2021 NBA Offseason

[sky1324]

Big fan of what the Hornets did at the draft, this is probably the best team we've had since the 90s if everyone stays healthy. This team could be a serious contender in the playoffs, something I honestly never thought I'd say about the Hornets.

[BBTV]

21 minutes ago, dont care said:

Or you know the bucks and Phoenix are an example of why it’s not, or the sixers are the prime example of why it doesn’t work.

two teams that got super lucky aren’t evidence of anything. 

[gosioux76]

18 minutes ago, BBTV said:

two teams that got super lucky aren’t evidence of anything. 

Maybe I don't understand "The Process," but it seems to me as if the Sixers have been rebuilding for a decade now, and are actively trying to trade one of the cornerstones of the system. How long is The Process supposed to take? 

 

Whether they were "super lucky" or not, there was something incredibly satisfying about watching a team like the Bucks win a title. Instead of being a collection of HOFers, it was a team with one bonafide superstar who succeeded by making the players around him better. 

 

I want the NBA to be a league where this is always possible, and not always attributed to just being "lucky." 

[dont care]

18 minutes ago, BBTV said:

two teams that got super lucky aren’t evidence of anything. 

Just shows that in order to be a successful franchise you need to build your team through smart moves and luck. Like any sport. NBA is more reliant on superstars being smaller rosters but any team can be just as unlucky with injuries to said superstars or things rolling the wrong way. But hoping your top picks work out into superstars isn’t the right way to go about it when you don’t develop them like the bucks did with giannis, or suns did with booker.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

14 minutes ago, dont care said:

Just shows that in order to be a successful franchise you need to build your team through smart moves and luck. Like any sport. NBA is more reliant on superstars being smaller rosters but any team can be just as unlucky with injuries to said superstars or things rolling the wrong way. But hoping your top picks work out into superstars isn’t the right way to go about it when you don’t develop them like the bucks did with giannis, or suns did with booker.

 

Pretty sure BBTV is just trolling at this point, but the Process always failed because it always lacked nuance. It was the underpants gnome of basketball, but it didn't get the joke behind the underpants gnoming.

 

Mercifully, it showed that vulture capitalists like Sam Hinkie have no place in basketball team development, which is good because the nerds were certainly trying to take us there. We all learned that 3 is more than 2 in the mid 2010s, but the Warriors worked because they supplemented their three-point shooting with great defense and greater ball movement while the Rockets failed because once the threes stopped landing everything fell apart.

[BBTV]

Teams that are otherwise irrelevant have to get lucky that they draft a (*sigh*) generational talent somewhere in the draft where those players typically aren't, or things break their way for one magic season.  Then hope they can keep those players, when the reality is that there's only a few teams that actually matter, and those players want to team up there.  The Process was about knowing that picks are hit-or-miss, so get as many of the top picks as possible to hope to find a cornerstone superstar or two, and then other players want to play with them, and the team becomes relevant.  The process has been a success, even if no title is won.  It's a hell of a lot more enjoyable watching and attending Sixers games than it is 90% of the other teams.

 

90% of the teams don't have the luxury of being the Lakers and just choosing whatever superstar they want, or Miami, a place where players just naturally want to be, or Brooklyn, where dudes decided to go to.  The Sixers are sold out every night, have a bona fide superstar in Embiid, are able to recruit decent-enough guys to at least be in contention every year, and other than being stuck with a piece of trash like Ben Simmons (who I should take it easy on because he may have some serious mental health issues that prevent him from playing better than a piece of trash) are in good shape.

 

It's easy for people who latch on to teams like the Lakers, despite having no attachment, to look down on how other teams need to build.  But literally every argument against the process is actually an argument for why it was necessary.  I'm not really an NBA fan in general, but I'd rather be a fan of the Sixers than the Bucks - even right now. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

54 minutes ago, BBTV said:

I'm not really an NBA fan in general, but I'd rather be a fan of the Sixers than the Bucks - even right now. 

 

Philly truly has the greatest fans.

