dlpin

Why not trade Teague, Bibby and Zaza for Lebron while you are at it? Not only is this tampering, but it doesn't work that way. In order to be able to renew a player's salary over the cap, a team has to have the player's bird rights. Players who are traded retain their bird rights. Players who sign as a free agent with a different team do not, and only gain bird rights after 3 years under the same contract. So you can't sign him for cheap one year and max him the next. You either trade for him or you have to sign him for 3 years before you can offer a salary that goes over the cap.

As tremor mentioned, the voting only matters for the starters, and the starters are picked regardless of health. That is, even with Yao out for the season he will still be named the starter, and when he can't go they don't go to the 2nd on the list. Stern picks the replacement for the team and the coach then chooses the starter. Brendan Haywood won't be the starting center if Bynum is out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgSJHn3VYc4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEbxFF3qtp0&feature=related

This is actually the best take on this "controversy" http://deadspin.com/5680957/the-stupid-outrage-over-kevin-garnetts-mouth

You are in absolute denial if you don't think there 100x worse things being said during a game. Trash talking is, by definition, offensive. Cripple, gimp, retarded, lame, midget, pinhead, numbskull are all words tied to actual medical conditions that are intended to offend much the same way "cancer patient" is and you can hear it in any gym where high school students are playing, nevermind actual competitive adults. But I think Doc said it best: "Larry [bird] has said some terrible things to me and I'm still hurt by them," Rivers joked. "But you know what I mean. And there are times when guys do cross the line but you get over that too. So I don't know, I don't think talking about what guys have said during the game is the place. I just don't find a place for it." I still don't see how this form of trash talk is so horrible and all the racist/misogynistic/homophobic statements and the statements that refer to other medical conditions are ok. We are talking about 2 grown men, talking amongst themselves in a heated game of basketball. And I say this as someone who lost a father to cancer.

I'm sorry, but this whole thing is BS. And the only people caring about this are the people who already have it in for KG. It is trash talking among grown man we are talking about.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/5397513/

None of those things make a Joe Johnson trade any more desirable. Joe Johnson is certainly not good enough to take the rest of New Orleans' team to the playoffs in the west. Not at 29, certainly not at 35. And not at the max.

Chris Paul was 2nd in mvp voting at 22 in 2008, fifth at 23 at in 2009. That is by definition MVP candidate. Kobe, Shaq, KG all demanded trades, either publicly or internally. Kobe didn't get traded, Shaq and KG did, and neither of those were for older, higher paid athletes. How hard is it to understand, really, that New Orleans would be better off hanging on to Chris Paul for 2 seasons and letting him walk for nothing than trading for a 29 year old guard who has 120+ million left on his contract? This whole thing started as them trying to save money, and if they lost Chris Paul they would choose to rebuild. A 29 year old guard that is owed the most money in the league is not how you rebuild, especially if you want to save money. The hawks would have a hard time trading Joe Johnson for even a younger borderline all star, never mind a younger player who will likely be either 1st team or 2nd team all nba the rest of his career.

If the discussion is, say, Horford for Chris Paul, it'd still be unlikely, but at least it would be plausible and possible. I don't think that NO would do it, but something like Crawford and Horford for Chris Paul would at least make some sense (i.e., young players and expiring deals for a superstar). Joe Johnson for Chris Paul makes absolutely no sense. It would be very hard getting equal value for Joe Johnson given his age and amount of money left on his deal, and it would be impossible to get more than equal value for him.

None of those examples are in any way comparable. Kobe Bryant was a 13th pick at the time, not a superstar like Chris Paul. Jason Kidd was the superstar in that deal, and he was traded for a younger and cheaper player. In the Billups-Iverson trade, detroit was the one trying to dump salary, so they traded him for Iverson, which was an expiring deal. This isn't hard to understand. A team that is considering dumping a guy who is an MVP candidate to save money isn't going to trade that player for someone who has FOUR TIMES the amount of money left on his contract. A team that is considering rebuilding full time isn't going to dump their only star for a player that is 4 years older and a lot worse. New Orleans would rather see him walk than take on Joe Johnson. IF they trade him they will not get equal value, but they most definitely will NOT contradict what they are trying to do. Teams only accept lesser value when it involves reducing salary or getting younger, and Joe Johnson would do neither.

Wow. Yeah, this is so silly that I am ashamed I am even wasting time on it. Yeah, the New Orleans Hornets should really start developing Collison. Maybe they should even send a few trainers to Indiana seeing as Collison is an Indiana Pacer. And please, in how many of the examples you gave did the team trading away the superstar get back an OLDER, MORE EXPENSIVE player? I am sure New Orleans is thinking "hey, last year we were thinking of dumping an MVP candidate because he still had 30 million left in his contract, why don't we trade him for a clearly inferior player who only has FOUR TIMES as much money left on his contract?"

