PDA

View Full Version : *** built v bought ***



Sanjay
07-04-2014, 01:59 AM
The back-to-back finals matchup between the Spurs and Heat has brought the built v bought debate to the fore in the NBA. I read this article on SB Nation (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/6/4/5778750/heat-spurs-free-agency-lebron-james-pat-riley) which basically says people hate the Heat because those individuals prefer management power over player power and vice versa. Thoughts?

Mr.B
07-04-2014, 02:25 AM
I personally don't have a problem with teams that are willing to spend a ton of money to bring the absolute best players in to help win a title. The way I see it is every owner in the NBA has the same opportunity. Every owner in the NBA has the opportunity to go out and hire the best staff to put the best team on the court. Some people do it through the draft (like the Spurs), some teams do it through trades (like the Mavs), and some teams do it through free agency (like the Heat). In the end the goal is to win the title by any means necessary.

Kyben36
07-04-2014, 03:17 AM
I personally don't have a problem with teams that are willing to spend a ton of money to bring the absolute best players in to help win a title. The way I see it is every owner in the NBA has the same opportunity. Every owner in the NBA has the opportunity to go out and hire the best staff to put the best team on the court. Some people do it through the draft (like the Spurs), some teams do it through trades (like the Mavs), and some teams do it through free agency (like the Heat). In the end the goal is to win the title by any means necessary.

i have no respect for the heat, which seem to be the only team that have bought a championship. i dont think that is right, i dont think its fair to the league that teams can just buy a ring, but you can and thats that,

I can have respect for a team like say the Celtics, who yes, they in a way bought a ring with KG and Allen, but they did it by trading for them, with assets that they aquired though good drafts. at least there is some respect there.

i also have no problem with a team who builds, and then adds that missing peice, im trying to think of an example other than the bulls and melo, but the way that the GS wariors had peices and then went out and got iggy, is not a bad example. i have no problem with that.

i also dont have a problem with a team like the clips who had to trade assets to get CP3, but they got him the right way.

but i do have total respect for built teams. teams that come together peice by peice to become excelent. the spurs are by far my favorite team of the past centery, and will be upset when they do finally hang up their hats.

3ballbomber
07-04-2014, 03:21 AM
buying ships is frowned upon by the majority, it's just goes against the basic principals of competition...... the reason why Miami cop alot of criticism. truth!

3ballbomber
07-04-2014, 03:24 AM
i have no respect for the heat, which seem to be the only team that have bought a championship. i dont think that is right, i dont think its fair to the league that teams can just buy a ring, but you can and thats that,

I can have respect for a team like say the Celtics, who yes, they in a way bought a ring with KG and Allen, but they did it by trading for them, with assets that they aquired though good drafts. at least there is some respect there.

i also have no problem with a team who builds, and then adds that missing peice, im trying to think of an example other than the bulls and melo, but the way that the GS wariors had peices and then went out and got iggy, is not a bad example. i have no problem with that.

i also dont have a problem with a team like the clips who had to trade assets to get CP3, but they got him the right way.

but i do have total respect for built teams. teams that come together peice by peice to become excelent. the spurs are by far my favorite team of the past centery, and will be upset when they do finally hang up their hats.

thumbs up

Raps08-09 Champ
07-04-2014, 04:27 AM
Well it's either you buy it (FA, etc) or it's already given to you (draft, etc). Can't say 1 is better than the other when certain teams just get lucky (draft a superstar the year they got top pick or had enough cap space for a FA).

Either way, you still need to build it properly.

Mr.B
07-04-2014, 04:41 AM
buying ships is frowned upon by the majority, it's just goes against the basic principals of competition...... the reason why Miami cop alot of criticism. truth!
The way I see it is if you don't like them then beat them. So what if they got three stars on their team. They're not invincible, they can't be beat. The Mavs and Spurs proved that. And the Mavs did it with only one real star. If it was really about competition it wouldn't matter how many stars they got on their team. You find a way and you beat them.

3ballbomber
07-04-2014, 04:41 AM
I watched the bad boys doco on the Pistons last night. Isiah Thomas was 32? when he retired and said he had nothing left to give after giving so much of himself for his team. Through all the obstacles, struggles, wars, defeats and heartbreak his team grew stronger and closer together. Spite of the world hating their brand of basketball and being shunned as negative influence for the league, the Pistons grew to be family and the players become brothers. Brothers who carried scars & wounds - these all made them tougher, hungrier and more determined wich resulted in 2 championships. If Isiah or any of the other big players had left after all those losses they would have not been able to grow as a team and had the opportunity to be able to win those titles. It's much like the Spurs - they stuck it out....had a heart breaking loss last season and then came back, refocused and won it all this year. Scarz & wounds make your team grow and become closer and determined together. This is the basketball i grew up on & was brought up with this sort of competitors. & this was the era that Riley was in and sent that exact message to Lebron & Miami in his media speech asking them 'what they are truly made of? Will you run or stay & over come this together'.

If Lebron had any sense he would stick it out w/ his brothers in Miami. He already left the Cavs, if he bolts Miami it will be a shame what they've all gone through together just for their leader to leave. This is the perfect opportunity in wich true champions are built on - will Lebron run or gut it out!

Teufelshunde4
07-04-2014, 05:30 AM
The back-to-back finals matchup between the Spurs and Heat has brought the built v bought debate to the fore in the NBA. I read this article on SB Nation (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/6/4/5778750/heat-spurs-free-agency-lebron-james-pat-riley) which basically says people hate the Heat because those individuals prefer management power over player power and vice versa. Thoughts?


Personally I hate the Heat not for the players or their choices.. If your a free agent and want to team together and try and win.. I have no issue with that.. My issue came with the how the trio played the media game going on tours with teams talking it all up generating all this PR and when the decision was made already..

Then the capper was the franchises over the top arrogant intro of the players and general attitude..
Thats is why I hate the Heat and lost 95% of my interest in the NBA..

Teufelshunde4
07-04-2014, 05:32 AM
I watched the bad boys doco on the Pistons last night. Isiah Thomas was 32? when he retired and said he had nothing left to give after giving so much of himself for his team. Through all the obstacles, struggles, wars, defeats and heartbreak his team grew stronger and closer together. Spite of the world hating their brand of basketball and being shunned as negative influence for the league, the Pistons grew to be family and the players become brothers. Brothers who carried scars & wounds - these all made them tougher, hungrier and more determined wich resulted in 2 championships. If Isiah or any of the other big players had left after all those losses they would have not been able to grow as a team and had the opportunity to be able to win those titles. It's much like the Spurs - they stuck it out....had a heart breaking loss last season and then came back, refocused and won it all this year. Scarz & wounds make your team grow and become closer and determined together. This is the basketball i grew up on & was brought up with this sort of competitors. & this was the era that Riley was in and sent that exact message to Lebron & Miami in his media speech asking them 'what they are truly made of? Will you run or stay & over come this together'.

If Lebron had any sense he would stick it out w/ his brothers in Miami. He already left the Cavs, if he bolts Miami it will be a shame what they've all gone through together just for their leader to leave. This is the perfect opportunity in wich true champions are built on - will Lebron run or gut it out!


That was a good documentary on the Bad Boys.. AS talented as todays players are... Id love to see them handle the physical play of that era.. I just dont think many could cope enough to play at a high level..

dhopisthename
07-04-2014, 07:32 AM
how many teams are really able to build through the draft though? it takes an incredible amount of luck to actually rebuild in the draft. You first need someone in the draft who can actually be a franchise changer, he needs to be available at your pick, and you need this to happen quite a few times. the spurs have had some really good draft luck. for every thunder there are 5 teams that have sat in the lotto for 4 years straight that don't get a single all star because it takes an incredible amount of luck to get an all star in the draft. Likewise it takes a good deal of luck to get someone good in free agency. you need a franchise changer that is willing to change teams and have the cap space and a have a destination that is desirable for free agents. I don't think either one is better then the other.

FOXHOUND
07-04-2014, 08:07 AM
I don't think it changes competitive balance in general, you still have to build your team. The Pistons have been trying to throw big money at players in FA for years with hilariously bad results, it's not like a big FA signing ensures anything of success.

Miami's situation is unique though. I don't think it's necessarily that it happened through FA, but more of how it happened.

1) LeBron's The Decision.
2) The far worse but often forgotten about except for one line Miami Heat Rally Party thingy (not 1, not 2...).
3) The perception that LeBron, Wade and Bosh colluded to join together from as early as the 2008 Olympics.

Those three things are despicable, I think that's more where the hate comes from. If you clear the cap space and convince players to join you when you having nothing but cap space then hey, more power to you. Utah has just $16M in cap at this point and a solid group of young talent, but they aren't attracting one or two max FAs anytime soon.

FOXHOUND
07-04-2014, 08:16 AM
how many teams are really able to build through the draft though? it takes an incredible amount of luck to actually rebuild in the draft. You first need someone in the draft who can actually be a franchise changer, he needs to be available at your pick, and you need this to happen quite a few times. the spurs have had some really good draft luck. for every thunder there are 5 teams that have sat in the lotto for 4 years straight that don't get a single all star because it takes an incredible amount of luck to get an all star in the draft. Likewise it takes a good deal of luck to get someone good in free agency. you need a franchise changer that is willing to change teams and have the cap space and a have a destination that is desirable for free agents. I don't think either one is better then the other.

I see what you're saying, but don't agree with your Spurs example. Nothing about the Spurs has been lucky, except maybe the stars aligning for them to get Tim Duncan. Other than that they have been operating with picks in the 20's ever since. It's not that they get lucky, it's that they are a grade A++ organization and have an incredible developmental system and coaching system in place. The players the Spurs get are successful because they are on the Spurs.

Just as they take players off of waivers/FA and turn them into valuable pieces (Danny Green, Boris Diaw, Patty Mills for recent example) they do the same with late draft picks. They take a guy like Kyle Anderson, whose lack of top level athleticism turned most teams away, and will turn him into a solid, all around and two way player in a couple of years time.

The big thing for SA is that they were ahead of the international curve, which led to them getting Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili as late as they did back in the day. If those drafts happened now, with the way all 30 teams now scout internationally, I don't think you see those two there for the Spurs picks anymore. Since then it's not like they have been pulling All-Stars out of the late 1st/2nd round picks that they've had. Notable drafted Spurs since then are what? Tiago Splitter, solid but nothing special. George Hill, good for the 26th pick that they used on him but again nothing special. The flipping of George Hill for a 16th pick just two years after drafting him is what was special, and that allowed them to get a talent like Kawhi Leonard.

But again, would Kawhi Leonard be Kawhi Leonard if he wasn't a Spur? Hmmmmm.

flclfanman
07-04-2014, 08:42 AM
The thing with the whole Built vs. Bought Paradigm is people love the latter when the former is much more common.

We're people shunning the Lakers when they signed Shaq to team with Kobe? No Shaq=No rings

Did People Poo-Poo Barkley-Pippen-and Hakeem joining forces in Houston? Don't remember it.

How about Harden and Dwight in Houston now? Doubt it.

The things is "built" teams like the Spurs and Thunder are VERY VERY hard to maintain since the better you become, the higher your draft pick. Everybody can't be the spurs and draft all star starters in the Late first and second rounds (Parker, Manu, Dragic,etc.)

For a team to compete for a title, it usually needs a mix of built and bought; a couple of core guys you draft with that one markee agent that's potent enough to put the team over the top. Examples include:

Clippers (Blake+CP3)
Memphis (Marc Gasol+ ZBO)
Golden State (Curry/Klay+Lee and (maybe) Love)
Miami (Dwade+ LBJ/Bosh)
late 2000s Celtics (Pierce+KG/Allen)
2000s Pistons (Billups+ the Wallaces)

etc. etc.

naps
07-04-2014, 08:50 AM
So let me guess there should not be a free agency? Or a team shouldn't have the smartest brain in the business and grab all the free agents they can within the cap limit? What is it?

Can't have it both ways. Pretty sure same fans that hate the Heat because they had the greatest free agents ever in a year wanted all of LeBron, Wade, and Bosh. They would love it if Pat Riley was their president/gm. Those same teams are crying for LeBron and Melo this year and would be ecstatic if they can and them. Pathetic.

beasted86
07-04-2014, 09:04 AM
There are a lot of delusional people in this thread.

There are like two contenders that were built. The Spurs and the Thunder. Every other team has been bought with other team's drafted players as their primary guys. The Spurs and Thunder are the only teams that drafted their main core (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Kahwi, Splitter)(Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Jackson, Adams) and developed those guys into a contending cast.

Whether you buy a team with cap space, with draft picks, with TPEs, or franchise players forcing their way out in lopsided trades, it's bought nonetheless.

waveycrockett
07-04-2014, 09:18 AM
People need to stop crying about that it's why Free Agency exists.

king4day
07-04-2014, 09:27 AM
If the suns get lebron, they will have done both. Built and bought.

