 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Dan Gilbert is incredibly annoying
thatrogue
Dan Gilbert is incredibly annoying
December 11, 2011 at 01:02PM View BBCode
[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ys-nba_dan_gilbert_email_lakers_hornets_trade_120811]This was a garbage move on his part[/url]. Maybe there was more to LeBron wanting out than we ever knew...
tworoosters
On a purely basketball level this is a good trade for New Orleans and , to me, Los Angeles is taking the biggest risk, but the trade and veto are more about control than anything else . The owners don't want the marquee players to essentially be able to dictate where they play and for long term competitive balance it's probably not a good thing if they can.
The money is so huge that players can comfortably leave millions "on the table" in order to sign contracts in their desired location so if Dwight Howard, decides he wants to play for the Nets, as rumoured, then he can essentially force Orlando to trade him there now, regardless of the return, or risk getting nothing in return at free agency . While this is a fine expression of free will Gilbert's not necessarily wrong in his [i]"When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?[/i]" line, and ultimately it will do tremendous damage to the game.
Of course it's the NBA so I really could care less but anything that damages the competitive balance isn't something I'm in agreement with.
December 11, 2011 at 04:54PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
There's no doubt that Gilbert is a loose cannon but one owner didn't get the trade over turned and at least Gilbert put his feelings about the deal out in the open
On a purely basketball level this is a good trade for New Orleans and , to me, Los Angeles is taking the biggest risk, but the trade and veto are more about control than anything else . The owners don't want the marquee players to essentially be able to dictate where they play and for long term competitive balance it's probably not a good thing if they can.
The money is so huge that players can comfortably leave millions "on the table" in order to sign contracts in their desired location so if Dwight Howard, decides he wants to play for the Nets, as rumoured, then he can essentially force Orlando to trade him there now, regardless of the return, or risk getting nothing in return at free agency . While this is a fine expression of free will Gilbert's not necessarily wrong in his [i]"When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?[/i]" line, and ultimately it will do tremendous damage to the game.
Of course it's the NBA so I really could care less but anything that damages the competitive balance isn't something I'm in agreement with.
thatrogue
Wilt left to play for LA, Kareem left to play for LA, Shaq left to play for LA...and none of those things "destroyed" the competitive balance of the league...although, yes, LA won titles with each of those players.
As you stated, this seemed like a good deal for NO (as reviewed by those basketball "experts" out there). Team management making stupid FA and draft decisions do more to harm competitive balance than is done by players orchestrating trades to an appealing situation. However, teams/league ownership/management tends to mask their own inadequacies by blaming everyone else for their failures.
December 11, 2011 at 06:10PM View BBCode
But that is what free agency enables. Dwight Howard has one season left on his current contract, so if he wants to play for LA, it is not really possible to prevent that.Wilt left to play for LA, Kareem left to play for LA, Shaq left to play for LA...and none of those things "destroyed" the competitive balance of the league...although, yes, LA won titles with each of those players.
As you stated, this seemed like a good deal for NO (as reviewed by those basketball "experts" out there). Team management making stupid FA and draft decisions do more to harm competitive balance than is done by players orchestrating trades to an appealing situation. However, teams/league ownership/management tends to mask their own inadequacies by blaming everyone else for their failures.
tworoosters
Except that the whole idea of a salary cap is designed to avoid one team loading up but as I stated the money now is so stupid that cap management is relatively easy in the "desirable markets". Just tell Dwight that he'll have to take a couple of million off the top but he gets to play with his boys and live it up in LA or Manhattan or South Beach. I mean really what's the difference in the long run between 8 years at $18 million and 8 years at $15 million, they both are "set for life" deals .
Look don't get me wrong, I think Gilbert's an idiot but he's not wrong about the competitive balance being dramatically adversely affected if the players basically get to pick where they play and with whom.
You can kiss goodbye to viable franchises in Utah, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto (oops they never really had one), San Antonio, Indianapolis and pretty much every other small to medium market city . Unless, as he alluded, the fans in those cities feel like shelling out an average $48 a head to watch their team get crushed on a regular basis by the "haves".
December 11, 2011 at 07:15PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
But that is what free agency enables. Dwight Howard has one season left on his current contract, so if he wants to play for LA, it is not really possible to prevent that.
