2011 NBA Offseason

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd also like it if everyone stopped trying to turn everything into the NFL. The parity in the NFL is a huge negative. The NFL players union is a [expletive] joke. They're the most popular league because of the structure of the sport not because the Bengals are 6-3. Nobody gives a [expletive].

 

Yeah they do. It's interesting to see them be competitive with Pitt and Baltimore. Instead of just stepped over year after year. I'd venture a guess that a lot of people give a [expletive]. Divisional races between more than 2 teams is unpopular? Looks good for the NFC North, and that Detroit team no one cared about for 15 years.

 

And no one's trying to turn the NBA into the NFL. I think the owners made that clear with multiple concessions to the players. Like no salary cap. It's called closing the gap with a few borrowed ideas.

 

I guarantee like 8 people outside of Ohio give a [expletive] about what the Bengals are doing. People don't care because they know they're not actually any good and will go back to 6-10 next year. Parity for the sake of parity is awful.

Edited November 15, 2011 by SouthSideRyan

[ctcf]

This may just be me but I actually think the NBA has the best competitive balance. Anyone with a pulse has a chance but only the truly elite win. I like that.

 

It's the NFL and it's not even close.

[SouthSideRyan]

But how do the Pacers compete with the Lakers spending twice as much? It's like racing Usain Bolt and giving him a head start.

 

They could start by not paying TJ Ford 8.5M/Y

[Sammy Sofa]

It wasn't really until the Boston Big 3 and the Heat last season that you saw money truly putting together teams, and even then those teams still hinged on on drafted/homegrown talent. Edited November 15, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[tfarks]

Pop quiz: how many more teams have won the title if you go back 50 years instead of just 30?

 

Pop quiz: Who has made the most worthless comment in the past 1 page? You're not witty.

 

Why did you only go back 30 years?

 

Because a trend started. One that Stern had a lot to with.

 

Wait, what? The trend of a relatively small group of teams winning the title didn't start then. It was arguably there from the very beginning.

 

Again, we've only had 15 different teams win the title since 1950.

 

How many eras can you go back though? What does Red Auerbach got to do with anything? I got crap for going back 30. But at least with Stern you have some kind of gauge. He was the big proponent behind the big stars in big cities idea.

[tfarks]

But how do the Pacers compete with the Lakers spending twice as much? It's like racing Usain Bolt and giving him a head start.

 

They could start by not paying TJ Ford 8.5M/Y

 

The only reason they had Ford at that price was because they had to trade Jermaine O'Neal after he got hurt for the 12th time. You're gonna equate spending 60 million less than the Lakers with making a solid trade that netted you Roy Hibbert for an aging ex-star?

[Sammy Sofa]

How many eras can you go back though? What does Red Auerbach got to do with anything? I got crap for going back 30. But at least with Stern you have some kind of gauge. He was the big proponent behind the big stars in big cities idea.

 

It seems like a decent point when it kind of debunks the idea you're presenting that 30 years ago/Stern ushered in some kind of imbalanced era that's unfair to almost everyone except a small group of teams. The NBA has been dominated by a small group of teams since it started. I'm not arguing that the financial landscape hasn't changed, but it seems like you're going about the wrong way of pointing that out by pointing out that only 9 teams have won the title in the last 20 years when only 15 have won it in the last 60.

[SpongeWorthy]

This may just be me but I actually think the NBA has the best competitive balance. Anyone with a pulse has a chance but only the truly elite win. I like that.

 

It's the NFL and it's not even close.

 

The NFL regular season doesn't do as good a job as separating the wheat from the chaff. A huge part of it is getting hot at the right time. Granted, the NFL has done a good job of rendering it moot where superstar players play and giving anyone with competent management a fair shot.

 

But I like that the NBA has a regular season where the cream really rises to the top and then followed by a gauntlet of a postseason.

[tfarks]

How many eras can you go back though? What does Red Auerbach got to do with anything? I got crap for going back 30. But at least with Stern you have some kind of gauge. He was the big proponent behind the big stars in big cities idea.

 

It seems like a decent point when it kind of debunks the idea you're presenting that 30 years ago/Stern ushered in some kind of imbalanced era that's unfair to almost everyone except a small group of teams. The NBA has been dominated by a small group of teams since it started. I'm not arguing that the financial landscape hasn't changed, but it seems like you're going about the wrong way of pointing that out by pointing out that only 9 teams have won the title in the last 20 years when only 15 have won it in the last 60.

 

The league that early on was a different dynamic. Less teams, less overall talent available. The NBA expanded, became more popular. The same teams gathered up most of the talent. It just repeated itself. No, it wasn't Stern ushering it in, but he never fought against it. Why was there such a large conspiracy about the Knicks getting Ewing? Besides a lot of people being dumb. Big player goes to big city. It's how it has to be.

 

That's cool for a lot of people. Not so much for a certain group of owners.

