buzzcut

2018 NBA "Off"Season-Because It's Always On

Recommended Posts

CJ McCollum either needs to:

1-beg to be traded to the East.

2-expect to receive Flagrant 1 or 2s from Draymond, Boogie, or a D-Leager on a ten day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don’t really understand the narrative, either. KD May have joined an already great team, but he’s the reigning back-to-back NBA Finals MVP. He’s probably the BIGGEST reason the Warriors won those Finals. He’s not some scrubby ass bench player. And my God, who are CJ McCollum and Kyle Lowry to talk about being soft? The Blazers got absolutely hammered by a lower-seeded Pelicans team that was short-handed, and a lot of that had to do with how tentative (Or you could use everyone else’s favorite word for it. Soft.) guys like McCollum were. And don’t even get me started on Lowry. That guy deserves absolutely ZERO respect after some of his dreadful playoff performances. I just don’t understand the absolute bitterness some of these dudes have towards KD. It’s like 75% of the league would rather just bitch about how it’s too hard or how Durant “ruined” the league rather than step their game up. 

 

And I get it that Durant shouldn’t take the bait as often as he does. But honestly? :censored: guys like McColloum and Lowry who don’t have an ounce of what KD has and who just want to take shots. They don’t deserve to speak on Durant because they’re not in the same echelon as him and NEVER will be. Their only counter to what he has is hatred and bitterness. That garbage right there is the absolute biggest reason why today’s NBA should be perceived as soft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

I just don’t really understand the narrative, either.

 

The narrative? The second best player in the league joined a team with the best record of all time, also a team he was within one win of beating in the WCF. That's it right there.

 

Definitely soft. I don't understand, how someone can put it any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DG_Now said:

So, JJ Redick is a 9/11 truther. Or at least someone who recommends Loose Change.

 

That's fun.

 

Not sure what that means, but I just read this

 

Quote

 


the 76ers shooting guard was answering a mailbag question about DeMar DeRozan being traded to the Spurs against his will.

 "This is why I love what Kevin Durant did in going to Golden State. You should look at your career as sort of squeezing out every ounce of money, joy, winning, team -- whatever it is you prioritize -- squeeze that out," Redick explained. 

"There is so much you can't control. When you have an opportunity to do what you actually want to do, you have to take it." 

Redick also explained why he believes there is a racial component when it comes to players leaving in free agency. 

"When a player, and a lot of professional athletes are African-American in football and basketball, tries to sort of enact control on his career -- Kevin Durant goes to the Warriors -- there's a lot of backlash," Redick said. "When white owners and white GMs, primarily, when they make a trade that they deem in the best interest of their organization, they don't receive that same backlash. Why is that?" 

Redick laughed after he asked the question, implying that the reasoning is obvious. 

He then continued: 

"Every time there's a work stoppage in any sport, the overwhelming majority of fans are upset at the African-American athletes and not the rich, white owners who are squeezing every last dollar they can -- who are already profitable and are already rich. 

"Again, there's a racial component to this."

 

 

I think that owners do get crapped on for tearing down teams and moving star players more than he's indicating, but other than that, he's not wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fans, for the most part, weren't angry with Durant for leaving OKC. They were pissed that he joined a 73-win team that had just embarrassed him in the playoffs and had already won a ring without him. Of course fans aren't going to be happy when one of the best players makes an uncompetitive move that makes the league's product worse for years to come. If he had joined any of the other teams he was considering instead of the Warriors, OKC fans would have been the only ones upset.

 

This is a huge distinction that gets conveniently ignored by players and the media because it doesn't fit the pro-player/anti-team narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I think that owners do get crapped on for tearing down teams and moving star players more than he's indicating, but other than that, he's not wrong.

Eh, the NHL kind of disproves his point.

Fans (wrongly) blame players there for work stoppages in that league, but most NHL players are white. 

 

I think the problem has more to do with the demonization of organized labour and less to do with any sort of overt racism. 

 

Anyway here’s a link where Redick recommends 9/11 truther bull :censored: and claims dinosaurs are a hoax...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ftw.usatoday.com/2018/01/jj-redick-admits-to-kyrie-irving-he-might-not-believe-in-dinosaurs-and-knew-this-would-be-a-headline/amp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get that out of the story in that link.  He's basically using words to say nothing.  He's basically saying "I don't know, I don't think A, but I have questions, so maybe A, maybe B, I don't know, I'mma go dribble a ball now".  He definitely doesn't come off as the most educated fellow in the league (not sure how many years he went to Duke, but I thought you had to be smart there even if you only played sports).  Any chance these guys are trolling when they even suggest these things, even if not flat out saying they believe in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Eh, the NHL kind of disproves his point.

Fans (wrongly) blame players there for work stoppages in that league, but most NHL players are white. 

 

I think the problem has more to do with the demonization of organized labour and less to do with any sort of overt racism. 

