NBA Discussion Thread

[nobodyinparticular]

Really? The Sacramento Kings? You mean the franchise that has been around since 1946? That's who the league should contract? Not Toronto which has been around since 1995? Not Memphis which has been around only since 1995 as well? Minnesota which has been around since 1989?

Instead, we should contract the franchise that has 2 of the 5 longest sellout streaks in the history of the NBA. We should contract the team that has been founded for the 2nd longest time and in the league since 1948.

We will contract a team in the 20th biggest media market, a market which David Stern absolutely loves because he has the area entirely to himself with no baseball, football or hockey to dilute the sports fans.

You don't contract a team like that. You look at the history behind the franchise, you look at the solvency that has been proven even just in recent history and realize the problem isn't the franchise--it's the ownership. Strip the ownership from the Maloofs and all will be right in the world in Sacramento.

That's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever read. Right up there with the idea that Bud Selig should contract the A's.

[bantx]

The ideas that people come up with.................

[Borat]

Contraction? Right. You guys know that franchises are nine-figure businesses right?

[Bert Macklin]

[soybean]

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

Really? The Sacramento Kings? You mean the franchise that has been around since 1946? That's who the league should contract? Not Toronto which has been around since 1995? Not Memphis which has been around only since 1995 as well? Minnesota which has been around since 1989?

Instead, we should contract the franchise that has 2 of the 5 longest sellout streaks in the history of the NBA. We should contract the team that has been founded for the 2nd longest time and in the league since 1948.

We will contract a team in the 20th biggest media market, a market which David Stern absolutely loves because he has the area entirely to himself with no baseball, football or hockey to dilute the sports fans.

You don't contract a team like that. You look at the history behind the franchise, you look at the solvency that has been proven even just in recent history and realize the problem isn't the franchise--it's the ownership. Strip the ownership from the Maloofs and all will be right in the world in Sacramento.

That's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever read. Right up there with the idea that Bud Selig should contract the A's.

damn. somebody did their research.

Originally Posted by Prowler

Instead of contracting, I'd rather that they just move teams to Europe and form a new division. Then they can do baseball type scheduling with series. Have a division of the Paris Whiteflaggers, German Shizers, London Beckhams, Milan Metrosexuals, and the Spanish Inquisitors. Then change the league schedule to 3 or 4 game series with more emphasis on divisional play. That should help avoid travel problems and lower cost. Then they could actually do a 'world' championship. Eventually they could add in Asia and South America/Caribbean regions.

good luck convincing a big time free agent to play ball in another country.

[Docta]

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

Really? The Sacramento Kings? You mean the franchise that has been around since 1946? That's who the league should contract? Not Toronto which has been around since 1995? Not Memphis which has been around only since 1995 as well? Minnesota which has been around since 1989?

Instead, we should contract the franchise that has 2 of the 5 longest sellout streaks in the history of the NBA. We should contract the team that has been founded for the 2nd longest time and in the league since 1948.

We will contract a team in the 20th biggest media market, a market which David Stern absolutely loves because he has the area entirely to himself with no baseball, football or hockey to dilute the sports fans.

You don't contract a team like that. You look at the history behind the franchise, you look at the solvency that has been proven even just in recent history and realize the problem isn't the franchise--it's the ownership. Strip the ownership from the Maloofs and all will be right in the world in Sacramento.

That's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever read. Right up there with the idea that Bud Selig should contract the A's.

It's more of a "What have you done for me lately?" kind of thing. How do their 2 sellout streaks help them out currently? If fans aren't coming to the games, then how much does history really matter?

[bantx]

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/stor...ks-sources-say

When NBA free agency begins at midnight July 1, Brooklyn Nets star guard Deron Williams will be choosing from a two-team list that only features the Nets and the Dallas Mavericks, according to sources close to the situation.

He's narrowed it down to 2!!! Come on Mavs seal the deal!

It also says in the article he's been house shopping in Dallas.

During a promotional appearance in Los Angeles earlier this month, Williams made it clear that he'll choose the team he feels is best positioned to contend for a championship fastest, expressing disappointment that he has tasted very little of the playoffs since leading Utah to the Western Conference finals in 2007.

The nets are not going anywhere fast.

