|
I'm really averse to putting Dwight Howard in tier 1.
|
On June 29 2012 03:43 Ace wrote:
I'm really averse to putting Dwight Howard in tier 1.
What's not to like about a 6'11" self absorbed baby who got his coach and GM fired?
|
On June 29 2012 02:29 XaI)CyRiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 21:05 TwoToneTerran wrote:On June 28 2012 16:33 XaI)CyRiC wrote: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. Is this sarcastic? I was mostly speaking as a Hornets fan who was very angry for what was shipping off a top 10 player in the league. Edit: Here, let me put it this way. I'm really, really bitter and dismissive of how you and Lakers fans feel screwed over because you didn't get to screw MY team over. It really disgusts me. I know you're talking about precedence and ends justify the means and some fairly reasonable stuff but what you wanted was for your franchise, that has won five fucking titles in recent memory, to take a wet steamy dump on my franchise that has never even sniffed a title because it would uphold some morally ambiguous integrity of the league. It really does irritate me that a Lakers fan can sit there and be mad at the whole ordeal when your franchise was consciously fucking mine and that's OK because Lakers have more fans. The Lakers did get screwed over, and it was by Stern and the rest of the owners for pulling off something that should never have been allowed and which they had taken steps to prevent (but conveniently ignored). The move caused them to lose the 6th man of the year and crippled a team that should have been contending but for a league run by a corrupt SOB bending to the pressure of the rest of the owners who were bitter that the Lakers have been so consistently good over the years. There's nothing ambiguous about Stern and the other owners violating the very rules they had set in place and agreed to just because they were bitter about the Lakers pulling off something the rest of them couldn't. It was wrong in every way possible plain and simple. If you want proof, even Bill Simmons, a notorious Lakers hater, was blown away by what Stern and the owners did and called them out for the bullshit move it was. If you're pissed about that potential trade and what it would have meant for your team, then blame the people from the Hornets organization and Chris Paul that put it in a terrible position. The Lakers didn't deprive the Hornets of any attractive assets apart from CP3, the Lakers didn't fail to put together a team that CP3 would want to be a part of anymore, the Lakers didn't make CP3 want to leave the Hornets organization and make it so obvious that he left them with no leverage in trade negotiations, the Lakers didn't make the Hornets lose an owner and unable to find a willing buyer, the Lakers didn't make the league buy the team and put Stern in charge, the Lakers didn't make Demps choose to negotiate and accept that deal, etc. That was all the Hornets and CP3, yet I don't see anyone pointing fingers at the failed organization or the superstar who made his own "decision" to leave in a way that screwed them. What exactly did the Lakers do except what any other team in the league would have done if they could? Do you think the rest of the teams in the league aren't constantly trying to get as much as possible while giving up as little as possible? You think they aren't trying to take advantage of circumstances, leverage, etc? Don't hate on the Lakers organization simply because they're better at running their team than almost anyone. Do you really think the other teams in the league weren't trying to fleece the Clippers to get CP3? You think they wouldn't have done so if given the opportunity? Do you think the Hornets would not have fleeced another team if they had the opportunity? You need to accept the reality that every team is trying to get the best deals possible, the Lakers are very good at doing so which is why they've had so much success, and the Hornets were very bad at it. If Hornets fans are bitter about not having championships, then point your finger to the people who make the decisions for the team. Lakers fans are pissed because they had a great team that was hamstrung by Stern and the rest of the league via one of the shadiest moves in the history of the NBA. They had put in the work to build up a team that should have been contending for a ring, playing by the rules and being savvy with their team management. Why shouldn't a team and fanbase expect more rings when the team made the moves that put them in a position to do so? The team put in the work and deserved to enjoy the fruits of that labor just like the Thunder and Heat did this year. The fact that the Lakers have had so much success doesn't make them less deserving of more success in the future. That's exactly the type of bitter, sour grapes bullshit reasoning that led people to look the other way when Stern rescinded the trade and violated every tenet of a competitive sports league in doing so. The fact is that the Hornets had put themselves in a terrible position and the Lakers were simply doing the smart thing that the rest of the league was trying to do by taking advantage of that position to improve their own team. The Lakers weren't asking for favors from anyone, they were making the right moves under the terms set by the league and playing by the rules. The Lakers weren't fucking over the Hornets, their management and CP3 had done so and the Lakers were simply trying to make the best out of the mess like everyone else was. If you're going to be bitter, then direct it at the right people.
I love how your explanation of the Lakers long history of fleecing smaller teams is because they've just been the best FO for decades and that's why they have a billion titles. The Lakers, in the past, just spent more money than others and nowadays pick on teams who can't afford to spend as much as them. It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful).
Oh yes, it's the Hornets fault they're so crappy and the Lakers should be commended for having such a long and great history of being rich assholes. It must be nice having an owner who will pay money to create a legitimate FO and actually push to the salary cap instead of scraping by. Fuck that.
Also, why is it preposterous that the acting owner saw he could prevent the Lakers from scuttling "his" franchise so they could dominate the western conference (where the Hornets reside) even harder? I mean, spell this out to me. League owned, so the Owners decide what to do with the team, right? Why is it preposterous that if the majority of the owners, who owned the goddamn team, wanted the team to act differently, it's unfair? If Jerry Buss cancels a trade tomorrow, is that uproarious? It's a slightly different situation, but it's no different than a damn board meeting. All the other owners "looking aside" -- what the hell kind of point is that? It isn't one! They owned the team! They had every right to do whatever they wanted with it by majority rule, and if they wanted what Stern did then that's their damn right as well. A downtrodden team, for once in its miserable existence, has owners who can exercise some leverage and it's a crime because it screws over the Lakers? Well fuck that. Fuck the Lakers. Stop acting like you're entitled to every unfair deal you can dump on someone else. I applaud every negative thing that ever happens to the Lakers always and forever. If your FO was so goddamn well run you would've put out a better deal than the Clippers.
If the GM is doing a shitty job and you can do better as the owner then do it. If Jerry Buss could improve the team beyond Kupchak's abilities because of his clout as an owner then so goddamn be it.
edit-- You know what, screw it. Burn every franchise in the western conference to the ground. The Lakers are so great, why should anyone, especially owners of other teams, try to compete and not just trade over their star players to them at laughable value? It's astounding. Entitlement thy name is Laker.
|
It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful).