 

Anyway here’s a link where Redick recommends 9/11 truther bull :censored: and claims dinosaurs are a hoax...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ftw.usatoday.com/2018/01/jj-redick-admits-to-kyrie-irving-he-might-not-believe-in-dinosaurs-and-knew-this-would-be-a-headline/amp

Well we do like to demonize organized labour.  But I kinda think it's jealousy.  "He makes $xx,xxx,xxx so he better act as happy as I know I'd be in a situation I cannot even relate to being in.  I'd play for free!"  FWIW, outside of the NFL,* I am neither pro-player nor pro-organization.  At least I don't think so.  It's a struggle to balance the right of a veteran to play where he wants to and the value to a league remaining competitive.  For several reasons, this creates much larger issues in the NBA than the NHL.

 

*I think the NFL is a great example.  Fans seem to think all the players are making starting QB money. They don't want to support those multimillionaires, a tiny minority of who are multimillionaires.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fans' allegiance to management over labor is predominantly fueled by racial resentment, never more so than in the NFL, but it's hard to begrudge people not liking LeBron and Bosh to the Heat, or everyone to the Warriors. The new cosmopolitanism of NBA fandom isn't for everyone. For instance, some of us just want the Bulls to win again, what a concept. To that end, loading up rosters on top of basketball's inherent disparity makes the product less entertaining for a lot of people. I mean, sure, go get paid, there's more than enough to go around, but the league does have to keep a certain level of kayfabe going about all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Well we do like to demonize organized labour.  But I kinda think it's jealousy.  "He makes $xx,xxx,xxx so he better act as happy as I know I'd be in a situation I cannot even relate to being in.  I'd play for free!"  FWIW, outside of the NFL,* I am neither pro-player nor pro-organization.  At least I don't think so.  It's a struggle to balance the right of a veteran to play where he wants to and the value to a league remaining competitive.  For several reasons, this creates much larger issues in the NBA than the NHL.

 

*I think the NFL is a great example.  Fans seem to think all the players are making starting QB money. They don't want to support those multimillionaires, a tiny minority of who are multimillionaires.  

Maybe so, but the most common cliché you hear from fans during labor disputes is that "millionaires and billionaires are arguing and the only ones who lose are the fans." Neither side elicits much sympathy from fans because of the money they make.

 

I do agree that always siding with the players or the owners is the wrong approach. I think valid ideas can come from either side, and there needs to be fair, healthy compromise between both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2018 at 10:40 AM, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

Considering all the major dominoes have fallen- Is it time for way-too-early season predictions? Yes, yes it is. 

 

EAST

1 - Boston Celtics

2 - Toronto Raptors

3 - Philadelphia 76ers

4 - Milwaukee Bucks

5 - Washington Wizards

6 - Indiana Pacers

7 - Miami Heat

8 - Detroit Pistons

CLE

CHA

CHI

BKN

ORL

NYK

ATL

 

WEST

1 - Golden State Warriors

2 - Houston Rockets

3 - Los Angeles Lakers

4 - Oklahoma City Thunder

5 - Utah Jazz

6 - Denver Nuggets

7 - San Antonio Spurs 

8 - Portland Trail Blazers

MIN

NOP

LAC

DAL

MEM

PHX

SAC

 

I think Jimmy Butler and Anthony Davis are both good bets to get traded this season, so it's hard to say how the conferences actually shake out before then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lights Out said:

I do agree that always siding with the players or the owners is the wrong approach. I think valid ideas can come from either side, and there needs to be fair, healthy compromise between both sides.

I have never heard an argument in the favour of owners that wasn’t dealing with a problem they themselves helped create. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2018 at 4:50 PM, DG_Now said:

So, JJ Redick is a 9/11 truther. Or at least someone who recommends Loose Change.

 

That's fun.

 

Nice to see he put that free education from Duke to good use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think Mike Conley will be the same caliber player when he returns for training camp? Honestly, I think Memphis took a huge risk in signing him to such a large deal, and so far it has not paid off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The AFC South said:

Do you think Mike Conley will be the same caliber player when he returns for training camp? Honestly, I think Memphis took a huge risk in signing him to such a large deal, and so far it has not paid off. 

Conley is a good star quality player. Small market teams sometimes add stars just to stay somewhere relevant. I think thats what Memphis did. Conley certainly won’t be leading the Grizzlies to any WCF, but maybe they make the playoffs as a 6-7 seed in a few years. I think the move just kind of keeps them relevant and locks up a star in their city, kind of like the Cavs-Kevin Love situation. I mean if a player wants to be in a star player wants to be in a smaller market, you lock em up long term.

 

Yes, he is overpaid. No he won’t be the same player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lights Out said:

Fans, for the most part, weren't angry with Durant for leaving OKC. They were pissed that he joined a 73-win team that had just embarrassed him in the playoffs and had already won a ring without him. Of course fans aren't going to be happy when one of the best players makes an uncompetitive move that makes the league's product worse for years to come. If he had joined any of the other teams he was considering instead of the Warriors, OKC fans would have been the only ones upset.

 

This is a huge distinction that gets conveniently ignored by players and the media because it doesn't fit the pro-player/anti-team narrative.

