I feel it's going to take a stupid trade like that to get Howard. The Odom trade was just stupid even if he wanted to leave.
Edit: ESPN saying Nets are in serious talks with Orlando for Howard involving multiple teams.
Nba 2011-2012
- Thread starter ha_rooney
- Start date
Edit: ESPN saying Nets are in serious talks with Orlando for Howard involving multiple teams.
The Lakers were stupid enough to offer Odom in the first place when he was their second best player all season. Why in the fecking hell would you want to do that? Because he saw his name on the trade list, he was pissed and requested a trade. You can't keep a player if he does not want to stay.
It appears the Lakers were putting all their eggs in one basket expecting that Odom+Gasol=CP3 and Bynum=Howard - and that the trades would happen without any issue.
When the CP3 trade got killed I could understand if they included Odom in a move for Howard but to trade him to Dallas for next to nothing is idiotic. Why Dallas, if he wants a trade send him elsewhere not to your conference rivals who humiliated you 7 months ago.
Richard Hamilton is close to agreeing a three year $15m deal with the Bulls.
Is he being funny? In no reality is Chris Paul staying past this year, so how does this help a small team keep their player?
In guaranteeing no star player comes in exchange, in fact they're guaranteeing the Hornets don't have a star player next year.
The only thing I can think of is that the owners are trying to create the illusion Paul might stay in order to sell the Hornets to someone stupid.
Cannot believe Kwame fecking Brown has made $60 million in his career. $60 million!
I was just laughing at the Warriors for signing him for 7 million. Michael Jordan once said he'd take Kwame in a game of pick-up ball over anyone in the world.
This was before he was drafted.
This was before he was drafted.
Got this from NBA.com:
That is some seriously fecked up shit! Why was he so hyped up in the first place? Did he really have so much potential?
CP3 is going to the Clippers. Going to the wrong team in LA but I look forward to seeing him play with Griffin.
feck Paul is gone too! feck!
Wow, what a coup for the Clippers. Of course Griffin is a star already, so I'm not sure how this is any better for the league, but good for them! Their fans deserve this.
A shame for the Lakers, though.
Billups will be a tremendous back-up, and can probably play some shooting guard if needed. Mo Williams should be traded, and now the Clippers need a center, they only have 6-9 Marcus Hubbard right now.
A shame for the Lakers, though.
Billups will be a tremendous back-up, and can probably play some shooting guard if needed. Mo Williams should be traded, and now the Clippers need a center, they only have 6-9 Marcus Hubbard right now.
I don't like the fact that they lost Gordon with that deal too. So is Billups going to be playing SG because they have Mo Williams on their books too?
Michael Jordan has an awful history of judging talent dating back to his days as a player.
It is officially then. Welcome to LA CP3!
NBA trades Chris Paul to the Clippers - NBA - Yahoo! Sports
NBA trades Chris Paul to the Clippers - NBA - Yahoo! Sports
Apparently New Orleans is sending two 2nd round picks to LA as well.
Ah, I forgot about DeAndre Jordan. So he'll be at center, Griffin and Caron Butler as forwards, Chris Paul and Billups as guards? Sounds like a pretty good team, and let's not forget that Paul and David West pretty much single handedly took the Hornets to the best record in basketball a few years ago, at least for 2/3 the season, I think they ended up in 5th in a tight race.
This Clippers team could theoretically be better.
This Clippers team could theoretically be better.
5th seed for the clippers this year.
It's the Clippers. Griffin and/or Paul will blow out a knee and they'll be back in the lottery.
Minnesota's draft pick could turn out to be the best piece of the trade for the Hornets, the draft is supposed to be very deep, someone like Jared Sullinger could be a future All Star.
Very good trade for NO.. Looks like Stern knew what he was doing..
I've never been impressed by Eric Gordon. Does anyone think he's hot shit?
For me, Gordon and Kevin Martin are about the same value. Then you have Scola vs. the #1 draft pick, and quite frankly, for the 3 or so years the Hornets are guaranteed to have their pick, he probably won't play any better than Scola during that time. And after that, he probably leaves NO anyway.
