NBA 15-16 season

[raw]

These super teams don't often go THAT well. Everyone thought Miami would win every year and the Lakers bombed. Golden State will be good but I doubt they win even 70. Durant will get his ring though. Durant kinda deserves the hate LeBron got though aside from not doing the decision thing.

 

I now want the 3rd best team to sign Wade or Dirk and do a ridiculous trade for Westbrook. Of course, the problem is that I don't know who the 3rd best team is now and they still wouldn't be good enough. Clippers with Dirk and Westbrook could be pretty good. Spurs also, I guess.

[Derwood]

RIP IMB!

[soccer10k]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

This is equal parts ridiculous and appropriate.

[UMFan83]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

This is equal parts ridiculous and appropriate.

 

I'll take the under if only because these super teams that come together seem to take time to gel. The heat were around .500 around Xmas their first year and the Love/Lebron/Kyrie group were under .500 in mid January I believe. That and the potential for injuries make me feel more comfortable going under.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

This is equal parts ridiculous and appropriate.

 

I'll take the under if only because these super teams that come together seem to take time to gel. The heat were around .500 around Xmas their first year and the Love/Lebron/Kyrie group were under .500 in mid January I believe. That and the potential for injuries make me feel more comfortable going under.

 

I mostly agree that the under is a safe bet, but this situation seems a bit different in that the roster is much closer to a finished product than either the Heat or the Cavs were in year one. The Heat needed to round out the roster in future offseasons, and the Cavs made a few midseason trades to get the support their Big Three needed.

[muntjack]

If nothing else, the NBA will be full of storylines. The fact that GS could lose a top 3 player in the league and still be the favorites is ridiculous.

...what storylines?

Here's What The Warriors and 29 Other Loser Teams With No Prayer of Winning Did Last Night!

 

 

Lots of moving around = lots of new story lines. Russ. goes solo, Lebron the champ underdog, bulls in NY, Thibs with great 2nd chance, Lakers sans Kobe, tons of new narratives in big markets.

[wolf stansson]

Seattlefreude

 

 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/yallsomebitches/status/750031034792570884[/tweet]

[imb]

im still in shock that it's the warriors. when lebron left for miami it wasn't like miami was knocking him out of the playoffs every year, it was just a place with the right circumstances to make the super team possible. this is literally just the guy playing pick up saying "hey lets re-pick teams" because he keeps losing.

[David]

If nothing else, the NBA will be full of storylines. The fact that GS could lose a top 3 player in the league and still be the favorites is ridiculous.

...what storylines?

Here's What The Warriors and 29 Other Loser Teams With No Prayer of Winning Did Last Night!

 

i'm going to enjoy watching it

[17 Seconds]

boring as hell

[Ryne Ween]

im still in shock that it's the warriors. when lebron left for miami it wasn't like miami was knocking him out of the playoffs every year, it was just a place with the right circumstances to make the super team possible. this is literally just the guy playing pick up saying "hey lets re-pick teams" because he keeps losing.

 

It would have been more like Lebron going to the celtics but if Ray Allen Pierce and Garnet were 10 years younger.

[UMFan83]

I know you guys will give honest brutal feedback. I just came up with this 10 minutes ago and posted on reddit, but I didn't really think it through too much so there are a ton of holes probably. Anyways my crackpot suggestion to help with parity (and yes a lot of this is similar to MLB draft allotment rules that we all hate):

 

 

1) Eliminate the salary cap. Max contracts will be eliminated but there will be a ceiling if you switch teams because of the below rules

 

2) Create a "Free Agent Allotment" where each team is given a slot based on last year's standings that determines how much you are able to spend on outside free agents.

 

3) You can only acquire up to 20% more in your annual "free agent allotment" via trades. Meaning that if you are a bad team you can use some of your allotment as an asset to get better via trade for a middling team that wants more space to sign a FA.

 

4) Keep the Bird clause, and resigning own free agents does not take from your allotment pool. However, you will have to be on a team for at least 2 seasons as a FA, or be acquired via trade at least 1 full season before FA to be able to use the Bird clause

There will probably have to be exemptions so if a team like the 2011 Bulls loses Rose for a year with a torn ACL, they don't have to pick up a starting PG off the scrap heap and make due because they don't have a big allotment.

 

Benefits:

1) Superstar FAs will not be able to just join a 73 win team, unless they are going to take an unbelievably significant pay cut to be there.

2) If you are a superstar and want to get paid your choice is to remain with your team, demand a trade a year before you will be a FA (so the team losing the star gets significant assets), or sign with a crappy team.

 

The first downside I can think of is tanking will still be an issue. If you are a mediocre team, why not bottom out and get a big allotment and go for a superstar. However, that tanking team might be Milwaukee or Sacramento and might now be a destination that previously an NBA star wouldn't consider.

 

The other downside is that the NBA probably doesn't care too much about Milwaukee or Sacramento being contenders or the fact that the parity is somewhat low. Like I said because its a superstar driven league. The best thing that the NBA has going for it is that their best players are seemingly bigger draws than any of the other big 3 sports. The NBA is the 3rd or maybe 2nd biggest league in the US, but their best players are among the biggest soccer names internationally in terms of visibility. Because of this, they NBA can craft superstar driven dramas that keep fans of other teams interested. For instance, it wasn't the Heat winning 4 EC titles, followed by the Cavs winning the next 2. It was LeBron winning 6 straight EC titles. It is what it is, and its never been better for the league, so why try to fix it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I am not an NBA capologist, but I imagine that FA allotments as you're describing them are probably a non-starter.

