****The Official 2013-14 NBA Thread****

Not the Heats fault, but the East is ridiculously pathetic. It's not a slight,...it's a fact.

 

I agree when presenting it like a fact. When you present it as an asterisk, then it's a slight.

 

I didn't present anything with an asterisk??

 

Not you, you're good... I was referring to the other dude.

 

Good?

I'm great.

 

Easy there, Tony the Tiger... Let's not get carried away.

 

If the Heat sucked vs. the West you would have a point....

But they were 20-10 vs. the West and Wade sat in 11 of those games, Lebron in 2 of them, and the Heat used 16 different starting lineups in those games due to injuries.

 

Nah. He isn't.

 

Not my fault. People kept sending me stupid quotes from Pacer fans, and I just merely responded to ALL OF THEM with a simple: "Dumbass".

 

Heat vs. West Playoff Teams:

Spurs: 1-1
OKC: 1-1
Clips: 2-0
HOU: 1-1
Por: 2-0
GSW: 1-1
Mem: 1-1
Dal: 2-0

For those of you keeping score...The Heat was 11-5 vs. West Conf. Playoff Teams. if you add the #9 Team (Phoenix)...they were 13-5.

Is 11-5 good?

 

Stop it Sect. Everyone knows..

 

It's gonna suck for Heat fans when it hits them.

 

It's ok, meanwhile we can watch the Pacer's dumpster fire.

 

How dare you present reasonable arguments backed up by facts. Who do you think you are?

 

Paul George's home got burglarized during game 5. His parents left his home and didn't lock the door because they had no key to get in, didn't set the alarm system. Bad guys walked in, grabbed some stuff and walked out.
When it rains, it pours.

 

I mean she is really a he amIright?

It is cool if she is but who is she trying to kid?

 

What is $5m to a Multi Billionaire?

 

Never said it was.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba-bans-donald-sterling-for-life--fines-him--2-5-million-for-racial-comments-181803437.html

 

The whole thing seems like a massive over reaction by the league.

 

Me? Why? That is what was reported on Twitter, they were wrong, not me...

 

No it isnt, the guy deserved to be banned....

 

It is an overreaction induced by media and public outcry, but it is only an overreaction if it were only coming from the probably illegal recording and publication of a private conversation. However, his past history has some bearing here, hence why the punishment fits.

I think people should be upset that this wasn't done a long time ago, and what actually tipped the balanced was something nowhere near as outrageous as the other things he did that would not have been brought to light otherwise.

 

Hey if advertisers want to abandon him, fans wanna stop attending games, players chose not to sign contracts with him, all that is fine. The NBA should not have the authority to force him to sell his team because he made an unsavory comment in private that turned out to be secretly recorded. If thats the new standard for the NBA then there are many who should be exited with him.

 

I agree, but again, the comments were just the door that opened pandora's box and that box was filled with decades of racist and discriminatory incidents.

On this act by itself, there is definitely overreaction, but this guys most definitely deserves this punishment.

 

Why not? Owning an NBA franchise is a privilege and with that privilege comes the agreement that an owner is subjected to the bylaws and constitutions of the league. If those bylaws state that a 3/4's majority can kick out an owner, and other owners vote him out because they feel his ownership is a hindrance to their interests and the interests of the league, then what's the issue?

 

You're right that 3/4's majority owners can kick out an owner and for the reasons you described, however saying something in private that unbeknownst to him later becomes public should not be reason enough. People should have the right to say and think whatever they want in private.
For me, the fact Sterling has been a racist douchebag for decades is definitely tipping the balance here and the real reason they're taking action now. The recording and the over-the-top public outcry is just the perfect excuse to get rid of this clown who has never been a good owner and has made the Clippers a laughing stock for years until just recently.

 

So if the owners decided to kick out a fellow owner for being outted for being gay you would defend their right to do that too?

 

You can both agree, as I do, that Silver made the right call while also wondering about the "slippery slope" that's now been created.

I imagine that most transgressions of owners won't affect the reputation and business of the league, which is how they'll spin it, but there are NBA owners with interesting backgrounds to say the least.

The DeVos family has donated millions to Anti-gay marriage initiatives. Can they have the Magic stripped away?

 

Consider it a Lifetime Achievement award.

The guy is Grade A pure SCUM.

The worst kind too. The kind that preys on the poor for his own fun and profit.

 

I dont follow basketball and judging on what's being reported. It seems like its selective and an overreaction

 

It's not. Trust me.

 

It doesn't matter that he said it in private. What matters is that it became public and it is created a problem for the NBA, and this is the best way to solve that problem.

With all due respect those aren't even close to the same situation.

 

What's the difference?

Either you can discriminate or you can't.

What you guys are celebrating is that its against somebody you don't like

 

Removing an owner due to race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation is a human rights issue. Being removed as an owner because you make bigoted racist remarks that negatively effect your fans, players and fellow owners is not. Also during the press conference Silver explicitly stated that the lifetime ban was the result solely of this incident. When it comes time to vote on whether he should remain an owner, the league will take into account his entire history of discriminating behavior. Charles Barkley said it the best; "You can be a racist all you want, but when you have the power to affect peoples lives and livelihoods with that racism, then it becomes an issue". .

 

What's the difference?

In one case, they are punishing discrimination.

In your Hypothetical, the owners Discriminate against a single owner.

 

"Racist" isn't a protected group in the US. You make it seem like this is any different from a Wendy's franchise holder losing their license. At least they give him the opportunity to cash out.

 

Do me a favor. Read this article:

http://deadspin.com/your-complete-quotable-guide-to-decades-of-donald-sterl-1568047212

Coming from someone who only found out about all the stuff he said in this article, this was a guy that should have been banned a long time ago.