Or Small Markets can continue to do what the Lakers do - have a good Front Office. In the modern NBA the Lakers have been successful because they've just gotten great deals on players when the rest of the league wasn't paying attention. Having more money to spend doesn't mean they will contend better than everyone else. The money argument is way overblown. The league doesn't have parity due to once in a generation players being extremely rare. Small markets have had the most superstars in the league since the 90s but their Front Offices generally screw them over. The Lakers outside of the mid 90s & 2000s immediately grab up FAs or undervalued assets once they have a top player.
|
On June 29 2012 03:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:
I love how your explanation of the Lakers long history of fleecing smaller teams is because they've just been the best FO for decades and that's why they have a billion titles. The Lakers, in the past, just spent more money than others and nowadays pick on teams who can't afford to spend as much as them. It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful).
Oh yes, it's the Hornets fault they're so crappy and the Lakers should be commended for having such a long and great history of being rich assholes. It must be nice having an owner who will pay money to create a legitimate FO and actually push to the salary cap instead of scraping by. Fuck that.
Also, why is it preposterous that the acting owner saw he could prevent the Lakers from scuttling "his" franchise so they could dominate the western conference (where the Hornets reside) even harder? I mean, spell this out to me. League owned, so the Owners decide what to do with the team, right? Why is it preposterous that if the majority of the owners, who owned the goddamn team, wanted the team to act differently, it's unfair? If Jerry Buss cancels a trade tomorrow, is that uproarious? It's a slightly different situation, but it's no different than a damn board meeting. All the other owners "looking aside" -- what the hell kind of point is that? It isn't one! They owned the team! They had every right to do whatever they wanted with it by majority rule, and if they wanted what Stern did then that's their damn right as well. A downtrodden team, for once in its miserable existence, has owners who can exercise some leverage and it's a crime because it screws over the Lakers? Well fuck that. Fuck the Lakers. Stop acting like you're entitled to every unfair deal you can dump on someone else. I applaud every negative thing that ever happens to the Lakers always and forever. If your FO was so goddamn well run you would've put out a better deal than the Clippers.
If the GM is doing a shitty job and you can do better as the owner then do it. If Jerry Buss could improve the team beyond Kupchak's abilities because of his clout as an owner then so goddamn be it.
edit-- You know what, screw it. Burn every franchise in the western conference to the ground. The Lakers are so great, why should anyone, especially owners of other teams, try to compete and not just trade over their star players to them at laughable value? It's astounding. Entitlement thy name is Laker.
David Stern wasn't the owner of the Hornets. He was, and still is, the representative of the 30 (then 29) owners of the NBA. While I do believe that some markets have inherent social and fiscal advantages (ie Club Avalon and no state income tax,) I don't subscribe to this whining narrative that one team can hugely outspend another. There are no Yankees in the NBA - there is a salary cap, a limited pool of excelling talent, 13 man rosters and a rookie draft that's only 2 rounds. Don't bitch and moan at the Lakers when George Shinn failed your team and your city.
It was clear to every NBA fan with a brain that Chris Paul did not intend to extend and would test free agency. Whose fault was it that he wouldn't sign an extension? Not the freaking Lakers. They made a good faith offer and got a good faith acceptance. Only the parties involved in the transaction matter - no one else's opinion matters. Why didn't David Stern step in when Lebron James was traded for 2 1st round picks? The Cavs sure screwed themselves in that trade. Where were his basketball reasons there?
|
On June 29 2012 03:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:29 XaI)CyRiC wrote:On June 28 2012 21:05 TwoToneTerran wrote:On June 28 2012 16:33 XaI)CyRiC wrote: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. Is this sarcastic? I was mostly speaking as a Hornets fan who was very angry for what was shipping off a top 10 player in the league. Edit: Here, let me put it this way. I'm really, really bitter and dismissive of how you and Lakers fans feel screwed over because you didn't get to screw MY team over. It really disgusts me. I know you're talking about precedence and ends justify the means and some fairly reasonable stuff but what you wanted was for your franchise, that has won five fucking titles in recent memory, to take a wet steamy dump on my franchise that has never even sniffed a title because it would uphold some morally ambiguous integrity of the league. It really does irritate me that a Lakers fan can sit there and be mad at the whole ordeal when your franchise was consciously fucking mine and that's OK because Lakers have more fans. The Lakers did get screwed over, and it was by Stern and the rest of the owners for pulling off something that should never have been allowed and which they had taken steps to prevent (but conveniently ignored). The move caused them to lose the 6th man of the year and crippled a team that should have been contending but for a league run by a corrupt SOB bending to the pressure of the rest of the owners who were bitter that the Lakers have been so consistently good over the years. There's nothing ambiguous about Stern and the other owners violating the very rules they had set in place and agreed to just because they were bitter about the Lakers pulling off something the rest of them couldn't. It was wrong in every way possible plain and simple. If you want proof, even Bill Simmons, a notorious Lakers hater, was blown away by what Stern and the owners did and called them out for the bullshit move it was. If you're pissed about that potential trade and what it would have meant for your team, then blame the people from the Hornets organization and Chris Paul that put it in a terrible position. The Lakers didn't deprive the Hornets of any attractive assets apart from CP3, the Lakers didn't fail to put together a team that CP3 would want to be a part of anymore, the Lakers didn't make CP3 want to leave the Hornets organization and make it so obvious that he left them with no leverage in trade negotiations, the Lakers didn't make the Hornets lose an owner and unable to find a willing buyer, the Lakers didn't make the league buy the team and put Stern in charge, the Lakers didn't make Demps choose to negotiate and accept that deal, etc. That was all the Hornets and CP3, yet I don't see anyone pointing fingers at the failed organization or the superstar who made his own "decision" to leave in a way that screwed them. What exactly did the Lakers do except what any other team in the league would have done if they could? Do you think the rest of the teams in the league aren't constantly trying to get as much as possible while giving up as little as possible? You think they aren't trying to take advantage of circumstances, leverage, etc? Don't hate on the Lakers organization simply because they're better at running their team than almost anyone. Do you really think the other teams in the league weren't trying to fleece the Clippers to get CP3? You think they wouldn't have done so if given the opportunity? Do you think the Hornets would not have fleeced another team if they had the opportunity? You need to accept the reality that every team is trying to get the best deals possible, the Lakers are very good at doing so which is why they've had so much success, and the Hornets were very bad at it. If Hornets fans are bitter about not having championships, then point your finger to the people who make the decisions for the team. Lakers fans are pissed because they had a great team that was hamstrung by Stern and the rest of the league via one of the shadiest moves in the history of the NBA. They had put in the work to build up a team that should have been contending for a ring, playing by the rules and being savvy with their team management. Why shouldn't a team and fanbase expect more rings when the team made the moves that put them in a position to do so? The team put in the work and deserved to enjoy the fruits of that labor just like the Thunder and Heat did this year. The fact that the Lakers have had so much success doesn't make them less deserving of more success in the future. That's exactly the type of bitter, sour grapes bullshit reasoning that led people to look the other way when Stern rescinded the trade and violated every tenet of a competitive sports league in doing so. The fact is that the Hornets had put themselves in a terrible position and the Lakers were simply doing the smart thing that the rest of the league was trying to do by taking advantage of that position to improve their own team. The Lakers weren't asking for favors from anyone, they were making the right moves under the terms set by the league and playing by the rules. The Lakers weren't fucking over the Hornets, their management and CP3 had done so and the Lakers were simply trying to make the best out of the mess like everyone else was. If you're going to be bitter, then direct it at the right people. I love how your explanation of the Lakers long history of fleecing smaller teams is because they've just been the best FO for decades and that's why they have a billion titles. The Lakers, in the past, just spent more money than others and nowadays pick on teams who can't afford to spend as much as them. It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful). Oh yes, it's the Hornets fault they're so crappy and the Lakers should be commended for having such a long and great history of being rich assholes. It must be nice having an owner who will pay money to create a legitimate FO and actually push to the salary cap instead of scraping by. Fuck that. Also, why is it preposterous that the acting owner saw he could prevent the Lakers from scuttling "his" franchise so they could dominate the western conference (where the Hornets reside) even harder? I mean, spell this out to me. League owned, so the Owners decide what to do with the team, right? Why is it preposterous that if the majority of the owners, who owned the goddamn team, wanted the team to act differently, it's unfair? If Jerry Buss cancels a trade tomorrow, is that uproarious? It's a slightly different situation, but it's no different than a damn board meeting. All the other owners "looking aside" -- what the hell kind of point is that? It isn't one! They owned the team! They had every right to do whatever they wanted with it by majority rule, and if they wanted what Stern did then that's their damn right as well. A downtrodden team, for once in its miserable existence, has owners who can exercise some leverage and it's a crime because it screws over the Lakers? Well fuck that. Fuck the Lakers. Stop acting like you're entitled to every unfair deal you can dump on someone else. I applaud every negative thing that ever happens to the Lakers always and forever. If your FO was so goddamn well run you would've put out a better deal than the Clippers. If the GM is doing a shitty job and you can do better as the owner then do it. If Jerry Buss could improve the team beyond Kupchak's abilities because of his clout as an owner then so goddamn be it. edit-- You know what, screw it. Burn every franchise in the western conference to the ground. The Lakers are so great, why should anyone, especially owners of other teams, try to compete and not just trade over their star players to them at laughable value? It's astounding. Entitlement thy name is Laker.
Without typing out an essay, I'll spell it out for you. Hornets have a shitty front office, Lakers have a great one. Lakers take advantage and attempt to obtain CP3, but were screwed over by Stern being a shady motherfucker. Why wouldn't Laker fans be pissed? If the Lakers didn't take CP3, he would've went elsewhere anyways. I'm sorry the Hornets have terrible management.
|
On June 29 2012 04:21 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:
I love how your explanation of the Lakers long history of fleecing smaller teams is because they've just been the best FO for decades and that's why they have a billion titles. The Lakers, in the past, just spent more money than others and nowadays pick on teams who can't afford to spend as much as them. It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful).
Oh yes, it's the Hornets fault they're so crappy and the Lakers should be commended for having such a long and great history of being rich assholes. It must be nice having an owner who will pay money to create a legitimate FO and actually push to the salary cap instead of scraping by. Fuck that.
Also, why is it preposterous that the acting owner saw he could prevent the Lakers from scuttling "his" franchise so they could dominate the western conference (where the Hornets reside) even harder? I mean, spell this out to me. League owned, so the Owners decide what to do with the team, right? Why is it preposterous that if the majority of the owners, who owned the goddamn team, wanted the team to act differently, it's unfair? If Jerry Buss cancels a trade tomorrow, is that uproarious? It's a slightly different situation, but it's no different than a damn board meeting. All the other owners "looking aside" -- what the hell kind of point is that? It isn't one! They owned the team! They had every right to do whatever they wanted with it by majority rule, and if they wanted what Stern did then that's their damn right as well. A downtrodden team, for once in its miserable existence, has owners who can exercise some leverage and it's a crime because it screws over the Lakers? Well fuck that. Fuck the Lakers. Stop acting like you're entitled to every unfair deal you can dump on someone else. I applaud every negative thing that ever happens to the Lakers always and forever. If your FO was so goddamn well run you would've put out a better deal than the Clippers.
If the GM is doing a shitty job and you can do better as the owner then do it. If Jerry Buss could improve the team beyond Kupchak's abilities because of his clout as an owner then so goddamn be it.
edit-- You know what, screw it. Burn every franchise in the western conference to the ground. The Lakers are so great, why should anyone, especially owners of other teams, try to compete and not just trade over their star players to them at laughable value? It's astounding. Entitlement thy name is Laker.
David Stern wasn't the owner of the Hornets. He was, and still is, the representative of the 30 (then 29) owners of the NBA. While I do believe that some markets have inherent social and fiscal advantages (ie Club Avalon and no state income tax,) I don't subscribe to this whining narrative that one team can hugely outspend another. There are no Yankees in the NBA - there is a salary cap, a limited pool of excelling talent, 13 man rosters and a rookie draft that's only 2 rounds. Don't bitch and moan at the Lakers when George Shinn failed your team and your city. It was clear to every NBA fan with a brain that Chris Paul did not intend to extend and would test free agency. Whose fault was it that he wouldn't sign an extension? Not the freaking Lakers. They made a good faith offer and got a good faith acceptance. Only the parties involved in the transaction matter - no one else's opinion matters. Why didn't David Stern step in when Lebron James was traded for 2 1st round picks? The Cavs sure screwed themselves in that trade. Where were his basketball reasons there?
Actually David Stern did "own" the Hornets during that time 
He can't stop a LeBron James "trade" since it was a Sign and Trade: LeBron was a Free Agent.
|
On June 29 2012 04:28 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:21 slyboogie wrote:On June 29 2012 03:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:
I love how your explanation of the Lakers long history of fleecing smaller teams is because they've just been the best FO for decades and that's why they have a billion titles. The Lakers, in the past, just spent more money than others and nowadays pick on teams who can't afford to spend as much as them. It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful).
