Discussing Other Teams' Moves

[Nivek]

I don't think Demps was trying to start the Hornets on a rebuilding process with this deal -- he was acquiring good players in an attempt to have a good team next year. And they would have been pretty good with Scola, Odom and Martin along with guys they were bringing back.

I still kinda think the deal ends up going through in the next day or two. I don't think Stern was expecting this kind of backlash.

If not, the Hornets will lose Paul in exchange for nothing after the season.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

They traded the best player in the deal (by far) and got no salary relief, young building blocks, nor picks. No combination of Luis Scola, Kevin Martin, or Gasol can make up for that, CCJ.

See the Carmelo deal.

Your opinion has one paragraph and is quite subjective, TGW.

What about the Carmelo trade? They received Gallinari, Wilson Chandler, Mozgov, a first rounder, and cash. It wasn't a great return, but at least its what a rebuilding SHOULD get in return--picks and young players.

Wilson Chandler cannot come back from China this season, TGW.

Timofey Mozgov and Danillo Gallinari are young and I like them; but is either of them Kevin Martin, Lamar Odom, or Luis Scola?

The Hornets did get a first, TGW. And the players they got are NOT that old.

So, the difference is Mozgov (25), Chandler next season(25), and Gallinari (23)

VS

Martin (28 years old), Scola (31), and Odom (32)

Each of those "older" guys have 4+ years left. They are NOT that old, TGW. Older players playing competitively: Kobe is 33, Paul Pierce is 34, Manu Ginobili is 34, Kevin Garnett is 35, Tim Duncan is 35, Steve Nash is 37. The core that New Orleans could reasonably expect 3 great seasons together with Emeka Okafor. New Orleans had a great deal there.

Bottom Line:

I like what Denver got and think the deal worked for them. That said, NEW ORLEANS WOULD HAVE HAD A BETTER DEAL. I am not even going to debate this further, TGW.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I don't think Demps was trying to start the Hornets on a rebuilding process with this deal -- he was acquiring good players in an attempt to have a good team next year. And they would have been pretty good with Scola, Odom and Martin along with guys they were bringing back.

I still kinda think the deal ends up going through in the next day or two. I don't think Stern was expecting this kind of backlash.

If not, the Hornets will lose Paul in exchange for nothing after the season.

+1

That, and I don't think Stern will last perhaps through THIS SEASON as NBA Commissioner. I expect him to resign once the deal goes through.

[doclinkin]

My PERCEPTION (doesn't have to match yours, DM) is that empowered African American players getting together and figuring a way to be on the same team being called "players pulling crap" or words to that effect comes down to "who do they think they are?" by the poster. I bet if you polled the posters on who they sided with, owners or players, blacks side with players and whites owners. I think "the choir" of realgm posters would be very knowledgeable regardless of which side they support. Still, there would be a racial bias just like there is in political voting.

I dunno. I think the majority of posters on here had supported the players, because the owners were being such pig-faced greedheads about the whole thing. If the owners had stuck on principle of the system issues and been more flexible on the revenue issues then I'd have been okay with their position. I read the document of their proposed system changes and nothing seemed godawful, many of their proposed changes regarding use of the D-League etc I could understand in a vacuum as being beneficial to the overall product, if difficult to enact in opposition to the Union. I like the concept of parity, that the NBA is more than 3-4 superteams and a bunch of no-hopers.

But that's not primarily what they drew their swords for. Instead the bloodletting was in defense of a fatter slice of the pie. And they were okay with the creation of superteams so long as those teams were paying more than everybody and kicking in more cash to the kitty.

So my sympathies lie with the players, or leastways my empathy does --largely because the NBA signed off on a system in which my squad has little to no hope of a ring.

I like stars remaining with the teams that drafted them, with supplemental players built around them, in large part because it helps to develop rivalries and affords a chance even for a small market team to luck into a major player. I like the concept of parity, though it restricts player movement, I like the possibility of hope every offseason.

If in fact CP3 to LA meant that the Lakers landed Dwight Howard (no done deal, but plausible) then I'd have hated that since it would prolong the time when our squad could realistically compete. The issue of whether Kobe vs CP3 can work on the same team is irrelevant, CP3 with Dwight would be really tricky to overcome. Kobe has a ton of miles on his legs and has just begun to taper off. But Dwight + CP3 could be nasty for a long time. CP3's game smarts cancels out Miek Brown's inability to imagine anything on the offensive side of the ball.

That said, DStern nixing the whole deal because it exposed the flaws in the system they just agreed on is a slimy move. The only win in the scenario would have been if CP3 moved to LA, and LA sucked. Cratered. Couldn't sign Dwight. That would have been justice.

Personally I could care less about whether players can influence where they land, except inasmuch as it prevents my squad from competing.

If Ted can pull a Cuban and make this place a destination (ie lose money for years in a bid to become relevant) well then great, I like the system. If we can retain Johnny Ball game and build a champion around him then I'm good. If instead he slides over to Miami, LA, Boston, or um Chicago, then I'm pissed. In that respect, apologies, I don't care what the players want. I just want a bit of hope for my squad.

So says a white dude.

[TGW]

You can't just disqualify Chandler because he's staying in China, CCJ. No one knew beforehand that was going to happen. With that being said, I'd easily take New York's package over two 30+ year olds and a guy who's turning 29 this season. If you disagree, so be it, but I believe Chandler, Gallo, Mozgov, a first, and 3 mill cash >>>>>>>>> Martin, Odom, and Scola.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

You can't just disqualify Chandler because he's staying in China, CCJ. No one knew beforehand that was going to happen. With that being said, I'd easily take New York's package over two 30+ year olds and a guy who's turning 29 this season. If you disagree, so be it, but I believe Chandler, Gallo, Mozgov, a first, and 3 mill cash >>>>>>>>> Martin, Odom, and Scola.

I won't discount Chandler if you don't discount the Hornets did also get a first round pick.

[montestewart]

You can't just disqualify Chandler because he's staying in China, CCJ. No one knew beforehand that was going to happen. With that being said, I'd easily take New York's package over two 30+ year olds and a guy who's turning 29 this season. If you disagree, so be it, but I believe Chandler, Gallo, Mozgov, a first, and 3 mill cash >>>>>>>>> Martin, Odom, and Scola.

If I recall right, Denver got some 2nds and some other things as well in a three-way deal. NO would also have gotten a 1st. Which is a better deal in some ways depends on what the team is trying to accomplish, but I think some of the assets NO would have gained might later have been flipped to a team in the hunt and looking for a missing piece at the deadline or in the offseason. Maybe NO could have gotten picks/prospects or relief down the road.

[TGW]

You can't just disqualify Chandler because he's staying in China, CCJ. No one knew beforehand that was going to happen. With that being said, I'd easily take New York's package over two 30+ year olds and a guy who's turning 29 this season. If you disagree, so be it, but I believe Chandler, Gallo, Mozgov, a first, and 3 mill cash >>>>>>>>> Martin, Odom, and Scola.

I won't discount Chandler if you don't discount the Hornets did also get a first round pick.

I wasn't discounting the first rounder...I didn't even know there was one involved. My bad. Still doesn't change my mind though.

[jmrosenth]

Dan Gilbert's email would have been much more relevant if he said "why don't we just change the other 25 teams names to the Washington Wizards?"

[TGW]

Dan Gilbert's email would have been much more relevant if he said "why don't we just change the other 25 teams names to the Washington Wizards?"

I honestly think Gilbert's email had more to do with the Lakers getting Paul. That whole "revenue sharing" crap was just so he didn't have to say the real reason why he was against it. Gilbert is a small market owner, and he just lost his best player for pretty much nothing. Paul going to the Lakers for older players just reinforces his belief that the NBA is a 5 team league where the other teams are just speedbumps. I tend to agree...I honestly think the NBA is rigged in some ways. You have these situations where former GMs/Players of certain teams make these lopsided deals with the teams they were originally associated with (Jerry West trading Gasol to the Lakers; McHale trading Garnett to the Celtics) and you wonder if the NBA even attempted to investigate whether those were justifiable trades.

I believe at some point, we as fans just have to say enough. Just one of these days, I'd like to see the Lakers not be shoved in my face every year.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

My PERCEPTION (doesn't have to match yours, DM) is that empowered African American players getting together and figuring a way to be on the same team being called "players pulling crap" or words to that effect comes down to "who do they think they are?" by the poster. I bet if you polled the posters on who they sided with, owners or players, blacks side with players and whites owners. I think "the choir" of realgm posters would be very knowledgeable regardless of which side they support. Still, there would be a racial bias just like there is in political voting.

I dunno. I think the majority of posters on here had supported the players, because the owners were being such pig-faced greedheads about the whole thing. If the owners had stuck on principle of the system issues and been more flexible on the revenue issues then I'd have been okay with their position. I read the document of their proposed system changes and nothing seemed godawful, many of their proposed changes regarding use of the D-League etc I could understand in a vacuum as being beneficial to the overall product, if difficult to enact in opposition to the Union. I like the concept of parity, that the NBA is more than 3-4 superteams and a bunch of no-hopers.

