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.

do you guys really think they could beat us with lewis?

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.

I don't have a problem with silver lining talk. Especifally from fans... but:..

When you get:

"^^ You know who's the ONLY team in the playoffs to LOSE more games than they won since the All Star break? The same team who got SWEPT the last 2 years in the playoffs. The team who faced a fully healthy Magic squad just ONE time this season, and we happened to win that one game.

So yes, we ARE the better team. MAGIC IN 5"

What's that?

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.

Kobe hasn't physically collapsed in the playoffs the last 2 years and isn't currently nursing a significant nagging injury.

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.

I think trading away Perk was a huge mistake concerning this years title run, let alone signing guys like Daniels, West, Shaq, and O'Neal. Now in the long run, the Celtics may know something we don't. Doc always says they haven't lost a playoff series with that starting 5 in tact, and will get murdered on the boards throughout the playoffs like the Lakers did in Game 7. Sure, Perk isn't anything special, but in today's NBA, a man at his size who is always in near-perfect position to box out, rotate on help, and set picture perfect screens, he is invaluable to that team. The Celtics have been my favorite since the Big Three were assembled (not a Pierce fan at all), but Thibideau was the orchestrator of that defense and Perk was the foundation (Garnett the leader). Too much lost. Meanwhile, the Thunder's defensive stats have all spiked with Perk on the floor. The way Chicago breezed through Boston yesterday, it's not looking good. Ainge is like Dumars: for a few seasons, they push all the right buttons and achieve the ultimate goal. A few years later, the moves you make are total head-scratchers.

As far as my Hawks, I think I'll be satisfied with Sund. Too much chance for the ASG to hire someone even worse and regress even more.

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.

So your argument is that a franchise tag won't stop teams like Toronto and Cleveland from having to deal their stars, it will only ensure they have the leverage on other teams to ensure they get meaningful value back and that this would be a bad thing.

Is that right?

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.

dlpin- bird rights matter for the extra year but the difference between threatening to take 1 year contract vs a 5 year contract is trivial compared to the difference between taking a 5 year contract vs a 6 year contract.

If the Nuggets had the threat of keeping Carmelo an extra year then the negotiations would have been completely different.

Lebron was forced to stay with their team for 5 seasons in order to become a free agent when they were drafted. They choose to extend once because the idea of playing for a 1 year contract was so unappealing. I'd like to put the same sitaution in for the NBA. I do think it would give players the option to force themselves out if they wanted to badly enough while still giving their current teams a little more leverage. And thats all I am looking for with a franchise tag- a little more leverage for their current teams.

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.

Of course NBA players don't agree with me. They don't agree with maximum salaries. The don't agree with restricted free agency. They don't agree with anything that limits their flexibility or earnings potential and yet those things are part of every league's rules.

That is just wrong. Cleveland could not have signed Boozer to a max deal the next offseason because they didn't have the ability to do that under the CBA. If they had that right, they would have paid him nothing and then offered him the max. Their dilemma was that they had him over a barrel for that season but after that they wouldn't be able to match offers on the open market.

IF HE WAS ETHICAL - WHY DID HIS AGENTS FIRE HIM AND DECLINE THEIR COMMISSION?

Agents aren't known for doing that.

If Karl Malone left Utah for LA in his prime, he would not have been downgrading. But it takes a special personality in the NBA to want to stick with a rebuilding program in a non-marquee market. Michael Jordan could have left Chicago for LA and it would have been to join a team with more talent. Looking at the Knicks, there is nothing about the Knicks that was a better situation than Phoenix or Denver. In fact, New York was a notably worse team than either franchise. It is solely for the idea of bringing stars together in a big market that NY has gotten Amare and Carmelo following their toast with Paul.

I'm not sure what that means. Manning, Brady, and other top franchise players in the NFL know they are staying with their team and negotiate their long-term agreements accordingly. He will be the highest paid player in the NFL when he signs his new contract in Indy just like when he was franchised in 2004 and then signed the richest contract in the league. If he doesn't agree to a new deal he will be paid $23 million for the upcoming season. I don't see him as a "slave," though I am sure he doesn't agree with the franchise tag or any other restraint on his movement or salary.

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.

Personally I'd support a franchise tag that would give a team like Denver or Cleveland leverage for 1 extra season. But if the PLayer really were willing to take a 1 year contract for say 10% more than the max contract then they should be an UFA the following season. SImilar to how it works when players come off of the rookie scale contracts- players will only do that if they BADLY want out of a situation. But lets say a player is stuck on the Clippers for an owner he hates- there should be a way for him to move on at some point if he wants out.

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.

Here is the goal post. Bron and Bosh picked their team. Cleveland and Toronto could only get back what Miami offered. Melo same deal with NY. That is what I mean by holding teams hostage. A franchise tag gives the owner another option. That option is we will sign you and possibly trade you but it will be at what we consider to be the best deal for our franchise. Why does that work? Simple, the next team that has him can tag him also.

And that is the big picture whether you agree or not. Amare was unrestricted and disgruntled, he did not care nor want the Suns to get anything in return. No such thing could happen with a franchise tag available, unless the Suns chose not to place a tag on him. Utah cut their losses and sent Deron packing for the best deal they could find before he could do a similar thing to them.

And again I cannot over emphasize how much a threat a one year deal is to most super stars. They detest them and it is the last thing any agent with half a brain would want to settle for. It is the biggest FA deterrent the NFL has. You could call it their only one.

I think there will be a lot of changes next season, once and if we have one. Honestly after all the Melo, Bron, and Bosh soap operas this season, I am looking forward to them.

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.

