Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: MrMichaelLee and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Wizards-Hawks game rescheduled for March 11

Saturday's postponed game between the Washington Wizards and the Atlanta Hawks has been rescheduled for March 11. Here's the NBA's announcement:

NEW YORK, Feb. 8, 2010 - The National Basketball Association announced today the rescheduling of the Atlanta Hawks at Washington Wizards game that was postponed on Saturday, Feb. 6. The Hawks and Wizards will make up that game on Thursday, March 11 at 7:00 p.m. ET at Verizon Center in Washington D.C.

That means the Wizards will play on three consecutive nights: March 11 vs. Atlanta, March 12 at Detroit and March 13 vs. Orlando.

Saturday's game was postponed due to the snowpocalypse. Read about the Wizards' ticket exchange policy here.

By Alexa Steele  |  February 8, 2010; 4:59 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Jamison misses practice in Orlando
Next: Wizards face Bobcats tonight

Comments

Is back-to-back-to-back legal?

Posted by: tigerquoll | February 8, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

When the Wizzies play in back to back games they usually stink it up they could play the Nets the third one and the'd get blown out facing Orlando after 2 in a row is cruel & unusual punishment.
Is Stern still pizzed about the gun thing???

Posted by: VBFan | February 8, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"Is back-to-back-to-back legal?Posted by: tigerquoll |"

I think so. It's front to back to front that gets people in trouble.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 8, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

"Is back-to-back-to-back legal?Posted by: tigerquoll |"

I think so. It's front to back to front that gets people in trouble.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 8, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

What kind of crazy sandwich is that?

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 8, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Which is why the folks posting here are posting here instead of running a front office..or coaching...or playing...or doing play by play...or getting paid to write about basketball...


Yourself included.
You obviously know nothing about basketball, no matter which alias you use.
Since his scoring and rebounding this year are better than that of, for example, a Kevin Garnett and his scoring is better than a guy like Tim Duncan, would you argue that Jamison's as well-rounded as those two? If so, teams all over the league should be clamoring for his services. Sadly, they are not because he is a limited player. The Wizards are having a hard time prying JJ Hickson (for crying out loud!) from Cleveland for Jamison. Think San Antonio or Boston could swing a deal and get Hickson (and filler) for Duncan or Garnett, respectively? In a New York minute!!!

Posted by: tgif11 | February 8, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Obviously myself included. The trade isn't straight up hickson for jamison, by the way...so pay attention. Its Z + Hickson + First Rounder - they think. No one knows for sure what has been offered or what has been asked. Read carefully:

"Of course, Cleveland also has to be wiling to give the Wizards a deal as sweet as the one Memphis received for Pau Gasol. Some reports have the Cavaliers offering Zydrunas Ilgauskas's expiring deal, J.J. HIckson and a first-round pick, but I heard from a league source that the Wizards have not been offered that much. The Wizards, according to the source, have made their demands known to Cleveland, which so far has been unwilling to budge."

So Lee is saying that the word is that Cleveland has offered what i posted above, but one guy says they haven't offered that much, but EG has let them know what we want...which nobody knows what that is but EG and the Cavs front office. But the Cavs have been unwilling to budge from something no one seems to know or to something none of us seem to know.

look at you with your pompous "Cavs won't trade Hickson for Jamison." Where did you get that crap from anyway?

I said what ithought the Wiz should get from Cavs to make it worth trading. An opinion.

You come on here acting like you have facts. But those "facts" are clearly erroneous at best and but most likely fabricated.

You don't know anything about this trade scenario more than we do, yet you act like you have the facts straight from Grunfelds fat lips. And from what you post you can't comprehend English well enough to make a coherent argument anyway.

Posted by: Blurred | February 8, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

So, the question is, would Cleveland trade Hickson, Z's expiring huge contract, and at least one first rounder (or more, we don't really know yet) for garnett if garnett had 2 years and $30 mil on his contract?

I am not sure they would. Garnett is adding less and less each week and while he could help this year, if his contract was the same as jamison's, I think they would wonder if it was good long term.

