Thread: NBA the next WWE like sport?

The only issue I saw with the trade, was how screwed the Rockets would get (giving up a lot just for Gasol). The Hornets are going to lose CP3 at the end of the year, so if they could get what was about 5 players for him (a mix of decent/good, at least from my limited NBA knowledge), what is wrong with that?

"But then da Lakers will have Kobe and CP3 and blah blah blah.." So? No reason they couldn't anyways if he goes to free agency, and besides the Heat brought in a superstar and a very good player and we all saw what they won right? Who says Kobe and CP3 will work? Wouldn't it make sense for a league the values marketing so much as well? Big name player in a big name market=$$$

The argument from the owners all along has been, "We want small market teams to be able to keep their star players." My contention is it has little to do with market, and tons to do with dumbass owners and management. Look at the Clippers. They are in the same market as the Lakers, but their owner is quite possibly the worst in the NBA, and due to that there teams are often among the worst in the league. Look at Cleveland with LeBron. I challenge you to name the second or third best player on their roster each year. It was LeBron and a bunch of nobodies. Now it is Wade, LeBron, Bosh, and a bunch of guys who are willing to take below market contracts to ride their coattails.

Look at San Antonio. They are smaller market, yet because they surround Duncan with talent he stays. Look at the Knicks, they are in the first or second largest market, yet when was the last time they won anything? The teams that are willing to do what it takes to remain competitive, Miami, Dallas, the Lakers, the Bulls, Boston, will attract more talent than the teams like Golden State that can't draft well or manage talent.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

The argument from the owners all along has been, "We want small market teams to be able to keep their star players." My contention is it has little to do with market, and tons to do with dumbass owners and management.

Which is really a stupid argument from the owners. I could see it in some cases, but in this case CP3 doesn't want to come back. So the owners are basically saying "Because we want small market teams to keep their players, we'd rather they keep them until they leave, get nothing in return for them, and be shit for the next couple decades." I swear the NBA owners have to be some of the stupidest people in sports (and with some of the athletes out there, thats pretty hard to do).

So this:

The Clippers will send guard Eric Gordon, center Chris Kaman, forward Al-Farouq Aminu and Minnesota's unprotected 2012 first-round pick to the Hornets for Paul. The Clippers will also receive two future second-round picks.

is truly better than:

Luis Scola, Kevin Martin, Lamar Odom and a 2012 first round draft selection. Goran Dragic may have also been in the deal.

Eric Gordon has the potential to be a great player. Kaman is a good big man, but is aging, and has injury issues. Aminu and the draft pick are hit or miss. I guess the Clippers trade has more potential reward, but also risks blowing up whereas the Lakers deal is a more guaranteed thing, but has less maximum potential. If I were trying to sell the Hornets I would prefer the Lakers deal.

I think the first is better (though my knowledge of NBA is again limited), basically in they get a very good player in Eric Gordon (should lead the team this year) and the potential of a superstar with the draft pick, in what everyone says will be a deep class. Granted the draft pick is risky as you are hedging on the Timberwolves being crap this year (everyone seems to think they will be though).

That said, the 2nd trade was good if you wanted more of a balance, you'd get 3 good players, and a decent guy to be a back-up type, the draft pick could get you someone decent (depending who's pick it was).

It seems basically it depends on what you want, if you are looking to build around two great players then the Clipper trade was much better. If you look for more the solid team with depth route, the LA/Houston trade was better for that (which, when you just lost your star because he wants to go to somewhere good, its hard to believe the first way while do more the make you relevant for a few years then they'll want out as well)

to lazy to edit, so I'll add to my post count. For a buyer, I think you can really argue both ways. The Laker trade sets you up with a decent team that could make the playoffs (and cost less in the long run, i think), but without really any marketable stars. The Clipper trade gives you the potential of two marketable stars, but less depth (and probably cost more, or losing both in the long run).

I'd think the 2nd would be more sellable, but I don't know much about the Charlotte market. I know here in Phoenix, you could probably get away with the 1st trade just fine, since as long as you win, fans will eventually come (though the Diamondbacks struggled this year to get fans despite winning, though attendance was starting to pick up). The 2nd could draw people in just to see the stars of the Hornets play, possibly get more buzz, and maybe more time on National television? I don't know, if I was buying them, I like the 2nd trade a bit more, but I'm from the Wenger school (and also not rich) so a bit bias

That second trade would also hinge on what they could get for those aging big men. Basically, it would have been a trade to make the early part of the season successful while still having quality trading pieces ready to go at the trade deadline.

The open practice was pretty fun this year. The Hornets are looking like a .500 team. I think the Wolves will improve to a .350 or so record this year.

E: btw, if anyone wants to catch a free Hornets game with me while they are in NOLA, throw me a pm. I have a pair of season tickets and don't always have someone available to come with me.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk

The NBA is pretty much a joke now anyway. It's all about playing with your BFF's and major team stacking to win titles with corrupt ass refs. Take the fakeness it has now i say and just add onto to make it like the WWE, that would be great. Instead of lame press conferences you could have crazy Marc Cuban up there all upset talking about how he and the mavs are going to eat up Miami and spit them out etc... lol would be pretty funny.