What's new
By:
Filters

Dwill quote - seriously?

Mantis said:
I think you are wrong here, look at what their biggest-market team did over the last few years - the New York Knicks unashamedly offered up a sub-standard product due to their merciless salary dumping in pursuit of LBJ's signature. They ended up with Amare and Felton instead, so they are at least decent this year, but their years of mediocrity could not have been good for the Knicks' bottom line. Would they have done that knowing they couldn't get either LBJ or Amare?

My other thoughts on this matter: There is also the effect the Douchision has on the "integrity" (term used under advisement) of the Draft. Cleveland tanked unmercilessly in order to give themselves the best chance at landing LBJ in the draft. Their reward is a single Finals appearance, the loss their star player for nothing except an effectively worthless trade exception, and a return to exactly where they were before his arrival, last-place mediocrity. And over the years, many, many other teams have had to endure the "Where will he go when his contract expires?" speculation with their star players. It happened with Duncan and the Spurs, it happened with the Cavs and LBJ and us and Bozzer and the Suns and Amare, etc, etc, this year its Melo, and we're also getting chatter already about CP3, DWill, Dwight Howard, etc, etc years before their contracts expire. Why are the sports pages filled with this stuff instead of the actual product on the floor?

The other thing the new rules will hopefully stop is this foolishness about trading players because of their contracts. Remember how Raef LaFrentz was always talked about as a valuable trade chip because of his contract, even though he hadn't played for years. We traded away Maynor just to get rid of Harpring's contract. Toronto hung onto Stojakovic for ages in case they could use his contract (as distinct from him) in a trade. Dampier's unique contract was the subject of so many articles over summer because IT was valuable even though he was worth so little as a player. We all know about AK's contract. And so on.
Click to expand...

So what part was I wrong about in your opinion? Because I really wish but don't think what he suggested has any chance at happening.

And it's not even a question that the league wants the big market teams to succeed the most. Hell a few years ago they made a rule allowing teams out of a contract with regards to salary cap just so the Knicks could shed Allan Houston's salary.

That big market team is owned by terrible owners who hired some really bad GM's. The league tried to help them out and they still screwed it up. You can't fix stupid even when you try. Also they dumped salaries so they would be bad for 1 more year so that they could get better. Look at that it worked at least they are getting a little smarter.

I fully agree with your last 2 paragraphs. Guaranteed contracts in the NBA need to be gotten rid of. That would solve all of your problems in the last paragraph. A hard salary cap would solve most of the problems in your 2nd paragraph. I don't know if the NBA owner's will hold out for both of those things but they absolutely should. My point was I don't think the owner's really want to make the playing field even. When the big market teams are good they believe there is more money coming in from TV. Make the changes that should be made and all of the sudden it's an even playing field and the odds of having dynasties for their big markets go down drastically.
 
gregbroncs said:
To me this is good for the Jazz. Because he definitely has less spotlight on him here than say if he went to the Laker's or Knicks. Dwill is not the best personality to have as the leader of your team. You need an outgoing guy that has respect of the players and can also communicate with them.

That said he can still be the #1 guy on a team if you have another 1A guy that can be more of the leader off of the court and in the locker room.
Click to expand...

here here !!

Joe Bagadonuts said:
Guaranteed contracts are the NBA's biggest problem.
Click to expand...

here here !!
 
Kinda hard to completely eliminate guaranteed contracts.
I'd do this:
I would make Free Agency available only to 10-year NBA vets; it's way too easy to become a FA these days, IMO. Keeping the draft and establishing a HARD salary cap are crucial in keeping small-market teams competitive in getting top-tier players, IMO.
So, even if a player's contract is up, he would still only be able to negotiate a new contract with his last team, unless he'd completed 10 years in the NBA. After 10 years, he could negotiate with any team that wanted to sign him.
And, if a player with less than 10 years decides to go play overseas leaving an NBA offer on the table, I'd have a rule such that a player who did this would be ineligible to return to the NBA.
I also like the compensatory pick idea the NFL uses when free agents leave a team. It's really not fair for a team to lose a free agent and get nothing in return. I'd add these compensatory picks to the end of the first round; anybody who's played 10 years in the NBA has to be a good player.
Yeah, I know the players union wouldn't like any of this <grin>...
 