Then you throw in Odom vs. the 2nd round picks and Aminu, I'm rather have Odom again.
But if you think Gordon is much better than Martin then I could see liking the trade better than the LA trade.
For me, Gordon and Kevin Martin are about the same value. Then you have Scola vs. the #1 draft pick, and quite frankly, for the 3 or so years the Hornets are guaranteed to have their pick, he probably won't play any better than Scola during that time. And after that, he probably leaves NO anyway.
Then you throw in Odom vs. the 2nd round picks and Aminu, I'm rather have Odom again.
But if you think Gordon is much better than Martin then I could see liking the trade better than the LA trade.
I think Gordon has the potential to be better than Martin and he is younger. Thats the main reason the Hornets agreed to this deal. They want a fresh start and a young team.
It is debatable. The Lakers' deal was pretty appealing as well. I think it was equally good if not better. I think the extra first round pick is what edges it.
I don't think the quality of the players is what makes the Clippers deal the better one, essentially. The two key words here are Age and Salary.
Martin is 28, Scola is 31, and Odom is 32. While all the players in the other deal are 22 or younger, AND cost less in term of their salary.
NO have a much better chance of building a team for the future with what they got from the Clippers. What's not to like about it? Good quality players, still young with good potential, and more cap space to add more players. That's why I think it was the better deal for them.
Martin is 28, Scola is 31, and Odom is 32. While all the players in the other deal are 22 or younger, AND cost less in term of their salary.
NO have a much better chance of building a team for the future with what they got from the Clippers. What's not to like about it? Good quality players, still young with good potential, and more cap space to add more players. That's why I think it was the better deal for them.
Demps obviously wanted to be competitive NOW, which is important considering that the team is going to have problems remaining in the city. I know the American way of conducting sports business is to explode everything and rebuild, but short-term success isn't always a bad thing.
Kobe gave a good candid interview regarding the Paul saga and he made the key point the other owners did not want the Lakers to make significant improvements again.
Btw I think the idea of having Artest play from the bench is stupid. He's one of our better defenders and his offense is pathetic starting, he's not going to have much impact from the bench. In fact with Odom gone who can offer points from the bench?
Btw I think the idea of having Artest play from the bench is stupid. He's one of our better defenders and his offense is pathetic starting, he's not going to have much impact from the bench. In fact with Odom gone who can offer points from the bench?
It's clear as day the Lakers deal was better but the other whiny ass owners were fearful of a Lakers/Heat finals for the next 3-5 years.
And we all know Sterling will not pay to keep a winning nucleus.
Lakers deal was no where near as good, this is just sour grapes from you. Lakers can't always get their way.
Danny has already pointed out the reasons, which goes over a lot of fans heads. For a team like the Hornets, it's MUCH better to get young players, picks and cap flexibility than it is to get three oldish role players who essentially kill any room for movement for the foreseeable future. Many teams make silly deals when they should rebuild and it sets them back years.
There is absolutely no way the Lakers deal was better for the Hornets. You'd have to be insanely short sighted to see it that way.
i personally think that the Lakers deal was better for the Hornets in the short term. The longer term is great and all, except things change so fast in the NBA. Contracts are short now, and with players coming out so early, it's more likely than not that any given draft pick won't sign his second contract with the same team he signed his first.
The Heat and the Knicks have shown that nothing, i.e. cap space, can be better than having players! The new rules aren't a huge change, but it will force the richer teams to pull back their spending a bit, meaning they won't be able to hoard players as easily. Look at David West going to the Pacers or Turkoglu getting that huge contract with Toronto.
The #1 pick may be an NBA ready player, but even that's a guess, and the Minnesota pick might only be 4-7, it could end up being worth nothing. If the pick doesn't man out, they'll basically have Gordon instead of Scola, Odom and Martin, 3 players that would start on most teams.
The Hornets would have won more games this season and next with those players, and that would have helped sell the team. Why waste all your time training rookies only for them to bolt one they're any good? Most likely, the Paul situation happens again, even if they get a star with their pick.
