Lakers trade

[geeker2]

At 33 year Kobe can't afford an extended re-build plan.

[knickslions2]

Knicks look like the will be getting Chandler. Pretty good inside lineup with Chandler, Amare and Mellow.

[Cannon Shell]

Supposedly the Paul trade has been nixed by the NBA league office

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Supposedly the Paul trade has been nixed by the NBA league office

I can't think of much worse PR for the NBA after a lockout than having an NBA controlled team trading its superstar to the big market Lakers.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I can't think of much worse PR for the NBA after a lockout than having an NBA controlled team trading its superstar to the big market Lakers.

Really? What should they do? This was a good deal for New Orleans. This fantasy that he makes the team worth more is idiotic. There is zero chance he is staying there regardless of who owns the team. So why not get what you can before you lose all leverage. It isnt like he is going to sign as a FA with a small market team.

The last trade that Pau Gasol was involved was a much bigger trade rape than this.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Really? What should they do? This was a good deal for New Orleans. This fantasy that he makes the team worth more is idiotic. There is zero chance he is staying there regardless of who owns the team. So why not get what you can before you lose all leverage. It isnt like he is going to sign as a FA with a small market team.

The last trade that Pau Gasol was involved was a much bigger trade rape than this.

I agree, and don't really think it was helping the Lakers much either. I'm just talking PR wise with fans, outside of LA, it looks really bad.

I'm a huge Thunder fan. The team was extremely lucky to get two, maybe three, quality draft picks three years running...four if you count Ibaka. Only the fact Durant isn't a big market whore like a lot of these other guys will keep them together. If small market fans don't think there is any chance they can keep stars, they will not be supported for long. That is bad news for the league unless they want to contract to about 6 teams.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I agree, and don't really think it was helping the Lakers much either. I'm just talking PR wise with fans, outside of LA, it looks really bad.

I'm a huge Thunder fan. The team was extremely lucky to get two, maybe three, quality draft picks three years running...four if you count Ibaka. Only the fact Durant isn't a big market whore like a lot of these other guys will keep them together. If small market fans don't think there is any chance they can keep stars, they will not be supported for long. That is bad news for the league unless they want to contract to about 6 teams.

I dont think that fans would see this as anything but what it was, a team getting what it could for a player who was going to leave anyway. Lets face it Stern is a puppet at this point. The lockout had zero to do with competitive balance, it had to do with the owners being greedy.

I dont buy that only big markets teams can compete. The Heat thing only came about because Miami had an unusual situation of having virtually no one under contract, a superstar with an expiring contract and 3 star level players willing to play for less than market value. AND they didnt win last year because they still had no room for anything other than bums. The Knicks made all these deals but look at the rest of their roster? It is a joke. OKC did it the right way regardless of market size. They drafted well and got lucky that the Blazers blew it once again. San Antonio showed what a team can do if they are run properly.

Teams that arent very good arent going to retain their players regardless of market size. With the salary cap in place there are only so many destinations that these guys can go to.

In the end we are talking about a guy who averaged 16 and 10 last year and isnt far removed from a knee injury. The NBA looks far worse in nixing this trade than had it gone through. If they arent going to let NO try to run its business in a long term fashion then they should just contract them now.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I can't think of much worse PR for the NBA after a lockout than having an NBA controlled team trading its superstar to the big market Lakers.

I get your point and it's a valid one, but Stern never has seemed particularly interested in poor PR. You guys got the former Sonics in your backyard now. The behind the scenes bullsh.it deals that went on to get that team there were borderline criminal.

Plus, since there is a 0% chance Paul resigns with New Orleans, at least they get something for him, instead of just totally losing him.

[RockHardTen1985]

yahoo sports says other owners basicley went crazy over the NBA dealing him to the Lakers. This entire situation is a mess.
Anyway, how about what I just read. Knicks getting Tyson Chandler with the plan being to give Amare up for CP3.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

yahoo sports says other owners basicley went crazy over the NBA dealing him to the Lakers. This entire situation is a mess.
Anyway, how about what I just read. Knicks getting Tyson Chandler with the plan being to give Amare up for CP3.

If they wouldnt let them trade him to LA what makes you think that they will allow them to trade him to NY? Especially since they have to take back a huge contract?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I get your point and it's a valid one, but Stern never has seemed particularly interested in poor PR. You guys got the former Sonics in your backyard now. The behind the scenes bullsh.it deals that went on to get that team there were borderline criminal.

