"We're going to Disney World!" NBA to resume season July 31 at WDW

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,157
For all the leagues, if this gets into a discussion of money I fear there will be no seasons.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
Jaylen Brown on CNN now, says he was in on the call and says most of the influential players want to play and his teammates want to play and come back as long as it is safe.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Jaylen Brown on CNN now, says he was in on the call and says most of the influential players want to play and his teammates want to play and come back as long as it is safe.
Well, fuck. If that's all it takes, why not just open the world, "as long as it is safe"?

It isn't "safe". This is risk mitigation and nothing more. There is a certain percentage of people affiliated with the NBA who will get this and a certain, presumably much smaller, percentage of those people will die. Those are the facts with this virus. They can do a lot of things to open the leagues up and they can try to do it "as safe as humanly possible".

But there is no safe. People have died and, unfortunately, they will continue to die. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't try, if they feel strongly about it. Nothing is for certain in life and some risks do need to be taken or else there will be no world to come back to. Because if the system breaks down if this goes on for an indefinite number of months, it will happen with two things: Violence and speed.

That is what every country, city, and, to a smaller extent, league is facing at the present time. I do not have the answers. I don't want people to die. I also don't want 25% of the country and a number of states, companies, and universities to go bankrupt.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
We're not going to be 100% safe for anytime in the near future. At the same time, as noted, we cannot hibernate and allow civilization to collapse all around, which is a very real risk if we stay locked down "until a vaccine".

Safe first means that by playing, they will not contribute to a community outbreak. Second, that the spread among the participants (players and others) can be quickly detected and contained. Whether the NBA can get there with their Orlando tournament is TBD at this point, IMO.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
We're not going to be 100% safe for anytime in the near future. At the same time, as noted, we cannot hibernate and allow civilization to collapse all around, which is a very real risk if we stay locked down "until a vaccine".

Safe first means that by playing, they will not contribute to a community outbreak. Second, that the spread among the participants (players and others) can be quickly detected and contained. Whether the NBA can get there with their Orlando tournament is TBD at this point, IMO.
This. It would probably be helpful for the NBA to publicly state this in a clear fashion.

I'm still not sure what it does to the legitimacy of the eventual title winner if a key player has to be quarantined partway through. I don't think most people would view the 1997 Utah Jazz as deserving champions if Jordan had been held out from Game 5 on due to sickness+contagion risk, but that's exactly what the league would do now (and I wouldn't argue with it).

I guess the answer is that everyone will get entertainment at a hard time, money will be made, and some team's fanbase will be stuck justifying its title for years. Not the worst outcome, all things considered.
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,044
I’m still not sure I get it.

if after the first week of playing (say 3 games), 5 players are confirmed positive on 3 different teams, with one team having 3 positives. What is the next step? Obviously those 5 are quarantined. But what of the others? What of the team with 3 positives?
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
I’m still not sure I get it.

if after the first week of playing (say 3 games), 5 players are confirmed positive on 3 different teams, with one team having 3 positives. What is the next step? Obviously those 5 are quarantined. But what of the others? What of the team with 3 positives?
I think the hope is that with constant testing and lots of other steps in place, the likelihood of that happening is small. Even without any real plans or restrictions in place, the Jazz somehow managed to escape with only two players being infected and Smart didn't spread it at all within the Celtics. It's a tough question for sure though and I'm not sure there's a great answer. On the other hand, the situation you describe will seemingly remain in place until a vaccine hits and It's probably not realistic to stop sports from returning until that happens.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
10,736
NJ
This. It would probably be helpful for the NBA to publicly state this in a clear fashion.

I'm still not sure what it does to the legitimacy of the eventual title winner if a key player has to be quarantined partway through. I don't think most people would view the 1997 Utah Jazz as deserving champions if Jordan had been held out from Game 5 on due to sickness+contagion risk, but that's exactly what the league would do now (and I wouldn't argue with it).

