The 2019-2020 Around the NBA thread

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Were you mad when Tom Brady took less money so the Pats could sign expensive FAs for their dynasty?

Uh, while Brady took less money the pats never really went out and signed expensive FAs.

 

[Dr. Jones]

oh my god. I will stop watching the NBA if that happens.

If that happens I think I’m just finally out on the nba.

That cannot be allowed to happen.

this is one of the reasons why I have lost a ton of interest in the NBA. It's like the NBA lives in some weird vortex where championships can be decided by the whims of the players and the best cities to live in.

When I watch German or Spanish soccer...... I already know who is going to finish in the top 2 or 3. It's just a matter of their order.

Plus.... I hate the Lakers. hahaha

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

That may be true and it’s why I only comment on my actions. I would just lose interest. It’s why, for the most part, I’ve lost interest in baseball. Dodgers have such a competitive advantage compared to the dbacks that entering every season I say “what’s the point?” I’m not saying I check out completely. For instance if the dbacks have a good season I’ll start following them, but my season-to-season fandom is close to nil due to the uncompetitive nature of the division.

Same would (and kind of did) translate to basketball. although I’ve always been a rabid fan of the suns, I was also a fan of the nba and looked forward to watching excellent games between the top teams year-in and year-out because I wasn’t sure who was going to emerge . . . until the Heat and then Durant-warriors. Then I stopped watching much of the nba at all.

That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of what they prefer. And I’m sure some fans checked out. That being said, anyone saying this is BAD FOR THE LEAGUE (writ large) is almost certainly wrong based on the facts in evidence. And that’s the argument that I was responding to.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

I mean, I get they had Kawhi, but the Raptors title was pretty unexpected. Miami were 80:1 to title before this season, and they might have pulled it off but for injuries in the Finals.

To me, the competitive accomplishment and reward is greater when a team like Leicester City wins in the ultra top heavy Prem than when a random team wins a championship in a league of parity (like KC winning MLB title).

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Uh, while Brady took less money the pats never really went out and signed expensive FAs.

It gave them a lot more cap flexibility in a hard cap league

 

[AzStevenCal]

If you’re right then there would be a fire sale going on now in anticipation of the coming collapse.

In the real world, the cheapest owner on the planet just built an expensive state of the art practice facility.

I said, IF they could get their paper value they'd be lining up to sell. My point was NOT that they could find a lot of billionaires willing to pay that kind of money. Much of the league's wellness centers on the perceived growth in value for all the franchises but it's a mirage if there isn't a market.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of what they prefer. And I’m sure some fans checked out. That being said, anyone saying this is BAD FOR THE LEAGUE (writ large) is almost certainly wrong based on the facts in evidence. And that’s the argument that I was responding to.

What’s really weird to me is that it seems the mercenary nature of players has translated into a mercenary nature for fans of the younger generation. They become more fanboys of players than teams and change their allegiances with the players changing teams. Andrew anyone? I see it with my own two boys as they follow individual players (though I’m winning on the cardinals with the younger one - I’m sure kyler helps). I suppose it has a lot to do with the environment in which we grow up. As a 51 year old my sports world was framed by minimal player movement so you just cheered for your team. Now there’s constant player movement in virtually every league (other the franchises nfl players), so kids today bounce with their favorite player. It’s why I have no doubt that in the absence of big TV contract and revenue sharing the current migration of players would definitely lead to the eventual demise of several small market clubs. But they are all buoyed by the shared money, so who cares if everyone in the country becomes a heat fan, then switches to become a warriors fan, and then switches to become a lakers. They’re all still getting paid.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

It gave them a lot more cap flexibility in a hard cap league

To keep their own, which they did. And even then they would routinely trade players about to hit a big payday for draft picks.

man’s frankly it’s really difficult to compare the nba to any other league in terms of the impact two mega stars can have on an entire team. No other league among the big four in the US comes close.

 

[Dr. Jones]

That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of what they prefer. And I’m sure some fans checked out. That being said, anyone saying this is BAD FOR THE LEAGUE (writ large) is almost certainly wrong based on the facts in evidence. And that’s the argument that I was responding to.

I would ultimately say that it is bad for the long term prospects of the league. It could cause multiple problems from team valuation to fan base discontent.

Too much to truly discuss here though as the immediate return his higher ratings and more popular teams fighting it out for the title.

I contend that the long term prospects are horribly imbalanced though. Unless you find owners who are good with a value share but little to no tangible silverware in the trophy case. It's hard to keep a fan base engaged in that scenario long-term.

I mean, I get they had Kawhi, but the Raptors title was pretty unexpected. Miami were 80:1 to title before this season, and they might have pulled it off but for injuries in the Finals.

