WrigleyField 22

i'm a man of big dreams, i'd prefer a 2017 Nick Foles-ish type of run myself then he can disappear Tamayto tamahto

Well it doesn't really matter except that limiting Foles snaps thr rest of the way does help ensure he doesn't hit some incentives. So for that alone, let's hope Mitch plays himself into a decent backup contract with another team and nets a 6th round comp pick.

Athletic freaks are fun. a 23'9" inch shot just isn't that freakish though? Wider court with a longer 3 line. Put back hand checks to give the D a little extra leeway since spacing is going to be spread out more. Shorten the shot clock by a couple seconds to ensure pace stays quick? At the very least the NBA now has a great testing field in the G League to just experiment with stuff like this.

Agree to disagree? Dunks and blocks are awesome. Those at the rim plays are frequently two athletic monsters going directly head to head. That's the best play in basketball. If a play like that is not more exciting than watching some guy stand in the corner until he gets a pass for a 3 pointer, well then I don't know. Spot up 3s are fun, I guess, the 30-40% of the time they go in? They obviously are great for winning if you do it well so that's fun, but from a pure entertainment value it's not exactly thrilling TV IMO. Why must I be deprived of a human avatar of a "HE'S ON FIRE" power up just draining merciless dagger after dagger because you might get bored from one too many assists dished out to a guy on the corner? Plus I'm not even sure why you brought up dunks like a 3-heavy game is depriving us of those? The spray chart up the thread showed that the only thing we're really "deprived" of now are a bunch of mid-range 2's. It's still a damn dunk fest, which is also awesome. We've actually got the "why not both?" meme in play! For sure we're not being deprived of dunks, but just to the "why not raise the rim" hypothetical, I do think they're that much more entertaining than any jump shot. Even the non contested ones can be pretty damn fun at times. The 3s excitement over the midrange 2 is totally predicated on its 50% surplus value. So that's great to have, but it feels a little too easy at this point, and it's pretty one sided, the D can't do too much against it. Its just a little less interesting to me seeing less variety of offensive sets. Maybe they just need a 4 point line. Or a smart court that randomly pops up with bonus shots at different spots of the court!

The issue is that those big stars could accept less if they can get secondary stars, which is kind of what happens now just not to the extent being suggested. Like Giannis could sign for 2 years 200Mil, not win and then agree to get another superstar there and extend for 3 years, 60Mil, because he's already got more money than he'll ever need and no ring. That's certainly possible, but I don't know how you make a counter proposal that doesn't come off as extremely pro-owner. Basketball players (and people) are competitive and greedy. Players are going to want to be the highest paid player in the league. We don't see a whole lot of baseball stars taking $10m/year deals so that ownership has more money to spread around. Its definitely tough to say, but obviously the revenue share verse no revenue share makes a big difference. That's the real "cap" in the league that keeps salaries down. Absent the revenue share, you'd see salaries creep up, but there might be limiting returns since basketball is much more a "buddy" game where it's fun to team up and guys find value. There's nly so much value that Bryce Harper and Kris Bryant can get by teaming up, they don't play directly with each other on the field. On the hardwood your throwing up lobs to each other and fun horsefeathers.

Well...no. Agree to disagree? Dunks and blocks are awesome. Those at the rim plays are frequently two athletic monsters going directly head to head. That's the best play in basketball. If a play like that is not more exciting than watching some guy stand in the corner until he gets a pass for a 3 pointer, well then I don't know. Spot up 3s are fun, I guess, the 30-40% of the time they go in? They obviously are great for winning if you do it well so that's fun, but from a pure entertainment value it's not exactly thrilling TV IMO.

I've never heard of an argument for that. I suppose I could be persuaded, but I can't imagine what that argument could be. That's my point; making something harder simply because too many of the players are good at it seems pretty flimsy. Hell, I'll bet there WERE people arguing to raise the damn rim when everyone started dunking. Oh. Well I would assume that any advances in jumping at the rim had also greatly benefited defenses so as to mostly offset. Plays at the time rim are objectively way more exciting that a spot up 3. Although defensive rim protecting is a rule people have considered changing to be like FIBA. Changing the 3pt stripe is probably be more like baseball fiddling with the mound height.

