2011/2012 NBA Thread : A Season Reborn

[Ghostvirus]

So does this mean Gilbert could sign with the Bulls?

 

[Anubis]

Now why would the Bulls want that bum?

 

[Ghostvirus]

I am just saying if things get desperate.

 

[L.A.]

I can see him signing with Knicks if they cut Billups

 

[Mister J]

Seems like Chicago would rather go after the recently waived Rip Hamilton.

 

[Anubis]

Rip got waived? Hmmm Possibilities.

 

[CConn]

Basically & it's so transparent. It's pretty sad shiz & that's why they're getting ripped from all angles.

I really don't get why you guys are so surprised or angry.

No matter the logic or reasoning, it was perfectly legal and legit what Stern and the owners did.

 

[Doc Samson]

I really don't get why you guys are so surprised or angry.

No matter the logic or reasoning, it was perfectly legal and legit what Stern and the owners did.

Because at the end of the day, Stern cited the reason for his actions as "basketball reasons," and its painfully obvious that was the best possible deal they could ask for. So essentially, he's holding Paul hostage to entice an owner to purchase the team, as if it's a mystery that Chris is going to walk at the end of the year regardless. It serves no purpose, and it seems vindictive after a combative round of labor disputes as well.

 

[Hound55]

No... It's forcing any team who wants to scavenge Paul, like the vultures the Lakers are, to pay something close to fair price...

If this was the fairest deal possible then I would imagine it would squash all potential deals between the three teams... as we have seen that is not the case.

Hornets would have lost on that deal in every possible way... at least if Paul walks they have cap room. The proposed deal would have screwed the Hornets books for years to come.

...it also would have laughed in the face of the 'parity' that the league was supposedly seeking in the lockout and dropped it's pants and taken a dump all over it.

 

[Anubis]

Yeah, it's more about the money than the players involved. Had it ended up with the Hornets getting the ton of money off the books and some draft picks, it woulda went through.

 

[L.A.]

David West sign and trade to the Celtics

 

[CConn]

Because at the end of the day, Stern cited the reason for his actions as "basketball reasons," and its painfully obvious that was the best possible deal they could ask for. So essentially, he's holding Paul hostage to entice an owner to purchase the team, as if it's a mystery that Chris is going to walk at the end of the year regardless. It serves no purpose, and it seems vindictive after a combative round of labor disputes as well.

I'm sorry, but who gives a ****? Honestly.

The League owns the team, it's their business what trades go through or not. It's not vindictive at all - its looking out for the business.

The ony people who could confuse it with vindictiveness would be peopl uninformed about the subject.

As many people have said (Anubis being the latest), there are probably several scenarios where they would've let the trade go through, but as it was, it was just too lopsided for the league owners to be happy with it.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Look, Stern and small market Owners wanted to stop the deal because the Lakers unloaded cap space and did not lose in picks...which they know the Lakers was going to use that to cut a deal for Howard. So, Stern stop the deal, was going to wait until Howard was traded to the Nets, than backtrack, and allow the deal to take place, by letting the Union save face and pretend to have the deal over turned.

Now that there is tampering allegation out there with the Nets & Howard. Stern want to be sure that the Lakers give "more" which means less cap space and picks...preventing the Lakers from going after Howard, once they obtain Paul.

It's all BS.

 

[ImWithTeamConan]

So the rumor is the revised deal has the Lakers taking back Okafor, sending out Ebanks and Caracter and keeping Odom.


And if that's the case........THANK YOU David Stern!

 

[CConn]

It'll be so terribly ironic if the deal ends up working out better for all sides.

Minus the Lakers not getting Howard, of course.

 

[L.A.]

I read Odom is still out no?

 

[ImWithTeamConan]

We'll see, Woj on ESPN late last night wrote Odom is staying. I hope so, he's my favorite player and I think he's slightly underrated.

 

[Genesis 1.0]

I'm sorry, but who gives a ****? Honestly.

The League owns the team, it's their business what trades go through or not. It's not vindictive at all - its looking out for the business.

The ony people who could confuse it with vindictiveness would be peopl uninformed about the subject.

As many people have said (Anubis being the latest), there are probably several scenarios where they would've let the trade go through, but as it was, it was just too lopsided for the league owners to be happy with it.

So if you don't agree with you, we must be uninformed. Well how about all the sports writers that have spent decades covering the game? Do they not measure up to your knowledge level?

NBA owners revealed themselves to be vindictive, onerous, agenda-driven and spectacularly petty Thursday night when they complained to the point that David Stern, in a completely gutless move by all involved, essentially vetoed a perfectly legitimate trade.


It's a move that smells rotten 100 different ways, and the players have no stink in it. The owners and the people who run the league ought to be ashamed of themselves for being so foul as to big-foot a basketball swap that appears to, yes, help the Lakers, who would get Chris Paul, and still help the Hornets get something for him. Everybody and his mama knows Paul plans to leave New Orleans after the upcoming season.


Apparently, NBA owners won't stand for it.


