2010-11 NBA Season

[Lights Out]

Problem is, the Lakers will probably win the Finals again if they get Melo. What motivation would Melo then have to leave the team that just got him a ring? And also, the combination of the Lakers not winning any "big" games in a while and Blake Griffin's emergence has drawn more media attention towards the Clippers. If Melo were to go to the Lakers, we can pretty much kiss our growing relevance goodbye.

However, I have read that Dwight Howard is unhappy in Orlando and wants to play in either NYC or LA. If you ask me, Olshey should be thinking about how to get him (within reason), pronto.

[The_Admiral]

Jerry Reinsdorf has been running the most profitable team in the league for the last ten years with one playoff series win. What does he care?

[infrared41]

If Carmelo goes to the Lakers and Denver doesn't get at least Gasol, I'll be just about done with the NBA. It'll be no better than Major League Baseball, with three loaded up teams and 27 squads who don't have a friggin' prayer. Unless your team plays in Miami, Boston or for the Lakers, you might as well not waste your time.

Is it just me or is the NBA is already there?

Add the Spurs to the list & we're seriously already there. Nobody outside of those 4 has a shot this year. The rest of the league is entertainment.

And it seems to me that it's been that way for quite a while. I don't follow the NBA as closely as you guys do but, I can't recall a season in recent memory where there were more than three or four teams that were considered legitimate contenders for the title. You could say that there are only three or four legitimate contenders in any sport each season. Still, when was the last time the NBA equivalent of this year's Giants or the 2006 Cardinals came along and won an NBA title out of nowhere? Has it happened in the last 40 years in the NBA?

[The_Admiral]

I think that '75 Warriors championship was about as out of the blue as an NBA title has ever been. That one or one of the other weak '70s winners like the Bullets or Supersonics. The NBA, by design, can't have a wide-open field of contenders, and I'm not sure they even want to.

[Lights Out]

The last "out of nowhere" NBA champions would probably be the '77 Blazers. Since then, it's been the same group of select league-favorite franchises over and over again.

[knnhrvy16]

In the mid-to-late 90's, the contenders were much different, but still only few. The Bulls were a shoo-in in the East, but in the west, Houston, Seattle, and Utah were the usuals (from 1994-1998, those three arguably made up the west).

Unfortunately, Houston was the only team that wasnt the Bulls who were fortunate enough to win a title (plus another), and both of thier titles weren't so out of the blue.

So, the contenders themselves were different then, but the idea was the same: a mere handful of contenders and a heap of teams playing for nothing, especially thanks to the total imbalance of the East in those days.

EDIT: We've had a few out of the blue participants in the last few years ('99 Knicks, '02 Nets, '06 Mavericks come to mind), but the Giants-like champions recently are very few. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see one for a few years.

[mania]

I'd say the 2004 Pistons would be similar to this year's Giants.

[infrared41]

I think that '75 Warriors championship was about as out of the blue as an NBA title has ever been. That one or one of the other weak '70s winners like the Bullets or Supersonics. The NBA, by design, can't have a wide-open field of contenders, and I'm not sure they even want to.

Interesting. What's your reasoning on that?

[TFoA]

I'd say the 2004 Pistons would be similar to this year's Giants.

Especially considering that was back when the popular opinion was that the Eastern Conference was mediocre crap from the 2 seed on down & also when the Lakers formed that superteam with Malone & Payton. Hell, people had crowned the Lakers champions throughout the entire year (despite the fact that they were going through some SERIOUS drama that season.), then the Pistons came through and kicked all sorts of ass. But yeah, that's the last time that I can remember an "out-of-nowhere" team winning it all, and even then they had a huge deal (getting Rasheed Wallace) that put them over.

[The_Admiral]

Well, I touched on a lot of the numerical implications of having a great player in the NBA vis-a-vis one in the other leagues. And without the randomness of a one-game playoff round like the NFL, the seven-game series separates the best from the merely great at a very reliable rate. It takes a set of extraordinary circumstances to swing a major upset in the NBA playoffs like the one we saw with the Warriors beating the Mavericks through mismatches and a spell of live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword three-point shooting that nobody can or should try to replicate. And while the NBA emphasizes running each team through its best player, the structure of the game doesn't have the kind of "shutdown factor" of a pitcher or a goaltender that can absolutely scuttle everything we thought we knew. We're trafficking in much more known quantities with the NBA.

