The Kings and Freeagency:
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
The one thing you are forgetting, and one of the things that apparently riled up the owners, is that in addition to getting the players NO would have taken on an awful lot of salary that would prevent them from making future moves. Rarely does a team trade away the best player in the deal and also cripple their financial situation at the same time. Normally they want to see young (rookie-contract) players, picks, and expirings coming back to give them flexibility. That wasn't happening here, other than one pick.
As a league-owned team, the owners felt that saddling that team with such a financial burden wasn't in the league's best interest. And that is entirely within their right.
You say they would have ended up with nothing? They also wouldn't have ended up with the contracts they would be saddled with if the trade went through.
The league owns the team. The owners have a say as the owners. CP3 can go kick rocks if he thinks he should be able to dictate where he goes while still under contract. If he doesn't like where he is, then maybe he should suck it up, play out the contract he willingly signed, and go take less money as a FA next summer if it is that important to him.
And while it may suck for NO to not be able to make any trade it wants, the owners have a right to approve or veto any proposed trade. That is what they did here. Just like any other owner in the league.
As a league-owned team, the owners felt that saddling that team with such a financial burden wasn't in the league's best interest. And that is entirely within their right.
You say they would have ended up with nothing? They also wouldn't have ended up with the contracts they would be saddled with if the trade went through.
The league owns the team. The owners have a say as the owners. CP3 can go kick rocks if he thinks he should be able to dictate where he goes while still under contract. If he doesn't like where he is, then maybe he should suck it up, play out the contract he willingly signed, and go take less money as a FA next summer if it is that important to him.
And while it may suck for NO to not be able to make any trade it wants, the owners have a right to approve or veto any proposed trade. That is what they did here. Just like any other owner in the league.
So where does NO go from here? What trade can they, can they not pursue? Demps kept the league office updated the entire time, and then they block it at the end. Demps had the leagues blessing to trade CP3. So this is ok because the other owners don't think the trade is good enough? That's subjective. What trade is good enough? How do they make a better deal going forward? If they didn't want this, then tell NO they can't trade CP3, period. But once Demps was given the go ahead to trade CP3, then nixing the deal looks horrible.
That's one of my biggest issues. Demps had the go ahead to trade CP3. So whether or not the deal got nixed, relies on the subjective opinion of the other owners, and whether they think the deal is good enough. So what is the better deal the owners would have preferred?
You say the deal wasn't good for NO. I think it was pretty good. But these again are subjective opinions. Where is the fine print, detailing what exactly would have been acceptable in a trade? The league knew NO/LA/Hou were working out this trade, and didn't step in. If dealing with LA was a problem, it should have been cut off weeks ago, when it was first mentioned. But then what, where the list of teams NO was allowed/not allowed to pursue trades with?
You say it's a bad deal for NO, and to protect the business at large, which is the NBA, the owners have the right to nix it. How good the deal is, again, is subjective. Yet, what isn't subjective, is that the NBA gave Demps the ok to trade CP3, and did not say he couldn't deal with the Lakers, which the NBA knew about. So if this was ok by the league, and Stern, to nix the deal, then their should be a list somewhere detailing what teams NO could trade with, which imo, is even worse.
That's one of my biggest issues. Demps had the go ahead to trade CP3. So whether or not the deal got nixed, relies on the subjective opinion of the other owners, and whether they think the deal is good enough. So what is the better deal the owners would have preferred?
You say the deal wasn't good for NO. I think it was pretty good. But these again are subjective opinions. Where is the fine print, detailing what exactly would have been acceptable in a trade? The league knew NO/LA/Hou were working out this trade, and didn't step in. If dealing with LA was a problem, it should have been cut off weeks ago, when it was first mentioned. But then what, where the list of teams NO was allowed/not allowed to pursue trades with?
You say it's a bad deal for NO, and to protect the business at large, which is the NBA, the owners have the right to nix it. How good the deal is, again, is subjective. Yet, what isn't subjective, is that the NBA gave Demps the ok to trade CP3, and did not say he couldn't deal with the Lakers, which the NBA knew about. So if this was ok by the league, and Stern, to nix the deal, then their should be a list somewhere detailing what teams NO could trade with, which imo, is even worse.
So, with Thornton at $8M and Hayes at 5M, that leaves us 4-5M to get to the floor. I'm guessing we sign someone like Powe to $2-3M and then try to get to the minimum with a deal closer to the end of the year. Wow, our young guys better show some amazing improvement (especially on the defensive end).
Sounds like the Mavs are going to sign Brandan Wright - my darkhorse FA for this year. They should provide a more stable platform for him to develop. Lots of skills, still only 24 y.o.
http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/12/brandan-wright-is-in-the-mavericks-house.html
http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/12/brandan-wright-is-in-the-mavericks-house.html
Now with Hayes and Thornton signed, I try and send JT to Phoenix for Robin Lopez+whatever else we can squeeze out of them.
Phoenix needs someone who can play next to Gortat that can actually rebound the ball, right now the choices for them at PF are Frye, Warrick, and the rookie Morris. Thompson would fit very well there. Lopez is more of a shotblocker defensively and fills the backup C role very well for us. While JT probably has a little more value than Lopez, for me it comes down to style of play and minutes. JT loses a lot of effectiveness when his minutes go down, and will likely be the one who loses the most minutes out of our bigs. Lopez is a better fit for this team as constructed to fill the backup C role, which is where JT will end up finding most of his minutes.
Phoenix needs someone who can play next to Gortat that can actually rebound the ball, right now the choices for them at PF are Frye, Warrick, and the rookie Morris. Thompson would fit very well there. Lopez is more of a shotblocker defensively and fills the backup C role very well for us. While JT probably has a little more value than Lopez, for me it comes down to style of play and minutes. JT loses a lot of effectiveness when his minutes go down, and will likely be the one who loses the most minutes out of our bigs. Lopez is a better fit for this team as constructed to fill the backup C role, which is where JT will end up finding most of his minutes.
Same ole story in Kingsland. Either we ahve o shotblocker, or when we do have won, he's the 4th or 5th big because Geoff apaprently thinks just having one anywhere on the roster is the same thing as having shotblocking.
Your shotblocker has to START, or at least rack up 25 min a night off the bench to count. Otherwise you don't have one.
Your shotblocker has to START, or at least rack up 25 min a night off the bench to count. Otherwise you don't have one.
*