The Heat and the Knicks have shown that nothing, i.e. cap space, can be better than having players! The new rules aren't a huge change, but it will force the richer teams to pull back their spending a bit, meaning they won't be able to hoard players as easily. Look at David West going to the Pacers or Turkoglu getting that huge contract with Toronto.
The #1 pick may be an NBA ready player, but even that's a guess, and the Minnesota pick might only be 4-7, it could end up being worth nothing. If the pick doesn't man out, they'll basically have Gordon instead of Scola, Odom and Martin, 3 players that would start on most teams.
The Hornets would have won more games this season and next with those players, and that would have helped sell the team. Why waste all your time training rookies only for them to bolt one they're any good? Most likely, the Paul situation happens again, even if they get a star with their pick.
It was better in the short term, but who cares, it wasn't going to get them anywhere. They still would have been mediocre with no chance of building for the future. And you're wrong about draft picks resigning, when is the last time a player hasn't signed on with the team that drafted them after their first contract is up? That just doesn't happen, and won't. Players will stay even past that second contract if the team is competitive, this deal gives them the best opportunity to do that.
This kind of confirms that the Lakers deal was significantly worse than the Clippers one.
Ya, theoretically it could turn out to be nothing, but why take that stance? The draft is very strong this year, chances are they get a good young player to team up with Gordon and Aminu. It's up to the Hornets staff to make the right choice, the pick is still a great asset and could get them a star. If it doesn't work out, who cares? It's still a better deal because they'll have their own high draft pick (which wouldn't be as high with the Lakers deal), as well as not being crippled financially by three players who are never going to get them past the first round of the POs.
They would have won more games this year, but that's just shortsighted. Three years from now, which Hornets team would look better? The one with old Scolo, Odom and Martin on big contracts or a likely young team loaded with talent? A team can't operate successfully with that kind of vision. You can't sustain mediocrity just incase the rookies don't stay for their entire careers.
And as far as selling the team goes, buyers are not stupid. They do not want short term half-success followed by a rebuild. It's wasting valuable time. This team makes them much more attractive to potential buyers - they are not tied down to big salaries, and they have a bright future.
Sorry, but there's no way anyone can justify saying that the Lakers deal was better. There's a blueprint down for rebuilding and people constantly ignore it. Putting off the inevitable only damages the franchise. Kings fans had to go through the same thing in the Post-Webber era. Constant quick fixes with mediocre signings which kept us in the 8th seed for years, when anyone that knew basketball knew we needed to rebuild. It was only three years ago that the FO got the message and decided to rebuild properly through youth, and now we're in a great position with Evans, Cousins, Thornton etc. It's how the NBA works.
Coach Erik Spolestra gets a contract extension at Miami.
That's all well and fine, I guess I think you're taking a rather extreme view though. The approach you suggest is fine, and so is the one I suggest. Players change teams all the time, so you can't say "when is the last time a player hasn't signed on with the team that drafted them after their first contract is up? That just doesn't happen, and won't" because that's just wrong. Yes, you can sign a bigger contract with the team you're already on, but stars bolt all the time. James, Anthony, Stat, Bosh, Paul, they go down in the book as sign and trades or get traded in the last year of their contract, but that's just so that their teams can try to get something in return once the writing is on the wall.
Yes, the Hornets would have a more expensive roster, but you have to pay to get top players. Gordon would have cost a ton of money to keep when his contract comes up again as well. If I was a Hornets fan, I would rather the team be good now, so that I can enjoy the team, and so that we can start to tempt other stars to want to come there. But then I rate Scola and Odom very highly, both are finesse players who will age well, and i don't much rate Gordon.
If you look at what teams have won in the NBA over the years, they are veteran team. Jordan won most of his titles in his 30s and was a veteran team, the Lakers were packed with veterans in Fox, Horry, AC Green and Shaq was 29, 30 and 31 when they won their titles, ditto Dallas. Of course those teams had some young players too, in varying amount, but they usually start with the veterans and add in the young players on the periphery.
