PDA

View Full Version : Why is it bad for stars to team up?



Ware_Spencer
12-07-2012, 08:29 PM
I am not a Heat, Lakers, Celtics, or Knick's fan. I am actually from Utah so no Bias here or defending the BIG teams. I read the forum a lot but don't post too much.

So why is it OK for a GM to orchestrate a championship team????

But if a players do it it becomes a bad thing???

I don't understand that logic.

I mean when The Celtics made the moves they made to get Garnett and Allen everyone was saying how amazing Danny Ainge is.

But when Lebron, Wade & Bosh do it they are criticized over and over.

Chris Paul refused to sign with the Hornets and would only sign an extension with certain teams. How is that any different than what the rest of the stars do???

I just find this very hypocritical. Why would you not want to play with the best players you can.

Lebron wins a Championship and people say it should have a asterisk next to it.

But the Lakers or Celtics do and they are praised.........

If GM's are not getting it done than I think stars have every right to team up with whoever they wish to.

Unless somebody can tell me what I am missing?

bucketss
12-07-2012, 08:31 PM
its only bad when they team up on a team other than the celtics and lakers.

gwrighter
12-07-2012, 08:31 PM
too much talent on 1 team means less for everybody else and elevates the amount of bad teams and slims down the # of good teams. It polarizes the league and makes it harder to compete for everybody.

Baller1
12-07-2012, 08:34 PM
It's only bad if Lebron does it. Because he's THAT good.

bucketss
12-07-2012, 08:36 PM
It's only bad if Lebron does it. Because he's THAT good.

if he went to LA or Boston no one would care i bet, seems like they're the only teams allowed to stack

abe_froman
12-07-2012, 08:38 PM
i dont know what your reading but paul was very hated when he did that and both the lakers and celtics are are two of the most hated teams in the league.

its bad because fans say they want competitive balance/a shot a winning and if your not one of the top 3-5 teams filled with all stars than you have virtually no shot.they say(though think they lie)say they want it like baseball where i'm a giants fan lets say, no i dont have trout and albert,but i still walk away with a word series trophy,or a football fan and i can see my team win the super bowl with having an arron rodgers or ap,when the heat formed you can pencil them in for at least 3 championships of the next 6

ichitownclowni
12-07-2012, 08:40 PM
Basically everyone was butthurt over it. I was to. I realized that I was being stupid LOL. Do I wish LeBron would have came here to Chicago? Absolutely. But now I can honestly say I am ok with it. Wade is aging and Bosh is not that good. James is the best player on the team far and away. I like how **** turned out.

JWO35
12-07-2012, 08:40 PM
2 words: Competitive Balance

The NBA is a joke when it comes the number of teams who have a real shot at winning a tittle

ManRam
12-07-2012, 08:42 PM
Because at a certain point we run out of things to hate people for.

torocan
12-07-2012, 08:46 PM
The problem I have with it is it undermines the competitive balance between teams.

Most teams have constraints on how to acquire talent. They draft for it, they trade for it, they bid for it in Free Agency, or they convince their own Free Agents to join or stay with them.

When Players do it, they not only can orchestrate Who they join on their roster, but can decide WHICH team they play on. This severely disadvantages smaller market teams.

You're Lebron. Your buddy is Wade. You decide you want to play together. What are the odds your short list includes Indiana, Portland or the Raptors?

It distorts the distribution of talent. Instead of FO's assessing talent, trading picks, making decisions, negotiating with their players (under DEFINED rules), the players completely Bypass the process.

This is why I have issues with it.

If a team pulls of loads of Talent like OKC, the Lakers, NYK or Brooklyn.. that's fair. They pay for it, draft for it, bid for it, or negotiate for it. And they have defined rules on when and how they can contact, bid and negotiate with them, as well as advantages to retain Stars on their teams.

When Lebron, Bosh and Wade did it, suddenly a small number of clubs become the "chosen" clubs and 29 other teams get screwed.

That's not good for the NBA. Not if you want viable smaller market teams.

ManRam
12-07-2012, 08:47 PM
I think having star studded teams is better for the NBA.

torocan
12-07-2012, 08:52 PM
I think having star studded teams is better for the NBA.

I'm fine with star studded rosters, as long as EVERY team is getting talent under the same rules.

RonE Coleman
12-07-2012, 08:54 PM
2 words: Competitive Balance

The NBA is a joke when it comes the number of teams who have a real shot at winning a tittle

In recent years yes, but this year I would consider the Spurs, Heat, OKC, Knicks, both LA teams and Memphis all title contenders. Then you have the other teams like Brooklyn, Boston, and then Chicago once Rose returns.

