NBA Changes 2013-14 Season

[Shadojoker]

Yes small things like this are HUGE!! trees added soo much character to their unis,home court as well as their identity. "Wolves from woods or wild-esque "..instead of wolves from Main st.

[suns1977]

Dear Minnesota,

Never ever ever go back to this arm and neck trim.

I could NOT see the forest for the trees. Yuck.

[Kg54mvp]

Bring one of these sets back and I will be a happy man!

And also I am sorry, I thought that black timberwolves set was Badass! even with the trees!

[suns1977]

Bring one of these sets back and I will be a happy man!

And also I am sorry, I thought that black timberwolves set was Badass! even with the trees!

The set on the right perfectly brought forward their original intent, I think.

I don't mind the trees in moderation, but all of them back to back, I don't know, makes me think of Crystal Lake.

[Conrad.]

go back to the design on the right, but use a more conservative neck collar, since the design is already complicated with the shorts M/Trees motif.

[mjd77]

Bring one of these sets back and I will be a happy man!

And also I am sorry, I thought that black timberwolves set was Badass! even with the trees!

The set on the right perfectly brought forward their original intent, I think.

I don't mind the trees in moderation, but all of them back to back, I don't know, makes me think of Crystal Lake.

Why they ever got rid of the set on the right and ditched the green is beyond me. That was a great look. The tree design on the shorts made that set unique without being gaudy.

[TaylorMade]

Lmao @ AAO...btw phutmaster I got the Chris Paul reference..but thx I forgot that's why they blocked the trade .."..for basketball reasons.." aka bull

Haha, aka "the team was owned by the league aka the every other team's owners and they decided to not to let new orleans bend over like memphis and orlando and every other laker farm team"

THANK YOU.

The trade wasn't "blocked." It was denied by ownership. Ownership just happened to be the NBA in that case. It's the exact same as when Orlando's and Brooklyn's GMs had a trade agreed upon for Dwight Howard but Magic ownership rejected it.

[SuperNerdToTheRescue]

Lmao @ AAO...btw phutmaster I got the Chris Paul reference..but thx I forgot that's why they blocked the trade .."..for basketball reasons.." aka bull

Haha, aka "the team was owned by the league aka the every other team's owners and they decided to not to let new orleans bend over like memphis and orlando and every other laker farm team"

THANK YOU.

The trade wasn't "blocked." It was denied by ownership. Ownership just happened to be the NBA in that case. It's the exact same as when Orlando's and Brooklyn's GMs had a trade agreed upon for Dwight Howard but Magic ownership rejected it.

Which was a severe conflict of interest.

[Lights Out]

No, it was perfectly legal under the rules. The fact that Laker fans continue to whine about the CP3 veto after all the bull :censored: superstar trades that the Lakers have been able to pull off in their history is a joke.

[SuperNerdToTheRescue]

No, it was perfectly legal under the rules. The fact that Laker fans continue to whine about the CP3 veto after all the bull superstar trades that the Lakers have been able to pull off in their history is a joke.

Nobody is denying that it was legal. People are questioning the morality and fairness of the veto. The trades that the Lakers have been able to pull off in their history are not morally wrong, as all the teams that they traded with had reasons for making their respective deals. What would be morally wrong in that situation is if the owners were allowed to vote on the approval of those deals. Needless to say, none of the trades would have been approved due to severe conflicts of interest, much like the vetoed Chris Paul trade.

[Lights Out]

It was very fair for everyone. The Clippers got CP3, the Rockets are in a better position now with Dwight and Harden then they would have been with Pau, the Pelicans got Anthony Davis and are slowly building a young talented team, and even the Lakers pulled off the Dwight and Nash trades the very next offseason. The continued whining about the veto from Laker fans is really only because they didn't get exactly what they wanted for once.

Now, how 'bout those NBA uniforms?

[Shadojoker]

^^^^very slick re-direct back to topic^^^

Can't wait to see more "city pride" uniform updates or more alternates..

[Rockstar Matt]

The reason why we Laker fans whined about it, wasn't because we thought the trade was vetoed illegally, but it was because up until that point, the NBA and Stern, had been completely willing to let the GM do as he saw fit... Until the other NBA owners griped about the Lakers getting another superstar player. Their reasons were partially because we just had a lockout attempting to stop teams like the Lakers, acting like the Lakers and, to be honest, those owners didn't want to see CP3 in forum blue and gold.

Now, the Clipper-Hornet trade was a better deal for both parties than the Lakers deal, however you'll never be able to convince me the deal wasn't vetoed because it was the Lakers. I'm not sure Stern would have vetoed it if the other owners didn't complain about it or if any other team had offered a similar deal.

Back on topic, I really really like the Suns new home jersey. The wordmark is gorgeous and I love the subliminated sunstreaks.

[Kevin W.]

The reason why we Laker fans whined about it, wasn't because we thought the trade was vetoed illegally, but it was because up until that point, the NBA and Stern, had been completely willing to let the GM do as he saw fit...

So in short, "WHAAAAAAAAA WE DIDN'T GET WHAT WE WANTED SO IT MUST BE ILLEGAL WHAAAAAAAAA!"

[Rockstar Matt]

Evidently, you didn't bother to read what I said Kevin.

Look, if the Hornets had a real owner and he/she denied the trade, then it'd be whatever. But, there is too much conflicting interests when the NBA owns a team and the other owners (including the trade recipient) are allowed to have a say in that particular franchises' future. It makes it very fishy and suspect.

[Kevin W.]

No, I read what you said. You said Lakers fans were upset because the NBA didn't let the Lakers GM do what he wanted. Ergo, the Lakers fans are upset because the league, for once, decided not to be hands-off and actually decided to tell the Lakers that they couldn't run roughshod over the league.

[Shadojoker]

[Link=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1748686-the-most-original-nba-jerseys-of-the-last-20-years] another cool bleacher report on uniforms..kinda cool to look back. A shame too many teams rather go boring and simple then risky..(hint trying to stay on topic)

[Kevin W.]

There's been too much risk in uniform design these days. Basketball uniforms aren't supposed to have sleeves. The Lakers aren't supposed to wear black. A uniform's shorts should not be pinstriped if the jersey isn't pinstriped.

We need more boring and less risky. I'm tired of the crap that risky produces.

[chakfu]

however you'll never be able to convince me the deal wasn't vetoed because it was the Lakers. I'm not sure Stern would have vetoed it if the other owners didn't complain about it or if any other team had offered a similar deal.

Funny, because you'll never be able to convince me that Stern and Demps didn't agree to the deal in the first place only because it was the Lakers. And for once the rest of the league's owners stood up and didn't let it happen, forcing Stern's hand.

When it's Orlando's or Memphis' own team they always get bullied or conspired into taking 25 cents on the dollar, to save money, curry favor with the league or whatever. But when it was only 1/30th of their own team they grew spines.

Dear Minnesota,

Never ever ever go back to this arm and neck trim.

I could NOT see the forest for the trees. Yuck.

Has arm trim like this ever worked? I hated Vancouver's look too.

[Lights Out]

There's been too much risk in uniform design these days.

You're joking, right? Have you seen the NHL and MLB?