[scottyboy]

come on bantx, if i made posts with every little deron rumor, it'd be me just spamming here the last 2 weeks. dallas also believes they have a 30 percent chance at him. i'm just going to keep my mouth shut and hope for the best. really, the nets are the best fit because Dallas just isn't that good right now anyway and has worse cap situation. but i'm not going to get into it. this week/week and a half could really decide the nets future for at least the next 5 years.

[nepg]

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

Really? The Sacramento Kings? You mean the franchise that has been around since 1946? That's who the league should contract? Not Toronto which has been around since 1995? Not Memphis which has been around only since 1995 as well? Minnesota which has been around since 1989?

Instead, we should contract the franchise that has 2 of the 5 longest sellout streaks in the history of the NBA. We should contract the team that has been founded for the 2nd longest time and in the league since 1948.

We will contract a team in the 20th biggest media market, a market which David Stern absolutely loves because he has the area entirely to himself with no baseball, football or hockey to dilute the sports fans.

You don't contract a team like that. You look at the history behind the franchise, you look at the solvency that has been proven even just in recent history and realize the problem isn't the franchise--it's the ownership. Strip the ownership from the Maloofs and all will be right in the world in Sacramento.

That's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever read. Right up there with the idea that Bud Selig should contract the A's.

The team that's moved 3 times already? The team that, in its 62 seasons in the NBA has had a winning record 22 times? They've had 19 seasons in which they lost 50 or more games (and like 3 where they lost 49). Don't give me guff about how it's such a great franchise. It's a **** franchise. It was the laughing stock franchise of the NBA until the early 2000s.

They had a nice little 5 year run where people actually showed up to games and had a stretch with Big O (actually they didn't do squat with Oscar)...but so did Milwaukee. But they can't pull attendance figures with a talented young team.

And, yes, I'd contract Memphis (maybe before Sac - someone just named 4 and they were legit enough so I went with it), but Minnesota? They pulled 17.5k/g with one of the worst teams in the NBA.

[nepg]

Originally Posted by Borat

Contraction? Right. You guys know that franchises are nine-figure businesses right?

You've seen where anyone talking about it has acknowledged it will never happen and just that it's good for the game?

[nobodyinparticular]

Originally Posted by nepg

They had a nice little 5 year run where people actually showed up to games and had a stretch with Big O (actually they didn't do squat with Oscar)...but so did Milwaukee. But they can't pull attendance figures with a talented young team.
.

This just goes to the incredible depths of your ignorance on the matter. "...a nice little 5 year run where people actually showed up..."

How about a 20 year run dating back to 1986 all the way through the 2007 season where people actually showed up? They sold out every game from the moment they opened Arco Arena in 1986 to the 1996-97 season. They then picked up right where they left off in 1999, carrying another sellout streak through to 2007. That's right, the Kings have sold out nearly 2 decades worth of games. Quite a bit more than your asinine "5 year run where people actually showed up."

As far as the attendance and fan support now, let's just say that the fans showed enough support for David Stern to block the Maloofs from moving the Kings out of the area twice in the past 2 seasons.

But come show me a team that will sellout its arena on a nightly basis while the ownership is actively torpedoing its relationship with the community.

The Kings have done plenty for the NBA lately.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

come on bantx, if i made posts with every little deron rumor, it'd be me just spamming here the last 2 weeks. dallas also believes they have a 30 percent chance at him. i'm just going to keep my mouth shut and hope for the best. really, the nets are the best fit because Dallas just isn't that good right now anyway and has worse cap situation. but i'm not going to get into it. this week/week and a half could really decide the nets future for at least the next 5 years.

I think you should.

[yodapoop]

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

Really? The Sacramento Kings? You mean the franchise that has been around since 1946? That's who the league should contract? Not Toronto which has been around since 1995? Not Memphis which has been around only since 1995 as well? Minnesota which has been around since 1989?

Instead, we should contract the franchise that has 2 of the 5 longest sellout streaks in the history of the NBA. We should contract the team that has been founded for the 2nd longest time and in the league since 1948.

We will contract a team in the 20th biggest media market, a market which David Stern absolutely loves because he has the area entirely to himself with no baseball, football or hockey to dilute the sports fans.

You don't contract a team like that. You look at the history behind the franchise, you look at the solvency that has been proven even just in recent history and realize the problem isn't the franchise--it's the ownership. Strip the ownership from the Maloofs and all will be right in the world in Sacramento.

That's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever read. Right up there with the idea that Bud Selig should contract the A's.

