Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 419
  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Yup, agreed.



    Between not trading for AD and then shipping Kyrie out because of some [insane things Kyrie has repeatedly said over several years] what is the master plan for restoring the Celtics to championship glory?
    Who knows what the master plan is. I certainly don’t. But if Irving does not commit long-term to the Celtics and SOON, get him the he## out of Boston.
    Last edited by Steven43; 02-01-2019 at 03:28 PM.

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Agreed. Whether or not Kyrie can become an effective leader is one of the most interesting pieces in the NBA puzzle these days. How he handles the rest of this season and his offseason will be very revealing.
    Yeah, I wasn't implying that he could never improve. In fact, it's almost a given that he will improve on his leadership skills because it's almost impossible to be worse than he has been this season. All of the passive aggressive behavior. Taking shots at his own teammates through post game comments to the media. Stirring the pot with rumors regarding his free agency. None of that helps his team, and only creates distractions. You just don't do these things if you want your team to succeed. All of that has be kept in house, and behind closed doors.

    I think the ideal team leader in the modern era of the NBA was Tim Duncan. You never heard Duncan ever call out a teammate in public. He made being boring an art, and that's probably the best way to do it.

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven43 View Post
    Who knows what the master plan is. I certainly don’t. But if Irving does not commit long-term to the Celtics and SOON, get him the he#% out of Boston.
    I will say that his recent quotes certainly aren't helping Boston. It sounds like Davis won't commit to re-signing with Boston because he doesn't think Irving will either. So quotes like "we'll see in July" don't help instill confidence. And that has implications for New Orleans. They really need Boston to be a trade partner in the summer in order to confidently turn down whatever LA can offer this week.

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven43 View Post
    Who knows what the master plan is. I certainly don’t. But if Irving does not commit long-term to the Celtics and SOON, get him the he## out of Boston.
    Why the "he##" would Kyrie do something that is not expected of any other pending free agent? Serious question: have you ever followed free agency before today? Star players routinely remain non-committal through the end of their contract. "Ask me July 1st" is probably the most normal thing Kyrie has said in awhile, haha.

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Why the "he##" would Kyrie do something that is not expected of any other pending free agent? Serious question: have you ever followed free agency before today? Star players routinely remain non-committal through the end of their contract. "Ask me July 1st" is probably the most normal thing Kyrie has said in awhile, haha.
    Well, with max free agents, I'm not sure it matters whether he says he wants to stay or not. He's going to sign for the max wherever he goes, whether that is the super-max with Boston or a lower max elsewhere.

    The reason to be more certain of his choice would be to help assure AD of Boston as a destination. The uncertainty he's creating now puts Boston and New Orleans in precarious positions with regards to a trade, as New Orleans needs to be confident Boston will bid big this summer in order to spurn offers now, Boston needs to be confident AD will sign in order to offer big, and AD needs Kyrie to be locked in to feel comfortable committing to Boston.

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Well, with max free agents, I'm not sure it matters whether he says he wants to stay or not. He's going to sign for the max wherever he goes, whether that is the super-max with Boston or a lower max elsewhere.
    I was under the impression that you could only do the supermax with the team who drafted you. Is that not the case?

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Well, with max free agents, I'm not sure it matters whether he says he wants to stay or not. He's going to sign for the max wherever he goes, whether that is the super-max with Boston or a lower max elsewhere.

    The reason to be more certain of his choice would be to help assure AD of Boston as a destination. The uncertainty he's creating now puts Boston and New Orleans in precarious positions with regards to a trade, as New Orleans needs to be confident Boston will bid big this summer in order to spurn offers now, Boston needs to be confident AD will sign in order to offer big, and AD needs Kyrie to be locked in to feel comfortable committing to Boston.
    THIS is what I was implying. You said it well.

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by kAzE View Post
    I was under the impression that you could only do the supermax with the team who drafted you. Is that not the case?
    Well, yes and no. You are eligible for the super max as long as you are on the team that you were on during your rookie contract. So a player traded during his rookie contract would be eligible for the supermax, so long as he met the other criteria of making an All-NBA team or PoY/DPoY. So, no, you don't have to have been with the team that drafted you, but yes Irving is not eligible for the supermax since he was on his second contract when he was traded to the Celtics.

    So, change my sentence to "max" instead of "supermax", as he isn't eligible for that.

  9. #209
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Why the "he##" would Kyrie do something that is not expected of any other pending free agent? Serious question: have you ever followed free agency before today? Star players routinely remain non-committal through the end of their contract. "Ask me July 1st" is probably the most normal thing Kyrie has said in awhile, haha.
    He made some foolish decisions in declaring that he planned on re-signing with the Celtics in front of season ticket holders, as well as filming a commercial at TD Garden saying he wanted his jersey in the rafters. So now, he's having to basically sabotage the public trust he built up with those moves, in order to create enough doubt to have leverage in contract negotiations (or least that's my theory).

