Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k
But still demands (and gets) a max contract in the topsy turvy world of the NBA.Jaymann wrote:Rip wrote: Past his prime injury prone walking distraction.
With Rose gone, the team wouldn't have been anatomically correct without a replacement asshole.Jaymann wrote: In other poisonous news, Rondo goes to the Bulls...
The Paul trade was vetoed because the league owned the Hornets at the time and the trade would have ruined the Hornets value as a franchise. It was one of the most one sided trades ever, as the Lakers would have gained a 4 time allstar while dumping 20 million in bad contract money and relieved themselves of 21 million in cap taxes, at the expense of an entire franchise.Jaymann wrote:I love NBA logic:
Chris Paul can't go to the Lakers because they would be OP (they haven't won anything since).
Kevin Durant to the Warriors? Sure, because 73 wins isn't quite enough.
That trade was more than fair, and it was of equal value to both parties. Even in hindsight the hornets were getting a slightly better deal x years down the road. I dont recall the particulars, but I do remember reading an article a year or two ago looking back on the trade and the Hornets would have really benefited from it. If i feel inclined I'll find that article, but i doubt it. Yeah for arguing with vagueness right?rshetts2 wrote:The Paul trade was vetoed because the league owned the Hornets at the time and the trade would have ruined the Hornets value as a franchise. It was one of the most one sided trades ever, as the Lakers would have gained a 4 time allstar while dumping 20 million in bad contract money and relieved themselves of 21 million in cap taxes, at the expense of an entire franchise.Jaymann wrote:I love NBA logic:
Chris Paul can't go to the Lakers because they would be OP (they haven't won anything since).
Kevin Durant to the Warriors? Sure, because 73 wins isn't quite enough.
Finally Durant is a free agent, the league can not suddenly void his free agency rights because they want to. The two situation have nothing in common.
Well he is a trader...he trade up from a nice BMW basic model to an ultra hyped yellow & blue lamborghini.Rip wrote:rwitter link
In KDs defense at least now he will have some fans that can spell!
That damned Trader!
Trade vs free agent. Huge differenceJaymann wrote:I love NBA logic:
Chris Paul can't go to the Lakers because they would be OP (they haven't won anything since).
Kevin Durant to the Warriors? Sure, because 73 wins isn't quite enough.
Yeah, I went with information from an article regarding the trade that was written when the trade was vetoed. Of course that information does not have the benefit of hindsight and neither did the NBA when they whacked the trade at the behest of the majority of the team owners, who felt the trade was unfairly balanced in LA's favor.Newcastle wrote:That trade was more than fair, and it was of equal value to both parties. Even in hindsight the hornets were getting a slightly better deal x years down the road. I dont recall the particulars, but I do remember reading an article a year or two ago looking back on the trade and the Hornets would have really benefited from it. If i feel inclined I'll find that article, but i doubt it. Yeah for arguing with vagueness right?rshetts2 wrote:The Paul trade was vetoed because the league owned the Hornets at the time and the trade would have ruined the Hornets value as a franchise. It was one of the most one sided trades ever, as the Lakers would have gained a 4 time allstar while dumping 20 million in bad contract money and relieved themselves of 21 million in cap taxes, at the expense of an entire franchise.Jaymann wrote:I love NBA logic:
Chris Paul can't go to the Lakers because they would be OP (they haven't won anything since).
Kevin Durant to the Warriors? Sure, because 73 wins isn't quite enough.
Finally Durant is a free agent, the league can not suddenly void his free agency rights because they want to. The two situation have nothing in common.
edit - two cheers for me not being lazy
article 1
http://www.businessinsider.com/chris-paul-trade-2014-11
Apparently it's a 2-year deal, with a player opt-out after the first year. Smart move by KD, since the cap is supposed to go up a LOT again next year. Very similar to LeBron's deal with the Cavs recently.Newcastle wrote:KD to the Warriors various media spots report.
