dlpin

there is actually a very simple reason for that: the vegas line is Chicago -9. So it is not that ESPN disrespects the hawks, but that is where the betting has taken the line.

So Wade grabs Rondo with the ball going in the other direction and sweeps his leg, and apparently that is not a flagrant foul. So to recap, Jermaine O'neal's forearm to James Jones is a flagrant foul, Wade intentionally sweeping the leg after the ball has gone out of bounds? Just a regular foul.

I don't think their main loss was Lewis. Gortat was a highly serviceable back up and gave the Magic flexibility when they wanted to go big. And Pietrus was by far their best perimeter defender. And for all his many, many faults, Vince Carter at least was better than Richardson at driving to the hoop and getting to the line. Pre-trade, as flawed as that Magic team was, at least they had some options with regards to game plan. They could go big with Howard-Gortat-Lewis in the frontcourt, they could put Pietrus as a defender on the perimeter, they had Carter at least getting to the line when things weren't going well. After the trade, they had no flexibility and became essentially a team of 3 point specialists. Otis Smith has got to be bottom 5 in the league as a GM. Inherited Howard and Nelson and each season has taken a step back for the last 3 years. I mean, do you realize that Howard has never been Magic's best paid player in all the years he was there? He collects bad contracts like Presti collects draft picks.

1- That wasn't a headbutt. 2- the league hasn't ruled on a suspension. 3- the celtics were absolutely hosed in this game.

With Howard, there are no wasted fouls. If he goes up for a block and they call a foul, you can bet that he will lower his arm straight down to knock down the person he was fouling. Same thing with rebounds: if there is a chance he will get called for an "over the back" foul, he will come down with his elbows straight out to knock down whoever it is. If someone kept track of a stat on "players injured," Howard would lead the league.

What's that? Well, the first sentence is fact. The second sentence is homerism, which is exactly what you get in every single team forum around the nba. To take these things personally or seriously is a waste of time. I guarantee that if you look hard enough, you will find even Pacers homers believing they can beat the bulls.

Not to be confrontational, but what did you expect going to another team's forum? Fans are generally optimists looking for a silver lining. I am a celtics fan that started posting here during the 07-08 playoffs and that year there were people who still thought the hawks had a chance when they were down 0-2. And it almost paid off for them.

For better or for worse, the media generally overreacts to what happens late in the season. No one picks the Spurs to go to the finals because the Lakers were better late in the season. No one picks the celtics to beat the heat because the heat were better late in the season, despite this very same celtics team winning the east after doing poorly in the second half last year. The hawks are 10-17 post all star game, with an average point differential of -5.2. By comparison, the pacers are 13-15 with -2.6. So the Hawks have by far the worst record post all star break, and all analysts end up overreacting to that, for better or worse.

The main thing is that statistics are a tool, not an omen. There really are no "bad" statistics. There are bad uses of them. I think Hollinger et al have done advanced metrics in sports a disservice because they've made it into a sort of a shtick. But if you look at more serious stats people, the statistics and their measures are hardly arbitrary. Some of the more advanced metrics, like adjusted +/- and shares of win, are not even directly dependent on specific box score measure. Granted, no single statistic will ever capture the entire picture. But I still like David Berri's stuff a lot more than I like most of the NBA talking heads around. Berri et al are much better analysts than Jalen Rose, JA Adande, Bill Simmons and the like. In fact, the true hoop blog every year posts playoff predictions by the stats folks, and espn does the same as well for the "regular" analysts. I bet that the stats folks will do much better in their predictions than the regular folks.

Not to mention that the lakers are tied in the standings with Miami and Boston, and only 1 game ahead of dallas and 2 of OKC, so the Lakers have everything to play for at this point, from seeding to home court advantage in potential finals. Atlanta can't catch anyone ahead of them and can't be caught by anyone behind them.

Huh? How was signing Shaq for the minimum, West for the minimum and Daniels for the LLE a mistake? They are most likely the best players anyone could have gotten for that type of money. And since the trade, the celtics defense has been just fine. Of all the losses since the trade, the celtics only allowed more than 100 points twice. The problem with the celtics is the same as last year: old team runs out of gas on offense and can't score late. If anything, the trade helped that a bit.

The perkins trade is not the reason the celtics are struggling, and it was actually a very good trade. In any case, I am pretty sure that Ainge had to have communicated the trade ahead of time to the ownership given Green's status as an RFA. As for Sund, given all the restrictions he's had to deal with I find it doubtful that he would be fired this soon.

Your decision has to be your own. But I have to point out that there is no such thing as being "due for a win." Each game has to be evaluated on its own. I know people who bet Miami against the Blazers because they were "due" and lost a boatload of money. You are talking about the team with the 12th best road record (and improving) against the team with the 14th best home record.

