NBA Offseason Thread

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

Lawrence Frank is a better coach than Jordan though.

 

In your opinion, but as a Nets fan, I strongly dissagree.

 

Despite what you may think, Eddie Jordan had more part in the Nets succes then Byron Scott. Even ask Jason Kidd. His system that he build around Kidd with the fast break was awesome. He's very good about keying in on his stars players succes. Look at Arenas.

 

Frank is good no doubt, but I just feel his time has ran up, and we should get a new coach.

 

Are you retarded? He's coached 2.5 years, and got a Nets team with no bench to 49 wins. His time hasn't ran up at all, as Ripper said, he's doing the best he could with what he's been given.

 

And Frank's a better coach then Jordan, I love the Nets, but the years they made it to the Finals were awful years for the East.

 

Stop with your childish insults...

 

Eddie Jordan never had Vince Carter or Kristic on his team either so it works both ways.

[Precious Roy 0]

If I'm the Clippers, I'd take the trade, but leave Livingston out. Trade someone else like Simmons or Cassell.

 

I think Livingston is going to be a great PG for the years to come.

 

Simmons couldn't go because he's been on the Bucks for a year, but I get what you are saying. Cassell, I wouldn't part with. I like all the guys on the Clippers and I think Shaun Livingston will be big in the league, but without Cassell, the Clippers would not have been in the playoffs last year. If he had left this offseason, I think they would've been dead in the water. His role on the Clippers this year was very similar to Nash on the Suns, IMO.

 

The point is that nobody in their right mind would give up Livingston AND Maggette for Allen Iverson. They shouldn't be trading Livingston AT ALL. The kid is like 20 yrs old, 2 years into a rookie deal, and showing huge potential. He's a natural PG and very good defender with great size for the position, and most of all he's just got great feel for the game, the kind of shit you can't teach. In the Clippers' situation, do you give that up for a guy with a monster contract who's never really won anything and realistically is about to see the back-end of his prime? Iverson is an amazing player, but he hasn't even been able to take his teams to the playoffs lately. Not to mention that you're giving up Maggette in the deal (who has a contract they want to move anyway), but still. I would think it's a big stretch for the Clippers to take that deal, and anyone suggesting they offer less is insane. The West/Jefferson/Green/bad contract for AI/scrubs rumours were bad enough.

 

As far as Arenas goes, he's a unique talent, but not talented enough that he could carry a team to a championship. He needs a great big man to play off of, like a Dwight Howard or healthy Amare, and unfortunately I think the lack of that is going to hinder Washington for most of his career. Having watched him since college I think what he's doing in the pros is incredible, I love his game, but I don't know, he's never going to be a winner in the playoffs with his style without the right guys on his team. I like the Wizards' roster, but it's not really the right mix to compliment him

[bob_barron 0]

You're the one who said Frank's time has up when he's only been there for 2.5 seasons!

 

I watched some of the Cleveland-Washington series and I thought Eddie Jordan did a pretty poor job. He's not a bad coach, but I think Frank is better and I hope he coaches the Nets for a long time.

[alfdogg 0]

I don't think Frank's as good as a lot of people might want to say, but I'd still probably hire him before Jordan, particularly after the debacle against Cleveland. There was no reason for Washington not to win that series.

 

And you can hate Scott all you want, but he's done a really good job with the Hornets. It takes more than just a standout rookie season to improve by 20 wins. They've got a solid chance at a playoff spot this season, something I'd bet no one expected from them just three years after moving to the West.

[Just John 0]

Precious Roy:

 

I think it's unfair to say the Clippers getting AI is bad because he's never won anything. At what time in the last few years has he had the team around him to even have a shot? I know they went to the Finals in 2001, but that wasn't a great year for the East and no one gave them a shot against the Lakers. Putting Cassell, Brand, Kaman, and Tim Thomas around him is better than Webber, Korver, Dalembert, and Igoudala. I like the last two, but there's no question the Clippers are putting a much better team on the floor than anything AI's been with his whole career.

 

I understand people's concern about trading Livingston, but I think getting AI kind of follows the Heat's strategy of "win now, worry later." I guess it depends on if you think a really good shot of winning now is better or worse than a handful of decent opportunities later. I think the window of opportunity is small, and you need to capitalize while Brand is in his prime, and Cassell can still contribute. Unless Livingston becomes a top 5 player in the NBA within the next 5 years, the Clippers don't have much of a shot with their current lineup. They'll be like the 90's Pacers... Perrenial contenders, but never getting over the hump.

[alfdogg 0]

If Chris Webber really cared about winning something, he would have opted out and worked out a deal for less money. They can't afford to bring anyone worthwhile in while he eats up over a third of the cap, and he'll be impossible to move. If I were AI, I'd be pissed at him.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

An article just appeared on espn.com reporting that the Seattle Sonics have been sold to an investment group out of Oklahoma City. Details are unclear regarding a potential move to OKC for the Sonics.

[Guest Felonies!]

Why did they do that? Oklahoma City already has a permanent team.

[nogoodnick 0]

SEATTLE -- A group from Oklahoma City has agreed to buy the Seattle SuperSonics and the Seattle Storm, a source with the Sonics said Tuesday.

