2016 NBA Offseason thread

[FinsUp1214]

2 minutes ago, CS85 said:

 

 

WE NEED NBA SOCIALISM

OBAMA/SANDERS FOR NBA COMMISSIONER 

 

THESE SUPAHTEAMS ARE TOO BIG!! GOTTA BREAK EM UP

 

[Lights Out]

43 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

The owners getting pissed at themselves for giving Chandler Parsons $20+M a year is going to be hilarious.

No more hilarious than the players getting pissed at themselves for turning down the cap smoothing proposal. This ridiculous two-year cap spike was lockout bait from minute one, and it's all because the few lucky players whose free agency lined up with one of these two years wanted a historic payday at everyone else's expense. No doubt, the players' union will be fighting among themselves more than ever during the next lockout. We might even miss a full season because of it.

[FiddySicks]

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

 

I'm from the Midwest and I'm not pissed at all. Durant can, and should, play wherever he wants. If anything, I think people are more pissed of at the system than they are at KD. Seeing this sort of thing makes it seem pretty pointless to be an Atlanta Hawks or Minnesota Timberwolves fan. Then again, it's always been pretty pointless to be a fan of those teams. You young folk may not know this, but it's been "this way" in the NBA since at least the 80's. Back then, if you weren't a Laker or a Celtic, you weren't getting a ring. Hell, it's probably easier for a small market team to win a title in this era than it was back in the 80's. 

 

This is a great point. People are lamenting that basketball is now "Pointless" to watch because only a few teams can even realistically win a title. 

 

Ummm, don't people realize that it's pretty much always been this way? You can look at the list of champions going all the way back to 1950 and parity is actually a lot better now than it's ever been (There are mitigating factors to this, of course, league growth, different era, ect). Sure teams are trying to stack the deck now, but there was also an era where the Celtics won 10 titles in 11 years. And the Lakers and Celtics have combined for something like 52 title appearances in 66 years. Unless I'm screwing up the math (which is possible) that's 14 times in 66 years where the Finals didn't involve one of those two franchises. That's insane. Why does any of this surprise anyone? The NBA has NEVER really had that much parity. 

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

And I was thinking "whaaaaaat??" at the Pistons giving Drummond 5 years-130 mil.....seems like a steal now.

[CS85]

34 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Why do you always choose my posts to do this ? 

 

You have a sense of humor.

[rams80]

2 hours ago, Cujo said:

Dirk says no to Golden State. To remain a Maverick for life. Loyalty actually DOES exist.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure Durant eliminated any chance of Golden State signing Nowitzki, but thanks for pretending he had a choice.

[rams80]

2 hours ago, CS85 said:

 

This is too drastic a statement to address the legitimate issue of only a few teams getting all the prime talent while the majority of teams are almost farm franchises for the few big boys.

 

Then tell the TV companies to stop shoveling money at the NBA.

[DarkJourney]

Maybe just maybe Durant has a better relationship with Steph and Iggy than his former mates on OKC. 

[JayMac]

The NBA is a terrible product. Sure, the finals were great but it's a multi billion dollar pick up league. 

[DarkJourney]

Lets say if Durant, Steph, Dray & Klay were all together on the Lakers or Celtics you know the hate would be at global thermonuclear levels. 

[CS85]

The NBA just isn't interesting to me like it used to be.  I think I need to find a team to root for.  

The Pacers used to have my heart but I don't think they're fun these days.  I'm open to hearing suggestions.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

I think he does. 

 

 

Just because I'm a prediction junkie- can we post predictions? The only major domino yet to fall is Wade and he's not going to make or break a team's fortunes.

 

EAST

1. Cleveland 57-25*

2. Indiana 54-28

3. Boston 52-30*

4. Toronto 50-32*

5. Atlanta 48-34

6. Detroit 46-36

7. Washington 43-39

8. Milwaukee 42-40

9. Charlotte 40-42

10. Miami 40-42

11. Orlando 33-49

12. Chicago 29-53

13. New York 28-44

14. Brooklyn 20-62

15. Philadelphia 11-71

 

WEST

1. Golden State 74-8*

2. San Antonio 62-20*

3. LA Clippers 58-24

4. Utah 44-38*

5. Memphis 52-30

6. Houston 50-32

7. Portland 44-38

8. Dallas 43-39

9. Oklahoma City 41-41

10. Minnesota 39-43

11. New Orleans 38-44

12. Phoenix 33-49

13. Sacramento 30-52

14. LA Lakers 28-54

15. Denver 25- 57

 

PLAYOFFS

EAST

Cleveland over Milwaukee 4-0

Indiana over Washington 4-1

Boston over Detroit 4-2

Toronto over Atlanta 4-2

 

Cleveland over Toronto 4-2

Indiana over Boston 4-1

 

Cleveland over Indiana 4-3

 

WEST

Golden State over Dallas 4-0

San Antonio over Portland 4-0

LA Clippers over Houston 4-1

Memphis over Utah 4-1

 

Golden State over Memphis 4-0

San Antonio over LA Clippers 4-2

 

Golden State over San Antonio 4-2

 

FINALS- Golden State over Cleveland 4-1

 

 

TAKE IT TO THE BANK

 

 

[DarkJourney]

6 minutes ago, CS85 said:

The NBA just isn't interesting to me like it used to be.  I think I need to find a team to root for.  

