PDA

View Full Version : With Durant signing with the GS, does that hurt the NBA?



GiantsSwaGG
07-04-2016, 11:54 AM
GS won 73 games without Durant, will you guys still watch? Is this a negative for the NBA?

Dade County
07-04-2016, 12:06 PM
Who knows...

But i do feel like HEAT trade for Westbrook & Lbj comes running back to South Beach!!! Lmao

effen5
07-04-2016, 12:09 PM
Honestly, Lebron hurt the NBA when he left for Miami. It's now the new trend and it'll just keep getting worse. But this is what the league is now.

NYJ - NYY
07-04-2016, 12:10 PM
Honestly, Lebron hurt the NBA when he left for Miami. It's now the new trend and it'll just keep getting worse. But this is what the league is now.

I used to agree with that narrative. But Cleveland did nothing to help Lebron. He left because he wanted to win. Durant has a very strong team he left. Different situation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

*Silver&Black*
07-04-2016, 12:11 PM
Lakers better package all their young guys for a Cousins trade, cuz Westbrook is coming.

FlashBolt
07-04-2016, 12:18 PM
Honestly, Lebron hurt the NBA when he left for Miami. It's now the new trend and it'll just keep getting worse. But this is what the league is now.

Superteams existed before LeBron did it.. It's just because it is LeBron that you think he's the first.

ghettosean
07-04-2016, 12:18 PM
Honestly, Lebron hurt the NBA when he left for Miami. It's now the new trend and it'll just keep getting worse. But this is what the league is now.

This!

FlashBolt
07-04-2016, 12:20 PM
This!

Oh.. thought you disappeared after LeBron won

Confusious
07-04-2016, 12:24 PM
Warrior's are still Curry's team. He still will have to pass the ball to another, better, Westbrook. :D

No hate though, it was the best destination for him if he wants to win.

DboneG
07-04-2016, 12:29 PM
No. This is going to be great! Step your game up or be embarrassed.


The Cavs can beat them. And they will in the Finals. Durant is skinny, Curry is skinny. So, you can get to them because of their defense...it's not bad defense, but, it's not great either! Basketball is 50/50. The other half you are playing defense. Force the rotation to Draymond Green 1st, or Clay Thompson the majority of the time. Durant and Curry will start forcing shots if they are not shooting.

Vinylman
07-04-2016, 12:32 PM
More concentration of talent... The nba is a joke without a hard cap

xxplayerxx23
07-04-2016, 12:33 PM
So cavs beat a warrior team that had steph at 70% at max in game 7 . Warriors get durant and you think they are going to beat them this year lol: warriors basically started a dynasty only way to beat them is if you another set of players start a super team

Confusious
07-04-2016, 12:36 PM
I think we can all agree at least he didn't go to Boston.

Rivera
07-04-2016, 12:40 PM
I get to bandwagon with GS since Durant has always been one of my favorite players hahaha.

It was a punk move on Durants part but to be apart of a dynasty was too much to pass up.

Will2be
07-04-2016, 12:58 PM
Interesting conversation about these small market teams and their ability to keep and attract the superstar players. If (and probably when) Westbrook leaves OKC how does that team now put together a productive basketball product? If a team like OKC or Cleveland is only going to land a superstar in the draft just to see them leave for a bigger market how can these franchises survive?

*Silver&Black*
07-04-2016, 01:03 PM
Durant just hurt the league by creating Super Saiyan Westbrook who is going to destroy it.

Scoots
07-04-2016, 01:03 PM
How many max contracts do the Cavs have? How many do the Warriors have? How many of their top players were drafted by the Cavs? By the Warriors?

The Cavs are the team that was assembled more like Miami ... the Warriors have drafted well and signed their players to better contracts and developed with time.

Still, I'm amazed KD chose the Warriors ... but I'll watch.

