the league wants celtics vs. lakers.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I think Spurs/Celtics would get some very good ratings. The Spurs are finally a team that most people are familiar with...you've got Tim vs. KG...the Celtics against the franchise player they should have had in TD...the return of the Celtics to elite status. That would be a great series, too.

I'm not handing the West over to the Lakers yet.

[duncan228]

For all of us fans who watched the NBA in the 80's, I think it would be great theater, and would reignite the league which has been on a down swing the last few Finals. I grew up watch this rivalry and was mesmerized by it each time. This is not Magic vs Bird, but I promise you, the tv ratings would be a 100% increase over the last 5 Finals....so who can blame the NBA for wanting this Finals.

I was watching then. Larry Bird is how I became an NBA fan.
It was a wonderful time for the league and the fans. It didn't matter if you were actually a fan of either team, many people I knew watched because of how great the games were and they could simply root for East/West based on where they lived.

I agree that LA/Boston would raise ratings. I agree the NBA is a business.
But I don't buy into the league being fixed to control what teams get to the Finals. It's easy to read into it and see what you want to see. But based on the ratings the Spurs have brought to 4 Finals, one with LeBron (!), it would appear that the league does not fix it. The Spurs would never have gotten there if it was fixed.

A personal rant: If the league could figure out how to market the most decorated active player they have, the best role model they have for kids, maybe ratings for Spurs games would be better. I know that flash and pizzazz sell. I know the average fan wants highlight reels. But it still frustrates me to no end that Duncan can't get a push from the league. Anything can be marketed. The NBA has some top notch marketing folks. Figure it out. Use him. (Even though he probably doesn't want to be used! )

[JamStone]

I think Spurs/Celtics would get some very good ratings. The Spurs are finally a team that most people are familiar with...you've got Tim vs. KG...the Celtics against the franchise player they should have had in TD...the return of the Celtics to elite status. That would be a great series, too.

I'm not handing the West over to the Lakers yet.

I'm sure Spurs/Celtics would do fine in the ratings. But, to be honest, if Boston makes it to the Finals, it won't matter who they play against, the Finals will get good ratings. People are watching that team.

But if the Spurs play Cleveland again, the ratings will be similar to last year, and it won't matter that people are familiar with the Spurs.

[picnroll]

We are re-entering an era when the big market teams, who can make acquisitions without being sensitive to luxury tax issue, will dominate. Lakers could and did make this move because, based on their revenue, they could take the luxury tax hit of picking up a player on fire sale from a team who was willing to "give' talent away for in exchange but cutting payroll. As the economy slumps this adavntage will magnify. Hopefully the league will go to revenue sharing or an absolute hard cap to correct this imbalance. Otherwise small market teams will have zero chance and I for one will find another sport to follow.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I'm sure Spurs/Celtics would do fine in the ratings. But, to be honest, if Boston makes it to the Finals, it won't matter who they play against, the Finals will get good ratings. People are watching that team.

But if the Spurs play Cleveland again, the ratings will be similar to last year, and it won't matter that people are familiar with the Spurs.

People wrote off Cleveland after game one. A six or seven game series would do better...but you're right, I think the only ratings winner out of the east against SA would be Boston.

LA and Boston get the hype, but I don't buy that there's a conspiracy to match them up this year.

[picnroll]

What's the matter bag? Afraid of a level playing field?

[DazedAndConfused]

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

That kid's got a lotta teef.

[JamStone]

Success is still talent driven, big market or small market. Was it fair that the Spurs got Tim Duncan when they already had David Robinson on the roster just because Robinson got hurt the prior season? Revenue sharing already exists in some respects, though not to any great extent. And, an absolute hard cap is fine but that doesn't guarantee parity at all. Players will still generally choose big market cities and teams with a strong history of success. A hard cap doesn't create parity. In fact, not having a hard cap allows some small market cities to land elite free agents by really over spending to get them.

[ricketts]

It souds like memphis is trying to rebuild completely, so i wouldnt say anything is off the table. But they're probably gonna realize they got hosed of the Gasul deal in a day or two and start to demand more for what they got. It's not imposible, we just have to figure out what they're game plan is and offer something attractive to that.

I think Stoudemire was it for the spurs this season though. better hope its enough now.

[picnroll]

Success is still talent driven, big market or small market. Was it fair that the Spurs got Tim Duncan when they already had David Robinson on the roster just because Robinson got hurt the prior season? Revenue sharing already exists in some respects, though not to any great extent. And, an absolute hard cap is fine but that doesn't guarantee parity at all. Players will still generally choose big market cities and teams with a strong history of success. A hard cap doesn't create parity. In fact, not having a hard cap allows some small market cities to land elite free agents by really over spending to get them.

Duncan was a lottery. You can say Spurs tanked which is pure conjecture but seeing as they didn't have nearly that great of odds of getting him, it was luck unless you want to say Stern rigged it so the Spurs could get him.