Oh yes, it's the Hornets fault they're so crappy and the Lakers should be commended for having such a long and great history of being rich assholes. It must be nice having an owner who will pay money to create a legitimate FO and actually push to the salary cap instead of scraping by. Fuck that.
Also, why is it preposterous that the acting owner saw he could prevent the Lakers from scuttling "his" franchise so they could dominate the western conference (where the Hornets reside) even harder? I mean, spell this out to me. League owned, so the Owners decide what to do with the team, right? Why is it preposterous that if the majority of the owners, who owned the goddamn team, wanted the team to act differently, it's unfair? If Jerry Buss cancels a trade tomorrow, is that uproarious? It's a slightly different situation, but it's no different than a damn board meeting. All the other owners "looking aside" -- what the hell kind of point is that? It isn't one! They owned the team! They had every right to do whatever they wanted with it by majority rule, and if they wanted what Stern did then that's their damn right as well. A downtrodden team, for once in its miserable existence, has owners who can exercise some leverage and it's a crime because it screws over the Lakers? Well fuck that. Fuck the Lakers. Stop acting like you're entitled to every unfair deal you can dump on someone else. I applaud every negative thing that ever happens to the Lakers always and forever. If your FO was so goddamn well run you would've put out a better deal than the Clippers.
If the GM is doing a shitty job and you can do better as the owner then do it. If Jerry Buss could improve the team beyond Kupchak's abilities because of his clout as an owner then so goddamn be it.
edit-- You know what, screw it. Burn every franchise in the western conference to the ground. The Lakers are so great, why should anyone, especially owners of other teams, try to compete and not just trade over their star players to them at laughable value? It's astounding. Entitlement thy name is Laker.
David Stern wasn't the owner of the Hornets. He was, and still is, the representative of the 30 (then 29) owners of the NBA. While I do believe that some markets have inherent social and fiscal advantages (ie Club Avalon and no state income tax,) I don't subscribe to this whining narrative that one team can hugely outspend another. There are no Yankees in the NBA - there is a salary cap, a limited pool of excelling talent, 13 man rosters and a rookie draft that's only 2 rounds. Don't bitch and moan at the Lakers when George Shinn failed your team and your city. It was clear to every NBA fan with a brain that Chris Paul did not intend to extend and would test free agency. Whose fault was it that he wouldn't sign an extension? Not the freaking Lakers. They made a good faith offer and got a good faith acceptance. Only the parties involved in the transaction matter - no one else's opinion matters. Why didn't David Stern step in when Lebron James was traded for 2 1st round picks? The Cavs sure screwed themselves in that trade. Where were his basketball reasons there? Actually David Stern did "own" the Hornets during that time He can't stop a LeBron James "trade" since it was a Sign and Trade: LeBron was a Free Agent.
He did not own it. 29 owners of the NBA owned 29 pieces of the Hornets. The sign and trade point was a facetious one - clearly Lebron James was leaving. The Cavs traded him to garner residual value in him leaving. The trade was, fundamentally , a good thing for the Cavaliers. Philosophically, it was wrong.
|
If 29 owers of the NBA own the Hornets, then who makes the decisions for them?
That's why they were calling him up screaming about the trade.
|
Do you think Jerry Buss, Mark Cuban, Micky Arison, James Dolan, Paul Allen, Wyclef Grousbeck, Mikhail Prokorov called? Do you think they had a meeting? I doubt it. Stern saw that the trade would hang an albatross contract on a team that was owner-less. It was a bad fiscal move, so he made a decision that would benefit the league.
And yet, the decision was thoroughly done in bad faith. It was a blatant conflict of interest. He should have just said, "Do not offer trades to this team." Then everyone would have understand. In professional sports, getting fleeced in a trade is part of the risk of making trades. But when the commissioner of the league can give you a do-over? How is this not like looking at the top card of the deck before deciding to hit or stay?
|
Actually yes, I do think they did.
|
Oh. Well, I think we can agree that Jerry Buss probably didn't. We can agree to disagree on the rest.
|
On June 29 2012 04:28 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:21 slyboogie wrote:On June 29 2012 03:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:
I love how your explanation of the Lakers long history of fleecing smaller teams is because they've just been the best FO for decades and that's why they have a billion titles. The Lakers, in the past, just spent more money than others and nowadays pick on teams who can't afford to spend as much as them. It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful).
Oh yes, it's the Hornets fault they're so crappy and the Lakers should be commended for having such a long and great history of being rich assholes. It must be nice having an owner who will pay money to create a legitimate FO and actually push to the salary cap instead of scraping by. Fuck that.
Also, why is it preposterous that the acting owner saw he could prevent the Lakers from scuttling "his" franchise so they could dominate the western conference (where the Hornets reside) even harder? I mean, spell this out to me. League owned, so the Owners decide what to do with the team, right? Why is it preposterous that if the majority of the owners, who owned the goddamn team, wanted the team to act differently, it's unfair? If Jerry Buss cancels a trade tomorrow, is that uproarious? It's a slightly different situation, but it's no different than a damn board meeting. All the other owners "looking aside" -- what the hell kind of point is that? It isn't one! They owned the team! They had every right to do whatever they wanted with it by majority rule, and if they wanted what Stern did then that's their damn right as well. A downtrodden team, for once in its miserable existence, has owners who can exercise some leverage and it's a crime because it screws over the Lakers? Well fuck that. Fuck the Lakers. Stop acting like you're entitled to every unfair deal you can dump on someone else. I applaud every negative thing that ever happens to the Lakers always and forever. If your FO was so goddamn well run you would've put out a better deal than the Clippers.
If the GM is doing a shitty job and you can do better as the owner then do it. If Jerry Buss could improve the team beyond Kupchak's abilities because of his clout as an owner then so goddamn be it.
edit-- You know what, screw it. Burn every franchise in the western conference to the ground. The Lakers are so great, why should anyone, especially owners of other teams, try to compete and not just trade over their star players to them at laughable value? It's astounding. Entitlement thy name is Laker.
