wco81 wrote:Actually, the trade is seen at least partly as a move to retain Paul, who's a free agent.
Partly? That was ENTIRELY to retain Paul. Paul said he would likely leave if they didn't find a way to get Doc and he pushed, and pushed HARD for it. Do you really think cheap ass Donald Sterling would want to pay a coach 7 mil per? Hell no.
Agreed, but what I don't understand is why CP3 was pissed when word got out that he wanted Del Negro fired. So did he want Del Negro fired to have him replaced by Doc?
I don't get why Boston is rebuilding. They're still a playoff team.
I guess they don't want to pay Pierce or Garnett big money? Or Rivers either?
Or did Rondo drive them all out?
No they're not going to be able to to challenge the Heat but how is getting rid of your best players make the team more competitive?
If they free up all those salaries, are they going to use for some free agents?
Or are they trying to get into the lottery for the next few years?
They kind of got lucky with Pierce, who dropped and was picked later than he should have. And of course they got the perfect situation with Garnett and Allen coming to them while they were still very good players.
Unlikely they're going to get into that situation again. They'd have to hit on 2 or 3 franchise players, kind of like the way the Thunder did.
Do you never read anything on the internet before you babble on and on in threads Wco?
Boston, starting over...rebuilding, don't wanna pay a coach (nor did Rivers want to coach) 7mil a year for a bunch of young guys. Lottery bound. Everyone wants Wiggins.
Really unusual for a team to dump their coach and franchise players, even if they're getting old. Why should fans buy tickets next year? Other teams are willing to pay the luxury tax to be competitive.
Are they saying they're going to purposely tank to win the lottery next year? Teams may have done it but not telegraph it before the start of the season.
It's going to be really interesting to see how it all works out for the Nets next year. I'd put a question mark on that team since they are pairing veteran NBA superstars with Jason Kidd who has never coached an NBA game in his life.
Sucks to lose Dudley, but BLEDSOE! Love it, even if the Suns have to eat Caron Butlers contract. Tho it is expiring so it'll have some value at the deadline.
Rodster wrote:It's going to be really interesting to see how it all works out for the Nets next year. I'd put a question mark on that team since they are pairing veteran NBA superstars with Jason Kidd who has never coached an NBA game in his life.
Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. I'm not saying this was a horsesh!t deal but I'm having a hard time understanding why some experts are blowing the Nets after this deal. Old old old. Several teams in the East are still better than them.
Stunning, but smart, choice by Celtics. Stevens is a sharp young coach. He has marquee value because of his success at Butler. He's not a screamer or control freak in college, so his style could translate to the pros, unlike Pitino or Calipari. He won't face intense blowback from the headstrong Garnett and Pierce.
And most importantly, Stevens saves money for the Celtics. Stevens was making between $1 million and $1.5 million per year at Butler. Doc Rivers was making $7 million per year in Boston. So the Celtics save serious dough even if Stevens' Butler pay is doubled by the Celtics.
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
Stunning, but smart, choice by Celtics. Stevens is a sharp young coach. He has marquee value because of his success at Butler. He's not a screamer or control freak in college, so his style could translate to the pros, unlike Pitino or Calipari. He won't face intense blowback from the headstrong Garnett and Pierce.
And most importantly, Stevens saves money for the Celtics. Stevens was making between $1 million and $1.5 million per year at Butler. Doc Rivers was making $7 million per year in Boston. So the Celtics save serious dough even if Stevens' Butler pay is doubled by the Celtics.
I guess if the tanking hurts attendance too much, they could can him (even if he's not at fault) and then sign a name coach later.
It doesn't sound like this was purely a money-saving move. As a first-time NBA coach, he wouldn't get as much as say Phil Jackson. But it's probably more than when an assistant gets the first head-coaching job.
Sacramento hired an assistant and he probably isn't getting $20 million contract.
wco81 wrote:Well they're giving him $22 million over 6 years.
I guess if the tanking hurts attendance too much, they could can him (even if he's not at fault) and then sign a name coach later.
It doesn't sound like this was purely a money-saving move. As a first-time NBA coach, he wouldn't get as much as say Phil Jackson. But it's probably more than when an assistant gets the first head-coaching job.
Sacramento hired an assistant and he probably isn't getting $20 million contract.
That's $3.4 million per season less than what the Celts paid Doc. It's also HIGHLY unlikely that the small-market Kings were paying Smart -- a coach who has won nothing -- anywhere near $7 million per season.
Money was a factor in the hiring of Stevens. But I also believe Ainge was thinking "out of the box." It's a risk to hire a college coach, but I think Stevens is a risk well worth taking.
