NBA Basketball 2006-07: The Thread Part III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not going to belittle another team when one team wins it all. The Spurs are an exception because Bruce Bowen is a punk and Manu is a struggling actor.

I'll concede that the Spurs are a great team and are greatly assembled, it goes to prove what smart front office managing does to a team.

Yeah, Manu will be loving life when David Stern finds a way to fix the flopping.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:
I'm not going to belittle another team when one team wins it all. The Spurs are an exception because Bruce Bowen is a punk and Manu is a struggling actor.

I'll concede that the Spurs are a great team and are greatly assembled, it goes to prove what smart front office managing does to a team.

Yeah, Manu will be loving life when David Stern finds a way to fix the flopping.

If Manu scored, say, 5 points a game, no one would care about his flopping. The fact that he is good and players can't stop him makes people complain to try to find a way.

Saying that Manu has flopped his way to 3 titles does not make sense.
 
I didn't say he was a bad player, but he flops tremendously.

So does Anderson Varajeo.
So does Raja Bell.
So does Andrew Bogut (I saw him take 2 charges on Jameer Nelson, he's about a foot taller than him.)
So does Rip Hamilton.

Tons of players flop, just not as egregiously as Manu. I'd still say he flopped even if he scored 5 points a game, that's a ridiculous point to try and bring up.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:
I didn't say he was a bad player, but he flops tremendously.

So does Anderson Varajeo.
So does Raja Bell.
So does Andrew Bogut (I saw him take 2 charges on Jameer Nelson, he's about a foot taller than him.)
So does Rip Hamilton.

Tons of players flop, just not as egregiously as Manu. I'd still say he flopped even if he scored 5 points a game, that's a ridiculous point to try and bring up.

Ok, he is a very good player... but he flops.

Big deal.

The only other good player (in the same league as Manu, at least) on your list above is Rip Hamilton.
 
It is a big deal.

I don't want to see one of the better players in the league acting like a ragdoll on the court. My dad and I don't pay season tickets to see players disgrace the game like that.

If it were a pick-up game, Manu would get his ass kicked, but it's the NBA, so he's rewarded.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:
It is a big deal.

I don't want to see one of the better players in the league acting like a ragdoll on the court. My dad and I don't pay season tickets to see players disgrace the game like that.

If it were a pick-up game, Manu would get his ass kicked, but it's the NBA, so he's rewarded.

Manu disgraces the game???!!!!

Sorry, you are exaggerating.
 
In my opinion, flopping is a disgrace to the game.

Manu flops.

Conventional wisdom tells me, I could be wrong here, Manu disgraces the game.

I'm not against foreign players or the game in other parts of the world, but saying:

U2@NYC said:
Now you know where basketball belongs...

Argentina-flag.gif

is exaggerating.
 
Last edited:
you can't "fix" flopping. you can fix bitching and whining, which tends to follow the flopping, which the nba at least tried to do this season by increasing the amount of T's called. you can't put a rule in against flopping. vlade divac in the 90s was just as bad as manu or any of these other guys. it's not a disgrace to the game... it's part of the game. it's being crafty, it's good gamesmanship. the problem is when guys do it so often that they turn themselves into a joke, not the game... themselves. vlade did it, so has manu. his flops are so blatant and obvious that he really has become a punch line now, to the point where he's known now more for his flopping than he is for his game. which is a shame 'cause he's a good player, but he did it to himself.

the nba may look into the leave the bench rule, but they might not... they didn't look into it after it fucked over the knicks, so why would they look into it after it fucked over the suns?

the spurs are the best run front office in the entire nba. by a significant margin. this can't be denied. tim duncan is one of the greatest power forwards to ever play, maybe the greatest. this, too, can not be denied. but what else can't be denied is that their prefered style of play is as boring as sin. they can play a more uptempt style, they just choose not to.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:
In my opinion, flopping is a disgrace to the game.

Manu flops.

Conventional wisdom tells me, I could be wrong here, Manu disgraces the game.

I'm not against foreign players or the game in other parts of the world, but saying:

Mythic flag + legendary comment

is exaggerating.
Yep.
But claiming that
EuropeFlag.jpeg

dominated basketball in 2006/07 is not exaggerated

Spain was World Champion
Bargani was the 1st pick
The Spurs are playing a typical Euroleague game : slow, very strict and coherent, a bit boring.
Nowitzki and Parker :)applaud: ) won the most prestigious individual prizes.
------
Congrats to the Spurs, I hope that Tim Duncan is going to be in the Olympic team.
 
U2@NYC said:


Classy. Let's leave the MVP out of this. I'd tell you to be gracious, but I prefer bandwagon fans not be gracious or boastful. I prefer they not exist in the first place.


Maybe if the Wiz start contending for a championship, you can be a hometown fan. Trust me, it's a lot more fun than pulling for a team you actually have a connection to.
 
guill said:

Yep.
But claiming that
EuropeFlag.jpeg

dominated basketball in 2006/07 is not exaggerated

Spain was World Champion
Bargani was the 1st pick
The Spurs are playing a typical Euroleague game : slow, very strict and coherent, a bit boring.
.

Hey, don't forget that Paul Shirley is playing in Spain. That only bolsters the point of Spain being where it's at.

:D GO CYCLONES!!!

And if you don't know...now you know!
 
If Kobe goes to the Knicks, who would Isiah send over to the Lakers?