Borough
12-07-2012, 08:54 PM
I think having star studded teams is better for the NBA.

what makes you say that

ATX
12-07-2012, 08:56 PM
Because PSD is full of 14-18 year old kids who have no concept of the real world. In reality the NBA is a business and sports are for entertainment. Do small market teams get the shaft, absolutely. I'm not a big fan of the situation, but for now it is what it is, and to continue to keep crying over LBJ leaving Cleveland serves no point...Unless your point is displaying ignorance or hurt feelings. Players want to win and they want to be on TV. Unfortunately that's less likely in places like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Toronto, Charlotte, Sacramento...However OKC, Memphis, and of course SA have done quite well. Those teams have to build from the ground up, because let's face it, who in their right mind, let alone an NBA superstar would willingly want to go live in OKC or Cleveland over say NY, LA, Chi, or Mia? As for "Teaming up", well there are examples upon examples of this throughout NBA history. And people who say LBJ should have an asterisk next to his first title are just beyond sense, and should just be ignored.

topdog
12-07-2012, 08:57 PM
I don't know how many people were actually mad about Lebron, Wade and Bosh teaming up, but rather how they acted in the aftermath of their decision. I for one really was hoping they would team up because it was an interesting sort of experiment to me. I thought "The Decision" was pretty lame, Wade's trip to Chicago seemed really fake especially with him video taping it and they all acted pretty fairly arrogant about it. So, I did want them to lose the first year.

The other issue I have is when older guys take huge paycuts to team up on an already good team like Malone and Payton did with the Lakers. I definitely was rooting against them.

ManRam
12-07-2012, 09:08 PM
what makes you say that

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Some small market teams struggle, but ratings soar with these star studded super teams. I don't actually necessarily think I believe what I said...was ready to go Devil's Advocate, but I'll actually abstain.


I'm fine with star studded rosters, as long as EVERY team is getting talent under the same rules.

Every team follows the same rules. Not sure what you're getting at here.



Also, players have no obligation to make the league balanced. To act like they do is a joke.

ManRam
12-07-2012, 09:09 PM
I don't know how many people were actually mad about Lebron, Wade and Bosh teaming up, but rather how they acted in the aftermath of their decision. I for one really was hoping they would team up because it was an interesting sort of experiment to me. I thought "The Decision" was pretty lame, Wade's trip to Chicago seemed really fake especially with him video taping it and they all acted pretty fairly arrogant about it. So, I did want them to lose the first year.

The other issue I have is when older guys take huge paycuts to team up on an already good team like Malone and Payton did with the Lakers. I definitely was rooting against them.

Meh. People call LeBron a coward all the time because he teamed up. I'm pretty sure people hate him for that. I mean, some people hate him for not covering his mouth when he coughs in public, but open up a thread here where LeBron is being discussed, and you'll see people bashing him for leaving, not just HOW he left.

MickeyMgl
12-07-2012, 09:18 PM
It's not necessarily bad for stars to team up. However, it reflects poorly on stars when they show they don't believe they can win without colluding and circumventing the market. There is a fine line that is crossed at some point, when it feels like they're stacking the deck in their favor. It cheapens what they accomplish. Real winners wouldn't feel they had to do that. There's a certain caliber of player who shouldn't have to move, unless it was for money, which actually is a perfectly legit reason.

JasonJohnHorn
12-07-2012, 09:27 PM
I think it hurts the parity in the league. It is great for casual fans who just like to essentially watch all-star teams, but at the end of the day, while it may be good for ratings, and helps with TV deals and such (for some teams), it's bad for teams in general and puts a bigger gap between the contenders and playoff teams.

If the all-stars are evenly spread throughout the league, the league will in turn (hopefully) be more competative. It would be nice to see most teams in the league come away with around at least 40 wins so that most teams will at least be in the playoff hunt toward the end of the season and give fans around the league reason to go see the games. As it stands right now teams like Charlotte and Washington can't even fill the bottom bowl at a game... now that is pathetic!


But at the same time, if a GM can pull it off, more power too him.

topdog
12-07-2012, 10:20 PM
Meh. People call LeBron a coward all the time because he teamed up. I'm pretty sure people hate him for that. I mean, some people hate him for not covering his mouth when he coughs in public, but open up a thread here where LeBron is being discussed, and you'll see people bashing him for leaving, not just HOW he left.

I just gloss over posts by people who know nothing about basketball so I guess I just don't even notice those. Real basketball fans I don't think give a crap.

scaramantula
12-07-2012, 10:28 PM
it ruins all the fun of not knowing whose going to go far in the play offs, half the fun of sports is watching the best teams get upset, but know... an 8th seed is never going to beat miami, theres is no suspense, remember when dallas lost to golden state? thats never going to happen again

ManRam
12-07-2012, 10:35 PM
it ruins all the fun of not knowing whose going to go far in the play offs, half the fun of sports is watching the best teams get upset, but know... an 8th seed is never going to beat miami, theres is no suspense, remember when dallas lost to golden state? thats never going to happen again

It's always been like that though. Golden State was a rare occurrence. They were the first to do so in a 7 game series. The only other time: 2011 when the Spurs lost. And before them, it had only happened twice in the best-of-five format (94 Nuggets, 99 Knicks).

Can't blame LeBron and buddy basketball on 8 seeds never winning. It's NEVER been a common occurrence.

Actually, it also, happened just this past year. Hahaha. Granted, it was because Rose.

Basically, it's happened more recently than it has before. So your argument is a bit flimsy.

Patriot Pride
12-08-2012, 11:51 AM
At least when Boston did it it was a bunch of vets who couldn't win one on their own.

Lebron could have won a Championship in Cleveland and I think we all give him a lot more credit if he does.