[gosioux76]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

Teams that are otherwise irrelevant have to get lucky that they draft a (*sigh*) generational talent somewhere in the draft where those players typically aren't, or things break their way for one magic season.  Then hope they can keep those players, when the reality is that there's only a few teams that actually matter, and those players want to team up there.  The Process was about knowing that picks are hit-or-miss, so get as many of the top picks as possible to hope to find a cornerstone superstar or two, and then other players want to play with them, and the team becomes relevant.  The process has been a success, even if no title is won.  It's a hell of a lot more enjoyable watching and attending Sixers games than it is 90% of the other teams.

 

90% of the teams don't have the luxury of being the Lakers and just choosing whatever superstar they want, or Miami, a place where players just naturally want to be, or Brooklyn, where dudes decided to go to.  The Sixers are sold out every night, have a bona fide superstar in Embiid, are able to recruit decent-enough guys to at least be in contention every year, and other than being stuck with a piece of trash like Ben Simmons (who I should take it easy on because he may have some serious mental health issues that prevent him from playing better than a piece of trash) are in good shape.

 

It's easy for people who latch on to teams like the Lakers, despite having no attachment, to look down on how other teams need to build.  But literally every argument against the process is actually an argument for why it was necessary.  I'm not really an NBA fan in general, but I'd rather be a fan of the Sixers than the Bucks - even right now. 

 

Whether or not a team is built through "The Process," I agree with the general sentiment. And you're right: Championship or not, teams like the Sixers are now more fun to watch, at least compared to what they were before.

 

Maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, but I really hope the success of the Bucks and Suns in reaching the Finals becomes the sign of things to come. The Lakers bringing on Westbrook yesterday doesn't help that cause, certainly, but I'd love to see teams with legitimate, home-grown talent like Philly, Minnesota, Portland, Charlotte, Phoenix, etc., become more than second-round playoff chum for the superstar-hoarding teams. 

 

 

[FinsUp1214]

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/31919563/oklahoma-city-thunder-get-future-first-round-nba-draft-pick-derrick-favors-utah-jazz-sources
 

Derrick Favors and a 1st rounder is being sent to OKC for a 2nd rounder.

 

My gut reaction is that it’s a necessary move for a couple of reasons: 1) offloading Favors’ contract does help out with some tax flexibility leading into free agency (helps a little bit with the Conley situation), and 2) it also seems to signal that the Jazz understand the need for more floor spacing and small-ball capability, as Favors filled the same role as Gobert. This move should provide an opportunity to address that need. I heavily, heavily doubt they're going to rely on Azubuike to be Gobert’s backup, so I’d be floored if their plan in dealing Favors didn’t involve getting a replacement backup this offseason who could stretch things out. Not sure who that would be, but that’s a move they’ve got to make now.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

 

Maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, but I really hope the success of the Bucks and Suns in reaching the Finals becomes the sign of things to come. The Lakers bringing on Westbrook yesterday doesn't help that cause, certainly, but I'd love to see teams with legitimate, home-grown talent like Philly, Minnesota, Portland, Charlotte, Phoenix, etc., become more than second-round playoff chum for the superstar-hoarding teams. 

 

 

 

Is the second round really so bad? Only 4 times get to make the conference championships, and there's a lot of talent across the league.

 

The Process was a dumb attempted to shortcut to amassing great talent without doing any of the dirty work with development. Phoenix was in the wilderness for years before they began developing a team worth attracting a top FA like Chris Paul to come to to get them over the top. Milwaukee signed free agents to supplement Giannis and Middleton (and to cover for their terrible coach). 

 

Basketball has always required a mix of drafting, free agency, trading and player development to be good. Nothing has changed.

[gosioux76]

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Is the second round really so bad? Only 4 times get to make the conference championships, and there's a lot of talent across the league.

 

The Process was a dumb attempted to shortcut to amassing great talent without doing any of the dirty work with development. Phoenix was in the wilderness for years before they began developing a team worth attracting a top FA like Chris Paul to come to to get them over the top. Milwaukee signed free agents to supplement Giannis and Middleton (and to cover for their terrible coach). 

 

Basketball has always required a mix of drafting, free agency, trading and player development to be good. Nothing has changed.

 

Is the second round really so bad? Well, if you're content with being a perennial also ran, sure. Maybe it's just me, but I find it demoralizing as a fan to realize that the best my team could achieve is fourth place in their own conference. Of course, only one team can win it all, but you'd like to at least harbor the notion that your team could have a shot at a title.  

 

The NBA, more than any other league, has increasingly become a zero-sum game. It's a superstar-driven league and the teams that can amass the most superstars have the best chance of winning. The moment a guy like Kevin Durant bolts OKC for an already star-laden Golden State, the aspirations of fans in at least 28 other markets sink to rock bottom. 

 

To me, that's what's changed. Free agency is always a factor, but it seems as if player movement has never been as fluid as it is today.  And the end result is a league that is significantly less competitive.  Any team can draft a superstar, but it seems as if it's the small markets that run the risk of having them grow restless and bolt for greener pastures. Giannis is one of the lone outliers. 

 

In a way, Damian Lillard — at the moment — represents a glimpse of the NBA I grew up with: a small market's lone superstar who, like Giannis, seems committed to building a champion where he is rather than hopscotching around the league in search of a ring. But he also has all the control, and if the GM doesn't build a team that appeals to him, he'll be the next superstar to bolt, and Portland will be left to start all over again.  

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

8 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

 

In a way, Damian Lillard — at the moment — represents a glimpse of the NBA I grew up with: a small market's lone superstar who, like Giannis, seems committed to building a champion where he is rather than hopscotching around the league in search of a ring. But he also has all the control, and if the GM doesn't build a team that appeals to him, he'll be the next superstar to bolt, and Portland will be left to start all over again.  

 

 

Did you grow up in the 70s? That's the only time there was a level playing field in the NBA. The 60s were the Celtics, the 80s the Lakers, Celtics and Pistons, the 90s the Bulls, the 2000s the Lakers and Spurs and the 2010s the Heat and Warriors. Minor variations year by year, but the general mode of the NBA is dynasty.

 

On the other hand, we've had four different champions the past four seasons.

[gosioux76]

5 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Did you grow up in the 70s? That's the only time there was a level playing field in the NBA. The 60s were the Celtics, the 80s the Lakers, Celtics and Pistons, the 90s the Bulls, the 2000s the Lakers and Spurs and the 2010s the Heat and Warriors. Minor variations year by year, but the general mode of the NBA is dynasty.

 

On the other hand, we've had four different champions the past four seasons.

 

You're not wrong. But I think my issue is more in how the teams are built. Maybe I'm just jaded by LeBron jumping ship every few years and the Durant-to-GSW escapade, but the whole concept of superstars bolting for greener pastures just seems to have accelerated in the past decade. And that's a phenomenon that puts small markets at a disadvantage. Their only path to success is if they can draft the so-called "generational talent." And even then, the clock is ticking to build a winner before that player loses patience and joins LeBron in L.A.

 

 

 

[dont care]

39 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Did you grow up in the 70s? That's the only time there was a level playing field in the NBA. The 60s were the Celtics, the 80s the Lakers, Celtics and Pistons, the 90s the Bulls, the 2000s the Lakers and Spurs and the 2010s the Heat and Warriors. Minor variations year by year, but the general mode of the NBA is dynasty.

 

On the other hand, we've had four different champions the past four seasons.

I don’t think that’s what he is saying at all, up until the mid 2000’s you didn’t see superstars bolting from teams to build super teams. Sure you still had dominant teams like the Celtics, lakers, and bulls but those were built organically mostly, really only the Shaq Lakers could you say that was a team similar to a superstar team of today. You had malones, and Stockton’s staying in Utah, you had Reggie Miller staying in Indy and those are only a few examples.