    The best way to do this would be to remain noncommittal this entire time, and answer every question about free agency with "I am focused on this year's team, and pursuing a championship this season. I have not thought about free agency, and I don't plan on making a decision until this summer."

    If he does that, it's a non-story. But Kyrie loves being the talk of the NBA.
    Last edited by kAzE; 02-01-2019 at 05:05 PM.

  10. #210
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    The counterquestion to this is this: why shouldn't the players have the right to choose where they want to with and the power to influence their organization hiring who they want to work with? In any other industry in the US, that's how it works - the people with the most value/skill generally get to choose their place of employment and have sway over who works with them, while the people that don't matter much have to take what they can get. Only in sports do we find people complaining about players having control. It's a little weird to me.
    I see your general point, but I don't believe it's that simple. Often, people make this argument about employment rights (read: players vs owners). I don't explicitly care about that.

    What I care about is the fairness of competition, irrespective of who has the "power".

    In the vast, vast majority of industries in the U.S., companies and the related business context are complicated enough that single people don't change the balance of power as it relates to competition. There are too many forces and dynamics at play.

    In the NBA, one single player can change everything for a team. Only in sports do we find people complaining about players having control because sports (really, the NBA) are the only example I can think of where the power is so concentrated in a single person.

    If a U.S. company was driven by a singular employee having the right to make (nearly) all decisions, and that singular employee was able to lure the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc best employees so as to make a mega corporation that commanded all the business in an industry and all the revenues, I can darn well assure you that it wouldn't be "weird" for a ton of people to want to break up that company and not allow such a thing to happen, for the benefit of collective stakeholders throughout the industry (and world). But that doesn't really happen because businesses have developed into such complex organizations that they mostly require many people to operate them.

    So I don't view it as a rights issue. It gets boiled down to that, but my view is that's misdirected. The issue to me is fair and balanced competition - because this is sports and that's the point of it all - in theory - at least to me. Others may say it's only about entertainment, I guess, but I don't think athletes view their industry as explicitly entertainment - that's more of a byproduct of the competition.

    Anyway, this got away from NBA regular season - my question was originally legitimate and interested. I wanted to hear others' views on how the NBA has developed over time and what the future held for the NBA's business direction. But I guess I should have expected being indirectly labeled an "owner homer" that doesn't think players should have employment rights. Because why would anyone actually want to talk objectively about Lebron's legacy, the NBA's brand, and their combined go-forward impact on the next generation of NBA talent?

    - Chillin

  11. #211
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by ChillinDuke View Post
    I see your general point, but I don't believe it's that simple. Often, people make this argument about employment rights (read: players vs owners). I don't explicitly care about that.

    What I care about is the fairness of competition, irrespective of who has the "power".

    In the vast, vast majority of industries in the U.S., companies and the related business context are complicated enough that single people don't change the balance of power as it relates to competition. There are too many forces and dynamics at play.

    In the NBA, one single player can change everything for a team. Only in sports do we find people complaining about players having control because sports (really, the NBA) are the only example I can think of where the power is so concentrated in a single person.

    If a U.S. company was driven by a singular employee having the right to make (nearly) all decisions, and that singular employee was able to lure the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc best employees so as to make a mega corporation that commanded all the business in an industry and all the revenues, I can darn well assure you that it wouldn't be "weird" for a ton of people to want to break up that company and not allow such a thing to happen, for the benefit of collective stakeholders throughout the industry (and world). But that doesn't really happen because businesses have developed into such complex organizations that they mostly require many people to operate them.

    So I don't view it as a rights issue. It gets boiled down to that, but my view is that's misdirected. The issue to me is fair and balanced competition - because this is sports and that's the point of it all - in theory - at least to me. Others may say it's only about entertainment, I guess, but I don't think athletes view their industry as explicitly entertainment - that's more of a byproduct of the competition.

    Anyway, this got away from NBA regular season - my question was originally legitimate and interested. I wanted to hear others' views on how the NBA has developed over time and what the future held for the NBA's business direction. But I guess I should have expected being indirectly labeled an "owner homer" that doesn't think players should have employment rights. Because why would anyone actually want to talk objectively about Lebron's legacy, the NBA's brand, and their combined go-forward impact on the next generation of NBA talent?

    - Chillin
    Hmm, you don’t believe pro b-ball - where there is a salary cap designed to help build competitive balance - is following the spirit of fair competition, but you are a fan of college b-ball where the competitive balance is far worse?
    Last edited by CDu; 02-01-2019 at 06:43 PM.