I think I proved this wrong. Of the top ten only only Cassel, Shuab, and Vick changed teams. And it had nothing to do with their choices and everything to do with the teams choices. Now you can say that has nothing to do with the franchise tag all you want, but the fact remains it is a fact concerning their lack of movement. And the fact remains that of the top five scorers currently in the NBA, three forced trades or walked outright this season alone.

You say a franchise tag would not have stopped that, I differ big time. Especially in regards to Amare, Melo, and Bron. Deron being traded by all accounts shocked him as much as it did most NBA fans. But the bottom line is he was on a pretty good team and he still complained. Now he is in lotteryville probably wishing he would have kept his mouth shut.

"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.

lol, If a owner can sign his star player instead of losing him how will that not be a desired effect. You kill me with that complete lack of logic. Yes it is a choice. And it will not be a black and white one in every instance. But to think it would not put a damper on players holding teams ransom is foolish. Do you not think for one minute that a tag placed on Melo, Bron, Bosh, or Amare would have at least made a trade more palatable for the losing team? If not you are missing the whole point.

In the NFL, players of that caliber hardly ever walk for nothing. Even McNabb, whom you cited as a top QB, brought some return when he was traded. And McNabb was ranked 24th out of the 31 who qulaified with enough passes thrown. Not anywhere near a top QB anymore.

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.

You think players and teams in the NBA somehow will not be effected by a franchise tag yet you are against it. Now that is baffling.

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?

Matt Cassel, better believe New England did not want him not at that price

Jay Cutler Denver was done with him not the other way around

Eli was traded on draft day not a very good example of any type of use of the franchise tag

Here is the top 10 rated QBs in the NFL last season.

Tell me how many forced their teams to trade them. Keyword here is forced as in hold out ( Melo), publicly demanded a trade(Melo), spoke out on their dissatisfaction with said franchise ( Deron) or walked by their own choosing ( Amare, Bron, Bosh). How many changed teams because they wanted to? Schuab, Cassel, Vick never once requested a trade. They were moved because their team thought it was in their best interest for some really varied and extreme reasons.

1 Tom Brady NE QB 324 492 65.9 30.8 3,900 7.9 243.8 36 4 189 38.4 79T 53 9 25 111.0

2 Philip Rivers SD QB 357 541 66.0 33.8 4,710 8.7 294.4 30 13 234 43.3 59T 65 14 38 101.8

3 Aaron Rodgers GB QB 312 475 65.7 31.7 3,922 8.3 261.5 28 11 183 38.5 86T 54 10 31 101.2

4 Michael Vick PHI QB 233 372 62.6 31.0 3,018 8.1 251.5 21 6 131 35.2 91T 48 12 34 100.2

5 Ben Roethlisberger PIT QB 240 389 61.7 32.4 3,200 8.2 266.7 17 5 149 38.3 56T 52 8 32 97.0

6 Josh Freeman TB QB 291 474 61.4 29.6 3,451 7.3 215.7 25 6 166 35.0 64 48 10 28 95.9

7 Joe Flacco BAL QB 306 489 62.6 30.6 3,622 7.4 226.4 25 10 174 35.6 67 40 7 40 93.6

8 Matt Cassel KC QB 262 450 58.2 30.0 3,116 6.9 207.7 27 7 163 36.2 75T 40 4 26 93.0

9 Matt Schaub HOU QB 365 574 63.6 35.9 4,370 7.6 273.1 24 12 222 38.7 60 59 9 32 92.0

10 Peyton Manning IND QB 450 679 66.3 42.4 4,700 6.9 293.8 33 17 253 37.3 73T 43 9 16 91.9

Your boy Cutler is ranked 16th, Orton the guy they got in return is ranked 15th. That is called a trade, add in all those picks Denver got in return and its called a landslide win of a trade. Denver was done paying Cutler all that money, and if you look at his stats since the trade it is easy to see why.

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.

And again you don't understand the point of having a franchise tag. It is the implied threat that gets a deal done when said team wants to keep said player. Once QB is locked up, then teams can and do use the tag on other position players as they see fit. And most teams do not like using it because it pays that player the average of the top five contracts at his respective position. If you do not think it works or will have zero effect, why are you so vehemently against it?

This is like a city ordinance gets passed that says you no longer have to use seat belts. You take the stance that you want to use a seat belt and the ordinance is not going to work. Its not against the law to use your seat belt, so what is your beef? Why do you care if there is a Franchise player designation if it is not going to change your NBA?

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.

And you ignore the fact that none of the top ten QBs in the NFL have moved in any of their prime years except one. Brees, oh yes there is that guy who went to prison also. QBs do not stick with their teams for so long just because they want to. They do so because at the end of the day, a owner can and will slap a franchise tag on you if forced to do so.

Stop acting like LeBron, Bosh, Melo, and Deron are your run of the mill 2nd or 3rd team all-stars. They are the Tom Bradys of their previous teams man. Everyone one of them was hands down the biggest star and most important player on their previous teams. Just own up to it, the tag works with the NFLs most important stars. And guess what, most of them all play QB in case you do not follow the game that much.

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.

By having the franchise tag owners would have the bargaining power to get their own superstar players signed. This is the basis of the NFLs agreement, and it works. The players reportedly want unrestricted free agency, the owners reportedly want the franchise option. My money says they get some form of both with a hard cap.

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.

No I do not understand you. Not at all. If the franchise tag does not work why is the NFL players union trying to at least get it amended so it would at least be limited to the number of seasons it can be applied to a single player? I guess they just want it changed for the sake of changing it LMAO.

No one said players do not move or get traded in the NFL, but when was the last time you saw 5 all-star QBs, Amare, Bron, Bosh, Deron, Melo, all in their prime moved to different teams within a span of less than 6 months? That type of thing does not happen in the NFL ever.

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.