NBA Thread 2011-12

[Trey]

Well sometimes that just can't be helped, but I think the idea that Chris Paul could sign a 5 year max deal with the Hornets with an extra $50 million thanks to that clause or sign a 4 year max deal (that's actually only say, an 8% raise instead of a 10% raise) would be about as big incentive as any to try and keep a star in a small market.

[DMN in the House]

If Dwight's off the table, the Paul deal is less appealing. I guess if they send Bynum, and somehow keep Odom and Pau, then it's ok, but Pau OR Bynum and Odom takes the Lakers from contender to pretender. I'm not sure that even makes them the best team in the West, it's their size that dominates people. I'd rather keep the team as currently constructed, make one more run, then try to get Russell Westbrook or something next year. A superstar for the sake of a superstar... not a fan.

[DYSI]

Reports are Dwight had decided that he wants to go to the Nets and will be asking for a trade shortly.

:w00t:

I like Brook Lopez too, but when you get a chance to get a player like Dwight it's a no brainer.

[Panni]

I think its absolutely outrageous what Stern did last night. Three General Managers worked hard to create a deal that looked like it benefitted each team involved.

Now what? The Hornets have to stick with Chris Paul all year and then lose him for nothing? Yea, that makes more sense. The fact is big market cities will always be more alluring to free agents then small market teams. That's the risk of running a small market organization. New Orleans would have added Martin-Scola-Odom and a 1st Round Pick, basically in exchange for Chris Paul. It would have certainly made them a better team now and for the future. It's ridiculous.

[Your Mom]

Brandon Roy has to retire Knees just are too much

[gunnar hendershow]

Yeah shame to see Brandon Roy have to retire, they can't build a team around Aldridge.

[DYSI]

That sucks considering how good he was before his injury. I still think Portland will hold it's own this year, they're a pretty deep team.

[Maxx]

Not so fast on the Dwight to NJ trade, Orlando is filing tampering charges against New Jersey, claiming that Dwight had a secret meeting with Prokorov this week.

The NBA: Where amazing stupidity happens.

Also, this is such a fitting jersey now:

[Fait Accompli]

So, in an interview, Stern said that it's "valuable" to keep Chris Paul in New Orleans. Is it "valuable" to have him walk to wherever he wants at the end of the season and the Hornets get nothing for it? Or is it "valuable" if the Hornets manage to trade him elsewhere, decide not to re-sign with that new team during the offseason and go to where he wanted to with that new team getting nothing as well?

Whether you agree or not, the deal the Hornets were getting something in that deal rather than looking like Cleveland and ultimately getting the shaft in free agency. I'd rather a team get something than have Chris Paul walk at the end of the season and his former team get nothing.

Edit: Oh, and Danny Granger wants to change his last name to "Stern's Bitch" while John Laurinaitis (yes, the Executive Vice President of Talent Relations and Interim Raw General Manager) tweeted "For those of you who are speculating, yes, I did offer David Stern some advice recently. #NBA #CP3."

Gotta love it.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Fait Accompli

[DYSI]

Yeah, just because the Hornets gain a lot of salary over the next two years because of the trade doesn't mean shit considering Chris Paul IS going to leave. Hornets got a lot more than I thought they would in the deal and I doubt they would get a deal better than this one.

Not sure what the whole situation is about Dwight Howard and the meeting with the Nets is all about, I assume the deal can still go down but it'll just take a bit longer.

[sahyder1]

I don't know why the trade was approved in the first place? Shouldn't the other have a say in it since it is a league owned team? It was fun to knock Gilbert for the LeBron stuff but he is in the right here.

[Trey]

I don't think it ever got approved, it was simply agreed upon by the teams and submitted for league approval which any other time is just a formality and to make sure that the salaries and all that match up.

