Justin Jaudon

I just feel like being somewhat optimistic for a minute. New Jersey is a cesspool. They have enough money to sign Howard next offseason, yes, but he would be playing with D-Will (maybe) and who? I can't see him on the floor with Brook Lopez, and I don't know who will give up much for him with his ankle (not this soon after Yao). And why would Howard have any more faith in that front office than Otis. I'm not an Otis fan, but I think he knows now that the writing is on the wall. Either he listens to Howard or he's done. So if Dwight goes to NJ, they won't be any better than Orlando is now for at least a couple of years. And I think that can be said of anywhere. The Lakers might be good quickly, or at least I can see Dwight buying that, but they will need to rebuild around Dwight in a couple of years when Kobe is no longer Kobe. So why can't Orlando get things straight just as quickly? In a couple of years, Hedo's contract, as well as JJ's (I like JJ, I do, but 7 mil a year...come on) and Duhon's, and Meer's are all gone. Leaving Orlando with long terms to Baby Baby and JRich. At that point, who can't they sign. Extra money and playing with Dwight should entice some pretty nice free agents. My point is that perhaps the management can convince Dwight that as he's coming into his prime (27-29), he'll be getting a great team around him. Maybe I'm off on this. I know it's crazy to think that a player would listen to that type of reasoning, but maybe at some point Dwight will see that no one else can really give him much more than Orlando can. There is no other Dream Team coming together any time soon. And if it is, it will be in Boston. (just a hunch). So as far as I can tell, the problem really is with Otis. Can he convince Dwight that he's not going to make the same mistakes yet again. I a tually like the people he's brought in this offseason, as I believe that Big Baby is infinitely better than Bass, and Hughes in small doses is great. But he still has a history of getting old washed up stars and trying to pass that off as a big move. I like JRich, as long as he is a third option, but they need a valid second option. And I don't know if Dwight believes that Otis will bring one in. And here I will make my very optimistic thought. Jameer Nelson will be back to all-star form this year. Think about this for a moment. Jameer has been fantastic when he has not been challenged by his backup(when the job has been solidly his). His best season, the first half of 09, they didn't have a stellar backup for SVG to hold over him. Before that it always seemed he was fighting for minutes with either Dooling or Arroyo. Then Orlando put some faith in him and let both of those guys go and just used A Johnson, and Jameer was having an all-star season. Then the next year I really think he had trouble getting back to form and adjusting to Vince, but by playoff time he was stellar again. then last year he started off really well. He was going for 16 and nearly 7 when the trades went down. But the trades brought in Agent Loser, and his minutes and performance suffered as a result. Now he's supposedly lighter and in good health, so I am (admittedly optimistically) thinking that 'Meer is back. Hopefully. If last year taught me anything, I think I saw that a star surrounded by good players can be more effective than two or three stars surrounded by fodder. The question remains, is this team that team. My gut says still no, but who really knows, anymore. Dallas was supposed to be old and dead in the water before last year, so I don't take anything for granted anymore. I will say that in my opinion, Otis should do whatever it takes to get one of the two guys Dwight has asked for. Iggy orJosh Smith make this team very good, I think, it is just a matter of getting the deal done. I have seen teams work bigger miracles. That said, I haven't seen that kind of genius out of Otis. So I guess my overall thinking is that I am not ready to give up on this team, but I don't feel great about them either. Also, I feel that either Iggy or Josh Smith keeps Dwight in Orlando. Wow that was longer than I meant it to be.

Actually, Elder Scrolls has been considerably dumbed down. In Morrowind, there was no "compass" to tell you exactly what to do, or magic spell to show you a path to your next objective. Your map didn't even show you where you were. It was cool. You had to look around like reading a real map and figure it out. That, and there were a lot more different kinds of weapons and spells. And that's my geek rant for the day.

Don't have time to browse the heck out of these long threads; what's the word with JRich?

Why the he'll would Atlanta want Jameer and Ryan for Josh Smith? That is absurd.

