Photo courtesy of Jim McIsaac/Getty Images (via nba.si.com).
Where is the love?
The Brooklyn Nets and New York Knicks do not like each other. More specifically, Paul Pierce does not like the Knicks, and J.R. Smith doesn’t like the Nets. Those two have been fueling this rivalry since the Boston Celtics helped make Brooklyn a legitimate title contender.
Both parties have gone back and forth for the better part of the offseason, and for those keeping score at home, it was Pierce’s turn to retaliate. And so he did.
Asked by reporters about Smith referring to The Truth as “bitter,” Pierce responded by echoing the question of “who?” three times over.
When Paul Pierce was asked about J.R. Smith calling him "bitter," Pierce said, "who? Who? Who?"
— Al Iannazzone (@Al_Iannazzone) September 19, 2013
So. Shocking.
This whole thing is getting out of hand. Not because it’s too intense, but because the trash talk is embarrassing. It’s not creative, or even close to original. To me it feels forced, like Pierce and Smith are obligated to publicly ridicule each other. Though I don’t doubt that Pierce still despises the Knicks, there’s just something missing here.
Brooklyn and New York aren’t true rivals. Not yet. The Nets haven’t inhabited New York for enough time. We also don’t know where either team stands leading into next season. Last year, both teams were good, but the Knicks were clearly better. Brooklyn never really threatened to steal the Atlantic Division, and the Knicks and Nets weren’t on a postseason collision course. Incidentally, that’s how great rivalries are often born—by competing for something outside a season-series victory.
The Nets and Knicks aren’t there at the moment, and the open bickering isn’t going to get them there any faster. With the Nets adding Kevin Garnett, Jason Terry, Andrei Kirilenko and Pierce, they figure to contend for a top-four playoff spot and the division title. But until they do, until they and the Knicks show they’re on close-to-level playing ground, it’s all just talk. Empty, meaningless talk.
Smith can call Pierce bitter. He can guarantee that the Knicks will win a title. Pierce can respond by pretending he doesn’t know who the oft-embattled shooting guard is and by guaranteeing a title of his own. Mike Woodson and Jason Kidd could also duke it out over who has the shinier head (it’s Woody)—it doesn’t matter.
This rivalry hasn’t reached the point most of us want it to yet. There’s still so much that has to fall into place. Right now, they’re at odds only because they share the same city. Were the Nets still in New Jersey, a conflict would be nonexistent.
Location is part of it, make no mistake there. More important than addresses and smack talk, however, is the significance behind actual meetings. When’s the last time a Knicks-Nets game meant something? And I mean really meant something, not just some run-of-the-mill contest that was blown out of proportion because we want so badly for them to be ruthless, inner-city rivals. When was that?
Not recently. While that stands to change next season, it’s not next season. And it hasn’t changed. For now, it’s all talk. Angry, bitter, leaving-much-to-be-desired talk.
Dan Favale is a firm believer in the three-pointer as well as the notion that defense doesn’t always win championships. His musings can be found at Bleacherreport.com in addition to TheHoopDoctors.com. Follow @danfavale on Twitter for his latest posts and all things NBA.
