NBA Discussion Thread - Page 1760

nepg · 07-25-2010, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by derza222

Point taken, but the Celtics traded young assets to get Garnett and Allen. Not like those two just decided to waltz over and play with Pierce. Same idea, but it's got a different feel when you trade for guys.

Don't see that one making sense from Boston's perspective. Getting Paul is really, really nice, but he's just an upgrade over a good PG they already have (who has a really nice contract too) and I don't think they took on Jermaine O'Neal to have him start at center. It'd actually probably be better for them to take on Okafor's contract if they're giving up Perkins, he'd fit in pretty well at the 5 and I dunno where West is going to play with Garnett already pretty much locked into the 4 spot. The Celtics' big men are kind of undersized as is.

Ya, it wouldn't work on the trade machine for whatever reason. The original idea was to have Okafor and Paul to Boston with Perk, Sheed, Conley, Thabeet, and Marko Jaric's contract going to New Orleans. Posey & Rondo to Memphis. New Orleans getting draft picks. Jaric isn't in the trade machine, though, and some other things caused it to not work.

O'Neal actually will start for the C's. Perk is out until February. I agree that Okafor is a good fit in Boston, though.

The reason I take Paul over Rondo is because the C's often struggle to find consistent offense. They also are going to have to find more long-term pieces soon, and it's easier to build around CP than it is to build around Rondo.

derza222 · 07-25-2010, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nepg

Ya, it wouldn't work on the trade machine for whatever reason. The original idea was to have Okafor and Paul to Boston with Perk, Sheed, Conley, Thabeet, and Marko Jaric's contract going to New Orleans. Posey & Rondo to Memphis. New Orleans getting draft picks. Jaric isn't in the trade machine, though, and some other things caused it to not work.

O'Neal actually will start for the C's. Perk is out until February. I agree that Okafor is a good fit in Boston, though.

The reason I take Paul over Rondo is because the C's often struggle to find consistent offense. They also are going to have to find more long-term pieces soon, and it's easier to build around CP than it is to build around Rondo.

True, I forgot about Perk being out. Paul over Rondo definitely does make sense for the reasons you stated, it would just make a lot more sense with Okafor...not sure how much adding West at the 4 really does. A lot more logical after you pointed out that Perk's out for awhile though.

T-Mac to the Bulls?

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nb...ory?id=5408617

HeavyLeggedWaistBender · 07-25-2010, 05:56 PM

If he does agree to come off the bench the Bulls will make the finals this year.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 07-25-2010, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by derza222

Point taken, but the Celtics traded young assets to get Garnett and Allen. Not like those two just decided to waltz over and play with Pierce. Same idea, but it's got a different feel when you trade for guys.

Not just that, but they also were nearing the end of their primes, and only KG could have been considered an "Alpha Dog" at the time. The fact that they were older makes it more understandable for me, because they had both been great players for a long long time and were looking to make it big before they lost their game. Plus, it's nothing like getting two top 3 players, and some would say the two best players in the NBA together. Oh, and a 20-10 big man to go with them.

derza222 · 07-25-2010, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeavyLeggedWaistBender

If he does agree to come off the bench the Bulls will make the finals this year.

Eh, a career .435% shooter who's been in the high 30's, low 40's the last few years, has bad knees, and isn't nearly the athlete he once was. He could come back rededicated and prove that he's still got some game, but I wouldn't bank on it or expect much. Don't think the Bulls have the juice to get to the finals anyway, but this shouldn't be the move to put them over the top.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)

Not just that, but they also were nearing the end of their primes, and only KG could have been considered an "Alpha Dog" at the time. The fact that they were older makes it more understandable for me, because they had both been great players for a long long time and were looking to make it big before they lost their game. Plus, it's nothing like getting two top 3 players, and some would say the two best players in the NBA together. Oh, and a 20-10 big man to go with them.

Excellent points. It's really not nearly as bad as the Miami scenario in my eyes.

Forenci · 07-25-2010, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboy

Bropez is just getting over, if not still battling, mono. So I'm cutting him some slack and know he'll be fine on team USA...if we keep him aboard. If we cut Brook Lopez that'd be ******* stupid as anything.

Did you watch him? He couldn't even catch the ball. I'd still like to see him on the team though as the US could use some added size off the bench.

BeerBaron · 07-25-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by derza222

Excellent points. It's really not nearly as bad as the Miami scenario in my eyes.

I think that was like a proto-Miami scenario. It was sort of the first experiment with that sort of team. As has been mentioned, the players were all older, nearing the end of their primes, and Boston traded for them all.

Miami is the first of what could be a string of superteams.

iowatreat54 · 07-25-2010, 07:55 PM

Boston also got 2 older players in the decline of their careers, not 2 young guys hitting the peak of their careers.

Scotty D · 07-25-2010, 08:09 PM

I don't see a problem with the players gaining leverage over the GMs/owners. So if a GM trades for three superstars its ok, but if three superstar free agents decide to sign with the same team its not? I'm not knowledgeable about the early years of basketball but I'm pretty sure some of those Laker and Celtic rosters were stacked with talent.

Zycho32 · 07-25-2010, 08:31 PM

Of course the Lakers and Celtics were stacked during the 50's and 60's- there were only around 8-10 Teams at any given time in the league until the ABA came into being- so the level of competitive talent was much more balanced than nowadays. Maybe a couple of teams were considered bottom feeders, but all in all every team had a number of quality players which made them competitive.

scottyboy · 07-25-2010, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forenci

Did you watch him? He couldn't even catch the ball. I'd still like to see him on the team though as the US could use some added size off the bench.

no i did not watch, but he's sick with freaking mono. that's so draining on your body and stuff. i'm sure one bad showing is going to over shadow his season this year with the numbers he put up being doubled and tripled all game

Forenci · 07-25-2010, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboy

no i did not watch, but he's sick with freaking mono. that's so draining on your body and stuff. i'm sure one bad showing is going to over shadow his season this year with the numbers he put up being doubled and tripled all game

Don't shoot the messenger! Just sayin'. I love Bropez, and want him on the team.

gpngc · 07-25-2010, 11:59 PM

So is tomorrow C-day?

