Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes.

I like movies about gladiators.

Amazing work! Thanks for the breakdown.

"I think that point is PERFECT" And I think it's irrelevant. Pro basketball does exist. There's a market for the best of the best, and the players are paid accordingly. There's also a market for the best attorneys. Stern is an elite, well-known attorney. So he is paid accordingly. There are a million hypothetical universes where one person might succeed financially and another might not. We don't live in those universes. We live in this one.

LMAO. I love that you completely redefine capitalism and socialism and THEN tell me the discussion is over and it's time to talk basketball. If one were into conspiracy theories... Oh well, you're on staff here so your prerogative. Thanks for all the great work you do on this the blog-- I can wholeheartedly agree that it is the best Celtics blog in the world, at least.

I can see that there is no NBA without owners (who specifically is commissioner is less vital). Can you see that there's no NBA without players? For what it's worth, I did watch a few minutes of pickup basketball today. It was fun; I like watching basketball. And people did seem to flock to see Kevin Durant play pickup the other day...

Any amount of regulation does not equal socialism. Last I checked, you can't slander someone by telling the truth. I have a serious problem with the possibility (you seem to suggest) that Stern may have decided that the Mavericks could not win a title, no matter how well they played on the court, until Mark Cuban shut up off the court. If Stern is doing THAT, than he undid all the good he did throughout his tenure.

Again, I'm willing to concede that Stern has done many, many things to benefit the NBA. But until people hand over millions of dollars each year to watch HIM do something, he's not more valuable than the combination of all the players who have passed through under his watch. Each individual player is "replaceable." The next player may not be as special as Magic or Bird or Barkley or Jordan or whomever. But he may be special in his own way and get the job done... And that goes for commissioners, too.

"Also, private company, I can fire anyone for whatever reason I want." Flat-out incorrect. Most employees are at-will employees and can be fired for any reason or no reason as long as it's not an illegal reason. "Removing" an employee because he voiced his unhappiness by discussing salaries is one of those illegal reasons. It violates Section 7 of the NLRA, which, at least for now, is still the law of the land. The fact that Hawes makes a lot of money, and will make a lot of money under the new system, is irrelevant. Rich or poor, you get the protection of the law that allows you to act collectively with your colleagues and, by extension, to discuss or bitch about wages. He makes more money than I do because he has a skill set almost no one has... that's supply and demand, not a justification for removing the protection of the law from him.

"But yes, Stern didn't do anything... right." Straw man argument. I acknowledged Stern grew the NBA very well. I simply said he did not do it ALONE. His contributions are massive for an individual, but they are NOT more massive than the sum total of the contributions of the players.

Because of Stern, Hawes will be a millionaire? Nothing to do with the countless hours in the gym, putting his body through incredible training, his ability to do things people pay to see? Stern grew the NBA very well, but he didn't do it by himself. With no players, he's got no product. The players ARE the product. Both ethically and practically, he needs to share the credit (we built this league together) and the low points (we're losing money, so we need to take a pay cut). BTW, you *might* get away with firing an employee for mentioning your salary, especially if the employee is snotty about it, but it's a violation of the NLRA to forbid employees to discuss their co-workers' wages whether the employees are unionized or not...

WBZ is saying City Hall Plaza. Agreed, that should be the pose.

Interesting. I knew that Paul and KG were telling players to sit the year out, but I didn't know Wyc was saying the same thing on the owners' side. Of course, at this point in negotiations everyone has to posture that way regardless of what their real view is. The players could give back all of their money and the Hornets still wouldn't be on even ground with the Lakers. The underlying problem is how the NBA (doesn't) share profits between teams, not how players are paid (although that needs a rework too).

Low risk/high reward assuming the alcoholism stuff is exaggerated, and I think it is. I'd like to see him get one more shot... the fact that he's at least reached the point where he voluntarily announces he'll come off the bench is a good sign. Plus, he's way less crazy than Marbury (not that that went brilliantly, but it didn't implode or anything). And the odds aren't as stacked against Iverson as they were against Delonte last year. Kick those tires!

KG struck me as a guy who would endorse anything, but maybe that's just because his Gatorade ad and his Fios (does he still have them?) ad both ran constantly a few years ago. There's also Wheaties and coconut water that I can think of...

Too bad for the Celtics, but good for him. There's no reason for him (or anyone else, especially foreign-born players) to wait around and see if the NBA owners will deign to allow a season.

Except in basketball there is no "going into the HOF with." Players go in as individuals; team or teams played for is irrelevant for induction purposes, since the HOF is for the whole sport and not for one particular league.

Even assuming that the Laker organization should have shown Kareem more love, his response would still be pathetic and whiny. He could have expressed his hurt without sounding whiny or patting himself on the back so much. If he was such a great player (and he was), shouldn't his accomplishments speak for themselves? Anyone-- war hero, world leader, basketball player-- who acts entitled to a monument sounds like an idiot. Keep on mocking those Lakers!

You tell 'em, Tommy! I wish we could have kept Perk and don't think the trade was Danny's finest moment. But I've heard people argue that when Danny made the trade, the Celtics "had the deepest bench" in the NBA. That's crazy rewritten history.

Since the aftermath of The Decision, teams want to make it harder, not easier, for players to leave. I doubt that the owners REALLY want to trim the Bird exception. If the NBA tells players they can only have X no matter where they go, players will have even more motivation to seek out the big markets with big endorsements.... or just to get jobs overseas. Salary limits? Sure. Cuts to guaranteed pay when a player quits after signing a big deal? Of course. But a truly hard cap in a superstar-personality-driven league is suicide.

I love that there is a comment panning his D and complimenting his O instantly followed by one panning his O and complimenting his D. Oh, Jeff. You confuse us. The Celtics should only let Green walk for nothing if: 1. He has suffered a serious injury and won't play for a few years. 2. He is a locker room cancer. (No offense to cancer patients or Charlie V.) 3. The Celtics have so many tall, young, athletic wings that they can afford to throw one away. None of these are the case. Jeff stays. Easy decision.

It was sad watching a former force of nature so immobile out there. Really pathetic and depressing. He needs to go off and be a sheriff or a CEO or whatever it is he wants to be now... Actually, I hope he finds some ridiculous and self-aggrandizing way of announcing his retirement. Then the Shaq obituaries might overshadow the Pierce-Garnett-Allen-Rivers era obituaries, which I don't want to be subjected to.

Leader or not, it isn't Rondo's job to decide whether it's better for him or Delonte to be on the floor at any given time. That's all on Doc.

Agreed. I suggest that all Celtics fans check this site at least five times today.

At least this team is going down fighting, tough, and classy. Unlike some other teams we all could name. And as to the first comment, Danny has consistently said there was a twofold reason for the trade. I doubt he wants to take the comment about Perkins' contract back, since he has made it many times. In Danny's defense, the two teams that were supposed to benefit most from the Celtics losing Perkins-- Orlando and the Lakers-- turned out not to be a problem, as Danny speculated. I don't blame Danny. I blame the freakish construction of Marquis Daniels' spine.