NotDeadYet said:
Kinda hard to completely eliminate guaranteed contracts.
I'd do this:
I would make Free Agency available only to 10-year NBA vets; it's way too easy to become a FA these days, IMO. Keeping the draft and establishing a HARD salary cap are crucial in keeping small-market teams competitive in getting top-tier players, IMO.
So, even if a player's contract is up, he would still only be able to negotiate a new contract with his last team, unless he'd completed 10 years in the NBA. After 10 years, he could negotiate with any team that wanted to sign him.
And, if a player with less than 10 years decides to go play overseas leaving an NBA offer on the table, I'd have a rule such that a player who did this would be ineligible to return to the NBA.
I also like the compensatory pick idea the NFL uses when free agents leave a team. It's really not fair for a team to lose a free agent and get nothing in return. I'd add these compensatory picks to the end of the first round; anybody who's played 10 years in the NBA has to be a good player.
Yeah, I know the players union wouldn't like any of this <grin>...
Click to expand...

I like the compensatory pick idea. The rest of what you said would be harder to get than non-guaranteed contracts.
 
udflyer said:
""I don't like being in the spotlight," Williams said, "and this put a lot of attention on me and I don't like it.""

I've been thinking about this since Sloan resigned.

IMO we need to rebuild with a different leader than Dwill

From day 1 when ripping Hayward in public to always whining about the team after losses he doesn't want to say anything to anybody or he will be the bad guy

This quote blows my mind especially when he was a major factor, IMO

Dwill is a great #2 guy, like Pippen who needed Jordan
Click to expand...

Link?
 
gregbroncs said:
I like the compensatory pick idea. The rest of what you said would be harder to get than non-guaranteed contracts.
Click to expand...

Compensatory picks used to be given in the NBA. Off the top of my head, that's how the Gail Goodrich/pick that became Magic Johnson worked. The question with granting compensatory picks is protections because giving unprotected picks is kind of outrageous. So I think the protection given should be granted on a scale related to the contract size of the player lost. Vet minimums contracts have no picks attached, while max players are unprotected, for example.

But that whole thing might be kind of tricky to work. I like it, though, in addition to shorter guaranteed contracts, but I don't think owners deserve or need more BRI percentages. The fewer Larry Hughes and Andrei Kirilenko's in this league that owners have to deal with and cry themselves to sleep every night over, the better off everyone will be. Especially fans disgusted with the NBA. And I know this is frequently derided, but the franchise tag would go a hell of a long way.

If the owners could get a franchise tag and shorter guaranteed contracts (3 year maximum, for example) and trade it for giving up some BRI (two points?), I think that would be good for everyone (except the parasites).
 
gregbroncs said:
To me this is good for the Jazz. Because he definitely has less spotlight on him here than say if he went to the Laker's or Knicks. Dwill is not the best personality to have as the leader of your team. You need an outgoing guy that has respect of the players and can also communicate with them.

That said he can still be the #1 guy on a team if you have another 1A guy that can be more of the leader off of the court and in the locker room.
Click to expand...
Agree. Malone was the outspoken guy. Stockton was the quiet leader.
Deron always let Boozer be the spotlight guy. This season, Bell has been a bit more outgoing.

I don't think he'd feel any more pressure in LA, Dallas, etc. Those teams all have established superstars. Sure, Deron would get his share of attention, but it wouldn't be overwhelming. If he leaves, it's not because he feels too much pressure. Personally, I think he's off to Dallas once his contract is up.
 
gregbroncs said:
So what part was I wrong about in your opinion?
Click to expand...
"The league likes giving the advantage to big market teams. It's good for their bottom line." It isn't. TV revenue means a lot, but it isn't enough on its own. Each team relies heavily on the revenue it generates through its stadium. Look at the issues cited by teams who relocate - Sonics, Hornets, Grizzlies, Clippers, even the Jazz. Poor stadium deals/ticket sales/sales of corporate seats. This is true even of big-market teams, except they are less likely to play to half-empty stadiums even when they are bad because of the size of the population base they draw upon. However, ticket sales (and consequent income from concessions, etc) are dependent on the quality of the visiting team - compare sales when the Cavs are the visitors this year compared to last, for an example. Yet fixed costs (rent, utilities, payroll) are the same. Owners would prefer 30 teams of much closer standard than current, simply to be able to present a quality product every night and guarantee a stable cashflow, instead of hoping they make enough when the Heat visit to cover their losses when the Cavs come to town.
 
You know what the true irony of the LeBron/Heat hate is?

That it wasn't manipulated by LeBron, but rather by Stern years earlier. Everybody knows how corrupt both the Gasol and KG trades were, pushed through by Stern's regime and resulting in a "dream" Finals matchup the last two out of three seasons.

