Dwight to LA!

[rams80]

If the League owned Hornets (at the time) couldn't trade their franchise player, Chris Paul, to the Lakers; then how on earth will the League approve a four team trade in which Orlando's franchise player, Dwight Howard, is sent to the Lakers?

Because the league isn't trying to palm the Magic off on some credulous millionaire at top dollar.

[mania]

masterchaoss has to be this guy.

[tBBP]

thats the main resion alot of teams suck look at okc and SA you need good management to win the nba big and small market don't mater u don't. Being in LA is why the lakers are good it because of buss and kuptcept(sorry I butchered it) there good all the time

This is my new favorite post.

Yeah, that's definitely sig-worthy.

And if it wasn't already aboundingly clear that this place has been invaded by a rash of n00bz who may as well mistake this place for the espn.com comments section, I hope it's crystal clear now.

(Might be about that time to go seek asylum...)

[waltere]

If the League owned Hornets (at the time) couldn't trade their franchise player, Chris Paul, to the Lakers; then how on earth will the League approve a four team trade in which Orlando's franchise player, Dwight Howard, is sent to the Lakers?

What was the "official" reason for them vetoing the trade? Was it because of competitive balance, or because the de-facto GM (Stern, I guess) didn't think it was a good trade personnel wise?

Officially it was the latter, in reality it was the former.

thats the main resion alot of teams suck look at okc and SA you need good management to win the nba big and small market don't mater u don't. Being in LA is why the lakers are good it because of buss and kuptcept(sorry I butchered it) there good all the time

I literally do not know what half of this post is trying to say

[rams80]

thats the main resion alot of teams suck look at okc and SA you need good management to win the nba big and small market don't mater u don't. Being in LA is why the lakers are good it because of buss and kuptcept(sorry I butchered it) there good all the time

Chaos is spelled with one "s" dingbat.

[tBBP]

Let's just get this one out the way right now:

"masterchaossssssssssssss".

# in memory of looooooooooooooogodude

[cohenj21]

Let's just get this one out the way right now:

"masterchaossssssssssssss".

# in memory of looooooooooooooogodude

Very astute, sir. Never woulda thought of that.

[Lights Out]

If the League owned Hornets (at the time) couldn't trade their franchise player, Chris Paul, to the Lakers; then how on earth will the League approve a four team trade in which Orlando's franchise player, Dwight Howard, is sent to the Lakers?

What was the "official" reason for them vetoing the trade? Was it because of competitive balance, or because the de-facto GM (Stern, I guess) didn't think it was a good trade personnel wise?

Definitely personnel-wise. The Hornets were getting Odom and Scola, both of whom went on to stink it up last season. The Clippers' package was better for NOLA at the time and even better now in hindsight.

[OnWis97]

If the League owned Hornets (at the time) couldn't trade their franchise player, Chris Paul, to the Lakers; then how on earth will the League approve a four team trade in which Orlando's franchise player, Dwight Howard, is sent to the Lakers?

Because the league isn't trying to palm the Magic off on some credulous millionaire at top dollar.

That and I'd say, quite contrary to Mindless's line of thinking, that the league may have been worried about the image issue: "oh look, Stern and the NBA let a star go to the Lakers, big surprise." Orlando is giving them Howard. It would have been viewed as the league giving them Paul.

Additionally, two "small-market" teams (the Nuggets and Sixers) were easily the big winners in this trade

How on god's green earth do you consider the Sixers a small market team?

They aren't a destination franchise, and they spend a similar amount of money as true small-market teams. Payroll-wise, they were in the Portland, Orlando, Golden State, Detroit, etc. tier last year. I feel like "small market" doesn't necessarily correlate to actual market size in the NBA, it's just a nicer way of calling certain franchises "have-nots".