No, my argument is that a franchise tag limited to one year would have only delayed the inevitable for one year, therefore not changing anything. And if the franchise tag could be applied multiple times, essentially doing away with free agency for superstars, they would demand trades sooner rather than waiting for the full 7 years. Right now, if a player wants to leave, they have two choices. Stay with a team for 5 years, playing the 5th year for a lot less than what they could, or signing the shortest possible extension of 7 years. If you make it so that they never can become a free agent, they will demand a trade sooner. If they know a team has the power to keep them one year longer, they will just sign a shorter contract. You all assume that the players wouldn't change anything in reaction to the creation of the franchise tag. That they wouldn't sign shorter contracts, or demand trades sooner. And the bucks, warriors, etc. got nothing of real value for multiple time mvps. The power of the bird right is not the extra year. The power of the bird rights is that retaining a player's bird rights is so powerful (by allowing teams to also get other players, keep mle, etc) that the vast majority of teams would rather do a sign and trade than trade outright. The cavs, who got "nothing" for Lebron, got 2 first round and 2 second round picks, on top of the right to get a 14 million dollar player with their trade exception. A trade exception they chose not to use. Denver, who got "nothing" for Melo, got 4 very good young players and 3 first round picks. In any case, I don't get this massive overreaction to Lebron, Bosh and Melo leaving. That is far from being the main problem with the nba.

The reasons a few of the star players haven't left their teams in the NFL is because in the NFL there is no maximum salary. Eliminating the maximum salary would do more to keep players with their current teams than a franchise tag ever would. You can bet your life that if the Bulls didn't pay MJ 10 million more than the competition would he would have left. Just like you can bet your life that if Lebron knew he was stuck forever with that cavs team with no shot of ever becoming a free agent he would have demanded a trade a long time ago.

Teams already have leverage because of bird rights, something that is a lot more powerful than the franchise tag. Because of bird rights teams almost always prefer to do a sign and trade. On top of that, I can't believe people are still arguing the franchise tag thing. If a lack of free agency didn't keep players with their original teams in the nba, a franchise tag would? That is the thing that is amazing to me, that people don't get. A player in the NBA has a lot more power, because they have a lot more influence, than in the NFL. If Lebron sat out demanding a trade, do you think he would lose any value? Abdul Jabbar demanded a trade after he had won 3 of 5 mvp awards, and then won two more as soon as he was traded. Lebron and Bosh already were forced to stay with their teams for 7 years to become free agents. If that wasn't a possibility, if there was no way they could ever become unrestricted free agents, I guarantee they would have demanded a trade a long time ago.

A one year deal is a threat for players? That is why every single one of the players you mentioned rejected extensions to play out the last year of their contracts? But hey, let's go one step further. Let's do away with free agency at all. No player ever becomes an unrestricted free agent again, and even without a contract his rights still belong to the owner, who has the right of first refusal. How about that? It would be like a permanent franchise tag for every player ever. After all, before free agency there was no way players kept teams hostage and moved around, huh? Except that this is wrong. Before there ever was free agency (unrestricted free agency only came in the 80s), before there ever was the possibility of moving teams without permission, players still demanded and got trades. Kareem demanded to be traded to the lakers. Wilt demanded to be traded to Philadelphia and then to the Lakers. Jerry Lucas demanded to be traded to the knicks. Moses Malone asked to be traded to philadelphia. Julius Erving held out and forced a trade to philadelphia. Rick Barry sat out a year to go to the oakland oaks. Bob McAdoo demanded a trade and ended up in NY. I can go on. We are talking about players who had a combined 14 MVP awards demanding trades in their primes. What you ignore is that even under contract there is nothing that forces a player to play or to care. You clearly don't know your NBA or NFL history, as I have shown again and again.

"Proved wrong" only if you pick and choose how to rank players. If you rank them by yards the situation differs. If you rank them by pro bowl selections the situation differs. If you rank them by all pro selection, the situation differs. And that is all while having to make arbitrary rules as to what counts. EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THE PLAYERS WHO STAYED WITH THEIR TEAMS WERE TAGGED BEFORE THIS YEAR. Of the top quarterbacks in the league, the only 2 to be tagged before this year were Brees and Cassel. Where are they now, huh? Of course, all of this while making the completely arbitrary choice that only quarterbacks count, even as the franchise tag is rarely, if ever, used on quarter backs. 18 players in the 1st or 2nd all pro teams this year are on teams that are different from where they started. So none of the top quarterbacks tagged stayed with their teams (Cassel and Brees). Of the 12 players tagged in 2009, 7 were gone within 1 year. And yet the franchise tag is the miracle that will stop players from leaving. Even though it didn't do anything like that in the NFL. Even though being under contract has NEVER stopped an NBA player from requesting and getting a trade. In 3 decades of free agency you've had 4 or 5 big time players move during free agency (Shaq, Amare, Lebron, Bosh, Grant Hill). Of these, 3 ended up being sign and trades. All others were traded while still under contract. And even before free agency even existed some of the best players of all time demanded trades (Wilt, Kareem, Jerry Lucas). But, as I said, I am done. You are arguing faith, not logic. And you've been proven wrong too many times to count.

