[quote]therajraj wrote:
well I’m glad he ain’t a Laker. [/quote]
as a hoop fan, I’m stoked to see CP3 with that supporting cast
as a LAL fan, well, at least Gasol is still around
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
After signing Billups, this move doesn’t make a lot of sense. Yeah they get Paul, but he’s injury prone and coming off of knee surgery and they’re giving up a lot, specifically a more than serviceable big and a terrific young scorer, and they literally just signed a veteran in Billups. [/quote]
I expect plenty of both Paul and Billups out there, esp in end-game situations
And if Caron can still be a legit perimter defender for them, it should be very interesting…
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
well I’m glad he ain’t a Laker. [/quote]
as a hoop fan, I’m stoked to see CP3 with that supporting cast
as a LAL fan, well, at least Gasol is still around
[/quote]
The way people bad mouth Gasol after one bad playoffs as a Laker I’m surprised.
The Lakers are going to look bad if they don’t land Dwight Howard though after trading away Odom for basically nothing. Especially to a Western Conference Rival.
I mostly meant that both Gasol and Odom were gone in the original deal that sent Paul to LAL (vetoed)
And as far deep playoff runs, I think Bryant + Gasol is MUCH MORE legit than Bryant + Paul (with Odom now out of both scenarios)
This crap with stars moving to play with other stars is ruining the league. It will make for an interesting quarterfinals series, and nothing more.
And then you look at the Grizz and see another upcoming team with a rising star in Marc Gasol who pretty soon may overshadow his brother. Honestly, people were seeing it years back but the Thunder, Grizz and now Clips may be the future of the West, bumping those old Goliaths like San Antonio and eventually Dallas and L.A when the superstars of those teams start to feel those knees buckle.
I’m just wishing the Spurs get one last ring for Timmy and the rest of the S.A crew.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
This crap with stars moving to play with other stars is ruining the league. It will make for an interesting quarterfinals series, and nothing more. [/quote]
It’s now likely Dwight Howard won’t be traded so Paul and Odom may be highlighting the free agency period. Not flash compared to last year.
Did you know Mookie Blaylock?
Jimmer Fredette the Tim Tebow of the NBA this season?
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Jimmer Fredette the Tim Tebow of the NBA this season?[/quote]
I know you’re joking, but its only the all-time greats at the center position (think: Wilt, Jabbar, O’Neal etc) are capable of impacting the game in the same way that the QB does by default
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
This crap with stars moving to play with other stars is ruining the league. It will make for an interesting quarterfinals series, and nothing more. [/quote]
It’s now likely Dwight Howard won’t be traded so Paul and Odom may be highlighting the free agency period. Not flash compared to last year.
Did you know Mookie Blaylock?[/quote]
No I didn’t know and/or play with him. Just know the name. Great name lol.
It’s abnormal that Stern is involved with the day to day business of a team like he is with the Hornets. He vetoed the Laker trade last week and coreographed the Clipper trade. He’s basically moving pieces around the board himself and it seems like a bigtime conflict of interest, especially now that the NBA controls the Hornets.
It’s ugly man. It doesn’t look good and it feels awfully slimy.
CP3, Griffin, and Billups are going to be fun to watch this year, for sure. But on paper it looks like the Hornets are getting butt-fucked. Their only real fault in this deal was having a good player that wanted to play somewhere else.
There’s zero parody in this league and the whole world seems to be ok with it as long as the old standards still win championships. OKC is maybe the exception. But you have teams like the Pacers and Nets and Wizards and Grizzlys and Kings and Warriors and Knicks that just lumber along, losing every year.
It’s boring and monotonous. The die hard fans must be feeling really tired of this shit by now.
How is it a conflict of interest if the NBA owns the team? They should act in the best interest of the Hornets by extracting maximum value for their assets and not taking on too much cap in return, hence making the team as attractive as possible for a buyer.
Now, if the NBA is vetoing trades that directly or indirectly contemporaneously benefit the Hornets, well then that is a conflict. Owning the Hornets and acting in their league capacity may give the appearance of a conflict, but not necessarily give rise to an actual conflict.
All that said, I haven’t been really paying attention to the machinations. Has the NBA been double dealing here?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
How is it a conflict of interest if the NBA owns the team? They should act in the best interest of the Hornets by extracting maximum value for their assets and not taking on too much cap in return, hence making the team as attractive as possible for a buyer.
Now, if the NBA is vetoing trades that directly or indirectly contemporaneously benefit the Hornets, well then that is a conflict. Owning the Hornets and acting in their league capacity may give the appearance of a conflict, but not necessarily give rise to an actual conflict.
All that said, I haven’t been really paying attention to the machinations. Has the NBA been double dealing here?[/quote]
I see what you’re saying, but Sterns’ involvement with the Hornets feels too “hands on” if that makes any sense.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
It’s abnormal that Stern is involved with the day to day business of a team like he is with the Hornets. He vetoed the Laker trade last week and coreographed the Clipper trade. He’s basically moving pieces around the board himself and it seems like a bigtime conflict of interest, especially now that the NBA controls the Hornets.
It’s ugly man. It doesn’t look good and it feels awfully slimy.