FlashBolt
07-04-2016, 01:06 PM
How many max contracts do the Cavs have? How many do the Warriors have? How many of their top players were drafted by the Cavs? By the Warriors?

The Cavs are the team that was assembled more like Miami ... the Warriors have drafted well and signed their players to better contracts and developed with time.

Still, I'm amazed KD chose the Warriors ... but I'll watch.

What does that have to do with anything? Empty argument. We're talking about a team. Warriors are a better team than the Cavs without KD. They just choked.

Cracka2HI!
07-04-2016, 01:07 PM
This has been one of the worst off-season's in sports history for any sport. A collectively bargained agreement has never failed so miserably. We have backups and possible 3rd stringers making upwards of $8 to $10 million year. We have below average players being paid more than superstars. A top 5 team lost a top 3 player to unrestricted free agency and the craziest super team of all time was formed. These are all things a collective bargaining agreement is supposed to stop. A lock out is looming and it could be a very long ugly one.

GoferKing_
07-04-2016, 01:08 PM
Durant is now a bigger shiet to me than Lebron, good job.

Jets012
07-04-2016, 01:12 PM
Don't care what anyone says, this kills the NBA.

The NBA's biggest problem is parity. It always has been and more than likely always will be unless they get very creative in terms of cap space.

Last year was one of the most boring regular seasons to watch in terms of the lack of parity. And that's saying something because the last 10 years there has been virtually zero parity in the league.

So you now go from a sport that had 4 legitimate title contending teams last year in CLE/OKC/SA/GS (I'm not counting LAC or TOR because let's be honest those teams were never winning it all) and you're eliminating one of the big four teams and making one of the other ones exponentially better.

There is literally zero chance that a team not named the Spurs/Warriors/Cavs are winning a title next year. And that's being generous because San Antonio arguably has a slim chance to none to beat GS.

I have never seen a year in professional sports in which you can go into the season knowing that only 2 or 3 teams have a chance at winning it all. It has never happened in Baseball, never in Hockey, and never in Football. It doesn't even happen in the ****ing Premier League.

This is horrible for the league. I know I won't be watching any of the regular season. Oh well, maybe this will finally have a positive impact on the NHL.

Midnightbottle
07-04-2016, 01:12 PM
Hey but players dunk tho. Who cares if we're gonna have the same finals three years in a row.

Sent from my SPH-L520 using Tapatalk

GoferKing_
07-04-2016, 01:16 PM
I mean, there is no point in buying a ticket or watching in TV NBA right now when you know who will win it... for the next 3 years... and there will be only GSW-CAVs finals... NBA is dead now... players on other teams might as well just collect checks and play for fun.

*Silver&Black*
07-04-2016, 01:19 PM
They should hold a Cavs vs Warriors series, and a separate tourney for the others.

NYY 26 to 7
07-04-2016, 02:01 PM
How many max contracts do the Cavs have? How many do the Warriors have? How many of their top players were drafted by the Cavs? By the Warriors?

The Cavs are the team that was assembled more like Miami ... the Warriors have drafted well and signed their players to better contracts and developed with time.

Still, I'm amazed KD chose the Warriors ... but I'll watch.

The contracts are a function of the CBA, and Steph will be getting his max next year and Klay the year after. This is why there will be a lockout. Its the rookie scale deals and how contracts are structured - not a reflection of some amazing job the Warriors have done.

Durrant will have his opt out and resign an even bigger deal next offseason. The warriors could be spending almost $90 mill a year on 3 players soon. It is a matter of timing for them vs the Cavs so I'm not sure the point of this. Plus they have the same number of starters that were drafted by the team (and the Cavs traded Wiggins for Love and didn't sign him in FA like KD). Not sure of the point of what you're saying.

I do believe a lockout is coming and this accentuates the problems with the current state of the NBA and the contracts that have been handed out this offseason. They really should have smoothed the cap increases rather than these 2 years of sharp jumps that have thrown off the balance with the insanely overpaid middle class of the NBA.

europagnpilgrim
07-04-2016, 02:05 PM
Honestly, Lebron hurt the NBA when he left for Miami. It's now the new trend and it'll just keep getting worse. But this is what the league is now.