[Panni]

Three General Managers agreed to a trade that seemingly benefitted all teams. It was a win-win-win. Since the NBA didn't allow Paul to get traded here then in theory shouldn't allow the Hornets to trade him to anyone. So by the end of the season Chris Paul leaves New Orleans and they get absolutely nothing in return. The only way this makes sense is if the NBA is actively contracting the team because they are not helping them out at all.

The Hornets were giving up Chris Paul for Lamar Odom/Kevin Martin/Luis Scola/and first round picks.

[Quom]

It got agreed to because the NBA own New Orleans but aren't allowed to run it because of collusion laws. Otherwise Stern could potentially tamper with teams or offer them stuff to trade players to New Orleans. Their role is to pay the wages whilst someone independent runs the day to days. It's why Stern can never admit to nixing the deal for anything other than basketball reasons. If he admits to fucking over his own team to make the rest of the owners happy he's in deep shit. I think he is either way and unless he sees sense I can see this costing him his job. I can also see it going to court and dragging out. It's a super valuable deal now, not so much in March when all of these players haven't known where they will be until the case is settled. Just a monumental cock up.

The time to balance the teams and change the rules to protect teams is the off season. Not during the trading period coming off a lock out where you just had the fucking chance to appropriately address this.

Yes the trade on paper was unbalanced, but it was no more unbalanced than any other trade where the top name has made it public he's walking. Knowing you have until March (or traditionally February) to get anything for a player or lose them for nothing in the off season is always going to put you on the back foot. I don't love the trade but it was by far the best they were going to get (unless they dug in and managed to secure another draft pick which likely would have been a protected late first round). GSW were never going to deal Curry for him, OK weren't giving up Westbrook. The best they could have managed and I don't think it would happen is a straight up for Rondo and I think this deal is better, besides which Paul saying he wouldn't re-sign with Boston fucked any chance of that up.

My biggest issue with Stern getting involved is because I believe a lot of it was around Howard which just isn't fair. Especially not on NO who have a player they need to unload ASAP and were getting something decent in return. I'm not a massive fan of LA because their fans generally annoy the fuck out of me, but you can't stop the trade you can control just because there may be another one you can't control. It's stupid. Especially now that Howard looks Brooklyn bound.

Players showing no loyalty and walking is fucking horrible and does need addressing. But at the same time the Knicks promising Billups he will retire a Knick before cutting him is also shit. especially given it's highly unlikely he's going to clear waivers (and I'm not sure they can claim him if he does under the new rules).

At the end of the day free agency and trades are necessary. It's fun for fans (in overall balance) Plus I'd rather be in the position Denver are in, than the position Cleveland are. My new thought is in regards to promotion. Would it cost the NBA to ensure that their faces of the NBA come from small market teams to boost those players profiles? I figure part of the allure of moving to a traditional powerhouse is the endorsement/sponsorship deals. Now I would never want to limit player sponsorships. I don't believe it's fair that players can't earn private money for being brilliant. But when you aren't appearing in the most important games on national television it's unlikely your profile outside of fans is going to reach the heights of Kobe etc (although Lebron may have shown this to be incorrect but his numbers and hype out of high school was unprecedented).

I mean if I can earn my contract + 15% or earn the same contract + 120% I'm going with the latter, which may be the major appeal of the big market teams. The money is independent of the NBA and I believe should stay that way (as it's a player issue not a league issue). My only thought is that perhaps the NBPA could introduce a tax system on the extra money to help support pensions or whatever, which has nothing to do with encouraging players to stick around.

Basically there is a massive imbalance between small market and big market teams in regards to far more than the team necessarily being in a big market. I'd also argue a team in a nice location with a history of winning would have similar pull. I'd argue that in reality big and small market is a myth. According to television viewers GSW are the fifth biggest team, but you don't see players kicking down doors to go there. I think building a successful team is what is important. Sure LA is popular because it's LA, but you don't see players deciding to sign with the Clippers because the Lakers aren't an option, similar with NJ except Jay-Z is changing that because he's Jay-Z. Players want to play on the same teams as their heroes played on or the teams which have a track record of having players who become the face of the NBA. Until the 'small market' teams are shown as a viable way for a player to have the independent earning potential the 'big market' teams are always going to be more likely to sign them.

