[unable to retrieve full-text content]
USD volleyball falls to #14 Creighton in five sets KELOLAND.comFox Business Flash top headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on FoxBusiness.com.
SINGAPORE - Silver prices leapt to a five-month high on Monday and small silver miners listed in Australia surged after social media calls to buy the metal and emulate the frenzy that has driven GameStop shares up 1,500% in two weeks.
Continue Reading Below
Spot silver rose as much as 7.4% to $28.99 an ounce, the highest since mid-August. Shares in a handful of mining firms such as Argent Minerals, Boab Metals and Investigator Resources leapt more than 15%.
Coin-selling websites also reported unprecedented demand and flagged delays in delivering bullion. The moves are the latest example of small-time traders buying en masse, particularly of stocks and other assets that were heavily bet against, resulting in large losses for major investors.
Silver prices leapt to a five-month high on Monday and small silver miners listed in Australia surged after social media calls to buy the metal and emulate the frenzy that has driven GameStop shares up 1,500% in two weeks.
“There is this curious situation now where the Reddit crowd has turned its sights on a bigger whale in terms of trying to catalyse something of a short squeeze in the silver market,” said Kyle Rodda, an analyst at brokerage IG Markets in Melbourne.
“The most important factor here is that silver is heavily shorted, the paper market is much, much larger than the underlying commodity can justify,” he said.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS
“There’s a lot of commentary on these platforms to pile in to the miners.”
Silver prices are up 15% since Wednesday’s close, around when messages began circulating on forums such as Reddit encouraging users to buy the metal and drive up prices.
BamaInsider
The Alabama Crimson Tide already has the no. 1 recruiting class in the nation with 25 signed prospects from the Class of 2021. This Wednesday, the Crimson Tide is watching three key targets: Camar Wheaton, the no. 1 running back in the nation, Brian Thomas, an elite receiver out of Louisiana, and Terrion Arnold, one of the most dynamic defensive backs in the Class of 2021. In this video, Andrew Bone provides a preview of what to watch as well as provides the latest on where things stand with each target.
The Lions started the Week of the Quarterback one day early.
As the NFL was set to turn to a Super Bowl matchup pitting the best young quarterback of his generation, Patrick Mahomes, and the most accomplished passer of all-time, Tom Brady, the Lions agreed to trade their own signal-caller late Saturday night.
They sent Matthew Stafford, who’d asked for a trade, to the Rams for first-round picks in 2022 and 2023, a third-round pick this year and quarterback Jared Goff. The inclusion of Goff, who fell out of favor with the Rams, got the Lions more in return. His contract — worth $43 million over the next two years — made him a negative asset, not a positive.
The trade won’t be official until the new league year starts March 17.
While the Rams have upgraded the position, the Bears are still looking for their own quarterback. Here are five lessons they can learn from Saturday night’s blockbuster:
If Stafford was worth that haul, what would the Bears have to give up for Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson? Three first-round picks, the naming rights to Willis Tower and a lifetime supply of Al’s Italian beef?
Watson is in a different stratosphere than Stafford. He’s 7 ½ years younger, already better and, at 25, can be the face of a franchise for at least another decade. He’s signed through 2025.
The Lions got a draft haul for two reasons: they were willing to wait a year to cash in on first-round picks and they were open to taking on Goff’s onerous contract. Still, the strong return set the bar impossibly high for any quarterback trade — be it for Watson or a middle-class group of veterans that includes the Falcons’ Matt Ryan, the Raiders’ Derek Carr and the 49ers’ Jimmy Garoppolo.
Houston Chronicle reporter John McClain wrote on Sunday that the Texans don’t want to trade Watson — who has asked for a trade because of his frustration with his franchise — and will try as long as they can to convince him to stay. Should that fail, McClain suggested the Texans wait until around the draft to make a trade. He pitched a starting asking price: two first-round picks, two second-round picks and two young defensive starters.
The Bears have young defensive starters: second-team all-pro inside linebacker Roquan Smith, two-time Pro Bowl safety Eddie Jackson and rookie cornerback Jaylon Johnson. But the timing of a trade — and draft compensation — is bad news for the Bears.
For one, they need to fix their quarterback problem during the free-agent period, which starts about six weeks before the draft. For another, the Bears’ first-round pick — No. 20 overall — doesn’t have near the value of the same picks held by the Jets, who draft second, or the Dolphins, who draft third. The Bears can’t simply add more first-round picks to the haul, either — NFL teams are only allowed to trade selections from the next three upcoming drafts.
To get the best possible return, the Lions agreed to an NBA-style trade that attached additional picks as incentive to take on Goff’s bloated contract. That part of Saturday’s trade was reminiscent of the Texans adding two draft picks to quarterback Brock Osweiler in a 2017 trade with the Browns. The Browns cut Osweiler before he could play a snap; the Lions will use Goff as a starter in 2021.
The Rams paid a steep price but were able to trade a contract that some around the league considered immovable. That’s a valuable lesson for Bears general manager Ryan Pace, who was vowed to be aggressive in acquiring a quarterback. The Bears, like the Rams, figure to be up against the 2021 salary cap. The Bears have their own veteran quarterback the league has soured on: Nick Foles, though his contract is more palatable than Goff’s.
Pace still can find a way to get a trade done.
It’s fair to wonder whether the Eagles would consider adding draft picks to move quarterback Carson Wentz, who was traded one spot after Goff and has a similarly pricey contract.
The Bears respect Stafford’s skillset, but the Lions were unlikely to ship him to another NFC North team. The Bears’ best hope was that Stafford would end up on a team whose starter represented an upgrade for the Bears.
Had he landed in San Francisco or Las Vegas, the Bears could have pursued Garoppolo or Carr immeidately. In the game of quarterback musical chairs, though, the Bears didn’t see any new space open up. Even worse: all the other teams will obvious quarterback needs — the Jaguars, Jets, Colts, Patriots and Panthers — still need a passer.
Stafford and his wife Kelly own a home in Newport Coast, Calif., near Los Angeles. Last offseason, Kelly Stafford posted a story on Instagram speculating her husband could end up with the Chargers, writing “Well, if Detroit is done with us … I could stay in Cali.”