Or is he just going to back out when the Hornets tell him they are committed to building around him yada yada yada...

Question: Is it financially possible for the Knicks to right now take on Paul and Okafor's contract?

And can Felton be traded even though he just signed the deal?

Vikes99ej · 07-26-2010, 12:16 AM

The Wolves will go 82-0.

Paul · 07-26-2010, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpngc

Question: Is it financially possible for the Knicks to right now take on Paul and Okafor's contract?

And can Felton be traded even though he just signed the deal?

1: Yes

2: Can't be traded until December.

gpngc · 07-26-2010, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

1: Yes

2: Can't be traded until December.

What could be a deal involving Okafor?

Because I know Gallo, Curry, Chandler for Paul works.

I don't think Felton starting off the ball is good at all but if they have the chance to get Paul, they have to do it... will they?

derza222 · 07-26-2010, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty D

I don't see a problem with the players gaining leverage over the GMs/owners. So if a GM trades for three superstars its ok, but if three superstar free agents decide to sign with the same team its not? I'm not knowledgeable about the early years of basketball but I'm pretty sure some of those Laker and Celtic rosters were stacked with talent.

As Zycho said, there were a lot less teams back then, thus the teams being more stacked. Super teams are just going to make the NBA a lot less interesting to watch in my opinion, I don't want to watch a team go out and destroy the majority of the teams that they play over the course of a season. The major appeal of most sports to me is parity, and if we're going to have the best few players on a couple of teams then most games aren't going to be worth watching. I'd love to see great players going up against each other, not playing on the same team.

As overdone as it's been, the pickup game example is a good one. I just don't understand what fun it is to go "Okay well we've had trouble getting rings on our own, so let's just team up and destroy everbody else". As a Bulls fan I would've rather seen LeBron go anywhere besides Miami. The Knicks would've been great, then you've got Wade and Bosh in Miami and a bunch of other good teams (Magic, Knicks, Celtics, Hawks, Bulls) in the east to get some real competition. Granted we can't hand the Heat the EC crown right now, but that's going to be a really difficult group of players for anybody to match up with, much more so than that Boston team.

I also really don't get the comparison to Boston, for a couple of reasons. Pierce, Allen, and Garnett were all older and not the same level of players that Bron, Wade, and Bosh are. Granted, they all were and are really good players, but not that good. In fact, go back to when those trades were made, I'm pretty sure most people on this forum thought that team wasn't going to be that good.

But to me it's the lack of competitiveness that they showed. Ainge trading for 2 good players was just him doing his job to the best of his ability, trying to put the best team on the floor as possible with the assets at his disposal. The players are entertainers and they're playing for money and want to win I'm sure, but I just don't see the satisfaction in doing so that way. If I'm playing a pickup game I want to win, but if I've got the option of jumping in with the younger kids who I know I'm going to beat or with the guys who are better or at the same level as me, I'm not going to choose to pick the team I'm going to destroy. I just don't understand how they'll feel good about winning any rings that they do win. Just seems like a cop out.

prock · 07-26-2010, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty D

I don't see a problem with the players gaining leverage over the GMs/owners. So if a GM trades for three superstars its ok, but if three superstar free agents decide to sign with the same team its not? I'm not knowledgeable about the early years of basketball but I'm pretty sure some of those Laker and Celtic rosters were stacked with talent.

I am not quite sure why anybody thinks this current situation is Miami is comparable to any other scenario in the past, because honestly, they are nothing alike.

D-Unit · 07-26-2010, 01:24 AM

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=23lhgl2

thoughts?

fenikz · 07-26-2010, 01:30 AM

Ya that's lovely for Orlando, sucks for the Pacers

Hollywood · 07-26-2010, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WMD

I wish the NBA would do something to keep stuff like that from happening. Somehow formulate a way to rate players based on stats, contract, and I don't know.. jersey sales or something.. and make a rule saying teams with two players of a high rating under contract can't sign another player with a high rating to a contract over sayyyyyyy 3 years and $5 Million per year. Make them take a real big paycut if they want to screw around with the system.

You're a communist.

soybean · 07-26-2010, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prock

I am not quite sure why anybody thinks this current situation is Miami is comparable to any other scenario in the past, because honestly, they are nothing alike.

and I can't believe that some people would actually be ok with a Chris Paul, Dwayne Wade, Lebron James, Chris Bosh, Dwight Howard starting line up.

WMD · 07-26-2010, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollywood

You're a communist.

I'm a visionary.

gpngc · 07-26-2010, 02:24 AM

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=2665mqf

Okafor reminds me of Vernon Wells. A New York team should take on his bad contract if it means getting one of the best in the game. They won't, he'll have a fine season, and the New York team will look stupid for not making the move.

It would be weird, and they'd likely look to wheel and deal Felton when they can, but this rotation would probably be pretty good... Although they wouldn't have a shooting guard. Well, they don't have one now anyway...

PG: Chris Paul
G: Raymond Felton
SF: Wilson Chandler
PF: Amare Stoudamire
C: Emeka Okafor
6: Anthony Randolph
7: Bill Walker
8: Tall Russian
9: Toney Douglas

fenikz · 07-26-2010, 03:03 AM

where would that leave NY cap-space wise, because honestly thats not a championship team and if they don't have enough room to sign Melo it's basically a wasted 5 years