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 0.5992 seconds
51 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.
Tidewater's tv market would be smaller than all but three other NBA markets - OKC, Memphis and New Orleans. How marketable that team would be in Richmond, or the western part of the state, and so on - is questionable (whereas OKC will sell in Tulsa, etc...)
St. Louis is already pretty rabid over a winter sports team, I don't know if they would support a second (or if they could - they'd be the second smallest metro with four major sports with only Denver being smaller). I've never seen much enthusiasm in St. Louis (or Baltimore for that matter) in landing a team. Seems like the cities that have made the most waves about landing a team are Seattle, KC, Vegas, Anaheim, and San Jose. But I guess VA Beach kinda came out of nowhere.
The 2 furthest West teams left in the East appear to be Chicago and Milwaukee. I could see the Bucks being forced out West, but it might be harder to make the Bulls.
I agree with you, I can't imagine the Bulls in the Western Conference. It also reminds me of the days that The Cubs were in the NL East, and the Cincinnati Reds were in the NL West.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8296570/sacramento-kings-deny-report-possible-move-virginia
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/8287836/brooklyn-nets-owner-mikhail-prokhorov-calls-new-york-knicks-owner-james-dolan-little-man
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/08/22/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks/?sct=nba_bf2_a3
That said, Dallas picks (so, not including guys dealt for right after the draft / including guys sent out right after ... a hugely important distinction) since Howard ('03 draft) have combined for zero point zero bb-ref Win Shares.
Their figures: Fazekas 0.8, J.Hamilton 0.3, Mullens -0.1, Alabi 0.0, Spanoulis -0.1, Ager -0.9; has not played: Ngombo, Nivins, S.Foster, Seibutis, Rakovic, Pinnock, Yuyang.
Last "Dallas draftee" to accrue a Win Share over their career, besides Howard, was Etan Thomas (12th overall, 14.9, '00 draft).
Maybe Lowe should not have used the word "failed", but the piece as a whole was defending Cuban and Dallas. Cuban recently said some stuff hedging about wanting Deron Williams and then some other stuff about how he didn't see himself retiring Jason Kidd's jersey. That's OK, but Cuban's egotistical chattiness with media guys comes off a little differently when the enemy got Howard and Nash and Cuban got Kaman and Scola, and Cuban has been taking a little flack. Lowe was pointing out how hard it is to get guys like Ginobili, Rondo, etc. after the first few picks, among other things.
And, I mostly agree. I am snarky about Cuban, had reservations about the decision to let Chandler walk, but he is a very smart guy and has been a great owner. Things just didn't break Dallas' way this summer.
Finally, of course, the Howard saga is not over.
People are assuming that, ("the Lakers always get what they want")and the fact that he dropped 20M on a Newport Beach mansion may indicate as much. But we'll see. Mike Brown isn't Gregg Popovich, Howard and Bryant may not hit it off what with Bryant's being evil and all, and Chris Paul has not extended with the Clippers. I really didn't think the Lakers would actually get Howard, so I may be wrong, but I am sticking to my idea that Howard and Paul want to hit FA together as a James/Wade style mini-conglomerate.
In the meantime, though, I already have tix to a couple of Lakers games and am looking forward to the season in a big way.
Isn't it possible that they do sign together - WITH the Lakers? Nash is still great and all, but he's also like 60 years old. He was a quick fix rather than a long term solution to the Lakers PG problems. I was mostly joking when I suggested earlier that Gasol could be used as the centerpiece of a reboot of the Paul to the Lakers trade, but wouldn't it make sense for real? A core of Howard/Paul could keep the Lakers in title contention even after Kobe retires.
As for Paul, the Clips can't trade him across town...
Seems very unlikely; I can't see Sterling doing that. Also, the fact that the Lakers have actually landed Howard without giving up Gasol makes LeVeto look even better to a lot of people who were already liking it.
This will be true if Howard signs an extension. Right now, it is half-true. And sure, Howard may decide he loves living the LakerStar life in LA. Or he may not like Brown and/or Kobe and look at the fact that all the other stars on the team are near the end of the line and look at other options. I would bet on the former, like most people would, but no one knows.
The Lakers will sell Howard the idea that they can make one, maybe two, real runs at it with him and the old-but-still-good guys, and then if they have him and cap space in 14/15, the reload will be quick.
To echo what robin was saying, I think that's kind of the point. Cuban does not want to compare himself to average teams, he wants to compare himself to the elite- those teams have won 2 of the last 6 titles, and he won another. Howard has been well above average for a late first round pick, but above-average is not a champion.