The Lions didn’t take less in return so they could satisfy the Staffords’ California dreams — the quarterback told the team he’d go anywhere but the Patriots, per NBC Sports Boston — but their willingness to go to the Rams certainly helped. Is there a quarterback who feels that way about Chicago?
Watson, of course, can control his own destiny with a no-trade clause.
The Lions hinted at it when they gave new head coach Dan Campbell a six-year contract in mid-January, and confirmed it Saturday night: they’re rebuilding, and might be truly awful in 2021.
That means more for the Bears beyond a pair of walkover games next season. Drafting seventh, the Lions might join the ranks of teams that consider selecting a quarterback. Or, considering the length of their remodel, the Lions could push that draft desire a year into the future, when they may draft even earlier — and own the Rams’ first-round pick.
India’s annual budget on Monday will be Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s chance to spur demand and investments in an economy cratered by the world’s second-biggest coronavirus outbreak.
His government’s growth-centric plans will be outlined by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman when she delivers the budget speech starting at 11 a.m. in New Delhi. She’s expected to set aside more money for health care and infrastructure development and partly pay for them by raising record amounts by selling stakes in state-run companies.
Read: India Pegs 11% GDP Growth in Fiscal 2022 Helped by Vaccine Drive
While the success of the budget depends on how effectively India is able to contain rising infections through vaccine drives in the nation of more than 1.3 billion people, here are five key numbers to watch out for in the spending plan:
India's economy is forecast to rebound next year
Source: Bloomberg, Government of India
NOTE: For FY22, nominal GDP growth rate is a forecast based on a Bloomberg survey. For FY21, nominal GDP contraction is based on a government forecast; India's financial year runs from April to March
The IMF forecast India’s economy will expand 11.5% in the year starting April, which is a higher than the 9.2% estimated in a Bloomberg survey. Add inflation of around 4.5% to those projections and you get a nominal gross domestic product growth rate in the range of nearly 14%-16%. The number is key as budget assumptions for revenues and spending are based on this. Some economists, including Samiran Chakraborty of Citigroup Inc., expect nominal GDP to be pegged at 15% -- the bullish end of the band.
India's tax receipts are expected to grow 19% next year
Source: Citi Research, Government of India
NOTE: India's financial year runs from April to March. For FY20, FY21, FY22, revenue growth are Citi estimates
India’s tax collection has shown an uptick lately as momentum builds in the economy following the lifting of lockdowns to combat the coronavirus outbreak. That should give Sitharaman reason to peg overall tax revenue at a level greater than the 16.3 trillion rupees ($223 billion) budgeted for the current year.
Citigroup expects a 19% year-on-year growth in gross tax revenue next year, with healthier goods and services tax revenue helping boost overall collection. It expects GST to average 1.15 trillion rupees a month next fiscal -- translating into nearly 14 trillion rupees in total for the year. Higher excise duty, especially from sale of petroleum goods, and robust corporate tax collection, thanks to a rebound in company earnings, will also help.
Government investment has taken a hit in recent years
Source: Government of India, Bloomberg
NOTE: For FY21 and FY22, forecasts are based on a Bloomberg survey of economists
A labor market crippled by the impact of the pandemic and rising inequalities will exert pressure on Sitharaman to increase spending on everything from infrastructure projects to social sector and health care. While economists surveyed by Bloomberg see government investment, as reflected by gross fixed capital formation, rising 11.2% next fiscal year, analysts at Credit Suisse see the finance minister raising total expenditure by 20%-21% from 30.4 trillion rupees budgeted for the 12 months to March. That increase can help bolster growth.
India met its disinvestment target only on two occasions in nine years
Sources: Department of Investment and Public Asset Management, India Budget
Note: Data includes all asset sales, including minority stakes. FY21 is target. India's financial year runs from April to March
Selling stakes in state-run companies could be a sure way to raise money in the new year. After the pandemic ruined the government’s plan to raise 2.1 trillion rupees via divestment in the current fiscal, it may carry that goal forward and aim for record revenues from unloading shares in firms including Life Insurance Corp. of India.
Citigroup expects the Modi government to double non-tax sources of revenue from around 6 trillion rupees next year from around 3 trillion rupees penciled in for the current period. Another source of income will be from the auction of 5G airwaves besides an annual dividend -- of around 800 billion rupees -- from India’s central bank, Citigroup said.
India's budget gap is set to miss target for a fourth straight year
Source: Government of India, Bloomberg surveys
NOTE: India's financial year runs from April to March
With the pandemic disrupting the government’s fiscal math, Sitharaman is nowhere closer to achieving the 3% budget gap mandated by law. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg predict she will target a deficit of 5.5% of GDP next year after it likely widened to 7.25% in the current year.
That, according to a Bloomberg survey, means New Delhi could announce a gross borrowing plan of 10.6 trillion rupees. While that will be lower than this year’s record 13.1 trillion rupees, the amount will be 75% above the previous five years’ average.
— With assistance by Manish Modi, and Tomoko Sato
Yes, even in a year when the show will be held during a pandemic, the question is predictable. But these answers aren’t.
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
The New York Times’s Culture desk recently looked at how the 93rd Academy Awards, scheduled for April 25, will take shape during the pandemic. One article features five Hollywood insiders talking about ways the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences could make the Oscars more entertaining. Below, five of the journalists on the desk offer their thoughts on the same topic — well, four of them do.
