2021 NBA Offseason

[sky1324]

It wasn't too long ago that Charlotte belonged in the same list as Sacramento, Minnesota, and Memphis, but great drafting and a team dedicated to winning has created a buzz (heh) around this team that literally has never been there in the time I've been a fan. It's much harder for a small market team to win, that's for sure, but now more than ever it seems doable.

[BBTV]

3 hours 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.

 

You cheer for a team that you have no geographic affiliation to that just happens to be among the most successful in American sports and in one of the most desirable markets and who can get practically any HOFer they want to play for them.  You don't get an opinion on what other fans think about the "system".

[DG_ThenNowForever]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

 

You cheer for a team that you have no geographic affiliation to that just happens to be among the most successful in American sports and in one of the most desirable markets and who can get practically any HOFer they want to play for them.  You don't get an opinion on what other fans think about the "system".

 

Lame. I like the Lakers because they're the team I watched most on TV because my local market doesn't have an NBA franchise. And I hopped on in the baby Laker days, watching them win 25 games a year, doing the Process the same time Philly was without making a mockery of themselves. And also during that time, the Lakers couldn't get a meeting with any desirable free agent.

 

This is the mistake Sixers fans make: they think it's easy. Easy for them or easy for other markets. But it's not. Ultimately, being smart and seizing on opportunity wins championships. Not complaining and trying to game the system.

[BBTV]

5 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Lame. I like the Lakers because they're the team I watched most on TV because my local market doesn't have an NBA franchise. And I hopped on in the baby Laker days, watching them win 25 games a year, doing the Process the same time Philly was without making a mockery of themselves. And also during that time, the Lakers couldn't get a meeting with any desirable free agent.

 

This is the mistake Sixers fans make: they think it's easy. Easy for them or easy for other markets. But it's not. Ultimately, being smart and seizing on opportunity wins championships. Not complaining and trying to game the system.

 

Yeah.  It's so hard for the Lakers .  They need a super sharp GM to know to sign Lebron, and Shaq, and any other HOF player that wants to play there.  I'm literally laughing out loud at the thought of the Lakers having anywhere near the challenges that the other teams have.

 

Become a Wizards or Timberwolves fan (just picking two random irrelevant teams) and then you can speak with some authority about the system. 

[Indigo]

On 7/30/2021 at 10:02 PM, BBTV said:

 

Yeah.  It's so hard for the Lakers .  They need a super sharp GM to know to sign Lebron, and Shaq, and any other HOF player that wants to play there.  I'm literally laughing out loud at the thought of the Lakers having anywhere near the challenges that the other teams have.

 

Become a Wizards or Timberwolves fan (just picking two random irrelevant teams) and then you can speak with some authority about the system. 

HOF players LA has obtained since 2010:

LeBron James 

Anthony Davis 

Russell Westbrook 

Dwight Howard 

Steve Nash

Carmelo Anthony 
HOF players OKC has obtained since 2010:

James Harden 

Paul George 
Carmelo Anthony 

Chris Paul 

 

[FinsUp1214]

14 hours ago, QCS said:

It's much harder for a small market team to win, that's for sure, but now more than ever it seems doable.

I do agree that it’s getting there; Milwaukee really gave me some hope this year. That said, the jaded small-market fan in me still has that ominous fear that big-markets will quickly catch back up. I need to see it happen again to really feel like it’s a sustained possibility, rather than a fluke. These days, big-market superteams can form fast, and small-market stars don’t always stay to see an organic build through. 

 

San Antonio is pointed to often to console small-market fans - and yes, I do appreciate the Spurs’ run a lot - but it’s worth noting that they were quite an exception that has yet to be replicated again. As for other great small-market teams of the last 20 years? OKC was never able to get over the hump with all of the talent they’ve fielded. The lone great KG Timberwolves team, the lone great Melo Nuggets, and the ‘02 Kings all fell to the Lakers in the WCF (and possibly in the Kings’ case, the refs as well).  New Jersey, Orlando, Indiana, Atlanta, Utah, Portland, Phoenix, and Denver have all fielded teams intermittently in the last 20 years who’ve made some kind of deep run but couldn’t cap it off and start something. Detroit, Cleveland, and Toronto did win a title, but couldn’t sustain long enough to replicate the Spurs’ success (Milwaukee is a wait-and-see). 
 

