|
On December 10 2011 01:49 Ace wrote:
They never do, which is why it's amazing so many people are in an uproar about it. Idiots like Bill Simmons are actually riling people up about this. They are the same guys that criticize the league for allowing GMs to make bad moves and now they are taking the other side of the issue like they always do. Such hypocrites.
and now Orlando is filing tampering charges against 2 teams for illegally contacting Dwight Howard. The fuck?
That was an awesome move for the Hornets o_O
|
On December 10 2011 02:58 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 01:49 Ace wrote:
They never do, which is why it's amazing so many people are in an uproar about it. Idiots like Bill Simmons are actually riling people up about this. They are the same guys that criticize the league for allowing GMs to make bad moves and now they are taking the other side of the issue like they always do. Such hypocrites.
and now Orlando is filing tampering charges against 2 teams for illegally contacting Dwight Howard. The fuck? That was an awesome move for the Hornets o_O
Think he had the Rockets in the back of his head when he wrote it (actually, might've been NOLA too, considering how the Hornets would look long-term).
Also, shame to see Roy retire (if it's true), but like the guy on the previous page said, he took an arrow to the knee and hasn't looked the same since (bar his one game during the playoffs).
|
Hornets would have a lineup of :
Okafor, Odom, Scola, Ariza, Martin . That's a really really solid lineup actually. Houston gets Pau Gasol and lots of cap space... Lakers get CP3 and gut their front line (but possibly frees them up to make more moves). Everyone wins, I don't get the NBA
|
On December 10 2011 03:54 Xeris wrote:
Hornets would have a lineup of :
Okafor, Odom, Scola, Ariza, Martin . That's a really really solid lineup actually. Houston gets Pau Gasol and lots of cap space... Lakers get CP3 and gut their front line (but possibly frees them up to make more moves). Everyone wins, I don't get the NBA
But what are they gonna do with that lineup? Lose in the first round to the Lakers or Thunder? They aren't gonna win a title, or even get to the WCF with that lineup, however decent it is. And they definitely won't get lottery picks either. The NBA is a superstar league, and if you are going to trade away a superstar, you better get another superstar for him, or lottery pick(s).
You really think a trade that makes the Hornets not a contender and too decent for a lottery pick is good?
If you stop thinking in the short term, the best thing would probably be what Ace said, let Paul walk so the Hornets can suck for lottery picks.
|
wtf is happening in boston ?! my celtics ............... 
|
FML I just drafted him in my fantasy league : (
|
On December 10 2011 04:02 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 03:54 Xeris wrote:
Hornets would have a lineup of :
Okafor, Odom, Scola, Ariza, Martin . That's a really really solid lineup actually. Houston gets Pau Gasol and lots of cap space... Lakers get CP3 and gut their front line (but possibly frees them up to make more moves). Everyone wins, I don't get the NBA But what are they gonna do with that lineup? Lose in the first round to the Lakers or Thunder? They aren't gonna win a title, or even get to the WCF with that lineup, however decent it is. And they definitely won't get lottery picks either. The NBA is a superstar league, and if you are going to trade away a superstar, you better get another superstar for him, or lottery pick(s). You really think a trade that makes the Hornets not a contender and too decent for a lottery pick is good? If you stop thinking in the short term, the best thing would probably be what Ace said, let Paul walk so the Hornets can suck for lottery picks.
That's completely a non sequiter. What other alternatives are there? Keep Chris Paul on a roster of 4 other players? Then sign a bunch of stuff and be like - "We have our superstar!! HERE WE COME!!" What? They did that last year and lost. He had to be dealt. Or he had to walk away from the team at the end of the year.
You and Ace and Bob seem to think it's better to just bottom out at the end of the year and try for the lottery for the next 2-3 years. This is awful for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this flies in the face of sportsmanship. Tanking is the worst thing in the world of competitive sports. Secondly, even if they have high draft picks over 3 years, that doesn't guarantee them anything. Look at the Blazers and imagine a team with an Greg Oden, Brandon Roy and Lamarcus Aldridge. With Rudy Fernandez and Nic Batum filling things out. That's amazing! And they've accomplished so much! Or Tyreke Evans and Demarcus Cousins? How about Al Horford and Marvin Williams? Joe Alexander and Brandon Jennings and Andrew Bogut? Even the BEST CASE scenario of Kevin Durant and Russ Westbrook will probably never win a championship together - seriously.