Yeah. In a true sense, Philly is a big market, the NBA's divide is going to be about which destinations key free agents (and superstar malcontents like Howard) may go to. Philadelphia, despite its size and franchise history, does not seem to be emerging as one of those teams. Right now it's the Lakers (and always will be), Knicks, and maybe Bulls, Celtics (but that may be going away soon), and the Heat. Miami sort of fell into that because other guys joined Wade. But the weather is great. Weather and glamor are going to be the big draws. Golden State is a HUGE market, but they and Philly are not free agent draws right now. Hell, even Dallas, with a player friendly owner that really wants to win, does not seem to be.

Think of the next start to leave a meaningless team. Now think of what teams he could possibly end up in. To me, Philly is not one of those teams; and if I am right, then they are kind of a de-facto small market team.

Outside of New York, Chicago and maybe Boston, I am not sure there is really no reason to keep any bad weather teams around.

This is true. They were becoming one of those teams in the early part of the century with AI et al, and I really think that their uniforms and "hip hop" connections were helping them. Then the management shifted more to the Flyers staff, who just didn't care, and eventually scrapped everything and then sold them. There is certainly not much attraction to being there now.

Their plan is to use money to become a destination, but I think history has shown that's only a temporary solution.

This. Philly is not technically a small-market team, seeing as they play in the nation's fourth largest media market. However, the way the organization has been run in the last 6 to 8 years is very reminiscent of a small-market team. The new management in the Sixers organization is trying to turn around this trend by using money to lure free agents (which has not yet been successful) and jumping into trades as buyers (which just was). As BringBackTheVet said above, history has shown that throwing money around is rarely a formula for long-term, sustained success in a franchise (unless you are the Yankees, but that's a discussion for another day). All I'm saying is, don't expect the Sixers to turn into a "destination franchise" overnight.

Similarly, the Phillies were once considered "small market", much more because of mentality than actual market size. Once they started spending money, that went away. That would be harder to pull off in the NBA with the cap, etc.

[cohenj21]

Yes, the salary cap makes it much harder to be "the Yankees" in any sport other than baseball. Yet even though MLB is the only league without a cap, the parity there is much better than the NBA.

[TFoA]

Speaking of the cap, it's currently $58.04M. The luxury tax is somewhere around $70M.

Here's where the Lakers are currently. Absolutely absurd. I'm not mad at Mitch Kupchak for once again bending his fellow NBA GMs over the negotiating table. If you can do it, then by all means do it.

[OnWis97]

Yes, the salary cap makes it much harder to be "the Yankees" in any sport other than baseball. Yet even though MLB is the only league without a cap, the parity there is much better than the NBA.

I attribute that to the nature of the games. You can have the two best shortstops (i.e., A-Rod and Jeter at that time), but they cannot pitch or take up a high proportion of batting order spots. Or you can add two super free agents in the NBA and you've just changed 40% of your starting linuep. The problem* the NBA is embarking on is the huge impact that a single player can have in that sport versus the other team sports.

*If you actually call it a problem. If you can have the Lakers go deep every year, it's good for the overall interest. It bugs me, but TV numbers don' lie.

[cohenj21]

Yes, the salary cap makes it much harder to be "the Yankees" in any sport other than baseball. Yet even though MLB is the only league without a cap, the parity there is much better than the NBA.

I attribute that to the nature of the games. You can have the two best shortstops (i.e., A-Rod and Jeter at that time), but they cannot pitch or take up a high proportion of batting order spots. Or you can add two super free agents in the NBA and you've just changed 40% of your starting linuep. The problem* the NBA is embarking on is the huge impact that a single player can have in that sport versus the other team sports.

*If you actually call it a problem. If you can have the Lakers go deep every year, it's good for the overall interest. It bugs me, but TV numbers don' lie.

Thia is true. It may not be good for the fans of small-market teams like Sacramento or New Orleans, but if the league is still raking in the big bucks from those Christmas Day TV matchups between Miami and the Lakers and the Celtics and the Knicks they don't care too much about the other stuff.

[bosrs1]

Yes, the salary cap makes it much harder to be "the Yankees" in any sport other than baseball. Yet even though MLB is the only league without a cap, the parity there is much better than the NBA.

