Curry, and Durant, you don't have enough shots for everyone.

Although if Westbrook was gone in 2008 and they had to take Eric Gordon or Kevin Love, then I think you could have had something special by going with Rubio in 2009. Rubio + Durant + Love would be a nasty team in particular.

My point in all of this is that things broke perfect for OKC in the draft because they got the best talent that provided the best fit with their early choices.

I don't think the same happened for us in our critical three year window. First off, the 2011 class is laughable compared to the 2008 class. If that was our year to get a second star to run with John, we were pretty much screwed no matter what. Kyrie ended up being the best player in that class by a much wider margin than anyone expected and he plays the same position as Wall. Now I guess you could play him at SG because he shoots the ball so damn well, but that seems like a big waste of his ball handling. He and Wall both need that rock. Plus he'd be really undersized at the 2, like a Jason Terry type. The fit wouldn't be ideal. DWill was a decent option for an offensive stretch 4 but he's been a big disappointment. Kanter was the guy I wanted but he hasn't gotten hardly any PT behind Millsap, Jefferson, and Favors. When will he ever? After Kanter the other guy I really wanted was Valanciunas but we never had the opportunity for him. I think he could have been a game changer for us.

So we were stuck with Vesely left as our best option. But what is Vesely's ceiling here? A defensive forward with limited offensive upside, probably a sixth man on a good team. That's a role player, not a running mate. Damn.

Then this year could have been different if we'd been able to win the lottery for our miserable season. Of course we wouldn't though. Beal was probably our best option at three all things considered, but the guy who would have actually elevated us went two picks earlier at 1.

If the draft breaks the best way for us like it did for OKC, we'd have somehow ended up with Valanciunas and Davis IMO and then we'd be pretty promising moving forward. Instead we're doing alright with Vesely and Beal. The pieces have started to make sense and fit together. But it took more work in the draft and veteran additions through trade to get something that made sense whereas it just kind of happened for OKC. And we're still lacking comparable star power and ceiling because none of our players are as good as the OKC Big 3 yet and I doubt Wall ever gets as good as Durant is.

Damn, can you imagine how good a team we'd have if we'd had a little bit more luck with the ping pong balls?

---------- Post added August-4th-2012 at 04:53 PM ----------

takes too long with nothing actually happening is what I meant. There is so much inactivity in football, its why I dont enjoy watching it at a stadium.

I like watching CFB in person, but NFL football isn't too bad in person. My issue is much more about the cost and the parking and traffic than it is with the pace.

I definitely disagree about the analysts though. NFL analysts are horrible for the most part. Who is one NFL writer you respect? It gets the most coverage sure, but it gets the worst coverage.

I also think the cameras are much more remote in football, by nature. You don't get coverage of everyone on the field even though action happens with everyone on the field on every play + you get no field level shots in game. You can't put cameras on the helmets of players because they'd break and be an obtrusive danger to the players most likely. So you get no sense whatsoever of the true violence of the collisions, or how fast the players are running.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

the NFL is the best presented sport on television. They try everything on the NFL first. NFL attendance is down because of how awesome it is on TV.

I dont care much about the writers, I care about the TV coverage. ESPN and NFL network do a great job of covering the game. My only issue is when they harp on players showing emotions and some of the ex players start being hypocritical. But as analysts, they have it better than every other sport.

[willmb5]

I disagree about the coverage football gets in America. It gets great coverage, probably better than every other sport. The analysts are better, better analysis, and they master the cameras.

but its way too complicated and nuanced if you havent grown up in the culture.

The other issue with football is that it takes too long.

I wholeheartedly disagree that the football analysts are better. Honestly, singling out ESPN, their analysts are downright terrible. It's especially annoying that they're all overly opinionated, but I guess that's because that's what they are paid to be. I just hate how football commentators on ESPN/Fox/CBS/NFL Network pretend to be an expert on every single aspect of the game when it's blatantly obvious that they don't know the intricacies of it. I actually like Keyshawn Johnson and Ditka though. Funny interaction between those two.

Even if you grow up watching or even playing football, it's still very hard to analyze and understand. A guard gives up a sack, and he's a complete scrub. He gets a pancake, and it was the best thing ever. What you don't see and can't put statistics to is the push he's gotten on certain run plays. Maybe getting a good knock on the DT before scraping up and sealing off a backside LB. Good recogniton of a stunt and coming off a double team to pickup the blitz. Only way to see all these things is through watching a lot of film and basically singling out that one player.

I think it's inherently impossible for one person to be a great football analyst. Think about it. In football, there are a biziliion different position coaches because each position is so distinct from the positions on the field. You can't tell me that a former WR, such as Chris Carter (can't stand him as an analyst btw), knows a darn thing about anything on defense, offensive line play, quarterbacking, etc. The extent of his defensive knowledge is probably from playing DB in High School. Not putting much stock in that. There's a reason teams have a different coach for each position. It's because every position requires such different expertise to to excel in that area. Even head coaches and coordinators in the NFL likely defer to their position coaches in many cases. Obviously I can't say that for sure because I'm not in the meetings or on the field, but this is a pretty fair assumption IMO.

