2016 NBA Offseason thread

[FiddySicks]

Aaaaaand David West just signed with the Warriors. Wow. 

 

EDIT: Ray Allen, Mario Chalmers, and (gulp) Kendrick Perkins may be in tow as well. What is this I don't even. 

[Nyk33]

5 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

Aaaaaand David West just signed with the Warriors. Wow. 

 

 

[OnWis97]

20 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

Aaaaaand David West just signed with the Warriors. Wow. 

 

EDIT: Ray Allen, Mario Chalmers, and (gulp) Kendrick Perkins may be in tow as well. What is this I don't even. 

It's hard to judge tone in this medium, but even you kinda seem unhappy.

 

Getting Durant is getting richer...but now it's just an embarrassment of riches?

 

I don't think this team wins 73 next year.  They'll start out like 9-7.  Then they'll barely lose before going 16-1 in the playoffs.

[FiddySicks]

1 minute ago, OnWis97 said:

It's hard to judge tone in this medium, but even you kinda seem unhappy.

 

Getting Durant is getting richer...but now it's just an embarrassment of riches?

 

Oh no, it's unhappiness at all. It's more shock for me than anything. It's amazing, but it also makes me slightly uncomfortable, I guess? The Warriors are flat out Yankeeing it, and I never thought that was going to happen with this franchise. 

 

 

I just know that if they don't win a title, the whirlwind of :censored: Golden State is going to get is going to be of epic proportions. 

 

[Nyk33]

1 minute ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

I just know that if they don't win a title, the whirlwind of Golden State is going to get is going to be of epic proportions. 

 

Dude the ":censored: Golden State" whirlwind is already at epic proportions. 

 

You can't get a number higher than infinity. 

[FiddySicks]

Just now, Nyk33 said:

 

Dude the ":censored: Golden State" whirlwind is already at epic proportions. 

 

You can't get a number higher than infinity. 

 

Yeah it's been absolutely insane already, but now it's going to get even worse.

 

God forbid D Wade goes crazy and joins up for the league minimum or something because Warriors fans are going to have to start hiring body guards  

[Lee Noire]

53 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

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.  

When did it change that winning a ring wasn't the most important thing in the game? Now you have to be "the man" on a team that also wins rings. I feel like that whole line of thinking is just as bad as the revisionists that would have you think MJ won all those rings by himself.

 

If I'm KD I'm choosing the best path to that ring period. It's crazy that people think him possibly winning a ring with the Warriors wouldn't have been earned. Because he didn't struggle? Who wants to struggle? It's one thing to be born into the struggle and work your way out, but if you had the choice you don't pick it.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

David West was less than great with San Antonio last year. Do enjoy him.

 

Ray Allen would be a good pickup, but he's two years out of the league now, right? The guy is a machine so I wouldn't put anything past him, but if Jordan couldn't get lift on his jumpers at 38, I don't see how Allen can at 40.

[OnWis97]

10 minutes ago, Lee Noire said:

When did it change that winning a ring wasn't the most important thing in the game? Now you have to be "the man" on a team that also wins rings. I feel like that whole line of thinking is just as bad as the revisionists that would have you think MJ won all those rings by himself.

 

If I'm KD I'm choosing the best path to that ring period. It's crazy that people think him possibly winning a ring with the Warriors wouldn't have been earned. Because he didn't struggle? Who wants to struggle? It's one thing to be born into the struggle and work your way out, but if you had the choice you don't pick it.

My reference to "the man" was about aging stars...and I don't think there's much question that someone like Malone would rather have won a title with the Utah team he went through so much with than as a Laker riding coattails.  Again, I don't blame him for what he did, but I doubt it would have been the same.

 

Regarding Durant, I cannot speak for him or how he feels, but I'd have to think that some athletes would rather get their ring with the team that drafted 'em and grew with 'em as opposed to going and joining the best team.  There'd have been great satisfaction to going back with that team next year and taking out the Warriors and the Cavs.  GSW will probably win the title and there will be satisfaction, but as much?  Well nobody really knows, I guess.  

 

So we can talk about rings, but we really should also talk about circumstances.  You don't have to be "the man."  There's no shame in how Pippen collected his six rings.  But Pippen also grew right along with that Bulls team.  He did not join them after a record-breaking season.  Durant's probably going to win a ring next year and while it's not totally fair for us to call it "easy" he changed his circumstances in a way that creates a different dialog about this ring than the ring he may have won in OKC.

[OnWis97]

26 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Oh no, it's unhappiness at all. It's more shock for me than anything. It's amazing, but it also makes me slightly uncomfortable, I guess? The Warriors are flat out Yankeeing it, and I never thought that was going to happen with this franchise. 

 

 

I just know that if they don't win a title, the whirlwind of Golden State is going to get is going to be of epic proportions. 

 

That's what I was going for...

[FinsUp1214]

Aaaand the Jazz get Boris Diaw. Not an earth shattering move and he's not the player he used to be, but that's sure going to help with depth and veteran experience! I'll gladly take him.

 

All my my recent league bashing aside for now, I'm glad at least that this has been one of the best offseasons the Jazz have had in a while. It really does seem like the front office gets it that they've got to get to the playoffs right now. Sure it's still yet to be seen if this team is really going to fulfill that potential, but as far as what the front office can control right now, they're really making all the right moves. 

[rams80]

I read this "obituary" for the Thunder.