TylerSL
07-04-2014, 09:52 AM
The "built vs. bought" argument is a bad one. Miami, regardless of how the team was constructed, has worked harder than anybody over the last 4 years. We have accomplished more in the last 4 years than most teams in the history of the league, all while 85% of the league has hated the Heat. We are 14-2 in postseason series over the last 4 years and have won a road game in every series we have played in during that same time.

#earned

GrumpyOldMan
07-04-2014, 10:18 AM
Both are fine. If you win a championship it doesn't matter. It's when you try to put together a team through Free Agency and trades and it doesn't win that a team can really hurt itself. It can leave you with diminishing assets, very few draft picks and little salary flexibility for quite a while. It has worked out for Miami. It isn't looking quite as good for Brooklyn or the Knicks.
As for the building angle, It is working for the Spurs and Thunder, but there have been several teams that finish near the bottom on a regular basis who haven't been able to compete despite having great draft position. Either way it comes down to putting the right pieces together and having good management, coaching and ownership.

raiderfaninTX
07-04-2014, 10:33 AM
dumb *** people on here.

How dare an owner do everything in his power to get a championship. It's really only an argument for simple minded broke ****s

dnl123
07-04-2014, 10:55 AM
I like this discussion/thread, good job OP! I feel like threads like this are too few and far between Lebron hate threads and Lebron love threads and this is actually a good discussion. Anyways I enjoy watching basketball because it is a TEAM game, and we have to remember that it is also the players jobs too.

RazzleDazzle
07-04-2014, 11:17 AM
i have no respect for the heat, which seem to be the only team that have bought a championship. i dont think that is right, i dont think its fair to the league that teams can just buy a ring, but you can and thats that,

I can have respect for a team like say the Celtics, who yes, they in a way bought a ring with KG and Allen, but they did it by trading for them, with assets that they aquired though good drafts. at least there is some respect there.

i also have no problem with a team who builds, and then adds that missing peice, im trying to think of an example other than the bulls and melo, but the way that the GS wariors had peices and then went out and got iggy, is not a bad example. i have no problem with that.

i also dont have a problem with a team like the clips who had to trade assets to get CP3, but they got him the right way.

but i do have total respect for built teams. teams that come together peice by peice to become excelent. the spurs are by far my favorite team of the past centery, and will be upset when they do finally hang up their hats.

ROFL

trading/signing free agents/ building through the draft is all part of the solution. Miami also had Chalmers/ Haslem/ Cole + with big time free agents (Lebron + Bosh) + veterans who signed up to win a ring (Battier/Ray Allen/ Lewis).

as you can see there is nothing wrong with Miami did. and remember, Miami is a small market team.

a championship can never be bought. It has to be earned, regardless of situation.

nycericanguy
07-04-2014, 11:28 AM
This is always an interesting question and it reminds me of 2009 as a Yankee fan.

Yanks went out and signed the top 3 FA's and won the world series. There wasn't much joy in it as a fan, we were EXPECTED to win and there wasn't any real connection there, they were sort of hired guns.

vs the 96-200 Yankees where they had most of their guys that were homegrown... that was something special to watch.

What MIA did just left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. It wasn't just about buying the best players, it was 3 guys that seemingly did not want any competition. For the best player in the world in his prime to leave his home team to go team up with two other superstars was just making a mockery out of competition to me. And then to sit on stage and that whole speech... I don't know, it just gave me the impression that Lebron, for as great as he is, wanted no competition, wanted the absolute easiest path to titles. Wade at the time was a conference rival too.

TylerSL
07-04-2014, 11:39 AM
This is always an interesting question and it reminds me of 2009 as a Yankee fan.

Yanks went out and signed the top 3 FA's and won the world series. There wasn't much joy in it as a fan, we were EXPECTED to win and there wasn't any real connection there, they were sort of hired guns.

vs the 96-200 Yankees where they had most of their guys that were homegrown... that was something special to watch.

What MIA did just left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. It wasn't just about buying the best players, it was 3 guys that seemingly did not want any competition. For the best player in the world in his prime to leave his home team to go team up with two other superstars was just making a mockery out of competition to me. And then to sit on stage and that whole speech... I don't know, it just gave me the impression that Lebron, for as great as he is, wanted no competition, wanted the absolute easiest path to titles. Wade at the time was a conference rival too.

Miami was not the first team where stars got together, just stop it. Lebron/Wade/Bosh came together because they were tired of losing to Boston, let alone not winning titles. What part of our path has been easy? Miami has literally fought the world the last four years and we have made it to the very end every year. Miami has accomplished something truly special and is one of the most impressive teams in the history of the league.

I don't think Lebron is going anywhere and I don't think we will the title every year, but when this run is looked back on in 20 years, people will eventually give them their due.

RazzleDazzle
07-04-2014, 11:39 AM
This is always an interesting question and it reminds me of 2009 as a Yankee fan.

Yanks went out and signed the top 3 FA's and won the world series. There wasn't much joy in it as a fan, we were EXPECTED to win and there wasn't any real connection there, they were sort of hired guns.

vs the 96-200 Yankees where they had most of their guys that were homegrown... that was something special to watch.

What MIA did just left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. It wasn't just about buying the best players, it was 3 guys that seemingly did not want any competition. For the best player in the world in his prime to leave his home team to go team up with two other superstars was just making a mockery out of competition to me. And then to sit on stage and that whole speech... I don't know, it just gave me the impression that Lebron, for as great as he is, wanted no competition, wanted the absolute easiest path to titles. Wade at the time was a conference rival too.

it was the delivery and how they did it. If they were mum on the entire thing and not have been bashful.

For me, I think Lebron gave himself the best way to win and controlled his own destiny. It wasn't about competition, it was about winning. Now, did they know that the East would be weak? probably not as there have been a bunch of underperforming teams to say the least.

A lot of people hate the Heat because:

1) the way they made their announcements and the glamour (doucheness) they went about it.
2) Lebron didn't join their team (subconsciously, many want Lebron on their teams)

Hardaway Here
07-04-2014, 11:42 AM
Built vs bought argument is stupid as hell. No one plays for free and the championship isn't handed to anyone. You have to play every game. /thread

nycericanguy
07-04-2014, 11:54 AM
Miami was not the first team where stars got together, just stop it. Lebron/Wade/Bosh came together because they were tired of losing to Boston, let alone not winning titles. What part of our path has been easy? Miami has literally fought the world the last four years and we have made it to the very end every year. Miami has accomplished something truly special and is one of the most impressive teams in the history of the league.

I don't think Lebron is going anywhere and I don't think we will the title every year, but when this run is looked back on in 20 years, people will eventually give them their due.

i'm 31, I don't ever remember a top player in the world in his prime leaving his team to join two other superstars... Wade was like the #2 or #3 player in the world at that time... Bosh was a top 15 player.

MIA has had one of the easiest paths to the finals the last 4 years, not sure what you mean by they "fought the world"...

funny thing is LBJ has still been "recruiting" throughout the years, I almost believe that he wants a real life dream team.

TylerSL
07-04-2014, 12:03 PM
i'm 31, I don't ever remember a top player in the world in his prime leaving his team to join two other superstars... Wade was like the #2 or #3 player in the world at that time... Bosh was a top 15 player.

MIA has had one of the easiest paths to the finals the last 4 years, not sure what you mean by they "fought the world"...

Where have you been then? They get booed in Utah of all places. The East was weak this year yes, but the 3 previous years was not even close to what it was this year, again just stop. Those Celtics teams were really good, Derrick Roses's Bulls were good, the 2013 Bulls without Rose were tough, and even Indiana is tough, especially in 2013. But besides that, we still have to play the toughest team in that tough western conference and we are 2-2 in that. Making the Finals 4 years in a row has only happened 4 times now so matter how much you try to discredit Miami, it is one of the most impressive things ever seen in the NBA.

Miami didn't break any rules in 2010 but for the people like you, that's the worst part.

kdspurman
07-04-2014, 12:04 PM
Miami was not the first team where stars got together, just stop it. Lebron/Wade/Bosh came together because they were tired of losing to Boston, let alone not winning titles. What part of our path has been easy? Miami has literally fought the world the last four years and we have made it to the very end every year. Miami has accomplished something truly special and is one of the most impressive teams in the history of the league.

I don't think Lebron is going anywhere and I don't think we will the title every year, but when this run is looked back on in 20 years, people will eventually give them their due.

In fairness, the competition in the East. Which isn't all their fault, there were injuries which caused that and just some bad teams altogether. But being honest, they play in a pretty weak conference, so their first round match usually is against a poor team.

That doesn't take away from their accomplishments, I'm just answering the question.

Kobe24MVP
07-04-2014, 12:05 PM
I've always thought this argument was stupid. A championship is a championship no matter how you got it. There is not gonna be an asterisk next to it in the History books if you bought it. If you have the money why the hell not sign the top free agents and give your team the best chance to win?

TylerSL
07-04-2014, 12:10 PM
In fairness, the competition in the East. Which isn't all their fault, there were injuries which caused that and just some bad teams altogether. But being honest, they play in a pretty weak conference, so their first round match usually is against a poor team.

That doesn't take away from their accomplishments, I'm just answering the question.

ok yea maybe that could have been said better, but I was referring to was how, especially in 2010, the entire league has HATED our existence and we have constantly succeeded in that environment. Hell even the CBA was made to break the team up.

nycericanguy
07-04-2014, 12:21 PM
Where have you been then? They get booed in Utah of all places. The East was weak this year yes, but the 3 previous years was not even close to what it was this year, again just stop. Those Celtics teams were really good, Derrick Roses's Bulls were good, the 2013 Bulls without Rose were tough, and even Indiana is tough, especially in 2013. But besides that, we still have to play the toughest team in that tough western conference and we are 2-2 in that. Making the Finals 4 years in a row has only happened 4 times now so matter how much you try to discredit Miami, it is one of the most impressive things ever seen in the NBA.

Miami didn't break any rules in 2010 but for the people like you, that's the worst part.

Lol... as much as you want to act like it's nothing... the fact is, I don't get the feeling MIA really even cares about that team. Showing up late to games, leaving in the middle of Final's games... even their forum is pretty dead.

It's just not the same pride, I know this first hand as a Yankee fan.

It is what it is, I'm sure it's still nice having a super team... but it does go against the whole competitive spirit... there's no denying that.

kdspurman
07-04-2014, 12:25 PM
ok yea maybe that could have been said better, but I was referring to was how, especially in 2010, the entire league has HATED our existence and we have constantly succeeded in that environment. Hell even the CBA was made to break the team up.

They definitely faced a ton of adversity that first year together, no question about it. One of the most disliked teams I've ever witnessed

Chronz
07-04-2014, 12:51 PM
i have no respect for the heat, which seem to be the only team that have bought a championship.
LOL. No, they are just the only one taking **** for it.


I can have respect for a team like say the Celtics, who yes, they in a way bought a ring with KG and Allen, but they did it by trading for them, with assets that they aquired though good drafts.
Which only happened because KG was forcing the team he was SIGNED UNDER to trade him wherever he saw fit. The same way the Celtics got the assets to trade for KG is no different than how Miami got the financial flexibility, both took time and alot of losing, in the Celtics case, they tanked harder and required a player under contract to work with them (as opposed to a free agent exercising his right). Yet thats honorable.



at least there is some respect there.
Only in an *** backwards world where we respect broken contracts above following the rules.

Pablonovi
07-04-2014, 01:53 PM
For Me, IF A Player Truly Fullfills His First-Contract Obligation, He's A FREE Agent!

IF Pippen and Horace Grant hadn't developed into top-flight stars and/or IF Rodman hadn't been an excellent replacement for Grant - I BET MJ wouldn't have stayed on the Bulls AND he wouldn't have shifted to a NON-contender.

For me, any player that gives his first team his best efforts over the length of his contract, has EVERY RIGHT to try to stay or go to wherever he feels he has the best chance (whether individually or team-wise). Any other position for me just has to be so much "sour grapes" (virtually always applied in all cases where one's own team is NOT the beneficiary).

In the history of the League (and the more recent the more so seemingly) players, even great players, have frequently switched teams. How often have players switched teams DELIBERATELY to go to or stay on a weak team?

I bet most of the exceptions, most of the non-switches did so because they were either winning as a team or at least winning as an individual (stats, money, personal glory, loved their guys).

When has a great player who has NOT had team success NOT pushed hard on HIS team FO to significantly improve the team so he had a much better chance of winning. And what fool amongst them would, IF condemned to never sniff the Finals, stay???

The HEAT Big 3, rapidly turned into a Big 2.5 and then a Big 1 (due to injury in DWade's case; due to ? in Bosh's case). Whatever POTENTIAL people thought they had when they joined up; the facts are that the HEAT Big 3 have not been as good as a number of All-Time Big 3s:

Russell & the next best two players (over all those years; heck they had a virtual All-Star Team!)
Bird-McHale-Parish (I'd take McHale-Parish over DWade-Bosh)
KG-Pierce-RayRay (I'd take their #2+#3 (+ #4 Rondo) over their HEAT comparables)
KAJ-Magic-Worthy (I'd take either Magic-Worthy or KAJ-Worthy)
MJ-Pippen-Grant/Rodman (I'd take Pippen-Grant/Rodman)
TD-TP-Manu (I'd take TP-Manu)

Raps08-09 Champ
07-04-2014, 03:47 PM
Lol there's an article on ESPN how Duncan bought titles. Makes sense.