Honestly Magic hurt the nba when he stated while in college he wanted Kareem/Lakers, Chicago/Lakers had a coin flip to see who would get the top pick and had Chi won It then he would have returned to Mich St, so Magic hurt the nba by not wanting to go to a bottom level lottery team, Lebron got drafted by a bottom level team and left after 7yrs via free agency


Lebron helped the league bring back the glory days if you really look at it, superteams were galore in the 80's and 90's, even that Lakers squad of Shaq/Kobe/Rice was basically a superteam in early 00's

hugepatsfan
07-04-2016, 02:06 PM
Not right away but if they just dominate like they're supposed to people will lose interest in everything but the Finals.

Shawn2timer
07-04-2016, 02:06 PM
What a b**** move lol. At least it wasn't Boston. I really don't get it though, a top 5 player in his prime. Durant must've been the only dude rooting for Robin to kill the bad guy

*Silver&Black*
07-04-2016, 02:15 PM
Goes from having to 'share' with Westbrook, to now watching Curry and Thompson chuck half court shots as they give him a championship which he can put his name on.

jason
07-04-2016, 02:17 PM
Didn't think it would actually happen lol

kyubi256
07-04-2016, 02:23 PM
This is good for the NBA in my opinion... Like when Lebron went to Miami. Now people will watch to root against Golden State

BleedNewEngland
07-04-2016, 02:31 PM
I think this kills the nba. Whats the point in watching if you know whats going to happen. Theres no point in having a season wjen its obviously GS vs. Cavs in the finals and GS winning it all in 5 or 6 games. They already got the most wins in a season without Durant. Will they loose at all this year? The most wins in a season and wins in a row will probably be broken this year. On top of it the most wins in a season record lasted this long but itll be broken 2 years in a row? Im a Celtics fan and i would of loved him to come to Boston but even if he didnt it would of ben better to go anywhere else other than GS.

sneak
07-04-2016, 02:38 PM
This is good for the NBA in my opinion... Like when Lebron went to Miami. Now people will watch to root against Golden State

Root, but who is going to watch?

So, everyone will watch the Warrior's games, all televised of course, what about any small market team? In the age of instant gratification this maybe a real killer to the whole league, and while KD didn't set the rules to have it happen, he is the cog that will set it in motion.

Btw, he is a little baby to go to the Warriors. He was 1 out of 3 victories to bring his team to the finals, now he is just one of the bunch and should NEVER, EVER considered one of the best all time. It's pretty sad what he is doing and the nba, but rather the bigger problem, the players union who is going to sink their own ship.

Sorry about the rant, but why watch the mostly corrupt NBA, have no choice but to give the Warriors the championship next year. They have to change the "star, or superstar" calls or non-calls next year, or there really is no point in watching.

Pretty sick.

LA_Raiders
07-04-2016, 04:39 PM
It is, stacked teams make the game less competitive, but this is what the comish wanted...

TRIUMPHATOR
07-04-2016, 06:00 PM
What most of you don't realize is that the collective bargaining agreement won't fix the fact that guys like Durant, Curry, LeBron, make more money in endorsements than they do in salary. It's easy to take a paycut in NBA salary when you are making more in endorsements.

Only way to create parity and avoid smaller markets from going under is to slot players as a percentage according to the cap.

DanG
07-04-2016, 06:09 PM
Unfortunately, it helps the NBA. The regular season will be so meaningless though, but just imagine the ratings for game 1 Cavs vs Dubs in the finals.

FlashBolt
07-04-2016, 06:11 PM
Unfortunately, it helps the NBA. The regular season will be so meaningless though, but just imagine the ratings for game 1 Cavs vs Dubs in the finals.