 

The model my mind has gone back to a couple times is what MLS does with Designated Players. You have a couple spots(and they are tradeable) for DPs on the roster, maybe only 1 or 2 in the NBA. Those DPs count a set amount towards the cap, but you can technically pay them whatever you want. So in the salary cap sense you have something similar to a max deal, which everyone seems to be okay with, but now teams can actually differentiate on money. This won't make a huge difference to the elite of the elite, the LeBrons and Durants aren't going to be swayed to Sacramento by a few million bucks per year. But it could help add parity and curb the superteams a bit for the guys who would otherwise take the same money to go to better situations.

[Cubswin11]

I like having talent condensed on a few teams instead of like 15-20 teams all having 1 All-Star level player. But that's just me. The Durant thing could have been avoided too if the players union would have agreed to the cap smoothing proposals the owners wanted in the last CBA (i.e. spreading out the bumps over more years and lesser dollar amounts instead of just dumping the bumps on the cap over this year and next year).

[Proven Veteran]

Get rid of the salary cap altogether. The main reason for it is putting more money in the owners' pockets.

[UMFan83]

I am not an NBA capologist, but I imagine that FA allotments as you're describing them are probably a non-starter.

 

The model my mind has gone back to a couple times is what MLS does with Designated Players. You have a couple spots(and they are tradeable) for DPs on the roster, maybe only 1 or 2 in the NBA. Those DPs count a set amount towards the cap, but you can technically pay them whatever you want. So in the salary cap sense you have something similar to a max deal, which everyone seems to be okay with, but now teams can actually differentiate on money. This won't make a huge difference to the elite of the elite, the LeBrons and Durants aren't going to be swayed to Sacramento by a few million bucks per year. But it could help add parity and curb the superteams a bit for the guys who would otherwise take the same money to go to better situations.

 

Not a bad idea. So Curry could get paid $50m a year as a DP, but if Durant wanted to join, the most he could get is $20m or whatever fits in the cap.

[wolf stansson]

I STAND WITH RUSS

YASSS

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/7/4/12093986/russell-westbrook-oklahoma-city-thunder-kevin-durant-silver-lining?

 

 

THE YEAR OF BESTBROOK IS AT HAND.

[Derwood]

Get rid of the salary cap altogether. The main reason for it is putting more money in the owners' pockets.

 

Isn't the salary cap just 50% of total NBA revenue? It's a 50/50 split for owners vs. players.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Get rid of the salary cap altogether. The main reason for it is putting more money in the owners' pockets.

 

An uncapped league in a sport where the top few players carry as much influence as the NBA would be one of the few outcomes worse for competition than the current NBA.

[Proven Veteran]

Get rid of the salary cap altogether. The main reason for it is putting more money in the owners' pockets.

 

An uncapped league in a sport where the top few players carry as much influence as the NBA would be one of the few outcomes worse for competition than the current NBA.

 

How? Every owner is a billionaire and could afford much higher salaries. If Sacramento can offer 50 or 60 million per year, they'd be able to get a superstar.

[wolf stansson]

Get rid of the salary cap altogether. The main reason for it is putting more money in the owners' pockets.

 

An uncapped league in a sport where the top few players carry as much influence as the NBA would be one of the few outcomes worse for competition than the current NBA.

 

How? Every owner is a billionaire and could afford much higher salaries. If Sacramento can offer 50 or 60 million per year, they'd be able to get a superstar.

You must not follow soccer.

[Proven Veteran]

 

An uncapped league in a sport where the top few players carry as much influence as the NBA would be one of the few outcomes worse for competition than the current NBA.

 

How? Every owner is a billionaire and could afford much higher salaries. If Sacramento can offer 50 or 60 million per year, they'd be able to get a superstar.

You must not follow soccer.

 

That's weird, I could have sworn that Leicester and Tottenham (and arsenal) were top of the table this year. Maybe it was actually United and Chelsea.

[Andy]

Leicester also had a microscopic payroll. There's a reason they were 5000/1 shots. It's not like Leicester went out and signed the soccer Durant last winter.

[CubInOK]

Leicester also had a microscopic payroll. There's a reason they were 5000/1 shots. It's not like Leicester went out and signed the soccer Durant last winter.

On the other hand, the soccer equivalent of the current Golden State Warriors won the UEFA Champions League last season.

[soccer10k]

 

How? Every owner is a billionaire and could afford much higher salaries. If Sacramento can offer 50 or 60 million per year, they'd be able to get a superstar.

You must not follow soccer.

 

That's weird, I could have sworn that Leicester and Tottenham (and arsenal) were top of the table this year. Maybe it was actually United and Chelsea.

 

Yes, let's ignore Chelsea finishing in the top 3 in 11 of 12 years before last year. Or ManU's 22 straight top-3 finishes under Fergie (including 19 in the top-2). Or Arsenal's 20 straight top-4 finishes (they're way closer to ManU/Chelsea than they are to Leicester). Or Man City's 6 straight top-4 shortly after getting a huge influx of cash.

 

Prior to this year, in the past decade, 38 of the 40 spots in the top-4 were filled by ManU, ManCity, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal. The other two were Spurs. And the top-4 best odds to win the EPL this year? City, ManU, Arsenal and Chelsea.