FriedTofuz
07-04-2014, 04:26 PM
I ran into a friend who was born and raised in Miami last year from my gym. You know what he told me when I asked who he was cheering for to win it? SA? Really, a Miami Native wanting the spurs to win?

"MIA bought their team, The spurs built theres" That's mainly why I hate the heat, a Manipulative GM with a stingy owner who just signs players and gets them to take paycuts to win championships. It's bad for sports.
I know SA has taken paycuts for their top players but thosep layers are past their prime and have been with the spurs for YEARS. I think Duncan shouldnt ge that much money anyways at this point in his career which is why I dont think them taking a paycut for like 10 mil is a huge problem.

Raps08-09 Champ
07-04-2014, 04:29 PM
I still can't believe people hold it against players and praise others when they are in 2 different extremes.

kdspurman
07-04-2014, 04:41 PM
Taking less for the better of your team to sign quality role players, is different than trying to pair up multiple superstars. At the end of the day, results are all that matters. Can't argue what Miami has done the last 4 years. But that recipe they are following eventually will run out. At some point, drafting and developing becomes a factor. You can rely much more heavily on developing the players you have, than banking on signing a bunch of people.

Mr.B
07-04-2014, 05:49 PM
i'm 31, I don't ever remember a top player in the world in his prime leaving his team to join two other superstars... Wade was like the #2 or #3 player in the world at that time... Bosh was a top 15 player.

MIA has had one of the easiest paths to the finals the last 4 years, not sure what you mean by they "fought the world"...

funny thing is LBJ has still been "recruiting" throughout the years, I almost believe that he wants a real life dream team.

Honestly when Shaq left Orlando it was not much different than what Labron did. He was in his prime, and had lost in the Finals with a small market team. He joined Kobe who was just entering his prime at that time. There wasn't a third superstar there but then I've never considered Bosh a superstar. Robert Horry was every bit as good as Bosh is when he joined the Lakers.

goingfor28
07-04-2014, 06:06 PM
Honestly when Shaq left Orlando it was not much different than what Labron did. He was in his prime, and had lost in the Finals with a small market team. He joined Kobe who was just entering his prime at that time. There wasn't a third superstar there but then I've never considered Bosh a superstar. Robert Horry was every bit as good as Bosh is when he joined the Lakers.
No. He wasn't

Mr.B
07-04-2014, 06:27 PM
No. He wasn't

You should go back and watch some film on the young Horry. He was actually a much better defender and much better 3 point shooter than Bosh. Bosh's overall offensive game was better than Horry's though.

AsiandudePH
07-04-2014, 06:43 PM
Honestly when Shaq left Orlando it was not much different than what Labron did. He was in his prime, and had lost in the Finals with a small market team. He joined Kobe who was just entering his prime at that time. There wasn't a third superstar there but then I've never considered Bosh a superstar. Robert Horry was every bit as good as Bosh is when he joined the Lakers.

Kobe was just a rookie when Shaq came. Took a couple of years before Kobe hit his prime.

kingkenny01
07-04-2014, 06:47 PM
When you say built, I associate it with tanked. Built and tanked both don't really sit right with fans, I respect a team like the pacers more because they took middle round draft picks and turned their team into a contender as opposed to the thunder who drafted in the top five a lot. Not saying that what the thunder did wasn't impressive because a lot of teams pick early and never get out of the lottery but not nearly as impressive as the pacers.

Hotone1401
07-04-2014, 06:57 PM
I don't really care much for the built vs bought argument. GM's & Owners play their own game when it comes to management.

I will say I have every problem with the sissy mindset of the new generation of players who would rather play with eachother than playing against eachother. I don't when it became okay in their minds that they don't wanna compete against the best. Colluding to join up is something players in their primes should never do IMO.

WadeKobe
07-04-2014, 07:50 PM
i have no respect for the heat, which seem to be the only team that have bought a championship. i dont think that is right, i dont think its fair to the league that teams can just buy a ring, but you can and thats that,

I can have respect for a team like say the Celtics, who yes, they in a way bought a ring with KG and Allen, but they did it by trading for them, with assets that they aquired though good drafts. at least there is some respect there.

i also have no problem with a team who builds, and then adds that missing peice, im trying to think of an example other than the bulls and melo, but the way that the GS wariors had peices and then went out and got iggy, is not a bad example. i have no problem with that.

i also dont have a problem with a team like the clips who had to trade assets to get CP3, but they got him the right way.

but i do have total respect for built teams. teams that come together peice by peice to become excelent. the spurs are by far my favorite team of the past centery, and will be upset when they do finally hang up their hats.

Irrational drivel.

Plus, the Heat traded and gave up assets to acquire James and Bosh... Or have we forgotten that fact?

JC_
07-04-2014, 08:55 PM
I'm pretty sure the only reason this has come up is because the Spurs played amazing in the finals. Every player on that team looked like an all-star at some point. The stars aligned for them and they showed why they are considered the best organization in the league today.

All that being said, pretty much every team in the league has been trying to "buy" their way to a championship for the past while. The Celtics started it when bad teams that didn't care about winning handed them the pieces to make a contender so you can't really blame the Heat.

DemarDerozan
07-04-2014, 09:14 PM
The thing with the whole Built vs. Bought Paradigm is people love the latter when the former is much more common.

We're people shunning the Lakers when they signed Shaq to team with Kobe? No Shaq=No rings

Did People Poo-Poo Barkley-Pippen-and Hakeem joining forces in Houston? Don't remember it.

How about Harden and Dwight in Houston now? Doubt it.

The things is "built" teams like the Spurs and Thunder are VERY VERY hard to maintain since the better you become, the higher your draft pick. Everybody can't be the spurs and draft all star starters in the Late first and second rounds (Parker, Manu, Dragic,etc.)

For a team to compete for a title, it usually needs a mix of built and bought; a couple of core guys you draft with that one markee agent that's potent enough to put the team over the top. Examples include:

Clippers (Blake+CP3)
Memphis (Marc Gasol+ ZBO)
Golden State (Curry/Klay+Lee and (maybe) Love)
Miami (Dwade+ LBJ/Bosh)
late 2000s Celtics (Pierce+KG/Allen)
2000s Pistons (Billups+ the Wallaces)

etc. etc.

Whoa. Did you just compare Ledouche and his superfriends to the 2003 Pistons?

When the Pistons acquired Ben Wallace he was a throw in garbage time player in Orlando. He became a star in Detroit. They did trade for Rasheed Wallace halfway through their championship season... But it was an equal trade at the time as Sheed was still considered a wildcard. Teams had already given up on Chauncey and Rip when they were acquired.

BronBron, old man Wade, and Rupaul got together over the course of years to work out a super team model and ultimately screwed the Cavs and Raptors in the process. At the time Wade and James were considered top five talent, and Bosh was top 15.

The early 2000s Pistons are the definition of built. They improved every year as a team and added spare parts where they fit.

The recent cHeat team is the definition of bought. A bunch of superstars teaming up and negating the competitive nature of the game for professional and financial success.

They are polar opposites.

None of this is meant as an insult to you Bro. But you need to learn your NBA history a little better. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

JC_
07-04-2014, 09:21 PM
...ultimately screwed the Cavs and Raptors in the process. .

How did the Raptors get screwed?

Pablonovi
07-04-2014, 09:50 PM
Taking less for the better of your team to sign quality role players, is different than trying to pair up multiple superstars. At the end of the day, results are all that matters. Can't argue what Miami has done the last 4 years. But that recipe they are following eventually will run out. At some point, drafting and developing becomes a factor. You can rely much more heavily on developing the players you have, than banking on signing a bunch of people.

"Buying VS Building" May All Really Come Down To Splitting Hairs

Hey kd,
I thing you have once again raised THE pertinent question - a very useful skill for helping to push forward "mass debates". You seem to have a knack for that, a fine skill in anybody, especially a mod.

So, taking less so your team can get quality role players is supposedly OK; but IF those would-be role players are just a little better in quality, if they are stars, then taking less money so your team can get them is NOT ok?

Look at how things turned out. The Spurs "quality role players" outplayed the HEAT's "superstars". So who were really the quality role players and who were the superstars (outside of LeBron - most would give him at least that much).

It seems to me a kind of cheating to take less so your team can sign on additional quality players (of whatever level). If it's ok for one team's players, then it's gotta be ok for any other team's players. Then the question comes down to, given that kind of "cheating"; what's fair?

I don't think there's a consistent morals-based stand one can take. How could I argue FOR the signing of multiple good role players (who might and often do turn into fine players) and argue AGAINST the signing of less numbers of supposed bigger stars. Same difference to me - and then, as you say, it all comes down to results. Both versions of "buying" by "cheating" by taking less money than one might deserve - resulted in multiple Finals appearances and one or more rings for each team.

Wouldn't you say that IF Miami had won; we'd have much more of this "they just bought their Chips"; yet the Spurs bought a number of quality subs who contributed enough to make the difference in this series. But nobody is questioning their "buying" of those pieces.

In other words, I think that the whole "building vs buying" "debate" is a mis-nomer. Pretty much NO teams just build; and NO teams just buy. They all do some of both; and then we're just splitting hairs (often to justify our own team over the others). And, it appears to me, to just be a screen, a somewhat "easy-sell" cover for an underlying complaining about the other team's success.

DemarDerozan
07-05-2014, 10:43 AM
How did the Raptors get screwed?

They were forced to give up their franchise player for their own previous draft pick and James Johnson.

kdspurman
07-05-2014, 11:01 AM
"Buying VS Building" May All Really Come Down To Splitting Hairs

Hey kd,
I thing you have once again raised THE pertinent question - a very useful skill for helping to push forward "mass debates". You seem to have a knack for that, a fine skill in anybody, especially a mod.

So, taking less so your team can get quality role players is supposedly OK; but IF those would-be role players are just a little better in quality, if they are stars, then taking less money so your team can get them is NOT ok?

Look at how things turned out. The Spurs "quality role players" outplayed the HEAT's "superstars". So who were really the quality role players and who were the superstars (outside of LeBron - most would give him at least that much).

It seems to me a kind of cheating to take less so your team can sign on additional quality players (of whatever level). If it's ok for one team's players, then it's gotta be ok for any other team's players. Then the question comes down to, given that kind of "cheating"; what's fair?

I don't think there's a consistent morals-based stand one can take. How could I argue FOR the signing of multiple good role players (who might and often do turn into fine players) and argue AGAINST the signing of less numbers of supposed bigger stars. Same difference to me - and then, as you say, it all comes down to results. Both versions of "buying" by "cheating" by taking less money than one might deserve - resulted in multiple Finals appearances and one or more rings for each team.

Wouldn't you say that IF Miami had won; we'd have much more of this "they just bought their Chips"; yet the Spurs bought a number of quality subs who contributed enough to make the difference in this series. But nobody is questioning their "buying" of those pieces.

In other words, I think that the whole "building vs buying" "debate" is a mis-nomer. Pretty much NO teams just build; and NO teams just buy. They all do some of both; and then we're just splitting hairs (often to justify our own team over the others). And, it appears to me, to just be a screen, a somewhat "easy-sell" cover for an underlying complaining about the other team's success.

Yea good point. It's ok for any team to do whatever they want of course. I think the perception is different from fans when multiple guys in their prime (not role players) are doing it to join forces. But nothing wrong with it at all.

i think the point i was trying to hammer home, was a team (not just Miami) trying to always hit homeruns in free agency, is not a team that will necessarily get lucky all the time and you will see them struggle once their superstars leave. I think developing talent that is there sitting on teams benches is an even bigger problem, and that's on the coach/front office.

And that issue starts with instability in the front office, from the president/GM. how many times have we seen coaches get fired after 1 or 2 years? That is not an environment a coach might feel comfortable in, and it trickles down to players. At that point, coaches will only play their best people in fear of losing their job, and players will try and put up numbers to continue to get playing time. I saw a lot of OKC fans upset because Brooks had not played his bench nearly enough in the regular season, and in the playoffs relied heavily on WB/Durant. And it's not like they didn't have young talent on their bench. Now those guys are perfectly capable of winning games for you, but at some point, you will need other guys to step up. Similar with Miami, if other guys had been more incorporated with the team and their philosophies (Beasley is a name I keep seeing brought up) maybe it's a more competitive series.

I think if more front office took the time to develop internally, then striking out on superstars in free agency would not be as demoralizing. You have to build and buy (since all players are paid) to be successful. That's why there has been a lot of talk about the Spurs and should other teams copy them, etc... It won't work for every team. But the one thing the Spurs have that other teams should copy is front office trust and consistency. The process takes time, and in recent memory, most front offices want to be a quick one, which is not always reasonable.

ink
07-05-2014, 06:25 PM
There are a lot of delusional people in this thread.

