Orlando

PG-Nelson/Ish Smith
SG-Afflalo/Redick
SF-Harkless/Richardson/Harrington
PF-Turkoglu/Davis/Nicholson
C-Vucevic/Ayon

Bobcats
PG-Walker/Sessions
SG-Henderson/Gordon/Carroll
SF-Kidd Gilchrist/Williams/Taylor
PF-Biyambo/Thomas
C-Mullens/Haywood/Diop

Not sure how I feel abotu getting Iggy and giving up AA and Harrington. We already have multiple wing players like Iggy. Chandler, Gallinari, Quincy Miller, Corey Brewer. But AA was a great defender and knockdown 3 point shooter, n Harrington was also a great shooter and solid bench player. Guess we'll see how it works out. If I had to guess itd be

Pg- Lawson
Sg- Iggy
Sf- Gallinari
Pf- Faried
C - Mcgee

jordo212000;1245009 wrote:
People care about stars and storylines, not Milwaukee vs. Memphis

You have already posted that article and it was thrown back in your face, keep trying though.

Also, they do? Then tell me why a finals matchup between LeBron and HOFers Duncan/Parker was the lowest rated finals matchup in NBA history? Can you also explain why a finals matchup that had Wade/Bosh/LeBron/Durant/Westbrook/Harden is in the middle of the pack?

Can't wait for your next fail... not really.

Trueblue23;1244475 wrote:Steve Nash
Kobe Bryant
Metta World Peace
Pau Gasol
Dwight Howard

Antawn Jamison
Jodie Meeks
Steve Blake
Chris Duhon
Jordan Hill
Earl Clark
Devin Ebanks

That's a hell of a team, and they're rumored to be talking with Kenyon Martin, who is a pretty versatile defender.

Well aged!

When the season starts...

Lakers
PG-Steve Nash(38)/Steve Blake(32)/Chris Duhon(30)
SG-Kobe Bryant(34)/Jodie Meeks(25)
SF-Metta World Peace(32)/Devin Ebanks(22)
PF-Pau Gasol(32)/Antawn Jamison(36)/Earl Clark(24)
C-Dwight Howard(26)/Jordan Hill(25)
Total Age=356

Heat
PG-Chalmers(26)/Cole(24)
SG-Wade(30)/Allen(37)/Miller(32)
SF-James(27)/Battier(34)
PF-Bosh(28)/Haslem(32)/Lewis(33)
C-Anthony(30)/Hamilton(22)
Total Age=355

like_that;1245173 wrote:You have already posted that article and it was thrown back in your face, keep trying though.

Also, they do? Then tell me why a finals matchup between LeBron and HOFers Duncan/Parker was the lowest rated finals matchup in NBA history? Can you also explain why a finals matchup that had Wade/Bosh/LeBron/Durant/Westbrook/Harden is in the middle of the pack?

Can't wait for your next fail... not really.

That's the first time I have posted that article to my knowledge. If it is the second time, then I go back and find any number of other articles out there. There are hundreds. The NBA had a banner season.

You keep going to OKC vs. Miami like it is a bad thing for the NBA. That series did very well. Here's an article from Forbes:

With the Miami Heat closing out the 2012 NBA Finals, one could argue it wasn’t LeBron James that was the ultimate winner, but ABC and ESPN.

This year’s Finals averaged an 11.8 overnight rating, the highest five-game ratings average since 2004 and second-highest ever on ABC, according to Nielsen. It is up five percent from an 11.2 rating through five games last year (Dallas Mavericks vs. Miami Heat)...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2012/06/22/heat-win-in-nba-finals-generates-ratings-boon-for-abc/

As for the Cleveland - San Antonio series, one can assume the numbers suffered because of the two teams involved. Neither San Antonio or Cleveland drives the needle. Plus on top of that, you had Duncan who is about as exciting as watching paint dry vs. Cleveland and their methodical, dribble the air out of the ball offense. Aside from Lebron, Cleveland had nobody on their team that casual fans care about (or who had heard of). I remember watching those games and they were impossible to watch.

Compare the star power found on the Thunder, Lakers, Heat, Celtics, etc. vs. those two teams and you will notice a big difference.

Wow Tim Duncan, one of the games top 30 players of all time is boring to watch in his prime? News to me. Also the games best player (LBJ was the games best player then IMO) on an up and coming team that just shocked the world and beat the heavy favorite Det Pistons in a very exciting series (See LBJ scoring 25 straight pts to win in OT) was a boring series? LMFAO. Just do yourself a favor and STFU.

