- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mark Cuban pissed at Hornets Trade
Posted on 2/26/11 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/26/11 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i don't
it's not about selling for profit. it's about making sure somebody didn't buy this team for $75-100M (with some debt assumption) and frick the values of all other teams
THAT'S IT
it's not about the league. it's not about the hornets. it's not about nola. it's to ensure that there wasn't a domino effect in miluake, sacremento, cleveland, charlotte, minnesota, etc which would deflate all NBA franchise values by 30-50%
There are some kernels of truth in that view. But it's not the whole story. The Hornets at this point are a pet project. I think Stern and many of the owners want to use the franchise to re-shape the NBA business model to a degree. In a perverse way, that's why I think there's a very good chance the franchise will find local ownership and remain in N.O. long term.
ETA: If Cuban isn't onboard, that's his problem.
This post was edited on 2/26/11 at 12:55 pm
1
Posted on 2/26/11 at 1:24 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
Let the team improve within reason, thus the approval of the Landry trade but disapproval of taking on Rush's salary which would have put them slightly over the tax threshold.
i still think this is a long term plan to let DWest walk and sign landry to a cheaper deal and save money and make the hornets more viable financially (less liabilities)
quote:
Threaten to contract the team to get a better CBA.
this is the selling point for spending the money. they can't threaten contraction without giving the hornets a chance
quote:
Get back all the money Shinn owed you plus a $10 - $15 million premium over the $300 million Chouest previously agreed to for the franchise before it was flipped for the better.
i still don't see why any buyer would do this. there are 1, maybe 2 groups who have any interest whatsoever right now
Posted on 2/26/11 at 1:25 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
Because what needs to be upgraded is Green/Belinelli.
what needs to be upgraded and what can be upgraded are 2 different things
you think the hornets can print money or just increase the cap themselves?
quote:
CP3/West/Okafor seem up to the challenge.
okafor is no chandler, both in terms of production and on-court excitement
quote:
but the top tier defense makes them dangerous even without a legit starting SG.
dangerous? no. maybe if you define "dangerous" as a team who wins in the 1st round
boring? yes. that's a problem, too
Posted on 2/26/11 at 1:29 pm to VOR
quote:
think Stern and many of the owners want to use the franchise to re-shape the NBA business model to a degree.
impossible
utterly impossible
quote:
In a perverse way, that's why I think there's a very good chance the franchise will find local ownership and remain in N.O. long term.
how the frick would this set a trend? how would this affect anything. honest question
Posted on 2/26/11 at 1:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's not about selling for profit. it's about making sure somebody didn't buy this team for $75-100M (with some debt assumption) and frick the values of all other teams
true. chouest was delaying, hoping to drive the cost down. that's when stern decided to step in.
edit: I think Cuban has a point. I also think he can spare the 100k he has to pay to finance this deal.
This post was edited on 2/26/11 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 2/26/11 at 1:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
okafor is no chandler, both in terms of production and on-court excitement
Emeka only averages more points, rebounds, offensive rebounds, assists, and blocks.
But hey, Tyson catches lobs and dunks them!
Posted on 2/26/11 at 1:42 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:
Emeka only averages more points, rebounds, offensive rebounds, assists, and blocks.
But hey, Tyson catches lobs and dunks them!
This is what i wanted to post.
Posted on 2/26/11 at 1:43 pm to TotesMcGotes
Yeah, Oak has been fricking legit this season. Sure, a healthy Chandler would be perfect for this team, but at the very least they are even overall this season and I trust Emeka to stay healthy a lot more than Chandler.
And Green has been averaging over 16ppg (efficiently) as a starter and is a decent defender. He will probably fall off, but until then, I'm not complaining about our SG situation. Belli is even playing better.
And Green has been averaging over 16ppg (efficiently) as a starter and is a decent defender. He will probably fall off, but until then, I'm not complaining about our SG situation. Belli is even playing better.
Posted on 2/26/11 at 1:48 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:
Emeka only averages more points, rebounds, offensive rebounds, assists, and blocks.
But hey, Tyson catches lobs and dunks them!
Chandler has been a slightly more efficient player, though. He's going to get a contract that's not much less than Oak, though, and I'll take Oak's consistent health over arguably slightly better play.
Posted on 2/26/11 at 2:00 pm to THRILLHO
quote:
Chandler has been a slightly more efficient player, though
Emeka's career efficiency is higher than Chandler's. Also, Emeka's worst season, as far as efficiency goes, is close to Chandler's average efficiency.
Emeka's worst season - 14.94 PER
Emeka's best season - 20.15
Emeka's average PER - 17.18
Tyson's worst season - 12.23
Tyson's best season - 18.76 (this year)
Tyson's average PER - 15.26
Posted on 2/26/11 at 3:17 pm to corndeaux
quote:
I think Cuban has a point.
he does
quote:
I also think he can spare the 100k he has to pay to finance this deal.
yeah he sounds like a whiney bitch. do not get me wrong
Posted on 2/26/11 at 3:21 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:
Emeka only averages more points, rebounds, offensive rebounds, assists, and blocks.
from our last good year with tyson?
tyson has him in points (11.8 to 11.1), boards (11.7 to 10.1), OR (4.1 to 3.2), FT (59.3 to 55.4)and FG% (62.3 to 58.8)
oak has his 07/08 year in bpg (1.8 to 1.1)
tyson was also better on D and a much more flashy player that got the fans excited
This post was edited on 2/26/11 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 2/26/11 at 3:24 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:
Emeka's career efficiency is higher than Chandler's.
chandler came into the league out of high school and okafor had 3 years in college to develop. and it took a while for chandler to find his role. hell the bulls had him playing the 3 for long stretches his rookie year (trying to turn him into the next kg with his athletic ability and height)
Posted on 2/26/11 at 3:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
chandler came into the league out of high school and okafor had 3 years in college to develop. and it took a while for chandler to find his role.
None of Tyson's first three seasons are among his three worst seasons PER-wise FWIW.
Posted on 2/26/11 at 3:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
impossible
utterly impossible
And why would that be? There are all sorts of things the owners could press for . . . hard cap, franchise tag, different revenue sharing formula, etc.
quote:
how the frick would this set a trend? how would this affect anything. honest question
By using the Hornets as a poster child . . . a "chip" of sorts. Even as a lab rat to demonstrate what will work with a small market team. Whether you choose to believe it or not, I do know that Sperling's job, with Stern's help, is to make this franchise work in N.O. This is not smoke and mirrors.
Posted on 2/26/11 at 4:31 pm to VOR
quote:
And why would that be?
how would a small market franchise not being able to afford a big payroll shape anything?
franchises in big cities with corporate sponsorships and rich owners will still be able to afford payrolls
removing a shitty owner can only impact that NBA so much
quote:
By using the Hornets as a poster child . . . a "chip" of sorts.
the hornets are only a chip b/c of a shitty owner and small market
quote:
I do know that Sperling's job, with Stern's help, is to make this franchise work in N.O.
the only way they can do this realistically is if there is a hard cap around $50M or so, so that poor teams and rich teams have a procedure set in place to lower player's salaries by 35-40%
but the hornets would still be over the cap in this instance, and they could get under it by renouncing like west, landry, etc. i don't see how that helps the hornets when they can't sign new FAs
Posted on 2/26/11 at 5:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i still don't see why any buyer would do this. there are 1, maybe 2 groups who have any interest whatsoever right now
We know that Chouest had veto power for selling/moving the franchise with his buyout clause and that he has said he didn't want to sell his minority stake. It is rumored that the Peja trade which cut salary by $4 million was made to help Shinn avoid bankruptcy. Then shortly after the league is forced to buy the franchise. Shinn HAD to sell when he did. Chouest didn't want to buy the team with all the debt and the only non low ball offer was from Ellison. The bridge theory just fits the facts so well. Stern pulled rank and forced Chouest to sell to the league but will sell him the flipped team that will be debt free and have a new lease and CBA. Why wouldn't Chouest pay a premium to see all that debt go away and get a better lease?
Posted on 2/27/11 at 1:13 am to TigerinATL
quote:
Chouest didn't want to buy the team with all the debt and the only non low ball offer was from Ellison.
well shinn didn't have to assume the debt, so who is going to assume it? the NBA?
quote:
the flipped team that will be debt free
why does this even matter? chouest is paying for this one way or another
that's the whole aspect of the bridge theory that doesn't make sense
unless the NBA (which means every other owner) is eating some of that debt, the price is the same one way or another
chouest is going to have to pay for that debt at some point. if he's not paying it directly, he's paying the NBA back for paying it off
debt is only annoying if you don't have the capital to pay it off. if you do have the resources, debt is nothing. in fact, in a distressed situation like that, chouest had ALL the advantage to negotiate paying less than the amounts owed so the creditors could cut their losses and move on
Posted on 2/27/11 at 1:23 am to SlowFlowPro
I thought that Chouest's issue wasn't the team's debt as much as the CBA and his own cash flow issues.
Specifically, I think his other businesses were taking big hits due to the drilling shutdown in the Gulf, meaning less money to spend on a vanity project like the team.
Specifically, I think his other businesses were taking big hits due to the drilling shutdown in the Gulf, meaning less money to spend on a vanity project like the team.
Posted on 2/27/11 at 11:21 am to teke184
that's what i believe as well. i don't think he had the liquidity nor the stability at the time to make a $300M purchase
when that fell through, there were no viable buyer options and the NBA had to step in so that about 5 franchises didn't lose 30-50% of their supposed value overnight
when that fell through, there were no viable buyer options and the NBA had to step in so that about 5 franchises didn't lose 30-50% of their supposed value overnight
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News