I guess the answer is that everyone will get entertainment at a hard time, money will be made, and some team's fanbase will be stuck justifying its title for years. Not the worst outcome, all things considered.
If sports decide they need to wait for it to be 100% safe, there will be no sports for years - possibly decades - and that is not a realistic option. They have tests, they have the means to detect positives fairly quickly (my nursing home can get test results in 24 hours, so I would imagine worst case the NBA can do this) so just play already. No fans. Minimal other non-players/refs.
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,044
I think the hope is that with constant testing and lots of other steps in place, the likelihood of that happening is small. Even without any real plans or restrictions in place, the Jazz somehow managed to escape with only two players being infected and Smart didn't spread it at all within the Celtics. It's a tough question for sure though and I'm not sure there's a great answer. On the other hand, the situation you describe will seemingly remain in place until a vaccine hits and It's probably not realistic to stop sports from returning until that happens.
Plan A is no infections. I am just wondering what Plan B is. The example above, what is realistic? Do you shut things down for two weeks? I'm not trying to come off as an alarmist, I am just wondering what people would have as a plan if (when) one or more players test positive?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Plan A is no infections. I am just wondering what Plan B is. The example above, what is realistic? Do you shut things down for two weeks? I'm not trying to come off as an alarmist, I am just wondering what people would have as a plan if (when) one or more players test positive?
I have to believe the NBA is working on such a plan in consultation with team physicians and public health professionals. The underlying assumption is that they can do daily testing with an accurate, rapid response system, of which several now exist.

If a player or other individual on a team should test positive, they could just suspend play for a couple of days to see if any other players test positive. If not, then resume play. If more people start testing positive, they may have to suspend or cancel. The chances of that happening are going to be non-zero, but at some point everyone is going to need to figure it out.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
This. It would probably be helpful for the NBA to publicly state this in a clear fashion.

I'm still not sure what it does to the legitimacy of the eventual title winner if a key player has to be quarantined partway through. I don't think most people would view the 1997 Utah Jazz as deserving champions if Jordan had been held out from Game 5 on due to sickness+contagion risk, but that's exactly what the league would do now (and I wouldn't argue with it).

I guess the answer is that everyone will get entertainment at a hard time, money will be made, and some team's fanbase will be stuck justifying its title for years. Not the worst outcome, all things considered.
If they play, the title this year is going to a massive asterisk next to it for all time regardless, for obvious reasons - there will never have been an NBA season/playoffs even remotely similar to this one even in the best case scenario where no player gets sick (no home court advantage, etc.).
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
If they play, the title this year is going to a massive asterisk next to it for all time regardless, for obvious reasons - there will never have been an NBA season/playoffs even remotely similar to this one even in the best case scenario where no player gets sick (no home court advantage, etc.).
If the Celtics win, then the asterisk is that they overcame and persevered through one of the weirdest times in NBA history and delivered without the benefit of home court to help them. The Champion of Champions. If the Lakers win, it doesn't count and fuck em.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
If the Celtics win, then the asterisk is that they overcame and persevered through one of the weirdest times in NBA history and delivered without the benefit of home court to help them. The Champion of Champions. If the Lakers win, it doesn't count and fuck em.
...
I guess the answer is that everyone will get entertainment at a hard time, money will be made, and some team's fanbase will be stuck justifying its title for years. Not the worst outcome, all things considered.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,518
Maine
I’m still not sure I get it.

if after the first week of playing (say 3 games), 5 players are confirmed positive on 3 different teams, with one team having 3 positives. What is the next step? Obviously those 5 are quarantined. But what of the others? What of the team with 3 positives?
Wouldnt they then Stop?

I mean just because they attempt to have a season finish doesnt mean they actually have to go through with it. I suppose the optics might look bad if they try and have to cease. But the optics would look better then if they try.....end up with 20% of the rosters sick/held out of important games and have some well know team or FO member die, just so they can say "we finish the season Dammit".