One thing I will say and this goes back to the Ibaka trade. That seemed wrong to me and reminded me of how they dealt harden to avoid paying the extra cash to him. Ibaka was coming up on a free agency next summer. OKC has a history of going cheap and avoiding the luxury tax area ( i get it small market). I wonder if this was a factor.
Great move on the Warriors. Will be a beast to watch. Wow, just wow. 4 awesome players on the same team. If they dont rip off 3 title wins on this...i'd be surprised. Cant wait to watch them in action now. Now how do the Warriors clear the cap space? Hopefully the lakers can be there and help them with their dilemna.
Also to your point Rip - yeah Pacers have had a great offseason, really, really strong. I'd definitely say top 4. Cavs, pacers, Celts have improved....Hawks have gotten worse ...have ever heard of subtraction by addition...that's Dwight for you. Dude is a cancer. I expect there to be rumors of his discontent...by oh...Thanksgiving of this year.
I love trade and free agency periods of sports...so damn fun to track everything.
I realize it's not the same thing (and now we have a different commish - thank goodness!), but that one action (and I am not aware of any such league vetoes before or since) hamstrung the Lakers for a decade, and we have moved into an era where piling on all-stars to already great teams is the norm. It should go down in infamy as the Stern Burn.rshetts2 wrote:The Paul trade was vetoed because the league owned the Hornets at the time and the trade would have ruined the Hornets value as a franchise. It was one of the most one sided trades ever, as the Lakers would have gained a 4 time allstar while dumping 20 million in bad contract money and relieved themselves of 21 million in cap taxes, at the expense of an entire franchise.Jaymann wrote:I love NBA logic:
Chris Paul can't go to the Lakers because they would be OP (they haven't won anything since).
Kevin Durant to the Warriors? Sure, because 73 wins isn't quite enough.
Finally Durant is a free agent, the league can not suddenly void his free agency rights because they want to. The two situation have nothing in common.
I'm not sure that it's fair to blame Stern for killing the Lakers when it was the Lakers that created 20MM in bad contracts and 21MM in cap tax to deal with in the first place.Jaymann wrote:I realize it's not the same thing (and now we have a different commish - thank goodness!), but that one action (and I am not aware of any such league vetoes before or since) hamstrung the Lakers for a decade, and we have moved into an era where piling on all-stars to already great teams is the norm. It should go down in infamy as the Stern Burn.rshetts2 wrote:The Paul trade was vetoed because the league owned the Hornets at the time and the trade would have ruined the Hornets value as a franchise. It was one of the most one sided trades ever, as the Lakers would have gained a 4 time allstar while dumping 20 million in bad contract money and relieved themselves of 21 million in cap taxes, at the expense of an entire franchise.Jaymann wrote:I love NBA logic:
Chris Paul can't go to the Lakers because they would be OP (they haven't won anything since).
Kevin Durant to the Warriors? Sure, because 73 wins isn't quite enough.
Finally Durant is a free agent, the league can not suddenly void his free agency rights because they want to. The two situation have nothing in common.
Are you saying Lamar Odom & Pau Gasol were the bad contracts? Those were some pretty rock solid contributors to the championship that the Lake show won a couple years prior. Pau - just got a fat contract w/ the spurs like $30M. Odom was still contributing high quality minutes prior to his trade. So the "bad contract" argument has no juice.geezer wrote:I'm not sure that it's fair to blame Stern for killing the Lakers when it was the Lakers that created 20MM in bad contracts and 21MM in cap tax to deal with in the first place.Jaymann wrote:I realize it's not the same thing (and now we have a different commish - thank goodness!), but that one action (and I am not aware of any such league vetoes before or since) hamstrung the Lakers for a decade, and we have moved into an era where piling on all-stars to already great teams is the norm. It should go down in infamy as the Stern Burn.rshetts2 wrote:The Paul trade was vetoed because the league owned the Hornets at the time and the trade would have ruined the Hornets value as a franchise. It was one of the most one sided trades ever, as the Lakers would have gained a 4 time allstar while dumping 20 million in bad contract money and relieved themselves of 21 million in cap taxes, at the expense of an entire franchise.Jaymann wrote:I love NBA logic:
Chris Paul can't go to the Lakers because they would be OP (they haven't won anything since).
