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 0.6349 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.
Your positions lose their credibility with this silliness. No one said this, did they?
The Felton/Kidd contracts are roughly $3mill/annum each. Pretty affordable and no huge payment in the third year, unlike Lin's.
I read that as sarcasm. I could be wrong. In any case, if Kidd's there for mentoring make sure you keep it on the court. Hire someone like Charles Oakley to give Kidd a beat down if he tries to give any marital advice or offers any player a ride home from the clubs.
[1203] Not surprising considering there are people on this very thread who say things like "the knicks shouldn't pay jeremy lin 50 million dollars."
If he does, he'll make a comeback at 37. He might if he wins another title or two, but I doubt it.
Humphries back to the Nets for 2/24.
Barkley and Shaq talked early in their careers about retiring at a young age. Barkley played to 36, Shaq to 39, and they pretty much stretched their careers as far as their bodies would let them. So I'll believe it when I see it.
Looking at my best guess of comparable players,
Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Clyde Drexler played to 35, Julius Erving to 36, George Gervin to 33. Michael Jordan played to 40, but Jordan was just on another level - he was still very effective even after getting old. If Kobe chooses to play that long, the end of his career would probably look more like Dominique Wilkins. That is, the Clippers-Celtics-Magic-Spurs version of 'Nique.
That's pretty much what I was thinking. If the Lakers are still good (and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be, especially if they get Howard), then the all time scoring record seems like the type of thing Kobe might be interested in. IMO, he seems to know more about basketball history than a lot of players and might care a little more about his place in it.
Jordan retired at 30...and 35...and 40. Maybe all the time off in between saved his legs from some extra wear and tear that would've worn him down sooner? Kobe came right out of high school, so he's already got as much mileage as a lot of guys that played to an older age.
That surely helped. MJ played a total of about 49,000 minutes (reg season and playoffs) in the NBA, Kobe's already at 51,000 minutes.
Also, wasn't one of Dwight's reported hangups about LA that he didn't want to spend his career as Kobe's sidekick? Isn't it possible that Kobe is using the media to convince Dwight that this would be his team in short order?
I was thinking something along those lines. Really, if Howard signed a long term deal with the Lakers, how long realistically do you think he'd be the 2nd option behind an (almost) 34 year old Kobe? One season? Two?
Shaq averaged more points than Kobe in all 3 of their title seasons together and won the Finals MVP each time. When Bryant took over the teams scoring lead in 2003 and 2004, the Lakers didn't win it all. Obviously that's oversimplifying, but the Shaq/Kobe Lakers seemed clearly better when they went inside first and featured O'Neal as their #1. I could see them being very successful doing the same with Howard.
Also, when Shaq was in his prime and healthy, but I follow the point you're making.
They wouldn't run the triangle if they got Dwight, so that also changes how you evaluate their roles.
He wasn't exactly taking it easy on his legs that first retirement. 127 games, 497 PA, 213 putouts in the OF, 11 errors to chase after, and 48 steal attempts (30 successful).
Jordan had declined as much should be expected for a 39-40 year old player, but 60% of peak Jordan is still pretty good, where 60% of most HOF players is replacement level.
Doesn't it seem reasonable that the Lakers could be a serious contender with Nash dumping the ball inside to Howard for 25 points a game, and then Howard kicking it out to an aging but still effective Bryant when he's doubled? Kobe could still get 20 as a 2nd option. That seems like it could work, right?
Yeah, probably. Not sure if that really maximizes any of their main guys though.
Is Gasol still on this team? And Kobe, and Nash? There's approximately zero chance that Howard would get near 25 a game. If being the man on offense is his top priority, then he's better off sticking with a second or third tier team.
EDIT: Basically agreeing with berg in more words.
Sure, they were better when they had one of the greatest centers of all time than when they didn't, just like they were better when they had Gasol than when they didn't, even though Bryant was still the #1 option. Again, Bryant is just one guy on the team, even though people talk about him all the time as if he were the team.
As to him and Howard, Bryant has sort of denied that the "You would be our Tyson Chandler if you came here" phone conversation actually included that remark. Kupchak, OTOH, suggested that Bryant did say that. When asked about Bryant talking to Nash on the phone before the deal, Kupchak said something about "the risk you take with Kobe" in that context.
Howard supposedly does not want to "follow Shaq" even though/because they have sort of have the same nickname and for other reasons, like the ORL/LA thing. He also supposedly has said he would like to play with Steve Nash, as most guys would, so Nash being with the Lakers might make him feel a little differently about being here, but then again it might not.