I’m in the camp that believes the Oscars would benefit from brevity, or at least finishing on time. (We on the East Coast have tight deadlines and work in the morning!) But aside from that, my dream is for the academy to host the ceremony in a different location each year, like the Super Bowl. The film industry has expanded in Atlanta, New Orleans and Austin, Texas — it could be another economic boon for those cities. Hollywood is often criticized for being out of touch with regular people. What better way to combat that notion? And fans would get a kick out of it. — Maira Garcia, digital news editor
Rethink the musical numbers. Songs in movies are written to help tell stories, not to be bellowed, devoid of context, by off-key pop stars backed by phalanxes of chorines. The orchestral arrangements and attempts at dance are too often informed by a generic idea of Hollywood spectacle — or, on the other hand, of pop spirituality. Get more specific! And since the Oscars take place in a theater, get a theater choreographer to stage them. — Jesse Green, chief theater critic
After nominations have been announced, all finalists would have to submit to the academy the names of agents, managers, publicists, assistants and any other professional colleagues that they would have otherwise thanked in their acceptance speeches; these names would then be posted on the academy’s website or displayed alongside the eventual winner during the Oscars broadcast. Winners would thus have to focus their acceptance speeches on inspirational lessons gleaned from the making of their movie; ribald needling of rival nominees in their category; endorsement of fringe political beliefs that they are trying to articulate for the first time; and heartfelt expressions of gratitude to parents, mentors and school-age children watching at home. (Any violations of these rules would be enforced by catapult.) — Dave Itzkoff, culture reporter
At a time when Hollywood has lamented the loss of moviegoing (I sorely miss it, too), wouldn’t it be nice if the Academy Awards celebrated moviegoers? One way to do that would be to let audiences nationwide vote on their favorite film and award a new Oscar to the winner. This wouldn’t be the same as the academy’s proposed prize for “achievement in popular film.” That short-lived, much maligned idea would have left the decision up to the organization’s members. This would give fans a voice. And who knows? Their favorite could match up with best picture. A win all around. — Stephanie Goodman, film editor
I’m not sure the Oscars need to be, or can be, “improved,” at least as a TV show. (Whether they really measure the best work in movies is another question.) They will always be a mixed bag on average. They inevitably have to serve a casual audience along with a smaller audience of movie buffs. You can hire good producers and cast good talent and make room for spontaneous moments, but beyond that, it’s a matter of chance and whether lightning strikes. It’s easier to make an awards show bad — with ill-conceived stunts, e.g. — than to make one good. But I also don’t think there was any golden age when awards shows were better than they are now. This may be a terrible thing for a TV critic to say. But, just watch them or don’t! If you’re dissatisfied with the Oscars, you may just not be a person who likes awards shows very much, and that’s fine. — James Poniewozik, chief television critic
SAN DIEGO – Turns out there was another embedded ball incident during Saturday’s third round of the Farmers Insurance Open.
The golf world knows of the first one – when Patrick Reed was cleared of any rules violation when he took relief for an embedded ball on the 10th hole.
Replays of the incident caused a firestorm on social media, with some saying Reed took liberty with the rules, while others were much harsher. Especially seeing as Reed was involved in a rules fiasco in the 2019 Hero World Challenge in the Bahamas. He took two practice swings that scraped the sand and improved his lie on both occasions on the 11th hole. Cameras caught the infraction. After the round, Reed pleaded his case, bringing up the angle of the cameras, but was assessed a two-stroke penalty.
Well, a few hours after Reed’s episode in the third round at Torrey Pines, Rory McIlroy was involved in a similar incident.
On the par-5 18th, McIlroy’s second shot wound up in the rough right of the fairway. McIlroy said after the round he asked a marshal if the ball bounced and was told they had not seen it bounce. McIlroy alerted his playing partner Rory Sabbatini that he was going to check if the ball was embedded. He determined it was, took free relief, and wound up making a par.
On Sunday morning, the PGA Tour released a statement concerning McIlroy’s drop.
“John Mutch, Ken Tackett and Gary Young have reviewed the Rory McIlroy videos from No. 18 yesterday and determined that it was virtually the same situation that Patrick Reed faced on No. 10 during the third round,” the statement read. “It was reasonable for both players to conclude – based on the fact that they did not see the ball land but given the lie of the ball in soft course conditions – that they proceed as the Rule allows for a potential embedded ball.
“They marked, lifted and assessed the situation to determine if the ball was embedded. Patrick went one step further and called in a Rules Official to be sure his assessment would not be questioned (although this step is not required). Both players took proper relief under the Rule 16/3. The Committee is comfortable with how both players proceeded given the fact that they used the evidence they had at the time.”
Rule 16.3 of the rules of golf is built to provide relief from embedded balls like the one Patrick Reed alleges he saw Saturday.
Getty Images
Patrick Reed did his contentious relationship with golf fans no favors on Saturday — that much is hard to question. But what about his relationship with the rules of golf? Well, that might be up for debate.
By now, you’ve probably heard the story of Reed’s controversial embedded ball scenario during the third round of the Farmers Insurance Open. On the par-4 10th hole, Reed received relief for a ball he believed was embedded in the ground after his approach shot missed left into thick rough.
That he received relief was not all that contributed to the situation’s questionable legality — rulings such as the one Reed received on No. 10 at Torrey Pines are fairly commonplace on Tour, particularly in bad weather weeks. Rather, it was the circumstances surrounding Reed’s handling of the situation that earned raised eyebrows.
‘We did it absolutely perfectly’: Patrick Reed explains drama and cites Rory
Things began to shift when the former Masters champion quickly removed his ball from its original position before it could be analyzed by a rules official — an unusual but not illegal decision. He was told by a volunteer that his ball had not bounced when it landed, which surely added to his conviction in picking up. But there was just one problem: video replays showed that the ball had, in fact, bounced, making Reed’s claim of an embedded ball nearly impossible (by his own admission).
So, what should he have done differently? According to the rules of golf, not much.
“Relief is allowed only when your ball is embedded in the general area,” Rule 16.3 states. “But if your ball is embedded on the putting green, you may mark the spot of your ball, lift and clean it, repair the damage, and replace your ball on its original spot.”
In 2019, Rule 16.3 was amended in order to address “relief from embedded balls.” The rule gives clear parameters with which players are authorized to take drops due to embedded balls, as described in the diagram below.
USGA
As the rule lays out, Reed was well within his rights to take relief from the embedded ball, but on one condition: the pitch mark causing his ball to be embedded had to be his own.
This is where things get confusing for Reed, because he may have very well believed his pitch mark was his own, particularly considering he was told his ball hadn’t moved when it struck the ground. So, what happens then? Rule 16.4 stipulates Reed is allowed to remove his ball from the pitch mark, but must mark the spot to see if relief is allowed.
“If you reasonably believe that your ball lies in a condition where free relief is allowed under the Rules, but you cannot decide that without lifting your ball, you may mark the spot and lift the ball to see if relief is allowed,” the rule says. “The lifted ball must not be cleaned (except when it is on the putting green).”
Reed followed each of these procedures during the situation on the 10th hole Saturday. When a PGA Tour rules official came over to inspect the area, he agreed with Reed’s assumption, and ruled that Reed’s ball was embedded and he was free to take a drop.
But as is prone to happen in a self-enforced sport, the controversy is not with the rule but rather with how Reed’s judgment call falls into golf’s moral “gray area.”
If Reed saw the ball bounce (a question only he knows the answer to), he would not be within his rights to ask for relief. The same goes for another question only he can answer: how embedded was his original ball?
If he didn’t see his ball bounce and it wound up truly embedded in a pitch mark, then perhaps the entire situation can be chalked up to a misunderstanding. If either of those things were not as Reed presented them to the rules official, his taking relief could be considered a rules violation.
In either case, Reed took relief, knocked his pitch onto the green, made par on the 10th hole and ignited the golf world. He enters Sunday’s final round firmly in contention.
Ah, another weekend in the life of Patrick Reed.
Lonzo Ball is the NBA's preeminent distressed asset. Drafted as one of the most unusual prospects in recent memory, Ball's success or failure as a pro was always going to rely on stability. He's had three coaches in four seasons, and if you count Rob Pelinka as distinct from Magic Johnson, three general managers as well. He's on his second team, but in practice, something like his fifth roster. The baby Lakers turned into the LeBron James Lakers on which he initially came off of the bench behind Rajon Rondo. He then played half of a season with a Zion Williamson-less Pelicans team before finishing that season alongside Zion, and afterward, New Orleans turned over half of the roster in the Jrue Holiday and Steven Adams deals.
That's not exactly the model of stability, and unsurprisingly, his numbers reflect that. He shot nearly 39 percent on catch-and-shoot 3-pointers last season but is now down to around 26 percent this season. Meanwhile, he's up to 76 percent in the restricted area, but on less than two attempts per game after struggling to finish early in his career. For young players, numbers are often only as consistent as role. Ball's has changed constantly, and as a result, he's never found the steady production expected out of a No. 2 overall pick.
That doesn't mean he never will, though. It just means that his next team has to be in a position to give him the stability he craves. On the right team, Ball's unique blend of size and basketball-IQ could still produce a high-level starter. So with Ball reportedly on the market, let's dig into which teams actually make sense as destinations for one of the NBA's most distinctive talents.
The Warriors have already redeemed a No. 1 overall pick in Andrew Wiggins. Why not take a shot at a No. 2 selection? Ball is Steve Kerr's dream project, the ideal passer and cutter to kick his motion offense into shape. The Warriors have been ranked in the top 10 in the NBA in passes per game in all six of Kerr's seasons in Golden State, and ranked in the top five in each of the past four. But this season? They're 14th as they attempt to integrate a number of new pieces. While Stephen Curry and Draymond Green remain as intelligent as ever, their teammates have so far struggled to grasp the nuances of Kerr's scheme to such an extent that merely replacing rookie James Wiseman with the veteran Kevon Looney has proven utterly essential to surviving first quarters. The Wiseman version of the starting five has been outscored by 66 points this season. The Looney version has outscored opponents by 29. That's how valuable a quick injection of basketball IQ has proven for the Warriors. Imagine what Ball might add.
He'd bring Golden State's running game back to life, at the very least. Kerr's first Warriors team finished first in transition offensive efficiency and third in transition frequency, according to Cleaning the Glass. That is largely where his fast-paced Warriors remained before this rebuild. But this year's team is No. 23 in transition frequency and No. 28 in transition efficiency. Not only would Ball's passing create easier buckets on the break, but his defense and rebounding would create more transition opportunities in the first place. The thought of defenses tracking him and Stephen Curry while backpedaling is utterly terrifying.
Most teams would have to worry about how Ball's shooting might affect their spacing. But Ball would actually be an improvement upon Kelly Oubre's 22.1 percent from behind the arc this year. A swap involving the two high-upside reclamation projects makes sense for both sides. The Pelicans would clear minutes for Nickeil Alexander-Walker and Kira Lewis while also shoring up their wing depth. The Warriors get the infusion of creativity they need, and Ball gets an organization patient enough to maximize his gifts.
The Lonzo-LeBron pairing was brief, but more effective than most remember. They played 821 minutes together and outscored opponents by 57 points in that time, not exactly a championship pace, but more than enough on a lottery team. That stretch was proof of concept. Ball is a point guard in name, but provided there is enough shooting on the floor to support him, functions best alongside another high-usage ball-handler.
Well, Phoenix has two of them in Devin Booker and Chris Paul. Just ask Shai Gilgeous-Alexander what an effective mentor Paul can be. At 36 years old, he isn't going to be around forever, and eventually, Phoenix is going to need someone to replace him as Booker's partner in the backcourt. Ball is a perfect theoretical complement to Booker, a defender that can keep teammates engaged during Booker's scoring binges.
Phoenix had the perfect opportunity to add such a player on draft night when Tyrese Haliburton slipped to their slot at No. 10. They passed him up in favor of Maryland big man Jalen Smith, which inadvertently gave the Suns an easy pathway to this sort of deal. DeAndre Ayton is the center of the future, and Jae Crowder and Cam Johnson are mainstays at power forward. That likely only leaves room for one of Smith or Dario Saric to play major minutes for the long haul, and New Orleans sorely needs a stretch big man to play alongside Williamson. A Saric-Ball swap solves problems for both sides. Phoenix gets its point guard of the future and clears Smith's spot. New Orleans adds a cheap stretch big man to use as an alternative to Steven Adams.
We're breaking our rule of stability here for a simple reason: what do the Hornets have to lose? What does Charlotte have going for it at the moment that is more appealing than a Ball family reunion. The Hornets have made the playoffs three times in the past 15 years. Even after drafting LaMelo Ball and signing Gordon Hayward, they're currently four games below .500. Lonzo won't fix everything. He won't immediately make the Hornets contenders. But he's a worthwhile home run swing for a team that has hit nothing but singles since its inception as the Bobcats.
An all-Ball backcourt would be the league's most unselfish, a necessity given their current limitations as scorers. That ball-movement would give the Hornets a sorely needed identity, and quietly, one of the switchier defenses in basketball once its other prospects mature. The two Ball brothers, Hayward, P.J. Washington and Miles Bridges are all long and between 6-6 and 6-8.
Is that a championship fivesome? No. But it's a low-risk swing on chemistry, ball-movement and, frankly, fun. Terry Rozier and Devonte' Graham aren't good enough to deter Charlotte from such a roster.