If it makes it any better, it made my day just reading it. I love when people contest absurdity by being absurd. These days, it's really the only way to get people to look at their own stupidity... Unless they're too stupid to catch the joke... Then they're probably hopeless anyway.

I've said before that I live in Richmond and have met Justin Harper a few times. My brother-in-law has actually been to the U of Richmond coaches camp with Harper the last couple of years. Unfortunately, while eating out with Harper after the camp, Harper told him that while he meeting the players in Orlando, everyone seemed to be assuming that Howard would be gone some time next season (if there is one). Now I'm hoping that means nothing. He never said he heard that from Howard (in fact I don't think he met Howard). I'm hoping that this was just speculation from a guy who spent all of a week with the team before everything got shut down. But I figured since I have some inside information (however unreliable) I should share it.

I appreciate the information on quatnum physics. As I said, most of my understanding came from conversations with my high school physics teacher ten years ago, and what little time I have been able to devote to researching it out of simple curiosity. When I said unprovable, I simply meant that since "Theoretical physics in general has outpaced our technology's ability to provide us with ways to test a lot of this stuff", many of the theorhetical mathematical constructs in quantum physics are in that tangible sense unproveable. I did not mean to call their validity wholely into question, but rather I meant to illustrate that we must use our own reasoning to understand our universe, where tangible proof would be more benificial. Reasoning is good. It gave us Newtonian physics, then relitivity. And as God (if you accept his existence, that is) must be a rational being, it should stand to reason that science coincide with His nature. I do wish to reiterate that I did not mean at all that the "God in the gaps" way of reasoning is sound. I have never understood the notion myself. Nor have I understood the realm of thinking that denies God because He cannot (as far as I can tell) be proven to exist. My using of C.S. Lewis' quote, in which he was not specifically referencing quantum physics, for when he said this it was but a twinkle in the scientific eye, was simply an illustration that the questions that things such as quantum physics arouse open doorways through which faith may enter/ or not. As I said, the existence of God is, and likely will always be, a matter of faith. The more questions arise, the more we can attribute to either God or the future. Unanswered questions still abound in physics and in phylosophy, and the answers to those questions will likely never refudiate God, nor confirm Him. As to the argument of an omniscient God being unable to create everything as well as free will, I don't see much in your posts to support that. While they are exeptionally well thought out, I think they lack the understanding that Lewis demonstrated in my first post. That to create free will, He had to create everything else for that free will to be valid. He gave us a world in which we could interact, and without that common world we could not do so, and without interaction between beings, those beings would have no sense of self, leaving them without life. I understand where you are coming from, I do. It is a tricky question. The only way for it to make sense is for God to be outside of our concept of time, so that to God all times are now. This also doesn't seem to contradict science, as time seems to be relative. And if God is outside of time, then his omniscience is absolute for any specific space of time. He did not know yesterday what we would do today, He knows today what we do; and He will know tomorrow as well. With these concepts of yesterday today and tomorrow, He has limited His omniscience; or better, "redifined it" (though only from our relative frame of reference). His knowledge of what 'is' does not supersede our ability to change 'what will be', as His knowledge of 'what will be' seemingly would. It is still a slippery thought to me to dissasociate foreknowledge with creation of free will, but the logic is reasonable enough not to try to get around it, especially since it is not intrinsically necessary. So in a sense, you are correct (or at least as far as I can make sense of God/omniscience/creation) Omniscience seemingly must be tempered to allow the coexistence of creation and free will. Since to this tempered-omniscient God all times are now, the tempering does not effect His nature, because in reference to Himself He is still all-knowing at all times of all times. It is only in reference to us that his omniscience must be tempered. I appreciate the conversation, truly. I find it hard to find people who are capable and willing to have a decent debate on anything other than the reletive merits of sports or politics (much less do so with civility). Finding people who can understand even the basics of quantum theories and reletivity is a rare thing, especially as someone not associated with academia. So thank you for your posts.

I understand your point about citing C.S. Lewis. I didn't mean to add weight by adding a name, I just don't like citing someone else's ideas without giving proper credit. C.S. Lewis was no more a Bible scholar than I am a physicist. That is to say that he never officially studied the subject in an educational institution. He was however a man of considerable logic, at least as far as I can follow. I quote Lewis because I find that he, being a philologist, is far better at explaining what are somewhat complicated matters. Whomever's ideas they are, they still carry the weight which their logic entails. As far as quantum physics, I will not claim to be an expert (though who truly can make that claim). from what I understand, quantum physics is, at least as far as it pertains to this discussion, essentially the study of the absurdly small. On a broader scale, it studies the wave-particle duality of matter and energy. That matter, like light, which exists both as a wave and as a stream of particles. Once scientists had the math and science necessary to study these things, they began to understand that they are inconsistent They do not follow traditional laws of conservative physics. It should not be possible for something to operate as a wave and at the same time as a stream of particles. Here, you must forgive me, I am not a physicist, so I must take the word of my physics instructor from high school. What research I have done, however, seems to back up this theory. At least, it seems from what I've read that even scientists can't make the two views consistent. Thus we have quantum physics. I will give an example of something we cannot explain logically: quantum foam can move faster than the speed of light. How this is accomplished is a matter of debate, but however it is done, it is obviously not done in the same Newtonian physical sense that determines the movements of larger bodies. These inconsistencies in the dual nature of matter cannot be eliminated, because we are not able to manipulate such bodies, or even accurately predict their nature. They defy the laws of what we so far understand. This, as C.S. Lewis said, can be called the action of a non-physical entity on a physical reality, simply because these bodies, which are the building blocks of reality, do not behave in a physical way, at least not in one which can be explained using physics. Thus we create quantum physics, a new set of rules to govern that which we cannot reconcile to our traditional views. Quantum physics is interesting because it is really a collection of mostly unprovable theories used to try and explain things we can't yet understand. I must apologize for the brevity of my argument against determinism from the last post. It was late, and I have kids. I should have explained more clearly that things such as quantum physics and the inconsistencies within determinism are not a proof for God. They are simply an argument against determinism. The notion that God could not create free will seems from your earlier posts to find its logic within determinism. If I am mistaken, please explain. A proof of God is something beyond my ability. And that should come as no shock. For if God could be proved by mere intelligence, then He would once again be destroying the free will we have discussed. If it were obvious in a physically provable sense that God existed, we would have little choice but to follow him. And as I have said, lack of choice is lack of life. What I am doing here is simply arguing that the existence of God is possible, and that to my understanding, it is far more likely than the alternative. If I accept that human thought is based on rationality and reason, that these are true concepts, then I accept that there is within man a sense of self. If I deny rationality in defense of determinism, then I deny the sense of self and call it an illusion. To deny rationality and reason seems to me to be a paradox. If you come to me and say, see here, how reasonably and rationally, rationality and reason are simply illusions, then how is what you say to be trusted? If there is no true rationality, how could that be proved. As I said before, however, nothing I have posted has been meant to be a proof of God, only a refutation of the impossibility of God. God is still a matter of faith. I am only arguing that such faith need not be intrinsically unmerited.