There are like two contenders that were built. The Spurs and the Thunder. Every other team has been bought with other team's drafted players as their primary guys. The Spurs and Thunder are the only teams that drafted their main core (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Kahwi, Splitter)(Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Jackson, Adams) and developed those guys into a contending cast.

Whether you buy a team with cap space, with draft picks, with TPEs, or franchise players forcing their way out in lopsided trades, it's bought nonetheless.

You must only be talking about today.

ink
07-05-2014, 06:28 PM
Where have you been then? They get booed in Utah of all places. The East was weak this year yes, but the 3 previous years was not even close to what it was this year, again just stop. Those Celtics teams were really good, Derrick Roses's Bulls were good, the 2013 Bulls without Rose were tough, and even Indiana is tough, especially in 2013. But besides that, we still have to play the toughest team in that tough western conference and we are 2-2 in that. Making the Finals 4 years in a row has only happened 4 times now so matter how much you try to discredit Miami, it is one of the most impressive things ever seen in the NBA.

Miami didn't break any rules in 2010 but for the people like you, that's the worst part.

Lol... as much as you want to act like it's nothing... the fact is, I don't get the feeling MIA really even cares about that team. Showing up late to games, leaving in the middle of Final's games... even their forum is pretty dead.

It's just not the same pride, I know this first hand as a Yankee fan.

It is what it is, I'm sure it's still nice having a super team... but it does go against the whole competitive spirit... there's no denying that.

I don't even get the feeling that the players care about the Heat or Miami. its mercenary.

mjm07
07-05-2014, 08:05 PM
So let me guess there should not be a free agency? Or a team shouldn't have the smartest brain in the business and grab all the free agents they can within the cap limit? What is it?

Can't have it both ways. Pretty sure same fans that hate the Heat because they had the greatest free agents ever in a year wanted all of LeBron, Wade, and Bosh. They would love it if Pat Riley was their president/gm. Those same teams are crying for LeBron and Melo this year and would be ecstatic if they can and them. Pathetic.

This. In the early 2000's, Lakers bought their championships too. But regardless, a franchise does whatever they can to get the better talent. Plain and simple. Spurs do it better than everyone. Infinite respect to that organization. But so what if the HEAT or anyone else for that matter brings in FA's to obtain championships!!!! One does whatever it takes. Everything else doesn't matter. GO HEAT!

ink
07-05-2014, 09:10 PM
So let me guess there should not be a free agency? Or a team shouldn't have the smartest brain in the business and grab all the free agents they can within the cap limit? What is it?

Can't have it both ways. Pretty sure same fans that hate the Heat because they had the greatest free agents ever in a year wanted all of LeBron, Wade, and Bosh. They would love it if Pat Riley was their president/gm. Those same teams are crying for LeBron and Melo this year and would be ecstatic if they can and them. Pathetic.

This. Hold crap some of you posters are some serious b! Tches. In the early 2000's, Lakers bought their championships too. Nobody said sh ! t. But regardless, a franchise does whatever they can to get the better talent. Plain and simple. Spurs do it better than everyone. Infinite respect to that organization. But so f-ing what if the HEAT or anyone else for that matter brings in FA's to obtain championships!!!! One does whatever it takes. Everything else doesn't matter. GO F-ING HEAT!

Since you have "infinite respect" for the Spurs organization, you'll know and respect the fact that it was the Spurs that coined the slogan "built not bought". Quality built from the ground up not bought talent is what fuels their system.

And btw please refrain from insulting other posters whose opinions you don't agree with. Thanks.

MavsUCCB
07-05-2014, 09:12 PM
I can't subscribe to the idea that championships are being bought, all the teams play with the same salary cap. Get 3 superstars and you have no depth that's the trade off. Move the Heat to the West they'd get their 50 wins but would be struggling for home court in the first round.

FlashBolt
07-05-2014, 09:25 PM
Ask yourself, if James went to your team, would you be complaining? I very much doubt you would. No one was crying about the Decision being publicized until he said South Beach. No one was burning his jersey saying he betrayed them until he said South Beach. All these people getting mad are the one's who wished he said "Madison Square Garden", "Staples Center", or "The Bulls".

ink
07-05-2014, 09:33 PM
I can't subscribe to the idea that championships are being bought, all the teams play with the same salary cap. Get 3 superstars and you have no depth that's the trade off. Move the Heat to the West they'd get their 50 wins but would be struggling for home court in the first round.

Yep, the new cap was designed precisely with that in mind: to make it hard to buy championships. And the other guy had it right when he said the Lakers have been doing it for a while. This isn't just an anti-Heat idea, it's about improving the league and improving the play. I think two or three superstar ball is boring and I've had enough of it. It's an inferior TEAM product. After seeing the Spurs win I'm spoiled, I dont want to settle for a marketing campaign of hyped stars over good solid brilliant team play.

SPURSFAN1
07-05-2014, 09:40 PM
"Buying VS Building" May All Really Come Down To Splitting Hairs

Hey kd,
I thing you have once again raised THE pertinent question - a very useful skill for helping to push forward "mass debates". You seem to have a knack for that, a fine skill in anybody, especially a mod.

So, taking less so your team can get quality role players is supposedly OK; but IF those would-be role players are just a little better in quality, if they are stars, then taking less money so your team can get them is NOT ok?

Look at how things turned out. The Spurs "quality role players" outplayed the HEAT's "superstars". So who were really the quality role players and who were the superstars (outside of LeBron - most would give him at least that much).

It seems to me a kind of cheating to take less so your team can sign on additional quality players (of whatever level). If it's ok for one team's players, then it's gotta be ok for any other team's players. Then the question comes down to, given that kind of "cheating"; what's fair?

I don't think there's a consistent morals-based stand one can take. How could I argue FOR the signing of multiple good role players (who might and often do turn into fine players) and argue AGAINST the signing of less numbers of supposed bigger stars. Same difference to me - and then, as you say, it all comes down to results. Both versions of "buying" by "cheating" by taking less money than one might deserve - resulted in multiple Finals appearances and one or more rings for each team.

Wouldn't you say that IF Miami had won; we'd have much more of this "they just bought their Chips"; yet the Spurs bought a number of quality subs who contributed enough to make the difference in this series. But nobody is questioning their "buying" of those pieces.

In other words, I think that the whole "building vs buying" "debate" is a mis-nomer. Pretty much NO teams just build; and NO teams just buy. They all do some of both; and then we're just splitting hairs (often to justify our own team over the others). And, it appears to me, to just be a screen, a somewhat "easy-sell" cover for an underlying complaining about the other team's success.

Tim and Manu aren't taking pay cuts. They can't play 40+mins a game for 82 games not including the playoffs. They also don't do back to backs and rest other days when they occasionally don't feel good. They don't move like they used to and get injured quite often. They are both liable to get injured and drop off into retirement really quickly if you don't take care of them. Manu and Tim are around 38 years old. They still played the same low minutes during the playoffs with an occasional 40min game. I'm honestly tired of thinking the spurs take paycuts. Big myth that people don't understand. If a team shells out big money and they get injured, they'd look like morons.

ink
07-05-2014, 10:08 PM
"Buying VS Building" May All Really Come Down To Splitting Hairs

Hey kd,
I thing you have once again raised THE pertinent question - a very useful skill for helping to push forward "mass debates". You seem to have a knack for that, a fine skill in anybody, especially a mod.

So, taking less so your team can get quality role players is supposedly OK; but IF those would-be role players are just a little better in quality, if they are stars, then taking less money so your team can get them is NOT ok?

Look at how things turned out. The Spurs "quality role players" outplayed the HEAT's "superstars". So who were really the quality role players and who were the superstars (outside of LeBron - most would give him at least that much).

It seems to me a kind of cheating to take less so your team can sign on additional quality players (of whatever level). If it's ok for one team's players, then it's gotta be ok for any other team's players. Then the question comes down to, given that kind of "cheating"; what's fair?

I don't think there's a consistent morals-based stand one can take. How could I argue FOR the signing of multiple good role players (who might and often do turn into fine players) and argue AGAINST the signing of less numbers of supposed bigger stars. Same difference to me - and then, as you say, it all comes down to results. Both versions of "buying" by "cheating" by taking less money than one might deserve - resulted in multiple Finals appearances and one or more rings for each team.

Wouldn't you say that IF Miami had won; we'd have much more of this "they just bought their Chips"; yet the Spurs bought a number of quality subs who contributed enough to make the difference in this series. But nobody is questioning their "buying" of those pieces.

In other words, I think that the whole "building vs buying" "debate" is a mis-nomer. Pretty much NO teams just build; and NO teams just buy. They all do some of both; and then we're just splitting hairs (often to justify our own team over the others). And, it appears to me, to just be a screen, a somewhat "easy-sell" cover for an underlying complaining about the other team's success.

Tim and Manu aren't taking pay cuts. They can't play 40+mins a game for 82 games not including the playoffs. They also don't do back to backs and rest other days when they occasionally don't feel good. They don't move like they used to and get injured quite often. They are both liable to get injured and drop off into retirement really quickly if you don't take care of them. Manu and Tim are around 38 years old. They still played the same low minutes during the playoffs with an occasional 40min game. I'm honestly tired of thinking the spurs take paycuts. Big myth that people don't understand. If a team shells out big money and they get injured, they'd look like morons.

I don't even understand what pay cuts have to do with this. The issue is developing within, with a system from the ground up, working through failure as a team, not by buying new toys.

SPURSFAN1
07-05-2014, 10:15 PM
I don't even understand what pay cuts have to do with this. The issue is developing within, with a system from the ground up, working through failure as a team, not by buying new toys.

If you read his second paragraph, he talks about players taking less money, hence paycuts. Since he is taking the difference in approach between the Spurs and Heat, I inferred he was using Tim and Manu as his primary examples from the Spurs.

ink
07-05-2014, 10:28 PM
I don't even understand what pay cuts have to do with this. The issue is developing within, with a system from the ground up, working through failure as a team, not by buying new toys.

If you read his second paragraph, he talks about players taking less money, hence paycuts. Since he is taking the difference in approach between the Spurs and Heat, I inferred he was using Tim and Manu as his primary examples from the Spurs.

IMO people try to deflect away from the point that building means intelligent championship development. Money is secondary. That's the WHOLE POINT.

SPURSFAN1
07-05-2014, 10:31 PM
IMO people try to deflect away from the point that building means intelligent championship development. Money is secondary. That's the WHOLE POINT.

I don't even know what we're arguing to tell you the truth. :laugh:

ink
07-05-2014, 10:38 PM
I don't even know what we're arguing to tell you the truth. :laugh:

Exactly! I think the Spurs settled the argument once and for all this year. :D

SPURSFAN1
07-05-2014, 10:40 PM
Exactly! I think the Spurs settled the argument once and for all this year. :D

I'm seriously lost. :laugh2:

dhopisthename
07-05-2014, 10:43 PM
I see what you're saying, but don't agree with your Spurs example. Nothing about the Spurs has been lucky, except maybe the stars aligning for them to get Tim Duncan. Other than that they have been operating with picks in the 20's ever since. It's not that they get lucky, it's that they are a grade A++ organization and have an incredible developmental system and coaching system in place. The players the Spurs get are successful because they are on the Spurs.

Just as they take players off of waivers/FA and turn them into valuable pieces (Danny Green, Boris Diaw, Patty Mills for recent example) they do the same with late draft picks. They take a guy like Kyle Anderson, whose lack of top level athleticism turned most teams away, and will turn him into a solid, all around and two way player in a couple of years time.

The big thing for SA is that they were ahead of the international curve, which led to them getting Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili as late as they did back in the day. If those drafts happened now, with the way all 30 teams now scout internationally, I don't think you see those two there for the Spurs picks anymore. Since then it's not like they have been pulling All-Stars out of the late 1st/2nd round picks that they've had. Notable drafted Spurs since then are what? Tiago Splitter, solid but nothing special. George Hill, good for the 26th pick that they used on him but again nothing special. The flipping of George Hill for a 16th pick just two years after drafting him is what was special, and that allowed them to get a talent like Kawhi Leonard.

But again, would Kawhi Leonard be Kawhi Leonard if he wasn't a Spur? Hmmmmm.

the thing with the spurs though is that half of being a great organization is getting a tim duncan. no tim duncan and who knows what happens. as for the draft, yes they are brilliant drafters, but they have had some amazing luck there as well. I mean kahwi should have been taken way before the spurs should have been able to trade up for him. most draft places had him as a top 7 talent in the draft and he fell to 14th. if you listen to simmons at all you know the famous the celtics almost took tony parker story. if tp is gone the spurs don't get someone nearly as good.

ink
07-05-2014, 10:46 PM
Ask yourself, if James went to your team, would you be complaining? I very much doubt you would. No one was crying about the Decision being publicized until he said South Beach. No one was burning his jersey saying he betrayed them until he said South Beach. All these people getting mad are the one's who wished he said "Madison Square Garden", "Staples Center", or "The Bulls".