The five I had being relegated were the 5 worst teams, thats why I got rid of them....it wasn't any other reason than that.

[fenikz]

Rumors are that Nash's list is down to 3 teams, Portland, Toronto and Dallas

[yo123]

Jesus christ please don't waste your last couple years with the ******* Raptors.

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by Brent

I think you should.

I mean, I'm obviously biased, but here are my reasons as to why Deron's better off in Brooklyn:

1. Money: Although he's said it's not a real playing factor, D-Will was one of the first to play overseas during the lockout and got a large chunk of change from Besiktas. He's known as being very smart with his money and the extra amount the Nets can offer is far from chump change. It's hard, REALLY hard to pass that type of money up.

2. Location: It's NYC, the media capital of the world. Marketing is unreal here, and so would D-Will's popularity if he succeeds here. I know Dallas is far from a small market, but it's no NYC. Also, the whole "home" thing, his wife said in an interview when they lived in Dallas, random people would come over to their house and they never felt like they had any privacy.

3. Legacy: This isn't a real important one, but one I've thought of. If D-Will comes to Brooklyn and turns the nets into a winner, that will absolutely boost his legacy. Coming to the media capital of the world, turning around a perennial loser etc. Just a random throw in.

and now, of course,

4. Chance to win: I know, the Nets blow. We suck and weren't good...but the Mavs weren't exactly world beaters either. Dirk is 10X better than any player on the Nets currently...but he's 34. 34. In sports terms, and the NBA, that's old. I know the "promise of the future" thing is getting really old from the Nets, but in this case, there's actually young talent and cap space. Meanwhile, the Mavs have the horrendous contracts of Marion (due over 8.5 mil next year and over 9 the following), Haywood's even worse contract, spanning 3 more years and all over 8 million per.

Now looking over the Mavs contract situation, the rest of the contracts aren't too bad, assuming most team options won't be picked up, but man those are 2 ugly contracts with old ass guys. There's no real young talent. Or that much talent outside of Dirk. No real assets to move for another good, young talent. So the mavs have a lot of cash tied up in Dirk (super star) and 2 old dudes. The Nets have better trade assets down the future, and while I refuse to get sucked in by the Dwightmare rumors (and now steven a. smith saying Dwight only wants Brooklyn), the nets have assets (and talent) in Bropez and MarShon and the upperhand to re-sign Wallace, who while is older and declining, is still a force defensively, on the boards and as a leader. The Nets also have expirings for next season in Petro, Farmar (assuming the little ****** picks up his option) and Morrow, all at over 3 mil a clip, which is value in today's NBA. None of these guys is Dirk to play along side D-Will, but the potential to add another star is greater in terms of assets for the Nets, and quite honestly, a full season of D-Will-Brooks-Wallace-AK47-Bropez is just as good, if not better than what the Mavs throw out there this season. They're an old team. The whole better chance to win now thing is really kinda over blown since they weren't that good this year to begin with, and are just another year older.

Granted, you've got Dirk, a better owner, better GM (assuming because King is so meh) and a better coach and some room to make moves, but I truly believe in terms of winning and a pure basketball standpoint, the Nets are a better option for D-Will than the Mavs are.

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by yo123

Jesus christ please don't waste your last couple years with the ******* Raptors.

BUT HE'S CANADIAN!

oh nash, please go somewhere good. i want to see you win a ring oh so badly

[mdmgrand]

Please Nash end up on the Blazers, then Portland could draft Drummond for C, and Royce White for Sixth Man/Point Forward duties

[RufusMcDaniel]

Originally Posted by yo123

Jesus christ please don't waste your last couple years with the ******* Raptors.

Shut up and just let it happen...Nash, come and make us relevant!

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by fenikz

Rumors are that Nash's list is down to 3 teams, Portland, Toronto and Dallas

This is depressing.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Brodeur

This is depressing.

[bantx]

But the thing Deron wants to win right now and Dallas gives him the best chance to win right now. Cuban has his ways of reloading the roster to making us playoff contenders each season and you don't think he'll do that this off season with the amount of talent in the FA pool this off season.

[Docta]

So who pays the bill, Wade or LeBron?

And are we all in agreement that Bosh ordered the 12 Bud Lights?

[Docta]

And Nash isn't going to win a championship with any of those teams, so he might as well finish his career in Canada, and get paid a max contract while doing it.

[Brent]

nine dollars for a ******* Bud Light?