 

There was an article I saw earlier this week.  Basically this is what the fans get for years of "don't mean a thing without the ring."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I have never heard an argument in the favour of owners that wasn’t dealing with a problem they themselves helped create. 

I'd say the cap smoothing issue in the NBA is an example of that. The owners and league wanted it, but the players rejected it due to shortsighted greed. Players whose free agency coincided with the major salary cap boom saw an opportunity to cash in and refused to give that up. This ended up creating the conditions that made it possible for Durant to join Golden State, ruining the competitive balance of the league. It also hurt this year's free agents, forcing them to settle for less because the salary cap has returned to normality and the money's dried up. 

 

Jared Dudley was on the Woj podcast recently and he admitted that the players basically fought cap smoothing "just to fight it." He also said that if the players had known in advance that rejecting cap smoothing would have allowed Durant to join Golden State, they would have voted in favor of cap smoothing instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't get about the cap smoothing fight is that the CBA guarantees the players X amount of basketball income anyway, right? So if the smooth cap led to a couple years of inflated profits for the suits, they would have had to cut a check to the players' union besides and everyone would still get their cut. Instead, most players wrecked their shots at a ring for this generation, and the only guys who ultimately came out ahead are Evan Turner et al. But I am not a labor lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 1:16 PM, OnWis97 said:

Well we do like to demonize organized labour.  But I kinda think it's jealousy.  "He makes $xx,xxx,xxx so he better act as happy as I know I'd be in a situation I cannot even relate to being in.  I'd play for free!"  FWIW, outside of the NFL,* I am neither pro-player nor pro-organization.  At least I don't think so.  It's a struggle to balance the right of a veteran to play where he wants to and the value to a league remaining competitive.  For several reasons, this creates much larger issues in the NBA than the NHL.

 

*I think the NFL is a great example.  Fans seem to think all the players are making starting QB money. They don't want to support those multimillionaires, a tiny minority of who are multimillionaires.  

 

And I think, too, the labor side gets an unfair shake from the public by virtue of being the public faces, the ones whose incomes we all know too much about. In 80 percent of cases the ownership is out of sight, out of mind, and that goes double for the monetary side of it. Maybe that is changing; you can see general public opposition is growing to sweetheart tax deals for billionaire owners to build otherwise useless sporting venues. It's not strictly so much the concern of a few economist professors anymore.

 

(Of course that doesn't fully cancel out the American distrust of organized labor / reflexive adoration of business owners. As if being born into wealth and owning a team as an asset is comparable to running a pool store in a strip mall. But I digress.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howabout a system like this:

 

Principles:

  • Salaries are based on percentages of the cap - not fixed dollar amounts.  I think this is fair because if the cap blows up, players who just signed got screwed, and vice versa.  
    • So for example, the top "slot" could be something like 40%, the next tier 20%, and so on.  Just making up numbers, not sure if they work out.
  • Each "slot" represents a job grade - just like a corporation.  So level 1 is like 5%, level 2 10%, level 3 15%, and so on.  
    • Independent arbitrators evaluate or "calibrate" players every offseason to determine their job grade - again, just like a corporation.
    • Players can be "promoted" or "demoted" each season, but their contracts could be fixed at whatever grade they were signed at... or...
      • Players could have the option to sign "variable rate" contracts - basically bet on themselves - and be subject to raises or decreases each offseason based on their calibration.  This would help a comeback player who is graded artificially low but figures to return to form after a season, whereas a "fixed rate" deal would benefit an aging veteran.
    • Each team can be comprised of a relatively fixed combo of "grades" - for example, a 12-man roster could be 3 grade 1, 4 grade 2, 3 grade 3, 2 grade 4 (again, just making up numbers, there could be more or fewer grades.)
      • If a team has a grade 2 player that develops into a grade 4, that player would continue to count as a grade 2, but they could sign him as a 4, making it easier for teams to keep their home-grown talent.
      • If another team wanted to sign that player when he becomes a FA, they'd have to sign him as a 4, which would count against their limit of of 2 4s.
    • There's a relatively small pool of shared money that's used to account for variable-rate deals that work against the teams, and for overages caused by the aforementioned scenario of 2s becoming 4s.
      • Basically each team is always actually spending the same amount every year, regardless of whether their players get raises or decreases.
      • The cap number would be slightly lower than the actual percentage of revenue to fund this shared revenue fund, however excesses would be distributed back to players at end of year.
    • Since contracts are guaranteed, you don't need all the clauses that NFL deals have - it's pretty cut-and-dried.  
      • Also, there's not crap like "Bird rights", "mid-level-exception", etc.  It's pretty easy to understand.
    • There would need to be rules for minor-league callups, 10-day contracts, and rookies, but I don't see that being too complicated.

So obviously any organization with a union doesn't work the same way as a corporation, however in this case, I think it kinda sorta could.  Guaranteed contracts could still be in place, which would satisfy most of the players' concerns, while GMs have an easier job of building their teams, since there's more incentive to draft and develop well, and to scout underrated / underslotted players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.