As to Bryant retiring, he certainly seems to have the type of personality that will make it hard for him to walk away. OTOH, he has a ton of mileage on his body and has permanently damaged more than one of his fingers. My guess is that he said it simply because he is feeling old right now, still playing into the summer, not because he is "using the media" to get Howard here but of course I don't know. He is the only guy over 30 on Team USA.
I am not sure how much Howard would score per game on this team, but I think Gasol rather than Howard would likely be the one scoring a lot less, since he would be fourth option and spending less time on the floor and even more time away from the basket. Nash at PG will make things a lot different.
Well, obviously that's not going to be their play on every possession. But why couldn't Howard have basically the same role that Shaq had 10 years ago? And Nash was already down to what, like 12 points a game last year? That could drop even further on the Lakers. I see him as being much more of a distributor on that team than a top scoring option.
Good call on Gasol, though. I'm not sure how he fits into that scenario. Maybe take Malone's role from the 2004 team?
Yeah, and with Howard, they'd have the best center in the game in his prime again. Kobe is still great, of course, but he's already slightly past his own prime, and will likely be distancing himself even further from it with each passing year. That's why with a long term deal, it makes sense that Howard should end up as the #1 for all but the first year or two of that span. Using him as a Tyson Chandler type 4th option - if Kobe really even said that - would be dumb, IMO. Like you said, Gasol and Nash should be the ones who's shot attempts drop if the Lakers end up with all 4, not Howards.
grant hill to LAC
bogans likely to join stackhouse and some other dudes in BRK
1222 - agreed. if nothing else, he should wait til the offseason regardless of where he lands.
Lakers center their offense around Howard, the same way the Spurs did with Duncan in his prime. Howard scores 22-25 ppg as the #1.
Kobe takes the Ginobili role (but starting rather than coming off the bench) and gets around 20 ppg as a 2nd option slasher/outside shooter.
Gasol's usage drops but he's still an important contributor as he takes the Malone 2004 role (something like 13 ppg and 9 boards like Mailman did for LA).
Nash enjoys a similar late career as old Stockton, scoring only around 10-12 ppg as his shot attempts drop, but doing so at a very high percentage. Also probably still averages 10-12 assists per game with the 3 guys above to pass to.
What other significant players do the Lakers have that I'm missing? If the 2004 team worked well enough to get them to the Finals, why couldn't the above scenario be successful?
How about we say 20-24 ppg instead to match TD and KG's peak production?
Well, I don't think anyone questions that the Lakers with Howard (assuming his back will be OK)would be "successful." The questions would be whether they win the title and how the shots gets doled out. The rest of the roster is crappy and thin. If they had to play a game today, their bench would be Blake, Ebanks, McRoberts, and Goudelock.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/nba/video-sad-suns-fan-girl-gets-sorry-i-ditched-you-lakers-gift-steve-nash
The Heat just won the title with a star studded starting lineup and a "crappy and thin" bench. Several other teams have done the same.
Also, Grant Hill is a Clipper.
There are some Lakers fans who feel this way, and I don't really blame them. But my position is that Howard is gifted enough that he is worth dicking around with/taking risks for, particularly because he beings specific skills (defensive mobility, P/R) that Bynum doesn't, although Bynum is a very good player. Also, Howard's FT issues late-game would not be a huge deal for the Lakers, since they have Nash, Bryant, and Gasol.
Apparently Jamison to the Lakers and GHill to the Clippers is pretty much set.
Stackhouse! I remember that guy! What's he been up to all these years?
1995-96 71
1996-97 81
1997-98 15
1998-99 9
1999-00 82
2000-01 80
2001-02 76
2002-03 70
2003-12 58
Wait, what? I haven't seen this yet.
i...am not optimistic.
Europe?
I had a whole paragraph typed out about how I hate this decision for so many reasons more than just the basketball aspects, but basically I mostly hate it because I think it's the result of the elevation above all other concerns of James Dolan's petulance and anger that Jeremy Lin violated James Dolan's warped sense of loyalty by trying to get more money after the Knicks did something stupid.
It's be high comedy if they put him with Tyreke and Cousins. That's the kind of influence those two need.
up side: i'm back to my favorite nba team being "whoever plays the knicks"!
Beck (NYT):
"The contract with Houston includes a third-year balloon payment of $14.9 million, which would have cost the Knicks another $35 million or more in luxury-tax penalties had they matched the deal. The so-called poison pill was designed to dissuade the Knicks.......The Knicks wanted to keep Lin, but his situation was complicated. Because he was a restricted free agent, the Knicks had the right to match any offer. Yet under N.B.A. cap rules, they could offer him no more than $16.13 million in a three-year deal, and a maximum of $28.75 million over five years. Only a rival team was allowed to include the third-year balloon payment."