Big city franchises will always have an advantage in desireability and endorsement packeages the Nike's of the world will hand out depending on where you play. Why compound the situation? Make it a hard cap like football. Seems to work just fine there. Wait and see what happens to small franchise teams if there's a prolonged recession and lots of unemployment.

[JamStone]

A hard cap works in the NFL because even small market teams are making money. There are only a couple of teams that don't routinely sell out. Small market teams in the NBA don't sell out, they don't make money. If you make it a hard cap in the NBA, then it gives even more of a disadvantage to small market teams because then they can't over spend to attract quality free agents. The parity comes with the soft cap so that teams over the cap can't sign big name free agents. A hard cap would actually hurt the small market teams more than making it a level playing field.

[ehz33satx]

If the Lakers could not get it done with Shaq, Kobe, Payton, and Malone, now they are the favs to win the west with Kobe, Gasol, and Bynum? That's a stretch.

[DazedAndConfused]

To be fair Payton and Malone were in the twilight of their careers. And that team still made it to the NBA Finals and beat the out of the Spurs (4-2).

There are no guarantees in sports, but that team delivered on the promise of giving LA a chance to contend in the NBA Finals which they did.

[LA24]

If the Lakers could not get it done with Shaq, Kobe, Payton, and Malone, now they are the favs to win the west with Kobe, Gasol, and Bynum? That's a stretch.

No doubt.

Lakers will still have to play their best to survive the west. But at least we're
better equipped for the job now.

[JamStone]

People always like to criticize that 2004 Lakers team. o! They still made it to the NBA Finals, even with all their issues. Malone was 40. Payton was 35. Kobe and Shaq were at odds. Kobe was dealing the entire year with the Denver trial.

And, they still made it all the way to the NBA Finals. I wonder why a lot of fans of other teams continue to use that team as an example of failing just because they lost in the Finals. They lost in the NBA Finals.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

it happened because money was covertly slipped under the table from jerry buss (or whatever the his name is - the dude who owns the lakers) to jerry west.

jerry west has close ties with the organization (obviously), and he conceded to the trade because either 1). the money buss was offering him was to much to pass up or 2). he is going to take the position as lakers gm in the near future and he wants a solid foundation to work with AND be apart of a winning franchise, again, or 3). because of both reasons.

This needs to be investigated by the stern. that is, if he isn't in on it. and if that is the case - which i think it may very well be - than all of us fans - who want to see honest basketball - will just have to watch this bull .

[JamStone]

Jerry West doesn't run the Grizzlies anymore. He did not make the trade.

[LA24]

They lost in the NBA Finals.

Ugghh, more like we got spanked in the Finals.
I still feel bad for Malone.

[JamStone]

My point is that people want to criticize the Lakers for getting Gasol by comparing them to the 2004 team with Payton and Malone, but that team still got to the Finals.

[Obstructed_View]

Pau Gasol > Kwame Brown. That's not saying much. Pau was the second or third best player on the Grizzlies.

The best thing about this trade is that it prevents the Spurs from making some idiotic trade so they can run a 4 surrounded by guards for 48 minutes.

[daslicer]

We are re-entering an era when the big market teams, who can make acquisitions without being sensitive to luxury tax issue, will dominate. Lakers could and did make this move because, based on their revenue, they could take the luxury tax hit of picking up a player on fire sale from a team who was willing to "give' talent away for in exchange but cutting payroll. As the economy slumps this adavntage will magnify. Hopefully the league will go to revenue sharing or an absolute hard cap to correct this imbalance. Otherwise small market teams will have zero chance and I for one will find another sport to follow.

Interesting point you make with that but it can work both ways. Look at the Knicks those guys are idiots they continue to overpay players and make terrible trades. In this case the Lakers got lucky for once that their dip GM was able to pull off a good trade.

I don't fear Gasol people in here overate him. He's a good player but is he enough to end the spurs season in the playoffs I would say no. He's a very good regular seaon player that can get W's for regular season but I don't see him being a thorn come playoff time.

[hsxvvd]

All you need to know about Gasol

2001-02 - 23-59
2002-03 - 28-54
2003-04 - 50-32 (Swept 1st Round)
2004-05 - 45-37 (Swept 1st Round)
2005-06 - 49-33 (Swept 1st Round)
2006-07 - 22-60
2007-08 - 13-33

Nuff said.

Winner's win.

Loser's lose.

[MajicMan]

We still have to beat the Spurs and we match horribly with them even with Gasol. We should probably be able to take any other team in the west.

[MajicMan]

All you need to know about Gasol

2001-02 - 23-59
2002-03 - 28-54
2003-04 - 50-32 (Swept 1st Round)
2004-05 - 45-37 (Swept 1st Round)
2005-06 - 49-33 (Swept 1st Round)
2006-07 - 22-60
2007-08 - 13-33

Nuff said.

Winner's win.

Loser's lose.

Spurs have never repeated. History tends to repeat itself. Spurs are a good team but not dominant the way the Lakers were with Shaq. Gasol may have never won anything but he still makes us a better team. Don't be so en re ed.