|
On June 28 2012 14:19 XaI)CyRiC wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I can understand the other owners' sour grapes though. But I also completely understand why Lakers fans like you and Hysteria are pissed about it. I just happen to think Stern did the right thing by the Hornets in nixing the trade.
|
|
|
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).
Agreed on that the owners were more scared of the lakers than the Hornets. The whole point of the CBA was to take a stab at the Lakers and try to prevent those same type of things from happening. The lakers were smart and tried to shed salary (willing to give up two championship-tested 7-foot bigs for an injury-prone small -ya, such an uneven trade by them -_-) while arguably getting better or, at the very least, still remaining a contender.
Can Lakers fans cry about it 5 years later if their team sucks? Hell no. Can people look the other way less than a year later and act as if the NBA handled it all perfectly? Hell no. You can bet your ass if this ever comes up again, that the NBA will have a resolution for any situation in place before the fact, which will be great and dandy and all. It still doesn't take away from the fact that this situation was the "ginuea pig" used in the lab experiment by mad-scientist Stern. And we all know how it goes for poor ginuea pigs...
|
On June 28 2012 14:14 MassHysteria wrote:
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.
I guess if you call attracting cry baby prima donnas 'outsmarting', then the Lakers have the market covered.
The Gasol trade WAS pretty epicly bad, but it turned out ok for Memphis in the long run.
|
Haha, oh come on Laker fans? CP3 is suddenly an injury-prone small? Every man and his dog knew the Lakers were getting a massive upgrade even if they did have to give up Pau and Odom. You're talking franchise calibre player versus second and third cogs (albeit good ones).
The Lakers would have been so much better with CP3. To argue otherwise is being facetious.
|
Outsmarting the new CBA is what I meant. The CBA is meant to hurt the Lakers most in these next few years. The Lakers had an answer figured out like days after the CBA and that is called outsmarting the league in my eyes. The owners were mad because lakers were shedding salary and still remaining a contender for a longer time to come than if they only let them keep their current stars and let them age out of contention. How is that so hard to see guys? This would have also let them try to set up to get Howard, which the owners sure as hell did not want. So you are right, they tried to do something because they thought they actually had a chance to, and they succeeded.
PS It is also my belief that stern didn't really want to nix the trade, but was pressured too much by the owners and had to budge
|
On June 28 2012 14:40 RowdierBob wrote:
Haha, oh come on Laker fans? CP3 is suddenly an injury-prone small? Every man and his dog knew the Lakers were getting a massive upgrade even if they did have to give up Pau and Odom. You're talking franchise calibre player versus second and third cogs (albeit good ones).
The Lakers would have been so much better with CP3. To argue otherwise is being facetious. Haha cmon laker haters? All of a sudden Gasol and Odom are pieces of cogs that got lucky to be on the same team as Kobe when they won the ship?
Of course paul would be an upgrade at PG, but you are fooling yourself to thinking they were a lock to be more dominant at that point. Bynum was still a question mark coming back from injury...no one knew the season he would have..new coach, new system with Kobe showing his age...it only seemed that way bc everything was about beating the Lakers at that time.
I am not trying to sell CP3 short btw I actually do believe they would have been a better team but I could just as easily make the argument that 7-footers are way more valuable to give up, without even going into the specifics of these 2 types of 7-footers (odom and gasol). Like I said tho I am not trying to make that the main point of what we are discussing (bc it isn't) I just think you are trying to nitpick a little to try to make your point now, which I am not entirely sure what it is now?
edit: I only mean that bc I agreed with a lot of what you said. If your point is to say that the Hornets were making a terrible trade in your eyes, I actually made that same statement in my first posts of this topic on the last page if you want to look it up.
|
Stern was justified in screwing the Lakers. =D
|
On June 28 2012 13:31 RowdierBob wrote:
I think Nash could be good on the Knicks. It would rejuvinate Amare and I can see him having the gravitas to direct Melo around and have him actually listen. Lin could be your sixth man then.
I don't think Lin is a good fit for 6th man. He could learn from Nash for sure, but I think he really needs to start to develop his game and have an impact. They also got Shump who needs playing time, Melo who needs the ball and a coach who really doesn't play Nash-ball. Definitely some things to consider. Either Nash or the team would have to change their playstyle.
|
justified? no. legally able to? yes.
+ Show Spoiler + F U Bob, making these feeling resurface and making me sound like a whiny laker fan after I thought I was over it 
|
We are devoting a lot of space to something that has come and gone like 8 months ago?
|
On June 28 2012 15:00 MassHysteria wrote:justified? no. legally able to? yes. + Show Spoiler + F U Bob, making these feeling resurface and making me sound like a whiny laker fan after I thought I was over it
Just trade Ebanks for LeBron IMO 
|
I just think it's funny how everyone says Kobe shoots too much and how his teams have won in spite of him being a non-team player, yet when the time comes to give credit to the 2 other main guys who helped them get to the championship for like 3 or 4 years-in-a-row, it's like oh no they are just cogs. Which one is it 
edit to below: Remind me to never let you be my mechanic then sir.
|
Every player's a cog. Some are just more vital to the machine than others.
|
On June 28 2012 15:25 MassHysteria wrote:I just think it's funny how everyone says Kobe shoots too much and how his teams have won in spite of him being a non-team player, yet when the time comes to give credit to the 2 other main guys who helped them get to the championship for like 3 or 4 years-in-a-row, it's like oh no they are just cogs. Which one is it
People say Gasol is a cog? And who's the other guy? Artest? Odom?