[Sammy Sofa]

But the Knicks have been really bad for a good chunk of Stern's tenure. They had that 15 years stretch and have been rather unimpressive otherwise. Similar situation with the Bulls, too.

 

Hell, this whole thing could be boiled down to an argument against the Lakers and the Celtics (and even then mostly the former).

[SpongeWorthy]

Ewing is a perfect example of backing a horse that just isn't good enough.

[Sammy Sofa]

Plus Stern presided over the late 80's to the late 90's era of the NBA, when you arguably had the best, most competitive era in the league's history. Again, even if we argue that things went south after that it's still basically just an argument against the Lakers.

[SouthSideRyan]

But how do the Pacers compete with the Lakers spending twice as much? It's like racing Usain Bolt and giving him a head start.

 

They could start by not paying TJ Ford 8.5M/Y

 

The only reason they had Ford at that price was because they had to trade Jermaine O'Neal after he got hurt for the 12th time. You're gonna equate spending 60 million less than the Lakers with making a solid trade that netted you Roy Hibbert for an aging ex-star?

 

Are you including luxury tax payments in your numbers? The link I'm at has Indiana paying just over 30M less than the Lakers last year. It also has them with a payroll nearly 20M above the Bulls and 10M above the Heat. How can those small market teams possibly compete with the big bully Pacers able to buy away top stars like Mike Dunleavy Jr?

[SouthSideRyan]

Why was there such a large conspiracy about the Knicks getting Ewing? Besides a lot of people being dumb. Big player goes to big city. It's how it has to be.

 

Pretty much just people being dumb.

[tfarks]

Wasn't one of the popular arguments about that stretch of time tied to star players staying with their own teams? Dominique never teamed up with Jordan. Isiah Thomas didn't go play with Olajuwon. And yeah, those are extreme examples. I mean Dirk won sticking with his team. But there were multiple articles alluding to the fact when the Heat coalesced with stars from 2 struggling franchises. Changing the CBA to be more competitive doesn't stop these big market teams from winning. It just increases the chances of some variety.

[tfarks]

But how do the Pacers compete with the Lakers spending twice as much? It's like racing Usain Bolt and giving him a head start.

 

They could start by not paying TJ Ford 8.5M/Y

 

The only reason they had Ford at that price was because they had to trade Jermaine O'Neal after he got hurt for the 12th time. You're gonna equate spending 60 million less than the Lakers with making a solid trade that netted you Roy Hibbert for an aging ex-star?

 

Are you including luxury tax payments in your numbers? The link I'm at has Indiana paying just over 30M less than the Lakers last year. It also has them with a payroll nearly 20M above the Bulls and 10M above the Heat. How can those small market teams possibly compete with the big bully Pacers able to buy away top stars like Mike Dunleavy Jr?

 

Yes I'm counting luxury tax. Simon can't afford to pay 60 more million dollars when his stands are 40% occupied and he doesn't have a gigantic tv deal.

[SpongeWorthy]

I'm no cap expert but a huge factor in payroll is actually having players good enough to make it worth going over the cap to resign and going into luxury tax territory. And those players come from being smart/lucky enough to have a good pick in the right years.

[Sammy Sofa]

Wasn't one of the popular arguments about that stretch of time tied to star players staying with their own teams? Dominique never teamed up with Jordan. Isiah Thomas didn't go play with Olajuwon. And yeah, those are extreme examples. I mean Dirk won sticking with his team. But there were multiple articles alluding to the fact when the Heat coalesced with stars from 2 struggling franchises. Changing the CBA to be more competitive doesn't stop these big market teams from winning. It just increases the chances of some variety.

 

But, again, until the Celtics a few years ago where are these teams buying rings with money? And it's not like those teams have a clear advantage when it comes to being able to spend money; this isn't a Yankees-type situation. I'm not saying everything is on the same level, but come on, we're not looking at a huge baseball-like disparity. Hell, the Heat can't even fill of their seats. Plus a lot of those decisions simply stem from the desire of players to play for a big market team. How are they supposed to regulate that?

[tfarks]

Wasn't one of the popular arguments about that stretch of time tied to star players staying with their own teams? Dominique never teamed up with Jordan. Isiah Thomas didn't go play with Olajuwon. And yeah, those are extreme examples. I mean Dirk won sticking with his team. But there were multiple articles alluding to the fact when the Heat coalesced with stars from 2 struggling franchises. Changing the CBA to be more competitive doesn't stop these big market teams from winning. It just increases the chances of some variety.

 

But, again, until the Celtics a few years ago where are these teams buying rings with money? And it's not like those teams have a clear advantage when it comes to being able to spend money; this isn't a Yankees-type situation. I'm not saying everything is on the same level, but come on, we're not looking at a huge baseball-like disparity. Hell, the Heat can't even fill of their seats. Plus a lot of those decisions simply stem from the desire of players to play for a big market team. How are they supposed to regulate that?

