I've got nothing to write this week. Oh, all kinds of thoughts popped into my head during the Bulls game on Saturday night (no, not those kinds of thoughts!) First, there was the idea of a column about how fans perceive players. Why? A lot of criticism of Vladimir Radmanovic lately, unfounded in my opinion. I think Radmanovic has been about as valuable so far as Desmond Mason was last season. Yet Mason is considered a potential star for his performance while Radmanovic has been criticized? The column would have explained my opinion that this has something to do with Mason's dunks. From an analytical perspective, a dunk isn't really any different than a layup (slight momentum difference, as I see it), but to a fan it's hugely different.

I think Jason Kidd might be part of this effect as well. I think Kidd's rampant NBA popularity is due to the fact that, if given the choice, most fans would probably prefer to have a 'true' point guard, who thought pass first and shot second, as opposed to a Payton-type point. Kidd is the archetypical pass-first point guard, hence I think his value has been overrated by fans and the media. But I'm about the only person who thinks this.

Here's another crazy thought for you . . . I think the NBA should get rid of the All-Star game. I've got to ask you, is anyone out there really looking forward to All-Star weekend? Please e-mail me if you are. I know I'm not, other than the fact that it's five days off from thinking about the Sonics without a holiday to make up for it. That's some free time I could really use. Not that I don't love writing the previews and recaps, but I think I am starting to feel the grind as we hit the lull of the NBA schedule. Anyways, back to my point, what really pisses me off is the NBA's attitude about the importance of the All-Star game. They're forcing players (see Bryant, Kobe last year) to play despite nagging injuries. Hello! Since when did a damned exhibition get more important to the regular season? That's just insane. I swear, if a player ever were seriously hurt in the All-Star game, especially if it was some type of aggrevation of a previous nagging injury, you'd see endless lawsuits and whining. Watch for it, as I think it will happen before the decade is out. It's just a boring, meaningless exhibition with rosters picked with little thought to who actually played well and no defense. Name some All-Star teams for the honor, take a weekend off so the players -- and us fans! -- can get some rest -- the Super Bowl weekend would be apropos -- and forget the game itself.

Column idea #2 related to my vision of the ideal coach, or at least the categories I'd use to judge coaches. In my opinion, there are about seven things on which a coach can be judged:

- Does he put the right players on the court at the right time? (ie rotations)
- Are the right players getting shots in the right situations?
- Are the offensive and defensive schemes correctly suited to the personnel?
- Does he successfully communicate with his players and the media?
- Does he motivate the team to get up every night?
- Are young players developing under his tutelage?
- Does the team play hard?

What's the most important? I must confess I'm not sure. I'd say, however, that I'd probably take number seven, playing hard, as the most important. Obviously, this isn't always a coaches' responsibility. The best coach in the world isn't going to get much out of Joe Barry Carroll or Benoit Benjamin, while even you or I could easily keep Nate McMillan the player working hard.

I've watched some bad basketball in my time (aside from the Sonics' past week on Elm Street), and no, I do not mean by that the last three or four Sonic seasons. No, I've had season tickets for the UW hoop team the last two years, in which I've seen a lot of remarkably poor play, capped by two losses to Oregon State, both of which I've had to walk home from in the snow wondering whether it was worth it to put my energy into watching the team. The losing hasn't bothered me, because that team always gives effort on the court. Often it's misguided, but it's still there.

Next to me would probably be the rotation. A coach has few assets more valuable than minutes, a limited resource which must be appropriately allocated (uh-oh, economist speak!) The next most valuable limited resource is shots. I don't think people usually think very much about this as an important part of the coaches' job. Really, though, think back to last Thursday night. As much as I am impressed with Radmanovic, he's not the guy you want taking three three-pointers in the final minutes, is he? Not yet, at least. So there, in my opinion, Rick Adelman beat McMillan in a mini-chess match. As this points out, keeping the other team's best players from getting makeable shots is also a key thing.

The least important for a head coach is, in my opinion, player development. At the NBA level, this is almost exclusively an assistant coaches' job. In fact, looking at the list, the things that are most important for a head coach are (and this shouldn't be surprising) the least important for an assistant. I mean, how many motivational assistants do you know? That's why success as an assistant -- or a college head coach -- clearly does not guarantee success as a head coach.

Of course, the question this all naturally leads into is, "How does Nate score?"

Here's how I'd analyze him on a 1-10 scale in these categories:
- Rotations: 5
- Right players shooting: 6
- Offense/Defense: 4
- Communication: 9
- Motivation: 7
- Development: 5
- Play Hard: 7

Comments: I think McMillan's motivation is clearly his strength at this point in his career. He's cleared the lines of communication with both Baker and Payton, which has allowed them to stay in Seattle as productive players. He's all got the media on board. Frank Hughes in particular has clearly been won over by the new Payton/McMillan pairing, meaning for more optomistic articles. I wold say that he's about average everywhere else. After losing to Chicago on Saturday, I have a hard time with that 7 for motivation. . . .

I think my main concern may relate to offense/defense, though not explicitly so. The Sonics continue to play a rather slow style of basketball, especially this week in three poorly-played (by each side) losses. The half court sets have produced little production and inordinately high turnover rates, along with the dull games which have held little interest for the fans. Let 'em run! Please?

I must admit a little anger after the Chicago game. I was generally calm, however, glad to be vindicated in my comments to SonicJoe on Monday that the Sonics were bound for a bad stretch this week (though 0-3 was a bit more dire than I expected). Nothing relieves a hard loss better than narcissism. Anyays, as my mom and I wandered in search of the other members of my family, the thought occurred to me that this season was starting to remind me of the 1991-92 season. If you weren't a Sonics fan, I'll do my best to recollect what happened (I was 9 at time, for Pete's sake). As I recall it, the feeling was that the Sonics were really underachieving, because Coach K.C. Jones was forcing his thouroughbreads to muck it up in the slop instead of just letting them run. As well, I recall that they had a devil of a time beating bad teams but played well against the class of the NBA, similarly to this year's team. And when Jones was fired, the Sonics were 18-18. Right now, they sit 23-23.

But don't get the impression that I'm going to sit here and say Nate should be fired. Do I think he should learn from the lesson of George Karl's arrival in '92, other than the never-play-rookies part? Yes, I do.

This isn't the NFL. You can't just build an NBA team from scratch. Building a team, as opposed to a group of individuals takes time and patience, and we as fans must have both right now. As much as I hate the NBA on NBC announcers, one of them did make a good point today about Dallas sticking with Don Nelson through some lean years and reaping the benefits of it today. This can't be extended too far. Some ideas -- and some coaches -- just don't work, no matter how many times you try or how they're tried. Paul Westphal in Seattle was that scenario . . . but Nate McMillan isn't.

If there is a task that I think is really critical for an NBA GM with regards to head coaches, it's sorting between the two. Again, Nate McMillan isn't this kind of a useless coach. Well, I shouldn't call Paul Westphal useless, but he wasn't going to work in Seattle no matter what. He's a very fine college coach and I wonder sometimes if he wouldn't be useful at UW, but that's an entirely different column.

The point is that Nate McMillan isn't a great NBA coach right now, but he may well be an excellent coach in a year or two. And wouldn't we be kicking ourselves if he was doing that in some other city, with some other team?