User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6093 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I'm guessing Expos fans wish the owners at the time of the Bartolo Colon trade were the NBA owners.
Yep. It will be/would have been interesting, for sure.
I will be a little pissed if the NBA pulls the plug on the deal assuming Demps and Kupchak/Buss have agreed to it. I could live with that if they did it on a Howard deal following this one, but I don't think they should do it for this deal. Gasol and Odom aren't a pile of crap and Paul, like I said, is not LeBron James.
No. The one that hung two more banners.
This pretty much sums up my feelings. Killing a trade for PR reasons is pretty terrible and the Lakers FO has every reason to be pissed. Of course this highlights the bigger point... a pro sports league should not own one of its teams.
Yeah, I don't understand how they could do this. NOLA was obviously going to trade Odom and Scola for youth/draft picks.
That sucks, but NO will still take Gasol right?
you know what ####### trade Stern should have vetoed? The Pau to LA trade.
Everything old is new again.
Cue up the Kobe rape jokes--that's next.
I still think making the trade made the NBA a more valuable property than not making it.
Yep. A Paul/Bynum/Bryant centered-team would have been interesting and exciting, with both upside and downside, but not a numbing-forget-it-juggernaut. Paul vs. Rose in LA on Dec 25--great TV.
Well, that's just great for NO, isn't it? Get nothing back for your best player.
He won't be alone. But this also raises issues, assuming it gets blocked, of dealing with Gasol and Odom. Challenge #1,238,476 for Mike Brown.
Edit: The nanny seems enamored with one of my favorite adjectives.
And not the smartest deal by the owners since I think there's a pretty good chance that LAL was getting Paul or Howard, and now they're getting the better, younger, healthier, more dominant player instead (possibly- though that's my gut).
And aren't the Hornets more appealing to an owner with Chris Paul on the roster?
Not sure what you mean by "moves like that"? You mean a top-5 player going to the Lakers? I don't see how you prevent a trade (in the abstract), if the trade works out. Clearly a trade involving a league-owned team is a different story though.
Yes, but with him on the roster the new owner gets input into what the return is. Without, he's stuck with whatever they get.
No. They had a lockout so the owners could make more money.
Not necessarily. This will probably piss off Paul some as well, and he was almost certain to leave anyway. NO simply does not have much talent on the team with him
--that's mostly why he wants out.
Players forcing teams to trade them to only one team, giving the league a handful of superstar loaded teams and many other teams that are a whole lot of nothing.
I'm not defending it, I'm honestly asking.
Then why do the Hornets not have an owner already?
Paul didn't do this, based on what we know. The Lakers stuff started about him late last night, when LAC and GS refused to include quality young guards in deals to get him. The Lakers have no quality young guards, but they were it seems willing to surrender 2 good big men to get Paul. Paul's 1st choice was apparently the Knicks, but his camp said he realized they lacked assets. But this isn't like the Melo thing--Paul did say he would not sign an extension with LAC or GS--but that doesn't mean he was leaving those teams for sure. The NEW CBA makes it to his advantage not to re-sign until he hits FA.
Also, again: there is only one LeBron James, and there was only one summer of 2010.
* NO lets Paul walk -- they get nothing
* NO trades Paul someplace he doesn't want to go -- they don't get much, because he's a 1-season rental
* NO trades Paul someplace he'll resign -- this presents a very limited set of options within the player's control
It is just the cost of FA in a sport where superstars mean so much to a team. There is nothing to really do about it, except to say, "Guys as good as Chris Paul have to stay with their original teams until they are about 32 years old and not so good anymore."
Other things--hard cap, no max salary--would have some effect, but it is just the nature of the sport.
Didn't Carmelo Anthony essentially force his way to NY?
This is going to be a tough situation for the Lakers and Rockets.
Partly because they make the team so good, partly because they keep it from being bad enough get to championship quality through the draft. One player means so much, but can only mean so much -- see LeBron in Cleveland.
The Minnesota Timberwolves should have poisoned Kevin Garnett for a year, and hoped for a Tim Duncan.
I've been a proponent of major changes to the draft to support rebuilding and the creation of more teams like OKC. Not every teams needs a pick in every round. Getting LeBron James shouldn't exclude you from getting a complementary piece within a year or two.