Right, and Lowe was also saying that it is really tough to pull off those types of picks, and implying that there is likely some good fortune involved along with astuteness. As Lowe pointed out, Ginobili, given how good he has been and where he was chosen, is arguably the greatest draft pick ever. Bynum is a different sort of case, but plenty of people, including Hollinger and many Lakerfans/media guys, were down on the pick when it was made and it is the only lottery pick the Lakers have had in the last 15 years. Not missing on it was huge.
The Mavs have done a great job for a long time, and Lowe's position is that the fact that they weren't able to pull off a pick like that to get a wingman for Nowitzki that they could have cost-controlled for awhile isn't necessarily a negative reflection on the org. Rondo, Bynum, Parker, and Ginobili were key pieces on the other recent title teams anchored by age 30+ stars.
He'd rather lose him for nothing?
Then again, this is Donald Sterling we're talking about, so yeah, probably. The success and long term future of his team has never seemed to be anything more than a minor concern to him, IMO.
I think it would need to be another massive, three or four-way deal, with Gasol going somewhere, the Clippers getting young guys, etc. The Lakers have traded away pretty much all the picks they can, though, and Paul can't sign with the Lakers on his own. I see it as quite unlikely for a number of reasons, but then, one could say the same of the Lakers landing both Howard and Nash this off-season.
Yes and no. I think most people figure that he will re-sign, based on the Lakers' history. But this situation is different than Wilt's, Kareem's or Shaq's, for a lot of reasons.
http://espn.go.com/espn/playbook/story/_/id/8295892/uni-watch-power-rankings-rates-nfl-mlb-nba-nhl-uniforms-1-122
As a loyal listener, I feel like I have to point out that Dave Dameshek did this same project several weeks ago at nfl.com/shek. I think he also had Boston as the top NBA team and Cleveland right behind them.
Can they put themselves over the apron then make the trade, or is there just no S&Ting; if it results in taxage? That could create some odd incentives, if the Lakers intentionally signed someone to go over the tax just to preserve their right to S&T.
I always get a kick out of talking about/ranking sports uniforms.
What are some of your favorites?
I think my favorite in any sport is the home Michigan football uniform. Also love the NY Rangers, USC football, UCLA basketball (not the stupid gold letter), St. Louis Cards, the old Knicks jerseys with orange and blue alternating piping. Many others.
Nope. No S&Ts; for teams above the apron; the wording there is to make it clear that you can't be under the tax, than make the trade and go above the tax apron.
1 - Celtics (10)
2 - Spurs (16)
3 - Lakers (18)
4 - Warriors (20)
5 - Jazz (22)
6 - Wizards (31)
7 - Thunder (37)
8 - Heat (40)
9 - Knicks (44)
10 - Blazers (48)
11 - Pistons (57)
12 - Pacers (61)
13 - Bulls (67)
14 - Sixers (70)
15 - Hornets (74)
16 - Suns (77)
17 - Grizzlies (78)
18 - Nuggets (84)
19 - Rockets (86)
20 - Hawks (89)
21 - Raptors (92)
22 - Bucks (96)
23 - Cavs (101)
24 - Mavs (105)
25 - Clippers (106)
26 - Bobcats (109): Look Bobcats fan(s), you finally beat somebody!
27 - Magic (111)
28 - TWolves (115)
29 - Nets (120)
30 - Kings (122): Dead last amongst all pro teams. Way to go, Sacto!
MLB: Tigers (I think the Tigers' home uni is one of the best in sports) Cardinals, Angels
NBA: Lakers (not the white home ones) Spurs, Suns home unis, Pistons, Celtics road unis
NFL: Cowboys, Chargers when they go light blue, Packers, Dolphins, Vikings. I also like the Cleveland Browns unis, in that they are sort of original in their basic ugliness and very traditional. And I think the Raiders uni is a classic, although as a (casual) Chargers fan I have to hate them.
NHL: I don't follow hockey at all, but the unis that seem cool to me are Detroit, Boston, and Chicago.
In the poll I linked, the Canadiens' uni is #1 overall. I gather that their CH is as iconic as the Yankees' NY or the Cowboys' star.
I feel strongly that the Padres need to bring back the brown and gold. It was ugly when I was a kid; I think it would be retrocool now.
Stern wanted to make sure the deal stayed vetoed.
I always hated that the Vikings jerseys and helmets don't match. Same is true for the blue in the Cowboys' helmets vs. numbers.