Plus, since there is a 0% chance Paul resigns with New Orleans, at least they get something for him, instead of just totally losing him.

I didnt see this as poor PR for the NBA in the first place other than by conspiracy theory believers. As a matter of fact I saw it as a net win for the league. NO gets better and one of its under the radar stars gets exposure on the big stage before he starts to decline.

NOW I see it as terrible PR for the NBA. Stern looks like a puppet, the owners look petty and greedy, the Hornets are in a terrible spot, the dominos that fall after a move like this are held up because this is in limbo (surely the NBA players association will file a lawsuit), the players look greedy even if they are simply wanting to play for a better team (Hell NO doesnt even have an owner nor supposedly do they have a suitor) and the Lakers have 2 pissed off players in an already potentially disfunctional situation. Small market teams can compete in the NBA as shown by SA and OKC. Big Market teams can suck for extended periods as shown by the Knicks.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I didnt see this as poor PR for the NBA in the first place other than by conspiracy theory believers. As a matter of fact I saw it as a net win for the league. NO gets better and one of its under the radar stars gets exposure on the big stage before he starts to decline.

NOW I see it as terrible PR for the NBA. Stern looks like a puppet, the owners look petty and greedy, the Hornets are in a terrible spot, the dominos that fall after a move like this are held up because this is in limbo (surely the NBA players association will file a lawsuit), the players look greedy even if they are simply wanting to play for a better team (Hell NO doesnt even have an owner nor supposedly do they have a suitor) and the Lakers have 2 pissed off players in an already potentially disfunctional situation. Small market teams can compete in the NBA as shown by SA and OKC. Big Market teams can suck for extended periods as shown by the Knicks.

You make good points, but maybe what we're all forgetting is real fans already know everything this situation is bringing to light. Stern has always been a puppet. The owners have always been petty and greedy. New Orleans has been in a tough spot for years and of course the players want to play for a better team, although being in a city like LA or Miami helps. I find it hard to believe there would be a big push by players to play in Alaska if they had a team...but that is a whole other conversation.

The people who will be outraged by this are people that don't really pay attention (so who cares?) and greedy owners who don't want to spend the money to bring big talent in.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I get your point and it's a valid one, but Stern never has seemed particularly interested in poor PR. You guys got the former Sonics in your backyard now. The behind the scenes bullsh.it deals that went on to get that team there were borderline criminal.

Plus, since there is a 0% chance Paul resigns with New Orleans, at least they get something for him, instead of just totally losing him.

I agree. I really didn't care if the trade went through. I don't even think it would work out well for the Lakers.

It just was never going to fly with a lot of the small market owners, at least at this early stage after the lockout. How do they sell this to fans that they are currently screwing over by cramming games in and making pay for preseason games? The promise from a lot of small market clubs was that the lockout would help make them more competitive. It was always a lie, but they can't renege already.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I agree. I really didn't care if the trade went through. I don't even think it would work out well for the Lakers.

It just was never going to fly with a lot of the small market owners, at least at this early stage after the lockout. How do they sell this to fans that they are currently screwing over by cramming games in and making pay for preseason games? The promise from a lot of small market clubs was that the lockout would help make them more competitive. It was always a lie, but they can't renege already.

One of the good things about the lockout was only 2 preseason games!

One of the biggest myths in sports is that small market NBA teams cant compete. The Bulls havent won a championship since 1998. The Knicks since 1973. The LA Clippers never even make the playoffs. The Nets have never won a NBA championship and made the finals twice since the merger in 1976. Houston hasn't been in the finals in 16 years. The 76'ers have been in the finals 1 time since 1983. The Washington metor area is the 7th most populated in the US but when have the Wizards been relevant?

Since the begining of the supposed heyday of the NBA, 1980 these teams have won chapionships-Lakers 10 times, Boston 4 times, Philadelphia 1 time, Detroit 3 times, Houston 2 times, San Antonio 4 times, the Bulls 6 times, Miami 1 time and Dallas 1 time. 32 years only 9 teams and 3 of them once.
That means that 20 teams including 2 NY teams, 1 LA team and teams from Washington, Phoenix, Atlanta and San Fran bay area have zero championship. Why did the Lakers and Boston and SA win multiple championships? Better management.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by knickslions2

Knicks look like the will be getting Chandler. Pretty good inside lineup with Chandler.

FTFY