The NBA had a chance to help fix this by instituting some sort of "franchise" system by which teams can (if they would like) designate a franchise player who would be paid some their "true market value" and not be counted fully against the cap. NOLA could simply designate Paul a franchise player and pay him up to 25% (or so) more than any other team could offer. Obviously it wouldn't solve all the inherent inequity in the NBA markets, but it would help quite a bit if smaller markets could tell superstars: "Hey, stay here, we'll franchise you, you'll get paid a lot more than anywhere else, and since we have the cap exception on your salary, we can afford to get you some help".
First, James didn't "force" his way anywhere. He took a light paycut and left as an FA after seven years. The optics/narrative pissed off millions of people, but all James really did was decide to play with his buddies after playing in Cleveland for seven full seasons. He handled it foolishly, but what he did is not that big of a deal except for teh fact that James is one of the ten or so greatest talents in NBA history, and he is right squack in his prime. And he happens to be good friends with Dwyane Wade.
Carmelo Anthony is not LeBron James. When that deal went down, Denver immediately got hot, their fans got giddy, and many NYK fans were very lukewarm about it. Anthony is very good, but he is not a true, elite superstar.
James' FA was what it was because he is one of the ten or so greatest talents in NBA history and he is right squack in his prime. And he happens to be good friends with Dwyane Wade.
I never said he did. And you're assuming, despite me never saying a word about LeBron, that I have a problem or something with him going to Miami. I don't.
I have mentioned that a few times; that is one thing that small-market fans really want. But you can frame it the other way:
"Stay here in this city you don't like on this crappy team you have been on for seven years or forego tens of millions of dollars. Your call."
The players wouldn't go for that. You can argue that they should, but I don't really think so.
I have thought about something like that. Not sure how it would work in practice, but it has some merit.
I'm bored, how many consensus "superstars" do we have in the NBA right now?
Howard
Lebron
Wade
Paul
Dirk
Kobe
Rose
Durant
Griffin will probably join that list soon. Certainly this is subjective. By WS, Pau deserves a spot on the list as well.
Good point. From a freedom of movement perspective it hurts the players. On the other hand, I think the current max contract is a joke, and should be ripped to shreds. Pay guys what they are worth, and in the NBA you have, at any given time, 10 or so superstars whose worth is magnitudes greater than any and every other player(s).
Not assuming anything. But you seemed to suggest the James situation in the "dreck/nothing/superstar loaded teams" line, and that has been the standard narrative used by a lot of people.
The Knicks are not loaded. That is why their fans here are so excited about the possibility of getting Tyson Chandler.
Nate Silver tweets:Shorter Silver: I... am not sure.
Marc Stein:
We will see if killed means killed over the next day or so, I guess.
Stern may need to kill the thread. Too many big-market fans here. He is not going to let us dictate where the conversation goes.
Next up for the NBA: vetoing the giant dump that the Celtics took on Rajon Rondo this week.
______
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7333285/los-angeles-lakers-deal-acquire-chris-paul-off
Then why design the CBA they way they just agreed to .... today?
What do you guys think? Is this true, or is it spin? Sounds like spin to me, but WTF do I know?
BBTF league: 16 teams max (10 right now); 14-man rosters; scoring based on Hollinger's Game Score:League is #28232; PW is albright
But does he have topside?
Yep.
You can say the deal sucks for NO if you like, but this wasn't Odom, Blake, and Ebanks for Paul. It was Odom + an All-Star big, and apparently came about only after LAC and GS respectively, refused to include Gordon and Curry in deals that Demps was ready to make.
No one should (or is going to) feel bad for the Lakers FO or fanbase, but to me, this sort of means, if they actually want to be consistent, that:
1. Paul should have to stay in NO until they find an owner.
2. The Lakers should simply not be allowed to acquire Dwight Howard via trade.
Yes, I know that the league doesn't own Orlando, and people can certainly disagree with me. I am obviously biased here.
I'm calling out of work tomorrow for "basketball reasons."
Well, David, you beat the players. Now it's time to turn around and face the owners...
He keeps crashing Forum Blue And Gold too!
This quote:
Reinforces that "plantation owner" mindset quote.
And I'm only partly kidding when I say that if Chris Paul goes to Boston for Rondo, David Stern will end up in the East River. Wearing Kareem goggles.
If it were 1962, you know Red would figure out a way to make it happen.
He also says that there is no way a Bynum-centered deal lands Howard, but, echoing Simmons, that Bynum and Gasol MIGHT get Howard.
Thinks the owners were motivated by "displaced anger."
Tweets from Odom and Paul already out.
Sure. And they were also looking at having Chris Paul and Kobe Bryant as offensive options in the 4th quarter of playoff games.
Woj knows drama:
Could be.