Also it's hard to tell apart all the teams that are blue and orange.
A small part of me - the part that includes the irrational fan part - wants to say that it sure seems like there's been some retroactive overrating of the Bulls bench players. It's hard to single out individual performances that drove the results (yes, Asik's defense, but that's still only 12 min or so a game). There was a lot of talk, here too, about the bench signings they made 2 years ago and whether or not they were the best choices. That's not to defend any of the individual signings this offseason (Hinrich specifically, since they are oddly enough paying for the name as much if not more as for the performance), but there might be something to be said for the coaching and the personnel department filling the holes with the right fits. So I do tend to think that it wouldn't be surprising if the Bulls yet again overachieved this regular season - I'm surely not predicting it, and it's not going to be enjoyable to watch even if they do win a lot. More than anything, it is good to see more and more people calling ######## on the Bulls flexibility plans, etc, while constantly failing to make any move of significance.
He also ends with this line:
Let's not forget that only Atlanta lost more games in the 10-year period after Michael Jordan left the Bulls, yet Chicago led the league in attendance.
The attendance part is true, but the part about the Hawks just didn't seem right to me. It's not - Bulls lost 540 games those 10 years and the Hawks 537 - but it's much closer than I expected. But there might be a team that lost more than the Bulls in that period, but I'm not sure of the easiest way to figure it out (I added the Bulls and Hawks totals manually). Charlotte wasn't around the whole time, so it's not them.
When I do a combined season finder on the NBA from 1999 to 2008 at basketball reference, I get the claimed result. You seem to have done 11 straight years (at which point Atlanta and Chicago are 3rd and 4th, with the Clippers and Memphis at 555 losses and 554 losses respectively.)
Here's something. I tried this for baseball a while back, but it seems like a question better-suited for basketball. Three parts:
1. What is the best team you can make of players who never won a title? (Preferably leaving off guys who still have large chunks of their careers ahead of them – I don’t know if Durant would make the team anyway, but he’s not eligible.)
2. What is the worst team you can make of players who were arguably the best player on a team that won the title? (You can pick anyone for whom you think a reasonable argument exists, but no two players from the same team – so, Rasheed Wallace or Chauncey Billups from the ’04 Pistons, but not both. Try to avoid picking more than one guy from multi-year title winning groups as well.)
3. Which team is better?
I'm not 100% sure, but other than Chauncey in '04, it looks like every team since 1979 was fronted by an inner circle guy.
PG: mark price
SG: reggie miller
SF: dominique wilkins
PF: karl malone
C: dikembe mutombo
PG: chauncey billups (04)
SG: dwayne wade (06)
SF: paul pierce (08)
PF: pau gasol (09)
C: tim duncan (99)
Edit: Can we put Barkley at small forward?
Stockton
Moncrief
Barkley
Malone
Ewing
Edit: Could be Miller or Gervin at SG instead. Not sure. Moncrief was the best of those defensively, right?
ewing, barkley, and stockton were some of the last cuts, alongside chris mullin, tracy mcgrady, and allen iverson
\
EDIT: mutombo is one of the best defensive players in history.
Can't the same be said for Ewing and isn't he a much better offensive player?
Also, Barkley might not make the team at small forward, since we should at least consider putting Elgin Baylor there instead.
Also, yeah, Baylor. He was only 6'5", but I assume putting him at SG would be cheating?
Drexler maybe at SG?
and i think mark price is just a very interesting player. 47/40/90 FG/3P/FT percentages, with 6+ assists per game (8 at his peak). i guess that's kind of a poor man's john stockton, but he was still a very respectable player at his peak.
Oh, I was going by finals losers. Yeah, that's a sparse team after the jazz and Barkley.
PF - Karl Malone
SF - Elgin Baylor
C - Patrick Ewing
SG - Reggie Miller
PG - John Stockton
Bench - Barkley, Nash, Mutombo, Wilkins, Gervin, Dantley, maybe Price as the 12th man. Anyone else?
Maybe we could move Miller to the bench and put Baylor at SG so Barkley could start at SF? Either way, this is a helluva team...
Edit: guess you could put Webber on the bench too
I don't think it's sparse at all.
And I almost completely forgot the 2000's guys - Iverson, VC, McGrady. Probably cuz I hated all of those players...
