ZoomSlowik

I didn't think it made any sense for LA to give up Gasol and Odom for Paul unless they absolutely knew they were getting Dwight anyways. You just can't depend on Bynum as your only legit big, and they have ZERO depth. This situation with Odom for crap from Dallas confuses me too. I'm assuming that it's to get another young asset or two to get Dwight. That said, what the hell are you going to be left with? Don't you kind of need more than Kobe and Dwight? I'm guessing the deal is Gasol, Bynum and whatever Dallas gives them for Dwight and Hedo. So that would leave them with something like... PG- Fisher, Blake SG- Kobe SF- Hedo, Peace, Barnes, Walton, Ebanks PF- Character C- Dwight That roster is pretty god damn awful outside of the two superstars. They'd definitely need to find some other bodies up front, you can't roll with Dwight and f***ing Derrick Character up front.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 09:02 PM) Rather unbelievably, LaMarcus Aldridge is going to miss at least two weeks after undergoing tests for a heart condition. Portland with the trifecta of bad news today. He had the same issue and procedure at the end of his rookie year. Apparently he gets checked out before every season. And my heart can start beating again after a moment of panic for my fantasy team. Edit- Nevermind, they updated the article after I read it. Still doesn't sound like it's a major issue at the moment, basically out a couple of weeks.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 07:43 PM) Yikes. I really liked Oden and I was a huge fan of Roy, what that team could have been, too bad... Yeah, they were already decent last year without Oden and with Roy a shell of his former self. That team should have been contending with OKC for the title the next decade.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 06:39 PM) My guess would be for Ellis, something around Jason Richardson plus the Magic offering a couple of other pieces in a sign and trade deal (whether that's actually possible, I'm not sure, but it's the only thing I can think of cap wise). I could also see them trading Jameer Nelson, but they'd have to get a PG back in a deal (maybe they go after Billups, but he's more likely to sign in Miami I would have thought). I'd imagine they'd want to keep Jameer so they have someone that can distribute the ball. Atlanta would probably be more interested in him than Golden State (Curry). The Warriors could also sign Richardson out-right if they want him. Also, wouldn't they still be over the cap? That'd mean they wouldn't get a shot at Billups until after he clears waivers (well, not exactly waivers, that amnesty-waivers type system). I'd say it's a longshot given Smith's recent history with deals and their relative lack of assets. He could really use Gortat right about now, though he wouldn't have had that opportunity in Orlando.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 06:22 PM) Wished we tried to go after him on that deal except for signing Big Baby @ 26/4 in a S&T deal with Brandon Bass. But apparently Davis was one of the guys Howard demanded Otis Smith sign this off-season to have any chance of keeping him, so that's what they've done. Before you know it, Monta Ellis or Josh Smith will be on our roster just to appease Dwight also. I would love to know how they're going to pull that off when Dwight is their only asset of significant interest (don't tell me Ryan Anderson, just no).

The NBA players would never have agreed to a franchise tag, and you can't use that in perpetuity anyways. Plus they had these guys for 6 or 7 years anyways. Why don't we just bring back the reserve clause while we're at it?

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 12:56 PM) It's not, but I think 20 wins a year with players even less marketable than the guys they got is worse. And I'm not sure they're 30-35 wins bad. How much worse can their situation get? At least you can sell them on hope when you get that high draft pick and your payroll would be lower. And yes, that roster is 30-35 wins bad, especially in the west. Jarrett Jack at the point is a recipe for disaster and they'd have no depth. There are at least 6 teams in the west that are significantly better than them, as well as a handful of teams that probably are like Denver (depends on how FA pans out), the Clippers, Phoenix if they keep Nash, and Golden State (bad D, but Curry, Ellis and Lee are all arguably better than anyone on that New Orleans team).