Kevin Durant to the Warriors? Sure, because 73 wins isn't quite enough.
Finally Durant is a free agent, the league can not suddenly void his free agency rights because they want to. The two situation have nothing in common.
Sorry - I was just repeating the argument nested above... In reviewing the proposed deal real quick, yeah, it looks like the Lakers did kinda get hosed. And so did New Orleans, actually.Newcastle wrote:Are you saying Lamar Odom & Pau Gasol were the bad contracts? Those were some pretty rock solid contributors to the championship that the Lake show won a couple years prior. Pau - just got a fat contract w/ the spurs like $30M. Odom was still contributing high quality minutes prior to his trade. So the "bad contract" argument has no juice.geezer wrote:I'm not sure that it's fair to blame Stern for killing the Lakers when it was the Lakers that created 20MM in bad contracts and 21MM in cap tax to deal with in the first place.Jaymann wrote:I realize it's not the same thing (and now we have a different commish - thank goodness!), but that one action (and I am not aware of any such league vetoes before or since) hamstrung the Lakers for a decade, and we have moved into an era where piling on all-stars to already great teams is the norm. It should go down in infamy as the Stern Burn.rshetts2 wrote:The Paul trade was vetoed because the league owned the Hornets at the time and the trade would have ruined the Hornets value as a franchise. It was one of the most one sided trades ever, as the Lakers would have gained a 4 time allstar while dumping 20 million in bad contract money and relieved themselves of 21 million in cap taxes, at the expense of an entire franchise.Jaymann wrote:I love NBA logic:
Chris Paul can't go to the Lakers because they would be OP (they haven't won anything since).
Kevin Durant to the Warriors? Sure, because 73 wins isn't quite enough.
Finally Durant is a free agent, the league can not suddenly void his free agency rights because they want to. The two situation have nothing in common.
Upon further examination, I was agreeing with youNewcastle wrote:But they didn't - Goran Dragic, now is a pretty damn good point guard in the league. Luis Scola is still a solid role player. Kenyone martin...meh ok, and a 1st round draft pick.
Point being is that while it wasn't a super star for super star equitable, it was reasonable value to get in return.
It seems everyone whos anyone is signing a contract with an opt out for next year.Pyperkub wrote:Apparently it's a 2-year deal, with a player opt-out after the first year. Smart move by KD, since the cap is supposed to go up a LOT again next year. Very similar to LeBron's deal with the Cavs recently.Newcastle wrote:KD to the Warriors various media spots report.
One thing I will say and this goes back to the Ibaka trade. That seemed wrong to me and reminded me of how they dealt harden to avoid paying the extra cash to him. Ibaka was coming up on a free agency next summer. OKC has a history of going cheap and avoiding the luxury tax area ( i get it small market). I wonder if this was a factor.
Great move on the Warriors. Will be a beast to watch. Wow, just wow. 4 awesome players on the same team. If they dont rip off 3 title wins on this...i'd be surprised. Cant wait to watch them in action now. Now how do the Warriors clear the cap space? Hopefully the lakers can be there and help them with their dilemna.
Also to your point Rip - yeah Pacers have had a great offseason, really, really strong. I'd definitely say top 4. Cavs, pacers, Celts have improved....Hawks have gotten worse ...have ever heard of subtraction by addition...that's Dwight for you. Dude is a cancer. I expect there to be rumors of his discontent...by oh...Thanksgiving of this year.
I love trade and free agency periods of sports...so damn fun to track everything.