 

Well the Lakers were able to take Pau Gasol from Memphis. Did that not put them over the luxury tax, at least down the line? Cuban won in Dallas with resources many teams couldn't dream of.

I'm not saying they should be penalized for being smart franchises with lots of money and attractive destinations. But some of these other teams need to be thrown a bone or they might as well be contracted. What's the point of having a team in Memphis, get a superstar in the draft, only to trade him away cause he would have left anyway. Didn't we all just witness Carmelo Anthony bully his way out of Denver into New York? Deron Williams telling Utah he wouldn't come back.

 

There's the obvious rift between players and owners. But there's also the divide between owners. They have to regulate the desires of the players by giving the small market teams more leverage. Somehow. They shouldn't be shoehorned into dealing with the Lakers because their one of the few teams who can take on another $40 million to their payroll.

[Sammy Sofa]

Dumping deadwood teams and wanting some kind of limitations on spending to maintain a broken system are two very different things. There's simply not an answer to make things "fair" for small market teams that wouldn't suck for the game. Most of them simply should not exist, something you seem to agree with.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Well the Lakers were able to take Pau Gasol from Memphis. Did that not put them over the luxury tax, at least down the line? Cuban won in Dallas with resources many teams couldn't dream of.

I'm not saying they should be penalized for being smart franchises with lots of money and attractive destinations. But some of these other teams need to be thrown a bone or they might as well be contracted. What's the point of having a team in Memphis, get a superstar in the draft, only to trade him away cause he would have left anyway. Didn't we all just witness Carmelo Anthony bully his way out of Denver into New York? Deron Williams telling Utah he wouldn't come back.

 

There's the obvious rift between players and owners. But there's also the divide between owners. They have to regulate the desires of the players by giving the small market teams more leverage. Somehow. They shouldn't be shoehorned into dealing with the Lakers because their one of the few teams who can take on another $40 million to their payroll.

 

Memphis traded Gasol because they were [expletive] terrible.

 

Deron Williams never said he wouldn't re-sign, and was torn up over getting traded. The only thing he said was Utah had to put a better team on the court.

 

You're acting like there is no salary cap in place. The Lakers can't just go out and sign anyone they want. Do you want to restrict all player movement for teams over the salary cap?

[tfarks]

Memphis got to the playoffs single-handedly because of Gasol. Seems like a guy that should be traded and not kept as the franchise player. And the rumors I read said Williams asked for Utah to trade him. The organization kept it unofficial just like they downplayed any role he might have had in forcing Sloan's exit. If Utah had a happy Williams they would have never traded him. He wanted out.

Teams over the salary cap can already resign their own players and sign their draft picks. Plus more I don't feel like getting into. No, they should not be allowed to add yet another player as it just gives the advantage to the teams who can pay the most in luxury tax. Why is it a good idea to keep handing out MLE's to teams like the Heat so they can keep ballooning their payroll to build around their big 3.

How does this make the league worse while being more fair? Why should the Heat get to sign a player with no repercussions every year from now on?

Just because the Knicks didn't know how to win being 70 million over the cap doesn't mean it should be an option to the few teams who can afford it. How is that fair to a smart team like OKC who knows how to actually handle the cap? Yet has to face the Lakers who Kobe in Colorado it?

 

I don't buy the argument the league can't be made more fair and be the worse for wear.

[tfarks]

The soft cap is garbage. The owners gave up too many concessions to the players and that's why they're in this mess now. They had to go too far back in the other direction and the players had to pull out the last card they had left.

[Vanilla Ice]

The lack of titles being spread out has much more to do with the nature of basketball and the format of the playoffs than the salary cap

[Sammy Sofa]

Memphis got to the playoffs single-handedly because of Gasol. Seems like a guy that should be traded and not kept as the franchise player. And the rumors I read said Williams asked for Utah to trade him. The organization kept it unofficial just like they downplayed any role he might have had in forcing Sloan's exit. If Utah had a happy Williams they would have never traded him. He wanted out.

Teams over the salary cap can already resign their own players and sign their draft picks. Plus more I don't feel like getting into. No, they should not be allowed to add yet another player as it just gives the advantage to the teams who can pay the most in luxury tax. Why is it a good idea to keep handing out MLE's to teams like the Heat so they can keep ballooning their payroll to build around their big 3.

How does this make the league worse while being more fair? Why should the Heat get to sign a player with no repercussions every year from now on?

Just because the Knicks didn't know how to win being 70 million over the cap doesn't mean it should be an option to the few teams who can afford it. How is that fair to a smart team like OKC who knows how to actually handle the cap? Yet has to face the Lakers who Kobe in Colorado it?

 

I don't buy the argument the league can't be made more fair and be the worse for wear.

 

But now we're back to the idea that it was never really fair after it had been around a decade (even accounting for fewer teams).