Around the NBA V: Live and Let Die

[vvoland]

Last point on this. Why would the league drive LeBron, ad, Zion, flagg to cle/no/no/dal while completely shutting out la, ny, and chi? I could buy Ewing to the Knicks, I guess. But the rest?

Because the worst thing for the league would be contraction.

So they wanted to keep the small market teams viable at all costs.

The NY and LA teams were going to thrive for the most part, unless they had a prolonged period of being bottom feeders.

NO was on the verge of bankruptcy. Remember the league had to run it for a couple of seasons.


Otherwise, they would be like MLB, just the richest clubs having payrolls which are several times that of even mid market teams.


BTW Dallas is not a small market, it's top 10. I think it's bigger than the Bay Area market.

I'm pretty sure they could have easily sold the hornets/pelicans if they didn't want to keep them in NO. Hell, Larry Ellison had been trying to buy a team since the 90s and didn't they sell/move the sonics to the okc group a few years later?

It's like when the bad teams win the lottery they're supposed to, it's the league helping Cleveland get LeBron or NO get ad. When it's longshots that win, that's also the league helping Zion go to New Orleans and not New York or flagg to Dallas and not Chicago. I just don't see the benefit and the downside is so much higher than the "rogue ref" line Stern was able to sell so successfully. This would be the league with their thumb on the scale, almost literally

[Old_Blue]

I don't remember the 90% number and I read quite a bit about that investigation at the time. Yes, Stern shut down the investigation and donaghy wasn't the only one. I believe Foster was unnamed but implicated. But 90%? I'd want to see a source for that.

Also, that is a much smaller circle (the bookie and the ref, essentially) and it still got out, led to criminal charges, jail time, multiple books, documentaries, etc.

Obsessed fans and analytically driven gamblers caught on to donaghy before the FBI did. I just don't see how 50 years of rigging the lottery would stay quiet in this day and age.

Last point on this. Why would the league drive LeBron, ad, Zion, flagg to cle/no/no/dal while completely shutting out la, ny, and chi? I could buy Ewing to the Knicks, I guess. But the rest?

You can read all about it (and watch the Netflix trailer) here...

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2222902&p=101066323&hilit=gambling#p101066323

The 90% number is expressly referenced in the Netflix video (though not the trailer).

The Philly area referee concentration I've heard but the 90% number is ambiguous. Does "some kind of betting activity" mean a March madness pool or blackjack in Vegas or does it mean fixing games like donaghy? I didn't watch the documentary so curious what that meant in context and where they got this numbers, if you remember.

I would strongly recommend watching the video. As I recall, there were two FBI investigations. The first was directed at the Philadelphia mafia. As a result of evidence garnered from that investigation, the FBI launched Operation Flagrant Foul. This second investigation was the one that involved warrants to wiretap referees. Based on the 90% number referenced in the video, my take is that the FBI - as a result of its investigation - found that gambling in general was far from rare among NBA referees. However, the scope of Operation Flagrant Foul was to uncover actual fixing of games - which it did. The fact that non-NBA related gambling was as prevalent as it was may not have been illegal, but should have been deemed troubling by the League - considering the potential to place referees in vulnerable financial circumstances. As you said though, Stern brushed it all under the carpet.

[wco81]

Now they don't even have to make bets through bookies, just use apps themselves.

[vvoland]

Now they don't even have to make bets through bookies, just use apps themselves.

If Vegas breaks your kneecaps for counting cards, you really think it'll be that easy for refs to fix games independently?

[vvoland]

You can read all about it (and watch the Netflix trailer) here...

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2222902&p=101066323&hilit=gambling#p101066323

The 90% number is expressly referenced in the Netflix video (though not the trailer).

The Philly area referee concentration I've heard but the 90% number is ambiguous. Does "some kind of betting activity" mean a March madness pool or blackjack in Vegas or does it mean fixing games like donaghy? I didn't watch the documentary so curious what that meant in context and where they got this numbers, if you remember.

I would strongly recommend watching the video. As I recall, there were two FBI investigations. The first was directed at the Philadelphia mafia. As a result of evidence garnered from that investigation, the FBI launched Operation Flagrant Foul. This second investigation was the one that involved warrants to wiretap referees. Based on the 90% number referenced in the video, my take is that the FBI - as a result of its investigation - found that gambling in general was far from rare among NBA referees. However, the scope of Operation Flagrant Foul was to uncover actual fixing of games - which it did. The fact that non-NBA related gambling was as prevalent as it was may not have been illegal, but should have been deemed troubling by the League - considering the potential to place referees in vulnerable financial circumstances. As you said though, Stern brushed it all under the carpet.

I'll try to find the doc at some point but I do remember avoiding one of the docs I heard about at the time and it was too favorable to donaghy. I assume it's a different one and, even if not, it doesn't invalidate the rest of it.

The fact that Stern got the FBI to drop it doesn't mean he brushed it off, necessarily. I would imagine he started to watch the refs like a hawk and id be willing to bet they'd have a tough time playing poker with the neighbors after donaghy. Except that mfer Scott Foster.

