FIBA, which is the French acronym for bored basketball fan civil servants, is floating the idea of introducing a three-on-three tournament for the 2016 Olympics, which leads me to ask a question.Who, other than these blockheads, thought this was needed?I mean, have you ever watched a basketball game and thought, You know, I like this, but there are just too many players to keep track of, and I get confused?Let me answer that for you. No. Nobody. Ever.What this is, the only thing it can be, is medal envy. There is one gold medal winner well, 12, actually, but only one event. Basketball. And since the U.S. usually wins it, nobody in America has ever felt the need to want more.But FIBA sees swimming, which has 130 events or so, and gymnastics, which has about 200, including the always popular stick-figures-waving-ribbons-and-hula-hoops to music you would only play outside houses with criminals inside whom you wish to draw out into the open.And there really is only one other basketball event. I mean, even they wouldnt offer up layup lines, or H-O-R-S-E, or play to 21 by twos. Not even the greatest H-O-R-S-E player ever would watch it, probably because he lives at a playground and doesnt have Internet service.In short, FIBA, having failed to provide an answer to Who Asked For This, Why? or Is This Something You Want To Propose Out In The Open With Your Names Attached To It, Really? doesnt have a compelling argument. True, we didnt ask for an endless series of shows about rich spoiled housewives trying to de-eye each other while wearing ball gowns on television either, but thats our fault for watching to begin with.This is beyond fathoming. 3-on-3 is best in its natural environment, the playground. You know, where you find the teeter totter and the monkey bars and the chain link fence and the round metal backboards and the sand pit and the hopscotch games. Somehow, with Brazil so far unable to provide most of the stadia required of it, this is the one thing they probably can manage.But thats still no reason to give people something they dont want, never wanted, and believe that there will be minimal competition.FIBA, at the very least, should be forced to show that there are other countries that could effectively challenge the U.S. in 3-on-3. I wager there are not there are certainly fewer than challenged the U.S. for gold in stodgy boring old 5-on-5.But once it manages to fabricate that evidence, it should then be forced to produce people who give a damn. That they will not be able to do, unless its by using the Hey, you want more rhythmic gymnastics on TV? argument. And even then theyll barely break even.Oh, well. Progress, I suppose. And now, back to Real Housewives of Council Bluffs, Iowa. This weeks episode, The Grange Meeting Pie Incident.
SACRAMENTO -- In an unexpected move, published reports have Sacramento Kings guard Langston Galloway opting out of the final year of his contract that would have paid the 25-year-old $5.4 million next season.
Galloway was acquired by the Kings as part of the DeMarcus Cousins deal during All-Star weekend. The third-year pro averaged 6.0 points, 1.5 assists and 1.8 rebounds in 19 games for Sacramento, while shooting a robust 47.5 percent from long range.
With the move, Sacramento moves an estimated $56 million under the salary cap for the 2017-18 season with a team option on Arron Afflalo for $12.5 million with a $1.5 million buyout. If Afflalo isn’t retained, the Kings can move $67 million under the salary cap with just seven players under contract.
Galloway joins a growing list of veterans to leave the Kings since the end of the season. Rudy Gay declined his $14.3 million player option earlier in the month and Sacramento chose to waive forward Anthony Tolliver and pay his $2 million buyout instead of a $8 million contract for next year.
Mike Scotto of BasketballInsiders.com was first with the news.
In their attempt to offer a package to Indiana for Paul George, the Lakers came knocking on the Kings' door.
Unfortunately for Los Angeles, the Kings weren't interested in what they had to offer.
According to TNT, the Lakers offered the No. 2 pick to the Kings for the No. 5 and No. 10 picks.
The Kings reportedly rejected the offer.
The Lakers' plan appearantly was to take one of the two picks acquired from the Kings, package it with the No. 27 and No. 28 picks they owned and a player on their roster in an offer for George.
It appears they'll have to find a different avenue to get George to LA.
Lakers, per sources, engaged Sacramento in talks that would have sent the 2nd pick to the Kings for Sac’s two 1st-rounders (5 and 10) (1/2)— David Aldridge (@daldridgetnt) June 21, 2017
Lakers would have then packaged one of the Kings’ picks w/27 & 28 along w/player in offer to Indy for Paul George. But Kings said no (2/2).— David Aldridge (@daldridgetnt) June 21, 2017