So, is a sustainable small-market run possible? The Spurs proved it is, yes. But the fact no one else has been able to do it in the era of the superteam shows how extremely difficult - and to most small-market fans, seemingly implausible - it is to replicate. It doesn’t help matters when said superteams are usually built at the expense of small-market teams, whose stars and core contributors either bolt on thier own accord or force thier hands into trades.

 

Again, I’m hopeful too that more small-market runs happen (and of course, hope my Jazz can finally get in on the fun too), but the optimism I have is still very, very cautious. I really need to see it to believe it.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

"Small market" can't just be a proxy for losing franchises. Atlanta is not small. Phoenix is definitely not small. I'll grant that Portland is comparatively smaller than LA/Chicago/NYC, but they also took Greg Oden over Kevin Durant. And while Golden State is in SF, about a decade ago they'd have been lumped in with loser franchises as well. 

 

Golden State won the 2015 title doing what any other team could do: hitting big on multiple drafts and making smart free agent decisions. See also: Milwaukee.

[FinsUp1214]

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

"Small market" can't just be a proxy for losing franchises. Atlanta is not small. Phoenix is definitely not small. I'll grant that Portland is comparatively smaller than LA/Chicago/NYC, but they also took Greg Oden over Kevin Durant. And while Golden State is in SF, about a decade ago they'd have been lumped in with loser franchises as well. 

 

Golden State won the 2015 title doing what any other team could do: hitting big on multiple drafts and making smart free agent decisions. See also: Milwaukee.

I’m not using “small market” as a losing proxy. If I was, I could’ve lumped a few more teams in there that I deliberately hadn’t. Also, all of those teams I mentioned had stretches of success at one or more points in time. This isn’t a “woe is irrelevant-losers-who-suck-at-basketball” post, even if some of those teams suck now. Also, Seattle/Oklahoma City DID take Durant, along with Westbrook AND Harden, and look how that worked out. So, no guarantee it magically changes Portland’s fortunes either.

 

I completely agree with you that Atlanta and Phoenix are not really small, but you’d think the way they are treated across the league and in the media that they were really Flagstaff and Macon (no offense to either city, but still). Same with Toronto: it’s one of the largest cities in North America, yet you hear it talked about like it’s Saskatoon at times. I believe Stephen A. Smith called Kahwi’s trade to Toronto something like a “banishment” when it happened  - that sort of language (or at least the attitude of it) tells you all you need to know about how certain markets are perceived in this league. So it’s hard for me to buy that, regardless of how big they really are, that they’re generally perceived at the same level as LA/NY/Chicago or even Miami. Perhaps they should be, but there’s nothing really to indicate they are.  At best, they’re just barely on the outside looking in. At worst, the incorrect exaggeration of their “smallness” ostracizes them. Both perceived small-markets and true small-markets can share the same territory.
 

As for the Warriors, Golden State is as close to an Spurs-ish exception as the successes of the last 20 years, and I considered them when posting. But ultimately, 1) Bay Area is not equal to MIN/SAC/CHA/OKC/Utah/etc., and 2) Kevin Durant. I’d be more inclined to lump the Warriors closer to Spurs territory if they’d been a dynasty without him, but adding KD felt more superteam-lite than organic build, regardless of the core being mostly drafted. Let’s not forget the absolute outrage that fueled across the league (and also what it effectively did to kill OKC’s own contending chances, to my point about superteams being built or completed at smaller market teams’ expense). 

Of course, some teams out there from all sorts of markets have absolute boneheads for GM’s and owners, and those aren’t excused here. Some of those small-markets just sit in mediocrity and that’s absolutely on them. Sacramento, Minnesota, and the like have made thier bed. That all said, even the best that great small-market GMs and ownerships have been able to do lately is one title (Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto if you want to count them). One title is awesome, don’t get me wrong! I’d be thrilled with one. But it’s also not a sustained run, and the reset button is usually right around the corner. The idea that just any team in any market can string off a dynasty if they “just try hard enough and don’t be stupid” hasn’t come to fruition since San Antonio. Maybe Milwaukee or someone else will change that, but until then, we’ll have to see.