And lets face it.. the casual fans (which make up for more than the diehard fans) are going to be tuning in regardless. It won't hurt the NBA. NBA is still by far the most entertaining sport for me (outside UFC fights), but throughout the year, I'll be tuning in to most games. The Finals will be ridiculous. Better yet, if OKC vs Warriors in the playoffs. That will be fun.

TRIUMPHATOR
07-04-2016, 06:14 PM
http://www.si.com/nba/2016/05/17/lebron-james-nike-deal-contract-one-billion

What team has any leverage against a player who has signed a billion dollar deal?

My preliminary breakdown is that teams will need slotted salaries. 3 A salaries, 6 B salaries, 3 C salaries, 3 D salaries.

All as a percentage of the cap. The percentages would have to be negotiated obviously, but the day of super teams disappears pretty quickly unless superstars decide to take B salaries.

TRIUMPHATOR
07-04-2016, 06:21 PM
What most of you don't realize is that the collective bargaining agreement won't fix the fact that guys like Durant, Curry, LeBron, make more money in endorsements than they do in salary. It's easy to take a paycut in NBA salary when you are making more in endorsements.

Only way to create parity and avoid smaller markets from going under is to slot players as a percentage according to the cap.


And lets face it.. the casual fans (which make up for more than the diehard fans) are going to be tuning in regardless. It won't hurt the NBA. NBA is still by far the most entertaining sport for me (outside UFC fights), but throughout the year, I'll be tuning in to most games. The Finals will be ridiculous. Better yet, if OKC vs Warriors in the playoffs. That will be fun.

It is while currently constructed. It won't be with the new TV deal, and as I've just posted, guys making several times more than thier actual employer can offer.

Small markets won't and can't survive. Sports franchises are not like fast food franchises, in that they don't want the others to disappear. In food, if you're the only one left, you reap 100% of the market. If you're the only NBA franchise left, 100% of playing no one is 0%.

Teams need each other, good or bad. This move is yet another in the wrong direction.

Scoots
07-04-2016, 07:26 PM
A lot of people consider the 80-90s the peak of the NBA, when there were a few dominant franchises. I don't know that a great team getting better hurts any more than OKC losing a great player hurts, or the team leaving Seattle for OKC hurt, or LeBron leaving the Cavs hurt. It's all water under the bridge to the average fan soon enough.

valade16
07-04-2016, 07:44 PM
A lot of people consider the 80-90s the peak of the NBA, when there were a few dominant franchises. I don't know that a great team getting better hurts any more than OKC losing a great player hurts, or the team leaving Seattle for OKC hurt, or LeBron leaving the Cavs hurt. It's all water under the bridge to the average fan soon enough.

There's a lot of truth to this. Not only from the casual fan but all of us.

I heard the same things about LeBron when he went to Miami, how all his rings are meaningless and he'll never be one of the greats.

And now near everyone has him top 10 (if not top 5) all-time. Eventually everyone will be like "Dick move by Durant, but his stats are great and he has X rings" and he'll start sliding up the all-time rankings.

KingJudah
07-04-2016, 07:45 PM
If the finals is gsw vs Cleveland I will not watch, however I sure as hell will be watching my up and coming sixers who will have a super team but did it the right way through the draft! With a sprinkle of free agency next year when we sign westbrook.

This durant **** is not suprising. The days of wanting to face the best players are long gone, these new age players for the most part have no heart and now we know durant is one with no heart. Lebron was a coward as well but he went back and won. I don't think the nba will be hurt but I do think people are going to be super passionate about destroying the warriors.

Scoots
07-04-2016, 09:38 PM
If the finals is gsw vs Cleveland I will not watch, however I sure as hell will be watching my up and coming sixers who will have a super team but did it the right way through the draft! With a sprinkle of free agency next year when we sign westbrook.