They try. See if multiple people get infected in the first week or two and if so Silver goes on Espn and Says "We gave it a go, but we have to call it off". I am no lawyer so am probably way off base, but a continuation (and if necessary subsequent 2nd and final halt) might be better for litigation of Salaries. "your honor....we would have love to pay these players for their services.....we did everything we could to continue the season....it simply wasnt safe."
 
No professional sports league should get underway at this point without gaming out all potential infection scenarios for both players and non-players. And I assume that schedules are going to have to be flexible enough to cope with games that have to be postponed because players are infected. I also assume that if non-players are infected, replacement referees or support staff (etc.) can be summoned in such a way that games will not have to be postponed...although this might require backup tests to be conducted every day. (For example, you'd need to test the three referees assigned to a game plus two or three additional referees in case there are positive tests among the primary crew; fortunately, enough referees should be in Orlando or Las Vegas for the duration.)

As a thought experiment, let me spitball a few ideas along the lines of what Adam Silver might be thinking, strictly focusing on the sporting side of things and not the logistics of organizing everything in the first place:

1) When should a game be postponed? I would suggest that a playoff game should be postponed if there are positive tests which exceed certain thresholds:

a) More than X players on one team (to the point that a team doesn't have enough bodies to be competitive)
b) More than X% of a team's salary cap (to the point that a team doesn't have enough marquee players to be competitive)
c) A team's head coach and one or more of its assistant coaches, or all of its assistant coaches (so that a team isn't leaderless to the point of being non-competitive), although a team could choose to voluntarily waive this postponement if it felt capable of playing anyway

(I assume that everyone being tested will be held in mini-quarantine or at least remain socially distanced from everyone else until the results come back as negative, so that anyone testing positive can be quickly whisked away and not infect anyone else...although this isn't necessarily straightforward.)

The salary cap requirement in point b) is debatable - and salary is of course not equivalent to talent - but I don't think playoff games in which star players are "DNP - Infected" are going to feel legitimate. So I think some sort of accommodation needs to be made to ensure games can't take place unless (What if you let a franchise assign 5-4-3-2-1 points to five of its players basis when the season resumes, and if 8 or more points' worth of players test positive, the game gets postponed? Or let it assign the 15 points to any number of players, with no more than 5 points to any one player - so you can go 5-5-5, or 3-3-3-3-3, or 4-2-2-2-2-2-1, etc. - with the 8-point threshold applying?)

2) If a playoff game has to be postponed, how will that affect the schedule? At the moment, the standard assumption is that 14 days of quarantine are required after someone tests positive before that person can return to society, even if that person remains asymptomatic. After 14 days, a person may still test positive but is thought to be no longer be infectious except in extreme cases - cases in which the person is likely to be suffering symptoms that keep them hospitalized or in bed anyway - so I think 14 days is reasonable. And that means any team forced to postpone a game cannot continue for another 14 days.

In a normal NBA playoff schedule, each team is likely to play 6-7 games in a 14-day span *if* every series goes the distance, but there are often gaps which come up when series end prematurely. So I would suggest that the playoffs begin as normal, and if any series has to be postponed, it will simply resume two weeks later, with all other series continuing as normal - so you might have one series in the first round and another finishing the second round. Any team that falls behind will keep playing games every two days once it can resume - or perhaps even play on consecutive days as long as it has to catch up, with sufficient rest between the end of its series and the start of the winner's next series.

I would expect that several teams would have games postponed (i.e., go on a two-week break) once between the start of games and the end of the playoffs, but it's relatively unlikely that any team would cause two postponements on its own, simply because people can only get infected by COVID-19 once. The worst-case scenario would be if one team triggers a postponement, and then at the end of the two weeks the other team it's playing discovers its own infections and triggers its own two-week postponement, leading to a four-week break; that really would throw everything badly off, but I assume the NBA would have to accept this possibility from the outset and be prepared for the playoffs to run for up to a month-and-a-half beyond their scheduled end date. (There may need to be a "three strikes and you're out" policy whereby no team can be party to more than two two-week postponements; if a team finds itself in that situation, it will need to ensure good social distancing and hygiene protocols, because any further games it is involved with will have to be played, even with a skeleton roster if it comes to that.)