I can't say the Lakers pulled one over on the Hornets. They were giving up a lot and changing their identity and if they weren't also going to be able to trade for Howard, it wasn't a definite that they were going to be a better overall team. But the Hornets? What the hell was Demps thinking? As a Celtics fan, I'm not saying he should have happily taken the Rondo plus overrated young players but getting a bunch of good but not great players and topping out as a 6th seed for a few seasons before having to fully rebuild is a horrible return for a MVP-caliber player. In a three team deal in which two of the top ten players in the league were traded, he was going to get none of them. He got bailed out.
I don't think there is any precedent established here. Technically, he didn't veto the trade as a commissioner but as sort of the legal guardian of the Hornets. This situation is unlikely to ever come up again or at least it won't anytime soon.
Doubtful. I don't think the Hornets are particularly enamored with Gasol which means the Rockets need to be involved. The Rockets make this deal not just for Gasol, but also because it saves them enough to offer Nene the max. If they amnesty Thabeet, they can also resign Hayes or upgrade one of their wings. Nene and Hayes and every other big man will probably be gone by the time this deal could get back on track.
The Rockets aren't "going for it" with Gasol as the centerpiece. I think this version of the deal is dead.
What a disaster.
I strongly dislike the Lakers but I share your reaction.
Also, is it just me, or did journalists start liking the deal more for the Hornets / less for the Lakers after the deal was vetoed?
Woj/488 is a good read.
How is he going to show that players can't dictate where they want to play? By revoking one deal under very unique circumstances? This changes nothing.
I think it was a bad deal for New Orleans but it's just my opinion. Apparently Demp's peers think differently. I don't understand why Stern killed this deal but at the same time, he doesn't have to give a reason. It could be because that he hates Paul's guts or was pained that Gasol didn't want to go to Houston and it would all be valid.
Well, unless Paul and/or the Lakers actually sue the league, I think it just "works" in that the NBA is the owner of the Hornets, so it/they/Stern can veto or approve a trade just like Glen Taylor or Wyc Grousbeck could.
Lakers fans and others will howl loud and long about it if Paul goes elsewhere, but I can't really see Paul or the Lakers suing the league when it comes down to it. Certainly this on top of more revenue sharing is going to royally piss off the Buss family, but in the end, I think it will be what it is. I suppose the threat of a lawsuit or too much media blowback might change things...
And, for people talking about the merits of the deal, Norcan being the most recent, again: too linear. Demps might have had some kind of plan to move Odom, Scola, and Martin on to other teams. Hollinger's crack about Caracter and Walton showed how he was doing the same thing.
On the day Danny Ainge got Ray Allen, a lot of Boston fans on the net were pissed off--wondering what Ainge was thinking. They found out soon enough.
__________________________________________
I think--and we saw this here--once it seemed real, people wanted to see what would happen: how would the Lakers look going from the worst PG to the best and with a new system? How would they fill out the frontcourt? Could Bynum step up and stay healthy? Could Kobe share the ball? Would Pau bounce back strong, pissed off about the trade, and get Houston into post-season? Would Demps move the new guys to other teams? What happens with Howard now?
Those kinds of questions drive interest--and we always like new ones. Stern (or whoever) took those away.
Also, it again takes the focus OFF THE COURT, and EVERYONE is tired of that.
The difference was that the KG rumor popped up almost simultaneously with the Ray Allen rumor. The whole thing turned into the WTF stage after the KG trade fell through and the Celtics still went through with the Allen trade but even then, it was possible to think that the KG trade could still happen and trading for Ray could help change his mind. There was concern but at least something was out there. Ainge had someone lined up.
If Demp's intention is to trade Scola and Martin for attractive young players and/or first round picks, I'm not sure he's going to pull it off. I think Scola and Martin are fine fine players but they aren't worth promising young players and draft picks.
This situation is going to come up again tomorrow. And every day until Paul is no longer a Hornet. And how is Stern going to justify which deal he took over the one he vetoed? If Stern actually killed the deal, this mess is just getting warmed up.
At the same time, the current story doesn't make a ton of sense. It was a steep price in talent for the Lakers. At the same time, it saw the Lakers dumping huge commitments on to the Hornets (directly and by way of Houston.) The Hornets payroll- with Odom, Scola, Dragic and Martin- would go up to almost 60 million. While the Lakers payroll number would drop by eight figures, leave only a long-term commitment to Bryant, and leave them without a power forward not named Walton?
I think the trade does go through but that the pieces are somewhat different than has been reported. I'd be a little surprised if the current narrative is the actual one.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main