This durant **** is not suprising. The days of wanting to face the best players are long gone, these new age players for the most part have no heart and now we know durant is one with no heart. Lebron was a coward as well but he went back and won. I don't think the nba will be hurt but I do think people are going to be super passionate about destroying the warriors.
Lol. That's one of the funnier things I've read in a while. The warriors drafted their players and signed westbrooks teammate. Glad to hear you are a fan of the warriors method

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

JasonJohnHorn
07-04-2016, 11:02 PM
Honestly, Lebron hurt the NBA when he left for Miami. It's now the new trend and it'll just keep getting worse. But this is what the league is now.

People keep saying this, but free agency has been going on for decades. T-Mac and Hill signed on to play for what would have been a super team hd Hill stayed healthy, and in the past, players like Kareem used to just say"I demand a trade to LA" and teams would have to cough up their franchise player for nxt to nothing.



The league has had super teams from pretty much always. The Minny Laker? The Celtics of the 60's. The Sixers, Lakers, and Celtics of the 80's. I mean, the Sixers were a super team by today's standards: Moses, Dr. J, Maurice Cheeks and Andrew Toney, then they added Charles Barkely to that list. And they only had one ring, which wasn't even with Barkley. Lakers had Kareem, Magic, Nixon, Cooper, the Worthy, Scott and Green. Celtics had Bird, Parish and McHale, and DJ and then added Walton.

The Pistons and then Bulls had super teams.


The differences was that they were built through the draft, but they still had super teams. And these teams dominated the league. How fun do you think the playoffs were for non-Bulls fans betwen 91-98? But the league thrived.


The Warriors have one of the greatest rosters ever. People will tune in to watch. It's good for the league.

zookman65
07-04-2016, 11:20 PM
Boy everyone speaks of the sanctity of the draft as if it were divine providence. I don't care how the teams are built as long as we are all entertained.

JasonJohnHorn
07-04-2016, 11:31 PM
Don't care what anyone says, this kills the NBA.

The NBA's biggest problem is parity. It always has been and more than likely always will be unless they get very creative in terms of cap space..

When the league has parity, few people watch (see the 70's, and check out the ratings when Jordan left and then again after the Kobe/Shaq tandum broke up).



People want to see epic teams historic teams. They don't want to see the best team from a group of average teams. They want to watch super teams 3 or 4 teams manhandle the rest of the league, and then see these giants knock each other out. The Warriors, Spurs and Cavs this year, for example. Despite beingi the best team, all of them, except the Cavs, got knocked out by teams with worse records (Spurs got knocked off by OKC; Warriors got knocked off by Cavs).

What the Warriors did (drafting several All-Stars then signing an MVP) is no different than what the Cavs did (drafting several players and trading a # pick for an All-Star) and then signing an MVP (LBJ). The only difference is that the Warriors were better a drafting. You can't fault the Warriors for picking a player (Green) that the Cavs passed up on. And keep in mind, they also passed up on Klay.

FlashBolt
07-04-2016, 11:50 PM
Storylines create popularity. NBA competition might have lessened but the viewership will only increase. There are NBA fans outside PSD.

LA_Raiders
07-05-2016, 12:10 AM
Yes it does. There is no reason to watch until the conference finals really. Personally I will not watch as many as before, this league belongs to 3 loaded teams. NBA has become the least competitive league in US sports, just like the Spanish soccer league. Pathetic...

ewing
07-05-2016, 12:45 AM
yes

hidalgo
07-05-2016, 01:05 AM
hurts the nba bad in my opinion. when they win the title, they just cheated because it's team usa basically. a cowards championship

far beyond what the celtics or heat did, or the Lakers getting Gasol for Kwame Brown. this is far worse than all that because the warriors were already a big 3 superteam, & champs without durant. this is a big 4 superteam, all in their prime. he's such a wuss. can't beat'um, join'um

Vincent
07-05-2016, 01:14 AM
Still gotta play the games... lots of things can happen from not to next June.