Not sure how that point was defeated. If there are intrinsic truths that even God must follow (meaning that He has the power to do anything so long as it does not contradict itself), then to give man free will He must allow the possibility of pain. To create a world in which there was no ability to sin, or to create creatures who were incapable of it, would be useless. He would be creating something, but not something of free will. To give his creations the ability to interact, he must give them a world of shared space in which to do so, for two creatures of free will could not even conceive the notion of each other without one or both being able to exert some of its own will into that of the other. In fact, it is not conceivable that one could even understand a sense of self (which seems to be essential to free will) without the sense of "other". And as I said, without shared space, there can be no "other". So God could have done many things, but he could not create a world without the possibility of sin while creating a world of free will. It is simply a contradiction in terms. Now if we are discussing whether or not it would have been better for God not to create humanity at all, we are asking a question which we cannot answer. In fact, it is an intrinsically nonsensical question. "To be or not to be", is not something we can gauge. As Lewis put it: "I am aware of no human scales in which such a portentous question can be weighed. Some comparison between one state of being and another can be made, but the attempt to compare being and not being ends in mere words. 'It would be better for me not to exist'-in what sense 'for me'? How should I, if I did not exist, profit by not existing?" It is something akin to a man who lives his whole life underground debating the beauty of a sunset. He cannot truly understand the sky, much less its beauty; he has no frame of reference (though maybe a blind man would make more sense, as a man underground still understands the idea of visual beauty, where a blind man would not have a proper reference at all). Similarly, we cannot compare existence with nonexistence because our conceptions of the two are unbalanced. We know what it is to exist, but we cannot begin to understand nonexistence. In fact, it seems that there could be no true understanding of nonexistence because how could someone who did not exist understand anything. They could not. Even among those whose existence is constant suffering (if there truly is such an existence), the question is still a hollow one. If we are questioning the ability of an omniscient God to create a being who could have free will at all, being that God would know all of the actions the being would take at its creation, that is essentially questioning the entire concept of free will. It is like asking, "Could I, in fact, make a choice different from whatever choice I make?" Is it true that only what can happen will happen? Is the world truly deterministic? Again, Lewis predicted its logical counterargument. We now know, through quantum physics, that any observable system will and in fact must have inconsistencies and though we should be able to measure and predict these, effectively eliminating them, we cannot. Any attempt to do so only creates more inconsistencies. Even having all the necessary information with all our laws of physics, we cannot gauge the behavior of matter when broken down far enough. This is relevant, because of what Lewis predicted, that this creates an entry point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality. The "God in the machine" has been glimpsed by scientists, even if most of them don't realize it. Lewis also argued that naturalistic, complete determinism is irrational. For determinism to be true, there would have to be a rational basis for their thought. But if determinism is true, then there is no rational basis for thought, since all is determined by non-rational forces. So, if determinism claims to be true, then it must be false. I have read through all of the posts here, and I don't see any of these points defeated. Perhaps if you could be more specific. A simple copy and paste, perhaps?

That was from "The Problem of Pain", if anyone is curious.

I can't resist the opportunity to use a C.S. Lewis quote to make a point. "We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of [the] abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them. All matter in the neighbourhood of a wicked man would be liable to undergo unpredictable alterations. That God can and does, on occasions, modify the behaviour of matter and produce what we call miracles, is part of Christian faith; but the very conception of a common, and therefore stable, world, demands that these occasions should be extremely rare. In a game of chess you can make certain arbitrary concessions to your opponent, which stand to the ordinary rules of the game as miracles stand to the laws of nature. You can deprive yourself of a castle, or allow the other man sometimes to take back a move made inadvertently. But if you conceded everthing that at any moment happened to suit him- if all his moves were revocable and if all your pieces disappeared whenever their position on the board was not to his liking- then you could not have a game at all. So it is with the life of souls in a world: fixed laws, consequences unfolding by causal necessity, the whole natural order, are at once limits within which their common life is confined and also the sole condition under which any life is possible. Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself."

Just to clear up, if I thought I had some great insider scoop about this I would be calling ESPN or something. I clearly didn't talk to D12, and neither did I talk to Justin Harper. I just felt, so long as you believe that what I'm saying is true, it is worth discussion. Discussion perhaps being: do the offhand comments of a rookie who has not actually spoken to Dwight mean anything at all? Or is it at least somewhat discomforting that, according to Harper, the players are all assuming D12 won't be there? He hasn't had a ton of access to the team, but he has had more personal contact with the players than I or probably anyone on this board has had. This was not meant to be some big breaking news. It is a topic on a discussion forum. I don't mind people criticizing the source, or the source's access; but I don't see how anyone could criticize me for posting it in the first place. If I talk to Harp myself (which is certainly possible, as he is still in Richmond, and all his family lives here), I will probably post again whatever that conversation brings. We are in a lockout, and access to players (even second-hand access in this case) is about as interesting a thing as I can find to talk about.

I'm sorry, but I think I've seen Harper more and am better equipped to comment on his D than some "draft analyst" who probably watched a few highlights. I never said he was a great shot-blocker, only that he is a lot better than Bass or Anderson. And yes, as a starter his sophomore and junior seasons, he was known to be out of position occasionally on D. But as I said, Mooney runs a complicated defense. I went to almost every home game this season at U of R, and this guy has learned to play smart D. Every player who plays for Chris Mooney struggles to pick up his system at first, but the ones who have figured it out have turned into great defenders. Harper is very smart (for those of you who don't know, U of R is one of the most difficult schools outside of the Ivy League to get into, and they don't lower their standards for athletes). I'm not giving false praise because I happen to disagree with some guy whose entire knowledge of Justin Harper was gained in a couple of hours.

Just to clarify for everyone, Harper is already the best defensive PF Orlando has. And that isn't even his strength. Unlike Bass and Anderson, Harper knows how to rotate on D. Anyone who knows anything about U of R coach Chris Mooney knows that he runs one of the most impressive defenses in the nation. Harper may not be a spectacular interior defender, but he will not spend half the game out of position like Bass and Anderson. And he can block shots, something neither of the current guys can do.

There is no reason to be negative about this pick. I've seen this guy play like 50 times, and he has incredible talent. He's a hard worker ( my brother-in-law has coached him at camps at U of R and tells me he just really starting to take the game seriously his junior year. Since then, he's improved so much it's crazy. This guy has all the up-side in the world, he just didn't have the confidence in his game until his senior year. The reason for that might be that he grew like 6 inches his senior year of high school. He hadn't really been that focused on the game to that point. So he didn't really start developing strength until his junior year of college. He's actually pretty strong now, he just needs to learn to battle a little more underneath. He's one of the better shooters I've ever seen at that size, though. Considering Orlando only gave up a couple of second round picks, Harper is a fantastic pick, as even if he doesn't pan out he didn't cost much. I love this though. You gotta love it when a guy you watched play high school ball and who you rented out movies to on a regular basis goes to the NBA.

I am really happy right now. I live in Richmond, and I've actually met Justin Harper a few times. He went to high school down here, four year player who used to come into the store I worked at all the time his junior year at U of R. I've said for two years that I hoped Orlando would land this kid, and now they traded for him. He's a stretch four, really, and he's an amazing shooter, and he has a lot of moves around the basket as well. The best thing about him though is that he is a fantastic passer. The Princeton system he's been playing him really translates to Orlando's style of using PFs. He has a LOT of upside. What he gives Orlando is a guy who can give everything that Bass does, but stretch the D out a little more. Remember that Shard was a second round pick. I'm not saying Harper will be that good, but he has that kind of talent.

Magic- One of two thing need to happen with personelle: one, is that either Arenas needs to learn to play 2G over the off-season, allowing he and Jameer to play together, or Orlando needs to trade Jameer with bass or Anderson for a solid starting PF. There will be no trading of Arenas unless Otis can find someone dumber than himself, so he pretty much has to contribute in a big way, be it good or bad. Two is that Orlando trade everyone and anyone they can to get expiring contracts. All of this rests on Arenas getting healthy to some degree. No one will trade for Arenas without him improving drastically. We could find a taker for him if he were a decent starter-quality PG, but no one will pay that kind of money for a guy who can't contribute on any real level. If he came back as a staring PG and averaged something like 18-20 and 5-6' there really wouldn't be a need to trade him, as long as he played half-decent D. If he came back doing that as a 2, Orlando would still have trouble guarding PGs, but at least they could score. Hedo finding his man-parts again would help, too. In terms of phylosophy, I agree with many here who have said that Orlando needs to get to the rim, rather than just jack up bad threes. The great thing about the finals team a couple of years ago was that they weren't just a jump-shooting team. Hedo used to take the ball to the basket. Even with Vince, he would take it to the rim when he could find the enthusiasm. The reason Atlanta found it so easy to shut Orlando down from 3 was that they had no fear of anyone but Dwight getting near the rim. This team needs to get a slasher who can still hit the 3, or Hedo needs to man up. Defensively, Orlando needs to man up in general. Everyone on this roster who isn't Dwight is soft, either by choice or by physical limitation. Changes must be made in the overall philosophy of Orlando's D. In the League, the refs need to be made accountable for their calls, either by making them do press conferences, or by having the league review and evaluate their calls each game. And if Dwight, or anyone else, gets hit in the face without a call, much less a flagrant or a tech, the ref should be fined. Face-shots are uncalled-for, and Dwight takes multiple per game.

