EPTNBA Playoffs 2012 - Page 350
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
saltygrapes
181 Posts
sadly for the rest of the league Miami couldn't do much better than that with their taxpayer mid-level. Ray is getting up there in age, but he is going to command lots of attention, which will space the floor for the two best paint attackers in the NBA... either that or teams will constantly be leaving open the best 3-pt shooter in NBA history. Oh yeah and he shoots FTs at 90%. And he'll still be able to shoot around his career average of 40% from 3-pt land with the open looks he'll be getting. I guess I wonder how Miami will handle Allen/Wade playing the same position and neither really being able to play the 3, but I'd assume they view it as a blessing where they can reduce Wade's minutes a ton in the regular season without losing much and then in the playoffs, play depending on matchups. Miami played small and just switched everything in the ECF and Finals anyway so I wouldn't be surprised to see them play a lineup of Chalmers/Wade/Allen/Lebron/Bosh against most teams despite the lack of size. With Chicago's 2 best players likely out for half of the season and Boston having tons of question marks, it looks like the East next year might end up one of the least competitive conferences in recent memory, which is sad. I'm hoping Rose and Deng come back strong and can at least give Miami a little nudge, but I doubt anyone will be challenging them next year until the Finals | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13241 Posts
Whatever agreement the NBA had with Demps on personnel, it obviously wasn't completely binding which is why Stern was able to step in and stop the trade. There's no doubt a majority of NBA owners didn't like what they were seeing and as part owners of the NBA and ipso facto the Hornets, I think they were within their rights to voice those concerns (and I'm sure a lot of it had to do with weakening the Lakers). Was it an ideal situation? No. Was it shady? Yes. Was Stern within his rights to do it though? I think so. If it ever so happens the NBA owns a team again, this incident will open an interesting precident. Until that time comes though, I'm happy enough to give the NBA a pass on the nixed trade. | ||
|
AntiGrav1ty
Germany2310 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13241 Posts
Allen to Miami doesn't make a huge amount of sense for me. From what I've seen, he still wants to be a starter and has a lot to contribute to a Playoff team. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13241 Posts
| ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On June 28 2012 12:48 RowdierBob wrote: Yeah I agree with what you're saying. I think everyone bar Lakers fans knew how bad of a deal it was though which forced him to intervene. After the whole Pau/Memphis debacle, it would have been criminal to allow it to happen again. I agree that Stern went about it wrong, but the right decision was ultimately made so I can't hate it too much. You do realize that up until that point that was the best deal for NO tho? The clippers trade only came about BC this was nixed. And the clips only included the pick and EG BC they had no leverage at all when dealing with the league. Why would they try to play hardball with stern after he essentially shafted the most powerful team in the league right before he gave the clips a chance (the CLIPS!). Under normal circumstances that doesnt happen that way, specially BC CP3 was going to leave them in the rearview no matter what at the end of the season. Trade or no trade, CP3 was going to leave the hornets in worse shape than lbj left the cavs. Hornets franchise fuckn 'lucked' out by being owned by the league during this period, don't get it twisted. Its ok to dislike the lakers, but lets get real for a sec and see that this sAme logic would apply had it been any other team. and yes that wasnt the greatest trade for NO, agreed on that. Should be fun draft day tomorrow. Wheels and deals. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13241 Posts
The Lakers could not have afforded CP3 through FA and I think that's what people were pissed about. The Lakers were getting a top-tier player whilst only giving a lesser player in return. That's why the rest of the NBA were pissed: it was the Pau Gasol trade all over again with LA abusing its large market status. That's nothing against LA--they're allowed to do it. But the owners could actually do something about it this time and they did, which is why I don't have a problem with it. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13241 Posts
| ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 13:24 RowdierBob wrote: I don't think that situation set any precedent for Stern vetting every trade in the NBA though from now on. It was a unique situation where the NBA owned a team and stopped a bad trade from hurting said team. Whatever agreement the NBA had with Demps on personnel, it obviously wasn't completely binding which is why Stern was able to step in and stop the trade. There's no doubt a majority of NBA owners didn't like what they were seeing and as part owners of the NBA and ipso facto the Hornets, I think they were within their rights to voice those concerns (and I'm sure a lot of it had to do with weakening the Lakers). Was it an ideal situation? No. Was it shady? Yes. Was Stern within his rights to do it though? I think so. If it ever so happens the NBA owns a team again, this incident will open an interesting precident. Until that time comes though, I'm happy enough to give the NBA a pass on the nixed trade. I didn't say it set a precedent, I said that there wasn't one and that there's a reason for it, i.e. anti-competitive and conflict of interest. If it wasn't binding, then they should have made it clear to the parties involved in the negotiations. There's no way the Lakers and Rockets organizations announce that trade if they hadn't been told clearly that Demps had the authority to make it final. Stern changed the rules after the fact, which is about as improper and unfair as it gets. As for the other owners, they knew damn well that there was a blatant conflict of interest if they were able to step in and affect personnel decisions for a competing team. You don't think it's a coincidence that the trade that was let through ended up turning the Hornets into a non-factor and thus a non-threat for that season? I'm sure the owners all changed their minds about the move once they saw the Hornets draw the #1 pick though. It was far from an ideal situation, it was actually close to a worst case scenario. That whole situation was about as bad as it gets in sports. It was definitely shady. No way was Stern within his rights to do it unless you somehow think that Stern's rights include breaking the rules for his own league. It's not an interesting precedent, it's a terrible one if it ever happens again. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13241 Posts