Commander of Awesome;1245440 wrote:Wow Tim Duncan, one of the games top 30 players of all time is boring to watch in his prime? News to me. Also the games best player (LBJ was the games best player then IMO) on an up and coming team that just shocked the world and beat the heavy favorite Det Pistons in a very exciting series (See LBJ scoring 25 straight pts to win in OT) was a boring series? LMFAO. Just do yourself a favor and STFU.

You are a fan of the Cavs. Of course you found them exciting.

For more light reading on Tim Duncan, please find these articles:
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/5/16/3020389/san-antonio-spurs-boring-nba-playoffs-2012

His old Sprite and Nike ads, too. Duncan's problem is that he's got no personality on the court. His game's (still) deadly effective, but the way he does it makes Hoosiers look like an And-1 Mixtape.
It's not about age or athleticism, either. It feels like Paul Pierce's feet haven't left the floor in six years, but he's one of the most entertaining players in basketball because all he does is find new, ridiculous ways to put the ball in the hoop. If Tim Duncan is king of the bankshot from the post, Paul Pierce is king of splitting the double team, stumbling into the paint on a jump stop, bobbling the ball on an unnecessary pivot, then launching a fadeaway jumper from the foul line that hits every part of the rim and falls in. Both guys are incredible, but which would you rather watch?

Simmons goes into more detail about Duncan in the article.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070509

At one point during Dad's visit, I was discussing possible column topics for the issue you're currently reading. Tim Duncan's name came up.
"Would you read a column about how underrated Tim Duncan is?" I asked.
Dad made a face. He played with his hair. He seemed confused. "A whole column on Tim Duncan?"
"You wouldn't read it?" I continued.
"I don't think so. I'd see the headline, skim the first two paragraphs and flip to the next article."
"Seriously? He's the best player of the past 10 years!"
"Nahhhhhhh," Dad maintained. "Nobody wants to read about Tim Duncan. He's not that interesting."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1063229-tim-duncan-and-the-10-most-boring-players-in-the-nba/page/2

Tim Duncan, and the entire San Antonio Spurs franchise in general over the past decade, is not that exciting of a player to watch.In fact, he's probably the only top 10 player in NBA history that you wouldn't mind passing up in favor of watching a LeBron James or Kobe Bryant of sorts. The walking double-double has consistently given 20 points and 10 rebounds to the Spurs every night since he was drafted in 1997, yet he's just as interesting to watch as CSPAN or another ESPN special highlighting Tim Tebow's high school accomplishments.

Despite his averaging 20 points and 11 boards per, you and your buddies aren't saying to each other, "Man, I really can't wait for that San Antonio Spurs game tonight." All Duncan and the Spurs do is win, but it's Timmy's fundamental approach that could put any casual viewer to sleep.

Lol @ using a bleacher report article to "help" your point.

I agree more with Jordo in this debate, but yes. Bleacher Report is weak...

Only Jordo cares about what's good for the NBA. The bottom line is, long term this will erode the casual NBA fan. The NBA is quickly becoming like baseball and hockey to me; only watch during the playoffs.

jordo212000;1245050 wrote:That is your opinion. That's not what happened this year after many on this board had said that interest in the NBA would go down.

Link? Way to go, last season. Now it's 2012 where the season will go back to being 7+ months long.

jordo212000;1245050 wrote:The same people are always going to watch Pistons - Cavs or Blazers - Bucks. Those are true fans. However, their viewership is a given. Superstars and mega teams attract the casual viewer. Casual viewers cause ratings to sky rocket.

The Lakers probably attracted quite a few casual fans, right? With Kobe and all their success in the past decade. Do you think they'll pick up a substantial amount of casual fans that didn't watch them before but will now? And what about the Orlando Magic? How many fans will they lose? Sure they'll have the true fans but they just turned into another abysmal team that no one will want to watch.

They don't nickname you The Big Fundamental because you're exciting to watch.

jordo212000;1245430 wrote:As for the Cleveland - San Antonio series, one can assume the numbers suffered because of the two teams involved. Neither San Antonio or Cleveland drives the needle. Plus on top of that, you had Duncan who is about as exciting as watching paint dry vs. Cleveland and their methodical, dribble the air out of the ball offense. Aside from Lebron, Cleveland had nobody on their team that casual fans care about (or who had heard of). I remember watching those games and they were impossible to watch.