Redundancy is fine at the top of the league. The Nets aren't exactly weeping over the similarities between Kyrie Irving and James Harden. But the Nets are running while the Bulls are still learning how to walk. The dueling banjos routine between Zach LaVine and Coby White isn't doing either of them any good, and with the No. 26 ranked defense in the NBA, the Bulls aren't winning anything with that duo unless Patrick Williams grows an extra set of arms.
Ball complements their scoring as he would Booker's, and he'd find himself playing for a coach and general manager with years of runway ahead of them. It's too early to say whether the Billy Donovan-Arturas Karnisovas brain trust is right for Chicago, but based on GarPax's 17-year reign of terror, we can safely call it a stable one. Ball wouldn't be joining a contender, but he'd be joining a team that could take its time with his development.
The broader question a possible Ball trade creates is what to do with the other two guards, assuming neither is included in the deal. LaVine is the superior player, but the older one with less team control. He can walk in 2022 free agency, and if Chicago's trajectory doesn't change, he very well might. Dealing him denies that possibility, but limits the team's upside with another likely star in the building. Might Chicago be willing to try playing all three? Would moving off of LaVine give the Bulls another shot at a high lottery pick to find that star? These are bigger team-building questions that the Bulls have to answer anyway. Ball doesn't get in their way. He enhances whatever is left over.
Sooner or later, Kyle Lowry is going to stop being Kyle Lowry. Eventually, Fred VanVleet is going to need a new backcourt partner, one that brings the same intangibles and all-around brilliance. Ball can't shoot like Lowry (yet). He's not as good at drawing charges. But the basketball brain is there, and Toronto's revered developmental staff would have as good a chance as anyone at maximizing it.
OG Anunoby made 31.1 percent of his 3-pointers in his final collegiate season. He's up to 43.3 percent this season. Pascal Siakam's improvement was even more impressive prior to his collapse this season. The Raptors can teach shooting. They can teach all-around scoring. Lowry never averaged more than 14.3 points per game before landing in Toronto. He's been at 17.8 or higher since. Their wisdom, along with Lowry's guidance, could foster similar growth in Ball. He may never average 20 points per game, but he doesn't need to be a liability as a scorer.
And if he isn't, his IQ would fit in wonderfully on a Raptors team that actively seeks out smart veterans like Marc Gasol and Danny Green. The Raptors have a type: exceedingly intelligent veterans that can play on both ends of the floor. That is what Ball could be on the right team, and with Lowry's career drawing to a close, his upside would appeal to a Toronto team due for some amount of retooling.
Lonzo Ball is the NBA's preeminent distressed asset. Drafted as one of the most unusual prospects in recent memory, Ball's success or failure as a pro was always going to rely on stability. He's had three coaches in four seasons, and if you count Rob Pelinka as distinct from Magic Johnson, three general managers as well. He's on his second team, but in practice, something like his fifth roster. The baby Lakers turned into the LeBron James Lakers on which he initially came off of the bench behind Rajon Rondo. He then played half of a season with a Zion Williamson-less Pelicans team before finishing that season alongside Zion, and afterward, New Orleans turned over half of the roster in the Jrue Holiday and Steven Adams deals.
That's not exactly the model of stability, and unsurprisingly, his numbers reflect that. He shot nearly 39 percent on catch-and-shoot 3-pointers last season but is now down to around 26 percent this season. Meanwhile, he's up to 76 percent in the restricted area, but on less than two attempts per game after struggling to finish early in his career. For young players, numbers are often only as consistent as role. Ball's has changed constantly, and as a result, he's never found the steady production expected out of a No. 2 overall pick.
That doesn't mean he never will, though. It just means that his next team has to be in a position to give him the stability he craves. On the right team, Ball's unique blend of size and basketball-IQ could still produce a high-level starter. So with Ball reportedly on the market, let's dig into which teams actually make sense as destinations for one of the NBA's most distinctive talents.
The Warriors have already redeemed a No. 1 overall pick in Andrew Wiggins. Why not take a shot at a No. 2 selection? Ball is Steve Kerr's dream project, the ideal passer and cutter to kick his motion offense into shape. The Warriors have been ranked in the top 10 in the NBA in passes per game in all six of Kerr's seasons in Golden State, and ranked in the top five in each of the past four. But this season? They're 14th as they attempt to integrate a number of new pieces. While Stephen Curry and Draymond Green remain as intelligent as ever, their teammates have so far struggled to grasp the nuances of Kerr's scheme to such an extent that merely replacing rookie James Wiseman with the veteran Kevon Looney has proven utterly essential to surviving first quarters. The Wiseman version of the starting five has been outscored by 66 points this season. The Looney version has outscored opponents by 29. That's how valuable a quick injection of basketball IQ has proven for the Warriors. Imagine what Ball might add.
He'd bring Golden State's running game back to life, at the very least. Kerr's first Warriors team finished first in transition offensive efficiency and third in transition frequency, according to Cleaning the Glass. That is largely where his fast-paced Warriors remained before this rebuild. But this year's team is No. 23 in transition frequency and No. 28 in transition efficiency. Not only would Ball's passing create easier buckets on the break, but his defense and rebounding would create more transition opportunities in the first place. The thought of defenses tracking him and Stephen Curry while backpedaling is utterly terrifying.
Most teams would have to worry about how Ball's shooting might affect their spacing. But Ball would actually be an improvement upon Kelly Oubre's 22.1 percent from behind the arc this year. A swap involving the two high-upside reclamation projects makes sense for both sides. The Pelicans would clear minutes for Nickeil Alexander-Walker and Kira Lewis while also shoring up their wing depth. The Warriors get the infusion of creativity they need, and Ball gets an organization patient enough to maximize his gifts.
The Lonzo-LeBron pairing was brief, but more effective than most remember. They played 821 minutes together and outscored opponents by 57 points in that time, not exactly a championship pace, but more than enough on a lottery team. That stretch was proof of concept. Ball is a point guard in name, but provided there is enough shooting on the floor to support him, functions best alongside another high-usage ball-handler.
Well, Phoenix has two of them in Devin Booker and Chris Paul. Just ask Shai Gilgeous-Alexander what an effective mentor Paul can be. At 36 years old, he isn't going to be around forever, and eventually, Phoenix is going to need someone to replace him as Booker's partner in the backcourt. Ball is a perfect theoretical complement to Booker, a defender that can keep teammates engaged during Booker's scoring binges.