CP3, Griffin, and Billups are going to be fun to watch this year, for sure. But on paper it looks like the Hornets are getting butt-fucked. Their only real fault in this deal was having a good player that wanted to play somewhere else.
There’s zero parody in this league and the whole world seems to be ok with it as long as the old standards still win championships. OKC is maybe the exception. But you have teams like the Pacers and Nets and Wizards and Grizzlys and Kings and Warriors and Knicks that just lumber along, losing every year.
It’s boring and monotonous. The die hard fans must be feeling really tired of this shit by now.[/quote]
Um. No parity? The Knicks are the biggest market team in the league and they are always awful. The league would love for them to succeed and they can’t despite having every conceivable advantage.
NEWS FLASH: Every sport has teams with incompetent management that are never competitive.
Last year the final eight teams were CHI, MIA, BOS, ATL, MEM, OKC, DAL, LAL. Only THREE of those teams were in the final eight the previous year (ATL, LAL, BOS).
Lakers are not going to be the same team this year… they were blown out in the second round and essentially the only real move they’ve made is gotten rid of the sixth man of the year in a salary dump.
Actually… wait… I just realized that you said the Clippers being good (who haven’t been good in thirty years) is the reason the league has no parity. That is like, the definition of parity. Every sport has teams that are in it every year (Celtics/Lakers, Pats/Steelers, Yanks/Red Sox, etc. etc. etc.)… the only people who think basketball has less of that are those that don’t follow the sport.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
How is it a conflict of interest if the NBA owns the team? They should act in the best interest of the Hornets by extracting maximum value for their assets and not taking on too much cap in return, hence making the team as attractive as possible for a buyer.
Now, if the NBA is vetoing trades that directly or indirectly contemporaneously benefit the Hornets, well then that is a conflict. Owning the Hornets and acting in their league capacity may give the appearance of a conflict, but not necessarily give rise to an actual conflict.
All that said, I haven’t been really paying attention to the machinations. Has the NBA been double dealing here?[/quote]
Because the teams by law are all separate businesses.
Edit: It would sorta be like putting Gmail and Yahoo in charge of hotmail.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
Last year the final eight teams were CHI, MIA, BOS, ATL, MEM, OKC, DAL, LAL. Only THREE of those teams were in the final eight the previous year (ATL, LAL, BOS).
[/quote]
A large reason for what you perceive as parity has a lot to do with players who dominated for years just getting old.
Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Kidd are all on the decline/retired while new talents like Rose/Durant/Howard/LBJ are taking over.
If you look at championships and finals appearances since 1999 you don’t really see much parity.
Since 1999 the Lakers have been to the Finals 7 times, Spurs 4 times, Nets/Mavs/Heat/Celtics/Pistons two times.
By the way, I really don’t understand what is so wrong about this. Chris Paul played his damned hardest for six years for management that failed to ever surround him with a competitive team. Is he supposed to play his entire career for them because of where a ping pong ball landed in a lottery machine? In what other profession is this acceptable? Players should never be allowed to choose where they play? It’s ridiculous. You get drafted by a bad team and you’re supposed to play on .500 teams for the next 15 years because you just had bad luck one day?
Yeah, that’s what free agency is for. Let me pose this to you: players are HUMAN. He knows when free agency is up, he’s going to sign somewhere else because he doesn’t want to be on a losing team for ten years. Is he a better person if he says nothing at all until he signs elsewhere next year, and the Hornets get nothing for him? They are way better off with him being honest and upfront.
There were only 4 single appearance teams to make the Finals between 1999-2011… and none of them won.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
Last year the final eight teams were CHI, MIA, BOS, ATL, MEM, OKC, DAL, LAL. Only THREE of those teams were in the final eight the previous year (ATL, LAL, BOS).
[/quote]
A large reason for what you perceive as parity has a lot to do with players who dominated for years just getting old.
Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Kidd are all on the decline/retired while new talents like Rose/Durant/Howard/LBJ are taking over.
If you look at championships and finals appearances since 1999 you don’t really see much parity.
Since 1999 the Lakers have been to the Finals 7 times, Spurs 4 times, Nets/Mavs/Heat/Celtics/Pistons two times.
[/quote]
The Yankees winning 27 world series is parity?
The fact that only one non-Pats/Steelers/Colts team to win the AFC in the past 10 years is parity?
I’m just saying in every sport, dynasties exist on teams that have good management and/or luck in the draft. It’s how sports work.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
By the way, I really don’t understand what is so wrong about this. Chris Paul played his damned hardest for six years for management that failed to ever surround him with a competitive team. Is he supposed to play his entire career for them because of where a ping pong ball landed in a lottery machine? In what other profession is this acceptable? Players should never be allowed to choose where they play? It’s ridiculous. You get drafted by a bad team and you’re supposed to play on .500 teams for the next 15 years because you just had bad luck one day?
Yeah, that’s what free agency is for. Let me pose this to you: players are HUMAN. He knows when free agency is up, he’s going to sign somewhere else because he doesn’t want to be on a losing team for ten years. Is he a better person if he says nothing at all until he signs elsewhere next year, and the Hornets get nothing for him? They are way better off with him being honest and upfront.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with this.
What I have a problem with is the open collusion. That has never occurred on this scale before the present era.