If the Hornets want to play the long view that's fine, but other teams that are in the same position would have been very happy to get such quality veterans to win now. Your whole last paragraph is just so over the top. The Kings are garbage even with all their draft picks, they can't play defense, they have bad attitudes, it's a complete failure. There are many ways to build a successful basketball teams besides going all young. That's not how most of the current best teams got where they are. Miami didn't go that way, neither did the Knicks, neither did Dallas, that's not what the Lakers did when they lost Shaq. The Spurs have done very well with their draft picks, too bad everyone isn't as smart as them, but that makes them the exception. The Pistons traded for Rasheed Wallace but they did well to build up young talent into a winning team. These are all good ways to do it, they have succeeded in winning championships, so I don't see how you can say anyone who wants to do something other than your suggested approach is dead wrong and doesn't understand the game.
They're not going to buy either if the team sucks and nobody's going to games. When you have talent on the team, you can always trade them as well.
Harsh, and a bit over the top. I don't know how you can call it a failure (especially a complete one) two seasons into the rebuild when one of the two major picks was a rookie last year and the other was Rookie of the Year (and would've been runner up had Griffen been healthy) and had plantar fasciitis last year. A few overblown nationwide media reports doesn't constitute bad attitudes. Every team has chemistry problems occasionally.
Rebuilding takes time, which is the reason why I agree with you in arguing against it when it comes to New Orleans. And I completely agree with what you said below. The Bulls, Sonics, and Grizzlies are examples of a few other successful complete rebuilding projects, but by no means is it the only way to go about things.
Even with Evans healthy, they Kings were still one of the worst teams in the league. I do really like his game, how can you not, but that's not going to be enough. They had Kevin Martin providing just as impressive scoring stats, and they were still terrible.
Every player in the NBA can score, probably 99.5% of them hold their HS scoring record. Defense is where there is a lot more variation, defense wins championships, as they say, and the Kings are terrible at defense. I don't keep up with the Kings much, but a quick search puts Evans and Cousins down as attitude problems, which usually means they aren't dedicated, and that usually starts with not defending. Everyone loves to score, few enjoy defending as much.
And Evans' and Cousins' attitude problems aside, they don't have any players that hate to lose, that have that winning attitude. John Salmons is great when he's in a contract year, but he always looks extremely bored and passionless. Other like J.J. Hickson, Jason Thompson and Donte Greene have made very little impression on me. I'd rather have Nick Young, Andre Blatche and JaVale McGee. I'm much more excited about Washington making a move up the charts with their youth movement than the Kings.
I may be wrong, but I really don't see the Kings getting much better compared to the rest of the league. Watching them play I don't see a team but a collection of individuals. But please, if you have reason to think some of their players have what it takes, do share.
Wow, I've never read such a load of lazy, uninformed nonsense in my life. Where is Evans bad attitude? Cousins is immature but immensely talented and a great kid, he works extremely hard, the only problem he has is keeping his emotions in check. But clearly it's easier for you to subscribe to the lazy, ill informed reports you've read. I'm not going to waste my time replying too much on this point, as time will tell whether the Kings improve. Just keep in mind that the Thunder, with Durant, were a worse team than the Kings a few years ago.
).
Your examples are all over the place. They don't have any relevance to the Hornets trade. Miami had Wade (through the draft) and huge cap space (you're advocating that NO lose both of these things by settling for Lakers deal. Cap space gone and their Wade/Young talented player also gone as they're not getting high draft pick). This enabled them to land LeBron and Bosh. You're actually proving my point. Knicks traded all their young assets and picks for Anthony - also had cap space. This really should be becoming clear to you now. Lakers already had Kobe (when he was a kid), it's easy to build around him. Also got Bynum in the draft, he could land them Howard. The Spurs are not the exception, they obviously draft fantastically well and kept their players, but other teams have done similar but traded them for established stars. Either way you absolutely MUST accumulate young talent if you're not already a contender. It's the only way to succeed - prolonging mediocrity with role players does not work and is never going to get a team deep into the POs.