Trade Turk, Ryno, and Orton for Iggy, maybe. Then trade Jameer, JJ, and Bass to Portland for Camby and Andre Miller. Then get Prince with MLE. Leaving you with a lineup of: Miller/ Arenas/ Duhon Iggy/Q/Arenas Prince/Q/Clark Camby/Clark/Allen D12/Camby/Allen Does that win a title? Probably not, but it has a better shot than the roster Orlando has right now, and the financial situation is better as Camby and Miller are expiring. Then again, all that is just kinda off the top of my head, and I'm not sure it would really be that great.

So, I understand to some degree why both teams would want to make this trade if it were the only thing Philly could get for Iggy, but I can't imagine that being the case. Why wouldn't they trade him for al Jefferson, instead? He would certainly be useful to Utah, more so than AJ at this point, anyway. So maybe we're thinking Orlando will take Brand's contract. I don't see how Orlando could pull that off without trading Jameer with Turk and still they'd have to throw in JJ. Now, I'm not sure that trade still isn't a good one for Orlando, but how is it good for Philly? Philly gets a point guard they don't need and a SF they don't need and a SG they don't need for arguably their best two players last year. how does that work? I understand wanting to get younger, but there is only so much I am willing to believe. Or maybe they want Gil, so he can teach Williams and Holiday the true art of the shoot first PG.

I've never liked the idea of Arenas starting at point guard, but I do understand that he probably will unless Orlando really doesn't want to trade Nelson. I've always been an advocate of of Jameer's, but I just don't know what to expect from him anymore. I'm not sure it hurts your team any more to have a point guard who takes bad shots than to have a point guard who is a poor perimeter defender and sometimes won't take good shots when they're there. I do think that Arenas is a possible step down at point guard, but he is also a possible step forward. If nothing else, he won't be dominated by taller point guards as Nelson often has been. The reason I think it is inevitable is that Arenas makes too much money not to be given a shot at the starting job; and we all know that he will never have a shot with Stan until Jameer Nelson is gone. I know it sounds crazy to base such a thing on a player's salary, but everything in this franchise is really hitched to Arenas' wagon. Orlando can't move him; there is not a player in the league with less trade value. So if you're going to pay a guy $20,000,000.00/year to play basketball (and I put all those zeros in to illustrate the point), you have to play him. Unless anyone thinks he can learn to play the 2 on a consistent basis, we should resign ourselves to the idea of starting Arenas at the Point. Trading J.J. seems to be a good idea, but only if you think someone won't realize how much they'd be paying him. $7,500,000.00/year is a lot for a guy who's never been much but a decent reserve player. Nelson is really the only guy with any real trade value. He doesn't make too much for a solid Point Guard, and there are some teams whose strategies he would fit quite nicely. He would do well in Portland off the bench and maybe a starter if they lose Miller; or in Sacramento he could start for sure; Houston could surely use him as either a starter or instant offense off the bench; the Lakers would probably love him; Utah could use him for sure, especially if Devin Harris leaves; I doubt Orlando would want to trade inside the division, but Miami would salivate over him. So there are plenty of teams that would take him, and I think for some decent pieces. We might be able to get Rudy Fernandez from Portland; or Samuel Dalembert from the Kings; Houston would probably part with Courtney Lee; or maybe Ron Artest from the Lakers if we throw in Bass or Ryan Anderson; Utah would move Mehmet Okur; and if the Heat want him I think they would actually give up Udonis Haslem. I don't know how much trade value Bass or Anderson have, as I think everyone knows they are absurdly one-dimensional. The point is that Orlando needs to do 2 things next season: let Arenas have his shot as a starter, and trade everyone else that they can for whatever expiring crap they can get hoping they can get a solid Power Forward in there somewhere.