Jamal Crawford, Nate Robinson, Quentin Richardson, Channing Frye, plus an '08 pick?

RealGM says it works :up: (ID: 3948680)
 
He's a real genius at that :up:

I wonder if he's dumb enough to send them David Lee instead of Nate Robinson... :hmm:
 
Remember Kobe has final say, and he can opt out at the end of next season anyway? Is that right?

For that, I'd think the Knicks over the Bulls. The Lakers would no doubt prefer what the Bulls can offer, but consider Kobe's arrogance - he probably wants above all else to build his own supreme legacy or something. At the Lakers, he's a part of a long and large history. At the Bulls, no matter what he does, he'll always be behind Jordan. At the Knicks though... win a Championship in New York after 30 years or whatever without..... they'll knock down the Statue of Liberty and put one of Kobe there.
 
i dont think kobe will go to NY,

My reasoning is that he wants to win championships NOW. Chicago has the talent enough with him to win a championship EASILY. New York did not even make the playoffs, and so then if he were to be traded to NY, that would be a Laker team but now in NY, with different players.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
i would imagine LA would want Lee instead of Robinson... if that's what it takes, i'm all for it.

Me too, but I can't underestimate the stupidity of Mitch Kupchak.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:


Me too, but I can't underestimate the stupidity of Mitch Kupchak.

But Kupchak is a figurehead. He has no real power. For lesser trades, he might make the decisions, but when it's Kobe Bryant being traded, and you have Kupchak and Jim Buss running things, you can bet that Jerry Buss is taking the reigns. You can bet that Jerry Buss will have absolute and final say over what comes back for Kobe, because this is the kind of deal that makes or breaks a franchise.

If it's done wrong, the reprecussions will last for YEARS.

Just ask Headache. The Knicks were still a respected franchise when Scott Layden decided it was time to trade Patrick Ewing, for no apparent reason. I understand the circumstances weren't the same - Ewing was past his prime and wasn't demanding a trade - but all the same, it was a big-market team trading one of the biggest superstars of his era/generation, and the Knicks got absolute shit in return. Bad contracts, scrubs, a guy or two that never played a minute for the Knicks. That deal was THE spark that sent the Knicks into a downward spiral from which they still haven't really recovered.

The difference is this: Layden was working under Jim Dolan. Dolan doesn't know enough about basketball to understand the implications of what was going down.

I think Jerry Buss does, and I don't think there's any way in hell he lets Kupchak make the decisions concerning this thing.
 
Either way, since Shaq's trade the Lakers organization has arguably made some bad front office moves, but never to the same degree as the Layden/Dolan Knicks or even Billy King's 76ers. If they make a trade with the Knicks, maybe the one I showed above, they could at least have tools to rebuild the team while the Knicks get some spark in a relatively shitty Eastern Conference.

The Lakers are just unfortunate to be in such a stacked conference with a mediocre team. What I don't understand is how Kobe demands huge money and then attacks the organization for putting better talent on the team. That just seems retarded to me. :shrug:
 
LemonMacPhisto said:
Either way, since Shaq's trade the Lakers organization has arguably made some bad front office moves, but never to the same degree as the Layden/Dolan Knicks or even Billy King's 76ers. If they make a trade with the Knicks, maybe the one I showed above, they could at least have tools to rebuild the team while the Knicks get some spark in a relatively shitty Eastern Conference.

The Lakers are just unfortunate to be in such a stacked conference with a mediocre team. What I don't understand is how Kobe demands huge money and then attacks the organization for putting better talent on the team. That just seems retarded to me. :shrug:

He's talking about trades that were passed up. They could have had Kidd for Bynum. There were deals for Artest, Jermaine O'Neal, and others that were passed up. That has little to do with how much Kobe is getting paid. If he were complaining that the Lakers weren't signing enough good free agents, that would be retarded.
 
The Kidd trade seemed like a no brainer to me too, I don't know why they didn't take it.

The Kobe's money thing is unrelated to what I was talking about before. I should've made a better distinction.
 
namkcuR said:
Just ask Headache. The Knicks were still a respected franchise when Scott Layden decided it was time to trade Patrick Ewing, for no apparent reason. I understand the circumstances weren't the same - Ewing was past his prime and wasn't demanding a trade - but all the same, it was a big-market team trading one of the biggest superstars of his era/generation, and the Knicks got absolute shit in return. Bad contracts, scrubs, a guy or two that never played a minute for the Knicks. That deal was THE spark that sent the Knicks into a downward spiral from which they still haven't really recovered.

well, the ewing trade was the move that started the downward spiral into salary cap hell... this is true. but there are two things fundamentaly wrong with the rest of your statement.

a) dave checketts traded ewing. layden was, technicaly, the GM at the time... but he couldn't wipe his ass without checketts' permission. cheketts was president of all of MSG, and was head honcho for both the rangers and the knicks. when he quit in 2001, largely due to not wanting to deal with dolan any longer they split the two up and gave layden full reign over the knicks & glen sather full reign over the rangers.
b) ewing asked to be traded... the knicks shopped him around briefly before chaning their minds, and when hearing of this, ewing demanded to be traded with 1 year left on his contract. checketts feld he "owed it" to the franchise center to oblige to his request after all he'd done for the franchise. if they would have just held on and let the contract expire... well... the rest is history, of course.

but the all around point being that you will fuck your franchise for years to come if you trade a huge contract and don't get expiring contracts and/or young players back in return, is, of course, quite true.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom