He hasn’t been good in NO and I’m not sure why. The job he did coaching the 2010 Suns was spectacular.
This and also sticking it to the NBA should get him voted Exec Of The YEAR. Should be near unanimous with only Lakers voting against.
He hasn’t been good in NO and I’m not sure why. The job he did coaching the 2010 Suns was spectacular.
they should change them to the seattle sonics honestly.
Or Kansas City, Austin, Vegas, Birmingham, San Diego, B'More...
KC - Not bad, but a small market, not sure they're ravenous enough to be so strong for 2 teams... they love the Chiefs to death though.
Austin - Bad. Too close to SA and unnecessary to compete with them in what is a smaller market area in the first place. South Texas isn't NYC or LA, for cripes sake. Plus, Austin is a college town, and if they're going to try to replicate OKC (another fairly isolated college town) they should probably go with somewhere like Columbus which has a basketball loving population and no pro sports teams and an enormous college sports base that dominates the market for both basketball and football, similar to OKC.
Vegas - Terrible. I don't think it's a good idea that Vegas has been getting sports teams lately all of a sudden. It's a gimmick place and people don't go there to live and raise a family for the most part. They go for two reasons, well maybe 3, but it's the last place you'd call a *family town*. Plus, it's not really all that huge of a metro area. The people who do live/work there are generally already big fans of other teams, or nonchalant about sports in the first place. Horrible idea.
Birmingham - Are you joking? Alabama is a hole full of sun baked hicks. The only sport they care about at all is college football, and they're ravenous about it, but that's it. Their college basketball teams are awful. Basketball is seen there as just another sport like tennis or lacrosse. Plus, it'd be a small metro area. Dixieland is an awful place to live. No, no, NO, NO!
San Diego - Would be a good choice for a basketball team, but that team should really be the Clippers moving back there. The Clippers are a good franchise that will always unfortunately be 2nd place in LA to the Lakers due to legacy and history. Sort of like how the Chargers will always be a distant 2nd (and that's generous!) as long as they play in LA. Both the Chargers and Clippers should move back to SD, IMMEDIATELY.
Baltimore - Not bad, there is likely demand due to large black population. However, most of them are likely fans of the Wizards or a bigger name team already. There are definitely worse choices out there. However, DC already has a team and there are quite a few teams already in the area as well.
Dell Demps isn't even the worst GM in his own division. Chris Wallace is much worse and is somehow still employed.
It's so hard to judge because few of us have any idea of the actual inner workings that occurred in New Orleans, but if the rumors are true that Toronto offered a package centered on Pascal Siakam, then I think it was a big mistake not to take it. Siakam is exactly the kind of young and versatile player that's easy to build around.
In retrospect, it's kind of ironic that New Orleans helped Sacramento turn around their franchise by taking on Cousins and giving them Hield and draft picks. Sacramento is having a better season this year than they ever did with Cousins. At the time, the trade was considered a steal-- turns out it was, but for Sacramento, not New Orleans.
The Clippers are currently 8th on the Forbes valuation list despite not owning our own arena, not even being a priority tenant at Staples, getting a smaller share of suite and club seat profits, etc. Once the new arena in Inglewood gets built, that valuation will skyrocket. Anyone who seriously thinks the Clippers would be better off moving to a smaller market is re ed.
I don't get you. Do you live in LA or SD? Somewhere in between? If not in SD, why did you turn on the Chargers when they moved from SD to LA?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)