  12. #212
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Hmm, you don’t believe pro b-ball - where there is a salary cap designed to help build competitive balance - is following the spirit of fair competition, but you are a fan of college b-ball where the competitive balance is far worse?
    Why do you seem to be talking down with introductions like "hmm"? I don't appreciate that, CDu.

    Context matters. The NBA may have more competitive balance than say the ACC vs the AEC. But within the ACC there's a decent ability for teams to surprise and the relatively shorter season makes for higher volatility. And of course a one game elimination tournament is much more volatile than a 7-game playoff series where the winner is many times a foregone conclusion.

    Anyway, I'm done with this as I don't really want to be talked down to and I sense that being the case. I was asking a legitimate question on the direction of the NBA and was interested in hearing responses until now.

    - Chillin

  13. #213
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by ChillinDuke View Post
    Why do you seem to be talking down with introductions like "hmm"? I don't appreciate that, CDu.

    Context matters. The NBA may have more competitive balance than say the ACC vs the AEC. But within the ACC there's a decent ability for teams to surprise and the relatively shorter season makes for higher volatility. And of course a one game elimination tournament is much more volatile than a 7-game playoff series where the winner is many times a foregone conclusion.

    Anyway, I'm done with this as I don't really want to be talked down to and I sense that being the case. I was asking a legitimate question on the direction of the NBA and was interested in hearing responses until now.

    - Chillin
    I wasn’t talking down to you, sorry if that is how you took it. I am genuinely confused by the thought process is all, and the “hmm” was me thinking out loud. I would also disagree that competitive balance within a conference than in the NBA. But my responses were/are intended to draw out more of the thought process and expand on the implications involved.

    Also, I kind of feel like my response WAS a continuation on the direction of the NBA. Because you can’t really disentangle the issue of players’ rights from the competitive balance issue. Either players have the right to choose where they work or they don’t. If you feel that star players shouldn’t be able to dictate where they work and who they work with in the interest of competitive balance, then isn’t that inherently saying you care more about competitive balance than players’ right to choose where they work?

    Also, I didn’t call you an “owner homer.” I just don’t think one can talk about competitive balance without talking about players’ rights. The two are inherently linked.

    So, to directly respond to your question, I am happy that LeBron has empowered the players. Because they are the reason people watch, and as such I feel like they should have control over something. Considering that the NBA has artificially restricted star players’ incomes (really, I think there should be no limit on what a player can make within the confines of the salary cap), I am glad that LeBron found a way to tilt the balance of power toward the players in some form.

  14. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    So, to directly respond to your question, I am happy that LeBron has empowered the players. Because they are the reason people watch, and as such I feel like they should have control over something. Considering that the NBA has artificially restricted star players’ incomes (really, I think there should be no limit on what a player can make within the confines of the salary cap), I am glad that LeBron found a way to tilt the balance of power toward the players in some f.
    Well, I don’t necessarily agree with the premise that players “are the reason people watch.” I think there are millions and millions of people who primarily watch because they have a favorite team and they root for them regardless of who is a member of said team. I am one of those people. I don’t just watch any random regular season NBA game just because it is on television, regardless of whether or not Lebron James or Anthony Davis or James Harden or Ben Simmons or Jimmy Butler or Russell Westbrook is playing.

    Yet I will watch a Boston Celtics regular season game no matter who is on their team. However, when the playoffs are on — particularly when the series favorite is playing at the home of the underdog — I will watch, but I don’t care all that much which players are involved. I like to watch important games where the outcome is in doubt. And for the record, what Lebron James started by making a big deal about going to Miami (The Decision was an obnoxious, arrogant travesty) and pulling players in with hm was probably the event I despise more than anything else in NBA history. And then he did it again when he self-servingly returned to Cleveland and again when he went to Los Angeles. And now we have the constant circus that we have, which I absolute do not like.

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven43 View Post
    And now we have the constant circus that we have, which I absolute do not like.
    *absolutely

    Somebody fix it, please. Bad things happen when I don’t proofread.

  16. #216
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven43 View Post
    THIS is what I was implying. You said it well.
    Wait, how does CDu's post that you are replying to here have anything to do with trading Kyrie if he doesn't commit to re-signing with Boston?

    We apparently share the superpower to imply. In that last sentence I just wrote, I was implying the full text of War and Peace :-)

    What you MEANT to say, I think, is "I overreacted initially and now realize that pending free agents rarely commit before the free agency start date since they enjoy the process of being recruited."