The Pacers used to have my heart but I don't think they're fun these days.  I'm open to hearing suggestions.

The NBA hasn't been interesteing since the early 90's but that's just me. You might have look outside the USA. Go Raptors?

[Jimmy!]

3 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Then again, it's always been pretty pointless to be a fan of those teams.

 

Tree Rollins punching and biting the crap out of Danny Ainge's hand 33 years ago is still good for a few points in my book. 

 

[Sport]

I understand Durant's choice from a business standpoint, I get how Thunder fans feel right now, especially after being so close last year*, I get how fans of the other teams feel too, and I also, at the same time as all of that, feel like it's super lame to team up with the best team in the league, just like I did when Lebron did it in Miami. You can go get a ring with that group, but it won't mean as much as it did in OKC. If the 04 Lakers had won it all would it have really felt right for Karl Malone? I don't think so. 

 

*Thunder fans have had a mostly charmed existence since the move and they're about to experience life like everybody else. I imagine they see obscurity on the horizon too and that makes this even harder. 

 

What I don't understand is NBA fans who are arguing in favor of non-competitiveness from 2/3 of the league. Why would you want a majority of games to either be boring blowouts or meaningless snoozers between 2 bad teams? 

[FinsUp1214]

1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

This is a great point. People are lamenting that basketball is now "Pointless" to watch because only a few teams can even realistically win a title. 

 

Ummm, don't people realize that it's pretty much always been this way? You can look at the list of champions going all the way back to 1950 and parity is actually a lot better now than it's ever been (There are mitigating factors to this, of course, league growth, different era, ect). Sure teams are trying to stack the deck now, but there was also an era where the Celtics won 10 titles in 11 years. And the Lakers and Celtics have combined for something like 52 title appearances in 66 years. Unless I'm screwing up the math (which is possible) that's 14 times in 66 years where the Finals didn't involve one of those two franchises. That's insane. Why does any of this surprise anyone? The NBA has NEVER really had that much parity. 

 

All good and fair points, yes. There has definitely been a long history of buzzsawing in the NBA and that, at least, isn't new. However, I respectfully disagree with this notion that how the league is now is how it's always been. 

 

Even if the Celtics and Lakers (and later Bulls, speaking as a 90's kid) were Godzilla'ing their way through the league at the time, that didn't seem to change the fact that players still stayed where they were for the most part and allowed still for good, entertaining competition and the building of historic rivalries (imagine how much less exciting basketball would've been in those times if Isaiah ever bolted for the Celtics, or if Reggie and Ewing said "screw it" and took off for Chicago. Or if even later, Duncan took his talents to LA. Where would those great moments and rivalries be?). You had the sense that even if your team may not win it that year, they were still going to make things interesting and still be in it because Stockton and Malone would still be there. The Admiral would still be there. Drexler would still be there. Ewing, Reggie, Hakeem, they'd all still be there. And because they'd all stay, we'd have more rivalries and some amazing moments all across the league we'd never have otherwise despite the buzzsaws.

 

And let's not forget that in some cases, a superstar staying and enduring the long run rewarded them with rings. Hakeem stayed; got two rings. The Admiral stayed; got two rings. It wasn't impossible to stick it out and finally make it. Though they didn't have to wait as long, the Bad Boy Pistons made it out back then, too.

 

Sure, the history books for those eras are plastered with Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls. But behind the scenes, there was always that sense of "well...just maybe." And in some cases, "just maybe" became "they did it". 

 

I don't see that in today's NBA. I just don't. Not at least to the extent it was then. We could have had it; OKC-Golden State could've been something special with more time, for example. But that ship has likely sailed. Maybe Golden State-Cleveland will be it, but if that's all there is and no one else, what's the point in watching anything until May? 

 

So yes, the Goliathing of some teams hasn't really changed. What kept you watching despite the Goliathing, though, is fairly gone now. 

[infrared41]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy! said:

 

Tree Rollins punching and biting the crap out of Danny Ainge's hand 33 years ago is still good for a few points in my book. 