You say that like its a bad thing!but that one action (and I am not aware of any such league vetoes before or since) hamstrung the Lakers for a decade
Agreed they made multiple gaffes after the Stern Burn. But it started the downhill slide. Kupchak put the nixed deal together, but then nobody wanted to play with Kobe. Now the league has passed him by. Superstars are no longer buying into the LA mystique, and the the Lakers end up with plenty of cash and no one to spend it on.rshetts2 wrote:You say that like its a bad thing!but that one action (and I am not aware of any such league vetoes before or since) hamstrung the Lakers for a decade
Seriously though, you cant put the Lakers woes totally on the Lakers not getting a deal through. You may as well blame LeBron for not signing with LA when he decided to leave Cleveland. Bad management and a seriously hamstringing contract for Kobe did most of the damage.
West left in 2000Pyperkub wrote:Was the Paul trade while Jerry West was still there?
You know, I say good for Wade. He kinda got the shit end of the stick when Lebron left. Took 2 pay cuts if I remember correctly.Jeff V wrote:Just because they wound up with a shit ton of cap space doesn't mean they HAVE to spend all of that money on a has-been, does it?
He averaged over 23 pts per game, 4.6 rbs , 2 steals and had a .783 free throw percentage. Last season was his best statistically in 6 years. No one on the Bulls had that good of a season, last year. If he performs even close to that this year he will probably be the best player the Bulls have. You may not like the deal but if D Wade is a has been, then what does that say for the rest of the squad?Jeff V wrote:Just because they wound up with a shit ton of cap space doesn't mean they HAVE to spend all of that money on a has-been, does it?
That's like saying a mahogany conference table is a huge asset to any flophouse. It is a completely unnecessary luxury. When the Bulls signed Rondo, they signaled they are prepared to suck it hard this season. So why spend $45 million on Wade? To trade him for low draft picks before the trade deadline?McNutt wrote:Wade has a lot of gas left in the tank. He's a huge asset to any team.
That's what everyone expects he will do. This Bulls team lacks the dominate personalities of Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson that kept Dennis Rodman in check once upon a time. The makeup of the team just has dysfunction written all over it (moreso than last year). If a team can't be a top contender for a title, then they best be a contender for top draft pick. In between these extremes is a miserable limbo that is most effective at perpetuating mediocrity and is no place any fan wants their team to be.Newcastle wrote:Now, just hope he doesn't nuke the locker room.
Jeff V wrote:That's like saying a mahogany conference table is a huge asset to any flophouse. It is a completely unnecessary luxury. When the Bulls signed Rondo, they signaled they are prepared to suck it hard this season. So why spend $45 million on Wade? To trade him for low draft picks before the trade deadline?McNutt wrote:Wade has a lot of gas left in the tank. He's a huge asset to any team.
Maybe, but IIRC, their season ticket base is pretty solid, and is Wade really going to sell $23 million in single tickets that would otherwise go unsold? I think they would have been fine with a line up that, even if contending for a top draft pick, showed some sign of building towards a future. This is similar to the way Reinsdorf's other property, the White Sox, are foundering...an unwillingness to look down the road to the ultimate objective. Instead, they build a team that at best could be a marginal improvement over last year, and that is ultimately another disaster as the 8th seed, one-and-done playoff team in the NBA is perhaps the most pathetic thing in all of professional team sports.Rip wrote: I can only assume the deal was about selling tickets and not about winning basketball games.
I was right with you until the Rose having a career year part. The Knicks are set for being as much a hot mess as the Bulls. I actually laughed out loud when I saw the NY Post claim they were contenders and would compete with CLE for best in the east.rshetts2 wrote:Whether Wade is a good fit for the Bulls is an entirely different question. The point was that Wade is not some cast off has been.
You are right about the Bulls franchise though, they are kind of a hot mess right now. I cant wait for their fans collective heads to explode when it becomes evident, halfway through the season, that Rose is having a career year with the Knicks.