Draft picks aren't good inherently. It's how you utilize them.
EDIT: Actually, Draft Picks have inherent value. And value is inherently good, from a qualitative perspective. So I'm wrong about that. But Draft picks don't necessarily yield maximum return on that value. Hey, just like trading Chris Paul!
EDIT2: Durant, Westbrook AND Harden. Although they have the talent to win one, I doubt it's going to happen. Most teams just don't win championships.
|
In recent news, the Orlando Magic have agreed to trade Dwight Howard to the New Jersey Nets.
David Stern, citing basketball reasons, has vetoed the trade.
Edit
That was sarcasm, by the way.
Edit2:
If you want a more specific detail of Ferrose' stance, which is also a stance I think is preposterous:
14:27 Seki are you seriously
14:27 Seki advocating nixing trades
14:27 Seki because _you think it's a bad trade_
14:27 Seki in a professional sports league?
14:27 Ferrose well if you're the comissioner
14:27 Ferrose you have that power
14:27 Ferrose so do what you want
14:27 Seki so you are
14:27 Seki advocating
14:27 Shauni- when does lol wcg start
14:27 Seki that commissioners undercut the entire general managing/scouting positions
14:27 Seki and control the league as he wishes
14:28 Ferrose yes
14:28 Seki lol ok
|
On December 10 2011 01:49 Ace wrote:
They never do, which is why it's amazing so many people are in an uproar about it. Idiots like Bill Simmons are actually riling people up about this. They are the same guys that criticize the league for allowing GMs to make bad moves and now they are taking the other side of the issue like they always do. Such hypocrites.
and now Orlando is filing tampering charges against 2 teams for illegally contacting Dwight Howard. The fuck?
Well I mean I see reason to be up in arms. League owned team vetoing a trade that its GM signed off on. Even independent of that, the league vetoes a trade following a lockout which part of the focus was on stopping the bleeding off talent from small teams to large market squads, which this was. Fishy all around.
|
On December 10 2011 04:23 Southlight wrote:
In recent news, the Orlando Magic have agreed to trade Dwight Howard to the New Jersey Nets.
David Stern, citing basketball reasons, has vetoed the trade.
Edit
That was sarcasm, by the way.
Edit2:
If you want a more specific detail of Ferrose' stance, which is also a stance I think is preposterous:
14:27 Seki are you seriously
14:27 Seki advocating nixing trades
14:27 Seki because _you think it's a bad trade_
14:27 Seki in a professional sports league?
14:27 Ferrose well if you're the comissioner
14:27 Ferrose you have that power
14:27 Ferrose so do what you want
14:27 Seki so you are
14:27 Seki advocating
14:27 Shauni- when does lol wcg start
14:27 Seki that commissioners undercut the entire general managing/scouting positions
14:27 Seki and control the league as he wishes
14:28 Ferrose yes
14:28 Seki lol ok
I was joking when I said yes btw, Southlight very conveniently left that part out.
But anyway, I've been trying to think of the standpoint of the NBA finding an owner for the Hornets. I think the trade is worse from that standpoint. If they trade him, yes they'd have a decent lineup and be a playoff team (probably). But they wouldn't be a title contender, and wouldn't have a star player to sell seats. They might end up profitable, but who is going to want to buy a team with no superstar to sell seats and no draft picks to build off of?
Also Idk what kind of cap space the Hornets have now, and what they would have after the trade, so I don't know how viable free agency would be for them.
|
I've asked this before, but since now I found an image to help you understand what I'm talking about, I'm gonna ask it again.
Can I block my opponent's vision with my hands when he has posession of the ball? I see it all the time when players are shooting and the defense players try to block their vision to mess the shot, but I want to know if it is legal in non-shooting situations.