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
What a waste of talent DH is. I forget if it was Kobe who told him, just pick a City and stay there. I think the guy fears failure now. If he doesn't play to his potential he wants to leave and go somewhere else.
dbdynsty25 wrote:p***y can't handle the bright lights in La. Would rather be second banana to Harden I guess. Doesn't shock me at all.
Second banana to Harden? LOL....
Harden is a top ten player. Dwight hasn't been in that stratosphere in the past two years. Guess you haven't been watching.
Actually I haven't been watching as I am not a big fan of the NBA, but the Rockets are relevant again in Houston. They have not been relevant since '94/95 when they won B2B championships. It will be interesting to see what impact Kevin McHale can have on him as he cited McHale as one of the top reasons he chose Houston over the others. I get that DH has not been all that the past few years, but I have also seen players go to a new address and play much better because of the change of scenery. Not saying this will happen to DH and the Rockets, but it will be interesting to watch and yes, I will be watching more than I have in the past few years......as will many in Houston.
Probably the best fit for Howard. I've got nothing against the Lakers but its not like they are the NBA elite anymore. Yeah the history is there but Kobe is injured/old/stubborn, Nash is a fossil, and D'antoni's coaching style is pretty suspect. Tough leaving that cash on the table but Houston is a pretty nice situation for him. I think we will see the old DH in Houston.
Diablo25 wrote:Tough leaving that cash on the table but Houston is a pretty nice situation for him.
This argument is just wrong. Yes, he is getting less "years" than he would w/ the Lakers, but it's not like this is his only contract. It's likely that he gets another HUGE payday in 4 years and then what does it matter that he got one less year w/ Houston? The only problem is if he gets hurt and can't play anymore. Oh yeah, and there's the fact that there's no state tax in Houston AND it's much cheaper to live there than LA. So, to me, he's making MORE money in 4 years in Houston than he's making if he had 5 years in LA. Quite a bit more actually.
I agree that Houston is the best fit for him...even though he's only about 75% of the "real" Dwight Howard. There's just something about back injuries that scares the hell out of me for freak athletes. And I don't think we'll ever see the "old" DH again. That's not to say that he's not still one of the top 2 or 3 centers in the league anyway, even at 3/4 speed.
dbdynsty25 wrote:
This argument is just wrong. Yes, he is getting less "years" than he would w/ the Lakers, but it's not like this is his only contract. It's likely that he gets another HUGE payday in 4 years and then what does it matter that he got one less year w/ Houston? The only problem is if he gets hurt and can't play anymore. Oh yeah, and there's the fact that there's no state tax in Houston AND it's much cheaper to live there than LA. So, to me, he's making MORE money in 4 years in Houston than he's making if he had 5 years in LA. Quite a bit more actually.
I agree that Houston is the best fit for him...even though he's only about 75% of the "real" Dwight Howard. There's just something about back injuries that scares the hell out of me for freak athletes. And I don't think we'll ever see the "old" DH again. That's not to say that he's not still one of the top 2 or 3 centers in the league anyway, even at 3/4 speed.
The game hasn't been dominated by center for a long, long time.
Even Kareem needed Magic and before him, Oscar Robertson.
Most of the centers who won championships played with a HoF guard or forward. Will Harden be such a player? Maybe, but they will need more shooters. Houston was tied with the Knicks for the most 3-pointers attempted this year and they shoot at least as many now with DH commanding double teams.
Diablo25 wrote:Tough leaving that cash on the table but Houston is a pretty nice situation for him.
This argument is just wrong. Yes, he is getting less "years" than he would w/ the Lakers, but it's not like this is his only contract. It's likely that he gets another HUGE payday in 4 years and then what does it matter that he got one less year w/ Houston? The only problem is if he gets hurt and can't play anymore. Oh yeah, and there's the fact that there's no state tax in Houston AND it's much cheaper to live there than LA. So, to me, he's making MORE money in 4 years in Houston than he's making if he had 5 years in LA. Quite a bit more actually.
I agree that Houston is the best fit for him...even though he's only about 75% of the "real" Dwight Howard. There's just something about back injuries that scares the hell out of me for freak athletes. And I don't think we'll ever see the "old" DH again. That's not to say that he's not still one of the top 2 or 3 centers in the league anyway, even at 3/4 speed.
Forgot about the state tax in Texas. Definitely makes a difference. I guess my point was towards some of the media who are shocked Howard left LA. Their storied past only carries so much weight. If things looked brighter in LA maybe things would've gone differently.