The criticism of Kobe is a bit circular, though. His shooting too much is both a result and a cause of his team's poor performance.
|
Bob called Gasol and Odom cogs in a post, so I was just using that as the term but fill in whatever for cog lol.
When they went to the ship 3 years in a row you mean? Ya Kobe got them there even with those team's poor performances for sure..
edit: for the record, I am not entirely sure what cog even means, I went to go look it up lulz. My point is that it is taking away credit from a great player like Pau to say he is easily found or replaceable.
|
Screw the Lakers, stop trying to fleece smaller market teams and getting pissed when the acting figure of the team stops you from doing it. Thank god Stern didn't let that shitty deal go through.
|
United States4471 Posts
On June 28 2012 16:20 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Screw the Lakers, stop trying to fleece smaller market teams and getting pissed when the acting figure of the team stops you from doing it. Thank god Stern didn't let that shitty deal go through.
Excellent analysis and reasoning.
|
Cyric #1 Pau fan? 
Seriously though, I was right there thinking of Pau is a big old softie getting overpaid until I read what you wrote. So you've changed at least one mind about Pau
|
On June 28 2012 15:44 MassHysteria wrote:
Bob called Gasol and Odom cogs in a post, so I was just using that as the term but fill in whatever for cog lol.
When they went to the ship 3 years in a row you mean? Ya Kobe got them there even with those team's poor performances for sure..
edit: for the record, I am not entirely sure what cog even means, I went to go look it up lulz. My point is that it is taking away credit from a great player like Pau to say he is easily found or replaceable.
It's a metaphor yo!
It's a rudimentary way to valuing a players worth in the league:
Superstar cog (1st tier): franchise guys whom you build around. Generally carries the scoring load and the guy you give the ball in the fourth. See:
1-Lebron James
2-Dwight Howard
3-Dwayne Wade
4-Chris Paul
5-Dirk Nowitzki
6-Kevin Durant
7-Kobe Bryant
8-Derrick Rose
9-Deron Williams
10-Kevin Love
2nd tier cogs: guys who work really well when they're not the go-to guy. A lot of these guys masquerade as tier one cogs (or are made to be one by their franchise) but can't get the job done. A lot of former tier one guys fall in here due to regression/age. See:
Al Horford
Chris Bosh
LaMarcus Aldridge
Kevin Garnett
Paul Pierce
Zach Randolph
Tim Duncan
Manu Ginobili
Rajon Rondo
Russel Westbrook
Steve Nash
Amare Stodemire
Camelo Anthony
Pau Gasol
Blake Griffin
Andrew Bynum
Tony Parker
Eric Gordon
Luol Deng
James Harden
I can feel the rage building at this list already. A lot of these guys move up as they get better with age or fall.
Tier 3: Still very good players, but will always be as good as they better quality guys they play with. These guys can often put up good numbers, but they're often a lot more hollow. Put them in a good situation and they'll look like world beaters; put them as a tier 1 and they'll flounder badly. Can masquerade decently as a tier 2, but you'd rather have one of the guys above in that role. See:
Marc Gasol
Rudy Gay
Joakim Noah
Nene
Joe Johnson
Andrew Bogut
Andre Iguodala
Ray Allen
Danny Granger
Tyson Chandler
Stephen Curry
John Wall
Monta Ellis
Kevin Martin
Josh Smith
David West
Tyreke Evans
Gerald Wallace
Carlos Boozer
Brook Lopez
Brandon Jennings
Al Jeff
Luis Scola
David Lee
Jason Terry
Ibaka
Paul Milsap
Chanucey Billups
Elton Brand
Shawn Marion
Etc etc (bleh running out of steam--there are more guys in this list though).
Then you have super role player types. Generally defensive specialists, but can be crazy good three shooters. Think:
Steve Novak
Thabo Sefolosha
Mbah Moute
Battier
I'd then say role players like the Ariza's, Dorell Wright's and Keith Bogans of the NBA. Can play significant minutes but definitely the blue collar types of the NBA.
And then there's roster filler types. Guys generally play limited minutes and are probably more important in practice environments than anything.
All cogs in a team, but some more important than others. People's list will change depending on opinions (you could justify guys like Garnett and Duncan being tier 1 even though they've definitely regressed).
So yeah, when I say Pau's a second cog that's what I mean. And it's why a team has be wary taking him on at his contact and age.
[I'm home sick with too much time on my hands].
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