Don't forget that Bird rights prevent teams from getting squeezed out of their players, so well-assembled teams don't get busted up and redistributed like they do in the NHL (and NFL when there was a cap). If a franchise player leaves his team in free agency, it's on his terms and not the team's, because the salary cap practically allows that team to move mountains in retaining their recognizable, marketable, and important players.

As for why they may not want to, you have to figure that the status quo is treating most teams well right now, and as long as the bottom line is okay, there's no sense in diluting the league's top teams. You keep people tuning in to your national telecasts, and everyone wins.

[rams80]

Such is the nature of basketball, though. It's not a game that necessitates, and thus rewards, deep rosters. Let's do the math. In your everyday NBA game, your best player is one of five players on the floor, and plays about 40 minutes of a possible 48. Your #1 center on a hockey team will play, at most, about 25 of 60 minutes. Your #1 D will play at most, about 32. Additionally, you have an extra position involved capable of changing the entire calculus of the game. Your ace pitcher plays one of every five games, and your #3 hitter comes to the plate maybe five times out of 45. Your best football player on either side of the ball is one of eleven for half the game. Just from crunching the numbers, the only sport where one person can have more of an impact on the game he's playing is tennis, at 100%. That's just how it is. There's no way around it. Teams with dominating players dominate. The only time this wasn't the case was that stretch of the 1970s where the whole NBA was on blow, and blew.

I will say, however, that expansion has been a severe problem for a league that doesn't--and again, possibly by the nature of it, cannot--evenly disperse its talent. I'm less troubled by Lakers-Celtics-Heat hegemony than I am by the long-term worthlessness at the other end of the spectrum. It can be frustrating to follow a 3-7 seed team like the Bulls, Jazz, Nuggets, or Trail Blazers, where you feel like you're going to forever spin your wheels as a first-round out, but I can't imagine having to follow a team like the Timberwolves that's just this bereft for this long with seemingly no light at the end of the tunnel. How do you bother? What net good, if you'll pardon the expression, comes from having the Timberwolves anymore?

They allow you to pull off blockbuster trades by taking your toxic contracts and giving the other trading partner their decent players. And lottery picks.

[Rockstar Matt]

So now Chris Boussard is reporting that the Lakers have shown interest in Carmelo, apparently with Andrew Bynum being part of the deal.

Can't the Lakers have just one underachieving season for a change?! :angered:

We did. Back in 2004-2005. Only one of the five times the Lakers failed to make the playoffs in their history. Don't see the reason for them to add a sixth time for about 15 more years.

EDIT: I'd make the Bynum for Melo trade in a heartbeat. Melo resigns with us. Then, in a year and a half, we'd have the opportunity to either resign Bynum or sign Dwight. Oh, and we could just sign both. Jerry Buss has never cared about being over the luxary tax. Imagine that line-up with both Bynum and Howard. PG Fisher, SG Kobe, SF Melo, PF Gasol, C Howard. Then, for your bench: PG Blake, SG Brown, SF Artest, PF Odom, C Bynum. Also throw Barnes and Walton (since he's not going anywhere for a while) as well. Damn, that's a pretty good team if you ask me.

[Starchild]

EDIT: I'd make the Bynum for Melo trade in a heartbeat. Melo resigns with us. Then, in a year and a half, we'd have the opportunity to either resign Bynum or sign Dwight. Oh, and we could just sign both. Jerry Buss has never cared about being over the luxary tax. Imagine that line-up with both Bynum and Howard. PG Fisher, SG Kobe, SF Melo, PF Gasol, C Howard. Then, for your bench: PG Blake, SG Brown, SF Artest, PF Odom, C Bynum. Also throw Barnes and Walton (since he's not going anywhere for a while) as well. Damn, that's a pretty good team if you ask me.