[gosioux76]

1 hour ago, FinsUp1214 said:

I do agree that it’s getting there; Milwaukee really gave me some hope this year. That said, the jaded small-market fan in me still has that ominous fear that big-markets will quickly catch back up. I need to see it happen again to really feel like it’s a sustained possibility, rather than a fluke. These days, big-market superteams can form fast, and small-market stars don’t always stay to see an organic build through. 

 

San Antonio is pointed to often to console small-market fans - and yes, I do appreciate the Spurs’ run a lot - but it’s worth noting that they were quite an exception that has yet to be replicated again. As for other great small-market teams of the last 20 years? OKC was never able to get over the hump with all of the talent they’ve fielded. The lone great KG Timberwolves team, the lone great Melo Nuggets, and the ‘02 Kings all fell to the Lakers in the WCF (and possibly in the Kings’ case, the refs as well).  New Jersey, Orlando, Indiana, Atlanta, Utah, Portland, Phoenix, and Denver have all fielded teams intermittently in the last 20 years who’ve made some kind of deep run but couldn’t cap it off and start something. Detroit, Cleveland, and Toronto did win a title, but couldn’t sustain long enough to replicate the Spurs’ success (Milwaukee is a wait-and-see). 
 

So, is a sustainable small-market run possible? The Spurs proved it is, yes. But the fact no one else has been able to do it in the era of the superteam shows how extremely difficult - and to most small-market fans, seemingly implausible - it is to replicate. It doesn’t help matters when said superteams are usually built at the expense of small-market teams, whose stars and core contributors either bolt on thier own accord or force thier hands into trades.

 

Again, I’m hopeful too that more small-market runs happen (and of course, hope my Jazz can finally get in on the fun too), but the optimism I have is still very, very cautious. I really need to see it to believe it.

Thank you for articulating this far better than I did. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

2 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Of course, some teams out there from all sorts of markets have absolute boneheads for GM’s and owners, and those aren’t excused here. Some of those small-markets just sit in mediocrity and that’s absolutely on them. Sacramento, Minnesota, and the like have made thier bed. That all said, even the best that great small-market GMs and ownerships have been able to do lately is one-and-done (Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto). One title is awesome, don’t get me wrong! I’d be thrilled with one. But it’s also not a sustained run, and the reset button is usually never far off afterwards. The idea that just any team in any market can string off a dynasty if they “just try hard enough and don’t be stupid” hasn’t come to fruition since San Antonio. Maybe Milwaukee or someone else will change that, but until then, we’ll have to see.

 

Detroit only won one title, but they made multiple Finals and even more ECFs. They had a sustained run in the mid-2000s as the big bad of the east. Cleveland won a title, but made four Finals and likely would have won in 2015 if not for injuries. Toronto was really, really good in 2019-20 before the bubble cut them off at the knees; before that they made multiple deep playoff runs. Context matters here.

 

You can't hand wave Golden State because they signed KD; Golden State was a league afterthough for the better part of 20 years and as much in "banishment"-land as Toronto. But then they played in 5 Finals in a row and the narrative flipped. The same way it's flipping for Milwaukee in real time. 

 

Very few teams win Finals. In fact, only one per year can! And the NBA is set up for teams to repeat if their core remains healthy and intact. What teams like Golden State and now Milwaukee have over the Nets or the Lakers is that by drafting their own talent, they can keep their core together in ways that are harder for teams that build solely through free agency.

 

The Spurs won five titles from 1999 through 2014. Golden State won three. Between them, that's 8 titles out of 20 years that went to traditionally smaller NBA markets. Nine if you include Dallas. Ten if you include Toronto. At that point, we're batting .500.

 

So is there really a structural problem? Or is it easier to just blame the Lakers?

[Indigo]

22 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Detroit only won one title, but they made multiple Finals and even more ECFs. They had a sustained run in the mid-2000s as the big bad of the east. Cleveland won a title, but made four Finals and likely would have won in 2015 if not for injuries. Toronto was really, really good in 2019-20 before the bubble cut them off at the knees; before that they made multiple deep playoff runs. Context matters here.