Who says everyone would want Lebron on their team? Who says everyone would want Kobe or Melo or Howard or any of these other jerks on their team? Did you watch the end of the finals this year when the Spurs showed that they obviously were a TEAM? They are close friends who fought together to win. That doesn't apply to these other goofs who only want to add a ring to their resume. Seriously it's sickening to watch fans lap up the star drivel we get served by the NBA.

It takes a coach like Pops who tells it like it is to set the whole mess straight. Stars need to get over themselves.

Most of all though, fans need to get over the stars and the bogus star worship.

ink
07-05-2014, 10:52 PM
I'm seriously lost. :laugh2:

Just watch your team. They know what's up. You're damn lucky. That is one of the greatest organizations in NBA history.

mjm07
07-06-2014, 12:14 AM
Since you have "infinite respect" for the Spurs organization, you'll know and respect the fact that it was the Spurs that coined the slogan "built not bought". Quality built from the ground up not bought talent is what fuels their system.

And btw please refrain from insulting other posters whose opinions you don't agree with. Thanks.

Apologies for the profanities.

Spurs do it best. They've created a system that's second to none and they should be applauded. What the HEAT have accomplished shouldn't hold lesser value simply because the players that achieved championships were acquired via free agency. Spurs tried to bring in McGrady and g. Hill at one point. I'm sure Spurs fans wouldn't have minded had that occurred. The hypocrisy is hilarious.

Once again respect to the Spurs, they're the champs. Arison/ Riley will retool once again through free agency.

verceroth
07-06-2014, 01:24 AM
It should be more like day trading vs long term investments.

Every player in every team is getting paid by the organization. So in a sense all the championships are "bought".

Kaner
07-06-2014, 02:46 AM
I think built is always going to come off as more impressive (as it should). When a GM builds a team it's on a even playing field with the other 29 gm's duking it out with luck and planning going hand in hand. If the example of bought is Miami then players deciding to take less then there Market value to give themselves an advantage is obviously not going to be as impressive.

mjm07
07-06-2014, 04:19 PM
I think built is always going to come off as more impressive (as it should). When a GM builds a team it's on a even playing field with the other 29 gm's duking it out with luck and planning going hand in hand. If the example of bought is Miami then players deciding to take less then there Market value to give themselves an advantage is obviously not going to be as impressive.

How isn't it impressive?? When it's usually the case that players take their market value from the highest bidder instead of taking less to build a more formidable team. Shouldn't players willing to take less money be commended for their selflessness?

ink
07-06-2014, 04:46 PM
I think built is always going to come off as more impressive (as it should). When a GM builds a team it's on a even playing field with the other 29 gm's duking it out with luck and planning going hand in hand. If the example of bought is Miami then players deciding to take less then there Market value to give themselves an advantage is obviously not going to be as impressive.

How isn't it impressive?? When it's usually the case that players take their market value from the highest bidder instead of taking less to build a more formidable team. Shouldn't players willing to take less money be commended for their selflessness?

I suppose that might impress some but it's still not building a team from the ground up. Taking less as a FA just helps the team buy other FAs. The idea behind built teams is internal development, not acquiring players other teams have developed.

Sanjay
07-07-2014, 07:08 PM
Personally I hate the Heat not for the players or their choices.. If your a free agent and want to team together and try and win.. I have no issue with that.. My issue came with the how the trio played the media game going on tours with teams talking it all up generating all this PR and when the decision was made already..

Then the capper was the franchises over the top arrogant intro of the players and general attitude..
Thats is why I hate the Heat and lost 95% of my interest in the NBA..

Fair enough, I guess you can get back interest into the NBA now that the Heat have lost!

ManRam
07-07-2014, 07:09 PM
Here's my take: why does it matter? Every team is operating under the same rules. Get good however you can.

ink
07-07-2014, 07:12 PM
Here's my take: why does it matter? Every team is operating under the same rules. Get good however you can.

If your profession is chef you don't feel much pride by just ordering off the menu.

Making it yourself, developing the talent, is what it's all about.

Sanjay
07-07-2014, 07:15 PM
I personally don't have a problem with teams that are willing to spend a ton of money to bring the absolute best players in to help win a title. The way I see it is every owner in the NBA has the same opportunity. Every owner in the NBA has the opportunity to go out and hire the best staff to put the best team on the court. Some people do it through the draft (like the Spurs), some teams do it through trades (like the Mavs), and some teams do it through free agency (like the Heat). In the end the goal is to win the title by any means necessary.

I guess an anti free agency person would say building through the draft is climbing your way from the bottom to the top, whereas free agency is just spending money to jump yourself straight to the top?

ManRam
07-07-2014, 07:17 PM
If your profession is chef you don't feel much pride by just ordering off the menu.

Making it yourself, developing the talent, is what it's all about.

No. It's about winning and putting the best product out there. Doesn't matter how it's achieved. A ring is a ring. Team success is team success.

TylerSL
07-07-2014, 07:19 PM
If your profession is chef you don't feel much pride by just ordering off the menu.

Making it yourself, developing the talent, is what it's all about.

If you own a restaurant would you rather develop your own chefs or go out and get the best chefs in town? The answer is whatever makes you the most profitable/successful. Built vs Bought is a dumb argument.

Wrench
07-07-2014, 07:21 PM
I like how this is about Miami being "bought" and Spurs being "built" yet Miami had 5 players and Spurs had 6 players they drafted (Miami with 6 if you count Beasley) the rest being FAs or trades.

TylerSL
07-07-2014, 07:21 PM
I guess an anti free agency person would say building through the draft is climbing your way from the bottom to the top, whereas free agency is just spending money to jump yourself straight to the top?

When have the Lakers ever done that?!?

Mr.B
07-07-2014, 07:23 PM
I guess an anti free agency person would say building through the draft is climbing your way from the bottom to the top, whereas free agency is just spending money to jump yourself straight to the top?
Some might say that. In the end though the goal is the same, to win a title. If they choose to take the long way there that's their choice.

ink
07-07-2014, 07:24 PM
No. It's about winning and putting the best product out there. Doesn't matter how it's achieved. A ring is a ring. Team success is team success.

It doesn't matter to you. It matters to the Spurs ... for example.

ink
07-07-2014, 07:25 PM
When have the Lakers ever done that?!?

They definitely haven't done it this millenium. There's no doubt about that. They bought each of their rings at least since Shaq. It's wrong to say that the Heat are the only team that buys championships.

ink
07-07-2014, 07:27 PM
I like how this is about Miami being "bought" and Spurs being "built" yet Miami had 5 players and Spurs had 6 players they drafted (Miami with 6 if you count Beasley) the rest being FAs or trades.

Two words.

Core.

Players.

Hawkeye15
07-07-2014, 07:33 PM
I could care less how a chip team is set up.

TylerSL
07-07-2014, 07:35 PM
Two words.

Core.

Players.

Again its a bad argument. As I said above it does not matter if you, as the owner of a restaurant, develop your own chefs or go get the best chefs in town. Whatever makes you the most successful.

Perhaps one could argue that the Spurs way is "better" than the Miami way as it has produced 5 Championships in 16 years, but that has been over the course of 16 years. I would actually compare Miami to San Antonio from 2006 as Miami had Wade, but not Lebron/Bosh while in '99 when the Spurs won their first title, they had Duncan, but not Parker/Manu. In that scenario, San Antonio has 5 titles and 6 appearances in 16 years (98-99/13-14) while Miami has 3 titles and 5 appearances in 8 years (05-06/13-14).

All in all, built vs. bought is a **** argument and when people use it, it just proves lack of perspective.

Muttman73
07-07-2014, 07:38 PM
What Miami did was a disgrace, three ego driven divas who couldn't win it on their own, well 2 anyway...
If the owners did something like that it would be called collusion.

LeBron can't win **** if he's not surrounded by All-Stars, what a joke.

The Heat deserve all the hate they get.

Sanjay
07-07-2014, 07:40 PM
The thing with the whole Built vs. Bought Paradigm is people love the latter when the former is much more common.

We're people shunning the Lakers when they signed Shaq to team with Kobe? No Shaq=No rings

Did People Poo-Poo Barkley-Pippen-and Hakeem joining forces in Houston? Don't remember it.

How about Harden and Dwight in Houston now? Doubt it.

The things is "built" teams like the Spurs and Thunder are VERY VERY hard to maintain since the better you become, the higher your draft pick. Everybody can't be the spurs and draft all star starters in the Late first and second rounds (Parker, Manu, Dragic,etc.)

For a team to compete for a title, it usually needs a mix of built and bought; a couple of core guys you draft with that one markee agent that's potent enough to put the team over the top. Examples include:

Clippers (Blake+CP3)
Memphis (Marc Gasol+ ZBO)
Golden State (Curry/Klay+Lee and (maybe) Love)
Miami (Dwade+ LBJ/Bosh)
late 2000s Celtics (Pierce+KG/Allen)
2000s Pistons (Billups+ the Wallaces)

etc. etc.

Maybe some people would justify Kobe and Shaq by saying Bryant was the best player on the Lakers and he was 'drafted' by them, similarly for Pierce and Garnett/Allen. You could say the Pistons bought the championship in 2004, but I don't know if that was their realistic goal when they acquired Billups in 2002. As for the rest of the examples, none have/has won a championship so I guess nobody hates them (yet). I think people who dislike the Heat do so because they bought the best player to win.

Sanjay
07-07-2014, 07:44 PM
When have the Lakers ever done that?!?

Do you mean when have the Lakers built through the draft or are you joking that they 'bought' rings with Shaq?

ink
07-07-2014, 07:46 PM
If you own a restaurant would you rather develop your own chefs or go out and get the best chefs in town? The answer is whatever makes you the most profitable/successful. Built vs Bought is a dumb argument.

I'm talking about pride in what you make. The pride of actual basketball professionals, not the purchasing power of owners. RC Buford takes pride in having built the Spurs, and he has every right to.

btw Buford has been with the Spurs since 1988 when he started as an assistant coach to Larry Brown so he's also a product of their organization. There's an art to building a dynasty and they have mastered the art.

The distinction is that they build their team and their players ON THE COURT, developing their talent internally, while bought teams are constructed in the boardroom from parts other teams develop. It takes more basketball skill to build a player from the ground up rather than just buy ready-made superstars.

Wrench
07-07-2014, 07:55 PM
What Miami did was a disgrace, three ego driven divas who couldn't win it on their own, well 2 anyway...
If the owners did something like that it would be called collusion.

LeBron can't win **** if he's not surrounded by All-Stars, what a joke.

The Heat deserve all the hate they get.

Yet he took a Cav team with no one around him to the Finals.

Who ever won a title alone?

Sanjay
07-07-2014, 08:08 PM
I ran into a friend who was born and raised in Miami last year from my gym. You know what he told me when I asked who he was cheering for to win it? SA? Really, a Miami Native wanting the spurs to win?

"MIA bought their team, The spurs built theres" That's mainly why I hate the heat, a Manipulative GM with a stingy owner who just signs players and gets them to take paycuts to win championships. It's bad for sports.
I know SA has taken paycuts for their top players but thosep layers are past their prime and have been with the spurs for YEARS. I think Duncan shouldnt ge that much money anyways at this point in his career which is why I dont think them taking a paycut for like 10 mil is a huge problem.

It seems the Heat fanbase has seen band-wagoners jump on them and home-grown fans leaving. A college example could be used: I assume more say Louisville students would support their team than Kentucky. Louisville won in 2013 with senior Peyton Silva and juniors Russ Smith and Gorgui Deng who had all been at the school their entire careers. In contrast, Kentucky are renowned for their one-and-done recruitment strategy.

ManRam
07-07-2014, 08:21 PM
It doesn't matter to you. It matters to the Spurs ... for example.

OK. What does it get them tho? A better sense of worth? More of a sense of accomplishment? That's fine...but tangibly it doesn't matter one bit to anyone on the outside.

The Spurs are the model organization, no doubt. But their ring in 2014 is no different than Miami's in 2013 in the end historically speaking.

thephoenixson28
07-07-2014, 08:25 PM
No championships are bought, and some championships are hardly built. Lakers had the best team in the NBA at one point and they lost. With GP, Karl Malone ect. .. I don't blame James for leaving nor do I blame him for join other 2 all stars. San Antonio showed everyone championships can't always be bought.

ink
07-07-2014, 08:27 PM
It doesn't matter to you. It matters to the Spurs ... for example.

OK. What does it get them tho? A better sense of worth? More of a sense of accomplishment? That's fine...but tangibly it doesn't matter one bit to anyone on the outside.

The Spurs are the model organization, no doubt. But their ring in 2014 is no different than Miami's in 2013 in the end historically speaking.

I think it is historically very important. Yes they get the pride in having had the basketball skills to build the players, the roster, the team cohesion, themselves.