Which of these teams, other than phoenix who was just too cheap, was left with nothing? Denver received decent role players and multiple picks. Utah received a top PF prospect, a good pg and multiple picks. the Cavs received 2 first round picks, 2 second round picks, and a trade exception that would have allowed them to get anyone with a contract of 14 million or less. Toronto got their own pick back (a lottery pick) and a 16 million trade exception they could have used to get any player they wanted. And if Phoenix got nothing, it's because they were stupid, because they could have even gotten KG for Amare not too long ago. And if McNabb wasn't a top quarterback this year, last year he was a pro bowler. But once again you keep moving the goal posts to hide the fact that you completely ignore NFL history.

No, it is actually really simple and it is amazing that you can't seem to understand basic logic. If something will not have the desired effect, why fight for it, negotiate over it, or waste time on it?

How many of these were franchise tagged before this year? How many of these were even a free agent? And how would a franchise tag stop players from requesting a trade? That's what I thought. The lack of logic is still baffling.

So even though most tagged players change teams, almost half of all the top quarterbacks change teams, and most of the players that never change teams were never tagged to begin with, there is somehow some magical connection that makes players stay with their clubs longer? I am sorry, but I am done with you. This has become a matter of faith, not logic. Every single point you've tried to make has been proven unequivocally false. The NFL uses franchise tags the same way the NBA uses bird rights: most of the time, it is to force a sign and trade. Players that want out in the NFL get out, regardless of franchise tag. See Matt Cassel, Jay Cutler, Eli Manning.

You keep trying to make false equivalencies. And even then you are still completely wrong. It is amazing to me how many times you've been completely wrong and when I point it out you simply Ignore it. But hey, if you want to restrict this just to quarter backs for completely arbitrary reasons: of the 6 quarterbacks that played in the pro bowl this year, 3 are not with their original teams (Vick, Brees, Cassel). Of the 6 quarterbacks that played in last year's pro bowl, 3 are either with other teams now or were not with their original teams then (McNabb, Schaub, Young). In fact, talking just about quarterbacks is so insane because quarterbacks are rarely tagged. In any case, looking at the top 5 quarterbacks by yards this year: Brees, Schaub and Eli Manning are not with the teams that drafted them. Of the next 5, Carson Palmer just requested to be traded and Kyle Orton is not with the team that draft him. Of the next 10, 4 are not with the teams that drafted them (McNabb, Schaub, Vick, Cutler). Other than this year when teams are trying to keep player's rights with the labor dispute, most of the top quarterbacks were NEVER franchise tagged, making your argument 100% irrelevant. Before this year, when teams are afraid to offer extensions without a CBA in place, Brady, Manning, Vick, Roethlisberger, Rivers, were never tagged. The only of the pro bowler quarterbacks to be tagged were Cassel, who was then traded, and Brees, who then left. So again, your example is irrelevant and false.

It is amazing how much you simply ignore the facts. Let's repeat, 7 of the 12 players tagged just in 2009 are on other teams now. 18 current All pro players are not with their original teams. Williams, one of the examples you talked about, wasn't even on his last year of his contract. Like KG wasn't. Like Vince Carter wasn't. Like Kareem wasn't. Like Wilt wasn't.

The reason the players want it changed is financial, not because they want to change teams more often. The franchise tag does not work for what you want it to do, which is keeping players in the same teams for longer. Again, 7 on the 12 players who received a franchise tag 2 years ago are on other teams. As for what you said, the timing is irrelevant. It just so happened that 3 of those all stars were free agents at the same time. The fact is that NFL players change teams just as often, and the franchise tag has done NOTHING to keep stars from changing teams. I've already presented all the facts but you keep trying to change the goal posts while ignoring the evidence that shows you are wrong. But just to keep things in perspective: 10 players from last year's pro bowl are no longer with their teams. They include Vince Young, Brandon Marshall and Julius Peppers. Of this year's ALL PRO team, no less than 18 players are not with their original teams.