I say we trade Stuff for one of the dragons eggs from HBO's Game of Thrones. We get younger, and we drop some salary. And I hear might even be able to get two of them for Stuff. They have loads of upside!

Orlando needs to trade and restructure as much as possible. get as many expiring contracts as they can no matter what crappy talent that brings in. next year is screwed unless the current players decide to play like they care. so tear the team apart and give D12 some reason to hope for 2012. if Orlando can CP3, DWill, or any other major free agent in 2012 then Dwight will stay. that is the teams only real fix. maybe we can just get Michael Corleone to take out Arenas and Hedo Godfather style, then their contracts don't matter.

At this point, I don't blame Dwight if he wants to leave. I've had a job where I was the only one working hard every day, and it was one of the most frustrating things I've ever dealt with in my life. I can't imagine how it would have felt if those lazy people were getting paid millions of dollars. Don't get me wrong, I love Dwight and I will go through a dark period if he leaves; but if he wants out I can't blame him. Maybe we could trade him to ATL and get Horford and either J Johnson or J Smith. Dwight is from ATL, if I remember right. Or maybe I'm just panicking because Orlando just plays with no heart. I don't know.

Stan Van Gundy has not failed the magic. He has made some mistakes, but who hasn't. Overall, SVG has been a great coach who has taken Orlando to the NBA Finals and to the Eastern Conference Finals the last two years respectively. He got beat by a Lakers team two years ago that had one of the best players in NBA history playing with probably the best overall PF in the game then and now. And despite what people outside of Orlando think, that series could have easily gone Orlando's way. If Lee hits that layup Orlando goes into game 3 tied with home court advantage. And trying to blame game 4 on Nelson for not jumping up in the air to guard a guy taking a 30 running shot is just stupid (and by extension, blaming SVG is equally as stupid; he had nelson in the game because he was a veteran who Stan trusted not to leave his man to double team Kobe, which he didn't). Any NBA player stupid enough to leave his feet defending a running jump shooter at the end of a game should be shot. You learn that the first day of practice in middle school. Against the Celtics last year Boston simply had more talent. Go ahead, yell and scream and call me an idiot, but they had Orlando beat at every position except Center. There's not much Stan can do with Vince Carter to make him not a complete choke-artist. And unless Stan doubled for Sean Connery in 'The Medicine Man', he couldn't cure Lewis' viral disease. So what should he have done? Put in Bass who hadn't played significant minutes all year and who hadn't really played at all in the playoffs against Kevin Garnett. The guy still didn't really know the defense (Still doesn't, really). Eventually, out of desperation, he did insert Bass, and yes the guy played better than expected, but that was a shock at the time. There was no reason to do it until desperation time. Otis Smith and the team management has not failed the team. This management group drafted Dwight, drafted Nelson, signed Hedo and Lewis and Pietrus (who were three HUGE parts of the championship run). They didn't throw huge money at Hedo, instead they took a chance on Carter (a move nearly every analyst in the NBA loved). And before anyone complains that they then traded for Hedo later, remember that the last year of the contract he signed in Toronto was voided, so the money isn't as bad as it would have been to keep him in Orlando, and they got rid of another contract albatross named Gortat in that trade. The only big mistake I see so far is the Lewis for Arenas trade, and that hasn't really been decided yet. The players on the team now are not to blame for the previous losses in the Finals and Con. Finals. The players who underperformed against Boston last year are gone. The Lakers series was a (mostly) hard-fought series that Orlando lost in poor fashion at home, but for the most part they just didn't have the juice to beat L.A. that year. This year is still in progress, and though I haven't been enthused by their effort defensively, I think they still have a team whose pieces can still get it done, depending on how well they get the defense playing by year's end.

OK, here goes. I'm going to try and post here without getting angry and rambling. Who is most to blame for Orlando not winning a championship the last three years: 08-09 season: LA Lakers. 09-10 season: Boston Celtics 10-11 season: IT'S NOT OVER YET!!!!!!!!! Oops, I got mad again.