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 12:31 PM) Yeah, I agree they're not in great shape either way. Given their crappy financial situation, fairly weak fanbase, and talks of contraction, can they survive with a string of 20-win seasons? Lucking into a Chris Paul or Kevin Durant doesn't happen often. I don't follow the logic here at all. If Chris Paul and a couple of playoff appearances couldn't keep them out of financial trouble, how is winning 30-35 games with far less marketable players than Paul going to save them?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 12:16 PM) I bet that tampering stuff happens all the time. You just can't be obvious about it....like having a dinner meeting between an owner and a player. Even if they did, you have to have pretty conclusive proof that they had a meeting and discussed acquiring him. That's why there hasn't really been a significant punishment for tampering that I could find. The most "serious" one on a quick search was when Miami signed Riley and they gave up some cash and a draft pick to make the complaint go away.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 12:02 PM) If Paul just walks after this season, they have even less chance of competing because their only strategy will be "hope you luck into someone awesome in the lottery". Jack/Martin/Odom/Scola/Okafor is at least a respectable team. There are always going to be different strategies that teams can take. Trying to stay relevant VS starting from scratch. Youth VS veterans. Project players VS known quantities. Some people may not like the direction Demps took (though many do and I've yet to hear some great alternative), but it should have been his right to make it. This trade was not unreasonable. That team simply misses the playoffs for the next 3 or 4 years in the west, racks up a few late lottery picks, and is stuck being awful when those guys decline anyways. The only way that team succeeds is if they get a dramatic upgrade at the point somehow. If they pick up young assets and win 20 games for a few years, they dramatically improve their chances of getting another Paul and maybe build a good young team like OKC. I'm not arguing it isn't "reasonable" at least on paper, it's just not an approach that is going to be particularly beneficial to New Orleans.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 11:26 AM) Recap: Hornets losing Paul would rather get than 3 good players for him than nothing. This trade was stopped because people didn't want the Lakers to improve, not because it was bad for the Hornets. The Nuggets were in the same situation with Carmelo and they got far less (Wilson Chandler​, Raymond Felton​, Danilo Gallinari​, and Timofey Mozgov), but that trade didn't get blocked. On the court it's more talent, but age is a big factor since New Orleans killed any chance of competing for at least 3 years by trading Paul. Scola is 31, Odom is 32 and Martin is 28. They're going to have to reload a few years because none of those guys is a young piece you can rebuild around. The Nuggets on the other hand got Gallinari (23), Chandler (24) and Mozgov (25). Those guys were also cheaper, the trio New Orleans got makes almost $30 million combined.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 11:23 AM) It's just a feeling that the Bulls are ultimately going to end up with a VC type player, someone who ultimately is going to be a big waste of money and not really help this team at all. For those that know the Bulls cap numbers better than I, what would it take to be able to sign a guy like Affalo or Young? Can they not move around some of the reserve guys to get some more money freed up? They really just have the MLE. They're $3.5 million over the cap, so they'd have to cut $8.5 million or so off their total or so just to be able to offer the same contract as with the MLE. Even if they amnesty'd Boozer, they'd have just under $10 mil in space (and have to fill two holes instead of one).

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 09:16 AM) johnhollinger John Hollinger One other note: I'd rather play out the year with Dwight Howard than take that pile of garbage New Jersey is offering. I don't get this at all. Since when is Brook Lopez garbage? The Paul trade I can see the issue, they're getting back like $26 million in salary and the three best pieces are over 30. That's not a rebuilding move at all, that's a "let's try to salvage at least some of our credibility and throw a 35 win team out there instead of a 15 win team." The New Jersey offer is totally different. Lopez is 23 and only making about $3 million this year. He's a WAY better asset, even if he can get an extension after this season. Sure, we're talking about a deal for arguably the second best player in the league, but when have you ever seen a team get a better piece than that in a deal for a superstar? It's not really possible to get a totally fair deal unless you're getting a star-caliber player back, which I can't recall ever happening.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 11:41 PM) I have no problem with the league stepping in (especially in the NBA) to stop this roster stacking. If it means GM's, players and coaches' have less ability to dictate how they handle their rosters then so be it. Those GM's and players are the ones who allowed this practice of hoarding superstars to happen, and its killing the NBA*. The leagues' interest should be the broader success of the NBA, not how a select 6 or 7 franchises can be allowed to take part in a meaningful offseason and players like Chris Paul can simply get out of their contracts with one team by forcing a trade to go to one of those 6 or 7 lucky teams. This is not the NBA's fault, they really dont like it when this happens. A majority of the owners despise it and so do a lot of fans. I really hope this sets a precedent that the NBA is not going to sit idly by and let smaller market teams become farm systems for the breadwinners. I understand this situation is unique because the NBA owns the Hornets, but its also indicative of the push-back from a lot of people in basketball to this roster stacking bulls***. *The Heat situation generating interest really is an outlier. LeBron became the villain because of The Decision and what he did to Cleveland and people wanted to root against the level of arrogance. Chris Paul was not about to generate nationwide disgust by forcing himself to the Lakers, even if I think he should. That's crap for a multitude of reasons... 1) It's not like Lebron was the first player to ever leave for a more attractive team. Gasol went to LA for peanuts before that and KG and Allen went to Boston before that. If you go back even further you get guys like Shaq, Mosese Malone, Kareem and Wilt. 2) It's not killing the NBA. Ratings were way up for LA/Boston before the Heat happened, interest in the league was quite high in the Jordan years, and the league had a big explosion in popularity in the Magic/Bird years. Great players and great teams draw interest in the league, which means more money for everyone. 3) If it's really a "league" move and not a specific scenario based on the league owning the Hornets, why did they finally decide to do something now? Why didn't they block KG to Boston, or Gasol to LA, or The Decision or Melo to New York? Would they block it if Paul were going to Orlando or Houston? Are there actual rules/guidlines involved with this or is it just like the anal retentive comissioner in your fantasy leagues blocking every smart move a contender makes? 4) What exactly are the Lakers supposed to do, not try to get better? 5) What exactly is New Orleans supposed to do? Let Paul walk in free agency with no compensation? Trade him to a bad team for a lesser package of talent? 6) What are you going to do, abolish free agency? Players are going to do what they want to do when they are free agents. 7) How exactly are you going to legislate competitive balance, clone Lebron so every team can have a star? This isn't the NFL where you can win big with depth. You either have a star or you don't, and there are only a handful of guys that really make a difference. 8) Small market teams can still compete with good management. The Spurs have several rings and teams like OKC and Memphis are well positioned this year. Oh, and the Heat aren't exactly a glamour franchise in a big market.