 

The team scheduled a 3 p.m. press conference to announce the sale officially, and the source indicated the new ownership group plans to keep the Sonics and Storm in the Seattle region.

 

The Basketball Club of Seattle -- owners of the NBA Sonics and WNBA Storm -- would not officially comment until the press conference.

 

According to a report in The Seattle Times, the group is led by businessman Clay Bennett, who was previously on the San Antonio Spurs' board of directors and also helped attract the New Orleans Hornets to Oklahoma City after Hurricane Katrina.

 

In February, majority owner Howard Schultz threatened to move or sell the city's oldest major league professional sports franchise, saying the team has lost about $60 million in the past five years and blaming a revenue-sharing lease at KeyArena with the city of Seattle that lasts until 2010.

 

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

Why did they do that? Oklahoma City already has a permanent team.

 

No they don't. The Hornets are returning to NO fulltime after this season. Infact they are playing some games in NO this season.

[Damaramu 0]

They're playing 6 games in NO. The players and ownership want them to stay in OKC. NO won't be ready to support them in 2 years. They need to stay in OKC and in the end that's probably where they're going to end up.

I doubt anybody here wants the Sonics after we've had the Hornets. It'd be a case of "Oh you all have Hornets merchandise and are Hornets fans? Too bad! Buy Sonics stuff!"

 

Putting another team in OKC right after the Hornets would ruin the city as an NBA market.

[Guest Felonies!]

At the end of the year they'll probably just backpedal and say "unfortunately New Orleans is not ready yet" and that'll be that.

 

Dama is right, it's not going to work if you yank their team away and hand them a new one. If they're invested in the Hornets after two years, you can't expect them to just become Supersonics fans. It's unfair the way Oklahoma City is being jerked around.

[goldengreek 0]

If Chris Webber really cared about winning something, he would have opted out and worked out a deal for less money. They can't afford to bring anyone worthwhile in while he eats up over a third of the cap, and he'll be impossible to move. If I were AI, I'd be pissed at him.

Would YOU do that?? Comon now, dont be silly!

[Darthtiki 0]

KC will have a new building for either the Sonics or the return of the Kings in a couple years

[alfdogg 0]

If Chris Webber really cared about winning something, he would have opted out and worked out a deal for less money. They can't afford to bring anyone worthwhile in while he eats up over a third of the cap, and he'll be impossible to move. If I were AI, I'd be pissed at him.

Would YOU do that?? Comon now, dont be silly!

You're right. I forgot, he has to feed his family.

[Damaramu 0]

KC will have a new building for either the Sonics or the return of the Kings in a couple years

 

Yeah but if the Hornets are taken away then OKC will be the first to get a team.....before KC or Vegas.

 

Although I think Stern would balk on his word about OKC to give a team to Vegas.

[teke184 0]

KC will have a new building for either the Sonics or the return of the Kings in a couple years

 

Yeah but if the Hornets are taken away then OKC will be the first to get a team.....before KC or Vegas.

 

Although I think Stern would balk on his word about OKC to give a team to Vegas.

 

Stern balking depends on how well things continue to go with OKC until the Hornets return to New Orleans.

 

If they still have constant sellouts, they'd get the team because they'd have a proven track-record of selling tickets for an NBA franchise.

 

 

Las Vegas would be tempting for sure, but the city has no track record when it comes to professional sports teams.

 

While there is definitely a corporate base to support such a team, I'd be more concerned about selling season tickets and then putting butts in seats. I'd be worried that there would be an inordinate number of "papered" seats provided by the casinos rather than there being a solid fan-base.

[Guest]

Kansas City is building a BEAUTIFUL arena. They're getting a team in the NBA or the NHL for sure.

[Guest Felonies!]

I heard the NHL is gonna block a Penguins move, so I wouldn't count on the NHL. Plus, it's not like Kansas City is a hockey town. Scouts lasted what, two years?

[the max 0]

I heard the NHL is gonna block a Penguins move, so I wouldn't count on the NHL. Plus, it's not like Kansas City is a hockey town. Scouts lasted what, two years?

 

Yeah, in 1974-76. The owners were in debt and moved the team. I wouldn't call something thirty years ago indictative of a market.

[Precious Roy 0]

Precious Roy:

 

I think it's unfair to say the Clippers getting AI is bad because he's never won anything. At what time in the last few years has he had the team around him to even have a shot? I know they went to the Finals in 2001, but that wasn't a great year for the East and no one gave them a shot against the Lakers. Putting Cassell, Brand, Kaman, and Tim Thomas around him is better than Webber, Korver, Dalembert, and Igoudala. I like the last two, but there's no question the Clippers are putting a much better team on the floor than anything AI's been with his whole career.

 

I understand people's concern about trading Livingston, but I think getting AI kind of follows the Heat's strategy of "win now, worry later." I guess it depends on if you think a really good shot of winning now is better or worse than a handful of decent opportunities later. I think the window of opportunity is small, and you need to capitalize while Brand is in his prime, and Cassell can still contribute. Unless Livingston becomes a top 5 player in the NBA within the next 5 years, the Clippers don't have much of a shot with their current lineup. They'll be like the 90's Pacers... Perrenial contenders, but never getting over the hump.

