1908

Of course you would. That's why it's no enough for Kobe, I strongly suspect.

Amare is very difficult to deal this offseason.

How would Gordon, Nocioni and a pick work financially, unless they signed both to massive contracts then traded them. Not so massive contracts. Gordon at $10M a year, Noc at $7M per and the number 9 pick's salary would match up great.

I'd rather have Wallace, Gordon and Deng. Agreed...and I'm not the biggest BG fan around. I wonder if you guys feel this way just because you don't like Kobe, or because you really think that Gordon and Deng are that good? I mean, I love both the guys, don't get me wrong, but I think if you have the change to get both Kobe and Bynum, I think that's a deal you have to do. The jury's still out on Bynum a lot more than it is on Gordon and Deng. I'd be hesitant to give up any two out of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Tryus for Kobe, and I can't see the Lakers accepting less than that.

If the Bulls could manage to keep Hinrich, Deng and Tryus and acquire Kobe, I'd be all for it. Hollinger mentioned Gordon, Nocioni, number 9 pick in his chat today as the bare minimum. I'd make that deal today, but I think the price would be a lot higher than that.

Kobe Bryant fuming, demanding trade from Lakers Let the trade scenario frenzy commence.

Just pointing out an example of a dynasty team that was build with FA signings (Shaq) and trades (Kobe). No doubt the draft is the most efficient way to acquire talent in the NBA and I don't see what's wrong with that. It's not like teams don't land all-star talents with late picks. The Spurs are masters at this. Dallas picking up Josh Howard is another example.

No doubt the league is dominated by teams that draft well. But that is different than it being dominated by teams with frequent high picks. There are dominant teams that are build through trades, though. Take the current Detroit Pistons, for instance. EDIT: Also, many teams are created via free agency signings. Take the most recent Lakers dynasty, for instance.

The NBA does not tax every dollar spent above the cap. That's what the NFL has, right? A hard cap. The NBA salary cap for the 2006-2007 season was $53.135M and the luxury cap threshold was $65.42M. Since they've decided to use a soft cap, they've created exceptions that allow teams to exceed it.

The cap makes the rule unnecessary. If you already have a cap, the rule is just a pointless addition to make it more difficult to improve your team. A hard cap would make the rule unnecessary. The NBA uses a soft cap. Did you read CubColtPacer's post?

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other. I understand that they need to, but my question is what's the purpose? I generally understand the rules of baseball's CBA and the reasons for specific rules. But I don't get the point of the NBA having this rule. The only goal, it seems, is to stop teams from making trades. Unless it was just a failed attempt to force teams to think twice before signing guys to bad deals in the first place. What would you suggest as the alternative? It's hard to suggest an alternative to a concept without knowing the desired goals. It seems to me rather pointless and redundent to have these rules on trades. If you have a salary cap, and a luxury tax, you can enforce those to maintain a competitive balance. Artificially handicapping the teams by placing heavy restrictions on trades doesn't seem to serve any purpose whatsoever, accept for giving ESPN a reason to start that trade machine thing. These trade rules only apply to teams that are over the salary cap, so the rule is enforcing the cap.

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other. I understand that they need to, but my question is what's the purpose? I generally understand the rules of baseball's CBA and the reasons for specific rules. But I don't get the point of the NBA having this rule. The only goal, it seems, is to stop teams from making trades. Unless it was just a failed attempt to force teams to think twice before signing guys to bad deals in the first place. What would you suggest as the alternative?

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other.

My definition is two or more seasons in a row with a sub .400 winning percentage. I reserve the term for the truly atrocious teams. Missing the playoffs in back to back seasons seems like it should be the bare minimum but that seems harsh to me. I wouldn't say the Hornets suck, for instance. I brought it up in response to your best player in the league rationale for evaluating the Lakers and Bulls identical results differently. Did you even read my post? I evaluted those seasons differently for a bunch of reasons, none of which had to do with Kobe Bryant. To sum up my previous post, the Bulls were a much younger team and played against a much better team. Yeah, the Suns are very good, but the Heat were the NBA champions. Also, the Bulls had more optimism heading into the future, not only because of the youth, but also because of a high draft pick and being fortunate enough to be in the Eastern Conference. I'm not arguing Bulls versus Lakers. I only brought it up because of your original statement that missing the playoffs one year followed by two consecutive exits in the first round means a team sucks. We've since learned that's not always the case, and it turns out there are lots of reasons you're down on LA. That's great. I agree with some of them. I'm done arguing semantics with you. I provided my definition of an NBA team that sucks per your request in my previous post and you ignored it. I think it's a fair one, and the Lakers don't come close to fitting it. Will they end up sucking if they don't sell off their best player for less than his full value? I suspect we'll get to find out.

My definition is two or more seasons in a row with a sub .400 winning percentage. I reserve the term for the truly atrocious teams. Missing the playoffs in back to back seasons seems like it should be the bare minimum but that seems harsh to me. I wouldn't say the Hornets suck, for instance. I brought it up in response to your best player in the league rationale for evaluating the Lakers and Bulls identical results differently.

Ah, so there's more to sucking than losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs then. Of course. Don't be so pompous. For a team with the best player in the league, what the Lakers have done the past 3 years, I would consider sucking. I was talking about the Lakers. Not the Bulls, whose oldest player last year (that was a major contributor) was probably around 25 years old. Grow a thicker skin. The Tiberwolves fit your description. They have a top five player on the roster and they suck year after year. The Lakers are not an elite team by any means, but they don't suck, and it's hyperbolic to suggest they do.

Ah, so there's more to sucking than losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs then.

A little strong. Did you think the Bulls sucked after they were eliminated by Miami last year? No, but the Lakers seem to have regressed. Injuries played a large role. They were on pace for a much higher seed. No doubt Kobe's path to another Championship would be much easier in the East, though.

Maybe if Wallace's contract were expiring at the end of next season.

The Bulls would need to gut the core to make it happen. Kobe will be paid $19.5M next season. That's more than the combined salaries of Hinrich, Deng and Gordon next year ($11M, $3.3M and $4.9M). Would it be possible to first sign Gordon and Noc to extensions and then trade both, along with the 9th (and the expiring contracts of Duhon and/or Khrypa if necessary) to the Lakers for Kobe? I think both teams would benefit from something like that. The Lakers are going nowhere with what they have now. Adding a young scorer in BG and a solid contributor with Noc and someone like Hawes at 9 would be a good start at rebuilding. Having a starting lineup of Hinrich, Kobe, Deng, Thomas, and Wallace would be sick. Sefolosha as the 6th man. Hinrich, Gordon, and Thomas would be my floor if I were the Lakers GM.

A little strong. Did you think the Bulls sucked after they were eliminated by Miami last year?

I think the Durant at his peak will be significantly better than Lewis. One huge difference between the two will be rebounding, one of the few college stats that transfer well to the NBA. Durant's per 40 rate was 12.4 this year. Lewis has averaged 6.0 rebounds per 40 minutes over the past three seasons.

The Bulls would need to gut the core to make it happen. Kobe will be paid $19.5M next season. That's more than the combined salaries of Hinrich, Deng and Gordon next year ($11M, $3.3M and $4.9M).

The Bulls can only offer him their MLE unless it's a sign-and-trade. The Bulls are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax.

Nothing is more valuable in the NBA than a superstar on his rookie scale contract. Portland and Seattle would have to be run by absolute fools to trade the rights to either Oden or Durant. It won't happen. Not even Isiah would do it.