Commander of Awesome and like_that are right - you'll twist everything.
"Superstars and mega teams attract the casual viewer. Casual viewers cause ratings to sky rocket." -- But not when it's the Spurs because Duncan is boring and the Cavs dribble too much.

sleeper;1245486 wrote:Only Jordo cares about what's good for the NBA. The bottom line is, long term this will erode the casual NBA fan. The NBA is quickly becoming like baseball and hockey to me; only watch during the playoffs.

He is too short sighted to understand that. He doesn't see the big picture. It brings the lulz. If it wasn't for the Cavs I honestly wouldn't give a fuck about the NBA. I know plenty of fans who are like this (not cavs fans either). If their team didn't exist they wouldn't care about the NBA anymore with the direction it is leaning toward.

friendfromlowry;1245508 wrote:Commander of Awesome and like_that are right - you'll twist everything.
"Superstars and mega teams attract the casual viewer. Casual viewers cause ratings to sky rocket." -- But not when it's the Spurs because Duncan is boring and the Cavs dribble too much.

He has the spin cycle on 24/7. Always back pedaling.

sportswizuhrd;1245355 wrote:When the season starts...

Lakers
PG-Steve Nash(38)/Steve Blake(32)/Chris Duhon(30)
SG-Kobe Bryant(34)/Jodie Meeks(25)
SF-Metta World Peace(32)/Devin Ebanks(22)
PF-Pau Gasol(32)/Antawn Jamison(36)/Earl Clark(24)
C-Dwight Howard(26)/Jordan Hill(25)
Total Age=356

Heat
PG-Chalmers(26)/Cole(24)
SG-Wade(30)/Allen(37)/Miller(32)
SF-James(27)/Battier(34)
PF-Bosh(28)/Haslem(32)/Lewis(33)
C-Anthony(30)/Hamilton(22)
Total Age=355

How about an average age for the starters (Miami 28) (LA 32.5) or career minutes played by the starters.

Apparently I'm an rtard and dont know how to post a pic from my phone.

The NBA doesn't care about many of us either. Lets be real. This happened with the previous generation. Our parents' generation (I'm assuming most of us are in their 20's or 30's, myself 28) did the same thing. Their interest in the sport waned over the past decade. The NBA suffered for a little bit but changed around their product and target audience and built it back up. Sure, they had a few snags (including 2 lockouts in 12 years), but it's not like our generation starting to fall in-terms of caring about the sport is going to bury it. They will continue to target the future generations, market the product around the world and basically do what it takes to continue to make money. If that means almost forgetting about competition and teams and single-handedly just driving money-making players to certain places, so be it. I said it when LeBron went to Miami and they had to literally scramble to build a roster that this is a scary trend. The past decade in the NBA was an all-time high in-terms of relative money the players made. Considering the value of a dollar, salaries over this time were more valuable than today. Many of those players are in their prime and unless they go Allen Iverson or Antoine Walker on us, they are only going to perpetuate the competitive imbalance by joining the primetime stars on big market teams. Steve Nash did it. Ray Allen did it. Rashard Lewis. The list is only growing.

Pick6;1245472 wrote:Lol @ using a bleacher report article to "help" your point.

Huh? Haha anything I posted about Duncan being boring would be 'opinion' not fact. What difference does it make where I got it from?

If I were posting a heavy hitting, journalism piece, I wouldnt go there, but for this it isn't a big deal. Should I go ahead and do a link to one of the other dozens of articles out there?

jordo212000;1245634 wrote:Huh? Haha anything I posted about Duncan being boring would be 'opinion' not fact. What difference does it make where I got it from?

Because anybody can post on Bleacher Report, so it can literally be an 8 year old mentally retarded girl from China.

Do you know how much credibility an 8 year old MR asian girl has when it comes to the NBA?

LOL @ bleacher report.

If my argument ever degrades enough that I have to use Bleacher Report to back myself up, please ban me indefinitely. What a joke.

SportsAndLady;1245691 wrote:Because anybody can post on Bleacher Report, so it can literally be an 8 year old mentally retarded girl from China.

Do you know how much credibility an 8 year old MR asian girl has when it comes to the NBA?

More than Jordo, that's for sure.

jordo212000;1245009 wrote:http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-06-22/industries/32364181_1_nba-playoffs-nba-tv-boston-celtics



People care about stars and storylines, not Milwaukee vs. Memphis

What if Kobe played for Milwaukee? What if Durant played for Memphis?

You think that if Miami's big 3 played for the Bobcats that nobody would tune in to watch? Players are what attract the fans, not the damn cities that they play in.

These "superteams" will eventually water down the league. It will limit the number of quality games that you can have in a season.