Except that the whole idea of a salary cap is designed to avoid one team loading up but as I stated the money now is so stupid that cap management is relatively easy in the "desirable markets". Just tell Dwight that he'll have to take a couple of million off the top but he gets to play with his boys and live it up in LA or Manhattan or South Beach. I mean really what's the difference in the long run between 8 years at $18 million and 8 years at $15 million, they both are "set for life" deals .
Look don't get me wrong, I think Gilbert's an idiot but he's not wrong about the competitive balance being dramatically adversely affected if the players basically get to pick where they play and with whom.
You can kiss goodbye to viable franchises in Utah, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto (oops they never really had one), San Antonio, Indianapolis and pretty much every other small to medium market city . Unless, as he alluded, the fans in those cities feel like shelling out an average $48 a head to watch their team get crushed on a regular basis by the "haves".
dirtdevil
December 12, 2011 at 02:48AM View BBCode
i think that's a bit of an exaggeration. the star players in every league get ot have some say in where they go. if a guy isn't going to resign when his contract expires, not moving him for something ahead of the eventuality is much more damaging to competitive balance than trading him where he wants to go. if the mid-markets want to attract players, build a winner.
tworoosters
Miami won 70% of their regular season games and went to game 6 of the finals with a team that received 65.6% of their scoring from three players, that simply doesn't happen in the other major sports .
The Heat are the new blueprint for success, and the new CBA plays right into that strategy, and if you think players would rather win in Oklahoma City or San Antonio or Charlotte or Memphis than in New York or Los Angeles then I respectfully suggest you are incorrect.
December 12, 2011 at 03:05AM View BBCode
You're welcome to think it's an exaggeration but the difference in basketball, however, is the increased impact of each individual player. In football, baseball or hockey you can't be a dominant team with three studs and a few scrubs but in basketball you can.Miami won 70% of their regular season games and went to game 6 of the finals with a team that received 65.6% of their scoring from three players, that simply doesn't happen in the other major sports .
The Heat are the new blueprint for success, and the new CBA plays right into that strategy, and if you think players would rather win in Oklahoma City or San Antonio or Charlotte or Memphis than in New York or Los Angeles then I respectfully suggest you are incorrect.
dirtdevil
i don't think that at all. but i do think they'd rather win than not. the ones worth having anyway. otherwise the clippers would sign a lot more quality free agents.
December 12, 2011 at 03:16AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
if you think players would rather win in Oklahoma City or San Antonio or Charlotte or Memphis than in New York or Los Angeles then I respectfully suggest you are incorrect.
i don't think that at all. but i do think they'd rather win than not. the ones worth having anyway. otherwise the clippers would sign a lot more quality free agents.
barterer2002
Yes, because the NBA isn't a study in dominance by two franchises over a 60 year period.
December 12, 2011 at 05:47PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
Wilt left to play for LA, Kareem left to play for LA, Shaq left to play for LA...and none of those things "destroyed" the competitive balance of the league...although, yes, LA won titles with each of those players.
Yes, because the NBA isn't a study in dominance by two franchises over a 60 year period.
thatrogue
I also suppose that the large market Knicks and Clippers have not been examples of poor front office decisions hampering their team's recent competitive performance.
[Edited on 12-13-2011 by thatrogue]
December 13, 2011 at 10:57PM View BBCode
So I guess the recent history, which shows the Bulls drafting Jordan and the Spurs drafting Tim Duncan, then putting good teams around them, are not demonstrations of intelligent front office decisions leading to dominance during the modern free agency period.I also suppose that the large market Knicks and Clippers have not been examples of poor front office decisions hampering their team's recent competitive performance.
[Edited on 12-13-2011 by thatrogue]
tworoosters
San Antonio have been so dominant that the Lakers have only won one more title than them during the "Tim Duncan" era and their intelligent front office decision was to have David Robinson get hurt the year before Duncan's draft .
Chicago won 6 titles with the greatest player in the history of his sport playing for them for 13 years and their intelligent front office decision was to send a big bag of weed the the Trailblazers front office on draft day .
I've already stated that Gilbert's a tool but if you don't think that allowing players to essentially choose where they want to play, with virtually zero ramifications to the player, won't disrupt competitive balance then I think you're just deluding yourself .
December 13, 2011 at 11:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
So I guess the recent history, which shows the Bulls drafting Jordan and the Spurs drafting Tim Duncan, then putting good teams around them, are not demonstrations of intelligent front office decisions leading to dominance during the modern free agency period.
