Hoops

Sydney can't catch a break

Kevin White is now out of this weekends double header against Melbourne Divided.

No Childress, No Madgen, No White....probably still beat Melbourne

a real chance of finishing last in the competition.

There WAS a real chance, but thankfully, even if the Hawks win every single remaining game, they will still get the spoon... I think they need to beat the Kings by 20 something points this round to even take the series between the two teams, so I think that will be the focus for the Kings this week, even though the Hawks have been improving in contrast to the Kings losing streak...

It's hard to disagree that the Kings really shot themselves in the foot when it comes to drafting a team that is light on the talent and depth side, and this was before Childress was even signed, so it's not like they were saving up for him... you look at most of the team being signed beforehand, and they were already going REALLY budget and it was only lucky that someone like Childress came along (thank the basketball Gods!) toe ven give them a chance at winning games...

That is still a different issue than the rule being stupid and needing changing... It just hurts all the more that the lack of depth is really being shown up...

Cotter was really certain that they could manage the centre position by committee this season, I hope that immense failure has been recognised and admitted and will look to be rectified next season...

Sorry for the post under OC. I don't know how to change it to nobody.

Pretty simple really. I know DQ was precluded from playing by the NBL.

That's the NBLs job surely. Either way the fans are interested. I fail to understand why the NBL haven't explained it. Simple.
If its adverse to the Kings so be it so long as its legitimate and not something that some expert here says is true.
The NBLPA rules that I have read mention no such rule that the NBL seem to be using.

I always thought that an injury replacement was part of what you are suggesting but because DQ had already played he would have been eligible to play for finals and still available to replace an injured import. Perhaps I misunderstood?
Why would the Kings fly him to train with them if he already ineligible. So much mis information and the only one who may know and generally tells no one is the NBL.
A rule clarification from the NBL re Childress and DQ would take no time and clear all doubt. Yet another NBL fail.

NO one has answered about DQ being ineligible yet.
That story I know is true.

So Dazz you seem to be the expert here on the rules, why was DQ ineligible? Pretty simple question that I have seen no one answer.

Lets not confuse the replacement of a former NBA player with an import (DQ) who is already here, already on the books and good to go.
No one seems to have any answers to that (stupid) decision. DQ has the games up his sleeve and as AFAIK was a welcome addition to the Kings roster.
Paperwork once again should have been cleared for tonight's game. The NBL continue to taint their short record being in charge with crazy decisions.

This is from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about tonight's game. Nothing Earth shattering, but no mention of Sydney trying to appeal the decision, which you would have thought would have been mentioned here.

"The Kings had been considering several candidates to replace Childress for the remaining games, including former 36er Daequon Montreal, Perth Wildcats player Mathiang Muo and even Childress' ex-Atlanta teammate Al Harrington, but league rules prohibited them from signing someone so late in the season"

Front office got DQ to train with the Kings, so no reason what so ever to think they weren't on the ball. Eligible, games played, paper work available and he was expected to be cleared to play tonight. However.....
The Childress thing is far more complicated obviously and understandable (not really).
NO excuses about DQ's eligibility. I am very disappointed that we haven't heard the Kings explanations of what transpired publicly.

So why was DQ ruled ineligible?

Sydney had an opportunity and plenty of time to replace Brandt. They opted for Horvath which turned out to be a bad decision and a waste of time. I'd be questioning their management after that decision as they are the ones who have really hindered the team - they should have done more homework there. They could only be one player down instead of two.

Exactly, and this is where I am most frustrated, and I can understand the doubt of people that if they could do this, how would they be organised enough to get Harrington in. When we all thought that it was for the rest of the season (based on Brandt's ability to return healthy), the signing of Horvath was like "yeah, I guess..." and based on a scaling down of his NZNBL numbers of maybe 50%, I still thought that he could fill the void... But then it came out that it was unlikely that he'd be able to play enough games and it was a HUGE "WTF?!?!?" moment... whether they thought that Angus would be back in time is the only reason that I could think of that they'd have thought that this was the best option... Mental...

Short term gain doesnt always translate to long term gain. I think the league has more to lose from such a signing as it does to gain? You have to look at it from a business point of view rather than a fan/excitement point of view.

Yet again more opinion than substance... The Pros have already suggested the positives of being allowed to sign Harrington, not the least the possibility to tempt him to sign on full time next season and to possibly highlight to other similar ex-NBA players that the NBL is a viable place to come and play... What would possibly outweigh those Pros?

What's "one game" got to do with anything? You can't just move the goalposts every time you are "just one game" over the limit.

It's got to do with the exceptional circumstances and the ability of the head of the NBL to be able to weigh up the pros and cons of the Kings being able to replace Childress, that it was SO CLOSE to the deadline, that there were still enough games left to have both a positive effect on the league and a unfairly negative effect on the Kings.

Wookiee, do you believe that the Kings has everything in place (paperwork and a legitimate offer etc) in the few days between Childress confirming his injury, and the NBL supposedly rejecting it?

If it meant getting an ex-NBA player? hell yeah... I'm not saying that it would have been 100% quick enough to suit for the Perth game, but if it meant getting JChills buddy in? Sure...

I'll break it down for you...

Sunday game:
- JChill inures himself, feels seriousness of injury, inspected by trainer, possibilities about what it could be raised (Coach Cotter I think mentioned in PC after game that they already thought it was torn pec muscle?)