Example:
http://s.glbimg.com/es/ge/f/620x349/2011/12/08/nbb_joinville_flamengo_atila_joao_pires_lnb.jpg
|
yes it is legal
but you must not make contact, as the opposing player will try to move and rotate his body/head in order to force the foul
|
United States22883 Posts
Face guarding in basketball is defined as the act of blocking or disrupting the vision of an offensive player regardless of whether he actually has the basketball. It has been illegal at all levels of basketball since 1913 and is listed in the rule book as an "Unsportsmanlike Act." Face guarding is explicitly mentioned in the high school rule book, the NCAA rule book and the International rule book with the penalty being a technical foul. Read more: Basketball Rules for Face Guarding an Opponent | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6733807_basketball-rules-face-guarding-opponent.html#ixzz1g4NGp1aCNBA Basketball Unlike other levels of basketball, face guarding in the National Basketball Association is a grey area. Although the rule book mentions something about eye guarding, eye guarding is different than face guarding. While there is no technical foul called for face guarding in the NBA, typically if contact is made with the head of an opposing player, a personal foul is called.
|
On December 10 2011 05:01 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +Face guarding in basketball is defined as the act of blocking or disrupting the vision of an offensive player regardless of whether he actually has the basketball. It has been illegal at all levels of basketball since 1913 and is listed in the rule book as an "Unsportsmanlike Act." Face guarding is explicitly mentioned in the high school rule book, the NCAA rule book and the International rule book with the penalty being a technical foul. Read more: Basketball Rules for Face Guarding an Opponent | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6733807_basketball-rules-face-guarding-opponent.html#ixzz1g4NGp1aCNBA Basketball Unlike other levels of basketball, face guarding in the National Basketball Association is a grey area. Although the rule book mentions something about eye guarding, eye guarding is different than face guarding. While there is no technical foul called for face guarding in the NBA, typically if contact is made with the head of an opposing player, a personal foul is called.
this has to do with the concept of the cylinder ... in the picture he posted it definitely violates the cylinder, but having your hands in the general direction/area of the players eyes is what makes it acceptable in the nba
|
United States4471 Posts
This decision by Stern to block the trade is terrible on so many levels. There's the whole conflict of interest angle. Then there's the anti-trust/collusion angle. Then there's the whole "we screwed 3 teams royally" by misrepresenting to them that the Hornets GM could make trades and that he had final say. Ugh...
Agree with slyboogie that the trades were all good ones for the teams involved, relative to their positions, and that the idea that teams should only make moves that will result in them being championship contenders or tank for high draft picks isn't feasible or very reasonable, particularly in the case of the Hornets who the NBA is trying to find a buyer for. Look at it from a buyer's standpoint, would you rather have a roster with nothing except Paul who has already made it clear he's not staying, or one with Scola, Odom, and KMart?
The Rockets have been trying forever to land a big FA, but have failed every time. Pau, while not young and not cheap, is an all-world player and is easily the 2nd best big in the league, and probably the most skilled and well-rounded. He's led his national team to multiple world titles and accomplishments, and is just as responsible for the recent Lakers championships as anyone. Plus, they'd still have had enough cap space to go out and get a big FA. Would it have made them a championship contender off the bat? No. But it'd certainly give them a superstar and major FA to build around with some nice young pieces. That's definitely preferable to what they have now, which their fans were getting tired and frustrated of watching. You can be a successful team without winning a ring, and that's by being a competitive team that your fans enjoy watching and rooting for. This trade would have done that for them.
The Hornets were dealing from a position of poor leverage simply because Paul had already indicated he wanted to play somewhere else and was refusing to agree to re-sign with anyone, except for the Lakers presumably (don't see how they'd agree to give away that much for only one year of Paul). In return they were getting Odom, a championship-proven versatile PF who is just about as skilled on both ends of the court as anyone in the league, Scola, another all-world player who has led his national team to huge success internationally and is one of the most offensively-skilled bigs in the league, and KMart, one of the most efficient perimeter scorers in the league. They were also going to get Dragic, who is at least a good backup PG, if not a serviceable starting PG. Would the team be championship contenders? No, but they couldn't really expect to turn a team that consists of one superstar and nothing else to become one with a single trade. That team would have been very competitive though, and have some solid pieces to build around in the short term, which could become useful expiring contracts down the line. Whatever you may think about how good the roster would have been, this haul is the best the Hornets could expect to get back from their position, and compares favorably to what the Nuggets got last year in my opinion.