David Stern wasn't the owner of the Hornets. He was, and still is, the representative of the 30 (then 29) owners of the NBA. While I do believe that some markets have inherent social and fiscal advantages (ie Club Avalon and no state income tax,) I don't subscribe to this whining narrative that one team can hugely outspend another. There are no Yankees in the NBA - there is a salary cap, a limited pool of excelling talent, 13 man rosters and a rookie draft that's only 2 rounds. Don't bitch and moan at the Lakers when George Shinn failed your team and your city. It was clear to every NBA fan with a brain that Chris Paul did not intend to extend and would test free agency. Whose fault was it that he wouldn't sign an extension? Not the freaking Lakers. They made a good faith offer and got a good faith acceptance. Only the parties involved in the transaction matter - no one else's opinion matters. Why didn't David Stern step in when Lebron James was traded for 2 1st round picks? The Cavs sure screwed themselves in that trade. Where were his basketball reasons there? Actually David Stern did "own" the Hornets during that time He can't stop a LeBron James "trade" since it was a Sign and Trade: LeBron was a Free Agent.
Exactly why I don't understand how people can't see the irony on how NO was the one with leverage in those trades. The difference between NO and CLE was really nothing, yet the leverage they both had was totally different in those scenarios for ONE sole reason. Had NO not done the deal with the Clips, they would have been left like CLE and everyone knew that.
|
On June 29 2012 05:04 MassHysteria wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:28 Ace wrote:On June 29 2012 04:21 slyboogie wrote:On June 29 2012 03:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:
I love how your explanation of the Lakers long history of fleecing smaller teams is because they've just been the best FO for decades and that's why they have a billion titles. The Lakers, in the past, just spent more money than others and nowadays pick on teams who can't afford to spend as much as them. It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful).
Oh yes, it's the Hornets fault they're so crappy and the Lakers should be commended for having such a long and great history of being rich assholes. It must be nice having an owner who will pay money to create a legitimate FO and actually push to the salary cap instead of scraping by. Fuck that.
Also, why is it preposterous that the acting owner saw he could prevent the Lakers from scuttling "his" franchise so they could dominate the western conference (where the Hornets reside) even harder? I mean, spell this out to me. League owned, so the Owners decide what to do with the team, right? Why is it preposterous that if the majority of the owners, who owned the goddamn team, wanted the team to act differently, it's unfair? If Jerry Buss cancels a trade tomorrow, is that uproarious? It's a slightly different situation, but it's no different than a damn board meeting. All the other owners "looking aside" -- what the hell kind of point is that? It isn't one! They owned the team! They had every right to do whatever they wanted with it by majority rule, and if they wanted what Stern did then that's their damn right as well. A downtrodden team, for once in its miserable existence, has owners who can exercise some leverage and it's a crime because it screws over the Lakers? Well fuck that. Fuck the Lakers. Stop acting like you're entitled to every unfair deal you can dump on someone else. I applaud every negative thing that ever happens to the Lakers always and forever. If your FO was so goddamn well run you would've put out a better deal than the Clippers.
If the GM is doing a shitty job and you can do better as the owner then do it. If Jerry Buss could improve the team beyond Kupchak's abilities because of his clout as an owner then so goddamn be it.
edit-- You know what, screw it. Burn every franchise in the western conference to the ground. The Lakers are so great, why should anyone, especially owners of other teams, try to compete and not just trade over their star players to them at laughable value? It's astounding. Entitlement thy name is Laker.
David Stern wasn't the owner of the Hornets. He was, and still is, the representative of the 30 (then 29) owners of the NBA. While I do believe that some markets have inherent social and fiscal advantages (ie Club Avalon and no state income tax,) I don't subscribe to this whining narrative that one team can hugely outspend another. There are no Yankees in the NBA - there is a salary cap, a limited pool of excelling talent, 13 man rosters and a rookie draft that's only 2 rounds. Don't bitch and moan at the Lakers when George Shinn failed your team and your city. It was clear to every NBA fan with a brain that Chris Paul did not intend to extend and would test free agency. Whose fault was it that he wouldn't sign an extension? Not the freaking Lakers. They made a good faith offer and got a good faith acceptance. Only the parties involved in the transaction matter - no one else's opinion matters. Why didn't David Stern step in when Lebron James was traded for 2 1st round picks? The Cavs sure screwed themselves in that trade. Where were his basketball reasons there? Actually David Stern did "own" the Hornets during that time He can't stop a LeBron James "trade" since it was a Sign and Trade: LeBron was a Free Agent. Exactly why I don't understand how people can't see the irony on how NO was the one with leverage in those trades. The difference between NO and CLE was really nothing, yet the leverage they both had was totally different in those scenarios for ONE sole reason. Had NO not done the deal with the Clips, they would have been left like CLE and everyone knew that.
That would be the opposite of leverage. If everyone in the world knows your about to lose a commodity and everyone knows you're trying to move it - everyone know not to offer you full market value.
|
On June 29 2012 04:21 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:
I love how your explanation of the Lakers long history of fleecing smaller teams is because they've just been the best FO for decades and that's why they have a billion titles. The Lakers, in the past, just spent more money than others and nowadays pick on teams who can't afford to spend as much as them. It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful).
Oh yes, it's the Hornets fault they're so crappy and the Lakers should be commended for having such a long and great history of being rich assholes. It must be nice having an owner who will pay money to create a legitimate FO and actually push to the salary cap instead of scraping by. Fuck that.
Also, why is it preposterous that the acting owner saw he could prevent the Lakers from scuttling "his" franchise so they could dominate the western conference (where the Hornets reside) even harder? I mean, spell this out to me. League owned, so the Owners decide what to do with the team, right? Why is it preposterous that if the majority of the owners, who owned the goddamn team, wanted the team to act differently, it's unfair? If Jerry Buss cancels a trade tomorrow, is that uproarious? It's a slightly different situation, but it's no different than a damn board meeting. All the other owners "looking aside" -- what the hell kind of point is that? It isn't one! They owned the team! They had every right to do whatever they wanted with it by majority rule, and if they wanted what Stern did then that's their damn right as well. A downtrodden team, for once in its miserable existence, has owners who can exercise some leverage and it's a crime because it screws over the Lakers? Well fuck that. Fuck the Lakers. Stop acting like you're entitled to every unfair deal you can dump on someone else. I applaud every negative thing that ever happens to the Lakers always and forever. If your FO was so goddamn well run you would've put out a better deal than the Clippers.
If the GM is doing a shitty job and you can do better as the owner then do it. If Jerry Buss could improve the team beyond Kupchak's abilities because of his clout as an owner then so goddamn be it.
edit-- You know what, screw it. Burn every franchise in the western conference to the ground. The Lakers are so great, why should anyone, especially owners of other teams, try to compete and not just trade over their star players to them at laughable value? It's astounding. Entitlement thy name is Laker.