I would feel more comfortable with Duncan's, but still, $40 mill over 2 years to a 34 yo can give you some pause. Esp if you are trading away a good, young, up and comer and hamstringin your self on salaries AND giving up your next (and maybe more) years first rounder.

The fact that in this light Cavs are still talking at all means Jamison has real value.

Posted by: Blurred | February 8, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

OK, so garnett has $40 mill left on his contract too. I SERIOUSLY doubt that Cavs would jump out the window at that trade.

But hey, that's my opinion and who knows what NBA GMs are thinking. Certainly not you, either.

Posted by: Blurred | February 8, 2010 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Is back-to-back-to-back legal?

Posted by: tigerquoll | February 8, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I think they're trying to make that legal in the military.

Posted by: musicman65000 | February 9, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

look at you with your pompous "Cavs won't trade Hickson for Jamison." Where did you get that crap from anyway?

I said what ithought the Wiz should get from Cavs to make it worth trading. An opinion.

You come on here acting like you have facts. But those "facts" are clearly erroneous at best and but most likely fabricated.

You don't know anything about this trade scenario more than we do, yet you act like you have the facts straight from Grunfelds fat lips. And from what you post you can't comprehend English well enough to make a coherent argument anyway.

Posted by: Blurred | February 8, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

U-u-u-rah, good buddy.

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 9, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

look at you with your pompous "Cavs won't trade Hickson for Jamison." Where did you get that crap from anyway?

I got that crap from looking at the fact that indeed Hickson is still with the Cavs, Jamison is still with the Wiz and most reports indicate that the Wizards are interested in receiving Hickson in any Jamison trade. Do you think the Wizards are holding out for LeBron?

So Lee is saying that the word is that Cleveland has offered what i posted above, but one guy says they haven't offered that much, but EG has let them know what we want...which nobody knows what that is but EG and the Cavs front office. But the Cavs have been unwilling to budge from something no one seems to know or to something none of us seem to know.

In other words, one guy (Lee) says they offered that much and another guy says they didn't. What's your point (if you have one)?

So, the question is, would Cleveland trade Hickson, Z's expiring huge contract, and at least one first rounder (or more, we don't really know yet) for garnett if garnett had 2 years and $30 mil on his contract?

No, that's not the question since you readily admit that it is unknown what Cleveland has offered. In direct contrast to what you say, it's been reported that a source indicated that Cleveland has not offered that much.

With regard to Garnett and Duncan, it goes without saying that my trade scenario is speculative. However, it's no secret the Cavs would like to win now to induce LeBron to stay. It is my opinion that acquiring either of those two would give the Cavs a better chance to win now than Jamison and the Cavs would make a trade including Hickson for either to further both goals.

The fact that in this light Cavs are still talking at all means Jamison has real value.

Who said Jamison doesn't have value? Nick Young has value, too. Sheesh.

You don't know anything about this trade scenario more than we do, yet you act like you have the facts straight from Grunfelds fat lips. And from what you post you can't comprehend English well enough to make a coherent argument anyway.

I "act" like I have the facts? I stated my opinion, just as you stated yours. Further, I comprehend English just well enough to know that my response to your snarky post hurt your feelings. I had no idea you were so thin-skinned.

I still believe Jamison is a limited specialist and is, at best, a sixth man on a strong playoff team.

Posted by: tgif11 | February 9, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

What? Who? What the Hay?

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | February 9, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

"I still believe Jamison is a limited specialist and is, at best, a sixth man on a strong playoff team.Posted by: tgif11"

Limited? Sure. Specialist? No.

First, many accomplished NBA players are limited. Some don't play much defense: Dirk Nowitzki, Vince Carter, Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire, and Baron Davis come to mind, but the list is much longer. Others have limitations based on skill set (Derrick Rose's jumper), size (Chris Paul, Rajon Rondo), foot speed (Chauncey Billups), advancing age (Ray Allen), or a host of other traits. Jamison is one such player. He's limited by his size and increasingly, by his age. He's never been a good defensive player, and doesn't seem likely to change now.

