Trueblood

Let's not forget that Atlanta will have enough cap space to sign TWO max free agents.CP3 wanted to come here when he was drafted and so did DH. They both want to play together.All DH has to do is look at how old Nash and Kobe are getting and that their respective games are falling off.Sterling has a reputation for screwing things up. CP knows that.I'm going to start a twitter campaign after the season but before free agency starts. It can't hurt. If nothing else, we can say we tried.

If I'm New Orleans, I either agree to a sign and trade deal where I get Phoenix's lotto bound 2013 pick in return or I let him walk and sign 2 or 3 decent players for what they're going to pay Gordon. If Gordon's base salary is over $14 million then I'm thinking that I can get Mayo for 6 to replace him at the 2 then resign Kaman for 6 and then get a good backup for 2 or something.

We have to pray on this. Assuming we have no shot at D12, we're stuck putting our faith in Otis Smith. Please oh please do the right thing and don't trade him to LA. Find a way to get the Brooklyn deal done so we don't have to watch another damn superteam.

FWIW, Jordan came back at the end of the '94-'95 season and was David Falk's top client during the mini lockout of '95. As was briefly touched on above, there was actually a deal prior to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. Falk and Jeffrey Kessler didn't like the deal and said that they would decertify the union if they couldn't come up with something better. They went back to the bargaining table and negotiated a deal on August 8th. Falk and his boys still didn't like the deal but said that they would let the players vote on it. Their choice was to either decertify the union or not decertify the union. Not decertifying was the equivalent of accepting the deal that the union negotiated. They overwhelmingly voted to not decertify and the season started on time. The one problem was that the owners had a 3 year out clause so after Shaq and KG signed humongous deals, the owners decided to opt out and we were back to a lockout, only this time it would take up almost half the season. Jordan was actually not retired yet and he played a major role in the negotiating. There were times when the bargaining sessions consisted of just Stern and Jordan. The owners won, Jordan retired and the rest is history up until now.

I'm a little more optimistic this week then I was before. The talk of lawsuits is simmering down and now we are hearing about REAL bargaining sessions being held and not mud slinging contests. There is going to be a real effort to get things done. Not necessarily saying that I think there will be major progress but at least they are going to make an attempt. I too would like to see more parity but let's not forget that this past cba saw 5 champs in 6 seasons. 2006-Miami 2007-San Antonio 2008-Boston 2009-Lakers 2010-Lakers 2011-Dallas

That's under the assumption that he would make any team a contender and I agree that I would take Lebron if he were to indeed make the team a contender. However, my hypothetical was asking if the fans would rather have a 50 win plus team that got to 2nd round or further in the playoffs or take a team with Lebron where the supporting cast was so bad that he was getting bounced in the first round and only winning 45-50 games. In that scenario, which would you take?

That's just the thing. I DO like basketball and hockey. It's the people commenting on the AJC that clearly have an anti basketball based agenda and when looking at their bigoted commentary, it's easy for more reasonable posters and readers to dismiss their takes. When they refer to NBA players as "thugs" and what not, they lose credibility. They do the sport and the NHL a disservice.

I actually tried La Pizza Loca one night and sadly it's not much better than Little Caesar's. Still, people are looking for deals and getting a large pizza for $5 will sell just about anywhere.

Good to hear. I hope this guy is the real deal. FWIW, there are some *ss backwards idiots on the AJC comments section. It's clear from reading their comments that they watch hockey for one reason and one reason only. First they said that they would never watch a Hawks game as long as the ASG was the owner and now that they're gone, they're complaining about the ASG still having a minority stake. Give it up. You morons never had any intention of watching the Hawks in the first place.

Also, I wouldn't sell recent parity short. During this past collective bargaining agreement, we saw 5 champions in 6 years. 2006-Miami 2007-San Antonio 2008-Boston 2009-Lakers 2010-Lakers 2011-Dallas

Some thoughts.... Hard cap is too general a term. A lot depends on where the hard cap is set. A $45 million cap is a joke but if you get it to $70 million with layers below it meaning a mid level exception threshold at $60 million and a soft cap at $50 million, then you may have a deal... I say we keep the grandfather clause. That's what allows teams to sign their own stars for a number above the max salary. For instance, let's say the cap comes down to $50 million and 7-9 year vets can now only get 25% of the cap if they leave as opposed to the 30% that they get now. That means that Chris Paul could only sign for a base salary of 12.5 million (25% of 50) if he wanted to go to the Knicks but a grandfather clause could net him an extra 5% off the $16.5 million he makes now meaning that his base salary if he stays in New Orleans would be $17.3 million. An extra $2.5 million couldn't keep Lebron in Cleveland but an extra $4.8 million could very well keep the new batch of free agents from bolting.... The Hawks have new ownership. Whatever blunders they have made in the past shouldn't be held against them. Now that someone with his head on straight is making the calls, I don't see a hard cap or further contract restrictions having too much of a negative effect on the team. Hire the right people to make the decisions and that will have a much bigger impact than a favorable or unfavorable cba.

If the NBA were to hypothetically just have one more relocation, which one do you think makes the most sense and makes the league better off?

If the NBA were to hypothetically just have one more relocation, which one do you think makes the most sense and makes the league better off?

Assuming there is an MLE of some sorts and the Bulls are in financial position to spend it beyond the flex cap amount, I would say the Bulls are his best bet if they don't get Jason Richardson.

I think the Kings are top 10 because of Casspi. Someone on a Sacramento board mentioned that a lot of teams have a jewish heritage night and they reserve it for Casspi coming to town. But yeah, in general, road attendance is based on individual star power. Never doubted that. But the majority of fans who buy season tickets and root for their home team are doing it for pride in their hometown and it's local team as opposed to just an individual star. When we see the Cavs attendance drop next year, it will have more to do with fans just not wanting to invest in a losing product as opposed to not being able to see Lebron. People forget, the team was winning over 50 games with it's most marketable stars being Price and Daugherty and they had no problem filling up the joint and if Irving and Thompson turn out to be the real deal, the fans will be back. At the end of the day, Lebron WON GAMES and gave the city hope that it could finally win a title. The Clips are the exception as they draw fans to see a losing team but have a very marketable superstar. Keep in mind that being a cheap and accesible NBA option with no NFL compeition to the Lakers has always allowed them to have an upper hand over other franchises in small markets with NFL competition.