Phoenix had the perfect opportunity to add such a player on draft night when Tyrese Haliburton slipped to their slot at No. 10. They passed him up in favor of Maryland big man Jalen Smith, which inadvertently gave the Suns an easy pathway to this sort of deal. DeAndre Ayton is the center of the future, and Jae Crowder and Cam Johnson are mainstays at power forward. That likely only leaves room for one of Smith or Dario Saric to play major minutes for the long haul, and New Orleans sorely needs a stretch big man to play alongside Williamson. A Saric-Ball swap solves problems for both sides. Phoenix gets its point guard of the future and clears Smith's spot. New Orleans adds a cheap stretch big man to use as an alternative to Steven Adams.
We're breaking our rule of stability here for a simple reason: what do the Hornets have to lose? What does Charlotte have going for it at the moment that is more appealing than a Ball family reunion. The Hornets have made the playoffs three times in the past 15 years. Even after drafting LaMelo Ball and signing Gordon Hayward, they're currently four games below .500. Lonzo won't fix everything. He won't immediately make the Hornets contenders. But he's a worthwhile home run swing for a team that has hit nothing but singles since its inception as the Bobcats.
An all-Ball backcourt would be the league's most unselfish, a necessity given their current limitations as scorers. That ball-movement would give the Hornets a sorely needed identity, and quietly, one of the switchier defenses in basketball once its other prospects mature. The two Ball brothers, Hayward, P.J. Washington and Miles Bridges are all long and between 6-6 and 6-8.
Is that a championship fivesome? No. But it's a low-risk swing on chemistry, ball-movement and, frankly, fun. Terry Rozier and Devonte' Graham aren't good enough to deter Charlotte from such a roster.
Redundancy is fine at the top of the league. The Nets aren't exactly weeping over the similarities between Kyrie Irving and James Harden. But the Nets are running while the Bulls are still learning how to walk. The dueling banjos routine between Zach LaVine and Coby White isn't doing either of them any good, and with the No. 26 ranked defense in the NBA, the Bulls aren't winning anything with that duo unless Patrick Williams grows an extra set of arms.
Ball complements their scoring as he would Booker's, and he'd find himself playing for a coach and general manager with years of runway ahead of them. It's too early to say whether the Billy Donovan-Arturas Karnisovas brain trust is right for Chicago, but based on GarPax's 17-year reign of terror, we can safely call it a stable one. Ball wouldn't be joining a contender, but he'd be joining a team that could take its time with his development.
The broader question a possible Ball trade creates is what to do with the other two guards, assuming neither is included in the deal. LaVine is the superior player, but the older one with less team control. He can walk in 2022 free agency, and if Chicago's trajectory doesn't change, he very well might. Dealing him denies that possibility, but limits the team's upside with another likely star in the building. Might Chicago be willing to try playing all three? Would moving off of LaVine give the Bulls another shot at a high lottery pick to find that star? These are bigger team-building questions that the Bulls have to answer anyway. Ball doesn't get in their way. He enhances whatever is left over.
Sooner or later, Kyle Lowry is going to stop being Kyle Lowry. Eventually, Fred VanVleet is going to need a new backcourt partner, one that brings the same intangibles and all-around brilliance. Ball can't shoot like Lowry (yet). He's not as good at drawing charges. But the basketball brain is there, and Toronto's revered developmental staff would have as good a chance as anyone at maximizing it.
OG Anunoby made 31.1 percent of his 3-pointers in his final collegiate season. He's up to 43.3 percent this season. Pascal Siakam's improvement was even more impressive prior to his collapse this season. The Raptors can teach shooting. They can teach all-around scoring. Lowry never averaged more than 14.3 points per game before landing in Toronto. He's been at 17.8 or higher since. Their wisdom, along with Lowry's guidance, could foster similar growth in Ball. He may never average 20 points per game, but he doesn't need to be a liability as a scorer.
And if he isn't, his IQ would fit in wonderfully on a Raptors team that actively seeks out smart veterans like Marc Gasol and Danny Green. The Raptors have a type: exceedingly intelligent veterans that can play on both ends of the floor. That is what Ball could be on the right team, and with Lowry's career drawing to a close, his upside would appeal to a Toronto team due for some amount of retooling.
With the news that the Rockies are in the process of trading Nolan Arenado to the Cardinals, here’s a look at the five biggest trades in the 28-year history of the franchise.
Nov. 16, 2002
Hampton signed a then-record eight-year, $121 million deal in 2000 and the southpaw never came close to living up to his salary, including having an unsightly 6.15 ERA in 2002. That preceded the trade to Miami, in which the Rockies also dealt outfielder Juan Pierre. In return, Colorado got catcher Charles Johnson, outfielder Preston Wilson, infielder Pablo Ozuna and pitcher Vic Darensbough. Johnson started 217 games for the Rockies and Wilson had a monster year in 2003 with 36 home runs and 141 RBIs. A deferred payment plan had Colorado paying Hampton until 2018.
July 30, 2011
One year after Jimenez threw the only no-no in team history, posted a 2.88 ERA, was named an all-star and finished third in the Cy Young voting, the Rockies traded him at the deadline for four prospects who never panned out. Righty Alex White had a 6.30 ERA across two seasons, righty Joe Gardner never made the majors and outfielder Matt McBride played 72 games for Colorado. Meanwhile, southpaw Drew Pomeranz faired poorly in Colorado (5.20 ERA over three seasons) but went on to become an all-star with the Padres and is currently under contract with San Diego through 2023.
July 27, 2015
Tulowitzki earned five all-star nods, two Silver Sluggers and two Gold Glove Awards in nine-plus years in Colorado. But the injury-plagued shortstop was constantly on the trade block, and the Rockies shipped him and reliever LaTroy Hawkins to the Blue Jays at the deadline in exchange for shortstop Jose Reyes and pitchers Miguel Castro, Jeff Hoffman and Jesus Tinoco. While Tulowitzki’s body gave out on him shortly thereafter, Reyes was a bust, Hoffman never found a role in the rotation (he was traded to the Reds in November) and Tinoco hasn’t been the bullpen stalwart the Rockies hoped (4.54 ERA).
