Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, December 02, 2011

NBA THREAD DECEMBER: POST-LOCKOUT

With the lockout over, I estimate that there may be more than 10-12 Primates who want to talk about the NBA, and with our own thread, we won’t detract from what this site is really about: fractional reserve banking, and Tim Tebow.

robinred Posted: December 02, 2011 at 12:26 AM | 3254 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: general

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.

Page 6 of 33 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›
   501. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:44 AM (#4011200)
The difference was that the KG rumor popped up almost simultaneously with the Ray Allen rumor.


Every situation is unique, and maybe you felt that way, but I heard from/saw Celtics' and that day who didn't get it and were pissed off.

If you don't like the deal from NO's POV, that's fine but:

a) We don't know what was going to happen next.
b) Based on everything we know, Demps wanted to move Paul to LAC or GS but couldn't get the young guard he wanted. Failing that, he tried to put together a team of guys who are pretty good, would be in the playoff mix, and have some trade value.

You can say Demps should have waited, played chicken with the Clippers and the Warriors, but there are good reasons not to.

And let's face it--your emotions are in play here. The Lakers not getting Paul makes you feel better. That's OK, too, but most people, even those who hate the Lakers as much as you do, are not giving Stern as much slack on this as you seem to be.
   502. Norcan Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:44 AM (#4011201)
This situation is going to come up again tomorrow. And every day until Paul is no longer a Hornet.


I was writing in reference to Stern supposedly trying to show ALL the players that they can't dictate where they want to play. He can dictate where Paul gets to play because he's invested with quasi-owner powers (or at least he is the spokesman to an owner's majority opinion), but he's not going to be able to do the same with Howard. No way does he try to pull this again. If Griffin a few years from now decides he doesn't want to re-sign with the Clippers, Stern won't be able to do anything about that either. And so on.

I agree, if these three teams tweak the deal and re-submit, I'm not sure Stern turns it down. On the other hand, if he's working on the directive of irate owners who under no circumstances want Paul to end up with the Lakers unless Bynum is included, taking Howard out of the future picture, then there may be nothing to be done about it.
   503. The District Attorney Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:47 AM (#4011203)
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.
He doesn't technically "have to" give any reasons, no... but realistically, he does "have to" justify his actions in the sense that he needs to continue to have the credibility to run the league, and nobody is going to support a person who doesn't even attempt to explain why he does what he does.

Dan Gilbert's email to Stern.
"When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?" Stay classy, Dan... I hope the e-mail was in Comic Sans.
   504. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:47 AM (#4011204)
The alleged email is worth seeing:

Commissioner,

It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.

This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets.

Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing.

I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesn’t appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.) When the Lakers got Pau Gasol (at the time considered an extremely lopsided trade) they took on tens of millions in additional salary and luxury tax and they gave up a number of prospects (one in Marc Gasol who may become a max-salary player).

I just don’t see how we can allow this trade to happen.

I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do.

When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?
   505. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:48 AM (#4011205)
test--Making sure I didn't jack up the formatting.
   506. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:49 AM (#4011206)
Houston's plan was to clear cap space for a run at Nene, correct?
   507. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:51 AM (#4011208)
Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing.
"How dare the Lakers try to take money out of my pocket!"
   508. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:52 AM (#4011211)
Meanwhile, Broussard reports Howard wants to go to NJ/Brooklyn. Magic would get Lopez, Farmar and 2 1st-rounders.
   509. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:53 AM (#4011213)
Meanwhile, Broussard reports Howard wants to go to NJ/Brooklyn. Magic would get Lopez, Farmar and 2 1st-rounders.


Makes sense. Maybe that would help Gilbert relax enough to let the Lakers get Paul.
   510. Norcan Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:55 AM (#4011215)
If you don't like the deal from NO's POV, that's fine but:

a) We don't know what was going to happen next.


I'm not saying I do. I'm simply stating that if Demps took on Scola and Martin because his grand plan was to later flip them for building block young players and first round picks, I don't think that was a very good idea. Hey, I know I'm not a plugged-in insider but it would really surprise me if Scola and Martin had that kind of trade value. Scola is 31 and Martin is going to be 29 in early January. It would be dumb to trade youth and first round picks that aren't in the 20s for them.

If I was Demps, I would have traded for Patterson instead of Scola.
   511. tshipman Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:58 AM (#4011216)
Dan Gilbert can eat a dick.
   512. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:00 AM (#4011218)
I was writing in reference to Stern supposedly trying to show ALL the players that they can't dictate where they want to play.

Got it. I agree with you there.
   513. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:05 AM (#4011219)
I'm simply stating that if Demps took on Scola and Martin because his grand plan was to later flip them for building block young players and first round picks, I don't think that was a very good idea.


It depends on what you mean by "building block players" and how high the picks are. It is also possible that being a second-tier playoff team was the goal and he thought NO could make make money in that scenario. Maybe he liked the contracts of the guys he was getting and thought he could offload them. Hard to say.

The best thing to get for Paul was a young guard. Gordon, Westbrook, and Curry apparently were not on the table. Your argument appears to be that Demps, not getting guys like that, should have waited. But, to move Paul, he was/is probably going to have to take back a a fairly high salary--like, for example, Chris Kaman, who was in the Clippers' offer. There is also the salary floor to think about, long-term. NO only has six guys under contract right now. As long as tow of them are Paul and Okafor, that's not an issue. But it could be.
   514. Norcan Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:18 AM (#4011222)
It depends on what you mean by "building block players" and how high the picks are.


Not Avery Bradley, let's get that out of the way.

If Demps made the trade he did because he wanted New Orleans to make money in the short-term and was also concerned about reaching the salary floor, well, one, that's a pretty short-sighted way to handle the trading of your mega-franchise star and two, those are business decisions that would have come down from the league office and I highly doubt that it happened.

Who knows, maybe the trade would have worked out brilliantly for Demps, including later getting a high return for Scola and Martin but I just think that if you're going to trade your young superstar and basically start over, you should start over. At the very least, the youth to veteran ratio shouldn't be 1:3.
   515. Tripon Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:22 AM (#4011225)
The league might have been better off with the lock out still happening.
   516. tshipman Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:30 AM (#4011229)
Also, has no one made a joke about the Knicks using the amnesty clause on that Tyson Chandler contract?
   517. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:45 AM (#4011233)
Dan Gilbert can eat a dick.