They built them on the practice court. Yes it is a better sense of worth because in life it is not only about results. For a practising professional, process is valuable. What differentiates the rings a built team wins over those a bought team wins? What's the difference between buying anything that raises your status and doing it yourself? Doing it yourself proves your org has the core talent from bottom to top to achieve the ultimate.of course that's more worthy. That's why they are the model org.

TylerSL
07-07-2014, 08:33 PM
I'm talking about pride in what you make. The pride of actual basketball professionals, not the purchasing power of owners. RC Buford takes pride in having built the Spurs, and he has every right to.

btw Buford has been with the Spurs since 1988 when he started as an assistant coach to Larry Brown so he's also a product of their organization. There's an art to building a dynasty and they have mastered the art.

The distinction is that they build their team and their players ON THE COURT, developing their talent internally, while bought teams are constructed in the boardroom from parts other teams develop. It takes more basketball skill to build a player from the ground up rather than just buy ready-made superstars.

And Miami can take a ton of pride in making the coup they did in 2010. They had prepared for 2010 since 2007 and has competed ever since doing it. You can say Miami built what they did when they maneuvered for years to accomplish what they did. Because Miami did what they did, the NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement was set up to break the team up. I would say Miami can take pride in that. At the end of the day, you just want the best team.

And Miami can also take pride in getting Shaq and competing back then too. Miami has always been able to put talent around Wade to compete. No they haven't won 50 games for 17 years but they have competed a lot since they got Wade. That's why, as I stated earlier, one could argue that the Spurs way is "better" than the Heat way. But specifically, built vs. bought is bad argument.

TylerSL
07-07-2014, 08:36 PM
Do you mean when have the Lakers built through the draft or are you joking that they 'bought' rings with Shaq?

built, I thought you were saying you were an anti free agent guy.

TylerSL
07-07-2014, 08:39 PM
I think it is historically very important. Yes they get the pride in having had the basketball skills to build the players, the roster, the team cohesion, themselves.

They built them on the practice court. Yes it is a better sense of worth because in life it is not only about results. For a practising professional, process is valuable. What differentiates the rings a built team wins over those a bought team wins? What's the difference between buying anything that raises your status and doing it yourself? Doing it yourself proves your org has the core talent from bottom to top to achieve the ultimate.of course that's more worthy. That's why they are the model org.

So are you saying Miami did not earn their titles?

Pablonovi
07-07-2014, 09:36 PM
No. It's about winning and putting the best product out there. Doesn't matter how it's achieved. A ring is a ring. Team success is team success.

"Legal" "Cheating", "Illegal Cheating" & Everything In Between: Doesn't Matter?

Hey ManRam,
I think you've made a lot of great points in this thread.
However, there's something about this one in particular that "rings" caution bells in my (poor) head (so please stop!) hehe.

I mean, doesn't it give you some kind of creeps to say, "Doesn't matter how it's achieved." ?
What's my point? Well there's "legal" "cheating" and then there's "illegal cheating" and then there's everything in between right?

The more I think about all of this, the less I'm sure I "know" what's right and wrong.

ink
07-07-2014, 10:09 PM
And Miami can take a ton of pride in making the coup they did in 2010. They had prepared for 2010 since 2007 and has competed ever since doing it. You can say Miami built what they did when they maneuvered for years to accomplish what they did. Because Miami did what they did, the NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement was set up to break the team up. I would say Miami can take pride in that. At the end of the day, you just want the best team.

And Miami can also take pride in getting Shaq and competing back then too. Miami has always been able to put talent around Wade to compete. No they haven't won 50 games for 17 years but they have competed a lot since they got Wade. That's why, as I stated earlier, one could argue that the Spurs way is "better" than the Heat way. But specifically, built vs. bought is bad argument.

You skipped over the entire point. The "coup" as you call it was a contender being bought. You're excited about the business transactions.

I'm excited about the basketball skill at every level of the organization that builds a champion from the ground up. Building your OWN team is significant, especially in this age of bought champs.

IMO fans like to BS about player moves because it's like Monopoly and we can fake that we know what we're talking about. You can't fake player development, coaching and actual playing. You hardly see anyone talk about the meat and potatoes work that actually goes into BUILDING not buying a champion. That work doesn't happen with "coups", it happens when players (like the Spurs last off-season and all regular season) gut it out and improve so they can win the championship.

ink
07-07-2014, 10:14 PM
So are you saying Miami did not earn their titles?

If they've "earned" their titles they will have to share them with the teams that drafted and developed the stars that won them the titles. That's where the hard work was done.

Oh, and if we're talking about the hard work that got the 3 amigos together we have to credit Jerry Colangelo and Coach K for their work teaching team concepts to these guys. If you followed the period between the 2004 bronze medal and the 2008 gold medal, you will know it was those two who built the base that the Heat capitalized on in 2010.

The Heat were the beneficiaries not the builders.

btw, to reiterate that I don't see the Heat as the only bought team, pretty much the same thing applies to the Lakers rings since Shaq was bought.

kdspurman
07-07-2014, 10:25 PM
I think it is historically very important. Yes they get the pride in having had the basketball skills to build the players, the roster, the team cohesion, themselves.

They built them on the practice court. Yes it is a better sense of worth because in life it is not only about results. For a practising professional, process is valuable. What differentiates the rings a built team wins over those a bought team wins? What's the difference between buying anything that raises your status and doing it yourself? Doing it yourself proves your org has the core talent from bottom to top to achieve the ultimate.of course that's more worthy. That's why they are the model org.

It's also important to maybe other teams who are not fortunate enough to attract big named free agents and make them feel like they've got a chance to be successful despite that. I feel like that's the biggest thing after the Spurs won it this year, and more people posing the question, will other teams try and emulate.

It's obviously not easy, and takes patience from coaches, players, and front offices. But that's where the issue is. 1 (or more) of those 3 gets impatient and makes a drastic move and many times causes a domino effect on the franchise.

3ballbomber
07-07-2014, 10:40 PM
Are people still seriously justifying, making excuses and denying Miami bought their team? you'd be either very naive, blind or completely stupid to think Miami did not. Why do you think there's so much backlash for Miami? because everybody opposing views are haters or hating? lol. It's very much widely frowned upon. There's no need to elaborate on it.

Yanks All Day
07-07-2014, 11:28 PM
To be fair, the only thing that matters is winning. When the story is told on teams, people tend to overlook the truth and go straight to the championships.

Bill Russell has 11 rings. Doesn't matter that he played in a league of 10 teams and his Celtics teams were stacked with Hall of Famers left and right.

Michael Jordan has 6 rings. To most, he basically won them on his own. Never mind that he also played on some of the most stacked teams ever.

Magic Johnson has 5. "He said he'd never call up Larry and join forces." Ignoring the fact that Magic has said he would have stayed in school had the Bulls won the rights to draft him instead of playing with KAJ and the Lakers.

Kobe has 5. Greatest killer mentality since Jordan. Many will believe he'll always be better than LeBron. People conveniently forget he was the 2nd best player on the 3 peat and demanded a trade out of LA once his team started losing.

Point is, history tends to only remember the good, aka the rings. The details on the way to the rings don't matter as much because the bottom line is winning. I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" way to build a team. The point of playing is to win championships. Miami has 3 of the last 9 titles (and 5 appearances in that span) and San Antonio has 5 of the last 16 (and 6 total appearances). They're both model franchises in their own right.

It's also almost unfair to use the Spurs as an example. They're just so next-level unique and impressive that they're clearly the outlier franchise of the league. Can't expect anyone to be run like San Antonio.

Kevj77
07-07-2014, 11:31 PM
If they've "earned" their titles they will have to share them with the teams that drafted and developed the stars that won them the titles. That's where the hard work was done.

Oh, and if we're talking about the hard work that got the 3 amigos together we have to credit Jerry Colangelo and Coach K for their work teaching team concepts to these guys. If you followed the period between the 2004 bronze medal and the 2008 gold medal, you will know it was those two who built the base that the Heat capitalized on in 2010.

The Heat were the beneficiaries not the builders.

btw, to reiterate that I don't see the Heat as the only bought team, pretty much the same thing applies to the Lakers rings since Shaq was bought.What qualifies as built even the Spurs sign free agents. Last time I checked Robert Horry and Bruce Bowen were fairly important in several of the Spurs title runs. Does it only apply to big time free agents Like Shaq or the Big 3 in Miami. Most of the Lakers players except for Shaq were MLE type players or acquired through draft or trade. Shaq makes the last 5 Lakers titles bought?

ink
07-07-2014, 11:43 PM
When the story is told on teams, people tend to overlook the truth ...

Yes they do.


What qualifies as built even the Spurs sign free agents. Last time I checked Robert Horry and Bruce Bowen were fairly important in several of the Spurs title runs.

So you're comparing role players to superstars? The entire point is that bought teams win with force through the domination of the best money can buy. Built teams win with great coaching and development of role players.


Does it only apply to big time free agents Like Shaq or the Big 3 in Miami. Most of the Lakers players except for Shaq were MLE type players or acquired through draft or trade. Shaq makes the last 5 Lakers titles bought?


Shaq or Pau. Yes, they were obviously bought. I would find it surprising to hear from a Lakers fan that didn't revel in the fact that their front office buys rings. Every so often it blows up big time, like with Payton and Malone in 2004 or more recently, Howard and Nash, but yes, that's the MO. Come on, is there really a debate on that point? lol.

Kevj77
07-08-2014, 12:02 AM
LA bought Pau, Howard and Nash now you are getting carried away. Trades are considered buying? Payton and Malone were ring chasers the Spurs have signed their share of those remember Michael Finely. It sounds like you just don't like players changing teams.

ink
07-08-2014, 12:07 AM
LA bought Pau, Howard and Nash now you are getting carried away. Trades are considered buying? Payton and Malone were ring chasers the Spurs have signed their share of those remember Michael Finely. It sounds like you just don't like players changing teams.

Now you're comparing Pau, Howard, Nash, Malone and Payton to Michael Finley. I think you are illustrating my point. The bulk of the players from a built team are internally developed. They will add key role players but that is not the same as adding MVPs. Come on.

Nobody said they shouldn't add key role players to an established culture. The issue is with buying the core.

Pablonovi
07-08-2014, 12:09 AM
To be fair, the only thing that matters is winning. When the story is told on teams, people tend to overlook the truth and go straight to the championships.

Bill Russell has 11 rings. Doesn't matter that he played in a league of 10 teams and his Celtics teams were stacked with Hall of Famers left and right.

Michael Jordan has 6 rings. To most, he basically won them on his own. Never mind that he also played on some of the most stacked teams ever.

Magic Johnson has 5. "He said he'd never call up Larry and join forces." Ignoring the fact that Magic has said he would have stayed in school had the Bulls won the rights to draft him instead of playing with KAJ and the Lakers.

Kobe has 5. Greatest killer mentality since Jordan. Many will believe he'll always be better than LeBron. People conveniently forget he was the 2nd best player on the 3 peat and demanded a trade out of LA once his team started losing.

Point is, history tends to only remember the good, aka the rings. The details on the way to the rings don't matter as much because the bottom line is winning. I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" way to build a team. The point of playing is to win championships. Miami has 3 of the last 9 titles (and 5 appearances in that span) and San Antonio has 5 of the last 16 (and 6 total appearances). They're both model franchises in their own right.

It's also almost unfair to use the Spurs as an example. They're just so next-level unique and impressive that they're clearly the outlier franchise of the league. Can't expect anyone to be run like San Antonio.

Hey YAD,
Pretty impressive post. My favorite part is your reference to "outlier". That is the word, isn't. The Spurs are not really an example; they are a freak, outlier. That kind of thing perhaps just can't be copied - it just uncopiably special.

TylerSL
07-08-2014, 12:15 AM
To be fair, the only thing that matters is winning. When the story is told on teams, people tend to overlook the truth and go straight to the championships.

Bill Russell has 11 rings. Doesn't matter that he played in a league of 10 teams and his Celtics teams were stacked with Hall of Famers left and right.

Michael Jordan has 6 rings. To most, he basically won them on his own. Never mind that he also played on some of the most stacked teams ever.

Magic Johnson has 5. "He said he'd never call up Larry and join forces." Ignoring the fact that Magic has said he would have stayed in school had the Bulls won the rights to draft him instead of playing with KAJ and the Lakers.

Kobe has 5. Greatest killer mentality since Jordan. Many will believe he'll always be better than LeBron. People conveniently forget he was the 2nd best player on the 3 peat and demanded a trade out of LA once his team started losing.

Point is, history tends to only remember the good, aka the rings. The details on the way to the rings don't matter as much because the bottom line is winning. I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" way to build a team. The point of playing is to win championships. Miami has 3 of the last 9 titles (and 5 appearances in that span) and San Antonio has 5 of the last 16 (and 6 total appearances). They're both model franchises in their own right.

It's also almost unfair to use the Spurs as an example. They're just so next-level unique and impressive that they're clearly the outlier franchise of the league. Can't expect anyone to be run like San Antonio.