David Stern wasn't the owner of the Hornets. He was, and still is, the representative of the 30 (then 29) owners of the NBA. While I do believe that some markets have inherent social and fiscal advantages (ie Club Avalon and no state income tax,) I don't subscribe to this whining narrative that one team can hugely outspend another. There are no Yankees in the NBA - there is a salary cap, a limited pool of excelling talent, 13 man rosters and a rookie draft that's only 2 rounds. Don't bitch and moan at the Lakers when George Shinn failed your team and your city. It was clear to every NBA fan with a brain that Chris Paul did not intend to extend and would test free agency. Whose fault was it that he wouldn't sign an extension? Not the freaking Lakers. They made a good faith offer and got a good faith acceptance. Only the parties involved in the transaction matter - no one else's opinion matters. Why didn't David Stern step in when Lebron James was traded for 2 1st round picks? The Cavs sure screwed themselves in that trade. Where were his basketball reasons there?
The heck? The owners owned the Hornets, and David Stern was acting on behalf of the majority, which Cyric even said "turned a blind eye over sour grapes" or whatever to his decision on the matter, which is perfectly within their right as owners of the team. And I think the vast majority of the owners, who owned the Hornets, agreed it was a smart move to nix the trade.
People have already commented on the Lebron and the Cavs bit.
On June 29 2012 05:17 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 05:04 MassHysteria wrote:On June 29 2012 04:28 Ace wrote:On June 29 2012 04:21 slyboogie wrote:On June 29 2012 03:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:
I love how your explanation of the Lakers long history of fleecing smaller teams is because they've just been the best FO for decades and that's why they have a billion titles. The Lakers, in the past, just spent more money than others and nowadays pick on teams who can't afford to spend as much as them. It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful).
Oh yes, it's the Hornets fault they're so crappy and the Lakers should be commended for having such a long and great history of being rich assholes. It must be nice having an owner who will pay money to create a legitimate FO and actually push to the salary cap instead of scraping by. Fuck that.
Also, why is it preposterous that the acting owner saw he could prevent the Lakers from scuttling "his" franchise so they could dominate the western conference (where the Hornets reside) even harder? I mean, spell this out to me. League owned, so the Owners decide what to do with the team, right? Why is it preposterous that if the majority of the owners, who owned the goddamn team, wanted the team to act differently, it's unfair? If Jerry Buss cancels a trade tomorrow, is that uproarious? It's a slightly different situation, but it's no different than a damn board meeting. All the other owners "looking aside" -- what the hell kind of point is that? It isn't one! They owned the team! They had every right to do whatever they wanted with it by majority rule, and if they wanted what Stern did then that's their damn right as well. A downtrodden team, for once in its miserable existence, has owners who can exercise some leverage and it's a crime because it screws over the Lakers? Well fuck that. Fuck the Lakers. Stop acting like you're entitled to every unfair deal you can dump on someone else. I applaud every negative thing that ever happens to the Lakers always and forever. If your FO was so goddamn well run you would've put out a better deal than the Clippers.
If the GM is doing a shitty job and you can do better as the owner then do it. If Jerry Buss could improve the team beyond Kupchak's abilities because of his clout as an owner then so goddamn be it.
edit-- You know what, screw it. Burn every franchise in the western conference to the ground. The Lakers are so great, why should anyone, especially owners of other teams, try to compete and not just trade over their star players to them at laughable value? It's astounding. Entitlement thy name is Laker.
David Stern wasn't the owner of the Hornets. He was, and still is, the representative of the 30 (then 29) owners of the NBA. While I do believe that some markets have inherent social and fiscal advantages (ie Club Avalon and no state income tax,) I don't subscribe to this whining narrative that one team can hugely outspend another. There are no Yankees in the NBA - there is a salary cap, a limited pool of excelling talent, 13 man rosters and a rookie draft that's only 2 rounds. Don't bitch and moan at the Lakers when George Shinn failed your team and your city. It was clear to every NBA fan with a brain that Chris Paul did not intend to extend and would test free agency. Whose fault was it that he wouldn't sign an extension? Not the freaking Lakers. They made a good faith offer and got a good faith acceptance. Only the parties involved in the transaction matter - no one else's opinion matters. Why didn't David Stern step in when Lebron James was traded for 2 1st round picks? The Cavs sure screwed themselves in that trade. Where were his basketball reasons there? Actually David Stern did "own" the Hornets during that time He can't stop a LeBron James "trade" since it was a Sign and Trade: LeBron was a Free Agent. Exactly why I don't understand how people can't see the irony on how NO was the one with leverage in those trades. The difference between NO and CLE was really nothing, yet the leverage they both had was totally different in those scenarios for ONE sole reason. Had NO not done the deal with the Clips, they would have been left like CLE and everyone knew that. That would be the opposite of leverage. If everyone in the world knows your about to lose a commodity and everyone knows you're trying to move it - everyone know not to offer you full market value.
They didn't get market value for Chris Paul, just better value than the first crap trade.
|
So they got a do over. That's good for them.
|
On June 29 2012 05:17 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 05:04 MassHysteria wrote:On June 29 2012 04:28 Ace wrote:On June 29 2012 04:21 slyboogie wrote:On June 29 2012 03:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:
I love how your explanation of the Lakers long history of fleecing smaller teams is because they've just been the best FO for decades and that's why they have a billion titles. The Lakers, in the past, just spent more money than others and nowadays pick on teams who can't afford to spend as much as them. It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful).
Oh yes, it's the Hornets fault they're so crappy and the Lakers should be commended for having such a long and great history of being rich assholes. It must be nice having an owner who will pay money to create a legitimate FO and actually push to the salary cap instead of scraping by. Fuck that.
Also, why is it preposterous that the acting owner saw he could prevent the Lakers from scuttling "his" franchise so they could dominate the western conference (where the Hornets reside) even harder? I mean, spell this out to me. League owned, so the Owners decide what to do with the team, right? Why is it preposterous that if the majority of the owners, who owned the goddamn team, wanted the team to act differently, it's unfair? If Jerry Buss cancels a trade tomorrow, is that uproarious? It's a slightly different situation, but it's no different than a damn board meeting. All the other owners "looking aside" -- what the hell kind of point is that? It isn't one! They owned the team! They had every right to do whatever they wanted with it by majority rule, and if they wanted what Stern did then that's their damn right as well. A downtrodden team, for once in its miserable existence, has owners who can exercise some leverage and it's a crime because it screws over the Lakers? Well fuck that. Fuck the Lakers. Stop acting like you're entitled to every unfair deal you can dump on someone else. I applaud every negative thing that ever happens to the Lakers always and forever. If your FO was so goddamn well run you would've put out a better deal than the Clippers.