I realise that's a long post but surely it has to be clear to you by now. I'm not trying to cause offense but you strike me as a somewhat casual fan, especially with your reference to the Kings (one of the more talented young teams in the NBA) as garbage. You'll be interested to know that the Thunder, with Durant, were an even worse team than the Kings. Funny how time seems to help the younger teams get better.
No, you said that a good rookie would likely bolt from NO after their rookie contract is up. I can say that it won't happen, because it won't. When is the last time it's happened? You can include sign and trades in that. LeBron, Anthony, Stat, Bosh, Paul ALL re-signed with their respective teams after their rookie contract was up. How are you not getting this? If those teams had been more successful in putting better guys around them, chances are they would have resigned again. It was during their second contract that they decided to move on, NO will have plenty of time to make their team competitive if they're competent. They would NOT be competitive with Odom, Scola and Martin.
But they're not top players! They're good role players, none of them are close to being stars, and that team would not get past the first round of the POs. And there's no room for improvement because they'd have a mediocre draft pick and no cap space. This is basic stuff. Why don't you go onto a Hornets fan site and see how they feel about this? I guarantee that most are much happier with this as it puts them in a much better position to be far more successful in the future than they could have been with the other deal. Martin is as one dimensional as they come, is soft, and doesn't do what it takes to win. Gordon is primarily a scorer, but he'll be in his prime when their other kids are coming up, unlike Odom, Scola and Martin. That's why he's more valuable, as well as just being a better player.
Yes, you do realise young players become veterans? The Bulls got success because they sucked. They landed Jordan in the draft and the rest is history. It wasn't because they traded for three role players and destroyed their cap situation. Ditto Lakers. They managed to land the best big man in the game (how is this comparable to what NO were getting?) and traded for a young prospect, who happened to turn out to be one of the GOAT. The veterans are easy to find, it's the stars that are difficult. Once you have them everything else falls into place because the vets want to win. Dallas again got their star as a young kid. Where's NO's equivalent? Your argument might hold some water if NO had a major star or two. They don't. It's pointless adding role players who prevent long term improvement just to get knocked out of the POs two or three years straight, before finally having to do what was inevitable in the first place! Not one of those teams you named had their vets before they had their stars.
Have to disagree. Not one sane GM would have preferred the Lakers deal to the Clippers one.
It's not over the top at all. Maybe you support a team that hasn't had to rebuild yet, and thus don't know what it takes. How you can call the Kings a failure is astonishing, given that our two best players just had their sophomore and rookie campaigns (two very successful ones at that). The team is nowhere near perfect, but it's very talented and getting better. This year is big for them. I never said you have to be young to be successful, don't know where you got that. But you do have to aquire young talent, and either let it grow or trade it for established players who want out of their current teams. The latter only works if you're getting back a star (have a look at the Clippers, they sucked, got Blake and other young talent, and now have landed Paul. Another example is Celtics - gave up all young talent and picks to get Allen and KG. Look at Howard, he's likely going to go to the Nets for Lopez and picks. Funny that this pattern is developing
). Your examples are all over the place. They don't have any relevance to the Hornets trade. Miami had Wade (through the draft) and huge cap space (you're advocating that NO lose both of these things by settling for Lakers deal. Cap space gone and their Wade/Young talented player also gone as they're not getting high draft pick). This enabled them to land LeBron and Bosh. You're actually proving my point. Knicks traded all their young assets and picks for Anthony - also had cap space. This really should be becoming clear to you now. Lakers already had Kobe (when he was a kid), it's easy to build around him. Also got Bynum in the draft, he could land them Howard. The Spurs are not the exception, they obviously draft fantastically well and kept their players, but other teams have done similar but traded them for established stars. Either way you absolutely MUST accumulate young talent if you're not already a contender. It's the only way to succeed - prolonging mediocrity with role players does not work and is never going to get a team deep into the POs.
I realise that's a long post but surely it has to be clear to you by now. I'm not trying to cause offense but you strike me as a somewhat casual fan, especially with your reference to the Kings (one of the more talented young teams in the NBA) as garbage. You'll be interested to know that the Thunder, with Durant, were an even worse team than the Kings. Funny how time seems to help the younger teams get better.