This

Kevj77
07-08-2014, 12:17 AM
Now you're comparing Pau, Howard, Nash, Malone and Payton to Michael Finley. I think you are illustrating my point. The bulk of the players from a built team are internally developed. They will add key role players but that is not the same as adding MVPs. Come on.

Nobody said they shouldn't add key role players to an established culture. The issue is with buying the core.I didn't compare Pau, Nash or Howard to Finely. I said they were a result of trades. I don't consider trade the same as signing free agents.

Yes, Payton and Malone were ring chasers. Finely was a ring chaser that signed in San Antonio you can't compare ring chasers to Shaq or Lebron when it come to free agency that is just freaking ridiculous.

ink
07-08-2014, 12:20 AM
This

Well, not really, considering he missed the point after his very first line.

Winning at all costs is what gave us Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

Winning through hard work and best skill in a team game is all that matters. It's not just about the result.

ink
07-08-2014, 12:23 AM
I didn't compare Pau, Nash or Howard to Finely. I said they were a result of trades. I don't consider trade the same as signing free agents.

Yes, Payton and Malone were ring chasers. Finely was a ring chaser that signed in San Antonio you can't compare ring chasers to Shaq or Lebron when it come to free agency that is just freaking ridiculous.

Your distinction is "ring chasers". Shall we apply that to Bosh and LBJ who can also easily be seen as ring chasers? They were frustrated Olympians who wanted to win easily like they did in Beijing, but they didn't want to see it through with their NBA teams. So they decided to join up to find an easier way to win.

The point is that you brought up near MVPs - Payton, Malone, Pau - who were bought to win rings for the Lakers and tried to compare them to a specialist like Finley who was brought in to play a role like Ray Allen. Not the same thing. And we haven't even talked about how Shaq bought the Lakers their first three rings in the 2000s. The Heat are not the only bought team.

TylerSL
07-08-2014, 12:26 AM
Well, not really, considering he missed the point after his very first line.

Winning at all costs is what gave us Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

Winning through hard work and best skill in a team game is all that matters. It's not just about the result.

No

Basketball is a team game and we are talking about building teams that compete for titles, not individual winners who cheated. You're acting as if there is absolutely no gray area and there is. Success is success, Miami has 3 titles and 5 appearances in 8 years, San Antonio has 5 titles and 6 appearances in 16 years. At the end of the day, it does not matter how you get there, just that you do. Miami played under the same rules as everyone else, so well the owners changed them in fact.

ink
07-08-2014, 12:30 AM
No

Basketball is a team game and we are talking about building teams that compete for titles, not individual winners who cheated. You're acting as if there is absolutely no gray area and there is. Success is success, Miami has 3 titles and 5 appearances in 8 years, San Antonio has 5 titles and 6 appearances in 16 years. At the end of the day, it does not matter how you get there, just that you do. Miami played under the same rules as everyone else, so well the owners changed them in fact.

Again, you're making the point about buying the rings. I'm making the point about developing players through basketball skill to win those rings. There is a difference. The Heat championships -- and the Lakers -- were bought. It has been hard to compete against that kind of corporate dominance with basketball skills but the Spurs have done it.

Kevj77
07-08-2014, 12:33 AM
Ink can I ask you two questions please. If you don't mind.

1. Are you in favor of a hard cap?

2. Do you believe there should be a franchise tag?

ink
07-08-2014, 12:39 AM
Ink can I ask you two questions please. If you don't mind.

1. Are you in favor of a hard cap?

2. Do you believe there should be a franchise tag?

Yes I think the NFL system works better. I realize the composition and size of the rosters is radically different but I'm sick of the low IQ level of some NBA players dictating the type of teams we get to watch. I really think the league has become dumbed down, far beneath other leagues.

TylerSL
07-08-2014, 12:42 AM
Again, you're making the point about buying the rings. I'm making the point about developing players through basketball skill to win those rings. There is a difference. The Heat championships -- and the Lakers -- were bought. It has been hard to compete against that kind of corporate dominance with basketball skills but the Spurs have done it.

You talk about how Miami only won rings because they bought them, well San Antonio only got Tim Duncan because David Robinson got hurt in 1996-1997. Had he not got hurt, San Antonio does not get Duncan which means no 17 straight 50 win seasons (I count that 37-13 strike season), and no 6 appearances and 5 titles. Truth is though, that does not matter because San Antonio did get Duncan. Same as Miami did maneuver the roster for 4 years to bring in Lebron/Bosh. San Antonio's rings may make you feel better, but 1 still equals 1.

SPURSFAN1
07-08-2014, 12:46 AM
you talk about how miami only won rings because they bought them, well san antonio only got tim duncan because david robinson got hurt in 1996-1997. Had he not got hurt, san antonio does not get duncan which means no 17 straight 50 win seasons (i count that 37-13 strike season), and no 6 appearances and 5 titles. Truth is though, that does not matter because san antonio did get duncan. Same as miami did maneuver the roster for 4 years to bring in lebron/bosh. San antonio's rings may make you feel better, but 1 still equals 1.

1 colluded. 1 didn't. Facts

ink
07-08-2014, 12:46 AM
You talk about how Miami only won rings because they bought them, well San Antonio only got Tim Duncan because David Robinson got hurt in 1996-1997. Had he not got hurt, San Antonio does not get Duncan which means no 17 straight 50 win seasons (I count that 37-13 strike season), and no 6 appearances and 5 titles. Truth is though, that does not matter because San Antonio did get Duncan. Same as Miami did maneuver the roster for 4 years to bring in Lebron/Bosh. San Antonio's rings may make you feel better, but 1 still equals 1.

Can't even begin to say how off base that is. You went astray in your first sentence.

I understand that you're defending your team. That's cool. But the two approaches obviously have nothing in common. You're really stretching with these unlike comparisons.

TylerSL
07-08-2014, 12:50 AM
1 colluded. 1 didn't. Facts

3/5 in 8 years to 5/6 in 16. Facts.

How it happens make no concern to me. I think San Antonio is the best all around organization in sports. Only point I'm trying to make is results are results. Built vs. Bought when everyone plays under the same rules just doesn't make sense to me.

Mr.B
07-08-2014, 12:50 AM
I didn't compare Pau, Nash or Howard to Finely. I said they were a result of trades. I don't consider trade the same as signing free agents.

Yes, Payton and Malone were ring chasers. Finely was a ring chaser that signed in San Antonio you can't compare ring chasers to Shaq or Lebron when it come to free agency that is just freaking ridiculous.
Whoa! I just saw you guys talking about Michael Finley! I can't believe we actually have some Finley talk in here! The Spurs signing Finley is not exactly the same as Miami signing the big 3. Finley was well past his prime by the time S.A. signed him. He was basically just a spot up shooter by the time he got to the Spurs. He also signed for the league minimum (because he was amnestied and Cuban was still paying him about $20 mil). His situation though was similar to theirs in the sense that he was chasing a ring (which many older players do). At that point in his career though he had earned the right to chase a ring. After his rookie contract was up he had the chance to leave Dallas. He was unrestricted and could have gone anywhere but he chase to stay in Dallas when NO ONE wanted to play in Dallas. Keep in mind this was pre-Dirk and pre-Nash.

Y'all probably didn't want all that info but I will always be a Finley fan for what he did for the Mavs.

Mr.B
07-08-2014, 12:53 AM
Ink can I ask you two questions please. If you don't mind.

1. Are you in favor of a hard cap?

2. Do you believe there should be a franchise tag?
You didn't ask me but I will say no to both questions. I've never been a fan of the NFL's system.

Kevj77
07-08-2014, 12:54 AM
Yes I think the NFL system works better. I realize the composition and size of the rosters is radically different but I'm sick of the low IQ level of some NBA players dictating the type of teams we get to watch. I really think the league has become dumbed down, far beneath other leagues.Cool I think we just have different philosophical views. You're obviously pro small markets and pro owners. I won't argue that it would lead to more parity. I just don't think it would lead to more exciting basketball.

I also believe ownership has to held accountable players have no choice who drafts them and restricted free agency makes sure they spend about 7 years with the team that drafts them. Who knows if Duncan stays in SA if he doesn't already have a ring and the Spurs aren't a contender when he first became a free agent. Spurs do it right no doubt about it. What about poorly run franchises should they be able to keep a Lebron indefinitely?

ink
07-08-2014, 12:57 AM
3/5 in 8 years to 5/6 in 16. Facts.

How it happens make no concern to me. I think San Antonio is the best all around organization in sports. Only point I'm trying to make is results are results.

How it happens means everything to people who have seen the sport deteriorate and idiot FAs dictate what we watch. We're living in an era of unsympathetic "stars" in the NBA, from Kobe to Lebron to Howard to the next jerk who comes along. Why do you think people embrace players like Durant so quickly? Because they're sick of the arrogance and entitlement of the "stars" we have to put up with.

What I love about Pops is that he says to hell with all of that the moment players walk through the Spurs practice facility doors.

SPURSFAN1
07-08-2014, 12:59 AM
3/5 in 8 years to 5/6 in 16. Facts.

How it happens make no concern to me. I think San Antonio is the best all around organization in sports. Only point I'm trying to make is results are results. Built vs. Bought when everyone plays under the same rules just doesn't make sense to me.

So you think 3 in 8 is better than 5 in 16 years? 5 rings is better than 3 rings bra. The heat aren't even making the ECF if lebron leaves. No more rings for ya.

ink
07-08-2014, 01:01 AM
Cool I think we just have different philosophical views. You're obviously pro small markets and pro owners. I won't argue that it would lead to more parity. I just don't think it would lead to more exciting basketball.

Why accept the parameters of the last labour negotiation?

And I have never seen better basketball in my lifetime than this year's finals. So for excitement value, I'll take this year's champs 1,000 times out of 1,000.


I also believe ownership has to held accountable players have no choice who drafts them and restricted free agency makes sure they spend about 7 years with the team that drafts them. Who knows if Duncan stays in SA if he doesn't already have a ring and the Spurs aren't a contender when he first became a free agent. Spurs do it right no doubt about it. What about poorly run franchises should they be able to keep a Lebron indefinitely?

All I can say is that these stars have a ton of say in the direction their franchises take. They blame the FO when they leave but they were there when every personnel decision was being made.

SPURSFAN1
07-08-2014, 01:01 AM
Whoa! I just saw you guys talking about Michael Finley! I can't believe we actually have some Finley talk in here! The Spurs signing Finley is not exactly the same as Miami signing the big 3. Finley was well past his prime by the time S.A. signed him. He was basically just a spot up shooter by the time he got to the Spurs. He also signed for the league minimum (because he was amnestied and Cuban was still paying him about $20 mil). His situation though was similar to theirs in the sense that he was chasing a ring (which many older players do). At that point in his career though he had earned the right to chase a ring. After his rookie contract was up he had the chance to leave Dallas. He was unrestricted and could have gone anywhere but he chase to stay in Dallas when NO ONE wanted to play in Dallas. Keep in mind this was pre-Dirk and pre-Nash.

Y'all probably didn't want all that info but I will always be a Finley fan for what he did for the Mavs.

I can't believe someone actually made a comparison like that. Pulling at straws if you ask me.

Kevj77
07-08-2014, 01:07 AM
All I can say is that these stars have a ton of say in the direction their franchises take. They blame the FO when they leave but they were there when every personnel decision was being made.Isn't that poor management? Would Pop let players dictate his roster?

Mr.B
07-08-2014, 01:14 AM
Isn't that poor management? Would Pop let players dictate his roster?
Heck no! He lays own the law before players even sign there. Just look at the way he talks to Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili when they make a mistake. If Labron, Bosh, Wade, Howard, Harden, or Melo spent a good portion of their career with the Spurs they wouikd be completely different people than what they are today. They would be much more humble people.

ink
07-08-2014, 01:14 AM
All I can say is that these stars have a ton of say in the direction their franchises take. They blame the FO when they leave but they were there when every personnel decision was being made.Isn't that poor management? Would Pop let players dictate his roster?

They're damned if they do etc with the Kobe's and Melos and Howard's and lebrons of the world. These guys are *******s who have armies of fans to argue 24/7 for them.

Seriously, when fans say SHUT UP to these guys, we will get our sport back.

Kevj77
07-08-2014, 01:19 AM
They're damned if they do etc with the Kobe's and Melos and Howard's and lebrons of the world. These guys are *******s who have armies of fans to argue 24/7 for them.

Seriously, when fans say SHUT UP to these guys, we will get our sport back.Really, I was talking about management of NBA franchises and you change the subject to fans. If my teams GM reads PSD for management advise I'll be pissed.

mjm07
07-08-2014, 01:25 AM
oh boy. Let me know when you get off your high horse.

Ink - you make excellent points regarding development. Spurs do it best. And you've made it clear you frown upon teams buying championship. But I know you know Spurs tried the FA route with McGrady and Hill and came up empty. I wonder how different your tune would be now had they been signed. Alas, we'll never know.