The Lakers get Paul. While his knee injury is scary, he's still the best PG in the league and has a will to win like few others. If he had stayed healthy, he would have given the Lakers their franchise player to build around in the post-Kobe years. In return, the Lakers had to give up Pau and Odom, both spectacular championship-proven bigs, which are about the most valuable commodity in the NBA. Hardly an unfair trade IMO.
|
On December 10 2011 04:20 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 04:02 Ferrose wrote:On December 10 2011 03:54 Xeris wrote:
Hornets would have a lineup of :
Okafor, Odom, Scola, Ariza, Martin . That's a really really solid lineup actually. Houston gets Pau Gasol and lots of cap space... Lakers get CP3 and gut their front line (but possibly frees them up to make more moves). Everyone wins, I don't get the NBA But what are they gonna do with that lineup? Lose in the first round to the Lakers or Thunder? They aren't gonna win a title, or even get to the WCF with that lineup, however decent it is. And they definitely won't get lottery picks either. The NBA is a superstar league, and if you are going to trade away a superstar, you better get another superstar for him, or lottery pick(s). You really think a trade that makes the Hornets not a contender and too decent for a lottery pick is good? If you stop thinking in the short term, the best thing would probably be what Ace said, let Paul walk so the Hornets can suck for lottery picks. That's completely a non sequiter. What other alternatives are there? Keep Chris Paul on a roster of 4 other players? Then sign a bunch of stuff and be like - "We have our superstar!! HERE WE COME!!" What? They did that last year and lost. He had to be dealt. Or he had to walk away from the team at the end of the year. You and Ace and Bob seem to think it's better to just bottom out at the end of the year and try for the lottery for the next 2-3 years. This is awful for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this flies in the face of sportsmanship. Tanking is the worst thing in the world of competitive sports. Secondly, even if they have high draft picks over 3 years, that doesn't guarantee them anything. Look at the Blazers and imagine a team with an Greg Oden, Brandon Roy and Lamarcus Aldridge. With Rudy Fernandez and Nic Batum filling things out. That's amazing! And they've accomplished so much! Or Tyreke Evans and Demarcus Cousins? How about Al Horford and Marvin Williams? Joe Alexander and Brandon Jennings and Andrew Bogut? Even the BEST CASE scenario of Kevin Durant and Russ Westbrook will probably never win a championship together - seriously. Draft picks aren't good inherently. It's how you utilize them. EDIT: Actually, Draft Picks have inherent value. And value is inherently good, from a qualitative perspective. So I'm wrong about that. But Draft picks don't necessarily yield maximum return on that value. Hey, just like trading Chris Paul! EDIT2: Durant, Westbrook AND Harden. Although they have the talent to win one, I doubt it's going to happen. Most teams just don't win championships.
For one, the NBA is a business. There are no rules except WINNING. That's it. Teams in the NBA have been tanking since the 1985 draft lottery. This isn't new. What you are suggesting is the New Orleans Hornets and Houston Rockets do is cripple their franchise in the short term and long term so they can be just like all the other middling teams in the NBA. What sense does that make if you aren't making money and aren't winning? Sportsmanship is a subjective term and it means jack shit if you're being a sportsman and losing money and fans.
You get the picks because you want the CHANCE to get a superstar. You want to bottom out and drop all your expenses to the minimum so when marquee FAs do come around you have cap space. Remember what I said weeks ago? Greed is good. Have money, and players WILL come.
You just mentioned 3 teams all that loaded up on draft picks, got superstars and all stars in return and are in position to contend with the exception of Atlanta. All of them TANKED and flipped draft picks to get lottery picks like I'm suggesting - why wouldn't NO do this again?