As a fan this shit is far worse to me than the lockout. The lockout had a set purpose for both players and owners. These sorts of trades needed to be discussed during this period but owners and players didn't wish to address the real elephant in the room. It's these trades which have made a 'haves' and 'have nots' or 'big' and 'small' market teams. Choosing to finally address it on the day you ratify the new CBA is fucking ridiculous, ill timed and is ruining one of the most exciting parts of the season. Just stupid and unforgivable. If it was such an issue to Gilbert he shouldn't have agreed to any new deal that didn't fix the issue. Since he agreed to a deal that allowed for these trades he can't now have a cry and make uncle Stern fix it for him. He's seriously looking like Bret Hart now, yes he was the one screwed and mistreated but at some point you need to move beyond it, lest you appear as a bitter douche who deserved screwing over.

[DMN in the House]

The only reason it got vetoed is because it ended up with 'Chris Paul to Lakers'. The Lakers gave up their main strength, their size, including their entire PF rotation. It was as fair a deal as NOLA was going to get, considering I don't see the Clips handing over Gordon or GS giving up Curry. If anything, LA loses on that trade in the short term, because it makes them a worse team.

[Quom]

Yeah but see I hate Lakers fans complaining about it. I mean seriously you guys seem to get everything. The fans hardly have any right to chuck a tantrum. If he was going to Minnesota and it got nixed I'd get why they would be upset, but poor LA are stuck with keeping Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Kobe. That must be a really bitter pill to swallow.

[DMN in the House]

Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful that the team has been ran so well. The Lakers weren't handed their history of success, it's been hard-earned through history. I would rather NOT get Paul, but I'm going to call a spade a spade.

Small market teams CAN compete. They have done so in the past. It just takes good management.

I'm not saying the Lakers have never gotten a break, though.

[Quom]

No really they can't. There was never talk of Shaq leaving Orlando for Vancouver or Seattle or Toronto or Phoenix or Philly or even Chicago. If it's just because of LA he was never going to the Clippers (or the Kings).

That's the issue, big named free agents who choose to walk never ever want to go to a team that doesn't have a proven history of having players who are incredibly popular. The teams that do develop a winning system still aren't in consideration. I don't see San Antonio given as an option of teams these players may willingly sign with. Dallas made their facilities the best in the league (supposedly, it's not like I have been in every locker-room or every mode of transport the teams use). Even with Cuban being willing to throw his money at anything that might have brought him a title there weren't big names yelling out 'pick me, pick me'.

Look at what happened in Chicago when Jordan retired or Phoenix with Barkley or Utah with Stockton, Malone or Seattle with Payton/Kemp. Having good players or a history of making play off runs in recent memories isn't enough to ensure that you will suddenly have free agents coming out to express a desire to sign with you.

I'm picking on LA but NY and Miami (in recent years) have also managed it. I'm thinking more and more that it's an exposure issue rather than a market or player issue. When Jordan left of course the focus would leave Chicago, same with Cleveland and James. I wish I could find how often NY were still highly publicised/used/televised during their shit years to see if it is this imbalance that's an issue. I can't find any figures though.

[Panni]

I'm not a Laker fan at all...in fact I used to be the biggest hater until the new Heat came into existence late year. But I don't buy the idea that this trade would have been vetoed if it was between the Clippers-Hornets for the same exact pieces to the same exact city.

It was vetoed because its the Lakers and David Stern wants to maintain this facade that there is parity in this league.

[Fait Accompli]

To Quom's point, during the Knicks shit years, the selling point wasn't the team - rather it was because it's New York/MSG/"the home of basketball in America". So the Knicks were still getting decent attendance due New York to having such a strong basketball history and people love seeing the games.