Monday over Australia Day lunch with teammates:
- JChill in talks with Ownership "dude, this is messed up, but I think I could get a mate of mine to fill in, will call him to see if he can do it for the rest of my waived cash due to injury waiver"
- Kings owner at party: "Sweet, ta mate..."
- JChill calls around, gets to Harrington "Yo, Al, whatbeupdawg? I know you finished up in China, I did my pec muscle and my peeps are down an ex-NBA dude... what you doin', yo?"
- Al: "yo, I'm still flush with my NBA/China cash, but what they offerin'? Get them to email through an offer to my agent, dawg... WIll put a rush on it because I know time is of the essence, for reals... SHouldn't be a problem, would love to catch some rays and hang with you for a month or two..."
- Ownership takes 10mins out of his Australia Day festivities to discuss with other owners, they go "we can get another ex-NBA guy for X amount? struth! do it, cobber!" to which then emails official offer to Al's agent...

Next day or two, signed offer back in the hands of Kings ready to be submitted to NBL...

Now of course, I wasn't privy to the exact dealings, no matter how authentic all that seemed, but do you really think that with the potential to get another ex-NBA quality player in to not just save face, but maybe even their season, that the Kings management would be dragging the chain and not workign 24/7 to get it done?

The disappointing thing for me is this has happened before and the rules should have been changed by now. I have heard no good reason why a team shouldn't be able to replace an injured import.

Yeah, this is the most stupid thing... If the NBL didn't fix it, the teams should have pushed for them to... But possibly didn't want to push an agenda that they might not have to make use of and then have it bite them in the arse when another team makes use of it...

And you haven't heard a good reason, as there hasn't been one made... All the points have been suggested that the import is lesser quality and would be getting dumped for under performing, which is easy enough to police with common sense.

Injures can be exceptional circumstances and with the move out to the badlands next season the Kings need every bit of help to sustain the public and more importantly sponsor interest both now and for next season.
The DQ censure is simply crazy.

Exceptional Circumstances doesn't have to mean grossly ridiculous like what was I hope suggested in jest, as there is still no reasonable alternative given to this given by those who don't agree. Easy enough to say that it's not good enough, but to not put your own case forward just makes your suggestions seem even more foolish.

Exceptional circumstances are in place to alleviate or mitigate unforeseen or unconventional hardships. For the reasons I've already stated, for this to occur just one single game outside the limit, I think it suits the bill perfectly.

Happy to entertain any reasonable discussion that doesn't just contain "I don't think so, so it isn't..."

How is having two of your starters, who you now can't replace, not "exceptional circumstances" to a rule which says you can't replace a player 75% of the way through your season??? I would have thought that's the VERY definition of exceptional circumstances.

So what would be considered "exceptional circumstances" and why even have an "exceptional circumstances" out-clause then? It makes no sense. Either have the rule or don't.

BTW. Why do we have another topic for the one already in place?

Prefix: I agree that the points about the Kings lacking depth is their own managements fault...

however...

People talking about "rules are rules" and "end of story" bollocks are missing the point of "exceptional circumstances". It's not about making playoffs, it's about the Kings being able to be competitive for their fans and sponsors at the very least.

It was ONE game outside the limit.

The Kings lost the leading MVP candidate (20+ppg, 9.8rpg, 4apg? and 2.1bpg).

Not being able to replace him rips a monumental hole in their team, whether they are to make the playoffs or not.

Not being able to replace Childress with ANYONE, let alone a like for like replacement, cripples the Kings to the point that it gives teams battling for playoff spots an unfair advantage. Development players aside, it's ultimately 10 on 8.

If those aren't enough points for fracking "exceptional circumstances" I don't know what the hell is.

@ Tornado. But if the players were able to qualify for the finals then it would be moot because they would come under the rule as it stands, wouldn't they?

I don't see the point of having a rule, but also having an exceptional circumstances out-clause, especially if you're not going to allow it when you have an actual example of exceptional circumstances.

The rule is crap as it stands - surely a team should be able to replace legitimately injured players.

As I understand the rules, Muo could not be re-signed by the Cats as a replacement for Ross (or even short-term for Knight).
But people think other rules should be bent to allow him to be signed with another club?

The rules say he can't re-sign with Perth, not that he can't ever play NBL again.

Why would Marvin/Perth stop DQ and Muo playing for the Kings. Kings have 2 games against United and one against 36ers, it would be in their best interest to have the Kings beat either of those teams to help them secure their playoff spot. This whole conspiracy theory is just stupid.

Putting all the Perth crap aside, how is this conceivably not exceptional circumstances. IF it's true the NBL rejected it, they need to explain why. Because if this isn't exceptional circumstances, then exceptional circumstances simply don't exist.

Uwe,

the 36ers dont have the person in charge of the their team running the NBl though.

Neither do the Wildcats.

If Marvin & the NBL had potentially given Perth an unfair advantage during any NBL decision making the Breakers Management & Lawyers would be all on it like a rash.
I don't believe there have been any conflicts of interest or favouritism of the Wildcats from Marvin & the NBL board although I have not been party to every meeting or decision. I do have confidence in the Breakers Management to throw bricks if & when needed if that ever did eventuate.
How about everyone cuts the guy some slack and give him a pat on the back for helping to keep "our" league afloat & exciting instead of throwing round recycled conspiracy theories.

Anon 250's response is towards Anon 247's comments about depth, not about whether or not they broke the rules.

"probably already had "enough" depth even without Anthony's replacement."

Where was this depth you speak of?

This anon would blame his butter spoiling on Marvin.

ok, I am not a big fan of this technology but I paid my $5. Mind you i am on an aircard sitting at the airport.

http://www.basketball.net.au/index.php?id=687