 

You can't hand wave Golden State because they signed KD; Golden State was a league afterthough for the better part of 20 years and as much in "banishment"-land as Toronto. But then they played in 5 Finals in a row and the narrative flipped. The same way it's flipping for Milwaukee in real time. 

 

Very few teams win Finals. In fact, only one per year can! And the NBA is set up for teams to repeat if their core remains healthy and intact. What teams like Golden State and now Milwaukee have over the Nets or the Lakers is that by drafting their own talent, they can keep their core together in ways that are harder for teams that build solely through free agency.

 

The Spurs won five titles from 1999 through 2014. Golden State won three. Between them, that's 8 titles out of 20 years that went to traditionally smaller NBA markets. Nine if you include Dallas. Ten if you include Toronto. At that point, we're batting .500.

 

So is there really a structural problem? Or is it easier to just blame the Lakers?

*11 if you include Cleveland. 

Here is a list of the last 20 NBA Champions. (Small markets are higlighted).

 

 

As you can see, that is 12/20, or 60% of the teams. So in the last 20 years, championships have been predominantly won by small markets. 

 

**Sidenote: The "lAkErS wHo WiN eVeRy YeAr" won 4 chips in that time span, the same as the Spurs.

[FinsUp1214]

I think there’s some misunderstanding here on a few levels (I’ll take responsibility for that, because I don’t know that I’m conveying my points as clearly as I’d like to).

 

When I say sustained run, I’m talking specifically about what San Antonio accomplished. They’re always the team people point to for small-market hope, but the point I’m making is precisely how rare and difficult that is. I’m fully aware there’s more context to the Detroit, Cleveland, and Toronto cases. Despite that context, none of them were able to come even close to what San Antonio did (even beyond titles - they didn’t stay contenders nearly as long. Each of them won one and hung around as contenders for some time, but never reached the pinnacle again before mashing the reset button sooner than later. Toronto just picked in the lottery two years after winning a title. Cleveland went back to the lottery not long after, either. This isn’t counting OKC, who at one point fielded three first ballot HOFers, but have no titles to show for it and couldn’t afford to keep that core together long enough. San Antonio was a far more sustained and successful run than any of those, and hit a reset some 15 or so years after thier first title. And let’s not count all of Milwaukee’s eggs quite yet before they hatch. They’ve got one, but only one in this stretch so far. 

 

Also, I’ll admit I’m a bit confused by a couple things as well here. My original point was countered by saying Atlanta and Phoenix weren’t small market (which is true), but now Dallas and Bay Area somehow are? Seems more like those championships are being lumped in to make the stat look better. Dallas is not small-market, nor have I ever heard or felt the perception it was. Same with Bay Area as a whole; Oakland on its own, maybe, but not the Bay Area altogether. Those titles don’t feel small-market in the same way Milwaukee’s does.
 

With regards to Golden State, again, I was very considerate of them when discussing this topic, but there’s a few circumstances there that make it hard for me to lump the Warriors in the category I’m referring to. I’ll try to explain where I’m coming from again: they had thier woes before their run, yes, but isn’t categorizing them as “small market” because of those woes just using the term as an easy proxy too? And again, you can’t discount the KD effect. He wasn’t an old ring chaser on his last leg - this was perhaps the 2nd best player in the world joining the defending champions. Yes, it clearly wasn’t an overnight super team, but that killed the notion that the Warriors dynasty was ever going to be a completely feel-good one.
 

Also, I haven’t blamed the Lakers specifically by name for anything. My only mention of them was defeating a few teams in the 00’s that I used as small-market examples, but that wasn’t outright blaming them for every problem with the league either. In fact, I don’t know that I blame any one specific team at all - it’s more the mentality of stars now who prefer to plot and bunch up together out of urgency and more convenience (which they ultimately DO have the right to do), and big market teams who have the resources and selling points to bring together would be stupid not to do it. I don’t blame those teams for that. I can also, at the same time, lament that markets like mine simply can’t offer that and have to hit jackpots by other means to keep up. A pitch of “come to Utah where you can ski, float on a lake without sinking, and maybe run into The Osmonds on a hike” is not the same pitch bigger markets can send to players who want to bunch up somewhere. Again, I can’t and don’t blame them: it just is what it is.