Sure. But at the price he's likely to charge- and the interest rate on top of that- it's probably not worth it.

My uninformed prediction for tomorrow is that the fight is over whether the Lakers get Scola (which they want) or Okafor (which 29 other owners want.) If Paul isn't in LA in short order, things are going to get ugly.
   518. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:12 AM (#4011237)
Dan Gilbert can eat a dick.


I think there is a chance the email is a fake--seems like it would be easy enough to do.

In some ways, the veto of the deal is just a continuation of the lockout. I guess I hope the Paul deal goes through and Howard gets traded to Brooklyn.
   519. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:16 AM (#4011238)
Los Angeles Lakers coach Phil Jackson, in town to play the Hornets on Wednesday, voiced his displeasure with the transaction.

"Not happy about that," Jackson said, when asked about the purchase.

"Who's going to trade who to whom? Who's going to pull the button on trading player or when Chris [Paul] says he has to be traded? How's that going to go? I don't know. Somebody's going to have to make a very nonjudgmental decision on that part that's not going to irritate anybody else in this league ... I don't know how they're going to do that."


Dec 30, 2010
   520. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:23 AM (#4011241)
Hornets' blogger (Hornets 24/7)

Look – I have a mixed feelings about the trade itself. If it does actually go through, I’ll have all the time in the world to talk about it, but instead I want to say my piece about the blocking of the trade.

I’m infuriated. How can I have any faith in my team’s ability to make changes and move forward now? My team’s General Manager cannot make a deal unless all of his opponents agree it is the right trade! If they carry through with blocking this trade, the NBA has shattered the Hornets ability to get a decent deal for Paul. The good teams like the Celtics (and Lakers) now can’t be sure that whatever they do offer for Paul won’t be nixed by some coterie of owners with their panties in a bunch – so why should they risk alienating their own players for a deal they have no control over? The lesser teams can now sit back and sneer at the Hornets offers because the one major bit of leverage the Hornets had – good offers on the table by the Celtics and Lakers – has been wrecked.
   521. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:30 AM (#4011245)
Danny Granger on Twitter:

Due to the sabotaging of the LA/NO trade by david stern, and following in the footsteps of my athlete brethern Metta World Peace and Chad Ochocinco, I'm changing my last name to "Stern's Bi#&h" #effectiveimmediately
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: dgranger33 using Ubersocial
   522. smileyy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:42 AM (#4011247)
[516] I made the joke about the Clippers and the Butler contract.
   523. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:43 AM (#4011248)
Going to be an interesting first day on the job for Mike Brown.
   524. Norcan Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:58 AM (#4011250)
Besides Paul, what about the Knicks' plan to sign Chandler and amnesty Billups in the process? Word is that Billups has left the team facility and gone back home to Denver. I'm not sure from a personnel perspective that I can fault the Knicks here. Sure they seemed to have the advantage in free agency for Paul but there was risk that Paul would never make it to free agency. In getting Chandler, they're committing to win with Carmelo and Stoudemire, two guys who wanted to be there (although maybe Stoudemire did only for the max money but still) and trying to find the best pieces around them. The no.1 weakness with a Stoudemire and Carmelo led team is always going to be defense and Chandler, with his superb rebounding and defense, backstops Carmelo and Stoudemire well. I'm not saying it's out of player loyalty but it carries the whiff of it if your inclined to think so and I like that.

On the other hand, there's no player loyalty with Billups. They shafted him pretty good. It could work out well for him though if no teams bids on his contract and he can sign with the Heat. I would not be in favor of that scenario, nor should Bulls fans. I'm not sure why Cuban is against signing and trading Chandler for Billups. Their salaries match up and since Billups's contract expires after this season, he would still retain the precious cap space he seems determined to hold out for Deron. Getting Billups would push Kidd to guarding 2-guards full-time, which he's best at, and create a pretty devastating lineup of shooters.
   525. Norcan Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:07 AM (#4011255)
I also hope the Celtics' chances of getting Paul are still alive. Since Stern technically vetoed the three-team deal for basketball reasons, he could also approve the trade for basketball reasons. When you're that vague, anything can go. And really, what better way to show that the LEAGUE not the PLAYERS dictate where players play than by sending Paul to a place he doesn't want to go?

Unfortunately, if Paul has to go to Boston kicking and screaming then I fear that the chances of him re-signing would be very very tiny.
   526. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:09 AM (#4011262)
I will set aside some of the numerous snarky comments that come to mind and just ask Norcan a simple question: do you think Stern did the right thing by vetoing the deal? Or are you just being sarcastic by suggesting as much? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

There is room for disagreement about the basketball reasons behind what Demps did, and it is precisely because of that that I think it is clear that Stern f'd up. If one of Mitch Kupchak's old roomies on the early 80s Lakers ran NO and traded Paul for Blake, Walton, World Peace, and Ebanks, then (duh) Stern needs to veto that and fire the guy.

But Paul for Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom?
   527. J. Sosa Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:18 PM (#4011277)
I think the league had to nix the deal. Cuban was already making noises last season about the absurdity of partially owning the Hornets while the team made deals that could knock the primary team he owned out of the playoffs. If you are Cuban or any other owner, they should have a say in what the Hornets do. That’s the problem with having a league owned team, you open yourself to criticism to that the enterprise is rigged, something the NBA is already susceptible to. The league owns the Hornets. If a plurality of owners are against the deal, them’s the breaks. They own the team.

As for the “basketball reasons” part of the deal, I don’t know. I always over estimate how much a team can get for a superstar on his way out. I’ve seen a number of league experts say New Orleans got a good deal, but I don’t see it. Three 30ish guys on pretty sizable money. So New Orleans finishes middle of the pack and loses in the second round while having no cap space and no high draft picks. Yay?