Can you just explain to me where the New Orleans Hornets franchise or the Houston Rockets are going with the players they would get in the deal? That's all I ask.
|
On December 10 2011 05:48 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 04:20 slyboogie wrote:On December 10 2011 04:02 Ferrose wrote:On December 10 2011 03:54 Xeris wrote:
Hornets would have a lineup of :
Okafor, Odom, Scola, Ariza, Martin . That's a really really solid lineup actually. Houston gets Pau Gasol and lots of cap space... Lakers get CP3 and gut their front line (but possibly frees them up to make more moves). Everyone wins, I don't get the NBA But what are they gonna do with that lineup? Lose in the first round to the Lakers or Thunder? They aren't gonna win a title, or even get to the WCF with that lineup, however decent it is. And they definitely won't get lottery picks either. The NBA is a superstar league, and if you are going to trade away a superstar, you better get another superstar for him, or lottery pick(s). You really think a trade that makes the Hornets not a contender and too decent for a lottery pick is good? If you stop thinking in the short term, the best thing would probably be what Ace said, let Paul walk so the Hornets can suck for lottery picks. That's completely a non sequiter. What other alternatives are there? Keep Chris Paul on a roster of 4 other players? Then sign a bunch of stuff and be like - "We have our superstar!! HERE WE COME!!" What? They did that last year and lost. He had to be dealt. Or he had to walk away from the team at the end of the year. You and Ace and Bob seem to think it's better to just bottom out at the end of the year and try for the lottery for the next 2-3 years. This is awful for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this flies in the face of sportsmanship. Tanking is the worst thing in the world of competitive sports. Secondly, even if they have high draft picks over 3 years, that doesn't guarantee them anything. Look at the Blazers and imagine a team with an Greg Oden, Brandon Roy and Lamarcus Aldridge. With Rudy Fernandez and Nic Batum filling things out. That's amazing! And they've accomplished so much! Or Tyreke Evans and Demarcus Cousins? How about Al Horford and Marvin Williams? Joe Alexander and Brandon Jennings and Andrew Bogut? Even the BEST CASE scenario of Kevin Durant and Russ Westbrook will probably never win a championship together - seriously. Draft picks aren't good inherently. It's how you utilize them. EDIT: Actually, Draft Picks have inherent value. And value is inherently good, from a qualitative perspective. So I'm wrong about that. But Draft picks don't necessarily yield maximum return on that value. Hey, just like trading Chris Paul! EDIT2: Durant, Westbrook AND Harden. Although they have the talent to win one, I doubt it's going to happen. Most teams just don't win championships. For one, the NBA is a business. There are no rules except WINNING. That's it. Teams in the NBA have been tanking since the 1985 draft lottery. This isn't new. What you are suggesting is the New Orleans Hornets and Houston Rockets do is cripple their franchise in the short term and long term so they can be just like all the other middling teams in the NBA. What sense does that make if you aren't making money and aren't winning? Sportsmanship is a subjective term and it means jack shit if you're being a sportsman and losing money and fans. You get the picks because you want the CHANCE to get a superstar. You want to bottom out and drop all your expenses to the minimum so when marquee FAs do come around you have cap space. Remember what I said weeks ago? Greed is good. Have money, and players WILL come. You just mentioned 3 teams all that loaded up on draft picks, got superstars and all stars in return and are in position to contend with the exception of Atlanta. All of them TANKED and flipped draft picks to get lottery picks like I'm suggesting - why wouldn't NO do this again? Can you just explain to me where the New Orleans Hornets franchise or the Houston Rockets are going with the players they would get in the deal? That's all I ask.
It's a terrible suggestion from a game theory standpoint. There's no way the league will be profitable or even viable if it's divided into 10 or so championship contenders and 20 teams trying to tank for high draft picks. What happens when you're one of the 20 teams that are tanking and you continuously get unlucky with the draft lottery? What if you don't even make it to the lottery because teams tanked better than you?
You still have to get fans paying to watch your team while you are tanking. If there are too many teams tanking, fans will not stick around for the much smaller hope that they're one of the teams that will get lucky. You've stated multiple times that there are only 7-8 superstars that can lead championship caliber teams. Two of them, Lebron and Wade, play for the same team. Are you suggesting 24 teams just tank their seasons?