[gosioux76]

2 minutes ago, dont care said:

I don’t think that’s what he is saying at all, up until the mid 2000’s you didn’t see superstars bolting from teams to build super teams. Sure you still had dominant teams like the Celtics, lakers, and bulls but those were built organically mostly, really only the Shaq Lakers could you say that was a team similar to a superstar team of today. You had malones, and Stockton’s staying in Utah, you had Reggie Miller staying in Indy and those are only a few examples.

 

Yes, you get it. I'd even argue that those Shaq/Kobe Lakers teams share more in common with their dynasties before them than this modern era of opportunists. 

 

 Shaq left Orlando as a free agent, but he joined a Magic-less Lakers team in which Kobe was a fresh-out-of-high-school rookie. That was no collection of superstars. The dynasty was built by developing Kobe's talent and building around the Shaq-Kobe foundation with role players, similar to the Jordan-Pippen Bulls, the Magic-Kareem Lakers and the Bird-McHale Celtics. 

 

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

39 minutes ago, dont care said:

I don’t think that’s what he is saying at all, up until the mid 2000’s you didn’t see superstars bolting from teams to build super teams. Sure you still had dominant teams like the Celtics, lakers, and bulls but those were built organically mostly, really only the Shaq Lakers could you say that was a team similar to a superstar team of today. You had malones, and Stockton’s staying in Utah, you had Reggie Miller staying in Indy and those are only a few examples.

 

All I see when I think about the past is limited player movement at the benefit of the owners and the detriment of the players. I like the system we have now.

[dont care]

6 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

All I see when I think about the past is limited player movement at the benefit of the owners and the detriment of the players. I like the system we have now.

Players could have moved if they wanted to but didn’t, they’d rather try to win by building the teams around them to be better. Charles Barkley moved around because he was trying to find the best opportunity for a championship and get paid. Shaq moved in FA. Maybe back in the 80’s you have a point when FA wasn’t a thing. The players back in the 90’s though were competitive and you wouldn’t see them being buddies outside of the game and conspiring to get together and form super teams.

[gosioux76]

22 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

All I see when I think about the past is limited player movement at the benefit of the owners and the detriment of the players. I like the system we have now.

And to hell with the fans, I presume? 

 

I get that the team owners are hardly a sympathetic lot, and that the power has shifted significantly in favor of the players in recent years, which is why they now appear free to pursue the path of least resistance to a championship ring. But as the pendulum swings from the billionaire owners to the millionaire athletes, the little guys buying the jerseys and springing for overpriced tickets don't seem to matter all that much.

 

It has to be brutal to be a fan of teams like Minnesota or OKC or Sacramento or Orlando, places that stand zero chance of landing an A-list free agent, and whose fans are left with hope that whichever lottery pick they land is the next LeBron or Durant. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

9 minutes ago, dont care said:

Players could have moved if they wanted to but didn’t, they’d rather try to win by building the teams around them to be better. Charles Barkley moved around because he was trying to find the best opportunity for a championship and get paid. Shaq moved in FA. Maybe back in the 80’s you have a point when FA wasn’t a thing. The players back in the 90’s though were competitive and you wouldn’t see them being buddies outside of the game and conspiring to get together and form super teams.

 

Free agency in the NBA didn't exist until 1988.

 

Here's a brief on why things were different in the 90s: https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/the-last-dance-how-nba-rules-prevented-michael-jordans-bulls-from-facing-superteams-in-the-1990s/#:~:text=A brief history of free agency The free,a 1970 lawsuit brought about by Oscar Robertson.

 

Quote

Larry Bird rights

 

The NBA has always used some version of this rule to allow teams to go over the salary cap to retain their own free agents. Those rules just became more stringent with time. In its original state, the Larry Bird Exception applied to any player who had been under his previous contract for at least one year. There were no exceptions and no tiers. All Bird Rights were created equal. The 1999 CBA altered this system into the one we have today. The current model includes three tiers: Non-Bird Rights (which came after one year), Early-Bird Rights (which come after two) and full Bird Rights (which come after three). Full Bird Rights allow a team to re-sign its own free agents for up to the max. Non-Bird Rights and Early-Bird Rights circumstantially allow some wiggle room, but not nearly that much. 