For the final part of it, the angle many sports reporters are pursuing is the “sticking it to the Lakers” angle. I suppose there is something to that. I’m not going to lie, the wailing coming from ESPNLA and other parts of Lakerland sounds very much like a 9 year old girl screeching that she didn’t receive a pony this year like every other birthday. I would say it also gives some idea of how good of a basketball deal New Orleans got, with all respect Robinred.

The league should have foreseen this was going to be an issue, as the quote from Phil Jackson illustrates. I’m not sure what they could have done, but I don’t think they could have handled it any worse. It never should have gotten to this point, but the other owners should have a say, and if they shot it down, even out of spite, that is their right given league ownership of the team. If Stern doesn't want scenarios like this one, don't let people run franchises into the ground.
   528. jmurph Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:48 PM (#4011281)
I feel like my Laker-hating credentials are solid, but this is a joke. I'll echo whoever predicted on the previous page that this will eventually go through. Some money here, a minor player-change there, surely Stern will see the credibility of the entire league is on the line here (and I don't think that's hyperbole).

Also, whether he had any impact on this or not: Dan Gilbert is a pox on humanity. He's a classic Aggrieved White Man with the added benefit of a couple hundred million dollars, just to make him more obnoxious.
   529. NJ in DC (Now unemployed!) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 03:22 PM (#4011296)
Wow...a lot's happened since I left the thread.

As for the “basketball reasons” part of the deal, I don’t know. I always over estimate how much a team can get for a superstar on his way out. I’ve seen a number of league experts say New Orleans got a good deal, but I don’t see it. Three 30ish guys on pretty sizable money. So New Orleans finishes middle of the pack and loses in the second round while having no cap space and no high draft picks. Yay?

When I first heard about the deal, I focused on the LAL aspect of it and how I didn't think it necessarily improved them and I was fine with it. However, now that I see who all was supposed to be involved, I think it makes sense for both HOU and NOH (still don't see it for the LAL). For as good as Paul is (I think he's a Top 5 guy on the merits and my 2nd favorite player) it's not as if he was consistently guiding NOH deep into the playoffs. This deal would have given NOH a full lineup that would probably make the playoffs and get knocked out in the 1st round, which is pretty much what the Paul-era has consisted of. So, I get it for them. For HOU, assuming what I read somewhere was correct and they would still be able to add Nene and then have a Nene-Gasol frontcourt, it makes perfect sense IMO. For LAL, I think it makes them too small and susceptible to injury, which if I were a LAL fan I would be concerned about (assuming the Knicks' request to have injury/player fatigue setting turned off doesn't go through)

On the potential Howard to NJ stuff, I may be naive but I think you have to get more than Brook Lopez and crap for Howard. How good are those draft picks that are being included?
   530. nick swisher hygiene Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:07 PM (#4011327)
I think the league had to nix the deal. Cuban was already making noises last season about the absurdity of partially owning the Hornets while the team made deals that could knock the primary team he owned out of the playoffs. If you are Cuban or any other owner, they should have a say in what the Hornets do. That’s the problem with having a league owned team, you open yourself to criticism to that the enterprise is rigged, something the NBA is already susceptible to. The league owns the Hornets. If a plurality of owners are against the deal, them’s the breaks. They own the team.

--I don't follow this paragraph. The best way of minimizing the "absurdity" is for the Hornets to make good deals. Gasol and Odom are both better players than anybody else involved in the Carmelo deal (####, you could argue Gasol is a better player than Melo, though I kinda feel Gasol's statistical greatness is Laker-specific and he will disappoint wherever else he goes).
Think about it this way: you have to give up a top 10 player (Paul). Everybody in the NBA knows you never want to trade your quarter for a bunch of dimes and nickels. How many players better than Gasol are even in the league? Were the Hornets supposed to sit and wait for somebody to offer them their next ten first-rounders or something?
   531. Hexx Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:12 PM (#4011328)
Gasol wasn't going to the Hornets. He was going to Houston.
   532. Paul D(uda) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:23 PM (#4011334)
Nothing to do with this trade, but the group that owns the Raptors (and the Maple Leafs and the Air Canada Centre) just sold its 80% stake for $1.2 billion to two conglomerates, one of who is Rogers, who own the Jays.
   533. nick swisher hygiene Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:27 PM (#4011337)
531--sure, but point is that Lakers were willing to give up talent of his level.
   534. J. Sosa Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:28 PM (#4011339)
Re: 530

As 531 points out Gasol was going to the Rockets. Thats beside the point though which is what I was trying to get at. LA could have traded a cloned Kareem and a resurrected Wilt and it wouldn't change the image problem the NBA has in a league owned team trading a superstar to the NBA's flagship franchise. That is and was a huge problem. There is the perception problem as well as the owner problem. Take Cuban for example. He let Chandler go, presumably to take a run at a free agent like CP3 next year. He has spent a lot of time and money on the Mavs. Why would he approve a Paul trade to LA from a crappily run team that he partially owns? I'm not in any way saying the trade being blocked is not bad. It makes the NBA look like a yahoo roto league. But the owners' reaction was predictable and the conspiracy theories that would abound following a trade of Paul to LA is also predictable.

Apologies for any communication problems, on mobile.
   535. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:29 PM (#4011340)
If I'm the league, I think long and hard about using the luck of your ownership to put a star to the test of whether he's really willing to forego the extra year and extra $25M. Make him play the contract out, make it clear there will be no sign and trades, and make him actually leave the money on the table.

It's the only leverage the held-up markets have, the league is well-placed to absorb the blow if he leaves, and if he takes the money and stays, you've set a precedent and stiffened the spines of the next "small market" that gets held hostage.

If you're going to go to all the trouble of negotiating a CBA with a big home team advantage, you have to be willing to enforce the advantage.

The league's f'd things up badly to date, but if they come out with this objective and this strategy, it's a net positive.
   536. Ignatius J. Reilly Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:30 PM (#4011342)
Assuming litigation isn't successful--the endgame is Paul signing wherever the hell he wants anyway.