Championship or bust is just not a viable business model for every team in the league. You need to make a lot of money during your championship contender years to make up for all the losses that you're going to take during the tanking years. The more teams that are adapting that model, the harder it will be to pull off. Then, what? How long do you continue to try tanking just to get that top player? Who's going to actually watch games as teams get more and more blatant about tanking?
|
On December 10 2011 06:38 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 05:48 Ace wrote:On December 10 2011 04:20 slyboogie wrote:On December 10 2011 04:02 Ferrose wrote:On December 10 2011 03:54 Xeris wrote:
Hornets would have a lineup of :
Okafor, Odom, Scola, Ariza, Martin . That's a really really solid lineup actually. Houston gets Pau Gasol and lots of cap space... Lakers get CP3 and gut their front line (but possibly frees them up to make more moves). Everyone wins, I don't get the NBA But what are they gonna do with that lineup? Lose in the first round to the Lakers or Thunder? They aren't gonna win a title, or even get to the WCF with that lineup, however decent it is. And they definitely won't get lottery picks either. The NBA is a superstar league, and if you are going to trade away a superstar, you better get another superstar for him, or lottery pick(s). You really think a trade that makes the Hornets not a contender and too decent for a lottery pick is good? If you stop thinking in the short term, the best thing would probably be what Ace said, let Paul walk so the Hornets can suck for lottery picks. That's completely a non sequiter. What other alternatives are there? Keep Chris Paul on a roster of 4 other players? Then sign a bunch of stuff and be like - "We have our superstar!! HERE WE COME!!" What? They did that last year and lost. He had to be dealt. Or he had to walk away from the team at the end of the year. You and Ace and Bob seem to think it's better to just bottom out at the end of the year and try for the lottery for the next 2-3 years. This is awful for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this flies in the face of sportsmanship. Tanking is the worst thing in the world of competitive sports. Secondly, even if they have high draft picks over 3 years, that doesn't guarantee them anything. Look at the Blazers and imagine a team with an Greg Oden, Brandon Roy and Lamarcus Aldridge. With Rudy Fernandez and Nic Batum filling things out. That's amazing! And they've accomplished so much! Or Tyreke Evans and Demarcus Cousins? How about Al Horford and Marvin Williams? Joe Alexander and Brandon Jennings and Andrew Bogut? Even the BEST CASE scenario of Kevin Durant and Russ Westbrook will probably never win a championship together - seriously. Draft picks aren't good inherently. It's how you utilize them. EDIT: Actually, Draft Picks have inherent value. And value is inherently good, from a qualitative perspective. So I'm wrong about that. But Draft picks don't necessarily yield maximum return on that value. Hey, just like trading Chris Paul! EDIT2: Durant, Westbrook AND Harden. Although they have the talent to win one, I doubt it's going to happen. Most teams just don't win championships. For one, the NBA is a business. There are no rules except WINNING. That's it. Teams in the NBA have been tanking since the 1985 draft lottery. This isn't new. What you are suggesting is the New Orleans Hornets and Houston Rockets do is cripple their franchise in the short term and long term so they can be just like all the other middling teams in the NBA. What sense does that make if you aren't making money and aren't winning? Sportsmanship is a subjective term and it means jack shit if you're being a sportsman and losing money and fans. You get the picks because you want the CHANCE to get a superstar. You want to bottom out and drop all your expenses to the minimum so when marquee FAs do come around you have cap space. Remember what I said weeks ago? Greed is good. Have money, and players WILL come. You just mentioned 3 teams all that loaded up on draft picks, got superstars and all stars in return and are in position to contend with the exception of Atlanta. All of them TANKED and flipped draft picks to get lottery picks like I'm suggesting - why wouldn't NO do this again? Can you just explain to me where the New Orleans Hornets franchise or the Houston Rockets are going with the players they would get in the deal? That's all I ask. It's a terrible suggestion from a game theory standpoint. There's no way the league will be profitable or even viable if it's divided into 10 or so championship contenders and 20 teams trying to tank for high draft picks. What happens when you're one of the 20 teams that are tanking and you continuously get unlucky with the draft lottery? What if you don't even make it to the lottery because teams tanked better than you? You still have to get fans paying to watch your team while you are tanking. If there are too many teams tanking, fans will not stick around for the much smaller hope that they're one of the teams that will get lucky. You've stated multiple times that there are only 7-8 superstars that can lead championship caliber teams. Two of them, Lebron and Wade, play for the same team. Are you suggesting 24 teams just tank their seasons? Championship or bust is just not a viable business model for every team in the league. You need to make a lot of money during your championship contender years to make up for all the losses that you're going to take during the tanking years. The more teams that are adapting that model, the harder it will be to pull off. Then, what? How long do you continue to try tanking just to get that top player? Who's going to actually watch games as teams get more and more blatant about tanking?
