Lakers trade

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Why Stern was right to veto...

http://hoopspeak.com/2011/12/david-s...e-right-thing/

His was extremely flawed logic.

First of all I have a hard time understanding why if Stern were so hyper focused on keeping the Hornets attractive to a new owner (which is the basic premise) did he not simply tell Demps the parameters of a deal he would approve of? How can you say that The Hornets management was working without influence of the NBA when you are going to disapprove of a trade it come up with? You cant have it both ways.
The 2nd thing I dont agree with is that a new owner needs a star player or is concerned with immediate salary cap implications. Some guy just paid $700 million for the Houston Astros who have no stars or much in the way of prospects. The owners are buying the uniforms, not the guys in them. Chris Paul may blow out his knee tomorrow, no one is spending $300 million on a basketball team because of Chris Paul.
The 3rd thing in talking about the immediate salary cap implications the author acts as though none of the pieces acquired couldnt have been flipped to other small market teams currently trying to get above the salary floor. I mean if we are willing to let NO punt the season (which is what they are doing by keeping Paul-who exactly are they going to sign to fill out the roster/how much money are they going to be allowed to spend?) AND let Paul walk and get nothing for him....then why couldnt Scola or Martin or Odom (as shown by his trade to Dallas for what Stern supposedly wants draft picks) be traded by NO?
I could go on but this post has already flew by the tedious mendoza line...

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

His was extremely flawed logic.

First of all I have a hard time understanding why if Stern were so hyper focused on keeping the Hornets attractive to a new owner (which is the basic premise) did he not simply tell Demps the parameters of a deal he would approve of? How can you say that The Hornets management was working without influence of the NBA when you are going to disapprove of a trade it come up with? You cant have it both ways.
The 2nd thing I dont agree with is that a new owner needs a star player or is concerned with immediate salary cap implications. Some guy just paid $700 million for the Houston Astros who have no stars or much in the way of prospects. The owners are buying the uniforms, not the guys in them. Chris Paul may blow out his knee tomorrow, no one is spending $300 million on a basketball team because of Chris Paul.
The 3rd thing in talking about the immediate salary cap implications the author acts as though none of the pieces acquired couldnt have been flipped to other small market teams currently trying to get above the salary floor. I mean if we are willing to let NO punt the season (which is what they are doing by keeping Paul-who exactly are they going to sign to fill out the roster/how much money are they going to be allowed to spend?) AND let Paul walk and get nothing for him....then why couldnt Scola or Martin or Odom (as shown by his trade to Dallas for what Stern supposedly wants draft picks) be traded by NO?
I could go on but this post has already flew by the tedious mendoza line...

I do think salary cap implications are huge for a new owner, especially with the new agreement. Can you imagine buying that team and having to pay a luxury tax, a team that will be around 500? You fill the seat by giving fans hope for the future or a contender, not fielding a 500 team of old guys. At the very least you need some exciting players. Martin is fringe that, the others, not even close.

We disagree on how easy it would be to "flip" those older guys. It just isn't going to happen as much as it used to happen. As for the Odom trade, they didn't get draft picks, they got a trade exception that I'm sure they'll use trying to get Howard.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I do think salary cap implications are huge for a new owner, especially with the new agreement. Can you imagine buying that team and having to pay a luxury tax, a team that will be around 500? You fill the seat by giving fans hope for the future or a contender, not fielding a 500 team of old guys. At the very least you need some exciting players. Martin is fringe that, the others, not even close.

We disagree on how easy it would be to "flip" those older guys. It just isn't going to happen as much as it used to happen. As for the Odom trade, they didn't get draft picks, they got a trade exception that I'm sure they'll use trying to get Howard.

I'm bored waiting for the track at the farm to unfreeze so...
As I said there the team wasnt necessarily finished moving pieces. Expiring contracts are still valuable AND with the salary floor teams will actually need to add players like Scola and Martin if nothing else to get over the floor until they are in their final year when they can use them as expiring contract trade bait.

The Lakers got Dallas 1st round pick this year. You have to trade a draft pick to get the exception.

And CJ, you fill seats by winning and neither scenario is going to have the Hornets winning in the near term regardless. NO's success last year not withstanding how exactly are they supposed to add pieces if Mark Cuban and company are going to go apeshit everytime they add anybody? And with the season opening in 12 days when are they planning on filling out the roster?

http://espn.go.com/nba/team/roster/_...rleans-hornets

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I'm bored waiting for the track at the farm to unfreeze so...
planning on filling out the roster?

http://espn.go.com/nba/team/roster/_...rleans-hornets

thats why you are supposed to come to ocala for the winter, dude.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

thats why you are supposed to come to ocala for the winter, dude.

Man it was cold today before the sun came up