Nov. 10, 2008
This blockbuster sent Holliday — a primary figure in the Rockies’ magical 2007 World Series run — to the Athletics in exchange for outfielder Carlos Gonzalez, starting pitcher Greg Smith and reliever Huston Street. While Smith only made eight starts for Colorado, CarGo proved to be a treasure and the speedy slugger emerged as one of the best outfielders in team history with three all-star appearances and 227 homers over a decade in Denver. Street, too, proved to be a valuable acquisition as the right-hander had 84 saves and a 3.50 ERA across three seasons in LoDo.
Jan. 29, 2021
General manager Jeff Bridich traded the best player in franchise history and, by the time Arenado is done, perhaps the best third baseman of all time. While Colorado’s exact returns are yet to be finalized, by all indications, it will be a few minor leaguers who fall short of balancing the scales with what the Cardinals got — especially considering the $50 million the Rockies are also paying St. Louis to unload Arenado. Easily the top trade in franchise history due to Arenado’s iconic status in LoDo, it may very well go down as easily the club’s worst-ever trade, too.
Reaction to developments on and off the court …
1. To play or not to play.
As this pandemic season unfolds, coaches across the country are questioning the value of conference tournaments, which have the potential to derail healthy teams and create a tumultuous March Madness selection process.
In a recent survey of 41 head coaches by CBS Sports, more than one-quarter of respondents said their conference should not hold a tournament.
“In every league I think you need to ascertain where exactly your teams are in regard to qualifying for at-larges and what really is to be gained from the league tournament,’’ Gonzaga coach Mark Few told the outlet.
In a recent article in USA Today, Louisville coach Chris Mack suggested teams might simply decline to play for their league title.
“I do believe there will be some teams that opt out of conference tournaments knowing they’re a shoo-in for the NCAA Tournament,” he said.
The Pac-12’s position is clear: Vegas, here it comes.
During a meeting this week, the conference’s athletic directors discussed the four-day event at T-Mobile Arena and, according to a source, showed no interest in canceling.
“Everyone is aware of the national conversation,” the source said, “but (the ADs) are fully committed to playing.”
Should they be?
Yes, but like everything else with COVID, it’s complicated.
2. The case for canceling.
It’s not difficult to envision the tournament turning into a shell of its normal self:
— One or two teams are unable to compete as COVID prevents them from even leaving campus.
— Two or three games are canceled hours before tipoff because of positive tests.
— A semifinal is called off.
— The championship game is canceled.
— A team is awarded the Pac-12’s automatic bid without having to play past the quarterfinals.
It could turn ridiculous quickly, leaving participants to wonder why the Pac-12 bothered to play in the first place.
What’s more, there are logistical problems to consider for the teams headed to the NCAA tournament.
The NCAA is requiring all participants (i.e., players and coaches) to have seven consecutive days of negative COVID tests before touching down in Indianapolis for the multi-week bubble.
Does a trip to Las Vegas for three or four days make that less likely? Could playing in the Pac-12 tournament cause a team to miss the NCAA tournament?
Lastly, eliminating the Pac-12 event could ease the burden on players for the remainder of the regular season.
Because of the postponements to date, many teams are facing revised February schedules that feature three games per week for several weeks.
Cancel the conference tournament, use the second week of March for make-up games, and the need to squeeze diminishes.
Also, the NCAA-bound teams would be far fresher.
3. The case for playing.
The reasons to plow forward are equally strong, and (surprise, surprise) money isn’t atop the list.
Yes, the Pac-12 would take a financial hit if it canceled the event, but it wouldn’t be a wallop. The tournament isn’t a cash machine, especially without fans (ticket sales).
The health component is momentous, but there is no clear answer: Players would not necessarily be safer by remaining on campus, where the risk of infection and transmission lurks.
Put them in a quasi-bubble environment in Las Vegas — all their time would be spent in the hotel rooms, at team functions and on the practice court — and they might be more likely to test negative for seven consecutive days.
But the best case for holding the conference tournament is the opportunity provided.
The Pac-12 has one team ineligible for the NCAAs (Arizona), five teams in solid position and six with just one path available: Win the title and collect the automatic berth.
The moment you shutter the event, those six are done. They would have nothing to play for, except pride, after all these months of sacrifice … and after the same opportunity was taken away last March.
At that point, the integrity of the regular season would move to the edge of collapse.
Seniors with no future in the sport might opt out to focus on graduation and finding a job.
NBA prospects might opt out to focus on the draft.
You would have five teams with motivation, the rest with nothing.
It’s one thing to cancel competition because of positive tests, contact tracing and depleted rosters.
It’s another to preemptively yank the ultimate carrot, March Madness, out from under teams that are healthy enough to play for the chance to participate.
The Hotline has pondered the issue for several days and, admittedly, began from a place of deep skepticism.
But based on all the information currently at hand — and assuming no terrorizing COVID spike occurs in Las Vegas next month — the Pac-12 should hold the conference tournament as scheduled.
4. Cleanup on aisle 68.
If we step back and survey the NCAA landscape, it quickly becomes apparent that chaos could swallow the March Madness selection process.
Here’s how: A handful of teams with at-large bids secured refuse to participate in their conference tournaments, concluding the risks far outweigh the rewards.
What if coaches become convinced that staying home gives them a better chance to test negative for seven consecutive days and make their scheduled date in Indianapolis?
It won’t happen in the Pac-12, because conference bylaws state that any team eligible for the postseason must participate in the conference tournament.
But what about other leagues?
As a hypothetical, consider the West Coast Conference.
It has one lock for the NCAAs (Gonzaga), one team in solid position (Brigham Young) and nobody else within a half-court heave of the bubble.
If Gonzaga and Brigham Young opt out of the conference tournament, it would clear a path for a third team to reach the NCAAs as the automatic qualifier.
That gamesmanship — in the WCC or elsewhere — could materialize as March arrives, unless the NCAA steps in.
Unlike its football counterpart, college basketball has a centralized governing structure: The NCAA runs the postseason, which means it runs the sport.
It has given conferences until the end of the month to declare the process by which they will determine their automatic qualifier (i.e., regular season champion or conference tournament winner).
It cannot wait that long.
Next week, the NCAA should declare that any team opting out will result in that conference losing its automatic berth.
