2013-2014 NBA Thread - IND @ WAS and OKC @ LAC on ESPN

Status
Not open for further replies.
 
 
David Stern was 100% right about basketball reasons.
explain 
You can't come out of a lockout where one of the main points was keeping stars in small markets, then proceed to have one of the best players in the league traded to LA.
laugh.gif
but you can veto a trade sending one of the best players in the league to LA only to allow one of the best players in the league get traded to LA? 
nerd.gif
 
David Stern was 100% right about basketball reasons.
explain 
You can't come out of a lockout where one of the main points was keeping stars in small markets, then proceed to have one of the best players in the league traded to LA. :lol:

i mean, he still ended up in LA though. I thought the real reason they killed that deal was because they wanted to find the best deal for New Orleans to help facilitate the sale of the team.
 
no one can convince me otherwise that the lakers didn't get jobbed in that veto.

all parties agreed, and all parties benefited. for all we know, the pelicans would still have ended up with AD (if you all think that trade was as horrible as you say), and instead of eric gordon and austin rivers, they would have dragic.
 
Last edited:
SMH Doug Collins its time to let MJ go. The only pre/post game show I watch for ANY sport is TNTs NBA coverage. I turn to ESPN to check out their NBA coverage and to see how Bill Simmons is on tv, and less than 5 seconds after turning it on Doug is starting a story on how he coached Michael Jordan before. :smh:

Never going to stop.

The highlight of Doug Collins life was getting to watch MJ play day in day out in his 20's.
 
David Stern was 100% right about basketball reasons.
explain 
You can't come out of a lockout where one of the main points was keeping stars in small markets, then proceed to have one of the best players in the league traded to LA. :lol:

i mean, he still ended up in LA though. I thought the real reason they killed that deal was because they wanted to find the best deal for New Orleans to help facilitate the sale of the team.

He gave Demps the right to make any move he saw fit.

That's the move he made. Each team agreed.

Wasn't until a few of the other 27 teams whined about it, asking for a vote on what other NBA teams can do like that makes any damn sense.
 
Last edited:
well, thank god he did. i could not deal if i had nene and gasol on my team, and not harden and howard :lol:
 
 
 
David Stern was 100% right about basketball reasons.
explain 
You can't come out of a lockout where one of the main points was keeping stars in small markets, then proceed to have one of the best players in the league traded to LA. :lol:
but you can veto a trade sending one of the best players in the league to LA only to allow one of the best players in the league get traded to LA? :nerd:

GOT EM
 
Well I mean, the other 28 teams in the league owed a part of the team too.

So they had every right to whine and vote against the trade.

It is what it is.
 
 
 
 
David Stern was 100% right about basketball reasons.
explain 
You can't come out of a lockout where one of the main points was keeping stars in small markets, then proceed to have one of the best players in the league traded to LA.
laugh.gif
i mean, he still ended up in LA though. I thought the real reason they killed that deal was because they wanted to find the best deal for New Orleans to help facilitate the sale of the team.
the real reason was human filth dan gilbert crying about how unfair it is for the lakers to get a big name player when he had just lost lebron.

the gm at the time made a trade in the best interest of the organization and the only reason they could come up with to veto it was "basketball reasons"
 
Jason Whitlock likes to write anti black articles or minimize the relevance of race in the world in the world all the times and tell black people to deal with it, been his gimmick ever since he 180 degrees switched it up after getting fired from ESPN.

So at one time, he was the average NTer?
 
Last edited:
 
 
David Stern was 100% right about basketball reasons.
explain 
You can't come out of a lockout where one of the main points was keeping stars in small markets, then proceed to have one of the best players in the league traded to LA. :lol:
but you can veto a trade sending one of the best players in the league to LA only to allow one of the best players in the league get traded to LA? :nerd:

GOT EM
Well if I'm trying to sell a team I'm using young players, cap flexibility and draft picks over Odom, Scola, Martin and Dragic. :lol:
 
Perhaps, but it's just hilarious with him because he was the opposite guy at ESPN then he gets a job with Fox Sports and now Serena Williams is fat, we're all thugs, j****boos, baffoons, etc. and rap is to blame of course for all the world's ailes. He has even admitted that he loves when he gets fan mail from white readers who applaud him for saying things they "can't"say lest they be accused of being raci.
 
exactly. would have been much tougher to sell the team with those players. vetoed the deal to make the sale easier. and like what was posted above, every team owned a share, i see no problem.
 
serious question.

how much of the NBA's growth and popularity can be attributed to the internet? Does anyone else feel like David Stern just happened to be at the right place at the right time?

also, **** him for allowing seattle to be robbed.

I agree on the last point obviously. But I think you have to give the NBA credit for how proactively they've approached international expansion and the use of digital tools.
 
exactly. would have been much tougher to sell the team with those players. vetoed the deal to make the sale easier. and like what was posted above, every team owned a share, i see no problem.
it would have been fine if they kept CP3 till the team was sold but to trade him anyways after vetoing a trade was BS. its not like the other teams cared at all about the hornets, everyone just wanted what was best for their team and that meant preventing the lakers from winning more titles. they were okay with sending him to the clippers because they would never pose a threat to winning an NBA championship. the veto had nothing to do with what was best for the hornets, if they wanted the best team for a sales pitch they would have just kept CP3
 
exactly. would have been much tougher to sell the team with those players. vetoed the deal to make the sale easier. and like what was posted above, every team owned a share, i see no problem.

Wouldn't have made the sale more difficult at all.

No team should have a say in what another team does. That is absurd. Owned by NBA or not, it is ridiculous to allow another team the say how a team conducts business. Those teams will act in their own interests, not anyone else's.

As sea manup sea manup posted.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom