Phx-Suns.Net

I don't mind the TOs, I mind stoppage for reviews, the clear path rule and unbalanced reffing. Also, shorter breaks for the fans also means less time for players to rest. Don't think the players won't say something about that.

Superbone wrote:NBA Board of Governors approves rules changes to improve game flow
Timeouts reduced by four per game; teams limited to two in last three minutes:
http://www.nba.com/article/2017/07/12/n ... le-changes

I think getting rid of 20-second timeouts was the right move. They were never even close to 20 seconds long, partly because of the natural delay to get players on/off the floor, and partly because TV networks wanted to jump to a 30-second commercial during them. Just admit that every timeout is a full timeout and give enough time for two standard 30-second TV commercials if the networks want to air them. Very sensible change.

I don't really get this part, though:

In addition, the Board of Governors approved moving the trade deadline from the Thursday after the NBA All-Star Game to the Thursday 10 days before the All-Star Game. With the new placement of the trade deadline, teams will be able to settle their rosters before the All-Star break and avoid the disruptions that result from players joining new teams just as practices and games are beginning to resume following the All-Star break.

I thought a big benefit of the All-Star Break was that all of the GMs could get together in one place and hash out trades. That'll be gone now. What's the point of this change?

Yea I really don't like it but I also think the league is sensitive to trade talks/rumors dominating the weekend and taking away from the festivities. I do like the idea that execs would use that weekend to work out deals. Kinda sucks.

Big Jake Little Jake wrote:

Superbone wrote:NBA Board of Governors approves rules changes to improve game flow
Timeouts reduced by four per game; teams limited to two in last three minutes:
http://www.nba.com/article/2017/07/12/n ... le-changes

Glad they've shortened the timeouts more than anything. :75 instead of :90 and the dumb "20 second time out that is much longer" one is gone. The lesser number of timeouts probably won't make a huge difference, but 4 total timeouts (2 each team) for the last 3:00 is a great idea.

Wonder how this will affect national games. Weren't timeouts always longer for ESPN/TNT/ABC games?

I am not sure there will actually be less time spent in the time outs. I know that they are supposed to be 90 seconds, but from the time they call the time-out until they start playing again is usually 120-150 seconds for normal games, and 150-180 for nationally televised games. It takes forever!

Superbone wrote:NBA Board of Governors approves rules changes to improve game flow
Timeouts reduced by four per game; teams limited to two in last three minutes:
http://www.nba.com/article/2017/07/12/n ... le-changes

+ 12 TV timeouts +8 stoppages of play for the refs to review a tough call.

Right after signing a big fat TV deal, they change the game rules to leave less room for commercials? Do the networks have a say in this? It seems like it would cost them a lot of revenue.

New York is interested in Bledsoe. Outside of KP, do they have any assets at all that would be worth trading him? I dont think so right now.

jonh wrote:New York is interested in Bledsoe. Outside of KP, do they have any assets at all that would be worth trading him? I dont think so right now.

Not right now, but they might after they trade Melo.

Lonzo goes for 36, 11, 8, and 5 tonight. Lakers beat Sixers

Cap wrote:

jonh wrote:New York is interested in Bledsoe. Outside of KP, do they have any assets at all that would be worth trading him? I dont think so right now.

Not right now, but they might after they trade Melo.

Could be part of the Melo trade?

Knicks are desperate to move Melo, Houston doesn't have what they want so they're scouring the league. They desperately need a PG and want a veteran to train up Nkitilina so they're looking at trades because they have no money to spend after giving their MLE to Ron Baker (for no apparent reason). So Houston and NY couldn't get anything going with a third team (supposedly Portland), opened it up to a 4 team trade and had the Pelicans interested. They've also reached out to Sessions but have no money and are supposedly interested in Bledsoe since he and Hornacek have a history. Neither the Knicks nor Rockets really have anything we want or need and I'm sure we'd obviously want to dump Knight before Bledsoe.

The Rockets have all their 1stR starting in '19. Give me two and I turn Anderson into space (or Chandler, or Dudley, or a wink wink on Len, or whatever).

Anderson seems to be the guy no one wants, that's why they're looking now for a 4th team. We have the room specifically for that, but if we're taking on Anderson's deal we gotta give up Knight and not Bledsoe.

ShelC wrote:Anderson seems to be the guy no one wants, that's why they're looking now for a 4th team. We have the room specifically for that, but if we're taking on Anderson's deal we gotta give up Knight and not Bledsoe.

Or both?

Indy wrote:

ShelC wrote:Anderson seems to be the guy no one wants, that's why they're looking now for a 4th team. We have the room specifically for that, but if we're taking on Anderson's deal we gotta give up Knight and not Bledsoe.

Or both?

I would absolutely do Knight annd Bled for Anderson and future picks. Is Ulis the PG, then, or do we look to bring in a vet like Sessions.

O_Gardino wrote:

Indy wrote:

ShelC wrote:Anderson seems to be the guy no one wants, that's why they're looking now for a 4th team. We have the room specifically for that, but if we're taking on Anderson's deal we gotta give up Knight and not Bledsoe.

Or both?

I would absolutely do Knight annd Bled for Anderson and future picks. Is Ulis the PG, then, or do we look to bring in a vet like Sessions.

I am not sure with Ulis and Mike James. I think you need another. But you let them fight it out for the opening day starting spot.

If the teams are NY, Houston and the Pelicans or Portland, it'd be hard to move one PG, let alone two. NY is the only team that needs a point guard, albeit desperately.

O_Gardino wrote:

Indy wrote:

ShelC wrote:Anderson seems to be the guy no one wants, that's why they're looking now for a 4th team. We have the room specifically for that, but if we're taking on Anderson's deal we gotta give up Knight and not Bledsoe.

Or both?

I would absolutely do Knight annd Bled for Anderson and future picks. Is Ulis the PG, then, or do we look to bring in a vet like Sessions.

Even if you just want Bledsoe gone, this is a terrible trade. Anderson has one of the 5 worst contracts in the league. He's got more negative value than Knight. You're trading bled for 6 million extra per year on knights contract and two crappy firsts. He's got way more value than that.

Split T wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Indy wrote:

ShelC wrote:Anderson seems to be the guy no one wants, that's why they're looking now for a 4th team. We have the room specifically for that, but if we're taking on Anderson's deal we gotta give up Knight and not Bledsoe.

Or both?

I would absolutely do Knight annd Bled for Anderson and future picks. Is Ulis the PG, then, or do we look to bring in a vet like Sessions.

Even if you just want Bledsoe gone, this is a terrible trade. Anderson has one of the 5 worst contracts in the league. He's got more negative value than Knight. You're trading bled for 6 million extra per year on knights contract and two crappy firsts. He's got way more value than that.

Depends on the 1sts.