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    The reason to be more certain of his choice would be to help assure AD of Boston as a destination. The uncertainty he's creating now puts Boston and New Orleans in precarious positions with regards to a trade, as New Orleans needs to be confident Boston will bid big this summer in order to spurn offers now, Boston needs to be confident AD will sign in order to offer big, and AD needs Kyrie to be locked in to feel comfortable committing to Boston.
    Those commitments will occur in the offseason, in private conversations between AD, Kyrie, and the Celtics, not through the media in early February.

    Even if Kyrie told the media he was staying, AD and the Celtics need to operate like nothing is finalized until Kyrie's signature is on the dotted line.

    Quote Originally Posted by kAzE View Post
    He made some foolish decisions in declaring that he planned on re-signing with the Celtics in front of season ticket holders, as well as filming a commercial at TD Garden saying he wanted his jersey in the rafters.
    I agree with this. It's a bad look for Kyrie and is not endearing to the fans. But from a front office perspective, nothing changes. If Kyrie says he's staying, you have to operate as if there's a chance he could leave. If Kyrie says he's leaving, you have to operate as if there's a chance he could stay if you make transactions X, Y, Z.

    As Indoor66 said, truly we should not be hanging all over every word that comes out of these players' mouths. When Kyrie originally said he would re-sign, I would've bet like 10 pies that during the long NBA season, Kyrie would eventually say something more non-committal than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Hmm, you don’t believe pro b-ball - where there is a salary cap designed to help build competitive balance - is following the spirit of fair competition, but you are a fan of college b-ball where the competitive balance is far worse?
    Quote Originally Posted by ChillinDuke View Post
    And of course a one game elimination tournament is much more volatile than a 7-game playoff series where the winner is many times a foregone conclusion.
    I don't want to get into the other stuff (owners vs players), but yes, the NCAA Tournament is the great equalizer. You won't see anything like Mercer over Duke, Lehigh over Duke, UMBC over UVA in the NBA.

    The NBA is generally considered to be the most predictable sport of the major U.S. sports. For example, oddsmakers give the Warriors anywhere from a 60 to 75% chance of winning the title, and I can't disagree that they're at least a favorite against the field.

  17. #217
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Kyrie and Danny Ainge need to have a conversation...it may have happened already.

  18. #218
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    Kyrie and Danny Ainge need to have a conversation...it may have happened already.
    And the first words of the conversation need to be: "It's ROUND"

  19. #219
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Those commitments will occur in the offseason, in private conversations between AD, Kyrie, and the Celtics, not through the media in early February.

    Even if Kyrie told the media he was staying, AD and the Celtics need to operate like nothing is finalized until Kyrie's signature is on the dotted line.
    Except that you have omitted the first step in the equation here. AD, Irving, and the Celtics aren’t the only players here. New Orleans has to make a decision this week. They either need to deal him now (this week) or run the risk that Irving leaves Boston this summer and the Celtics are out of the AD sweepstakes. At that point, the Lakers could offer less for him knowing that they don’t have any serious competition. The more Irving is noncommittal about his future in Boston, the more New Orleans has to question their stance on waiting for the Celtics.

    Now, they may ultimately take that risk anyway. But why exacerbate the risk unnecessarily if you are Irving? You run the risk of pushing New Orleans into making a decision now and eliminating the opportunity for AD, Irving, and the Celtics to hash it out this summer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    I agree with this. It's a bad look for Kyrie and is not endearing to the fans. But from a front office perspective, nothing changes. If Kyrie says he's staying, you have to operate as if there's a chance he could leave. If Kyrie says he's leaving, you have to operate as if there's a chance he could stay if you make transactions X, Y, Z.
    Didn’t you just recently make a comment about why in the h$&! would Irving give up negotiating leverage by saying he would stay? This sounds contradictory to that.

    Basically, I see no upside in Irving being noncommittal. You piss off your fans. You at least somewhat weaken the probability that your current team will get AD. And what do you get in return? Nothing. Because Irving will sign for the max wherever he goes/stays.

  20. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Wait, how does CDu's post that you are replying to here have anything to do with trading Kyrie if he doesn't commit to re-signing with Boston?

    We apparently share the superpower to imply. In that last sentence I just wrote, I was implying the full text of War and Peace :-)

    What you MEANT to say, I think, is "I overreacted initially and now realize that pending free agents rarely commit before the free agency start date since they enjoy the process of being recruited."
    Maybe you’re right; I don’t know for sure. I don’t really feel motivated to go back and analyze what was previously written. I’ll just take your word on this one.

Similar Threads

  1. GT to play a regular-season game in China next season
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-11-2016, 01:03 PM
  2. ACC Regular Season Title Thread
    By uh_no in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-18-2016, 12:49 PM
  3. The Battle For ACC Regular Season
    By RockyMtDevil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 03-01-2011, 10:40 AM
  4. Clinching the acc regular season
    By Surfsideron in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 06:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •