Are the Lakers Ruining the NBA?

[Covert Rain]

Disagree there it too much parity in the NFL. There still have been some football teams that have put together mini-dynasties since the cap was introduced. Also, teams can still keep their biggest stars. They just can't overload on talent anymore.

Also with the hard cap, every single team in the NFL has a shot. Tell the fans in Arizona there is too much Parity. Do you really think the Cards with this owner would have every sniffed the Super Bowl without a hard cap?

 

[Steel Sun]

How's that attitude worked for the Yankees over the last 6 years? You still have to get the right players who compliment each other, you still have to play the games. Granted, if you have the finances and are willing to use them it gives you an advantage but it doesnt guarantee you anything. On the other end of that spectrum, look at the Marlins who blew up the teams and rebuilt twice and won with minimal payrolls.

Baseball and basketball are apples and oranges.
1 great player is 20% of your starting lineup.There are also many more variables in baseball

 

[Renz]

The Lakers are doing what the rules allow them to do. They don't have to spend that kind of money, but they do because they put winning at a premium. A lot of clubs don't.

If the soft cap is 'ruining' the league, then it's the NBA ruining the NBA, not the Lakers.

 

[cobbler]

Baseball and basketball are apples and oranges.
1 great player is 20% of your starting lineup.There are also many more variables in baseball

Ok... then how's that attitude worked for the Knicks or Mavs....

I just used the Yankees as an example because they have long been known for trying to "buy the championship". My comments were to point out that regardless of how much you spend, you have to make quality decisions and still play the games.

 

[cobbler]

I think parity is a two edged sword for a sports league. The obvious result is that any team can win any given year. However, a smaller subset of elite teams creates rivalries and in turn the enthusiasm, ferver, and interest even amoungst fans of the non rival teams that come with them.

 

[arwillan]

So not to be hostile, but I have to ask. Why is it that the Cavs have the best record in the league last year, lose a total of one home game all season, then aquire Shaq for nothing, but it's the Lakers signing of Artest that starts the accusation of "ruining the NBA?" Or what about the Spurs? They now one of the best lineups in the league (Duncan, Parker, Jefferson, Ginobli) but not a word. The Lakers add Ron Artest and now they're ruining the league?

Just curious why no other additions sparked such a debate? Again, please don't take this as a hostile post or an attack on the OP, it's not. Just curious, nothing more.

Well none of the other teams you mentioned are NBA champions. I mean the Lakers won the Finals in 5 games, and they they add another all-star caliber player. I think some people are just more upset because if Artest had gone to say, Cleveland (who had a known interest in signing him for the MLE), we'd have a little more balance between contenders. But the lakers have simply stacked the chips more in their favor now. I don't blame them in any way, though. I mean they got a spectacular deal for Gasol and Artest at a very cheap price. It just sucks that of all the teams who have made improvements over the off-season so far, the Lakers have probably improved themselves the most.

 

[Darth Llama]

Darth
I retract the "Question pisses me off" part of my previous answer. It is a good question.

No need man, it's understandable. As Suns fan, you have a right to be angry and if I were in your position (and I have been as a Cardinals fan) I would feel the exact same way. Perfectly understandable, and no hard feelings at all.

It's fairly simple IMO. The Suns FO is inept. The Suns should have minimally received a first round pick in the Shaq trade. It's hard to see a once relevant team (like the Suns) sink out of sight and better run teams just keep retooling and getting better. It's easy to see why some Suns fans are looking for a scapegoat. However, in any regard I like some kind of hard cap with some modifications.

I think this is a big part of it. I think personally that the Suns are letting their fans down big time and I think some of that anger gets taken out on teams that are run better. Again, NOT blaming the fans of the Suns,that would be ridiculous, I'm just saying some of the anger is probably due to the inept moves of the Suns, and rightfully so. The Suns could still be contenders today had they made better decisions (trading away good players, selling draft picks, bringing in fat contracts, etc.) The Lakers have made some good moves, but they're far from a lock to win a title. The Spurs have upgraded big time, so have the Cavs. The real problem is that while the rest of the team is fighting to get better, the Suns are trying to get worse. Their fans deserve better.