If the GM is doing a shitty job and you can do better as the owner then do it. If Jerry Buss could improve the team beyond Kupchak's abilities because of his clout as an owner then so goddamn be it.
edit-- You know what, screw it. Burn every franchise in the western conference to the ground. The Lakers are so great, why should anyone, especially owners of other teams, try to compete and not just trade over their star players to them at laughable value? It's astounding. Entitlement thy name is Laker.
David Stern wasn't the owner of the Hornets. He was, and still is, the representative of the 30 (then 29) owners of the NBA. While I do believe that some markets have inherent social and fiscal advantages (ie Club Avalon and no state income tax,) I don't subscribe to this whining narrative that one team can hugely outspend another. There are no Yankees in the NBA - there is a salary cap, a limited pool of excelling talent, 13 man rosters and a rookie draft that's only 2 rounds. Don't bitch and moan at the Lakers when George Shinn failed your team and your city. It was clear to every NBA fan with a brain that Chris Paul did not intend to extend and would test free agency. Whose fault was it that he wouldn't sign an extension? Not the freaking Lakers. They made a good faith offer and got a good faith acceptance. Only the parties involved in the transaction matter - no one else's opinion matters. Why didn't David Stern step in when Lebron James was traded for 2 1st round picks? The Cavs sure screwed themselves in that trade. Where were his basketball reasons there? Actually David Stern did "own" the Hornets during that time He can't stop a LeBron James "trade" since it was a Sign and Trade: LeBron was a Free Agent. Exactly why I don't understand how people can't see the irony on how NO was the one with leverage in those trades. The difference between NO and CLE was really nothing, yet the leverage they both had was totally different in those scenarios for ONE sole reason. Had NO not done the deal with the Clips, they would have been left like CLE and everyone knew that. That would be the opposite of leverage. If everyone in the world knows your about to lose a commodity and everyone knows you're trying to move it - everyone know not to offer you full market value.
I agree, I should have said "Exactly why I don't understand how people can't see the irony on how NO was the one with leverage in that trade sequence with the Clips." My point is that NO should not have had as much leverage as they had with the Clips (ex: demanding 1st round pick instead of Bledsoe b/c as you said no reason for Clips to sweeten the trade up when it was already the best one for NO), but because of the said circumstances they actually had more leverage that any other non NBA-owned team would have had under the same situation.
|
|
|
On June 29 2012 03:43 Ace wrote:
I'm really averse to putting Dwight Howard in tier 1.
What? Seriously? Man ace, I thought you were a bit more level headed than that... come on... But Dwight is by far the best true center in the game. Who comes close, really? Seriously, when's the last time a big man has lead their team to nba conference finals and nba finals in the past 5 years or hell, just to a decent level. Sure, he's not scoring 30 points a game like shaq, but the game isn't that way any more, and the days of shaq, robinson, ewing, etc. are pretty much over with dwight being the only one left. Kevin love is good, but apparently not good enough to make the playoffs yet, and he's certainly not as complete defensively.
|
United States4471 Posts
On June 29 2012 03:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:29 XaI)CyRiC wrote:On June 28 2012 21:05 TwoToneTerran wrote:On June 28 2012 16:33 XaI)CyRiC wrote: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. Is this sarcastic? I was mostly speaking as a Hornets fan who was very angry for what was shipping off a top 10 player in the league. Edit: Here, let me put it this way. I'm really, really bitter and dismissive of how you and Lakers fans feel screwed over because you didn't get to screw MY team over. It really disgusts me. I know you're talking about precedence and ends justify the means and some fairly reasonable stuff but what you wanted was for your franchise, that has won five fucking titles in recent memory, to take a wet steamy dump on my franchise that has never even sniffed a title because it would uphold some morally ambiguous integrity of the league. It really does irritate me that a Lakers fan can sit there and be mad at the whole ordeal when your franchise was consciously fucking mine and that's OK because Lakers have more fans. The Lakers did get screwed over, and it was by Stern and the rest of the owners for pulling off something that should never have been allowed and which they had taken steps to prevent (but conveniently ignored). The move caused them to lose the 6th man of the year and crippled a team that should have been contending but for a league run by a corrupt SOB bending to the pressure of the rest of the owners who were bitter that the Lakers have been so consistently good over the years. There's nothing ambiguous about Stern and the other owners violating the very rules they had set in place and agreed to just because they were bitter about the Lakers pulling off something the rest of them couldn't. It was wrong in every way possible plain and simple. If you want proof, even Bill Simmons, a notorious Lakers hater, was blown away by what Stern and the owners did and called them out for the bullshit move it was. If you're pissed about that potential trade and what it would have meant for your team, then blame the people from the Hornets organization and Chris Paul that put it in a terrible position. The Lakers didn't deprive the Hornets of any attractive assets apart from CP3, the Lakers didn't fail to put together a team that CP3 would want to be a part of anymore, the Lakers didn't make CP3 want to leave the Hornets organization and make it so obvious that he left them with no leverage in trade negotiations, the Lakers didn't make the Hornets lose an owner and unable to find a willing buyer, the Lakers didn't make the league buy the team and put Stern in charge, the Lakers didn't make Demps choose to negotiate and accept that deal, etc. That was all the Hornets and CP3, yet I don't see anyone pointing fingers at the failed organization or the superstar who made his own "decision" to leave in a way that screwed them. What exactly did the Lakers do except what any other team in the league would have done if they could? Do you think the rest of the teams in the league aren't constantly trying to get as much as possible while giving up as little as possible? You think they aren't trying to take advantage of circumstances, leverage, etc? Don't hate on the Lakers organization simply because they're better at running their team than almost anyone. Do you really think the other teams in the league weren't trying to fleece the Clippers to get CP3? You think they wouldn't have done so if given the opportunity? Do you think the Hornets would not have fleeced another team if they had the opportunity? You need to accept the reality that every team is trying to get the best deals possible, the Lakers are very good at doing so which is why they've had so much success, and the Hornets were very bad at it. If Hornets fans are bitter about not having championships, then point your finger to the people who make the decisions for the team. Lakers fans are pissed because they had a great team that was hamstrung by Stern and the rest of the league via one of the shadiest moves in the history of the NBA. They had put in the work to build up a team that should have been contending for a ring, playing by the rules and being savvy with their team management. Why shouldn't a team and fanbase expect more rings when the team made the moves that put them in a position to do so? The team put in the work and deserved to enjoy the fruits of that labor just like the Thunder and Heat did this year. The fact that the Lakers have had so much success doesn't make them less deserving of more success in