[wco81]

Siakam with 39 points for the Pacers over the Knicks in game 2 of the ECF.

He turned 31 last month.

He's due for $46 to $52.3 million a year the next 3 seasons and then an option year at over $72 million.

Pacers gave up no names but 3 FRPs.

I know the Warriors were in on him last season at the trade deadline. I'm not sure what it would have taken. But those FRPs are likely to be in the 20s, maybe 25-30.

I guess the Warriors could say they just gave up one FRP for Jimmy.

[Crazy-Canuck]

Siakam with 39 points for the Pacers over the Knicks in game 2 of the ECF.

He turned 31 last month.

He's due for $46 to $52.3 million a year the next 3 seasons and then an option year at over $72 million.

Pacers gave up no names but 3 FRPs.

I know the Warriors were in on him last season at the trade deadline. I'm not sure what it would have taken. But those FRPs are likely to be in the 20s, maybe 25-30.

I guess the Warriors could say they just gave up one FRP for Jimmy.

We know what it was. Jk, picks, and salary filler.

[Jester_]

the usual suspects around here didn't want to trade kum buckets for siakam

[wco81]

Or Lacob didn't want to.

People here have opinions but no say on which trades the team makes or doesn't make.

[Jester_]

Or Lacob didn't want to.

People here have opinions but no say on which trades the team makes or doesn't make.

obviously

I'm saying people here didn't want to trade for Siakam and preserve our "youth"

which was a stupid call

[whatisacenter]

Or Lacob didn't want to.

People here have opinions but no say on which trades the team makes or doesn't make.

obviously

I'm saying people here didn't want to trade for Siakam and preserve our "youth"

which was a stupid call

Nevermind Siakam didn't want to come to GS and was not going to sign an extension.

[Crazy-Canuck]

Okc and indy were born built off Paul George trades....

No wonder Philly is trying to push him out of town.

[Onus]

Okc and indy were born built off Paul George trades....

No wonder Philly is trying to push him out of town.

Yea I saw that, pretty funny. Sad for Philly since no one should trade for him now.

[vvoland]

Would people rather have siakam last year (and going forward on the contract he signed) or jimmy + jk + podz + moody + the picks we didn't give up beyond the 1st we gave MIA?

I think it's 50/50.

[Jester_]

Would people rather have siakam last year (and going forward on the contract he signed) or jimmy + jk + podz + moody + the picks we didn't give up beyond the 1st we gave MIA?

I think it's 50/50.

I think Jimmy is higher impact than SIakam

I just think that those poo-pooing siakam at the time were being silly

[Onus]

Would people rather have siakam last year (and going forward on the contract he signed) or jimmy + jk + podz + moody + the picks we didn't give up beyond the 1st we gave MIA?

I think it's 50/50.

In this hypothetical our team would be Curry/Buddy/Wiggins/Siakam/Dray vs Curry/Podz/Moody/Jimmy/Dray? TBH the first team is probably better ...

[vvoland]

Would people rather have siakam last year (and going forward on the contract he signed) or jimmy + jk + podz + moody + the picks we didn't give up beyond the 1st we gave MIA?

I think it's 50/50.

In this hypothetical our team would be Curry/Buddy/Wiggins/Siakam/Dray vs Curry/Podz/Moody/Jimmy/Dray? TBH the first team is probably better ...

I believe Wigs would be going out in both cases.

[Onus]

Would people rather have siakam last year (and going forward on the contract he signed) or jimmy + jk + podz + moody + the picks we didn't give up beyond the 1st we gave MIA?

I think it's 50/50.

In this hypothetical our team would be Curry/Buddy/Wiggins/Siakam/Dray vs Curry/Podz/Moody/Jimmy/Dray? TBH the first team is probably better ...

I believe Wigs would be going out in both cases.

It would’ve been the cp3 contract going out to match salaries.

[Crazy-Canuck]

Would people rather have siakam last year (and going forward on the contract he signed) or jimmy + jk + podz + moody + the picks we didn't give up beyond the 1st we gave MIA?

I think it's 50/50.

In this hypothetical our team would be Curry/Buddy/Wiggins/Siakam/Dray vs Curry/Podz/Moody/Jimmy/Dray? TBH the first team is probably better ...

I believe Wigs would be going out in both cases.

It was the cp3 contract.

Curry buddy, wiggins, siakam, and dray are much better. No question.

Also younger and cheaper.

Just checked and old slater report:

Jk+cp3+pick (s) for siakam.

[vvoland]

I did a lazy job of phrasing it since i was using my phone while watching the knicks. If we got siakam using the CP3 contract, I think we still move off Wigs (or dray, I guess) the following summer. I just don't think we carry all of those contracts without having a year or two outside of the 2nd apron due to the future pick issues. In my hypothetical scenario, there is no wigs (or dray, if you'd prefer) and you'd have to pick between those options. I agree, siakam + wigs & dray would be better. Since we never used the cp3 contract, I'm not going to assume we'd just add another max deal to the most expensive roster in the league.