But he provides three of the things a team needs most -- consistent scoring, rebounding, and effort -- and if he has trouble matching up against certain players in the NBA, well, so do Nowitzki, Stoudemire, Dave Lee... I don't mean to beat the horse into the ground, but this is not league of do-it-all-superbly PFs, and probably never will be. If everybody was Kevin Garnett, then we wouldn't be envying Kevin Garnett.

But a specialist? A specialist is somebody who is on a team to do one thing extremely well. Jason Kapono is a shooting specialist. So is Kyle Korver, so was Steve Kerr. There are rebounding specialists and defensive specialists and even a few ball-handling specialists.

Antwan Jamison, on the other hand, is versatile. He doesn't do the thing you most want him to do -- play defense -- and he's always mismatched against much taller players, but he's far from a specialist.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 9, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Good, but who's on first?

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | February 9, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Antwan Jamison, on the other hand, is versatile. He doesn't do the thing you most want him to do -- play defense -- and he's always mismatched against much taller players, but he's far from a specialist.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 9, 2010 10:25 AM

Jamison scores and he rebounds. I don't take that away from him. I agree that based on your definition of "specialist" Jamison doesn't qualify. However, I note that he doesn't qualify because he doesn't do anything "extremely well".

You say Jamison is far from a specialist and is, in fact, "versatile" but you don't list all the wonderful things he does. Please share.

Posted by: tgif11 | February 9, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

"However, I note that he doesn't qualify because he doesn't do anything "extremely well"

Of all the PFs in the nba scoring 20pts a night, exactly TWO of them (Bosh and Randolph) are pulling down more boards than AJ.

He stinks defensively, that's the knock on him and it's true. But all this nonsense about "intelligent player" etc etc holds no water when you compare him to the rest of the league at his position.

It's a problem that AJ is the best player on the team, but that shouldnt be confused for AJ being the problem.

Posted by: divi3 | February 9, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Of all the PFs in the nba scoring 20pts a night, exactly TWO of them (Bosh and Randolph) are pulling down more boards than AJ.

I look at a guy's career averages as they generally give a more balanced view of a player's accomplishments.

Antawn's career numbers:
19.9 ppg, 8.1 reb, FG% of 45.6

Decent, but I don't think many would view those numbers and say that Jamison has done any one thing extremely well.

It's a problem that AJ is the best player on the team, but that shouldnt be confused for AJ being the problem.

He's arguably the best or second-best player on the team (some may choose Arenas). He's part of the problem, not solely. That said, I don't think a team should be built around him. He'd be good fit for Cleveland though.

But all this nonsense about "intelligent player" etc etc holds no water when you compare him to the rest of the league at his position.

We'll have to disagree on this point. I don't like his shot selection at all as it seems to have no relation to time, score and the defense in front of him. None.

Posted by: tgif11 | February 9, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"I look at a guy's career averages as they generally give a more balanced view of a player's accomplishments.

Antawn's career numbers:
19.9 ppg, 8.1 reb, FG% of 45.6

Decent, but I don't think many would view those numbers and say that Jamison has done any one thing extremely well."

Ok, well Dirk's career stats are:

22.9 ppg, 8.5 reb, 47%fg

apparently he doesnt do any one thing extremely well either?

btw, I think Arenas is definitely the best player on the team- just dont consider him on the team anymore....or this season anyway

Posted by: divi3 | February 9, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

apparently he [Dirk] doesnt do any one thing extremely well either?


Dirk is better in the two areas that Jamison supposedly does "extremely well" and bests him in other aspects of the game as well. As such, Dirk is more well-rounded than Jamison and therefore is more coveted and highly regarded.

Posted by: tgif11 | February 9, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

So Dirk is an mvp because he gets 1block per game to AJs .4? And 2.7assist to AJ's 1.7?

Of course not, he's an MVP because he's been scoring 25/9 guy for years

Posted by: divi3 | February 9, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Dirk is an MVP because he's getting 25/9 and winning while he does! ;)

Posted by: tgif11 | February 9, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company