NBA Lockout

Off Topic
381

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[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]

That’s not really an explanation. I understand the teams as a business entity separate and apart from the NBA. However, the NBA owns the Hornets. An appearance of conflict and an actual conflict are two different animals.

382

[quote]BradTGIF wrote:

[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]

And that would be an appearance of conflict.

However, all parties are “lawyered” up the ass, and Stern himself is a lawyer. I’m sure they are walking the line and not crossing it. And I’m pretty sure they don’t want to own the team either. It’s just an unfortunate situation.

383

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[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 the only 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]

I don’t think there’s parity in baseball either. Can’t comment on NFL since I don’t watch it or know anything about it.

Sure you could argue it’s the nature of sports, but it’s silly to say there is parity.

You watch NHL right? Would you say the league has parity post lockout?

Edit: You left out payroll as a huge reason for dynasties.

384

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[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 the only 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]

I don’t think there’s parity in baseball either. Can’t comment on NFL since I don’t watch it or know anything about it.

Sure you could argue it’s the nature of sports, but it’s silly to say there is parity.

You watch NHL right? Would you say the league has parity post lockout?

Edit: You left out payroll as a huge reason for dynasties.

[/quote]

Payroll is a part, but you have to have good management. See: Mets, New York and Knicks, New York. I intentionally left it out because it requires non-retards running the operation, but, it does definitely play a part and you could include it.

Football has super bowl parity because the one-and-done nature of the playoffs makes for some fluky results, but the same teams are favored every year usually.

I’m not an avid hockey fan. I watch Capitals games and tune in for the playoffs but don’t follow the league as a whole throughout the season, just the Caps. My mostly-uninformed opinion is that it’s had pretty good parity since the strike, with new top-tier teams creeping up every year or two.

385

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Yeah I think players have every right in the open market to get their paper. 100%. Especially CP3 becuase that dude is a blue collar baller and he’s earned it.

But when things are in line for CP3 to be a Laker and have the league squash it, only to end up a Clipper? It doesn’t feel right. He got dealt the way he did to better the Hornets, which in a private owner-management deal seems fair enough. But when the figurehead of the NBA oversees the brokerage of that deal it looks bad.

386

[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
But when things are in line for CP3 to be a Laker and have the league squash it, only to end up a Clipper? It doesn’t feel right. He got dealt the way he did to better the Hornets, which in a private owner-management deal seems fair enough. But when the figurehead of the NBA oversees the brokerage of that deal it looks bad.
[/quote]

I agree… Goes back to one of the biggest reasons for the lockout, small market/bad teams wanting to be able to compete.

A deal is set in place which sends CP3 to a historically good team that wins a lot? Squashed by Stern.

A deal is set in place which sends CP3 to a historically bad team that looses a lot but has an up and coming star? Approved by Stern.

387

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
But when things are in line for CP3 to be a Laker and have the league squash it, only to end up a Clipper? It doesn’t feel right. He got dealt the way he did to better the Hornets, which in a private owner-management deal seems fair enough. But when the figurehead of the NBA oversees the brokerage of that deal it looks bad.
[/quote]

I agree… Goes back to one of the biggest reasons for the lockout, small market/bad teams wanting to be able to compete.

A deal is set in place which sends CP3 to a historically good team that wins a lot? Squashed by Stern.

A deal is set in place which sends CP3 to a historically bad team that looses a lot but has an up and coming star? Approved by Stern.[/quote]

Also, despite the fact that we just had a lockout because small market teams want to be competitive… Stern squashed a deal for them that would make them playoff competitors this year (lots of depth of decently good players) and turned them into a lottery-bound team with one promising player.

Basically he admitted that it can be in the long-term best interest of the team to be bad for a year. Which I thought was the opposite point of the whole lockout.

388


Well, that ring he got her helped delay things for ~8 years but it finally happened.

Kobe prolly couldn’t stop macking dem hoes.

389

Apparently there’s no prenup so this might turn into Tiger Woods round 2

390

If you want to laugh hard read the comments on here:

http://espn.go.com/losangeles/conversations/_/id/7361319/kobe-bryant-wife-files-divorce-los-angeles-lakers-star

And they keep coming!

391

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Apparently there’s no prenup so this might turn into Tiger Woods round 2[/quote]

One of the reasons his parents were upset at the time. I played with his father Joe near the end of his European (italy) career.

392

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Apparently there’s no prenup so this might turn into Tiger Woods round 2[/quote]

No, apparently they have already reached an agreement.

393

Jeff Green is out for the season, he just had heart surgery.

394

anyone watched the games? nba tv showed pistons vs cavs and kings vs golden state. felt that kyrie irving was meh. but jimmer really did quite well!21 pts, 7/11 shooting i believe.(i thought he was gonna be a bust like jj reddick. good shooter and nothing else.)

395

Dont watch college ball but it looks like the knicks got a player in Shumpert, Im happy to see Staten Island’s finest Renaldo Balkman making a statement of how he deserves run on this team. This second rounder Harrelson from Kentucky looks like a banger who may make a difference as well…

396

Ricky Rubio and the Wolves looking good in their first game! Rubio looked poised and confident in his debut. He might just be the NBA’s next Steve Nash.

397

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Ricky Rubio and the Wolves looking good in their first game! Rubio looked poised and confident in his debut. He might just be the NBA’s next Steve Nash.[/quote]

Big difference: Nash can shoot the lights out, and from what I’ve read of Rubio, he is a pretty horrid shooter. If true, will be interesting to see if he can be effective once he gets the Rondo treatment from defenses.

398

True true. But in terms of being an assist machine who can create opportunities for his team-mates he has the potential to get into Nash territory.

399

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Apparently there’s no prenup so this might turn into Tiger Woods round 2[/quote]

One of the reasons his parents were upset at the time. I played with his father Joe near the end of his European (italy) career. [/quote]

Cool man, I play pickup ball with Barry (Obama) down the street too.

400

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Apparently there’s no prenup so this might turn into Tiger Woods round 2[/quote]

One of the reasons his parents were upset at the time. I played with his father Joe near the end of his European (italy) career. [/quote]

Cool man, I play pickup ball with Barry (Obama) down the street too.[/quote]

?? are you fucking with me?