 

I didn't say it was bad because he hasn't taken the 76ers anywhere lately, I said it was bad because of what they'd be giving up in the deal. But you have to take Iverson's resume into account.

 

I understand having a win now mentality, but this is a 31 yr old who's probably on the verge of slowing or breaking down. Somebody somewhere had a good point about players like AI....Isiah, Nate Archibald....who lost it around his age. I'm not sure how much I buy into that in his case, but it's a definite risk, and he has had a history of injury. Usually he plays through it, but that won't last forever. And are you convinced that you can win with him? The potential of that team would be very high for sure, but does it make you better than Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix.....maybe, maybe not, and the window would become considerably smaller as Cassell/Iverson have a ton of miles on them.

 

I mean, I do understand why one would be tempted to make the deal, but Shaun Livingston has the potential to be a very special player in the league for a long time. He's 20 years old. He's got a LOT of ball left in him. Top 5? Probably not. Top 10 or so? Definitely. And is Iverson, right now, a top 5 player? Top 10? I'm not so sure. I can think of at least 10 guys I'd rather have than him.

 

I wouldn't do it. I think a core of Brand, Livingston, Kaman, Maggette is something you can build around and be a perenially good team with. I wouldn't give that up for one, maybe two shots at a title when you could be a dominant team for 5 or 6 years with those guys, maybe more.

 

Now, do you want Allen Iverson on your team? Of course you do. Not only is he a highly skilled and mentally tough player but he's a huge draw in the league. He sells jerseys, he sells tickets, he brings media attention. But do you give up great young talent for him? It's the same reason the Celtics haven't pulled the trigger. The 6ers want some combination of Al Jefferson/Sebastian Telfair/Delonte West/Gerald Green. It's too high a price.

[Just John 0]

I see your point. We just fall on different sides of the win now or later question.

 

I think the best thing AI would bring is the fact that he's a game-changer which is something the Clippers don't really have. You kinda had Brand and Cassell alternating in pressure situations, but they didn't have someone who could take over at any point. A game-changer is what the Clippers need to get over the hump. It gives them a a big first option, and it's not like anyone could double him because there's too many other good shooters around. Everyone on the team would be able to get better looks because there would be so many scoring threats and guys who can beat you one on one. The team would become devastating on the offensive end. I think that would put them over the Suns for sure, and give them a pretty good shot at beating Dallas or SA. Don't forget, it's not just AI that puts the Clippers over, it's AI + Brand, Cassell, Kaman, and Thomas. That team matches up pretty well with any of the bigs in the West.

[Damaramu 0]

Kansas City is building a BEAUTIFUL arena. They're getting a team in the NBA or the NHL for sure.

 

Doesn't matter how beautiful it is they're still not getting an NBA team before OKC.

[alfdogg 0]

Suns agree with Marcus Banks on a 5 yr/$21 million deal.

[Maztinho 0]

KC will have a new building for either the Sonics or the return of the Kings in a couple years

 

Yeah but if the Hornets are taken away then OKC will be the first to get a team.....before KC or Vegas.

 

Although I think Stern would balk on his word about OKC to give a team to Vegas.

 

Stern balking depends on how well things continue to go with OKC until the Hornets return to New Orleans.

 

If they still have constant sellouts, they'd get the team because they'd have a proven track-record of selling tickets for an NBA franchise.

 

 

Las Vegas would be tempting for sure, but the city has no track record when it comes to professional sports teams.

 

While there is definitely a corporate base to support such a team, I'd be more concerned about selling season tickets and then putting butts in seats. I'd be worried that there would be an inordinate number of "papered" seats provided by the casinos rather than there being a solid fan-base.

 

Vegas would support a team pretty well. Going off XFL (yeah, yeah, I know) they where the only team to consistantly sell-out games through out that whole season. Plus they support UNLV which is usually pretty hit and miss.

[CanadianChris 0]

If Oklahoma City is considered able to support a team, then Las Vegas certainly is. They have a larger population (and still growing) and a higher median household income.

[Damaramu 0]

Yeah well I never said they couldn't support a team. I'm saying that OKC is first in line for a new team if the Hornets leave. Before Vegas and before KC. OKC would have a team before any other city IF(and that's a big if) the Hornets leave.

[alfdogg 0]

The Knicks aren't going to match for Jackie Butler. Good addition for the Spurs. I don't think they'll miss Rasho or Mohammed, especially if they end up getting Elson, too.

[Ripper 0]

I say its a upgrade actually.

 

I am still torn on the Marcus Banks to Phoenix deal. On one had, he is what Barbosa is already, only better defensively....on the other hand, 4 mil a year on a back up point when the suns have lost in the conference finals two years straight due to lack of depth at the two guard spot.

 

I will have to wait on my decision on this one.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

Rockets traded some cash and a bag of practice balls to NO for Kirk Snyder. Also agreed on a 3 year contract with last year's 2nd round pick, Vassilis Spanoulis.