In football, stats can also be deceiving (moreso than other sports), which makes it more difficult to analyze. A running back can have far better numbers than another just because of offensive line play. Look at some of the scrubs that have put up solid rushing numbers in Shanahan's offenses in the past. Sure, it doesn't take a genius to know that Adrian Peterson is an absolute animal, but who knows what kind of numbers the guy could put up with a more competent offense. An offensive line can sometimes make or break the running back or even a QB. A bad passing game can do the same. If teams don't have to respect the QB, it makes it a million times harder on the run game. Bad QB'ing can kill a receiver's stats as well.

In other sports, you can get away with not having a vast knowledge of things like technique because stats are a much better indication of how a player contributes. This makes a much easier for a fan to analyze, even if they never played the sport.

In baseball, offensive stats tell most of the story about how good a player is swinging the bat. There's little things that are tough to gauge, like a player seeing tougher pitches because they don't have protection around them in the lineup, but the little things are generally marginal. A players run totals might not be as good because of poor hitting behind them, or RBI's can be lower because less guys on base in front of them. Still, these things can be measured. Defensively, you can look at things like fielding percentage, outfield assists, catching base runner's stealing, etc. Things like sabremetrics, while not perfect or the end all be all, measure almost every little detail you could evert want to know. Big fan of Kurkijan, Kruk, Olney, and most of the ESPN guys.

In basketball, stats can tell you almost everything you need to know except for certain things like setting good picks, opening up the floor with cuts, boxing out to give someone else a good rebounding opportunity, help defense, etc. Still, stats are generally a very good indication of performance. Even defensively, you can look at your opposing position's stats to get a great idea of performance, along with obvious things like steals, blocks, rebounds, drawn charges, etc. Basketball analysts are pretty solid for the most part.

I'm not going to speak to hockey, because two years of roller hockey in middle school is the extent of my knowledge. I do know that measuring a defensive player's value is probably the one thing that's comparable to football in terms of being very difficult to measure with stats. +/- seems to be one thing analysts sometimes use, but even that seems inherently flawed. Again, don't know much here.

All in all, football is by far the toughest of the big 3 to analyze, and it's not even close.

[stevemcqueen1]

the NFL is the best presented sport on television. They try everything on the NFL first. NFL attendance is down because of how awesome it is on TV.

I dont care much about the writers, I care about the TV coverage. ESPN and NFL network do a great job of covering the game. My only issue is when they harp on players showing emotions and some of the ex players start being hypocritical. But as analysts, they have it better than every other sport.

The only talking heads I like for football are Mangini, Billick, Mayock, Gruden, and Collinsworth. Dilfer is solid. They are the only ones whose analysis I enjoy and the only ones who I think see the game and explain it well amongst the national media. If the local guys around the country are anything like the DC guys, then they're abysmal.

Sports writers are important because print is the medium that lends itself to the most in depth analysis. Talking heads mostly give you snapshots and cliches to fit into their timed talking points. Print is where you actually get nuance. The NFL print guys in DC and on the national level are very substandard. You have lots of good baseball and basketball writers on the national level, not as much in DC, but that's because this isn't the town for those types of writers (though I like some of the NBA guys). There truly isn't a single NFL analyst at either ESPN or SI or Grantland of quality. In DC, Keim is pretty much it, and he benefits from getting to only focus on the Redskins (so he can study film).

I also think its the TV and Radio commentary guys for baseball and basketball that absolutely kill the NFL guys as a whole. The regional guys in baseball and basketball are better at what they do than the national guys for the NFL. There is nothing like Buck and Chenier or FP Santangelo even on the national level for the NFL IMO. Collinsworth and Gruden are the best in the biz and they're not that great. Gruden doesn't communicate particularly well. It seems like every city has good local commentators in those sports. In the NFL you get embarrassments like Sonny and Sam.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

I never said that football isnt the toughest to analyze, I said they do the best job.

Cris Carter cant tell you about DLine play, but he can tell you if a receiver ran their route correctly, or why the DB beat him to the ball or vice versa. He can also tell you about what a DB can do as well

Thats why its better, they usually have guys who played in each zone or were a coach and can tell you the technical nuances of the game. Only baseball is close to that, but they have idiots like Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan who spoil things with their intentional ignorance.

Basketball, they have Magic Johnson on the ESPN crew and the TNT crew is just for entertainment (altho they are really good when they are analyzing plays and movements).

Because of how complex the game is, you need analyst who can explain those complex things. I think the networks do that better with football than any other sport. But because of how complex it is, its really difficult for a person who is not indoctrinated in a culture where football is big to really understand things.




and most football writers dont know much about the sport either. Thats why they stay in the background with spreading stories of gossip or player transactions. Outside of the geeks at Football Outsiders and others who base everything on statistics, actual analysis of football from writers is sparse at best.