Those players won't see any significant playing time with Boston. So thats pretty much irrelevant.

Clippers and Mavericks had major overhauls though.

Which players wont have significant playing time on Boston?

O'Neal and Pavlovic were already with the Celtics since last season. I have no idea why he would even list them. With Paul Pierce back, Dooling won't see any significant playing time, unless one of the guards go down with an injury. Brandon Bass is the only one that will get around 25 minutes a game.

Knicks aint going nowhere unless they get a good ball distributor, and form a better denfensive game all around. Once de defense lapse, Chandler, their "defensive saviour" is always gonna be in foul trouble. When a good basket attacker bypass melo and amare, there's a 50 percent chance chandler is fouling, because the man is just that foul prone. His contract way too high imo.

Thats why they are hoping that Baron Davis will solve those problems on the offensive end.

They need to get rid of Pringles. He is a terrible coach. Defense should be the first priority. ALWAYS. He clearly doesn't value it.

exactly

lol Davis and delonte west are the only people you should've mentioned in this arguement for Boston, you can't throw guys in there that were traded before the playoffs last year or didn't get enough clock to impact anything. How can you compare Boston adjusting to not having shaq or green to Dallas adjusting to no tyson chandler and jj??

Bynum DOMINATED again tonight. 21 points/ 22 rebounds.

Kobe had 37/8/6

Thank God for NBA league pass. Worth every penny.

If Kobe shoot juss a lil bit less, i would be happy.

Lakers improving tho..

His shot selection is a major problem. He was terrible in the first half. At one point he was 5 for 15. Then in the 3rd and 4th quarter he hit a bunch of shots in a row.

You guys are totally missing the point. The discussion was about Boston struggling so far this season. Yes, Dooling and Pavlovic will eventually get pushed down in the rotation once Pierce is back healthy. But the fact is they have been playing during the time ppl are saying Boston is struggling.

Again, you're missing the point. Boston's starting five for most of last year was
Rondo, Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Shaq/Perkins.

So far this year it's been
Rondo, Allen, Pavlovic, Garnett, Jermaine.

How can changing two starters and the first two guys off the bench WITHOUT A TRAINING CAMP not be significant?

The NBA aka David Stern is the owner of the HORNETS. He did not "screw" the Lakers. He helped THE HORNETS. The Laker/Rocket trade would have made the Hornets INCREASE salary, and Stern is trying to SELL the Hornets.

Lemme ask you a question: if you heard that Mark Cuban or any other owner turned down a trade request, you would be complaining that the owner screwed the other team, or would you say the owner was well within his right to do what's best for HIS team?

The problem with people's thinking in this Stern so-called-veto is that you all don't realize Stern was acting as the Hornets owner. Not commish. You can't sell the Hornets by increasing their debt.

Stern did not veto the trade as a commissioner. He declined the trade as an owner. As owners do all the damn time.

The trade they eventually made got them younger players and lowered salary. That was their aim.

What's going to happen is irrelevant. We were talking about Boston's struggles out of the gate (0-3 start). Pavlovic got 11 mins a game last year; in their losses, Pavlovic STARTED. O'Neal similarly didn't start but a handful of games last year.

As for Dooling, he's played nearly 25 mins/game in those losses.

If your point was that the Celtics will be alright, well that's the self-same point I'm making. I was only pointing out why they were losing. All I said was that the teams that are struggling, like Boston and Dallas, had significant roster differences. I didn't say those same guys will be playing the rest of the year, or that those teams will keep struggling. In Boston's case, they get Pierce back, in Dallas' case, more reps will make them more comfortable with each other.

You guys just missed my point.

The League Office gave the Hornets GM Demps full on authority to carryout trades. When the League bought the Hornets, Stern said he would not get involved in the decision making process: hiring/firing of staff, getting involved in players trades etc. Because it was a direct conflict of interest. Demps had full on authority. Every other GM in the league was under that impression. Including Demps himself, because the NBA told him so! Its only after the Owners. Cuban, Jordan, Gilbert etc complained about the Lakers potentially getting Paul and Dwight to form a super team was when Stern stepped in and vetoed it as a "Owner". The owners were pissed because they just had a lockout to prevent super teams from forming. Because the small market teams want to keep their stars.

Wojo from yahoo Sports wrote several articles on it. He is the best NBA insider. It was much deeper than you are making it seem.

Here are the article links

Stern's power trip takes NBA for wild ride - NBA - Yahoo! Sports

Hornets resubmit Paul-to-Lakers deal to league - NBA - Yahoo! Sports

Lakers end Paul trade talks, ship Odom to Mavs - NBA - Yahoo! Sports

Clips wait for NBA to lower Paul demands - NBA - Yahoo! Sports

NBA trades Chris Paul to the Clippers - NBA - Yahoo! Sports

Chris Paul trade stained NBA's credibility - NBA - Yahoo! Sports

I've seen all the histrionic knee-jerk articles, all the reactions without thinking about the Hornets future. And no point in any of those articles do they talk about what the trade means for the Hornets. That is the scope of the short-sightedness of all these writers. A trade is supposed to benefit BOTH TEAMS. Woj does not grasp this concept.

You want an article? Try this one on for size:

Did New Orleans Hornets get enough for Chris Paul? - ESPN

That is 3 ESPN NBA writers, a Hornets and a Clippers analyst who -- after the Clippers trade, in something called hindsight -- each and every one of them said the Hornets got a BETTER deal and that Stern was right for holding out for it.

All those Woj articles were shemotional responses to something no one took any time to reflect upon before banging away at their keyboards.

What I am speaking on is actually a lot deeper than you realize. This is America, and the NBA is a business. They do not care about "image" when there is money and a bottom line at stake. If they do not prepare the Hornets and get them sold, they are on the hook for potentially BILLIONS of dollars. The NBA needs the Hornets franchise to find a buyer. That is their ONLY concern.

It is high time us fans take the rose-coloured blinders off and realize that the NBA is nothing but a business. A bunch of whining owners isn't hurting Stern in the NBA's pocket. But not being able to sell the Hornets most certainly will.

I strongly urge you to read that article I posted in full.