The Lakers are doing what the rules allow them to do. They don't have to spend that kind of money, but they do because they put winning at a premium. A lot of clubs don't.

If the soft cap is 'ruining' the league, then it's the NBA ruining the NBA, not the Lakers.

I guess that's a better way of summing up my point. Again though, I agree with the hard cap, I think it's stupid to put rules in place and then just allow people not to follow them if they pay some money. I'm certainly glad Laws don't work that way. You would be able to run people over in a crosswalk as long as you could afford the fine.

Well none of the other teams you mentioned are NBA champions. I mean the Lakers won the Finals in 5 games, and they they add another all-star caliber player. I think some people are just more upset because if Artest had gone to say, Cleveland (who had a known interest in signing him for the MLE), we'd have a little more balance between contenders. But the lakers have simply stacked the chips more in their favor now. I don't blame them in any way, though. I mean they got a spectacular deal for Gasol and Artest at a very cheap price. It just sucks that of all the teams who have made improvements over the off-season so far, the Lakers have probably improved themselves the most.

Understandable, but the Cavs were the best statistical team in the league last year, and they just added Shaq. That's pretty huge in itself, the Cavs missed the finals because they couldn't handle Dwight Howard, a problem they no longer have. Add in the possibility of the Celtics or Spurs adding Rasheed Walace and really all the Lakers have done is hold pace.

 

[dodie53]

Being totally nit picky, but shouldn't this be in the "Other NBA Talk" forum?

it should be

 

[arwillan]

Understandable, but the Cavs were the best statistical team in the league last year, and they just added Shaq. That's pretty huge in itself, the Cavs missed the finals because they couldn't handle Dwight Howard, a problem they no longer have. Add in the possibility of the Celtics or Spurs adding Rasheed Walace and really all the Lakers have done is hold pace.

Well IMO the Cavs lost more because of their inability to match up to Rashard and Hedo, especially when Hedo ran the pick and roll. But that's besides the point. The Lakers were already head and shoulders above the rest of the league as far as talent last year, and they made a huge upgrade again. The spurs adding Jefferson and Rasheed would put them at about the level the Lakers were at last year, but not this year. Boston adding Rasheed would be another thing, because they are the toughest team in the league and obviously beat the Lakers a year ago. My point is the Lakers were already so far ahead of everyone else in terms of talent, that the fact that they got better isn't going to sit well with a lot of folks.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Ok... then how's that attitude worked for the Knicks or Mavs....

I just used the Yankees as an example because they have long been known for trying to "buy the championship". My comments were to point out that regardless of how much you spend, you have to make quality decisions and still play the games.

that's true, but you can't deny that having the spending power puts your team at a competitive advantage. i mean, the dbacks won a world series b/c jerry colangelo bought a world series. and god bless man for that. but that said, i'd rather see every team on a competitive playing field in constructing a team.

 

[Covert Rain]

that's true, but you can't deny that having the spending power puts your team at a competitive advantage. i mean, the dbacks won a world series b/c jerry colangelo bought a world series. and god bless man for that. but that said, i'd rather see every team on a competitive playing field in constructing a team.

Ouchie I have been agreeing with you too much lately. Cut it out.

You hit it on the head. With teams like the Yankees or teams in other leagues with spending power, you can go over soft caps and you will always have an advantage. Yes, it might not pan out but if you are able to sign top talent without worrying about the financial aspect, at the end of the day your chances are better at getting a title then other teams.

There are some small market teams or teams with crap owners that no matter what, your season is over before it begins. Put everyone on a level playing field with a hard cap and at the very least, teams with deep pockets can't overload up on talent.

 

[sunsallday]

The Lakers are ruining the NBA with all of the talent they frikkan have. Kobe/Artest/Gasol/Bynum are you kidding me? If they keep Odom and Bynum improves, they will be hard to beat.