 

This rule came from the right place. No team should lose an icon because of cap concerns. But it was utterly abused in practice, as players managed to use the it to circumvent the cap entirely and earn contracts that just wouldn't be possible today. Having no time restraints on Bird Rights meant that free agents pretty routinely signed short-term deals with the unwritten understanding that in the near future, they would re-sign newer, bigger deals that made up for the money they lost. 

Horace Grant was the most famous example. He signed a suspicious five-year deal with the Orlando Magic in 1994. That deal paid him under $2.8 million for the 1995-96 season, but included an opt-out in the summer of 1996. Grant took it, and the new deal Orlando gave him paid him a cool $14.8 million for the 1996-97 season. Under the current rules, Grant would have only Early Bird Rights, and with them could have made only around $5.3 million that season from Orlando. This tactic was hardly confined to players of Grant's caliber, though. Chris Dudley executed a version of this plan so egregious that the league publicly called it "a blatant and transparent attempt" to circumvent the cap and challenged it in court.

The luxury tax

The NBA did not adopt any sort of luxury tax until the 1999 CBA. Even then, the tax would only be paid if the league as a whole paid players over a certain amount, not just individuals teams. That was corrected in 2005, and the more punitive version currently in existence was ratified in 2011. This meant that, so long as a team operated within the rules of the cap in acquiring and signing players, they would not be punished for spending literally any amount of money.

So what did this mean in terms of roster construction? Essentially, it gave teams the freedom to spend with impunity. The small-market Indiana Pacers had the third-highest payroll in the NBA by the 1996-97 season. Why? Because they spent over $18.7 million -- just under 77 percent of the cap -- on four players at the same position. They spent more on the combination of Dale Davis, Antonio Davis, Rik Smits and Derek McKey, all big men, than either Toronto or Vancouver spent on their entire rosters. There just wasn't a reason not to. They happened to have those players. They all produced. There was no financial punishment for keeping them. So they kept them. On some level, this was happening practically everywhere. Opportunity cost leads to prudence that didn't exist in the 1990s. 

 

The combination of limitless Bird Rights and no luxury tax practically begged teams to spend money retaining their own players. As such, as their cap sheets were occupied with players modern teams would have the restraint not to spend on. As meaningful as that combination was, though, it is dwarfed in importance by the single biggest driver of free-agent movement.

The max contract

Players were legally allowed to be paid any amount a team would willingly pay them until 1999, so long as that number fit either underneath the salary cap or the player's Bird Rights. There were no restrictions on amount (Michael Jordan made 123 percent of the salary cap for the 1997-98 season), or options (Chris Webber's 15-year rookie deal included a first-year opt-out), and while the 1995 CBA created a seven-year restriction on length, prior contracts greatly exceeded it (such as Magic Johnson's 25-year deal). 

The 1999 CBA created the current three-tiered max system we have today. Players with between four and six years of experience can earn 25 percent of the cap in the first year of a new contract. Players with between seven and nine years of experience can earn 30 percent of it in the first year of a new contract. Players with 10 more years of experience can make 35 percent of it in their first seasons. Lengths have varied over the years, but currently, a team can get five years from his own team and four years from a new one. 

 

Before these restrictions were in place, teams greatly exceeded them on both fronts. Let's start with salary. The highest first-year salary any current free agent can get is 35 percent of the salary cap. But according to Hoops Hype's salary database, between Jordan's first championship season (1990-91) and his last (1997-98), a staggering 26 players made salaries above 35 percent of the cap. That list includes plenty of players who might've liked a superstar teammate with which to battle Jordan: David Robinson (five times), Patrick Ewing (four times), Reggie Miller (twice), Gary Payton (twice) and Alonzo Mourning (twice) all make multiple appearances on that list. 

In many cases, players took up comical percentages of the cap. Ewing routinely took up gargantuan amounts, as high as 76 percent of the cap in Jordan's final season, though he did grant the Knicks a bit of flexibility in 1996 by structuring his contract to include a lower cap number that summer. That was flexibility the Spurs, for instance, lacked. David Robinson cost San Antonio 46 percent of it in Jordan's final season. 