So, the NBA is gonna take the huge PR hit and antagonize some of its best assets (I'd imagine LeBron/Melo/Wade/etc. . . will rally around CP3) to deprive one of their top players of an extra couple million per season.
   537. The District Attorney Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:31 PM (#4011343)
I’ve seen a number of league experts say New Orleans got a good deal, but I don’t see it. Three 30ish guys on pretty sizable money. So New Orleans finishes middle of the pack and loses in the second round while having no cap space and no high draft picks. Yay?
But when the league owns a team, isn't it inevitable that it's going to pursue an extremely risk-averse strategy with it? It would be even more of a mess if the league decided "this team can't win the championship, so let's utterly raze the roster" a la the 1899 Cleveland Spiders or 1998 Florida Marlins. It might make more basketball sense in the abstract to do so, but I don't think you can realistically do it.
   538. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:33 PM (#4011346)
But when the league owns a team, isn't it inevitable that it's going to pursue an extremely risk-averse strategy with it? It would be even more of a mess if the league decided "this team can't win the championship, so let's utterly raze the roster" a la the 1899 Cleveland Spiders or 1998 Florida Marlins. It might make more basketball sense in the abstract to do so, but I don't think you can realistically do it.

Billy Hunter should have made sure the Hornets situation was covered in the CBA and that the league suits wouldn't be able to veto (or even influence) bona fide basketball decisions, and that disputes in the area would be handled by a delineated arbitration process empowered to make quick, basketball-only decisions. That was a f up on his part.
   539. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:40 PM (#4011354)
   540. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:44 PM (#4011359)
That sucks.

Class act.

Game 3 against the Mavs was a classic performance.
   541. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:50 PM (#4011366)
   542. Fanshawe Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:57 PM (#4011373)
Report: Suns to send Mickael Pietrus to Raptors for second round pick.


Over Dan Gilbert's dead body.
   543. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:08 PM (#4011388)
The league also should have put into the CBA a provision that any team that loses a max free agent gets an exception worth what would have been their full Bird rights on the one they lost. So if CP3 leaves for 4/74, the Hornets get an exception for 5/100. With proper and simple provisions to prevent abuse, of course (team has to have had the max guy for set period of time, team has to make 5/100 qualifying offer, etc.)

Right there's your best "competitive balance" provision, and it was so simple ....
   544. jmurph Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:22 PM (#4011404)
Thinking about this more: they really just have to let this go through, maybe with some cash thrown in, or another draft pick ending up in New Orleans, just to save face. But:

1. They can't possibly approve a trade to another team. That would destroy the league's credibility with several owners/GMs/fanbases.
2. They can't possibly hold onto him and let him walk for nothing- that would cripple the Hornets's ability to rebuild.

What are the options?
   545. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:29 PM (#4011414)
Maybe he won't walk. $26M's a lot of coin.
   546. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:35 PM (#4011421)
I'm way behind on this thread, but I cannot believe what the NBA has done here. Just ridiculous. I hope Paul's agents continue to make as big of a deal about this as possible. It's just absurd.

If Paul doesn't show up for camp things are going to get really ugly, which sucks not only in that we won't get to watch him play basketball, but because he seems like one of the league's genuinely good guys and now he's caught in this mess.

I always hesitate to call anyone a "good guy", we just never know what's a public personality and what's real. I'm not assuming everyone is a secret #######, but I'm not going to put anyone on a pedestal either (this is something I'm going to have to work on as I introduce my son to sports, so I've been thinking about it a lot). I have read some good stuff about Paul, too, and I have no reason to assume he's got some secret demon waiting to come out. Having said all that, he's a nut-puncher.

Dan Gilbert can eat a dick.

Well-said.

---

Sorry to hear about Roy. I am still pissed the Bulls took Tyrus Thomas instead of him, even knowing that his career ends today.

---

I said before I kinda wanted Howard to go to NJ/Brooklyn. That offer is going to have to be sweetened, because we know multiple teams (including the Lakers now) can beat that easily.
   547. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:40 PM (#4011427)
Hey, I know I'm not a plugged-in insider but it would really surprise me if Scola and Martin had that kind of trade value. Scola is 31 and Martin is going to be 29 in early January.


I think Martin will age well. His game reminds me of Reggie Miller/Ray Allen, who both have been effective well into their 30s.
   548. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:42 PM (#4011432)
1. They can't possibly approve a trade to another team. That would destroy the league's credibility with several owners/GMs/fanbases.
2. They can't possibly hold onto him and let him walk for nothing- that would cripple the Hornets's ability to rebuild.


1. Agree.
2. Maybe they're hoping they sell the team before it gets to that point, and the team gets more money with him still around. Then it's the new owner's problem (of course, they will know going into it that Paul is not sticking around; but maybe they can provide insight into what type of package they'd want back; not everyone agrees a 6 seed and out in the playoffs is a worse strategy than young guys/picks/hope for the best).
   549. Ignatius J. Reilly Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:10 PM (#4011474)
Even if the NBA can find new ownership--that's a big if--good luck getting the pieces of a $300MM deal into place before the trade deadline.
   550. andrewberg Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:12 PM (#4011481)
Regarding a possible lawsuit: Paul is going to have a really tough time proving anything that would make a case. Stern speaks for the 29 owners and they own the team. Owners can and do block trades for dumb reasons all the time. It's not illegal; it's just stupid. The only course of action i can imagine is if they made some special stewardship agreement with Demps stipulating that he will not face league interference in running the team, and a jury found that the league arbitrarily violated its self-imposed rule. Then again, I have no idea why the league would make such a rule
   551. andrewberg Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:14 PM (#4011487)
I just want to reiterate that the reason for the backlash was that everyone that isn't a Lakers, Rockets, or Hornets fan looked at the trade and said, "Wait, they're getting Paul without giving up Bynum? That means they're getting Howard too! #### that!" If you read between the lines, I think that's what Gilbert is saying. Nobody really cares about the "basketball reasons" for this trade, there is just a large number of people who don't want the Lakers to get Paul AND Bynum.
   552. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:16 PM (#4011490)
I am still wondering if Gilbert's email was real.

But the key to me is that while one can argue, as Norcan does, that NO should have gotten young guys, the deal is not some kind of joke deal that requires league intervention, so if Demps wanted it done, the league should have let it go through. If the Hornets were just run by a regular owner, and the guy said, "I'm not comfortable", then, OK. That is not the context here.