Mr.B
07-08-2014, 01:41 AM
Really, I was talking about management of NBA franchises and you change the subject to fans. If my teams GM reads PSD for management advise I'll be pissed.
Haha!

ink
07-08-2014, 01:45 AM
Really, I was talking about management of NBA franchises and you change the subject to fans. If my teams GM reads PSD for management advise I'll be pissed.

No, I mean that fans should stop being the narcissistic supply for these ridiculous stars. Stop arguing over them, supporting them, obsessing over them. Why don't we demand great ball instead of big names? Probably because you don't get the big fan base without a lot of newb fans. That's why I think it hinges on fans' ball IQ. Very few seem to care about bball, most seem to be obsesssed with personalities they see online. I really think that's the problem.

Imagine if people cared more about player development and less about free agency and star egos.

ink
07-08-2014, 01:48 AM
oh boy. Let me know when you get off your high horse.

Ink - you make excellent points regarding development. Spurs do it best. And you've made it clear you frown upon teams buying championship. But I know you know Spurs tried the FA route with McGrady and Hill and came up empty. I wonder how different your tune would be now had they been signed. Alas, we'll never know.

I don't know that. I know you know that McGrady was waaaay past his prime when they picked him up as a potential role player (even though he did nothing last post season) and that George Hill was a 25th pick that they developed to such a degree that Indiana gave up a 16th pick for him, which turned into KLeonard, who turned into a finals MVP. That was a big draft upgrade, and exactly the way the Spurs have been able to keep this run of success going: upgrading assets.

TylerSL
07-08-2014, 01:57 AM
So you think 3 in 8 is better than 5 in 16 years? 5 rings is better than 3 rings bra. The heat aren't even making the ECF if lebron leaves. No more rings for ya.

It seems you did not read my post. "I think the Spurs are the best organization in sports". No team is going to win 50 games for almost 20 years in a row ever again. That's like an NFL team winning 12 games a season or an MLB team winning 90 over the same amount of consecutive seasons. Stop being so sensitive about something I did not even say. Miami has produced more in the last 8 years in titles though.

off topic, Lebron is not leaving.

Kevj77
07-08-2014, 02:09 AM
No, I mean that fans should stop being the narcissistic supply for these ridiculous stars. Stop arguing over them, supporting them, obsessing over them. Why don't we demand great ball instead of big names? Probably because you don't get the big fan base without a lot of newb fans. That's why I think it hinges on fans' ball IQ. Very few seem to care about bball, most seem to be obsesssed with personalities they see online. I really think that's the problem.

Imagine if people cared more about player development and less about free agency and star egos.You are ridiculous. It hinges on fans now.

GMs and owners should be held accountable for bad decisions. Players like Lebron James have the right to eventually decide their own fate. Trades are a part of smart management and so are signing free agents.

ink
07-08-2014, 02:19 AM
You are ridiculous. It hinges on fans now.

GMs and owners should be held accountable for bad decisions. Players like Lebron James have the right to eventually decide their own fate. Trades are a part of smart management and so are signing free agents.

Absolutely it hinges on fans. This isn't MONOPOLY, this is a competitive sport.

Lebron and others had a major hand in the decision making of their teams. They just don't have the intestinal fortitude to suck it up when they lose.

Look at the Spurs last year. They had a brutal heartbreaking loss after having victory ripped away from them when they should have won. What did they do? Whine about "help" or just get back at it and get better?

Fans need to be smart enough to call athletes on their ****. I don't mean to vilify them. I mean like Riley just did to Lebron, they need to call him out about not running from failure.

That's why the built model works. You don't run away from failure. You don't demand that your FO fixes everything by bringing in more superstars (hello Melo). You gut it out and grow as an athlete, grow as a team.

That's what BUILT means.

Kevj77
07-08-2014, 02:28 AM
In the NBA there is only three ways to improve.

1. Draft
2. Trade
3. Sign a free agent

You imply trades and signing free agents better than a role player is the same as buying a championship. The only correct way is to draft and develope. Management is completely at the whims of their star players and are completely helpless. Only fans can save us, but those damn big market fans are newbs holding back the NBA.

ink
07-08-2014, 02:39 AM
In the NBA there is only three ways to improve.

1. Draft
2. Trade
3. Sign a free agent

You imply trades and signing free agents better than a role player is the same as buying a championship. The only correct way is to draft and develope. Management is completely at the whims of their star players and are completely helpless. Only fans can save us, but those damn big market fans are newbs holding back the NBA.

I think both of us know that you're trying a strawman argument instead of responding to the points I've actually written.

Kevj77
07-08-2014, 02:45 AM
I think both of us know that you're trying a strawman argument instead of responding to the points I've actually written.Trying to pull out the strawman argument after you tried to change the subject. What is next ad hominem attacks? Wait you already tried to call large market fans newb fans.

ink
07-08-2014, 02:50 AM
I think both of us know that you're trying a strawman argument instead of responding to the points I've actually written.Trying to pull out the strawman argument after you tried to change the subject. What is next ad hominem attacks? Wait you already tried to call large market fans newb fans.

Find me the quote where I said that. Yes, fans are a huge problem but it has nothing to do with market size. I'm not "pulling" any argument and not changing any subject, just not letting you try to deflect with parody. My points stand. Read them, don't distort them.

Kevj77
07-08-2014, 03:00 AM
No, I mean that fans should stop being the narcissistic supply for these ridiculous stars. Stop arguing over them, supporting them, obsessing over them. Why don't we demand great ball instead of big names? Probably because you don't get the big fan base without a lot of newb fans. That's why I think it hinges on fans' ball IQ. Very few seem to care about bball, most seem to be obsesssed with personalities they see online. I really think that's the problem.

Imagine if people cared more about player development and less about free agency and star egos.Here

ink
07-08-2014, 03:14 AM
Here

"Big fan base" does not equal big market. Superstars have huge fan bases from all over the world, often of newb fans. Is that a controversial statement? I think we all agree on that.

Look, my point is pretty clear: the complaint about bought teams is that they aren't built on the floor by the team itself. They cash in on other people's work, other teams' work. You can rationalize that this is the way the CBA works but even that isn't true because the league has done what it could to stop teams from buying their superteams. It's a practice the league is trying to stop.

And yes, I'm a huge fan of teams being BUILT the right way, in practice gyms, in small moves that spot great potential in middling to late draft picks like the Spurs did with Parker, Ginobili, Hill, Leonard, etc. I also think the foundation for a built team has to be at least one elite player and that player needs to be developed in their system from the ground up.

The thing that is praiseworthy about built teams is the direct relationship between their rings and the intensive and long term dedication they give to the talent they're developing. That shows basketball skills on a drafting, coaching and management level, it shows skills from the fundamentals up. And as someone who is absolutely passionate about basketball, I celebrate teams that build from the ground up.

Kevj77
07-08-2014, 04:03 AM
If you sign Shaq or Lebron you bought it. If you trade for Pau you bought it. What if you trade Shaq for future picks and tank getting the number one pick? Draft a Duncan or Lebron, then you get a top 3 pick a couple years later and draft a great second option? Was it all about the draft or did the trade actually matter? For every action there is a reaction.

raiddalake
07-08-2014, 05:51 AM
Ink you are killing me with all these bad arguments using the LAkers. First of all your facts are wrong. The lakers did not buy a championship they built a team based on Shaq and the development of Kobe. The had to let Eddie Jones go back then to move Kobe in a better role. Shaq was the only free agent back then. The picked a bunch of old guys who could shoot threes. Rick fox, Glenn Rice and a kind of older Horry. These guys were not stars. Glenn rice was descent one of the best shooters but he was older played mo D. Even Rick fox played what 5 seasons. Ron Harper was old Gary Payton and Karl Malone were ring chasers no where near the players they were. Payton didnt fit the system. But there were no other superstars on the lakers besides Kobe and Shaq. What Lebron did was the equivalent of tmac joining Kobe in LA giving them Kobe Shaq and TMAC or if Iverson would have came. All this does is drop the competition level in the league. So stop with this whole salary cap stuff. Get a team build it around the star and go win one like the spurs did. Built around Duncan for years it worked. Build around your star

kdspurman
07-08-2014, 09:14 AM
oh boy. Let me know when you get off your high horse.

Ink - you make excellent points regarding development. Spurs do it best. And you've made it clear you frown upon teams buying championship. But I know you know Spurs tried the FA route with McGrady and Hill and came up empty. I wonder how different your tune would be now had they been signed. Alas, we'll never know.

FWIW, if you're referring to what I think you are, it was Orlando who had McGrady & Hill back in 2000, and it was Orlando who tried to get Duncan to go there. Spurs got McGrady last year when he was of course on his way out of the league, and have been interested in Hill at times, but again, both guys were far past their primes.

SPURSFAN1
07-08-2014, 09:20 AM
FWIW, if you're referring to what I think you are, it was Orlando who had McGrady & Hill back in 2000, and it was Orlando who tried to get Duncan to go there. Spurs of course got McGrady last year when he was of course on his way out of the league, and have been interested in Hill at times, but again, both guys were far past their primes.

He said it twice, but I didn't wanna correct him. lol

ink
07-08-2014, 10:22 AM
Ink you are killing me with all these bad arguments using the LAkers. First of all your facts are wrong. The lakers did not buy a championship they built a team based on Shaq and the development of Kobe. The had to let Eddie Jones go back then to move Kobe in a better role. Shaq was the only free agent back then. The picked a bunch of old guys who could shoot threes. Rick fox, Glenn Rice and a kind of older Horry. These guys were not stars. Glenn rice was descent one of the best shooters but he was older played mo D. Even Rick fox played what 5 seasons. Ron Harper was old Gary Payton and Karl Malone were ring chasers no where near the players they were. Payton didnt fit the system. But there were no other superstars on the lakers besides Kobe and Shaq. What Lebron did was the equivalent of tmac joining Kobe in LA giving them Kobe Shaq and TMAC or if Iverson would have came. All this does is drop the competition level in the league. So stop with this whole salary cap stuff. Get a team build it around the star and go win one like the spurs did. Built around Duncan for years it worked. Build around your star

Hardly bad arguments. Laker fans just don't like having it pointed out that their rings were bought too, they weren't really developed within and built. You were there when Kobe floundered on his own and they had to buy Gasol in a very controversial trade. You may have been there when they first bought Shaq. They didn't develop Shaq or Pau did they? They needed a big man and both times went out and got themselves the best ready-made star they could. Built means built, developed from within.

Sanjay
07-08-2014, 07:36 PM
built, I thought you were saying you were an anti free agent guy.

Magic, Jerry West and Baylor were all drafted and then went on to win championships as a Laker and of course Kobe was also basically drafted.

Sanjay
07-08-2014, 07:48 PM
How did the Raptors get screwed?

They finished at almost .500 in 2010 and then failed to get even close until this season.

Pablonovi
07-08-2014, 08:57 PM
Yes I think the NFL system works better. I realize the composition and size of the rosters is radically different but I'm sick of the low IQ level of some NBA players dictating the type of teams we get to watch. I really think the league has become dumbed down, far beneath other leagues.

Hey ink,
Mind clarifying to what you are referring in regards "low IQ's" and how that affects the types of teams we get to watch. I hadn't run into this criticism of the NBA before, "dumbed down" - and just don't know what you mean by it.

ink
07-08-2014, 09:10 PM
Yes I think the NFL system works better. I realize the composition and size of the rosters is radically different but I'm sick of the low IQ level of some NBA players dictating the type of teams we get to watch. I really think the league has become dumbed down, far beneath other leagues.

Hey ink,
Mind clarifying to what you are referring in regards "low IQ's" and how that affects the types of teams we get to watch. I hadn't run into this criticism of the NBA before, "dumbed down" - and just don't know what you mean by it.

Look at it this way, many of the coaches and GMs are ex players or college players and coaches who have accumulated a huge amount of basketball knowledge and ability. Along comes a generation of "superstars" who are great at what they do on the court but don't have the experience, perspective, knowledge, assessment ability, strategic ability, etc to call the shots.

But now suddenly they have the power to dictate where they play and who they play with. Usually I hear the argument on this point head directly to their "rights". That's a red herring.

This is about the quality of the game. I'm passionate about this. I don't want superstars calling the shots and dumbing down the game. I want seasoned basketball people developing strategy and players playing the game. Respect experience.

Management isn't some rich owner. Management is RC Buford, Rick Carlisle, Gregg Popivich, Doc Rivers, etc, etc. I don't want superstars running the league. I want veteran management talent to do it. When players determine the direction of the league over veteran ex players, coaches, and GMs, I consider that to be dumbing down the league.

Sanjay
07-09-2014, 01:54 AM
So you think 3 in 8 is better than 5 in 16 years? 5 rings is better than 3 rings bra. The heat aren't even making the ECF if lebron leaves. No more rings for ya.

I do not think the Heat would make the second round without James tbh.

Pablonovi
07-09-2014, 06:02 PM
I do not think the Heat would make the second round without James tbh.

Hey Sanjay,
I agree. I'm not even sure if, despite being in the super-weak LEastern Conf. they'd have made the Play-Offs without him; he does so much for that team, all season long, every season so far.