But that's not primarily what they drew their swords for. Instead the bloodletting was in defense of a fatter slice of the pie. And they were okay with the creation of superteams so long as those teams were paying more than everybody and kicking in more cash to the kitty.

So my sympathies lie with the players, or leastways my empathy does --largely because the NBA signed off on a system in which my squad has little to no hope of a ring.

I like stars remaining with the teams that drafted them, with supplemental players built around them, in large part because it helps to develop rivalries and affords a chance even for a small market team to luck into a major player. I like the concept of parity, though it restricts player movement, I like the possibility of hope every offseason.

If in fact CP3 to LA meant that the Lakers landed Dwight Howard (no done deal, but plausible) then I'd have hated that since it would prolong the time when our squad could realistically compete. The issue of whether Kobe vs CP3 can work on the same team is irrelevant, CP3 with Dwight would be really tricky to overcome. Kobe has a ton of miles on his legs and has just begun to taper off. But Dwight + CP3 could be nasty for a long time. CP3's game smarts cancels out Miek Brown's inability to imagine anything on the offensive side of the ball.

That said, DStern nixing the whole deal because it exposed the flaws in the system they just agreed on is a slimy move. The only win in the scenario would have been if CP3 moved to LA, and LA sucked. Cratered. Couldn't sign Dwight. That would have been justice.

Personally I could care less about whether players can influence where they land, except inasmuch as it prevents my squad from competing.

If Ted can pull a Cuban and make this place a destination (ie lose money for years in a bid to become relevant) well then great, I like the system. If we can retain Johnny Ball game and build a champion around him then I'm good. If instead he slides over to Miami, LA, Boston, or um Chicago, then I'm pissed. In that respect, apologies, I don't care what the players want. I just want a bit of hope for my squad.

So says a white dude.

doc, I can't really respond like I need to. Your posts have layers and I really do want to comprehend before I respond to the whole. One part I will address in the time I have now:

If the league would have had CP3 with Dwight AND Kobe, so be it. I think the league gets better at the top and better overall with good teams countering the super team. If you look back, Boston once went 41-1 at home in the 80s. Bird, McHale, and Parrish was super as super gets. Yet, they still had rivalries and close calls and didn't win i every year. The Lakers, Sixers, Pistons and even the Hawks made them work.

I think the whole super team issue is like throwing a rock in a pond. It creates a perturbation, or ripple, that EVENTUALLY the pond settles back down.

But so what if a certain team is tough to overcome? Did you stop watching the NBA when Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman/Ho Grant teams were winning a pair of three-peats? Did the Shaq/Kobe super team turn you away? Three straight championship for them, too. Did you not like seeing Duncan with Robinson or Hakeem with Ralph Sampson.

Even if Paul, Kobe, and Dwight were on the same team a team with players like Wall, Young (check his last few games against Kobe), and a variety of bigs could compete. As Kobe his 37, that's when Wall will be nearing his peak. When other teams draft the Anthony Davises, the Drummonds, and the crop of bigs coming up; that's when the league will be a big man's league. Dwight will still be a beast, but he's beatable now and will be then.

I see the only difference now is players are trying to have power and Stern and owners don't like it.

[montestewart]

doclinkin's white?

[montestewart]

In the decade I became a basketball fan, Milwaukee, Golden State, Portland, Washington, and Seattle all won championships. That seems like a long time ago.

[montestewart]

It is a long time ago.

[dandridge 10]

I honestly don't see all the fuss. I don't care if the trade was lopsided or not. The league owns the Hornets. They can decide whether to approve the trade or not. Its no different than if Grunfeld worked out a similar trade and Leonsis nixed it. Leonsis calls the shots as the owner. Here, the league calls the shots because it is the owner. If the league doesn't like the deal for the Hornets, so be it.

dandridge, there is no debating what you just said. The league had the power/right to veto what the league didn't like.

The debate is over Paul being allowed the opportunity to work where he wants to after several years and two contracts with one team. Should Stern and owners decide players cannot leave? Why is it that an Albert Pujols CAN leave or any other baseball player, but NBA players cannot? Why do football players have more freedom to leave their teams than NBA players. Why is it that NBA players trying to form super teams is bad for the game? Has a super team won the title other than the ones the league allowed to be formed for their own marketing reasons. The league didn't complain about the Lakers getting Gasol. This Paul trade is no more lopsided IMO because Paul is leaving regardless. The league didn't complain when Boston's GM Danny Ainge added Garnett and Ray Allen. No, it is okay for Stern to have a Lakers/Celtics rivalry. Owners have the power to trade and control players to stop the players from having ANY say in where they play. Just don't let players like Paul decide on their own where they should play, per the owners and Stern.