It’s clear we have some different perceptions because of the teams we root for and the markets we’re in, and I completely understand that. I’m not implying or trying to say big markets and thier fans are evil for chasing success. All I’m saying is that until another sustained run happens from a small-market team, the very best I can feel for my team or other small market teams’ chances is a very, very cautious optimism. Not because “BiG mArKeTs ArE eViL!”, but because the landscape of the NBA simply is what it is.

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

You know who else has had sustained success like the Popovich Spurs? The Celtics, Lakers, Bulls and maybe the Warriors. That's it. That's pretty rarefied air.

 

The OKC Thunder could have paid the luxury tax and kept James Harden. They chose not to, so they chose to lose.

 

The Sacramento Kings chose to draft Jimmer Fredette over Klay Thompson; Thomas Robinson over Dame Lillard, Andre Drummond or Draymond Green; Ben McLemore over KCP, Giannis or Rudy Gobert; Nik Staukus over Dario Saric, Zach LaVine, or Nikola Jokic; Wille Caulie-Stein over Devin Booker, Myles Turner, or Montrezl Harrell; Marquese Chriss over Domantas Sabonis or Pascal Siakam; Marvin Bagley over Luka or Trae.  In a decade, they've had essentially two hits: De'Aaron Fox and Tyrese Halliburton and even then, they haven't won anything. That's a decade of bad draft after bad draft.

 

Minnesota chose to draft both Jonny Flynn AND Marco Rubio over Steph; Wesley Johnson over Boogie Cousins, Gordon Hayward or Paul George; Derrick Williams over Kemba, Klay or Kawhi; Shabazz Muhammad over Giannis (right before!) or Rudy Gobert; Kris Dunn over Buddy Heild, Jamal Murrary, Sabonis or Siakam; Justin Patton over Jarrett Allen or OG Anunoby; Josh Okogie over Landry Shamet, Devonte' Graham, Gary Trent Jr; Jarrett Culver over Rui Hachimura, Cam Reddish, Cam Johnson (who he was traded for!), Tyler Herro or Matisse Thybulle. Last year, they drafted Anthony Edwards of LaMelo from the 1 spot. Their hits over that timeframe included Zach LaVine and KAT (and who knows what the hell KAT is).

 

It's super easy to play MMQB looking at old drafts and yes, I know the entire league whiffed on Draymond and most would have on Giannis. However, that's a decade of missing on draft after draft after draft.

 

You know who didn't miss on late draft picks? The Spurs. The Lakers pulled Josh Hart, Kyle Kuzma, and Taylor Horton-Tucker out of the late picks. Again, it's cherry picking, but teams can't continue to make horrible decisions and blame it on other cities having beaches.

 

[FinsUp1214]

I completely get it. Teams like Sacramento and Minnesota crap the bed routinely (a point I already agreed to upthread).  Fans of those kinds of teams should channel thier frustrations towards inept management above all.
 

But acting as if every small-market team is Sacramento and Minnesota is a broad brush to paint with. There’s others who, despite not being perfect by any means, have done a good job of keeping competitive, making good decisions, and progressively getting better with what they have. Sometimes those same teams watch thier star(s) take off, despite thier best efforts to keep them. HeIl, Toronto won a title and still couldn’t keep Kawhi from bolting to LA. If those front offices don’t necessarily warrant the kind of frustrations the Kings and Wolves do, then what should those fans do? Where should thier frustrations in falling short go? Fate? Should they just shrug thier shoulders and go “oh well!” again and again? That’s not something that is so easy to deal with or just shrug off.

 

From my perspective as a small-market fan, moves in this era like LeBron leaving for Miami (and again for LA), Durant to Golden State, and Kahwi to LA among others has set a sort of expectation and fear that stars will always find a greener pasture than your own team, sooner than later. That’s not always fun to have in the back of your head when rooting for your team, and it’s a tough pill to swallow and come back from when it does happen. Add to that the level of difficulty and years involved in successfully rebuilding organically - especially when your market isn’t necessarily an attractive one - and it explains pretty well why small-market fans get jaded and frustrated.  This, again, doesn’t mean big markets are evil for capitalizing on the opportunities freer player movement affords. It also, however, doesn’t mean small-market fans don’t have the right to vent thier frustrations and feel that title hopes are harder to reach, especially if thier front offices ARE trying to build something, but it doesn’t work out.