3) What about the regular season? I assume the end of the regular season - which it appears Silver, the owners and the players all agree is necessary - will be more flexible. The threshold for postponing a game should be lower, and if a team does need to take a two-week break, it might well be possible to reschedule any missing games against different opponents than were originally scheduled, and/or to compress them into shorter time spans. But again, any delays to the regular season schedule would slow down the start of the playoffs.

4) What if one or more players or non-players become seriously ill with COVID-19, or even die? This is the one X factor which could seriously jeopardize the season, IMHO. It's easy to assume that every NBA player is extremely low risk, and unlikely to have more than minor symptoms - a few days of bed rest at most - if any at all. But that is not automatically the case, and if a player were to die or require ventilation and be at significant risk of death, this whole experiment could end very quickly. And of course many coaches are at a much higher risk of significant health issues if infected; if the worst-case scenario hits one or more of them, the season could be cancelled pretty quickly as well. (What if a referee or support staffer, or restaurant worker at a players' hotel, gets sick and dies from COVID-19 during the playoffs? A referee death might be high-profile enough to be thought significant; I suspect a restaurant worker would just be thought of as the cost of doing business, but who knows.)

Anyway, I'm sure I'm missing some stuff, but that's at least one attempt to figure out what a resumed season might look like. You could extrapolate a lot of this across to other sports - e.g.:
  • The NFL would likely be in the best position to deal with postponements because in theory a team on a two-week break could get away with missing only one game, and NFL rosters have far more players and could better cope with infection-related absences. But then, more players means a greater likelihood of reinfection across an entire season.
  • MLB would be worst off because they play 12-13 games in a normal two-week span, but of course they can play doubleheaders to help catch up, and having great minor league depth on a taxi squad would probably help mitigate the need to postpone in the first place.
And so on.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
If they play, the title this year is going to a massive asterisk next to it for all time regardless, for obvious reasons - there will never have been an NBA season/playoffs even remotely similar to this one even in the best case scenario where no player gets sick (no home court advantage, etc.).
Just like that big asterisk we always put next to the 1987 Championship Washington Football Team? When they went 3-0 with replacement players while the Giants and Eagles each went 0-3?
Ed: in the long run nobody cares how you won.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
Not sure where this goes, but some good NBA fodder:

ESPN ranked the impact of trades/drafts/signing over the last decade

http://insider.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/29074327/ranking-biggest-nba-trades-transactions-lebron-decision
Celtic highlights:
#73 Horford signing
#70 Kyrie trade
#22 C's steal IT
#20 Tatum+/Fultz (should be ranked higher IMO)
#4 The Nets boondoggle

They have attachments, where you can go back and see how ESPN rated the trade "at time of transaction".
I don't have Insider, so what the hell 3 moves could possibly be more impactful than the Billy King heist? We basically got two all-stars for free, not to mention the trade for Irving, out of what proved to be two very-nearly-value-neutral assets.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
I don't have Insider, so what the hell 3 moves could possibly be more impactful than the Billy King heist? We basically got two all-stars for free, not to mention the trade for Irving, out of what proved to be two very-nearly-value-neutral assets.
3 Harden trade
2 Kawhi trade
1 KD signing
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,235
If they play, the title this year is going to a massive asterisk next to it for all time regardless, for obvious reasons - there will never have been an NBA season/playoffs even remotely similar to this one even in the best case scenario where no player gets sick (no home court advantage, etc.).
The 1944 St. Louis Browns say pennant flags fly forever.
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,726
The Durant signing shouldn't even be on the list, let alone #1. A top player goes to an existing championship team.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
I'll give them the KD signing. That pretty much prevented anyone else from seriously contending for the NBA championship in his 3 years there, until lightning struck him in the 2019 Finals. They went 16-1 in the playoffs in 2017, 16-5 in 2018 including a Finals sweep. It was THE move in the league for a 3-year period.