Don’t let the selection process turn into a sham.
5. Nothing but NET.
Based on the latest NET rankings, the Pac-12 began the weekend with three teams safely in the NCAAs, two more on the bubble and six out of contention for at-large spots.
(NET ranking prior to Saturday’s results.)
Safe: No. 17 Colorado, No. 24 USC and No. 31 UCLA
Ineligible: No. 41 Arizona
Bubble: No. 51 Oregon and No. 53 Stanford
Out: No. 107 Utah, No. 121 Arizona State, No. 126 Washington State, No. 145 Oregon State, No. 176 Cal, and No. 191 Washington
Two outcomes Saturday could alter the outlook: Colorado’s collapse against Utah, and Stanford’s close loss at ASU.
Despite four quality wins (Alabama, UCLA and a sweep of Arizona), Stanford doesn’t possess much cushion with a No. 53 NET ranking and 2-4 record against Quadrant 1 opponents.
One or two more losses to sub-100 teams, and it could slide to the wrong side.
Meanwhile, the Buffaloes suffered what might be the worst loss of the season — by any team — given the opponent and game circumstances:
They held a 19-point lead with 8:30 left (and the ball), at home, against a sub-.500 opponent … only to be outscored 31-9 down the stretch.
Our guess is the Buffs drop six or eight spots in the NET rankings.
While not a knockout blow to their postseason prospects, the loss greatly undercuts their margin for error, especially with a rugged upcoming schedule.
CU has back-to-back road weekends in mid-February (the Bay Area and Oregon) and plays six games against teams with equal or greater talent.
Its position, so solid for so many weeks, is now a bit wobbly.
Support the Hotline: Several Hotline articles will remain free each month (as will the newsletter), but for access to all content, you’ll need to subscribe. I’ve secured a rate of $1 per week for a full year or just 99 cents for the first month, with the option to cancel anytime. Click here. And thanks for your loyalty.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline
*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.
The departures, which include his lead lawyer, Butch Bowers, come more than a week before his Senate trial is set to begin.
Former President Donald J. Trump has abruptly parted ways with five lawyers handling his impeachment defense, just over a week before the Senate trial is set to begin, people familiar with the situation said on Saturday.
Those departures include his lead lawyer, Butch Bowers, whose hiring was announced last week, a person familiar with the situation said. Four other lawyers who were reported to be joining, including Deborah Barbier, a criminal defense lawyer in South Carolina, are also leaving, according to multiple people familiar with the situation.
Mr. Trump had pushed for his defense team to focus on his baseless claim that the election was stolen from him, one person familiar with the situation said. A person close to Mr. Trump disputed that that was the case but acknowledged that there were differences in opinion about the defense strategy. However, Mr. Trump has insisted that the case is “simple” and has told advisers he could argue it himself and save the money on lawyers. (Aides contend he is not seriously contemplating doing so.)
The decision for Mr. Bowers to leave was “mutual,” another person familiar with the situation said, adding that Mr. Trump and Mr. Bowers had no chemistry, a quality the former president generally prizes in his relationships. Mr. Trump prefers lawyers who are eager to appear on television to say that he never did anything wrong; Mr. Bowers has been noticeably absent in the news media since his hiring was announced.
Jason Miller, a Trump adviser, said that the former president and his aides had “not made a final decision on our legal team.”
Mr. Bowers is the only lawyer whom Mr. Trump’s aides had confirmed would defend the former president. Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Mr. Trump’s who represents South Carolina, was said to have helped line up Mr. Bowers, a well-known figure in the political world there who was working to establish a broader team.
The departures of Mr. Bowers and Ms. Barbier were previously reported by CNN. A third lawyer, Josh Howard, of North Carolina, is also no longer part of the team, another person familiar with the situation said. And two other lawyers from South Carolina, Johnny Gasser and Greg Harris, will also no longer be involved, one of the people familiar with the situation said.
Mr. Trump is due to file a response to the House charges by Tuesday.
The question of who will represent Mr. Trump in his Senate trial has vexed him and his advisers since it became clear that he would become the first American president to be impeached twice.
This month, Democrats in the House, joined by 10 Republicans, charged Mr. Trump with “incitement of insurrection” for his role in instigating a violent mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 as Congress convened to affirm President Biden’s victory in the November election.
During various investigations while he was in office, Mr. Trump has struggled to find — or retain — lawyers to defend him, and the announcement of Mr. Bowers’s hiring capped weeks of frantic searching.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers from his impeachment trial last year are not expected to be involved this time. They include Jay Sekulow, the former White House counsel Pat A. Cipollone and his deputy, Pat Philbin, and another lawyer who worked in the West Wing, Eric Herschmann.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, who worked as Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer during the special counsel’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign in 2016 had colluded with Russian officials, has made no secret of wanting to defend Mr. Trump in the second impeachment trial.
But Mr. Giuliani is a potential witness because he spoke at a rally of Trump supporters on Jan. 6, hours before hundreds marched to the Capitol and rioted. Almost all of Mr. Trump’s advisers blame Mr. Giuliani, who encouraged Mr. Trump’s desire to find ways to overturn the election results and to call their legitimacy into question, for the latest impeachment.
They also blame him in part for Mr. Trump’s first impeachment, which was driven by the former president’s interest in pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Biden family. Mr. Giuliani repeatedly encouraged Mr. Trump to believe baseless allegations related to Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, and his business activities in Ukraine.
The second impeachment trial is set to begin on Feb. 9. This week, 45 Republican senators voted in support of a measure brought forward by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky calling the trial unconstitutional because Mr. Trump is no longer in office. That all but five Republican senators voted to challenge the constitutionality of the trial suggested a likely acquittal for Mr. Trump.
Democrats have pushed back, noting that Mr. Trump was impeached by the House while still in office.
Still, the question of constitutionality is likely to be a key part of Mr. Trump’s defense. And his advisers were buoyed by the show of Republican support for the Paul measure, believing it was an indication that Mr. Trump would be spared a conviction.
The Senate needs a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, to convict Mr. Trump, meaning 17 Republicans would need to cross party lines to side with Democrats in finding him guilty. An additional vote, this one requiring a simple majority, would be needed to disqualify him from holding office again. Still, most of his aides say they doubt he will run for office again.