The OMFG NOW THE F'ING LAKERS WILL GET DWIGHT HOWARD argument is OK on a message board, but not as a matter of league policy.

I have heard rumors, perhaps false, that Cuban, having just seen his team sweep the Lakers and win the trophy, was one of the prime movers against the deal. If so, I think less of Cuban as an owner/competitor now.
   553. Fourth True Outcome Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:17 PM (#4011491)
Maybe they're hoping they sell the team before it gets to that point


The only possible way the league's move here is remotely defensible would be if they managed to sell the Hornets before the trade deadline, so that the new ownership could rebuild as it saw fit. Otherwise, they've locked themselves and the Hornets into a position where, unless they sheepishly let the trade through in a revised form, they can't fairly move him anywhere. The move was transparently ham-fisted, and there's no real road to graceful resolution here.

Sad to see Brandon Roy have to retire, though I'm not really surprised it came to this. I have been pretty apprehensive about the reports that came out recently about how they not only weren't going to amnesty him this season, but that he might start. He's one of those guys whose body denied him the career he should have had, but that guy is long gone. I'm glad he's walking away now with his head up. I hope his knees are shot for basketball but still fine for normal activity.
   554. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:24 PM (#4011504)
It's not illegal; it's just stupid.

Yep.
   555. andrewberg Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:35 PM (#4011517)
He's one of those guys whose body denied him the career he should have had


Crazy how many of those guys have been Blazers- Walton, Bowie, Roy, maybe Oden.

The OMFG NOW THE F'ING LAKERS WILL GET DWIGHT HOWARD argument is OK on a message board, but not as a matter of league policy.


Totally agree. In a perfect world, the league isn't run by petulant brats. Not a perfect world.
   556. Jimmy P Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:37 PM (#4011522)
Hey guys, haven't been around this week. My wife and I had our first kid last weekend, so things have been hectic. I've not been at work, so I'm not here to talk ball. Go figure.

Portland is sad with the rumor of Brandon Roy. At least it explains why they wouldn't use the amnesty.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a commish in sports doing more damage to their reputation than David Stern these last few weeks. Even Bettman isn't as loathed by NHL fans anymore as Stern is getting.
   557. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:42 PM (#4011531)
If you read between the lines, I think that's what Gilbert is saying.

It's not between the lines:

And it doesn’t appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.)
   558. andrewberg Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:53 PM (#4011553)
Hey guys, haven't been around this week. My wife and I had our first kid last weekend, so things have been hectic. I've not been at work, so I'm not here to talk ball. Go figure.


Congrats! Good luck with the next few weeks/months.
   559. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:56 PM (#4011562)
I saw a tweet passing along Stern's reason - too clever by half - for shooting down any appeal: It wasn't the NBA killing the deal, but the Hornets.

This, if true, makes me furious.
   560. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:57 PM (#4011564)
So, fwiw, Bill Simmons just posted about this and there are a few tidbits worth noting.
a) He confirmed the Gilbert letter as real and made the same comic sans joke as someone upthread.
b) Nene was close with Houston

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7334835/the-sixth-day-nba-christmas

Hey guys, haven't been around this week. My wife and I had our first kid last weekend, so things have been hectic. I've not been at work, so I'm not here to talk ball. Go figure.


Congrats!!!
   561. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:58 PM (#4011568)
Hey guys, haven't been around this week. My wife and I had our first kid last weekend, so things have been hectic.

Congrats!!!! Good stuff ahead.
   562. J. Sosa Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:00 PM (#4011570)
re:552

I'd have to disagree. There are many reasons to dislike Cuban as a competitor, but I don't think this is one of them. He had every right to protest at the Hornets taking on salary last year and he was within his rights to raise a stink here.

League owned teams lead to competition being compromised, whether its the Expos or the Hornets. You get the pillage the farm system to win now Bartolo type trades from Minaya and you get situations like this one. For the record I think the Hornets GM was doing his best, I just think in the trade a superstar situation you are better off blowing it up. But people like Cuban and Jackson saw this coming last year. Nothing was done. It is stupefying that it got to the point of Demps making a trade and Stern giving the veto. It should never have gotten to that point. I'm not sure what the solution what other than to have a buyer or contract the team. But I'm pretty sure waiting to the last minute and then pushing the self destruct button wasn't the best option, which everyone seems to agree on. I just disagree with the notion that it is realistic to expect the owners to join hands on a deal involving a league owned team.

On an unrelated note, has anyone read Simmons' article? Ugh. I'm not sure why anyone would bother with his vision of the NBA. When your vision of the NBA makes the Premiere League look like a bastion of parity, you've got issues.

edit: krusty beat me to the Simmons article
   563. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:00 PM (#4011573)
To add to the sh!tstorm, Twitterverse alight with seemingly well-reported story that Howard met with Prokhorov and King last night without Orlando's knowledge.

Which is plainly tampering, which means Stern may have grounds to step in and block any trade that ensues.

Well played, Nets. Well played.
   564. Jimmy P Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:02 PM (#4011577)
Just read the Gilbert email. Wow. So, what did the lockout accomplish? It seems the lockout was more about the big markets vs. the small markets, and they did nothing to even address that. Good job, NBA.
   565. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:08 PM (#4011588)
If Nets did tamper, what is a likely punishment? The rest of Joe Smith's deal was voided, and the Wolves were fined draft picks and money. If this is true, I don't see how the NBA can let Howard go to the Nets either now in a trade or in free agency.
   566. Maxwn Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:11 PM (#4011591)
I don't know why all you crybabies are so upset about this deal getting canceled. I know why I and all the real fans watch the league and that is to see David Stern commission(commissionerize?, commissionerate?). I mean, if it wasn't for this, we would be talking about basketball teams and players today instead of the commissioner, and who wants that?
   567. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:17 PM (#4011600)
Aldridge reporting that Magic filing tampering charges against two teams -- Nets, and likely Rockets.