The Kawhi trade was for one year, and it worked as well as it possibly could, but frankly I think his decision to go to the Clippers and then trade a king's ransom for Paul George is probably more league-changing (extent * number of years it affects) than his walk-year sojourn to Toronto. Hell, Lebron's return to Cleveland was probably more impactful overall. I would bump this ranking to the 4-6 range.

Harden trade... that's a tougher call. It gutted what should have been a legendary core in OKC, but I'm not sure it brought Houston to where they wanted to be either (notwithstanding that they probably win the west in 2018 if Chris Paul doesn't get hurt). I'm not sure it's bigger than the Billy King trade, but I'm not sure it's not, either.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
I'll give them the KD signing.

The Kawhi trade was for one year, and it worked as well as it possibly could, but frankly I think his decision to go to the Clippers and then trade a king's ransom for Paul George is probably more league-changing (extent * number of years it affects) than his walk-year sojourn to Toronto. Hell, Lebron's return to Cleveland was probably more impactful overall. I would bump this ranking to the 4-6 range.

Harden trade... that's a tougher call. It gutted what should have been a legendary core in OKC, but I'm not sure it brought Houston to where they wanted to be either (notwithstanding that they probably win the west in 2018 if Chris Paul doesn't get hurt). I'm not sure it's bigger than the Billy King trade, but I'm not sure it's not, either.
No, it was the Kawhi trade to SA. The other Kahwhi trade was #6

The details: The Pacers sent pick No. 15 (Kawhi Leonard), pick No. 42 (Davis Bertans) and the rights to Erazem Lorbek to the Spurs for George Hill

The impact: Hill helped Indiana to two straight Eastern Conference finals and five straight playoff appearances. Typically, that would be a very good trade. But the Spurs captured their fifth title with Leonard, who became the 2014 NBA Finals MVP and led the Spurs to two Finals appearances and two Western Conference finals in his seven years with the franchise. Bertans developed into a valuable bench contributor, making this one of the most impactful transactions of the decade. -- Bontemps
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
Couldn't quite make something out at 9:41, is that what you're talking about? Something like, "I don't know anything 'bout the Sun Kings, but the Sun Kings're in trouble"?
Lol yes, the fact that you just hear it from a distance makes it even better.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
Other than being annoying to make out, I must've missed the joke or reference or something.
Before the first game of the 92 Olympics, Barkley said “I don’t know nothin about Angola, but there in trouble.”

Idk, thought the timing of it was great.
 

Time to Mo Vaughn

RIP Dernell
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
7,202
I have no idea what thread this belongs in, but Spencer Dinwiddie may have gone crazy during the quarantine. He's trying to raise a go fund me for $24m+ in bitcoin to let fans pick what team he signs with next. Don't ask how that works or how it wouldn't be a blatant cap violation.

View: https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1261478418555777024
If it's not coming from someone associated with a team, why would it be? Endorsements aren't a blatant cap violation.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
If it's not coming from someone associated with a team, why would it be? Endorsements aren't a blatant cap violation.
That's really interesting. So if fans REALLY wanted to see a player come to their team, and each team could only offer the max, you could theoretically have some super rich fan(s) - or a ton of regular fans - pony up major $$ to give to the guy if he comes to your team? Let's say a superrich buddy of Mark Cuban offers a free agent insane money to come to Dallas. And who knows...maybe one of Cuban's other businesses funnels money and business back to that friend somehow. Or not. Either way this would be legal?
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
If it's not coming from someone associated with a team, why would it be? Endorsements aren't a blatant cap violation.
Endorsements aren't tied with a certain team though. If Nike told a guy, we'll pay you $20 million to wear our shoes and sign with a team I find it really hard to believe that would fly. I also feel like for campaign to even make any sense part of taking the 24m is that he'll sign with whatever team they choose for a far below market rate deal that's being subsidized by fans. If the fans say sign with a team that has no cap space, then he has to take whatever they can offer (plus the 24 million from fans).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
There's likely to be clauses buried in the CBA that forbid players from signing 3rd party contracts that are dependent upon which team the player signs for.