What exactly is this "balloon payment"? Could somebody link me that Advanced Capology site again?
Of course, that likely has nothing to do with what's going on and what's going on has nothing to do with basketball. It never does with Jim Dolan, back in his comfort zone -- in the corner, shoulders hunched, dunce cap aloft, flailing.
Now, had the Knicks simply offered him a contract in the first place - they wouldn't have the ability to offer way more $ in the third-plus year of the deal - they're restricted to what they can currently offer as a function of his experience (so, the MLE with small annual raises).
The real lessons to take from this (apart from that the NBA rules on this front are complicated) are that over the cap teams are more limited in what they can do (which you knew) and that having really high payrolls is about to get very expensive (which you also likely knew).
***
Given that Lin was going to be in demand - the only possible outcome this year was that another team would sign him to an offer sheet and that NYK either would or would not match.
***
So, wonder if HOU lands Asik too. If so, bye bye Dwight?
I think this sells the Heat's bench short. Jones and Miller are legit shooters, Haslem can rebound, Turiaf and Anthony can defend. Battier is still a good defender and made his shots the playoffs. It isn't the most amazing bench the world, but they are all role players that can handle the few skills they are good at reasonably well, while staying out of the way of the stars.
The basics are that there was a limit on how high his first and second year of this contract could be. They were set to fit in the Knicks cap (this is the Gilbert Arenas rule). For some reason, it only applies for the first two years. So, the Rockets offered him that salary in those two years (it's like $5 million per). But, they then made the third year $15 million.
Here's where I get confused: The Knicks have to count his yearly salaries against those caps. Whereas, the Rockets get to use the AAV (average annual value) in their cap calcs. So, the Rockets have him hit as $8 million each of the three. I don't understand why that's the case.
It definitely happened with Wesley Matthews 2 years ago.
1252 mentions this was supposed to help out the incumbent team; I'm trying to figure out why. Maybe the logic is that with the lower payments in year 1 and 2 the team doing the matching would be more likely to have some extra cap room to acquire other players? I'm not sure that makes any sense.
Give the ball to Melo and JR and watch them chuck. Great ####### plan.
Melo and JR and Creative Artists Agency (*) didn't want Lin on the team and that's why he isn't.
(*) For those unaware, Dolan wouldn't finalize Woodson's deal until he fired his agent of many years and hired CAA. That's how absurd the guy is.
As is, its hypocritical whining from two players that already got their money.
Man, I wouldn't want to join them. It's an unspoken rule that you don't talk about someone else's contract. Not only are these guys doing it, they're ripping one.
--any idea of the thinking behind this "intent," der K?
I don't know, but it's clear the NBA wasn't prepared for the detail-oriented GMs like baseball's had to deal with.
Which is odd, since the salary cap and rules about RFA and bird rights, etc. makes it necessary for a GM to know all the little details if he wants to exploit the rules.
This is my interpretation, mind you, and could be wrong in several respects:
Having the incumbent team's cap allocation equivalent to their salary by year would satisfy the Early Bird (the kind of FA Lin is) wage criteria (such that they wouldn't be allowed to offer more than the MLE as they lack the cap room here), while taking away the ability of other clubs that are over the cap (most) to offer salaries like this (because the average is well above the MLE) - and gives a team in the Knicks position time to make changes in advance of the upcoming "balloon payment". Also, the Arenas provision predates the current version of the luxury tax, far more onerous than its predecessor.
If you think the Knicks are disappointing, let me warn you that this will not be over quickly, and that you will not enjoy this.
I doubt it stops the pursuit. Whether it handcuffs them too much to take back enough detritus to entice Orlando is possible.
Well everyone is welcome, but be warned it is not exactly a blessed franchise :)
EDIT: Coke to Berg.
I still would have paid it, though, I think he is actually worth that much money to them, unless he gets hurt or is a total flop¹, which (while more likely to happen to him than to, say, Kevin Durant or something) is showbiz.
¹ I've had an ongoing discussion with my friend about this. He thinks Lin is almost guaranteed to be worth the money off-court, unless he's the next Ryan Leaf. I think that if he's a marginal starter or a backup, he is not going to have a top-selling jersey and so forth. But either way, I have enough faith in the signature significance of his run that I'd go for it.
Can you re-word? I have no idea what you're saying here.
I mean, if someone were arguing that Lin's $15M salary will cost the team $50M but Kidd/Camby/Felton's $10M salary will only cost the team $10M, then yeah, that would be factually wrong. But if you're doing the math right, then you're right... right?