Obviously the Warriors are the heavy favorite, but remember same time last year, the Warriors weren't even the favorite to repeat.

Perception changes very quickly as soon as the games start. It's one thing to have a champion on paper, it's another to go out and make it a reality.

More-Than-Most
07-05-2016, 01:21 AM
The lebron going to the heat with wade and bosh did not hurt or kill the NBA it made the NBA more interesting.... The raptors werent very good at the time and i dont think the heat were either... That being said as good as those 3 guys were they werent 8 deep like others seem to think... they had bench issues... They werent worlds better than the spurs/celtics and so on down the list....

This kills the NBA... Not because its the warriors but because they were already better than everyone else and this just made them light years better than everyone else... It was a massive massive blow because it took a top 3 player from the 2nd best team in all of basketball and a serious threat to the warriors... So now we have the cavs who will lack depth and the spurs which neither team got better as the only thing standing between the warriors and championships lol.... I will watch of course esp the warriors because it will be fun as **** watching them destroy everything but the will make things incredibly boring over the long haul. There is no team that is or will be close to them any time soon.

Lol people cant talk **** now.. East------------->West.... West has 2 legit teams now in the warriors/spurs and very little after those 2... East will have raptors/Hawls/Cavs/Celtics/Heat fighting each other

More-Than-Most
07-05-2016, 01:24 AM
Still gotta play the games... lots of things can happen from not to next June.

Obviously the Warriors are the heavy favorite, but remember same time last year, the Warriors weren't even the favorite to repeat.

Perception changes very quickly as soon as the games start. It's one thing to have a champion on paper, it's another to go out and make it a reality.

The only reason the warriors werent the favorite to repeat by some was because people thought the cavs would be better with both love/kyrie.... The cavs need to do something with love and find a way to get better or the warriors will sweep the cavs in the finals... Love/Kyrie cant be on the same team.

tredigs
07-05-2016, 01:36 AM
Lol people cant talk **** now.. East------------->West.... West has 2 legit teams now in the warriors/spurs and very little after those 2... East will have raptors/Hawls/Cavs/Celtics/Heat fighting each other
Huh??

I'll take the Clips over every team in the East not named the Cavs (who they could give a run for their money and potentially beat). Grizz also have a nice core with Conly/Parsons/Gasol. They'd easily fight for HCA in the East. NINE of the ten players on the All-NBA 1st+2nd Teams played in the West (and still play in the West). The East is still nowhere close. It's the Cavs and pretenders. Talking about a conference where the Raptors stumbled their way into the Conference Finals playing truly lackluster basketball.

mgjohnson7851
07-05-2016, 02:44 AM
Of course this hurts the NBA. TV viewership was down the majority of last season, and 4 out of the 7 NBA finals games viewership was over 10% lower than the year before. To make matters worse, NBA game attendance was also down.

I'm a Nuggets fan, but mainly a casual NBA fan. What I mean by that is that I'll watch the Nuggets games, but only typically watch the nationally televised games if it's an intriguing match up. If not, I'll just catch the highlights of all the games that night. I can say with certainty that I watched the least basketball of my life last season. Why? Because an astounding amount of National games featured GSW. I'm not about to waste my night watching GSW man handle the Lakers. Instead I found myself spending more time following the Broncos and Avs.

The ratings will suffer tremendously next season. TV stations will show nothing but GSW again, and the average fan won't tune in. NBA attendance will fall again because fans of small market teams won't be as excited about their team.

People didn't start paying attention to the finals until Cleveland showed potential of beating GSW. Viewership will sink dramatically unless GSW looks like they might choke again.

A professional sports league NEEDS 10-12 teams that can win a championship every year. Any more and the league becomes watered down, but any less and the average fans start to lose interest....right now the NBA has two teams that could win a championship. That's a real problem.

tredigs
07-05-2016, 03:08 AM
Of course this hurts the NBA. TV viewership was down the majority of last season, and 4 out of the 7 NBA finals games viewership was over 10% lower than the year before. To make matters worse, NBA game attendance was also down.