Even under the current CBA I don't see how that's even financially feasible. You've got Kobe, Gasol and Artest locked until 2014 for $30+, $19+ and $7+ million, respectively. Odom locked until 2012 (team option for the following year) and in 2012-13, when Dwight would be free, LA still (as currently constituted) would have Bryant, Gasol, Artest, Odom, Walton, Blake, Fisher (player option) all under contract. Considering how much money Carmelo would command, plus a sure-fire maximum contract for Dwight Howard, I don't see how the Lakers would have enough money to field that kind of star-studded team. That's not even factoring in the next CBA. I'm not a math guy, so if someone likes to crunch numbers and work it out and prove whether it could or could not work, that would be cool. But just thinking about the numbers, I would bet it's impossible unless Dwight and Melo took tremendous pay cuts.

I think it's much more likely that Melo goes to NY as expected, and the Lakers stand pat at least until next season when maybe they begin posturing for someone like Howard, Paul or Deron Williams.

[DG_YouKnowWhatThatMeans]

Another surprise team: the 1999 Spurs. Yeah, they had Duncan and Robinson and it was a weird year, but they still had to beat out the the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and a good Rockets team.

Also, the Nets had two Finals appearances (right? Can't check just now) and the Blazers, Kings and Suns each had great two to four-year runs as elite teams. Portland and Sacramento were each a quarter away from the Finals at one point.

Yeah, the Lakers will likely always be good, but "good" in the sense that the Red Wings and Blues have been. Whenever you have a league with more teams making the playofs than not (like the NBA and NHL), you'll see some consistently "good" teams. I think it's mathematically impossible not to.

Also, the Spurs have an outside shot at 70 wins this year and no seems to have noticed.

[loogodude90]

Another surprise team: the 1999 Spurs. Yeah, they had Duncan and Robinson and it was a weird year, but they still had to beat out the the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and a good Rockets team.

Also, the Nets had two Finals appearances (right? Can't check just now) and the Blazers, Kings and Suns each had great two to four-year runs as elite teams. Portland and Sacramento were each a quarter away from the Finals at one point.

Yeah, the Lakers will likely always be good, but "good" in the sense that the Red Wings and Blues have been. Whenever you have a league with more teams making the playofs than not (like the NBA and NHL), you'll see some consistently "good" teams. I think it's mathematically impossible not to.

Also, the Spurs have an outside shot at 70 wins this year and no seems to have noticed.

That '99 Finals also had the surprise Knicks going to the Finals who (I think) to this day are the only 8th-seeded team to make it that far.

And yes, the Nets made the finals back-to-back seasons. 2002 and 2003.

[The_Admiral]

Another surprise team: the 1999 Spurs. Yeah, they had Duncan and Robinson and it was a weird year, but they still had to beat out the the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and a good Rockets team.

I think the '99 Spurs have been retconned into a part of the dynasty because they won three out of five seasons after the Shaq/Kobe threepeat, rather than a standalone fluke. It's the same as the 2001 Patriots, but with the added variable of a strike season making everything a little loopy.

Those second-tier teams you named from the 2000s had their run, but I don't think they were every really taken seriously as contenders. Yesterday's Blazers, Kings, and Pacers are today's Nuggets, Bulls, and Magic.

[DG_YouKnowWhatThatMeans]

Another surprise team: the 1999 Spurs. Yeah, they had Duncan and Robinson and it was a weird year, but they still had to beat out the the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and a good Rockets team.

I think the '99 Spurs have been retconned into a part of the dynasty because they won three out of five seasons after the Shaq/Kobe threepeat, rather than a standalone fluke. It's the same as the 2001 Patriots, but with the added variable of a strike season making everything a little loopy.

Those second-tier teams you named from the 2000s had their run, but I don't think they were every really taken seriously as contenders. Yesterday's Blazers, Kings, and Pacers are today's Nuggets, Bulls, and Magic.

Magic perhaps, but the Kings really were a bull call away from a championship, and if the Blazers played a full 48 minutes they probably would've beaten the Nets too.

Good point about the retconning. I hadn't considered the Patriots in that league, but it makes sense.

[NJTank]

The Cavaliers have now tied the Tampa Bay Buccaneers record for professional losing streak at 26 games.

[The_Admiral]

LEBRON

RAYMONE

JAMES

m i s s i n g s i n c e 2 0 1 0

Runaway train, never going back

Wrong way on a one-way track

Seems like I should be getting somewhere

Somehow I'm neither here nor there

[Lights Out]

For the first time in forever, the Clippers actually won a road game, and in MSG at that! Hopefully this momentum will carry throughout the rest of this long road trip.