To me, the competitive accomplishment and reward is greater when a team like Leicester City wins in the ultra top heavy Prem than when a random team wins a championship in a league of parity (like KC winning MLB title).

I don't think it is fair to compare a bubble team to an actual NBA season. And in the case of Leicester....... It happened to be a horribly down three year run of premiership football that propelled them to the top. They won the league with 81 points. Since then (2016) the winners have had 93, 100, 98, & 99pts.

Both of your arguments seem slightly disingenuous to the overall argument. And to me, are more easily thrown out than the French judge in figure skating.

 

[AzStevenCal]

That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of what they prefer. And I’m sure some fans checked out. That being said, anyone saying this is BAD FOR THE LEAGUE (writ large) is almost certainly wrong based on the facts in evidence. And that’s the argument that I was responding to.

I don't think the evidence is as clear as you seem to think it is but regardless, it really wasn't the argument you were responding to (at least not in my post). I didn't actually say that it was bad for the league. Here's what I said:

Spoiler

Whether we're right or wrong is mostly inconsequential. From the perspective of many fans, super teams, especially super teams created by the players themselves, are bad for the long term health of the league.

I was really just trying to show that it wasn't necessarily home team bias that leads fans to say things like what we've read here. For myself, I think it's bad for the league in the long run. It helps short term, in the playoffs especially, but it doesn't offset the loss of fans along the way IMO. But even still, I wouldn't be in favor of the league voiding the deal nor would it drive me away. I'm here till the end of the world, or at least my world.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

What’s really weird to me is that it seems the mercenary nature of players has translated into a mercenary nature for fans of the younger generation. They become more fanboys of players than teams and change their allegiances with the players changing teams. Andrew anyone? I see it with my own two boys as they follow individual players (though I’m winning on the cardinals with the younger one - I’m sure kyler helps). I suppose it has a lot to do with the environment in which we grow up. As a 51 year old my sports world was framed by minimal player movement so you just cheered for your team. Now there’s constant player movement in virtually every league (other the franchises nfl players), so kids today bounce with their favorite player. It’s why I have no doubt that in the absence of big TV contract and revenue sharing the current migration of players would definitely lead to the eventual demise of several small market clubs. But they are all buoyed by the shared money, so who cares if everyone in the country becomes a heat fan, then switches to become a warriors fan, and then switches to become a lakers. They’re all still getting paid.

Interesting. I think there are too many franchises in every sport and it leads to dilution of talent and competition. I would think it would benefit all of the sports if they cut down to 18-20 clubs. Thus, even if a super team formed there would be fewer dismal teams and an easier path (via draft or acquisition) to get on top than currently.

 

[swagron]

YES.

If there is no chance any other team can win - there is no reason to watch.

No way should the same team be allowed to have 3 of the top 5 players on it, unless by some miracle they all got drafted within a couple years by that team.

Sure, put the Lakers team in Suns uniforms and you’d be over the moon. The cap rules are the same for every team. Maybe an injuries happen (I think you vaguely hoped that on the Lakers in another post)...should teams not get better because other teams have lousy management/ownership ?
The goal in all walks of life, not just the NBA, is to get better, not drag everyone down to your lousy level because you suck. The whining has got to stop. The Lakers hadn’t been to the playoffs for 10 years and no one cared. Get over yourself. Everyone will hate the Lakers this year- that’s good for NBA business.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Interesting. I think there are too many franchises in every sport and it leads to dilution of talent and competition. I would think it would benefit all of the sports if they cut down to 18-20 clubs. Thus, even if a super team formed there would be fewer dismal teams and an easier path (via draft or acquisition) to get on top than currently.

That’s interesting. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case with basketball and baseball as the international markets have been feeding those leagues more recently. Or at least that serves as a counterbalance. A severe contraction would certainly lead to much varied seasons with talent concentration better balanced. Of course that’s less dollars for the leagues so we’ll likely never see it unless the leagues are struggling financially.

 

[Proximo]

Interesting. I think there are too many franchises in every sport and it leads to dilution of talent and competition. I would think it would benefit all of the sports if they cut down to 18-20 clubs. Thus, even if a super team formed there would be fewer dismal teams and an easier path (via draft or acquisition) to get on top than currently.

Sure that might help, but it will never happen. It's all about money and the more teams the more money, at least as long as people are willing to go see games in person.

It has already been floated the NBA may offer 2 expansion teams to make up for Corona losses.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

EPL is close to NBA in revenue and has 20 clubs.

 

[Mainstreet]

NBA needs to have a hard limit to spending. The Luxury Tax is not working because there are owners who can afford to exceed it.

One of the problems for teams with less money to spend is they consider tax revenue money as income.

There needs to be a strong desire to obtain parity by owners.