 

 

Anything that resulted in Danny Ainge getting punched is good for a few points in my book. Anyway, those mid to late 80s Hawks teams with Wilkins, Rivers, Rollins, and of course, the one and only Cliff Levingston  were pretty damned good. Unfortunately for the Hawks fans, the Celtics were some sort of supernatural force, the Pistons and Cavs were on the rise, and the Bucks and Sixers weren't too bad either. The Eastern Conference was a beast back then.   

[pmoehrin]

One of the fundamental issues with the NBA almost from day one has been how do you counter the amount of impact a player like LeBron James, or Michael Jordan, or Magic Johnson can have on a franchise.

 

We look at the MLB as being far of a team sport than the NBA, but the study I did found last year that if you have the best or the second best player in the league on your roster, you have about a 25% chance of making the World Series. If you go down just one more level (ie. going from Mike Trout to Josh Donaldson), which you wouldn't think is that big of a drop in talent it turns out can actually lower your chances of getting to the Series by about 5-10%.

 

This doesn't mean that if the Blue Jays had simply swapped out Donaldson for Trout it would have put them over the hump last year, but even at that sport there still seems to be a HUGE difference between having THE BEST player in the sport on your team and having ONE OF THE BEST.

I could see that same 25% figure in baseball being in the 40-50% range in basketball and that number is probably closer to what the percentage of the cap a max contract should take up, instead of the 25-35% range its at now.

I'm not saying upping the max contract salary is all you need to do to fix the NBA and I would be more in favor of scrapping the idea of a max contract altogether, but I see the low max contract ceiling as being one of if not the biggest enabler of superstars being able to team up in free agency.

 

I feel like NBA in general has always been in denial about how much impact the best players in the league really have. I think they want to be believe that the number of guys you can realistically build an NBA championship team around is 10-20 players, when in reality its probably more like 4-6 and without one of those 4-6 guys on your team, its damn near impossible to win it all.

 

There needs to be an effective counterweight to that and right now none exists and I'm not even sure if one ever did.

[OnWis97]

10 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I understand Durant's choice from a business standpoint, I get how Thunder fans feel right now, especially after being so close last year*, I get how fans of the other teams feel too, and I also, at the same time as all of that, feel like it's super lame to team up with the best team in the league, just like I did when Lebron did it in Miami. You can go get a ring with that group, but it won't mean as much as it did in OKC. If the 04 Lakers had won it all would it have really felt right for Karl Malone? I don't think so. 

 

*Thunder fans have had a mostly charmed existence since the move and they're about to experience life like everybody else. I imagine they see obscurity on the horizon too and that makes this even harder. 

 

What I don't understand is NBA fans who are arguing in favor of non-competitiveness from 2/3 of the league. Why would you want a majority of games to either be boring blowouts or meaningless snoozers between 2 bad teams? 

I don't think he'd have appreciated that as much as he would have had it happened in Utah, but I can cut the Mailman some slack.  Yeah, he was trying to ride coattails to someone else's title, but his career was essentially over.  He did not leave a team that was right on the edge of a championship, as an MVP candidate, and join another MVP candidate.  He took one desperation shot at getting to experience a title, even though it was not how he'd ideally wanted it to happen.  

 

In other words, I can cut him more slack than Durant.  I don't blame any ring-chasers joining the best teams in search of their first ring when they are no longer "the man" and their team's not going to do it.  I was happy for Bourque and would have been happy for the Mailman (though unhappy as a Kobe/Laker hater).  

 

Durant's situation is much more like LeBron's...a title is nice but it's not as nice as it coulda been.  And now he'll/we'll never know what could have happened.  

 

Regarding Thunder fans, they have been pretty fortunate.  But I totally sympathize with them; they see irrelevance on the horizon.  Kinda like I did when I accept that the KG-led T-Wolves were not going to ever quite get there.  

[Lights Out]

The whole "Magic/Bird/Jordan wouldn't have left their teams" argument is rose-colored-glasses crap.

 

First of all, unrestricted free agency didn't even exist in the NBA until 1988. So those guys wouldn't have been able to just walk to another team in their 20s even if they wanted to.

 

Second of all, they all had stacked teams around them in their prime. They had no incentive to leave regardless. Of course, so did Durant in OKC - which is why he's rightfully being labeled as a coward. But if Bird or Magic or Jordan had supporting casts as bad as the ones LeBron had the first time around in Cleveland, and if they had the ability to leave in their primes, they'd probably have done it. Sorry, but there's no way in hell that an egomaniac like Jordan would have wasted his entire career with scrubs like Mo Williams, Anderson Varejao and JJ Hickson as his "best" teammates.

 

Third of all, let's not forget that Magic threatened to go back to college if the Bulls won the coin flip for the first overall pick. Even back then, the stars were trying to set themselves up in the best possible situations for their careers.

 

I hate what KD did, but I also hate the revisionist history that's written about the pre-LeBron NBA.