First, no, outside of Atlanta Joe Johnson isn't considered a beast. He is considered what he is, which is a solid back up all star that will never contend for an MVP or be the best player on a championship team. Second, the only reason Chris Paul has indicated he wants out of NO is because he is fed up that their ownership is cheap and he wants to play with another superstar. Which brings up the obvious questions: if he wants out of NO because ownership is cheap and he wants to play with another superstar (his preferred destinations are supposed to be the magic, knicks and lakers), why would he come to Atlanta? If the whole thing with NO is that they are cheap, why would they trade for the player with the most money left on his contract in the entire NBA? This is the sort of idea that if you brought up to an NBA insider or in a neutral NBA forum you would get laughed out of the room.

The 1980 celtics would have been awesome. They had already won 61 games. Now imagine if Tiny Archibald, Dave Cowens, Larry Bird and Pete Maravich were in their primes? Now, of current teams the obvious choice is the celtics. And if Paul Pierce had no problems giving up shots to Antoine Walker, he'd be fine with Shaq and Ray Allen.

Oh, yes. Because a team that has tried to get rid of an MVP candidate in order to cut salary will be just dying to add a 29 year old back up all star with currently the largest deal in the NBA...

Yeah, you are pretty much the only person who would ever think that.

Is this really a question? The 6th man of the year and a guy that when healthy is at worst the 2nd best PG in the league vs Joe Johnson and an unproven second year player?

Because in 2 of the 3 years he was there he got 53 wins or more? And got a guy like Aaron Brooks with the 26th pick? Then landed a guy like Carl Landry for a future 2nd round pick? A guy like Scola for a guy who isn't even in the NBA anymore? And hasn't had a losing season even though its franchise player has missed 114 games in the last 3 seasons? All while playing in the west? If his team is over the luxury tax, its because of a franchise player who is paid 20 million to seat on the bench.

I understand people not wanting or liking Shaq. But as I said in the other thread, how can anyone think that this signing will be bad for the celtics? He hurts the defense? He is bad for chemistry? Whatever. As a vet. min signing they can dump him and resign any other min player at will

I can't believe that anyone thinks that Shaq for the minimum is a bad deal for the celtics. I mean, really? It's the minimum. If he messes things up, they can cut him at minimal cost.

And how many of those 50 are 6'9 centers? How many centers today have a vertical over 40 inches? Wilt was also a track and field star, and ran the 100 meter dash in less than 11 seconds. And it's not about jumping high. But between Kaman, Gasol, Big Z and Shaq, where is the athleticism? They don't run particularly fast, jump particularly high or are particularly quick. It is amazing that we are having this discussion after the celtics almost won it all with Garnett on one leg barely able to dunk, Sheed as old as hell, Pierce having to rely on his step back almost exclusively.

A lot more athletic is also false. Bill Russel competed nationally on the 400 meters in track and field. He was the 7th best high jumper in the world. His best time in the 400 meter dash over 50 years ago would still be good enough to put him in the top 30 in the SEC and top 100 in the NCAA. From a guy who played center... I mean, how can people look at Shaq and all that blubber still effective as a center and talk about the importance of athleticism? How can people talk so much about how so much more athletic players are today when compared to just 20 years ago when some of the top centers in the league are Pau Gasol, David Lee and Chris Kaman?

You talk about Ehlo as if being just a rotation guy nowadays would be a major downgrade, when that is what he was for most of his career back then. The idea that the game is vastly more physical, that players are taller, etc. etc today is just silly. Hell, average height today is smaller than 25 years ago. http://www.nba.com/news/survey_2004.html

Huh? Teams were a lot more physical defensively back then. Hand check rule, anyone? The 90s knicks still have the best defensive rating of all time. I think it's funny people are so focused on Ehlo. The best he would do today is 3rd man off the bench? Funny, because for most of his career that is what he was back then. His career mpg average is 24. And who wasn't a great athlete in the past? And no, Shaq, big Z, etc aren't great athletes today. There wasn't guys near as quick or big as today's at SG? Besides the ones you mentioned, you had Reggie Lewis, Reggie Miller, Clyde Drexler, Gerald Wilkins, Rolando Blackman, Willie Anderson were all 6'6 or taller.

People significantly overrate today's athleticism. Bill Russel was probably more athletic 40 years ago than 90% of todays players (Bill Russel was ranked 7th worldwide in the high jump). Is Nash Athletic? Dirk? Gasol? Varejao? Lee? Kidd?