The Lakers got screwed, I completely agree with you. I just think, in this very specific case, Stern was within his rights to screw them. If the Lakers felt particuarly aggrieved/cheated, they should litigate it in the courts (but I suspect they knew they didn't have a winning case). | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 13:45 RowdierBob wrote: It was an awful trade for NO. That was the best deal because the Lakers could afford taking the rental chance on Paul. Any other team giving up fair value would have no commitment from Paul to stay so why bother? The Clips only got involved because CP3's choice destination (LA) were nixed so they had leverage (they didn't have to compete with Big Brother). The Lakers could not have afforded CP3 through FA and I think that's what people were pissed about. The Lakers were getting a top-tier player whilst only giving a lesser player in return. That's why the rest of the NBA were pissed: it was the Pau Gasol trade all over again with LA abusing its large market status. That's nothing against LA--they're allowed to do it. But the owners could actually do something about it this time and they did, which is why I don't have a problem with it. The Lakers were giving up Pau, the #2 player on a back-to-back championship team, arguably the 2nd best Center in the league, and clearly the best all-around one. The fact that he was going to Houston and not the Hornets doesn't change the fact that the Lakers were giving up about as close to fair value as there was for CP3. That deal had nothing to do with the Lakers' "large market status" except that it may have made it a more attractive destination for CP3. How is Pau clearly a lesser player? CP3 had yet to make it out of the first round at that point, and was recovering from an injury that has forever robbed him of the explosiveness that made him the best PG in the league. How is NOH getting EJ so much better? Just because of youth? You can build around a SG with injury issues better than PF/C who hasn't missed any significant time over the past few seasons and had already proven capable of leading teams to significant success? The other owners were only pissed because of sour grapes. None of them had managed to put together a deal like what the Lakers and Rockets had been able to, and they were buttsore about missing out. None of the other teams had been willing to offer a player of Pau's caliber or they would have done it. The fact that they were able to actually collude with Stern to rescind an agreed-upon trade is a blemish on the reputation of the league, and they should be ashamed of themselves for allowing it to happen. Btw, why is everyone so willing to let the results define the fairness of a trade with NOH and CP3, but not MEM and Pau? The Grizzlies are in a significantly better position than they were in when all they had was Pau, but people still complain about the Pau trade. Yet, NOR luckily ending up with a new owner and Anthony Davis erases Stern's rescinding of the trade? Sorry, but that's BS and people looking the other way because of sour grapes all over again. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 14:02 RowdierBob wrote: The Hornets were never going to be a threat with Martin, Scola, Dragic anyway. It wasn't the Hornets being a factor the owners were worried about. They saw a future of CP3/Bynum/Kobe/Odom, which would have screwed them all over, and decided to do something about it because they could for a change. The Lakers got screwed, I completely agree with you. I just think, in this very specific case, Stern was within his rights to screw them. If the Lakers felt particuarly aggrieved/cheated, they should litigate it in the courts (but I suspect they knew they didn't have a winning case). I'm still not sure what you mean by "within his rights". It wasn't a violation of the rules? It wasn't anti-competitive? It wasn't an abuse of power? It wasn't an abuse of a conflict of interest? What exactly are these rights he was within? Btw, it was going to be CP3/Kobe/Bynum. Odom was going to the Hornets. The Lakers were breaking up the formidable frontcourt that had won them two championships in a row only a season ago to go after CP3 who was recovering from a serious injury. Not only were they gambling on CP3 getting hurt, but they were breaking the cardinal rule of not trading big for small. Not to mention there was no telling how Kobe would have co-existed with CP3. It was a risk they were taking, and not the one-sided trade people were making it out to be. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On June 28 2012 13:21 saltygrapes wrote: Aww jeez.... Lots of people reporting Ray Allen will indeed sign with Miami next week. sadly for the rest of the league Miami couldn't do much better than that with their taxpayer mid-level. Ray is getting up there in age, but he is going to command lots of attention, which will space the floor for the two best paint attackers in the NBA... either that or teams will constantly be leaving open the best 3-pt shooter in NBA history. Oh yeah and he shoots FTs at 90%. And he'll still be able to shoot around his career average of 40% from 3-pt land with the open looks he'll be getting. I guess I wonder how Miami will handle Allen/Wade playing the same position and neither really being able to play the 3, but I'd assume they view it as a blessing where they can reduce Wade's minutes a ton in the regular season without losing much and then in the playoffs, play depending on matchups. Miami played small and just switched everything in the ECF and Finals anyway so I wouldn't be surprised to see them play a lineup of Chalmers/Wade/Allen/Lebron/Bosh against most teams despite the lack of size. With Chicago's 2 best players likely out for half of the season and Boston having tons of question marks, it looks like the East next year might end up one of the least competitive conferences in recent memory, which is sad. I'm hoping Rose and Deng come back strong and can at least give Miami a little nudge, but I doubt anyone will be challenging them next year until the Finals I was just thinking today that Ray-Ray would have been a perfect fit for the Bulls. I ain't gonna lie, I was rooting for the Bulls to crash hard, but I get the feeling we missed some really good series with Rose's injury this year and possibly beyond. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On June 28 2012 13:45 RowdierBob wrote: It was an awful trade for NO. That was the best deal because the Lakers could afford taking the rental chance on Paul. Any other team giving up fair value would have no commitment from Paul to stay so why bother? The Clips only got involved because CP3's choice destination (LA) were nixed so they had leverage (they didn't have to compete with Big Brother). The Lakers could not have afforded CP3 through FA and I think that's what people were pissed about. The Lakers were getting a top-tier player whilst only giving a lesser player in return. That's why the rest of the NBA were pissed: it was the Pau Gasol trade all over again with LA abusing its large market status. That's nothing against LA--they're allowed to do it. But the owners could actually do something about it this time and they did, which is why I don't have a problem with it. Clips had leverage really? i am talking about leverage when negotiating witht the Hornets, or maybe I should say the league. Not leverage versus the Lakers since that was useless at that point b/c Hornets weren't going to trade to LA anymore and having leverage versus the Lakers meant nothing when negotiating terms of the deal. But just to go with your point, you are right on one thing. And that is that the Clippers should have had leverage verse the Hornets b/c of all the reasons we have just said (cp3 leaving no matter what, the Clips being the ONLY team left). The funny thing (and the point of my previous post) is that even with all this, it is like they had no leverage at all. They were forced to give up EG, kaman, aminu, something else AND the #1 pick. The wanted to give Bledsoe instead of the pick, but no the Hornets had leverage so they made them do what they wanted. Wait how did the Hornets have the leverage to do this? Oh yeah that's right. The Lakers could not have afforded CP3 through FA and I think that's what people were pissed about Really now lol. But the owners could actually do something about it this time and they did, which is why I don't have a problem with it. Oh you mean like the new CBA they all agreed to that was specifically meant to break up the Lakers team (and it did and still is) ? BC if the owners did get mad it is bc the Lakers outsmarted once again after they had all thought they had finally beaten them with the new CBA. They probably felt like they were going back to square 1, which is smart by them, I am totally not blaming the other team's owners. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13241 Posts
If he did it just because he thought the Lakers would become too strong, then I'd have a much larger issue with it. I'd like to think he did it because it was a horrible deal for NO and not in the best interests of the franchise long-term. People will laugh at me and say of course he did it to stop the Lakers getting too strong, but it's purely speculation. I saw that nixed trade as the owner doing the right thing for his franchise--that's why I'm OK with it. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13241 Posts
And the Lakers didn't outsmart anyone--they were just abusing their market power. Trade CP3 to Milwaukee and he just Lols and walks away. Trade him to LA and he says you beauty and signs up again. Other owners know this which is why the majority can never make a play for him in a trade. No team was going to trade for CP3 unless they had some sort of agreement he would stay and CP3 was very specific about where he wanted to go. The Lakers don't outsmart other teams, they just know people want to play for them and abuse the situation. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 14:14 RowdierBob wrote: As owner of the team he was within his rights to veto the trade (so long as it was in the best interests of the team he owned and not just to screw over the Lakers who were going to become too "strong"). If he did it just because he thought the Lakers would become too strong, then I'd have a much larger issue with it. I'd like to think he did it because it was a horrible deal for NO and not in the best interests of the franchise long-term. People will laugh at me and say of course he did it to stop the Lakers getting too strong, but it's purely speculation. I saw that nixed trade as the owner doing the right thing for his franchise--that's why I'm OK with it. Stern wasn't the owner. He was representing the interests of the league, which had purchased the team. As part of serving the interests of the league (i.e. fairness, legality, etc.), the deal involved putting Demps in charge of personnel decisions to maintain the competitive fairness of the league as a whole. He ultimately went against the rules that had been set to allow for the league to own the Hornets while maintaining its integrity, and only got away with it because the rest of the owners went along with it due to their sour grapes. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 14:16 RowdierBob wrote: Sorry my point was the Lakers would have had to gut significant parts of their roster to afford CP3 in FA. Which they were doing via the trade by including Odom and Gasol...? | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13241 Posts
If only every team could be so lucky =/ | ||
| ||