Any of those things I mentioned are debatable topics, particularly in light of all that went down during the lockout, dandridge.

Actually, CCJ, I don't see the debate over Paul being allowed the opportunity to work where he wants. Last I knew, Paul was still under contract with the Hornets. He can't pick where he wants to play just like John Wall can't decide to up and leave the Wizards right now and play for a team he wants to play. Once Paul becomes a free agent, he can pick which team he wants to play for, just like LeBron did. I have no problem with that.

[fishercob]

Chris Broussard is reporting that Magic will file tampering charges against the Nets b/c Dwight and his people met with Prokhorov and Billy King last week w/o Magic's knowledge/consent. Smoking gun, potential game-changer in Dwight sweepstakes.

[Severn Hoos]

Caveat #1: Yes, I realize I'm veering into the Quasar of Doom territory here, but this is where the discussion started, and I want to be sure CCJ sees the response.

Caveat #2: CCJ, I know we've never met, but I do consider you a friend and definitely a brother in the Lord, and so I hope and trust that you will know my heart in my comments below.

The guy really is a controller and the fans are being pulled into the "Us vs Them" that Stern and the all white and MJ owners are doing to the mostly black players.

And if i hear someone equate this and the lockout/CBA with slaves and plantation owners again I will lose it. If i was African-American, or even just American, I would be incredibly offended by that proposed analogy.

Go ahead and lose it then, DM. I am an African American and if you read a few pages back I qualified exactly where I stand on the analogy. You don't like to read the context of what I say, apparently, but you want to tell me I am wrong to mention race at all.

I don't like the slavery analogy - not because I'm "offended" per se, and not because it is a personal attack on me. I don't like it for the same reason I don't like hearing people call fellow Americans Nazis. And that is that it does a great disservice to the actual victims of slavery (and victims of actual Nazis). If anyone thinks getting paid multiple millions of dollars per year while being jetted around the world and treated like a celebrity is even remotely similar to being ripped apart from families, having absolutely no freedoms, being beaten, and...well, you get the point.

So it is not I who is offended by the casual use of the slavery analogy, but Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman - and let's not forget Aesop, Spartacus, Saint Patrick, and the nation of Israel, and millions (billions?) more throughout history whose names will never be remembered.

My late great grandmother lived to be 105. She was born in 1890 and died in 1995. The youngest of many children, her father had been born a slave.My grandmother worked in Memphis, Tennessee, for "Miss Judy"; the daughter of a (white) railroad executive from 1914 until around 1975. DM, my father picked cotton as a child. However, like my grandmother he didn't have any racial bitterness and (has) lived a long time. That despite both living through things most of us never had to.

CCJ, I find it interesting that the experience among your parents/grandparents/great grandparents seems to be fairly common - that those who had more reason to harbor bitterness were able to forgive. And yet people today, who - let's face it - have a pretty good life, even those who are classified as "poor" today have things that the wealthiest could only dream of a hundred years ago, these people tend to be far more bitter and angry than their forebears.

Now, there are a large number of reasons why this would be the case, but it is not an isolated phenomenon. In my opinion, it is the result of a life marked not by gratitude, but by envy. And yes, greed. The kind of greed the Occupy people see everywhere they look - except in a mirror.

A life of gratitude will wash away so much of that bitterness, as love covers a multitude of sins (both real and imagined). But I know you know that - so I'm preaching to the choir, so to speak....

Lots of other good stuff in your post - I don't mean to slight any of it by picking out a few passages to reply to. Thanks as always for sharing your perspective, I always appreciate it!

[miller31time]

What a complete and total clusterf*** the NBA has become almost immediately after the end of the playoffs.

NBPA vs. owners
players go overseas
Yao Ming retires
cancellation of games
deal agreed to, 66 game season
Paul and Howard want out
Roger Mason Jr shocks world; signs with Wizards
Paul dealt to Lakers
Paul undealt to Lakers
Brandon Roy retires
Howard requests trade to Joisey
Magic potentially firing tampering charges

[Nivek]

Remember: This is the system the owners wanted. They could have imposed just about anything they wanted. They chose this.

If they want competitive balance they need to find a way to create more elite players. Which they can't do.

The realistic alternative is to let teams actually use salary to compete for elite players. With the max salary still in effect, the salary a player can get is basically the same everywhere he goes. Which means players will gravitate to big media markets where they can maximize off-court income, to teams they perceive as contenders so they can win (and maximize off-court income), and to preferred lifestyles (warm weather, lower state taxes, etc.).

Just keep in mind: The owners go what they wanted in this CBA. And what they wanted was not competitive balance -- they wanted money.

[Rafael122]

So why cry foul when another team wants to have a super team then?