I attribute that to the nature of the games. You can have the two best shortstops (i.e., A-Rod and Jeter at that time), but they cannot pitch or take up a high proportion of batting order spots. Or you can add two super free agents in the NBA and you've just changed 40% of your starting linuep. The problem* the NBA is embarking on is the huge impact that a single player can have in that sport versus the other team sports.

*If you actually call it a problem. If you can have the Lakers go deep every year, it's good for the overall interest. It bugs me, but TV numbers don' lie.

Bingo. Individual players other than maybe pitchers don't have nearly the impact one great player can have on basketball.

[masterchaoss]

Hey man why you skrew with my post when quoteing it! God this site is full of :censored:s.

thats the main resion alot of teams suck look at okc and SA you need good management to win the nba big and small market don't mater u don't. Being in LA is why the lakers are good it because of buss and kuptcept(sorry I butchered it) there good all the time

This is my new favorite post.

Vary true,and it's why I love the NBA.

Yes, the salary cap makes it much harder to be "the Yankees" in any sport other than baseball. Yet even though MLB is the only league without a cap, the parity there is much better than the NBA.

I attribute that to the nature of the games. You can have the two best shortstops (i.e., A-Rod and Jeter at that time), but they cannot pitch or take up a high proportion of batting order spots. Or you can add two super free agents in the NBA and you've just changed 40% of your starting linuep. The problem* the NBA is embarking on is the huge impact that a single player can have in that sport versus the other team sports.

*If you actually call it a problem. If you can have the Lakers go deep every year, it's good for the overall interest. It bugs me, but TV numbers don' lie.

Bingo. Individual players other than maybe pitchers don't have nearly the impact one great player can have on basketball.

[waltere]

Hey man why you skew with my post when quoteing it! God this site is full of :censored:s.

thats the main resion alot of teams suck look at okc and SA you need good management to win the nba big and small market don't mater u don't. Being in LA is why the lakers are good it because of buss and kuptcept(sorry I butchered it) there good all the time

This is my new favorite post.

SERIOUSLY!?!?!

And for the record, that's a large part of the reason why I don't love the NBA.

[masterchaoss]

well I'm a Lakers fan

Hey man why you skew with my post when quoteing it! God this site is full of :censored:s.

thats the main resion alot of teams suck look at okc and SA you need good management to win the nba big and small market don't mater u don't. Being in LA is why the lakers are good it because of buss and kuptcept(sorry I butchered it) there good all the time

This is my new favorite post.

SERIOUSLY!?!?!

And for the record, that's a large part of the reason why I don't love the NBA.

[ninersdd]

The Kings then I guess are a small market team operating on a hick town budget.

The funny thing is that, remember the Kings-Lakers matchups from 10 years ago? They were very high rated series and matchups, so it doesn't necessarily have to be 2 huge market teams(although it seems at least one is needed). I know I'm beating a dead horse, but those matchups won't be back for a long time thanks mostly to the Aloofs.

[masterchaoss]

The Kings then I guess are a small market team operating on a hick town budget.

The funny thing is that, remember the Kings-Lakers matchups from 10 years ago? They were very high rated series and matchups, so it doesn't necessarily have to be 2 huge market teams(although it seems at least one is needed). I know I'm beating a dead horse, but those matchups won't be back for a long time thanks mostly to the Aloofs.

That series is one of my favs as a Lakers fan,the other being the 2010 finals. Aw the memories.

Also it helps that cailforna is the most populated state in the USA.

[Rockstar Matt]

That series is one of my favs as a Lakers fan,the other being the 2010 finals. Aw the memories.

Also it helps that cailforna is the most populated state in the USA.

Uh, what? I wish you wouldn't call yourself that. Before you, I was the dumbest Lakers fan on these boards. Now, you've taken that mantle.

In other news, Dwight's Introductory Press Conference is right now. Dwight has a huge grin on his face, as do I.