 

[ninersdd]

The Kings playoff drought is 15 years. I crapped on the Maloofs a lot, of course, but I realized the new ownership has missed more years then them(8 vs 7).  No end in sight.  I miss 20 years ago, when Oakland Arena became Sacramento West for Kings/Warrior games. 
 

The list of Kings misses is just depressing. I think they also could’ve had Leonard instead of Jimmer as well. They did hit on Isaiah Thomas(NBA’s Mr. Irrelevant in 2011), though they gave him away essentially for free and panned out elsewhere.

[The Six]

The market size canard needs to go. Other than rare cases like KD and Kyrie attempting to start a super team in Brooklyn, market size is a myth and doesn't matter. Players go either where they want to live, or where they think they can win.  That's it.  Fans of teams in smaller cities would be a lot better off if they stopped labeling themselves as "small market" as a built-in excuse because it does nothing other than serve a defeatist mentality.  Teams that draft a superstar have several years to build around him and make themselves a desirable destination. The Bucks succeeded with Giannis. The Pelicans failed with AD and it's not looking great with Zion. The size of your city doesn't limit how good you can be.

[FinsUp1214]

Let’s agree to disagree at this point, then. I still don’t believe the playing field is as consistently level as some are making it out to be, but I genuinely do respect and admire the optimism some of you have in the league as a whole. I don’t quite have that level of optimism myself, but maybe it’ll get there eventually. The cautious level I do have - especially lately - is still some optimism nevertheless, and more so than I’ve had in a while.

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Let’s agree to disagree at this point, then. I still don’t believe the playing field is as consistently level as some are making it out to be, but I genuinely do respect and admire the optimism some of you have in the league as a whole. I don’t quite have that level of optimism myself, but maybe it’ll get there eventually. The cautious level I do have - especially lately - is still some optimism nevertheless, and more so than I’ve had in a while.

 

 

Cheer for the Lakers and you'll think the system is fine.  It's very easy to overlook the opinions of others if you selectively choose to get behind one of the "haves" and aren't stuck with a "have not".  Honestly these arguments that "anyone can do it" (with the exception of the Spurs... which is legit) are complete nonsense.

 

Also, LOL at Dallas and the SF Bay Area being considered "small markets".  

[dont care]

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

 

Cheer for the Lakers and you'll think the system is fine.  It's very easy to overlook the opinions of others if you selectively choose to get behind one of the "haves" and aren't stuck with a "have not".  Honestly these arguments that "anyone can do it" (with the exception of the Spurs... which is legit) are complete nonsense.

 

Also, LOL at Dallas and the SF Bay Area being considered "small markets".  

Well the bucks, Toronto, and Cleveland showed that anyone can indeed do it if they are smart with there moves and or lucky

[DG_ThenNowForever]

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

 

Cheer for the Lakers and you'll think the system is fine.  It's very easy to overlook the opinions of others if you selectively choose to get behind one of the "haves" and aren't stuck with a "have not".  Honestly these arguments that "anyone can do it" (with the exception of the Spurs... which is legit) are complete nonsense.

 

Also, LOL at Dallas and the SF Bay Area being considered "small markets".  

 

It's the NBA. There are no small markets. People use that term as a proxy for non-winning franchises, but come. There are (presumably) Fortune 500 companies in every NBA market. Or at least billions of local economic revenue; otherwise you don't have teams there.

 

Prior to Mark Cuban, the Mavs were a nothing franchise. Same with Joe Lacob and the Warriors. A few years in with each of those guys, and those teams are contending for titles. Ditto the Clippers and Steve Ballmer.

 

Reinsdorf was right to a certain extent about organizations winning championships; I would just amend it to say organizations can definitely lose you opportunity at championships. Was true for the 90s Mavs and Warriors, is true for the Magic and Sixers and Kings, and will be true for every franchise that refuses to pay to compete or hire GMs and talent evaluation that know what they're doing (and also convince ownership to stay out of the way).