 

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/7/5/12097050/kevin-durant-leaves-warriors-oklahoma-city-thunder-dynasty

 

I think one of the unspoken realities presented here is that perhaps the Thunder weren't as close to winning a title as we thought.  While the games were close, they did lose in 5 to the LeBron Heat.  Then a combination of injuries and the odd fatal encounter with Memphis ended up keeping them from missing the finals from 13-15.  Then this past season they struggled to finish games except for that one stretch from Game 2 of the San Antonio series to the first half of the Golden State series-the former part of that coincidentally happening as Tim Duncan finally fell apart.  There's no guarantee that team would have beaten Cleveland either.

 

I wonder if this all factored into Durant's calculations as well.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Probably. Cleveland would have smoked the Thunder.

 

One thing I keep reading is that the Warriors were five minutes from a second title. That's technically true, but more true is that they were 48 minutes from a title three games in a row, and blew all three of them. That's a special kind of collapse, and the Durant Correction makes sense when you look at their choke job in historical context.

 

So who the hell knows. The Spurs were going to sweep OKC until they forgot how to score and defend. The Thunder were going to slay the beast until they didn't. The Warriors were going to repeat as champions until they choked.

 

For all of the supposed NBA boring predictability, these past playoffs weren't.

 

And as far as super teams go, the Lakers of 04 and 2012 didn't make it, the first Heatles teamed choked, the LMA Spurs choked, and -- this is giving far too much credit -- the Garnett/Pierce/DWill Nets were a disaster. Anything can happen.

[The_Admiral]

2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

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? 

 

It's just about showing off that you're one of the basketball elect.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

That's a silly critique, isn't it?

 

For any given sport, about a third of the teams are good, a third of the teams are in the middle, and a third of the teams are bad. For any given NBA season, you have about 6 teams at 50 wins or more, another 10-12 at 40 wins, a handful around 30, and a few bottom feeders at 10-20 wins.

 

In baseball, only 10 teams really make the playoffs (right?). In the NFL, 12/32 make the playoffs, but really only 4-6 teams have a chance at the beginning of a season. I have no idea how the NHL is structured anymore, so I can't comment.

 

This next season will start with 3 teams that can win the title - Cleveland, Golden State and San Antonio. Boston, LA Clippers, Memphis and Toronto are the next tier down. I don't think that's so out of whack with any other NBA season. Or, really most any professional sport.

[habsfan1]

Wow seriously lol

 

[BBTV]

Is it as simple as there being too many teams? Back in the day with 23ish teams (prior to heat/hornets) there were still the same number of top players, but fewer teams to spread them across so by default more teams had a legit shot and there wasn't the need for super teams (albeit sometimes they just happened)?

 

[HedleyLamarr]

5 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Is it as simple as there being too many teams? Back in the day with 23ish teams (prior to heat/hornets) there were still the same number of top players, but fewer teams to spread them across so by default more teams had a legit shot and there wasn't the need for super teams (albeit sometimes they just happened)?

 

Well, until the 80's, there wasn't free agency like we see today.  So that took away from player movement.

 

Part of the problem is with the CBA.  Teams can only sign (or retain) free agents to four- (or five-) year contracts maximum.  That's a pretty short window for a team to get their act together and be on the verge of championship contention.  If a team isn't close or their 'window' is closing, they aren't as appealing as other teams would be.

 

The biggest problem is simply that players are too friendly with each other.

[dfwabel]

10 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Is it as simple as there being too many teams? Back in the day with 23ish teams (prior to heat/hornets) there were still the same number of top players, but fewer teams to spread them across so by default more teams had a legit shot and there wasn't the need for super teams (albeit sometimes they just happened)?

 

I don't think it really has to do with excess teams, although at the time of the 2011 Lockout Stern claimed that 22 of the 30 teams were "losing money".

 

Team owners and their fanbase have different ideas on parity.

Team owners want financial parity.

Fans want competition parity.

[Sykotyk]

1988: US Population 244 million, World Population 5.1 billion

2016: US Population 319 million, World Population 7.4 billion

 

1988: 23 teams

2016: 30 teams

 

Is it really improbable that as the number of people in the world and country increase, the more 'higher quality' players are available to fill those teams? That there's the 'same number' of great players today as there was 28 years ago? Or, is it those 'great' players had fewer great players to go against and stood out better.

 

The problem was the 'super team' that basketball has spawned. You could argue it started with the Lakers and Shaq. Then Boston with the Big 3. And then exploded with Miami. The reason it's so noticeable in basketball is how few players there are on a team, how few their are on the playing surface at a time, and how great their contribution to team scoring is that it only takes one or two great players to make you go from horrible to great as a team.

 

Throw in the fact the players basically 'hold court' when it comes to where they want to play, there's a problem. And the biggest problem is the salary caps on individual players. Honestly, they should remove it or raise it considerably. To the point where 1 great player will eat up most of the team's salary cap. Imagine if LeBron James could get $60 million in one year? If OKC could afford to pay $50 million to Durant but the Warriors only $12 million because they've already allocated money to Curry? Would he really go 'ring chasing' if he had to take that big of a cut?

 

In the NBA, individual players make absurd sums because so few players contribute to that revenue. There isn't the 53-man roster of NFL, or 27+ players (plus all the minors) in baseball, or the larger rosters of hockey with the 3 or 4 lines and everyone basically getting playing time.

 

It's 5 games out of 12, of which they see the majority of the playing time.