You don’t have to go to MLB style rules of player control to get to make an impact, it’s ultimately about incentives. For example, let’s say every team has one uncapped roster spot, you now can give Anthony Davis(and Durant before him, etc) before him) a real decision to make. In the current setup there’s precious little difference in options aside from markets and teammates which becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. But part of the problem is how much these guys are making now. A few years ago it might have been the difference between 20 and 30 million. Now it’s the difference between 40 and 50 million. Durant’s last year with the Thunder he made $20M. This year he’ll make $39M. Harden made $15.7M in 15-16 and will get $40M this year. Eventually, that extra money doesn’t matter as much and they’re just going to play where they want to play. I suppose if it was, say, double, some guys would stay. But others would rather win, live where they want to and make $30M than not win, live in a place they don’t like as much and make $60M. I don't think the absolute value matters as much as the relative value. Those max salaries have exploded with an exploding cap, but it's still only 25-35% of the cap space (a soft cap, so even less as a % of actual spending). If the top 10 players were paid what they're worth they'd probably make 50-70% of the cap, double what they make now. Freedom of player movement has created more parity for teams, it's just that the parity moves with the players now. Shorter contracts play a big role here. Guys used to lock into like 8 year deals with regularity. Now most max mength contracts are capped at 4 years, and for the rare 5 year contract those players pretty much always get an option after 4 as a standard term. So no more Scottie Pippen getting locked into severely underpaid contracts for a half decade anymore. Thats good for parity. The really only other area I think they could improve is to try and fiddle more with the tannking incentives. If more teams simply tried it would create a more competitive environment for player acquisition.

Jugs machine is probably most accurate, no? Yea but kinda of locks into that spot.

I've never heard of an argument for that. I suppose I could be persuaded, but I can't imagine what that argument could be.

I think its more comparable to the launch angle, high k/low contact changes. People love dongs, people love 3 pointers, but there seems to be an ongoing frustration with the fact that its shifted so much that the focus of the game is selling out for HRs or 3 pointers. I honestly don't have a strong opinion on this but I can understand the argument to some degree as the new emphasis on jacking up 3s does make the game slightly less appealing to me. I've lost interest in the NBA the last few years but I think its more the Bulls sucking than because players run up and down the court shooting 3 pointers every possession. I'm sure the logic is basically the same for HRs vs. sacrifice bunts, but it's pretty much the John Calipari (I think it was him) school of offense. Why shoot 18 footers and get 2 points for making them, when you can shoot 2 3/4 feet further, at a slightly higher degree of difficulty, and get an extra point for it? And that's fine to an extent, but players have gotten so good at the 3 point shot that trade off has gotten so wide as to eliminate a huge chunk of the floor from consideration. Now it's like, why even take the 12 footer. At the very least if they widened the court they could get rid of the extreme bonus that is the corner 3 and open up the baseline game a little bit more.

Well, bad OL so in theory you want the most mobile guy playing. So,that would make the preferred order: Trubisky Bray Jugs Machine Foles I'm not convinced Trubisky's mobility even matters that much since he's typically been a little slower to process his throws than Foles historically, but it could at least to like a 50 yard fluke TD scamper which is more than Foles did last week.

Foles, Trubisky, Bray, a jugs machine... How much does it really matter?

So nothing but dunks and 3's? Sounds boring Well they're not dunking it from just shy of the FT line.

That's pretty dramatic! The 90s maybe were skewed too far the other way, though growing up watching the Bulls they always had their marksmen where the 3 still seemed like a valuable and not insignificant part of the game.

Yea, I love the idea of position less basketball where skill sets meld more like you describe. So I suppose of I came out anti shooting that wasn't my point, but a great 3 point shot isn't automatically more entertaining to me than a midrange shot, but naturally teams have learned the relative value and that 3 point shot has sucked up most the midrange shots. It they pushed the line back and widened the court, it seems like you'd really open up the game flow for those athletic type plays rather than dumping it down to a post man 90s crawl pace. Not that there's ton of video to watch on it but before the 3 point line even existed teams played at a very fast pace, even against today's standards. That was supposedly a very fun brand of basketball, though probably about as popular as MLS is today, so not sure if that's coincidental or not.

There's part of the NBAs that are great, the little I've watched the past 7 years. But I'll probably still complain about the 3 point fest it's become. I'd love for the league to widen the court and move the line back and hopefully get some more offensive diversity flowing. I guess it kind of is like baseball. Teams have hacked the efficiency that it's so dramatically different from the game we grew up watching. So I don't begrudge the teams or whatever but it's in both leagues control to tinker with the product.

I had no idea who this Temple guy was the Bulls just signed and he's like a 10 year vet lol.

I meaaannnn, that would kind of make sense.

Right, it's like school vouchers. You're not actually incentivizing new activity, just subsidizing existing activity, thus freeing up capital for other stuff.

It's interesting that both seem to mostly dismiss the star upside. But then again, we all would admit the upside there but he's a project so relatively small shot of living up to that potential. Hopefully he has that Jimmy Butler like development curve.

Yes, this will greatly assist the legal payroll for Trump's election fund.

I think the main issue for fans with Williams is he was a late riser. All through the summer and stuff I'm not sure he was even being mocked as a late lotto pick. But it's also been 7-8 months since these guys played meaningful basketball. Putting aside that it's supposed to be a weak draft, I think any in person workouts and meetings were likely hugely important this year.

Yes, most are livid now too from what I can tell.

That sucks.