San Antonio have been so dominant that the Lakers have only won one more title than them during the "Tim Duncan" era and their intelligent front office decision was to have David Robinson get hurt the year before Duncan's draft .
Chicago won 6 titles with the greatest player in the history of his sport playing for them for 13 years and their intelligent front office decision was to send a big bag of weed the the Trailblazers front office on draft day .
I've already stated that Gilbert's a tool but if you don't think that allowing players to essentially choose where they want to play, with virtually zero ramifications to the player, won't disrupt competitive balance then I think you're just deluding yourself .
dirtdevil
i'll be honest, i really do not understand that position. in terms of competitive balance, how is it any different than them changing teams as a free agent? if you want to make it a moral issue about honouring contracts and such then i can see that argument. but otherwise it's just good management on the part of the small market. if a guy doesn't want to stay when his contract is up in a year, he won't. would it not then be prudent to deal him for something tangible before that occurence? and is that something tangible not likely to be more substantial if the team aquiring him knows he'll resign there? how are the hornets better of if paul walks for nothing next year than they would have been with what the laker deal would have netted them?
December 14, 2011 at 01:03AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
I've already stated that Gilbert's a tool but if you don't think that allowing players to essentially choose where they want to play, with virtually zero ramifications to the player, won't disrupt competitive balance then I think you're just deluding yourself .
i'll be honest, i really do not understand that position. in terms of competitive balance, how is it any different than them changing teams as a free agent? if you want to make it a moral issue about honouring contracts and such then i can see that argument. but otherwise it's just good management on the part of the small market. if a guy doesn't want to stay when his contract is up in a year, he won't. would it not then be prudent to deal him for something tangible before that occurence? and is that something tangible not likely to be more substantial if the team aquiring him knows he'll resign there? how are the hornets better of if paul walks for nothing next year than they would have been with what the laker deal would have netted them?
tworoosters
Do you just say: "Well we're going to lose him in three years so why not give him to LA now ?"
What if the management in the desirable cities, knowing there is essentially no impediment to the star player walking, decides that the compensation will be :"Here's a bad contract and a 2nd round pick, take it or leave it " ?
The fact is that basketball is unique among the major sports in that the impact a single player has is much greater than any other so the competitive balance can much more easily be influenced .
Personally I could care less as I can count on one hand the number of NBA games I've watched in the past decade but if the league wants to thrive, and the players want 12 jobs in 30 cities instead of 20, then this kind of stuff has to be looked at.
December 14, 2011 at 01:59AM View BBCode
What if the guy decides he wants to go to LA with three years left on his deal ?Do you just say: "Well we're going to lose him in three years so why not give him to LA now ?"
What if the management in the desirable cities, knowing there is essentially no impediment to the star player walking, decides that the compensation will be :"Here's a bad contract and a 2nd round pick, take it or leave it " ?
The fact is that basketball is unique among the major sports in that the impact a single player has is much greater than any other so the competitive balance can much more easily be influenced .
Personally I could care less as I can count on one hand the number of NBA games I've watched in the past decade but if the league wants to thrive, and the players want 12 jobs in 30 cities instead of 20, then this kind of stuff has to be looked at.
dirtdevil
of course not. that's not the same situation at all, as you well know. in that scenario the team has all the leverage and no need to move him unless they want to.
then you don't deal him there. someone else will pay more than that for a one-year rental and if they won't then you can just keep him. there's no reason to make your franchise worse. i don't know what's to be gained by proposing obviously different scenarios that don't really relate to the topic at hand.
that's certainly true, but again how is free agency any different?
December 14, 2011 at 02:26AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
What if the guy decides he wants to go to LA with three years left on his deal ?
Do you just say: "Well we're going to lose him in three years so why not give him to LA now ?"
of course not. that's not the same situation at all, as you well know. in that scenario the team has all the leverage and no need to move him unless they want to.
What if the management in the desirable cities, knowing there is essentially no impediment to the star player walking, decides that the compensation will be :"Here's a bad contract and a 2nd round pick, take it or leave it " ?
then you don't deal him there. someone else will pay more than that for a one-year rental and if they won't then you can just keep him. there's no reason to make your franchise worse. i don't know what's to be gained by proposing obviously different scenarios that don't really relate to the topic at hand.
The fact is that basketball is unique among the major sports in that the impact a single player has is much greater than any other so the competitive balance can much more easily be influenced .
that's certainly true, but again how is free agency any different?
Pages: 1