 

These huge numbers didn't just make cap space harder to create, they made it harder to use. It's common sense. Modern free agents are hardly incentivized to remain in place. The ceiling on their max could rise if they gain supermax eligibility, but under no circumstances can that exceed 35 percent, and without it, they can only get one extra year on their contract and slightly higher annual raises to stay put. If LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh had all been allowed to negotiate for their market value in 2010, there is no way that the Heat would have been able to afford all three. But the max essentially took financial incentives off of the table. If all three could play together for virtually the same amount of money that they would make on their own, then suddenly playing together becomes far more appealing. 

 

Older superstars did not have to make such sacrifices. If Ewing could make 76 percent of the cap from the Knicks, then he'd essentially have to take a 50 percent pay cut to join a new team even a modern max deal. Top players at that point hogged such a ridiculous percentage of a team's cap space, and could similarly demand that much from their own teams thanks to their Bird Rights, that building a superteam elsewhere would simply be financially impractical. 

It wasn't just the sheer salary of these deals that made free-agent movement so difficult. It was their length. Ewing, for example, didn't reach free agency until 1996, 11 years after he was drafted. His rookie contract could have lasted anywhere from six to 10 years based on options. The length of those contracts incentivized early renegotiation because market conditions change during the life of those deals. 

The perfect storm

The above moves were a staple of the 1980s. As Larry O'Brien gave way to commissioner David Stern in 1984, the NBA went from a somewhat lawless league into one with structural order. When a team exploited a rule to gain an unfair competitive advantage, the NBA changed that rule to protect the balance of the sport. By the time Jordan starting winning, the old methods of combating a team as dominant as the Bulls were all gone, yet the new ones that would eventually be concocted weren't yet possible. In other words, building a superteam was only possible through brilliant, by the numbers management. 

 

And that's what the Bulls had. Not only did they select Jordan, but they had the foresight to select Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant in the same draft. They stole Dennis Rodman in a trade and pathologically underpaid Pippen to maintain flexibility. They identified Toni Kukoc in Europe and prioritized 3-point shooting guards next to Jordan like Steve Kerr and Craig Hodges before the rest of the league caught on to analytics. Jordan would have won championships practically no matter what. He was that good. But that he won six with dominant rosters around him came down to his front office's ability to surround him with more talent than anyone else. 

 

 

Long and short is that pre-1999, the league played by a different set of rules. If the 1988-99 rules were in effect, LeBron probably stays in Miami longer. Players are just reacting to the circumstances available to them and teams are forced to adapt rather than rest on their laurels.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

8 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

And to hell with the fans, I presume? 

 

I get that the team owners are hardly a sympathetic lot, and that the power has shifted significantly in favor of the players in recent years, which is why they now appear free to pursue the path of least resistance to a championship ring. But as the pendulum swings from the billionaire owners to the millionaire athletes, the little guys buying the jerseys and springing for overpriced tickets don't seem to matter all that much.

 

It has to be brutal to be a fan of teams like Minnesota or OKC or Sacramento or Orlando, places that stand zero chance of landing an A-list free agent, and whose fans are left with hope that whichever lottery pick they land is the next LeBron or Durant. 

 

First, :censored: OKC to hell. They don't deserve a team. Not to mention, they made the Finals in year four, and then decided that instead of trying to play competitive basketball they'd instead collect draft picks like Pokemon cards. That's not a franchise dedicated to winning but a franchise dedicated to Excel.

 

Sacramento has the worst ownership in the league. Orlando made the Finals as recently as 2009. Minnesota is a tougher case because they're willing to spend but their players just aren't very good.

 

However, the counter to all of those is San Antonio. Or Phoenix. Or Milwaukee. Or even New Orleans, gifted their second "generational" talent (that they're doing their best to alienate as well). Charlotte's on the rise.

 

At a certain point, it's not the players, it's not the fans, it's not the lottery luck -- it's just bad owners making bad moves. Over and over and over again. They get what they :censored:ing deserve (blammo!)