 

[Finito]

NBA needs to have a hard limit to spending. The Luxury Tax is not working because there are owners who can afford to exceed it.

One of the problems for teams with less money to spend is they consider tax revenue money as income.

There needs to be a strong desire to obtain parity by owners.

right I think this fixes the problem. The ultra rich owners just don’t care.

 

[SunsTzu]

NBA needs to have a hard limit to spending. The Luxury Tax is not working because there are owners who can afford to exceed it.

One of the problems for teams with less money to spend is they consider tax revenue money as income.

There needs to be a strong desire to obtain parity by owners.

They just need to adopt the same revenue sharing as the NFL. With teams able to keep all the local revenue the large markets will always have an uneven playing field beyond their intrinsic appeal.

The NFL made the wise decision to adopt NBA style rookie scale contracts which fixed one of the leagues biggest money. A combination of the 2 systems would go a long way to benefitting the fans.

 

[SunsTzu]

right I think this fixes the problem. The ultra rich owners just don’t care.

They do, it's just even heavily taxed teams like GSW are still able to bring in more money than they spend in tax based on local broadcasting contracts and seat licenses. When the new arena was planned and the started offering PSLs I read you had to pay $100 just to get on the waiting list and this list was ~40,000 people long. If true that is 4mil just for the waiting list.

 

[Yuma]

They do, it's just even heavily taxed teams like GSW are still able to bring in more money than they spend in tax based on local broadcasting contracts and seat licenses. When the new arena was planned and the started offering PSLs I read you had to pay $100 just to get on the waiting list and this list was ~40,000 people long. If true that is 4mil just for the waiting list.

Yes! Plus you have Silicon Valley people who are willing to spend big, so old timers are saying they are having a hard time affording going to a game now.

 

[GatorAZ]

The record since 2010 is clear: super teams lead to higher ratings, more league revenue, and higher team valuations, so—from a financial perspective if a few white folks get sad that black folks are determining their destinies in a country that told them they couldn’t for hundreds of years and still bristles when they have the gall to do so—I don’t think the league should or would care to “stop” it.

What makes it more interesting to me is the NBAPA side of this: LeBron and AD taking knowingly less money is not something I would think the union would necessarily condone (although it does show player empowerment). Of course this is exactly what other stars have done in multiple sports for decades (Duncan and Tom Brady are the most noteworthy examples), so it would be interesting to see the reactions leaguewide at every level.

Of course, the remedy to getting your ass beat by bigger stronger better people isn’t to call Adam Silver and ask for him to intervene. It’s to, you know, lobby for new clauses in the CBA to deter perceived “anti-competitive” activity like team-building. Good luck with that!

Also, the Paul trade to LAL that was nixed was materially different:
1. The NBA owned the Hornets and had a fiduciary obligation to protect its best interests in not making a bad decision in a way that is totally inapt here.
2. It was a trade, not a freely made decision by a unrestricted free agent.

That is true. I doubt he can veto a FA decision... The CP3/Lakers deal was unique.

I think the Heat and Warriors superteams were different. Both team had some homegrown players whereas the Lakers were built on agents getting players to quit on their teams.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

That is true. I doubt he can veto a FA decision... The CP3/Lakers deal was unique.

I think the Heat and Warriors superteams were different. Both team had some homegrown players whereas the Lakers were built on agents getting players to quit on their teams.

I guess we'll see if Giannis is a true competitor or someone that just wants to chase rings. We will also see how much money Giannis and AD would likely be willing to leave on the table in order to team up.

Hopefully Giannis doesn't go the KD route and decides to either continue building in MIL or a different team that isn't already stacked with all NBA talent.

 

[JCSunsfan]

That is true. I doubt he can veto a FA decision... The CP3/Lakers deal was unique.

I think the Heat and Warriors superteams were different. Both team had some homegrown players whereas the Lakers were built on agents getting players to quit on their teams.

Yep. I will say though I don’t fault LeBron. He went back to Cleveland and brought them a championship. His debt was cleared with them. What I hate is LeBrons agent buddy meddling with the Pelicans a d getting away with it. Owners and GM’s hands are tied because of tampering rules while players and agents get to scheme away.

there should be a franchise tag and teams should be compensated for free agents they lose. No guaranteed contracts would be good too, along with a hard cap.

If you have a hard cap, you also have to have some revenue sharing.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Ryan McDonough taking the high road again.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Ryan McDonough taking the high road again.
https://twitter.com/mcdnba/status/1331356644970688512?s=21

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Imagine being reduced from major sport GM to internet troll. It’s like a random person like us posters here turning into deadbeat felons.

Question: were ya’ll mad when Kawhi engineered the LAC super team last summer?