Both LA and Boston are stacked. And have been ever since those trades. Without KG being injured in 09, we're likely looking at a three-fer of Finals matchups for those franchises.

A guy like LeBron not only sees this, but suffers from it, and decides to collude with two other star players. Suddenly, there's a media firestorm, one that has been raging since last July. One that has defined arguments against players and questioning of the NBA model throughout the season.

But why weren't these questions asked about the trades that rejuvenated the Lakers and Celtics? Oh. Because those were fully sanctioned and controlled by the NBA itself, which likewise has an endogomous relationship with big media and as it; big business as 'the family'.

The NBA has been highly corrupt, both on the court and in decisions made off it, for many years. And the hype about LeBron and friends is simply a bait and switch as to the real corrupting influences.

Am I saying that guys like LeBron, or Deron, are decent or likable? Not at all. They're a part of the problem. A big part.

But key on that word. 'Part'. It's management in Utah that allowed this, and corrupt media conglomerate and NY head office that really started the league-wide strain of haves and have nots that may only get worse.

Even more funny, without the Gasol trade Utah perhaps makes a Finals in the last few seasons. Just as the Cavs may have made it back without KG and the Celtics.
 
JAZZFAN_2814 said:
You know what the true irony of the LeBron/Heat hate is?

That it wasn't manipulated by LeBron, but rather by Stern years earlier. Everybody knows how corrupt both the Gasol and KG trades were, pushed through by Stern's regime and resulting in a "dream" Finals matchup the last two out of three seasons.

Both LA and Boston are stacked. And have been ever since those trades. Without KG being injured in 09, we're likely looking at a three-fer of Finals matchups for those franchises.

A guy like LeBron not only sees this, but suffers from it, and decides to collude with two other star players. Suddenly, there's a media firestorm, one that has been raging since last July. One that has defined arguments against players and questioning of the NBA model throughout the season.

But why weren't these questions asked about the trades that rejuvenated the Lakers and Celtics? Oh. Because those were fully sanctioned and controlled by the NBA itself, which likewise has an endogomous relationship with big media and as it; big business as 'the family'.

The NBA has been highly corrupt, both on the court and in decisions made off it, for many years. And the hype about LeBron and friends is simply a bait and switch as to the real corrupting influences.

Am I saying that guys like LeBron, or Deron, are decent or likable? Not at all. They're a part of the problem. A big part.

But key on that word. 'Part'. It's management in Utah that allowed this, and corrupt media conglomerate and NY head office that really started the league-wide strain of haves and have nots that may only get worse.

Even more funny, without the Gasol trade Utah perhaps makes a Finals in the last few seasons. Just as the Cavs may have made it back without KG and the Celtics.
Click to expand...

Jazzfanz QUIZ:
Who can separate the valid claims from the over-enthusiastic, hyperbolic, wordsmithian, Glenn-Beckian paranoia?

Here's one: If you don't think those trades to LA and BOS were totally hammered by EVERYBODY that follows the NBA (besides those cheering for the benefiting teams), then you must have been lost in your English class for too long.
 
I believe that quote was referring to free agency prior to the Sloan situation. So if you are using it as to make DW sound hypocritical then I think you failed.

Yes it would be nice to see some changes to guaranteed contracts. Perhaps shorter guarantee years with a MAX cap or teams should have the ability to renegotiate through arbitration a bad contract. Players who are permanently injured should get the amount the insurance pays but it should not be counted towards a team's cap.

Another change should be mandatory is if the players are going to take less money the owners should at least cut ticktet prices a percentage of the decrease in salaries. So if the players are going to take 10 percent less the owners would have to cut ticket prices 5 percent. I know this would never happen but I just don't want to see the owners get richer while everyone's else has to give up something.
 
Mantis said:
"The league likes giving the advantage to big market teams. It's good for their bottom line." It isn't. TV revenue means a lot, but it isn't enough on its own. Each team relies heavily on the revenue it generates through its stadium. Look at the issues cited by teams who relocate - Sonics, Hornets, Grizzlies, Clippers, even the Jazz. Poor stadium deals/ticket sales/sales of corporate seats. This is true even of big-market teams, except they are less likely to play to half-empty stadiums even when they are bad because of the size of the population base they draw upon. However, ticket sales (and consequent income from concessions, etc) are dependent on the quality of the visiting team - compare sales when the Cavs are the visitors this year compared to last, for an example. Yet fixed costs (rent, utilities, payroll) are the same. Owners would prefer 30 teams of much closer standard than current, simply to be able to present a quality product every night and guarantee a stable cashflow, instead of hoping they make enough when the Heat visit to cover their losses when the Cavs come to town.
Click to expand...

Except that when big market teams make it farther in the playoffs TV ratings and thereby future revenue go up more than if they have a smaller market team in there.

There is a reason very few small market teams make it far in the playoffs. They don't have the money to continually compete and the NBA has done everything in their power to make sure it stays that way. They like the star player's heading to big markets because it sells out those stadiums in the big markets and gets higher TV ratings. The stars go to big markets because 1)they have more money to spend. 2)they are more likely to go farther in the playoffs because of the way those teams spend money and that they have an unfair advantage with payroll.

If the NBA had any desire to level the playing field they had many chances to do so and have gone the other way.

I hope I'm wrong and that they do desire more diverse competition. If they had a hard cap it would go a long way to making it so every team in the NBA had a fair chance at the titles. I don't believe they will even push for this. Instead they will look to eliminate guaranteed contracts (giving big free spending teams an out if they screw up). They will look to limit the amount the top free agents make (making it easier for big spending teams to have more than 2).

If they do what I said then the NBA is going to eliminate any chance that small market teams like the Jazz can even hope for a title.
 
udflyer said:
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700109616/Utah-Jazz-trying-to-adjust-to-life-without-Sloan.html
Click to expand...

Thank you...

After reading the quote not taken out of context, I understand what Williams was trying to say...

"It's just a tough situation everybody's in right now. It's unfortunate," Jazz point guard Deron Williams said. "We've just got to try to fight out of it and win some games."

And do some significant damage control — on multiple levels, for the team and for Williams, who's been linked through reports and rumors of playing a large role in Sloan taking an unexpectedly early exit from his coaching career.

"I don't like being in the spotlight," Williams said, "and this put a lot of attention on me and I don't like it."

Williams admitted dealing with that has taken a toll. A Jazz player hasn't dealt with this type of outside scrutiny and speculation since Carlos Boozer participated in his foot-in-mouth free-agency folly a couple of years ago.

"I'm a little drained. I can't lie," Williams said. "God does everything for a reason."

Corbin reconfirmed his support for the team's leader and two-time All-Star.

"Deron's a fighter," the new Jazz coach said. "I've always respected the fact if he struggled in the game, the next night he'd come out, he'd play well."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Here is the problem with conspiracy theories in the NBA: there are far more unsuccessful teams than there are successful teams in terms of winning and going deep in the playoffs. Look at the rotation in the playoffs and what teams make it there. The Clippers have exactly the same market as the Lakers, yet they virtually never get there. Same with Golden State. Plenty of larger market teams make the playoffs and don't go deep or don't get to the playoffs at all. Was it good for the league for the Knicks to miss so many playoff chances when they are arguably the largest market in the country?

The disparity between the number of successful teams and unsuccessful teams begs another question: do you really think the league, in association with a few large-market and medium-market teams, have pulled the wool over the eyes of every other owner in the NBA? So you are saying that the Millers and the Maloofs and the Cubans and so on have no idea this is happening and so they blissfully plug along in their ignorance, trying to put together winning teams that never go anywhere while 1/8 of the league and the front office laugh at them while rolling in their pile of money? If they are in on it as well, then what is the incentive?

If a market loses long enough the stadium revenues drop, along with all the associated revenues (TV, merchandise, large-corporation sponsorship, etc.). The NBA is not popular enough (compared to baseball and football) for a few teams to carry it on a nationwide scale. They rely on strategically located teams to drive interest across the country. If the less-successful teams decided to hang it up and the league contracted to 8 or 10 or even 12 teams it would eventually fall apart. There is only one reason for league expansion as has happened off and on since the leagues inception: there are revenues to be had, profit to be made, from the venture. If that profit were focused on only a few teams so the league and Stern could control their empire with an iron fist, then other teams would drop out as their revenues shrink, especially as they caught wind that no matter what they would never win anything and therefore never reach their full profit potential. And lawsuits would abound.

Just like any other conspiracy theory it falls apart in the light of actual thought. Sure it is entirely possible some other deal was reached under the table during the Gasol trade. The Garnett trade is far less controversial, as the Wolves were blowing things up after years of failure, which happens from time to time with many teams. But sure it is likely that collusion in some form happens, just like it was pulled off by LeBron and gang. That is a far cry from a league-wide conspiracy to turn the NBA into a semi-legit version of professional wrestling.

And frankly I don't think Stern is smart enough to pull something like this off on such a grand scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top