Hmm. Since when have Dallas, Portland or the Spurs been a farm team for another team? There's actually been a surprising degree of loyalty in those teams. And, to be fair, I think there's a provision in the CBA that allows teams to sign a "star player" to a better contract than they could get elsewhere (and the old Bird Rule did that, too). It's ironic that they're encouraging "loyalty" with more money, and people like LeBron, who leave for less money get demonized for wanting to go where they want and be with their friends. (Of course the Clippers are everybody's farm team. As Frank Isola tweeted - is it too early to start talking about Blake Griffin forcing his way to the Knicks?) And for all New York's allure - when did it last have a good team?
great points rasta. They did try to make it more enticing for one player to stay with their current franchise. Not quite the level of a franchise tag, but a big financial boost. And guys are sacrificing money for a chance to win/play with friends. It's actually very funny to me that a group of athletes that for so long have been criticized for just being about the money are now criticized for taking less money and wanting to play with their friends. And, I imagine, that those criticisms would never be made if there was, say, no salary cap, and Paul Allen was able to buy up every one of those guys and did.
What do you mean? I don't think it's a fan issue, I think the current NBA teams (especially the Clippers - but it would serve Sterling right) would squeal about it because once you get demoted your team won't be hosting LeBron James and Kobe Bryant any time soon, and fans are much less likely to show up. So you'd need to shed players to stay profitable. But that would make the other twenty teams better, and the quality of NBA play would rise. But wouldn't it be great to punish the Clippers for their policy of sucking but making a profit?
trade him to fucking toronto, fuck him if teams called these players bluffs once in awhile things would be so much easier. keep him, and let him walk for less money if he wants. you really think cp3 would leave 30 something MILLION on the table with his knees? no fucking way
+1. With the garbage the Knicks have to offer, I would imagine there'd be a few teams able to offer just as much that would be fine with him being a 1 year rental, with a potential push for a title, and maybe you sign him in offseason, or S&T.
Trade him to Boston for Rondo or let him take what little cap space the Knicks will have next Summer (2012).
boston wont trade rondo without being able to extend cp3 but yes, make these fuckers put their money where their mouth is
According to this, the NFL is the richest sports league. But that's not the same as the most popular. (Note that American Football is below Volleyball and Field Hockey in worldwide popularity.) Also:
No one was bitching when we were gonna have a healthy super team of Roy, Aldridge, and Oden. And players have demanded trades since the beginning of time. This is no big deal. Just cuz he asks to be traded to NY, it doesn't mean they have to do it. Furthermore, who says a Paul/Melo/Amare team is any good? Without Paulhey got swept last year in the first round cuz they can't rebound or defend. I don't think Paul solves all their problems. I would take a healthy roster of our players over the Paul/Melo/Amare Knicks every day of the week.
i dont care about super teams, but if players want to be on a certain team, they should just sign there
Good for him. But the only way he's gonna get there is with a S&T, and NOH won't like what NYK offers. NO can just look for other trades.
And they already have -- (Per Twitter) They (N.O.) let GSW know that if they trade CP3 they like Steph Curry.
First of all, the inmate comparison is racist but besides that, NO can trade Paul to whichever team they want. Paul has no control over that.
