WrigleyField 22

Arthur Andersen wasn't really bought off per se, they just brought in tons and tons of business outside the auditing. I suppose E&Y could be doing a lot of consulting biz for the NBA but the laws are so different these days that its just not even remotely a scenario thats worth believing.

Deng was not the problem on offense.

Who's involvement in Enron completely changed the accounting world. Oh and the motivation for Arthur Andersen taking part in that fraud was the huge amounts of money they were making from Enron. Is Ernst and Young getting a sweet deal from NBA?

Well you knew James and Wade would come out better. Yet we were still in it near the end. James was just a man tonight though and closed. Our pitiful offense wasn't just on us, Miami improved their D a lot. And the return of Haslem helped them a lot so thats something to think about going forward. Right now Gibson and Asik are playing better than Noah and Boozer. Need to get those guys going. Also Korver finding his hot sauce would be nice. Its still a 7 game series in my mind, although it will be fun to see all the casual observers who switch their decision again just like after game one.

I was too young to watch the first 3 peat. And perhaps I'm underrating defensive impact, but I think you could argue it being the other way considering the latter Bulls had Toni Kukoc as their #3 option on offense and the #2 option for a huge portion of the final championship season. They wouldn't have been as dominant, for sure, but thats still a championship worthy team. You're greatly underestimating the defensive presence he provided. Jordan was a great defender, but Pippen could guard most anyone on the floor effectively other than centers (and a few really beefy PFs). He shut down Magic in the 1991 Finals for the most part just about singlehandedly. And there's no way any other SF leads that 1994 team to a near Finals appearance if not for that awful phantom foul call. No I'm not underestimating his defense, just the need for it. First I'm gonna make the assumption you replace him with replacement level SF. When would a team be more likely to weather the loss of Pippen's d. Verse the likes of Magic, James Worthy, Byron Scott, Drexler, Terry Porter, Kevin Johnson, Dan Majerle or Gary Payton, Hersey Hawkins, John Stockton, Jeff Hornacek, and Byron Russell Also the team playing the crappier wingmen have Toni Kukoc whereas the other team has Craig Hodges(?). Oh and at the PG spot the latter team has the more defensively versatile Ron Harper compared to the less versatile BJ Armstrong and John Paxson. Really more a reflection of the team dynamic and who we faced in the finals. Not knocking Pippen, just arguing Jordan was more likely to win without him in 96-98 than 91-93.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue against transparency or anything, but in my experience in following conspiracy theories, when more evidence is shown they continue to hold onto their old "evidence" and then just start to create new crazy theories that still don't make sense. If someone can explain to me why every team in the league and a big 4 accounting firm (who's ability to stay "big" hedges on their ability to accurately verify information) have motivation to cover this up, I'll shut up.

This thread is proof that this lay-off betweeen games was too long.

Dwight Howard is close, depending on how you view defense, what metric you pick I don't think Howard is remotely close to James. I think he's second, but if there was an NBA-wide draft, I'm certain James would be on the top of all 30 draft boards. Metrics are nice and all, and I'm no Luddite, but this isn't baseball. Not remotely close? It's very, very close. Its not that close. Plus the NBA is a very perimeter oriented league with the rules, so Howard, rightly or wrongly loses ground there.

So if Jordan doesn't have Pippen and wins 3 titles and never is on a 70+ win team, is he still the undisputable GOAT?

I was too young to watch the first 3 peat. And perhaps I'm underrating defensive impact, but I think you could argue it being the other way considering the latter Bulls had Toni Kukoc as their #3 option on offense and the #2 option for a huge portion of the final championship season. They wouldn't have been as dominant, for sure, but thats still a championship worthy team.

of course it would have been jordan's team. he was the better player and would have been the guy to take most of the shots at the end of close games. I'm not sure if Derwood is trying to distinguish between actuallity and perception, but there is a line to be drawn. In actuality any team would be Jordans, but media and fan perception will always question it. Also Jordan and Ewing were a lot further in talent than Lebron and Wade. I haven't paid enough attention to the Heat, but Lebron and Wade are close enough in talent that if Wade were to have a clear leadership role on the team, you could make the arguement about who's team it was. Not sure what the lockerroom dynamic is on that team though.

The first ping pong will come out as a 6 or something. People not understanding how it works will go insane saying that the "sixth" team should have the first pick. Then once you get past the people who just can't wrap their minds around how the lottery works (and there will be other things like "ZOMG why did they ignore that one series of numbers") Then once you have that, you'll have the pseudo-scientist crazies who watch the balls or the timing of the release as some insane proof the NBA was able to control the ping pong balls. Being more transparent acutally just gives the crazies more opportunity to come up with new idiotic theories. At least now all they can say is that its behind closed doors and then theorize why who got what pick.

I'd say that Lebron/Wade is roughly analagous to Jeter/A-rod. Most still consider the Yankess Jeter's team even though A-Rod is the far superior player. Not an exact analogy, but the closest I can think of that exists.