Obviously, there's nothing the NBA can do about players deciding where to play based on the endorsement money a specific locale is likely to provide, other than perhaps getting rid of the max contract (and even then it's unclear). But I have difficulty believing Dinwiddie's stunt will pass muster, and it certainly doesn't pass any sort of smell test.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
7,758
It got a little dusty in here when Skip and SAS hugged at the end of Episode 3 of GOZ. They've really kicked up their game during this shutdown.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,054
That's really interesting. So if fans REALLY wanted to see a player come to their team, and each team could only offer the max, you could theoretically have some super rich fan(s) - or a ton of regular fans - pony up major $$ to give to the guy if he comes to your team? Let's say a superrich buddy of Mark Cuban offers a free agent insane money to come to Dallas. And who knows...maybe one of Cuban's other businesses funnels money and business back to that friend somehow. Or not. Either way this would be legal?
Welcome to SEC Football.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
That's really interesting. So if fans REALLY wanted to see a player come to their team, and each team could only offer the max, you could theoretically have some super rich fan(s) - or a ton of regular fans - pony up major $$ to give to the guy if he comes to your team? Let's say a superrich buddy of Mark Cuban offers a free agent insane money to come to Dallas. And who knows...maybe one of Cuban's other businesses funnels money and business back to that friend somehow. Or not. Either way this would be legal?
Think of the hilarity possible though in convincing Human Coronaviruses to sign with teams you hate.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
That's really interesting. So if fans REALLY wanted to see a player come to their team, and each team could only offer the max, you could theoretically have some super rich fan(s) - or a ton of regular fans - pony up major $$ to give to the guy if he comes to your team? Let's say a superrich buddy of Mark Cuban offers a free agent insane money to come to Dallas. And who knows...maybe one of Cuban's other businesses funnels money and business back to that friend somehow. Or not. Either way this would be legal?
Well, definitely not if the owner ends up funneling money back.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,155
I wonder if we could donate money to force a team to take a certain player. I for one, would put up cash to see Melo sign with the Lakers.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
I wonder if we could donate money to force a team to take a certain player. I for one, would put up cash to see Melo sign with the Lakers.
Incidentally, the rehabilitation of Carmelo Anthony's reputation this year is one of those stories that will be completely obliterated by COVID and its impacts.

However Melo, while no Allstar or even a top tier player was a decent pickup for Portland, especially factoring in Rodney Hood's injury.

I hope Melo sticks around another season- the NBA is more fun with him in the league imo.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,014
Imaginationland
Incidentally, the rehabilitation of Carmelo Anthony's reputation this year is one of those stories that will be completely obliterated by COVID and its impacts.

However Melo, while no Allstar or even a top tier player was a decent pickup for Portland, especially factoring in Rodney Hood's injury.

I hope Melo sticks around another season- the NBA is more fun with him in the league imo.
Not just Melo, but two other former All-NBA guys were having nice seasons: Dwight Howard and Derrick Rose. Really this was a fun season with lots of great stories (other than Kobe's death) that was just wiped out. Everything sucks.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,085
Not just Melo, but two other former All-NBA guys were having nice seasons: Dwight Howard and Derrick Rose. Really this was a fun season with lots of great stories (other than Kobe's death) that was just wiped out. Everything sucks.
Pretty crazy that Kobe Bryant dying in a fiery helicopter crash is going to be a minor anecdote for 2020 when this year is recapped.