Nothing, which is why extend-and-trades should've been one of the first things on the chopping block.What the hell do the Knicks have to even offer?
yet the league could have stopped it all and didn't because the nba doesn't want a competitive balance they want max revenue.
What the hell do the Knicks have to even offer?
Yet the league could have stopped it all and didn't because the NBA doesn't want a competitive balance they want max revenue.
I don't think I've said they never wanted parity, but it's obvious parity was a secondary issue.Melo and Amare.
Actually, I'd say it's a half-truth. Of course they want max revenue, but there ARE changes in the new CBA that address competetive balance. Did they acheive everything they wanted? No, but they did make an effort towards parity, and in order to avoid losing the season, the owners had to give on some issues. IMO, the idea that they never had any intention of seeking competetive balance is a myth that people just like to repeat because they've read it a thousand times on the internet. Now that some of the details are coming out, it's time for people to check their facts, rather than just repeat things.
https://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one
How does this pertain to the Chris Paul situation?Nothing, which is why extend-and-trades should've been one of the first things on the chopping block.
If Chris Paul tells the Hornets he is going to the Knicks whether he's extended or not, and the Hornets are forced to believe him, then they are forced to take hardly anything back instead of nothing at all.How does this pertain to the Chris Paul situation?