I know Lebron could have used some more help in Cleveland, but the team was literally built around his skills, strengths and weaknesses. So while individually its a poor cast, it was one that was greater than the sum of its parts, IMO. Not saying it was necessariily good enough for Lebron to win a championship in the past, but it wasn't as far as some probably like to believe. And if you were to just keep Lebron in Cleveland and all the other same FA signings, you could be looking at a Bron led Cavs in the ECF that wouldn't have to beat the Lakers if they made it to the championship. He will probably win a championship or few with Miami, but I think he could have done it in Cleveland too. And from a greatness standpoint it does kind of tarnish his legacy as a possible all time great. I'm not knocking his decision. He gets to ditch the cold and play with his friends, but from a basketball legacy standpoint its not a slam dunk, even if they win championships. But he is undoubtedly the best player in the game today. I do think he needs to expand his game if he wants to remain the best player at age 30-32, but he isn't 30-32 right now, so he's still the best player. If he never does expand his game to remain a high level as he ages, that will also tarnish his legacy amongst the all time greats.

You'd honestly get too many people who don't understand the process if it was televised, even further flaming the conspiracy nuts. Teams have reps at the drawing and it is validated by Ernst and Young. If thats not enough for people, nothing will. I'm actually shocked Kahn might actually believe it. He has a rep there to verify it. If he somehow believes the NBA is rigging the lottery balls... well...

Not if the Minnesota pick was outside the top 10 in 2011, which was another uncertainty (however unlikely)

More or less, they over committed their future picks even though it is unclear exactly when those commitments would be realized.

Okay here's my clearest attempt to run through the Clips future picks: What we know (at time of trade): Are due Wolves #1 pick in 2011 (top ten protected, unprotected in 2012) Owe OKC first round pick in 2012 (top ten protected, top 10 13-15, unprotected 16) 1. Minnesota 2011 pick falls outside top 10. a. LA has two first round picks. b. LA keeps pick from Cle because of protection Then in 2012: 1. LA Owes top 1o protected pick to OKC. Still have not paid Cleveland. Now you don't have to give a first round pick. For instance, they could protect it top 3 in 2011 or give nothing, but then obviously Cleveland isn't doing the deal. Maybe you walk away there, but it is what it is. They could give a conditional top 10 pick to Cleveland if they don't have to give OKC the pick, but you'd rather lose the top pick in 2011 than 2012. So actually it doesn't even come down to the consecutive pick rule, just the rule stating you have to actually be certain you have a pick to trade, which doesn't seem like the case. But thats when you say, we'll just hold onto Baron for now...

I think they can still hold a draft during a lockout, just like the NFL did. Also, it appears the thing about LA not being able to trade a pick beyond 2011 may be true. In the NBA you can't have two consecutive years without a first rounder into the future. And with pick protections, there is often uncertainty about when a team will or won't have a pick. The picks due to them: Clippers have a pick due to them from Wolves (top 10 protected in 2011, unprotected in 2012). But they also owe a pick to OKC (top 10 protected 2012-15, unprotected in 2016). You can run through all the scenarios and it leaves you with a situation where LA wasn't allowed to commit future picks else they'd break the consecutive first round pick rule, or owe two picks in a year but only have one to give. Depending on the rules they may have been able to offer a conditional top 10 pick in 2012 (if outside top 10 it goes to OKC) but given the choice of possibily losing a top pick in 2011 or 2010, I guess you'd take the chance on 2011, being a weaker draft.

Is it a rule that requires Sterling to remain amongst the worst owners in sports?

Isaiah Thomas must have consulted the Clippers on that trade.

Today I'm a Cleveland fan. haha Clippers (at least you have Griffin still)

To some extent I definitely agree with what you are saying Tim, but you're also going to be judged against your peers. So the top person in any profession may be in the 90 percentile of "clutch" (or rather not blowing in in high pressure situations), but when you've weeded out the field and you only have the top tenth percentile, the bottom "clutch" guys might realize the immense competition they are against and suddenly pysche themselves out. Its a moot point either way because I don't think there's anyway to measure clutchness so from a personel standpoint you're just going to look for the guy who hits the best regardless of situation. Edit - also with your example, its a bit more like the comparison between performing between the majors and minors. OTOH there could maybe be a speaker who speaks perfectly fine in front of thousands of people until he's they keynote speaker and he starts thinking about how much he wants to wrap it up well). Still a rough example, but closer.

Regarding clutch, I also think its way more likely that unclutch players exist than clutch players. In other words, it would be extremely rare that a player could flip on a switch and suddenly hit better when it was needed most, but it isn't too hard to imagine that a player can tense up during a critical moment and suck. That doesn't mean everyone with poor clutch numbers is unclutch, some may just suffer from luck and a small sample size. Not that I would make personel decisions based on it or anything, but some people just don't perform well under pressure.

Rip had his chance to go here but wouldnt accept a buyout to come here. If he would have accepted the buyout that Indiana offered him (after being traded to IND), he would already be a bull True, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want a buyout, just that he was unrealistic about a buyout number. Closer he gets to being expiring, easier that number is to negotiate. He is also candidate number one for cap relief cutting if that scenario happens with the new CBA. Last time it was nick-named the Allan Houston clause. This time, its getting nick-named the Rip Clause if it happens. You sure it wouldnt be the "Boozer clause"? :lol: JR pay someone $60M+ over four years to wear another jersey? Not even for a championship contender. If the Bulls ended up using this hypothetical clause at all it would be one of Brewer/Korver/Watson, and they'd only be doing it because they were required to get under the new cap and couldn't without cutting someone loose.