(Again, I think the truly unique and enormous off-the-court stuff does make him worth it, I am just not grokking this argument.)
That should be the criteria, an individual's on-paper salary times whatever multiplier the luxury tax creates.
I'll note that this quote is from a "keep Lin" article.
Since we don't know where the Knicks will be vis-a-vis the tax threshold then, this is all guesswork (and one reason I've been speaking in generalities here) - but he'd be very expensive to keep (yes, because they've also spent so much on other players).
As for Kidd/Felton/Camby, I think bringing them (relatively low salary players) into the discussion is fairly unproductive - with the exception that one of them (let's say Felton) presumably is Lin's replacement. So, if Felton made 3M in the same season Lin would make 15M - then what we really, really care about taxwise is the fallout from a 12M difference in contracts (which in the extreme example, would potentially result in a total hit that's a bit south of $62M). [Too lazy to calculate it.]
EDIT: That said... while I'm a big proponent of judging deals at the margins, the fact that the potential reckoning for the deal is so far off, that spreading the impact of the tax across the whole payroll might be wise (better yet the projected payroll for '14-15, but who knows what that will be) - this would result in a much lower hit that you attribute to Lin alone.
***
CAA: Beats me.
I hope they reject him three times first.
Not 100% sure if you are kidding, (I assume you are) but if that happened, I think Stern would either get sued by the Rockets or Morey would use the money saved on Lin to hire an elite team of hit men to have Stern assassinated.
Nice. I figure I'm going to go with DEN, NOH, CLE, MIN and HOU as my League Pass teams next year and see which team best suits my fancy.
Why do people hate young athletic bigs who haven't found their games after only a few years?
Haven't the experiences with Brendan Wright, Jordan Hill and Javelle McGee shown GM's anything in just the past year?!?! Anthony Randolph is going to be averaging 11pts/7.5rbs/2blocks by February and people are going to wonder why the Nuggets got such a steal and Omar Asik is making $6 million more per year.
Apparently they hate Andray Blatche as well--he was the only guy amnestied today.
I think I'm down to Denver and Houston, with an outside chance of just saying \"#### it" and going with the Lakers.
So no one has anything on this? It's just flat out wrong?
David Stern just vetoed this move for basketball reasons, and is forcing him to go to the Clips instead.
FREE BIRD!
The Birdman has left the Cuckoo's Nest?
(Sorry, but the jokes write themselves.)
Really? Not the Lakers. Sith Lords get the cool costumes and all that, but have some pride. Real fans cheer for loser teams (says the Wolves fan).
I read this as being in reference to the Nets; now that they signed Hump and Lopez they can't deal either until Dec 15, so any Nets trade for Dwight would have to wait until then.
* Blatche? - requires a three year deal, for at least the minimum.
Prior to last year, he was a fairly useful ballplayer, albeit one that overleveraged. Four straight years with a PER >= 15, three straight with a positive simple (nee Roland) rating. WS numbers were never good, but some of that is Washington's awful defense (though Blatche's rep ain't great, my take is that he's an adequate, though below average, defender).
OTOH, bad intangibles (mainly from being overly sensitive + poor conditioning + bad off court decisions, but there was also the whole 'this your captain [...2 hrs go by...] give me the ball in the post!' thing from last season's opener, among other events -- and really poor play last year (negative WS, simple rating of -8.0, effectively bench by the club for something like the 2nd half of the season. Even when he's productive (preceding 3 yrs: averaged 13.6/6.5/2.0 with a steal and a block in 28.4 min, shooting 46/27/75), he's not super efficient. Injury prone. Turns 26 next month.
* Andersen? - requires two years at the minimum
Since he's returned to Denver (4 seasons), he's been one of the best backup centers in the league. Positive simple rating every season, Per = 17.5, WS/48 = .178, per 36 min: 10.9 pts, 10.6 reb, 0.7 ast, 1.0 stl, 1.4 to, 3.5 blk, 3.9 pf, 56.2% FG, 67.8% FT, high FTA/FGA. Has trouble defending his own man sometimes (due to lack of bulk), but above average team defender due to blocks and mobility. Not a negative in the locker room, afaict. But... injury prone and has creepy allegations (like, child endangerment type allegations) hanging over his head that caused the Nuggets to grant him a leave of absence during the season.
Without the allegations, I'd be all over this dude - even though he's 34 and limited as a player. With 'em... I'd need to know A LOT more than I can know from my vantage point before considering it seriously.
* Gomes? - one year at the minimum
Game fell off a cliff, combo forwards are easy to find. No thanks.
You take that back!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main