You become the Golden State Warriors, lol sup.
|
I don't think you understand the concept that you can rebuild through free agency and trades and not just through the draft. Elite big men are not a commodity in this league, big men in general is probably the most depleted position because you can't teach height. Pau Gasol unlike Kevin Martin and Luis Scola, is an all star. Combine that with Nene who is easily an above average big man. I don't think you watched a single rockets game last season cause if you did, you'd see that the rockets were outsized in basically every game. By acquiring gasol which allows the cap space for another big man, they solve that problem altogether. This also changes their offense from a perimeter shooting team to a more inside game. And yes getting bigger would make them a better team, ok so they lose Martin's offensive capabilties but offense is not more important than defense when it comes to winning championships. If that were true the suns would've beaten the spurs and the Warriors under Don Nelson would've won multiple titles. No, Gasol and Nene aren't gonna win a championship but it sure makes the situation in Houston much more attractive. I'd like you to find one star in the NBA who'd argue that they'd rather play with scola over gasol.
|
On December 10 2011 06:38 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 05:48 Ace wrote:On December 10 2011 04:20 slyboogie wrote:On December 10 2011 04:02 Ferrose wrote:On December 10 2011 03:54 Xeris wrote:
Hornets would have a lineup of :
Okafor, Odom, Scola, Ariza, Martin . That's a really really solid lineup actually. Houston gets Pau Gasol and lots of cap space... Lakers get CP3 and gut their front line (but possibly frees them up to make more moves). Everyone wins, I don't get the NBA But what are they gonna do with that lineup? Lose in the first round to the Lakers or Thunder? They aren't gonna win a title, or even get to the WCF with that lineup, however decent it is. And they definitely won't get lottery picks either. The NBA is a superstar league, and if you are going to trade away a superstar, you better get another superstar for him, or lottery pick(s). You really think a trade that makes the Hornets not a contender and too decent for a lottery pick is good? If you stop thinking in the short term, the best thing would probably be what Ace said, let Paul walk so the Hornets can suck for lottery picks. That's completely a non sequiter. What other alternatives are there? Keep Chris Paul on a roster of 4 other players? Then sign a bunch of stuff and be like - "We have our superstar!! HERE WE COME!!" What? They did that last year and lost. He had to be dealt. Or he had to walk away from the team at the end of the year. You and Ace and Bob seem to think it's better to just bottom out at the end of the year and try for the lottery for the next 2-3 years. This is awful for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this flies in the face of sportsmanship. Tanking is the worst thing in the world of competitive sports. Secondly, even if they have high draft picks over 3 years, that doesn't guarantee them anything. Look at the Blazers and imagine a team with an Greg Oden, Brandon Roy and Lamarcus Aldridge. With Rudy Fernandez and Nic Batum filling things out. That's amazing! And they've accomplished so much! Or Tyreke Evans and Demarcus Cousins? How about Al Horford and Marvin Williams? Joe Alexander and Brandon Jennings and Andrew Bogut? Even the BEST CASE scenario of Kevin Durant and Russ Westbrook will probably never win a championship together - seriously. Draft picks aren't good inherently. It's how you utilize them. EDIT: Actually, Draft Picks have inherent value. And value is inherently good, from a qualitative perspective. So I'm wrong about that. But Draft picks don't necessarily yield maximum return on that value. Hey, just like trading Chris Paul! EDIT2: Durant, Westbrook AND Harden. Although they have the talent to win one, I doubt it's going to happen. Most teams just don't win championships. For one, the NBA is a business. There are no rules except WINNING. That's it. Teams in the NBA have been tanking since the 1985 draft lottery. This isn't new. What you are suggesting is the New Orleans Hornets and Houston Rockets do is cripple their franchise in the short term and long term so they can be just like all the other middling teams in the NBA. What sense does that make if you aren't making money and aren't winning? Sportsmanship is a subjective term and it means jack shit if you're being a sportsman and losing money and fans. You get the picks because you want the CHANCE to get a superstar. You want to bottom out and drop all your expenses to the minimum so when marquee FAs do come around you have cap space. Remember what I said weeks ago? Greed is good. Have money, and players WILL come. You just mentioned 3 teams all that loaded up on draft picks, got superstars and all stars in return and are in position to contend with the exception of Atlanta. All of them TANKED and flipped draft picks to get lottery picks like I'm suggesting - why wouldn't NO do this again? Can you just explain to me where the New Orleans Hornets franchise or the Houston Rockets are going with the players they would get in the deal? That's all I ask. It's a terrible suggestion from a game theory standpoint. There's no way the league will be profitable or even viable if it's divided into 10 or so championship contenders and 20 teams trying to tank for high draft picks. What happens when you're one of the 20 teams that are tanking and you continuously get unlucky with the draft lottery? What if you don't even make it to the lottery because teams tanked better than you? You still have to get fans paying to watch your team while you are tanking. If there are too many teams tanking, fans will not stick around for the much smaller hope that they're one of the teams that will get lucky. You've stated multiple times that there are only 7-8 superstars that can lead championship caliber teams. Two of them, Lebron and Wade, play for the same team. Are you suggesting 24 teams just tank their seasons? Championship or bust is just not a viable business model for every team in the league. You need to make a lot of money during your championship contender years to make up for all the losses that you're going to take during the tanking years. The more teams that are adapting that model, the harder it will be to pull off. Then, what? How long do you continue to try tanking just to get that top player? Who's going to actually watch games as teams get more and more blatant about tanking?
If you are not tanking then you are REBUILDING or CONTENDING.
If you are rebuilding you have young players and/or draft picks that are cheap assets: Philly, Indiana, and Memphis are 3 teams that hoarded draft picks and rebuilt their teams.
If you are good enough to build around that then you get to the next stage which is contending: OKC and Chicago. Young teams that got a superstars(s) and kept building because they had ASSETS to trade: young players and/or picks.
Not every team is tanking at the same time because like you said - it's impossible. But every team isn't instantly a contender either. But you don't want to be what New Orleans would: a non contender with no assets (picks or young talent) which means you'll have to rebuild all over again a few years later when you could do it NOW. This isn't a difficult concept to understand as it has been going on in the NBA for over 20 years now.
On December 10 2011 07:02 ChaosTriggeR wrote:
I don't think you understand the concept that you can rebuild through free agency and trades and not just through the draft. Elite big men are not a commodity in this league, big men in general is probably the most depleted position because you can't teach height. Pau Gasol unlike Kevin Martin and Luis Scola, is an all star. Combine that with Nene who is easily an above average big man. I don't think you watched a single rockets game last season cause if you did, you'd see that the rockets were outsized in basically every game. By acquiring gasol which allows the cap space for another big man, they solve that problem altogether. This also changes their offense from a perimeter shooting team to a more inside game. And yes getting bigger would make them a better team, ok so they lose Martin's offensive capabilties but offense is not more important than defense when it comes to winning championships. If that were true the suns would've beaten the spurs and the Warriors under Don Nelson would've won multiple titles. No, Gasol and Nene aren't gonna win a championship but it sure makes the situation in Houston much more attractive. I'd like you to find one star in the NBA who'd argue that they'd rather play with scola over gasol.
THERE IS NO FREE AGENCY IF YOUR TEAM HAS NO MONEY OR ASSETS. Jesus how many times do I have to say this? What money will New Orleans have to throw at a Free Agent that will make them a contender? What picks can they give up in a sign and trade for a marquee FA next year? Are you guys even LOOKING at what the team has?
Just answer these questions: Where does Houston/NO go after the trade? What's their cap space? How many picks do they have? Lottery picks? What Free Agents would be on the market in 2012 that they can trade for?
Just do that, then come back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