Stern has to assume discussions involved: (1) the team sweet-talking Howard to make a demand to be traded to specifically their team; and (2) an agreement that he would sign with them in free agency. First is bad, second is terrible -- direct circumvention of CBA.

Paul case isn't really precedent, but it effectively is. Can't see Stern letting Howard for Brook Lopez-centered pupu platter go through if tampering true.
   568. Der-K thinks the Essex Green were a good band. Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:23 PM (#4011609)
   569. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:27 PM (#4011613)
big baby to orl for brandon bass

congrats, jimmy!
why would orlando do that? bass is a significantly better player.
   570. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:27 PM (#4011615)
On an unrelated note, has anyone read Simmons' article? Ugh. I'm not sure why anyone would bother with his vision of the NBA. When your vision of the NBA makes the Premiere League look like a bastion of parity, you've got issues.


I didn't think it was bad until it got to the end and the Lakers/Knicks mystique stuff. Then it flew completely off the rails.
   571. Maxwn Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:29 PM (#4011617)
I just disagree with the notion that it is realistic to expect the owners to join hands on a deal involving a league owned team.

The solution to this is not to allow the other owners to have input onto the basketball moves of one of their competitors. So what if they own the team now? What they are getting out of owning the team is the preservation of one of their markets and more time to find a buyer at a price that they want. They should not have been allowed to make any decisions about the basketball decisions because 1) it's collusive 2) it looks terrible for the integrity of the league 3) it is very dangerous to the future value of the Hornets.

And if you read Wojnarowksi's article, you'll see that that is exactly what everyone thought they had done. They appointed some guy as the Team President and Demps was supposed to report only to him. Demps supposedly had full authority to make decisions on the team as long as he didn't get into the tax. All of the execs who were dealing with him thought he had authority to speak for the Hornets. Then Stern and the owners upset all of that at the eleventh hour. It is absolutely reasonable to expect the owners and Stern to realize that they can't micromanage the team that is one of their competitors, even though they have take over ownership. It's a huge conflict of interest and a betrayal of the fans and the entire idea of a competitive sports league.

A commissioner who was really looking out for the best interests of the league would have allowed the leadership he had put in place to run the team as they saw fit. The other owners should have realized that was the only way for the situation to be tenable. The fact that some of them are too stupid/spoiled to realize that means that they deserve all the criticism they are getting on this deal.
   572. Fourth True Outcome Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:29 PM (#4011619)
Seriously how dumb are the Nets (and Dwight's team) for pulling this kind of stunt, especially on the heels of the CP3 mess? How could the benefits possibly make the risk of it blowing up like this worth it?

On the Big Baby/Bass front, I really like the move for the C's. Bass is exactly the kind of big man they need. I'm not sure why Orlando is doing it, but they've been underusing Bass for a while, so I guess it's not shocking.

Congrats, Jimmy!
   573. The Pequod Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:33 PM (#4011623)
I don't follow the NBA very closely, but does this seem like a perverse result of the salary cap and max contracts to anyone else? I can't get past this thought:

We just saw Albert Pujols go to LA, and while there has been some predictable hand-wringing, the broad consensus among the baseball "intelligentsia" is that Anaheim is very likely to regret the deal's cost and length. You could say the same about just about every big time free agent in MLB.

Max contracts put an artificial cap on cost and length (risk) - just about 30 out of 30 teams would give LeBron, Wade, Paul, Howard, etc the contracts that they got or are going to get. Nobody can offer a foolish amount of money or years, so of course they choose the best destinations. Why would anyone ever play in Cleveland beyond his rookie contract? You can draw analogies to the Indians, but they could keep one superstar around if they really wanted to by offering him stupid $ and years (see the Twins and Mauer).

How much value did the Cavs franchise lose when LeBron left? 4 times the max amount that the team was allowed to offer him? More? What sense does that make?

You might say that the Heat would've just offered even more, which is true. LeBron almost definitely would've left anyway. But you'd at least be forcing difficult decisions on all parties and potentially hamstring Miami if the deal doesn't work out. As-is, there's no difficult decision to be made by anyone involved -- they're all just left waiting for the inevitable*.

But Dan Gilbert, of course, is focused on the other side -- manipulating the free agent market even more to keep stars from fleeing undesirable teams. It seems like it's just not going to happen unless you can go as far as not having free agency at all or introducing the concept of franchise players, which is unrealistic.

* Which is why I find Darren Rovell's tweets about the Hornets having more value with CP3 unusually simplistic. He says they need to keep Paul for the next year so that they can save fans' goodwill. If I were a Hornets fan, I'd already be some mix of bummed and outraged that there is literally nothing my team can do to have any hope of keeping its superstar -- in other words, the goodwill would be gone.
   574. NJ in DC (Now unemployed!) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:34 PM (#4011624)
Big Baby to ORL in a S&T. I think Howard might stay now.

EDIT: Guess I should have submit a lot earlier.
   575. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:34 PM (#4011625)
Seriously how dumb are the Nets (and Dwight's team) for pulling this kind of stunt, especially on the heels of the CP3 mess? How could the benefits possibly make the risk of it blowing up like this worth it?

Really, really ####### stupid. Supposedly Howard changed agents from ex-agent to his dad ... wonder if somehow related?

Stern doesn't even need to frontally attack to kill the deal; all he needs to do is freeze the Nets' draft picks -- the ones going to Orlando -- pending completion of investigation, and it's over.
   576. Der-K thinks the Essex Green were a good band. Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:37 PM (#4011628)
why get davis?: otis smith isn't a very good gm.
nets tampering: really stupid indeed.

rovell: i saw someone describe themselves as "hate-following" him (on twitter). i think that's about right.
   577. Maxwn Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:45 PM (#4011640)
I don't follow the NBA very closely, but does this seem like a perverse result of the salary cap and max contracts to anyone else?

Yes. I am a fan of one of the smallest-market teams in the league, so I guess I'm supposed to be in favor of all this cap nonsense, but I have long felt that the net result of the cap, tax, max deals, and all the different contract rules is pretty negative for the small market teams and does essentially none of the stuff that the owners/league say and many of the fans believe that it does.

It seems to me that you can propose nearly any rule and say it is to improve competitive balance, and a lot of fans will just assume that it actually does so.
   578. andrewberg Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:51 PM (#4011645)
WhitlockJason Jason Whitlock
David Stern overrules Prez Lincoln, voids emancipation proclamation. Bryant Gumbel cackling & rolling blunt on Underground Railraod 2 Canada

I think if you poled the posters here, the majority would support eliminating the max salary ceiling.
   579. J. Sosa Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:53 PM (#4011648)
re: 571

Fair enough Maxwn. I think the ship sailed on competitive integrity awhile ago, but if Demps was given the authority to make a good faith effort to run the team by the owners, that's even worse than I thought. I hadn't realized how much authority he was given. If the owners agreed to let Demps run the team and are reneging, that's ugly. I wonder if it was put to a vote at the time and some owners were against it?
   580. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:53 PM (#4011650)
Hey guys, haven't been around this week. My wife and I had our first kid last weekend, so things have been hectic. I've not been at work, so I'm not here to talk ball. Go figure.

Yes, Congrats. We just passed the 4 month mark, and it's been great so far. Enjoy. I assume you named the child Tyrus, regardless of the sex.

To add to the sh!tstorm, Twitterverse alight with seemingly well-reported story that Howard met with Prokhorov and King last night without Orlando's knowledge.

Which is plainly tampering, which means Stern may have grounds to step in and block any trade that ensues.

Well played, Nets. Well played.


Unreal.

---

It almost looks like FTO and Der congratulating Jimmy on the Big Baby trade; I'm sure he hates Davis.
   581. jmurph Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:03 PM (#4011659)
On an unrelated note, has anyone read Simmons' article? Ugh. I'm not sure why anyone would bother with his vision of the NBA. When your vision of the NBA makes the Premiere League look like a bastion of parity, you've got issues.


Simmons has a different "vision" of the league every other day. He is relatively consistent on the big market/historical team/city thing, but then the next day he seems to want restricted player movement.

Also, can we please stop pretending the lockout was about anything other than reducing the share of revenue that the players get?
   582. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:04 PM (#4011661)
If, instead of being Dan Gilbert, Dan Gilbert had wrote an e-mail to David Stern that basically said, "how on earth can the Hornets trade Chris Paul and not force the team picking him up to take on the awful Okafor contract. Particularly so when the team picking up Paul is the Lakers." Would anyone really disagree with that basic point?
   583. NJ in DC (Now unemployed!) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:04 PM (#4011662)
It almost looks like FTO and Der congratulating Jimmy on the Big Baby trade; I'm sure he hates Davis.

Yeah, this is what I thought at first. Anyway, I'll extend my congratulations to Jimmy as well.

EDIT: Am I crazy to now want the Knicks to figure out a way to get Baron Davis?
   584. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:06 PM (#4011665)
ESPNSteinLine: NBA teams informed of key dates today, sources say. Window to amnesty players is Dec. 9 (today) thru Dec. 16. Trade deadline is March 15
   585. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:06 PM (#4011666)
Also, can we please stop pretending the lockout was about anything other than reducing the share of revenue that the players get?
Of course, but Danny-Boy's reaction makes me wonder if he was dumb enough to buy the crap Stern was selling.

It seems the owners, before OKing the lockout, had a decision to make: Parity, or Money. It's obvious which path they chose, but now some owners are ######## they didn't get both.
   586. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:15 PM (#4011674)
Reading Simmons' column now.


we just watched FIVE teams have their seasons screwed up by this debacle. Houston's three-year plan just went up in smoke; now the Rockets have to make up with their two best players. (Good luck with that.) The Lakers need to determine if their relationship with the notoriously sensitive Gasol and the even more notoriously sensitive Odom is salvageable; and if it's not, what then? The Hornets are just plain screwed. It's a basketball catastrophe for them. As for the Celtics, Pinocchio Ainge's ill-fated pursuit of Paul ruined the team's relationship with Rajon Rondo, only its best young player. Even the Knicks got screwed — supposedly they closed the deal with Tyson Chandler yesterday, never expecting Paul to become available this summer (and now they can't chase him).


The Paul trade has NOTHING to do with the Celtics or the Knicks. The Celtics weren't the only team chasing Paul that didn't get him; were the Warriors screwed? Clippers? And as we've gone over here before Chandler's deal wasn't going to stop them from chasing Paul as FA.
   587. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:18 PM (#4011679)
I like Maxwn's 571 and agree with most of it.

@ J Sosa:

Cuban was "within his rights", as is Stern. But to me, the only ways the league steps in in this situation are if:

1. They tell Demps well beforehand that "CP stays until we have an owner" and Demps doesn't adhere to that.
or
2. The deal is so heinous (Paul for Blake, Walton, Metta World Peace, and Devin Ebanks) that it's clearly rigged and any half-awake fantasy commish would shut it down.

Based on what we know, 1 is not the case, and while there is room for debate about the merits of the deal, 2 is not the case, either.

You add that to the lockout/LeBron/Melo/big/small market/Lakers context and the Gilbert email, and you have what you have.

So IMO Cuban (if in fact he "raised a stink"--that is unconfirmed) should worry about the Mavericks, let Demps worry about the Hornets, and let Stern and Silver worry about finding an owner.
   588. Howie Menckel Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:18 PM (#4011680)
Guys, don't believe everything you read.
The truth of what's going on eventually will not square with some oft-repeated reports here.
   589. The Pequod Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:20 PM (#4011682)
Simmons has a different "vision" of the league every other day. He is relatively consistent on the big market/historical team/city thing, but then the next day he seems to want restricted player movement.


He's just way too naive. He has ideas that would be good for the fans and good for the game, but can't seem to wrap his head around the business side of things and answer the question of "Why would the owners and the players would both agree to this 'great' change?"

It's just a bunch of stuff like "It's clear that the league needs at least four fewer teams" and "Teams need a way to dump obviously terrible contracts" then "Why can't we just get this done? It's all just common sense."
   590. smileyy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:22 PM (#4011687)
The fact that Emeka Okafor wasn't going to the Lakers is a point in favor of the Lakers pursuing Bynum-for-Howard. But wouldn't Okafor answer some of those questions about the Lakers frontcourt?
   591. smileyy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:25 PM (#4011693)
The accusations against Cuban are that he pulled the owner's version of the Durant, et.al's "rip" move. A distasteful, competitive-balance upsetting play that's within the rules that helps his team's chance to win. The downside to this one is that its directly impacting a guy's career.
   592. robinred Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:25 PM (#4011695)
If, instead of being Dan Gilbert, Dan Gilbert had wrote an e-mail to David Stern that basically said, "how on earth can the Hornets trade Chris Paul and not force the team picking him up to take on the awful Okafor contract. Particularly so when the team picking up Paul is the Lakers." Would anyone really disagree with that basic point?


The merits of the deal aren't the main point. And, that IS more or less what Gilbert said, except that he didn't mention Okafor by name.

Demps would have had probably had this on Opening Night:

1 Dragic/Jack
2 Martin/Belinelli
3 Ariza/?
4 Scola/Odom
5 Okafor/Gray

Again, you can argue that putting together a team of that caliber/age was not the right play by Demps in this situation. I don't think you can argue that THIS NEEDS TO BE STOPPED--unless you are afraid the Lakers were going to get Dwight Howard.
   593. DA Baracus Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:27 PM (#4011696)
Which is why I find Darren Rovell's tweets about the Hornets having more value with CP3 unusually simplistic. He says they need to keep Paul for the next year so that they can save fans' goodwill. If I were a Hornets fan, I'd already be some mix of bummed and outraged that there is literally nothing my team can do to have any hope of keeping its superstar -- in other words, the goodwill would be gone.


Rovell is misguided on this. People I know in New Orleans are irate at the trade being blocked. Everyone knows Paul is leaving, so they want something tangible in exchange for him.
   594. Starlin of the Slipstream (TRHN) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:29 PM (#4011698)
Guys, don't believe everything you read.
The truth of what's going on eventually will not square with some oft-repeated reports here.


Understandably, this sort of event makes one want to draw conclusions right away. Unfortunately, the only information we have is what we read.

It's difficult to imagine finding something out that makes Stern look like anything other than a jackass.
   595. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:31 PM (#4011700)
The Paul trade has NOTHING to do with the Celtics or the Knicks. The Celtics weren't the only team chasing Paul that didn't get him; were the Warriors screwed? Clippers?
well, in fairness, the celtics actually offered their best player. the clippers refused to trade gordon and the warriors refused to trade curry. there's no makeup that needs to be done there.
   596. nick swisher hygiene Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:33 PM (#4011705)
594--I thought 588 was bitter irony with some hip meme I didn't get....Howie? you in earnest?
   597. andrewberg Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:41 PM (#4011715)
594--I thought 588 was bitter irony with some hip meme I didn't get....Howie? you in earnest?


It sounds like the old "I know, but I can't tell you" meme.
   598. Norcan Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:43 PM (#4011717)
Am I missing something on DeAndre Jordan? I watched a lot of Clippers games last year and he is still very very raw. He hasn't even had a full season of being a rotation player and he's now getting offers for over 10 million a year? He's a good rebounder and shotblocker but I wasn't impressed with his overall defense. He didn't seem to have the high basketball IQ needed to be a dominant overall defensive center. When you include his lack of any offensive game besides alley-oop dunks, giving him the scoring ceiling of 10 max, an I think he's being severely overpriced.
   599. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:49 PM (#4011725)
I think the best comp for Jordan is Chandler. Who is older, and with bad knees, and still got 15 per.

Centers are expensive. Even bad ones. And I don't think Jordan is a bad center. He's still raw but he can be (and has been for stretches) a defensive force in the middle.
   600. Norcan Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:54 PM (#4011730)
I will set aside some of the numerous snarky comments that come to mind and just ask Norcan a simple question: do you think Stern did the right thing by vetoing the deal? Or are you just being sarcastic by suggesting as much? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.


Let's hear the snark. I would also love to hear what kind of rebuilding pieces Scola, Martin and Odom can fetch in a trade. I await enlightenment.

Did I ever suggest that Stern did the right thing? How did you come to that conclusion? Maybe it's keeping all the snarky things bottled up inside that's confusing you. I never said Stern was right in cancelling the deal. Since I believe he acted as the commissioner rather than as a faux-trustee, I don't think he has a leg to stand on in principle but he does legally as far as I've read. I do think that New Orleans made a bad deal by offloading their young superstar for a collection of older players without great trade value or on court potential. Am I allowed to make that argument? Pardon me sir.
Page 6 of 33 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3178 - 5:50pm, Jul 25)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

Newsblog7-25-14 OMNICHATTER
(5 - 5:48pm, Jul 25)
Last: salvomania

NewsblogHurdles remain in Mets-Rockies deal for Tulowitzki, Gonzalez
(18 - 5:45pm, Jul 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(940 - 5:43pm, Jul 25)
Last: robinred

NewsblogWisch: Cooperstown Shouldn’t Close Out Lee Smith
(4 - 5:41pm, Jul 25)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh Rises

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(112 - 5:39pm, Jul 25)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogESPN : GM Offers To Get Prostate Exam During Game
(16 - 5:27pm, Jul 25)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogBA Report: MLBPA Files Grievance Against Astros Over Aiken, Nix, Marshall
(2 - 5:20pm, Jul 25)
Last: Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora

NewsblogSoE: AN IDIOT IN EXILE
(1 - 5:06pm, Jul 25)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(97 - 4:52pm, Jul 25)
Last: Der-K thinks the Essex Green were a good band.

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(406 - 4:34pm, Jul 25)
Last: I am going to be Frank

Newsblog5 for Friday: Leo Mazzone, pitching coach to the HOFers
(22 - 4:27pm, Jul 25)
Last: Brian

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(84 - 3:55pm, Jul 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogLa Russa: Asterisk for tainted stars
(17 - 3:46pm, Jul 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogThe Inventor of the High Five
(28 - 3:45pm, Jul 25)
Last: winnipegwhip

Page rendered in 0.9342 seconds
53 querie(s) executed