the future. That's exactly the type of bitter, sour grapes bullshit reasoning that led people to look the other way when Stern rescinded the trade and violated every tenet of a competitive sports league in doing so. The fact is that the Hornets had put themselves in a terrible position and the Lakers were simply doing the smart thing that the rest of the league was trying to do by taking advantage of that position to improve their own team. The Lakers weren't asking for favors from anyone, they were making the right moves under the terms set by the league and playing by the rules. The Lakers weren't fucking over the Hornets, their management and CP3 had done so and the Lakers were simply trying to make the best out of the mess like everyone else was. If you're going to be bitter, then direct it at the right people. I love how your explanation of the Lakers long history of fleecing smaller teams is because they've just been the best FO for decades and that's why they have a billion titles. The Lakers, in the past, just spent more money than others and nowadays pick on teams who can't afford to spend as much as them. It's a league of minimal parity and the only chance small markets have is absurdly lucky draft runs (Like OKC recently and in the past San Antonio, who had great drafting and actually can ascribe to being so absurdly well run that they're successful). Oh yes, it's the Hornets fault they're so crappy and the Lakers should be commended for having such a long and great history of being rich assholes. It must be nice having an owner who will pay money to create a legitimate FO and actually push to the salary cap instead of scraping by. Fuck that. Also, why is it preposterous that the acting owner saw he could prevent the Lakers from scuttling "his" franchise so they could dominate the western conference (where the Hornets reside) even harder? I mean, spell this out to me. League owned, so the Owners decide what to do with the team, right? Why is it preposterous that if the majority of the owners, who owned the goddamn team, wanted the team to act differently, it's unfair? If Jerry Buss cancels a trade tomorrow, is that uproarious? It's a slightly different situation, but it's no different than a damn board meeting. All the other owners "looking aside" -- what the hell kind of point is that? It isn't one! They owned the team! They had every right to do whatever they wanted with it by majority rule, and if they wanted what Stern did then that's their damn right as well. A downtrodden team, for once in its miserable existence, has owners who can exercise some leverage and it's a crime because it screws over the Lakers? Well fuck that. Fuck the Lakers. Stop acting like you're entitled to every unfair deal you can dump on someone else. I applaud every negative thing that ever happens to the Lakers always and forever. If your FO was so goddamn well run you would've put out a better deal than the Clippers. If the GM is doing a shitty job and you can do better as the owner then do it. If Jerry Buss could improve the team beyond Kupchak's abilities because of his clout as an owner then so goddamn be it. edit-- You know what, screw it. Burn every franchise in the western conference to the ground. The Lakers are so great, why should anyone, especially owners of other teams, try to compete and not just trade over their star players to them at laughable value? It's astounding. Entitlement thy name is Laker.
The spending more money argument is bullshit and anyone who has paid attention to what the Lakers have done knows it. You could argue that they have an advantage of being a more attractive destination due to being in LA, but that's about it and it doesn't even really fly since top FA's routinely sign in other cities for comparable money. The Lakers have been more successful because they've generally gotten the most of their resources and made smart decisions, not because they have more money at their disposal. Cuban has spent as much money as anyone in the league, Paul Allen is one of the richest owners in the league and has opened his pocketbooks many times, the Knicks have outspent most of the league for years, etc. Why aren't all these teams winning multiple championships?
Yes, it was the Hornets organization's fault that the team was terrible. Who else was responsible? They made all of the decisions that led to the team to where it was. Did they have all the benefits of being located in LA? No. But there are plenty of other small market teams that did better with comparable resources. I still can't believe that you're holding the quality of the Lakers' organization and their willingness to make the moves that allow them to compete against them. It's up to each team and their personnel to do what it takes to make their team successful. Blame Shinn and his people for buying a team and then being unwilling to do what it took to be successful and keep their franchise player, don't blame the Lakers for doing what they're supposed to.
Stern was not the acting owner, and it wasn't "his" franchise. The league purchased the Hornets because they wanted to keep a team in NO, and Stern was simply in charge of the league. Also, and I've already repeated this many times, as part of the deal for the league buying the team and making sure it would be fair for the league as a whole, they made sure that the Hornets people (i.e. Demps) had control and authority for personnel decisions. The league recognized the blatant conflict of interest of the league owning an NBA team and set that condition to address it. Stern and the other owners were never supposed to be able to have final say on personnel decisions, THAT was the deal. Stern and the other owners violated their own condition and agreement to maintain fairness by making a decision that was inherently biased and unfair. They did NOT have the right to do whatever they wanted with the team, because that would be fundamentally and inherently against the idea of the Hornets being its own independent NBA team.
You keep talking about how downtrodden and miserable the Hornets team was and how everyone should take pity on them and treat them with kid gloves by not dealing sharply with them. That's bullshit. The Hornets are an NBA team with people put in charge to run it as they see fit, and they are expected to run it competently to the best of their ability the same as every other team in the league. No other team in the league gets the kind of consideration you seem to expect for the Hornets, nor should they. Again, if you have a problem with your team's plight, then blame the people that were responsible for putting them there.
The Lakers should never have had to come up with a "better" deal than the Clippers. In fact, the Clippers should never have had to give over what they did in their deal either. It was all a result of artificial leverage created by Stern's gross improprieties. The Hornets had made their terrible, shitty bed and should have had to sleep in like the rest of the league does. But for some reason you think that everyone else should have taken pity on the organization and given them more assets for CP3 just because they were so downtrodden even though the Hornets had no ground to stand on. Give me a break and go cry a river. THAT is entitlement, not the Lakers expecting to get what they earned through savvy team management.
If your team is so incompetent and pitiful that it's management needs to be protected from itself then it deserves to be at the bottom of the pile. If the people the league put in charge of the team make a bad decision, then the team should have to live with those decisions. That is how it works for EVERY other team in the league, and that's how it should have worked with the Hornets at that time. Stop crying about how bad your team was when it made itself bad, and stop expecting special treatment because your management was incompetent. It's just sad to see you pointing the finger at the Lakers for taking advantage of your team's incompetency when every other team, including the Hornets, would have done the same thing if given the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