How would they do against 2nd best guys on title teams? Probably have to be more year-specific there
PG- Bob Cousy (several years), Oscar (71, kind of washed up by then), Walt Frazier (behind Willis I guess)
SG- Kobe (early 00s), Wade (12), Drexler
SF- Pippen, Dr. J, Hal Greer, Hondo (66, 68-69)
PF- Elvin Hayes (Unseld won 78 finals MVP), McHale, KG (arguably best in 08)
C- Kareem (80-onward, for the sake of simplicity), Chamberlain (72, assuming we agree West is #1 there), Cowens (74, 76), Shaq (06)
POOMA 3rd banana team:
PG- uhhh, Tom Gola? Tiny Archibald? Could I convince you that Jack Sikma was better than Gus Williams on the 79 Sonics?
SG- Sam Jones
SF-James Worthy/Bob Dandridge
PF- Dennis Rodman
C- Robert Parrish
No MVP team:
PF - McHale
SF - Baylor
C - Ewing
SG - Havlicek or Wade
PG - Stockton or Thomas
Bench - the other of Stock or Isiah and Hondo or Flash, Pippen, Drexler, take your pick from Miller, Wilkins, Gervin, Dantley, Pierce, Allen, GP, Mullin. Probably Parrish or Mutombo or Zo as the backup center. Hmmm...no backup PF's, so maybe replace someone with Webber or Pau Gasol.
Probably a bunch of other guys I missed.
PG- Chris Paul, or if you think he still has too many chances to count, Isiah Thomas or Jason Kidd
SG- West, Wade, Havlicek
SF- Baylor, Pippen
PF- (most of the great bigs have MVPs) McHale
C- Mikan! played before there were MVPs. Otherwise, Ewing vs. Dwight vs. Nate Thurmond
coke. I should've said Stockton too, and you could throw Neil Johnstone at PF under the Mikan loophole.
I thought it was interesting that on the no MVP team it was hard to find all time great big men who never won an MVP. Seems great centers and PF's are more likely to win than guards and SF's.
Tony Parker or Jason Kidd maybe?
What exactly is the argument for Pierce over Garnett that season? Pierce was good, but it looks like Garnett comes out easily ahead by almost every advanced metric and even subjectively his defensive impact was just huge that year to where it would seem to more than make up for whatever Pierce was better at as a scorer.
Did Jerry West really never win an MVP? Wow. Yeah, put him on my team in 2269 then. And maybe Kidd as yet another backup PG, but with Stockton, Thomas, and Payton already, I'm not sure you'd really need him.
They both kind of sucked the years they won the title though, especially Kidd.
Basically Pierce winning Finals MVP. KG definitely had a better season.
Parker was pretty good in 06-07, he's worse than I remember in 04-05 though. Kidd would have to be if you're doing some team building thing and value team management/leadership more than actual production (or live super crazy Wins Produced land), he's definitely a stretch though.
Even if Sikma is better, who else is better than Williams on that team? Johnson?
That would be the argument.
IIRC, Peak McGrady is really damn good. The downside is, there was what that singular transcendent season of it. Hard to tell whether this sort of ranking is peak, career, or hybrid. I guess its kind of that HOF-esque mix of the two.
Well, the premise said "arguably". I could see making that argument. You'd be wrong, but you could make that argument.
Enjoying this discussion of no title/no MVP teams.
Speaking of the "Worst best aplyers on a champ" team - how about Elvin Hays or Bobby Dandridge on the '78 Boulez? If Hayes, play him at PF with Gasol at C. If you prefer Dandridge, there's your shooting guard or small forward. Although, I'd also agree that Garnett was probably the best player on that Celtics team, even though Pierce was Finals MVP.
Zach Lowe is going to be writing for Grantland, according to Bill Simmons' Twitter.
Too lazy to look up the numbers, but does Gasol really have a legit argument over Kobe to being the best player on the 2009 or 2010 Lakers?
Whoever is second from the 99 Spurs probably goes here somewhere.
It's hilarious. Still, is there a better NBA stathead available? I really don't think so.
But...I still think it's funny.
Any Maryland basketball fans? Congrats on Dez Wells -- he'll be huge, though I wouldn't expect him to last for his remaining 3 years of eligibility.
i should have said "allegedly". but there does seem to be some smoke w/r/t someone on duke's staff turning shabazz in for recruiting violations after he pulled duke off his final list.
Glad that's finally settled.
But I'm not sure where. Sikma is worse than Duncan, Williams is worse than Billups, and Johnson is worse than Wade. Pick one of them. Maybe Elvin Hayes or Wes Unseld (78) can make the team.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main