Instead of letting the Hornets get on with their business and make the best deal possible so as to avoid the disaster of an unhappy superstar playing out a lame duck season (as was the case with the Nuggets and Carmelo Anthony last season), Stern has apparently vetoed a deal that would have sent Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, Kevin Martin, Goran Dragic and a draft pick to the Hornets, and Pau Gasol to center-desperate Houston.


The problem with the deal? It'd send another star to a big-market team, the Lakers, a trend the small-market owners had in their sights to stop during the recently concluded lockout. Small-market teams screamed bloody murder about stars migrating to big-market teams, as if this hasn't been the case all the way back to, say, the mid-1970s, when Kareem Abdul-Jabbar forced his way out of Milwaukee and to Los Angeles. The deal ratified just Thursday night was supposed to address those concerns.
But since the league re-opened for business, what have we had? Paul saying he wanted to go to New York to play for the Knicks, reports of the Lakers putting together a deal for Orlando's Dwight Howard, then Howard and/or Paul. It sure sounds like business as usual, NBA-style.


And the owners, probably a third of whom didn't like the deal but voted for it anyway in order to not miss the entire season, whined and stomped their feet and made Stern make the deal go away. The owners apparently think the NBA can legislate where players go when they're free agents or about to be free agents. See, Bryant Gumbel probably had it right when he talked about a plantation mentality at the top of the league, but perhaps he shouldn't have confined his comments to Stern. Perhaps he should have been a lot broader and included some owners as well.

Just like he said, with these whiny bastards dictating trades, we never would have had Kareem in a Lakers jersey in the 70s.

Utter nonsense. Fact of the matter is the owners are now facing the fact that the Lockout was absolutely useless in this aspect: they can no more control where players choose to play than they did before the lockout. If Superstar players want to play for a larger market, they'll still go & the Owners have no control over it.

Block a guy, he refuses to resign, goes Free Agent, & leaves with the team getting nothing but cap space. Those aren't basketball reasons, it isn't even good business sense.

 

[ImWithTeamConan]

I red a good point somewhere I can't remember who made it but a lot of this player dictating where they want to go movement might have to do with the fact that there are maximum caps on contracts. If there is a max number no matter where you play (or in other words the team tha drafted you doesn't get to overpay for your services like KG's massive Wolves contract) then most players are going to seek out larger markets.

 

[WalkingDeadMike]

Sucks that Brandon Roy is retiring. Before the knee injuries, he was emerging as one of the better players in the game. Sad to see him go.

It's nice to see the Knicks get Chandler. Hopefully, CP3 doesn't get traded and signs with NY next year.

 

[Doc Samson]

No... It's forcing any team who wants to scavenge Paul, like the vultures the Lakers are, to pay something close to fair price...

If this was the fairest deal possible then I would imagine it would squash all potential deals between the three teams... as we have seen that is not the case.

Hornets would have lost on that deal in every possible way... at least if Paul walks they have cap room. The proposed deal would have screwed the Hornets books for years to come.

...it also would have laughed in the face of the 'parity' that the league was supposedly seeking in the lockout and dropped it's pants and taken a dump all over it.

I'm sorry, but who gives a ****? Honestly.

The League owns the team, it's their business what trades go through or not. It's not vindictive at all - its looking out for the business.

The ony people who could confuse it with vindictiveness would be peopl uninformed about the subject.

As many people have said (Anubis being the latest), there are probably several scenarios where they would've let the trade go through, but as it was, it was just too lopsided for the league owners to be happy with it.

Well, I'm sorry, but didn't the Mavs just beat the big "3"? When's the last time the Clippers were any good? Didn't NY just go through a decade of futility? During that same decade weren't the Spurs one of the perennial championship teams?

Point being, this isn't the NFL, that type of revenue sharing doesn't exist. Small market teams can compete, when ran properly, but nobody wants to play in Cleveland given the opportunity. They don't want to stew in New Orleans or Minnesota. This is factual. These owners bought these teams knowing full well what they were getting themselves into.

You want parity, you should've bought into an NFL team then, because unless you get lucky and snag a Tim Duncan Kevin Durant or Lebron James in the draft your stuck being mediocre in the NBA if you have a small market team. (And how many of those type of players come around every year?)

Bottomline is, if the owners are serious about finding someone to buy the team, how is it any more enticing to have Chris Paul bolt at the end of the year? Lol, they were barely staying afloat with him financially anyway, and were never title contenders during his whole time there.

Cap space? Cap space for who? What top tier player is going to want to play in New Orleans? Seriously? Who's coming out of College that's going to change your franchise and make you competitive for the next 3-5 years? Nobody! The best players they could hope to get are the guys proposed in that trade. No Star is going to willingly want to play in a small market, I don't even know how this is debatable.

 

[Ghostvirus]

Chandler, & Paul together again.

 

[WalkingDeadMike]

Chandler, & Paul together again.

Source?

 

[Ghostvirus]

No source. Just thinking out loud.

 

[WalkingDeadMike]

You had me excited for a second.