The problem is that the NBA should have never been able to "buy" the Hornets in the first place and create that kind of conflict of interest.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) @ChrisMannixSI Chris Mannix With Tyson Chandler on the verge of signing w/NY, Miami is looking into ways of acquiring Chauncey Billups, league sources tell SI. This is not the least-bit surprising. I don't see how they could "acquire" him, their only big salaries/assets are the big 3.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 02:28 PM) ??? I haven't seen the reports but what the hell would NYK be trading to get CP3 while still keeping amare and gaining chandler. edit: i could have sworn this was responding to someone? The only scenario I've seen involved Amare going elsewhere. I'm not really sure how that'd work though for two reasons: 1) I can't see the Hornets having much interest in Amare 2) With the new CBA rules, it's financially beneficial to become a free agent rather than sign an extension in season. I don't remember the exact rules, but it's something like you can only sign a 2 year extension right now instead of 4.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) So the Knicks want to replace Amar'e with a 15-16M per year Chandler? Sounds about right. Yeah, beyond dumb. I never saw the number from the Knicks, but supposedly the Warriors did/were about to offer 4-60. I guess that's the playoff run inflation for you, I can't imagine he gets anywhere near that if he had played for some 35-win team.

Battier is supposedly getting the "$3 million taxpayer exception", so that would mean that the Heat are basically done except for veteran minimum guys.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 12:59 PM) kill me. Agreed. That would be very, very bad as it would help solve the Knicks' biggest issue (assuming Tyson stays healthy) and the Heat would get pretty much the best possible PG for them. Here's one potentially saving grace though: Billups would not be an out-right free agent. He would have to go through every team that's under the cap first as an amnesty player. You'd only need one team under it to be willing to absorb part of his contract.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) I would like to know what you think of the Bulls getting Crawford. I know he has his pros and cons, and I have my mixed reviews on it (more pro after thinking of it, especially the the options out there), but would like to pick your b-ball knowledge a bit on this potential move. As you said, mixed bag. In theory, I think he makes some sense. He can play the 1 or 2 and create his shot a bit, so he gives you some scoring punch and you could rest Rose a bit more during the season. However, you're frequently going to hate the shot he creates and he generally wants the ball in his hands (55-60 percent of his FG's are unassisted. For comparison, Rose is at 65-70%). He's also generally been mediocre from outside, but he's had his moments. I'd probably take him for the MLE since the options don't look stellar, but I don't like the idea of trading Brewer for him since I'd strongly prefer to do kind of an offense/defense platoon with those two. Ideally you'd get someone closer to 40% from outside that can play both on the ball and off the ball, but those kind of guys are hard to find with the MLE. I think Jason Richardson would probably be the best fit, but don't think they could get him.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) Miami should still have their MLE to use. All these minimum additions are of no worry to the Bulls. Did they only use the minimum on Battier? I haven't seen terms of the agreement anywhere. If they can still use their MLE on filling a bigger need, that'd make it look a lot better, but I got the impression that Shane was in demand.

I'm not terribly afraid of Shane Battier in Miami. He's a good but not great shooter with no other offensive skills and is strictly a small forward. They already had Mike Miller as a backup wing player too whenever he gets healthy. I guess that means Wade is the PG, Miller at the 2 and Battier as a backup SF/fill-in for when Lebron plays the 4? They'll have to get a bit more creative with their lineups to use him a lot considering they have few PG options and no legitimate centers. I'd have been a lot more worried if they picked up a solid option at one of those positions.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) No, because it was a pointless statement. Are all of your estimations of contracts worthless, because they are predictions? Should we stick to consistently speaking about what has happened, as to avoid the highly dubious nature of speaking about the future? I think we should make rules about talking about the bulls upcoming season, lest we start bordering on conjecture. I didn't say anything like that. Look at the post I was responding to again. You went on a rant about the state of the center position, the current free agent market and Gasol that was very similar to what Simmons wrote in the article. You made it sound like all of these things are indisputable facts when they're not. It's an opinion piece that may or may not end up being any more valid than anything you or I have written.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) I'm not even going to read beyond this ridiculous sentence. What exactly is ridiculous about it? The idea that just because the great Bill Simmons says that Marc Gasol is worth/is going to get a max contract doesn't mean it's absolutely going to happen and not a stupid idea at all?