I'm a Nuggets fan, but mainly a casual NBA fan. What I mean by that is that I'll watch the Nuggets games, but only typically watch the nationally televised games if it's an intriguing match up. If not, I'll just catch the highlights of all the games that night. I can say with certainty that I watched the least basketball of my life last season. Why? Because an astounding amount of National games featured GSW. I'm not about to waste my night watching GSW man handle the Lakers. Instead I found myself spending more time following the Broncos and Avs.

The ratings will suffer tremendously next season. TV stations will show nothing but GSW again, and the average fan won't tune in. NBA attendance will fall again because fans of small market teams won't be as excited about their team.

People didn't start paying attention to the finals until Cleveland showed potential of beating GSW. Viewership will sink dramatically unless GSW looks like they might choke again.

A professional sports league NEEDS 10-12 teams that can win a championship every year. Any more and the league becomes watered down, but any less and the average fans start to lose interest....right now the NBA has two teams that could win a championship. That's a real problem.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

The NBA set their single season record for attendance last season (21,972,129), eclipsing the 2nd highest season ever which was 2014/15. The WCF's on TNT were the most viewed WCF's in cable history. TNT's playoff coverage as a whole (everything but the Finals) was up 16% overall. Viewership overall in the Finals was up 1% from last season, and up over 30% from the Spurs/Heat Finals in 2014. It was the most watched Finals since Jordan's Bulls last run in '98. And the only Finals in the last 30 years that had more viewership were all Showtime Lakers and Jordan's Bulls. You know... dominant dynasties...

The NBA has never and will never have 12 teams that can win a title. Next season will be no different. And it will likely be more popular than ever.

GoferKing_
07-05-2016, 03:13 AM
Lol people cant talk **** now.. East------------->West.... West has 2 legit teams now in the warriors/spurs and very little after those 2... East will have raptors/Hawls/Cavs/Celtics/Heat fighting each other

Nope, there are only two teams, GSW and CAVS, the rest of the league is irrelevant at this point... and GSW will obliterate CAVS in the finals, unless by some miraculous way they get Cousins or Paul and Griffin.

tredigs
07-05-2016, 03:20 AM
Nope, there are only two teams, GSW and CAVS, the rest of the league is irrelevant at this point... and GSW will obliterate CAVS in the finals, unless by some miraculous way they get Cousins or Paul and Griffin.

As of now the Spurs already have Kawhi/LMA/Duncan/Pau. That is a scary ****ing front-court for a 67 win team with the best coach in the game. I've seen teams anointed championships pre-season before (2010 Heat come to mind, same with Shaq/Kobe/Malone Lakers), and as often as not it does not work out.

More-Than-Most
07-05-2016, 03:22 AM
You have no clue what you're talking about.

The NBA set their single season record for attendance last season (21,972,129), eclipsing the 2nd highest season ever which was 2014/15. The WCF's on TNT were the most viewed WCF's in cable history. TNT's playoff coverage as a whole (everything but the Finals) was up 16% overall. Viewership overall in the Finals was up 1% from last season, and up over 30% from the Spurs/Heat Finals in 2014. It was the most watched Finals since Jordan's Bulls last run in '98. And the only Finals in the last 30 years that had more viewership were all Showtime Lakers and Jordan's Bulls. You know... dominant dynasties...

The NBA has never and will never have 12 teams that can win a title. Next season will be no different. And it will likely be more popular than ever.

Yup. I think the playoff ratings will drop off massively though because I think the warriors pull a lakers and sweep their way through the west and finals or at least come close and that will kill ratings.

More-Than-Most
07-05-2016, 03:24 AM
Huh??

I'll take the Clips over every team in the East not named the Cavs (who they could give a run for their money and potentially beat). Grizz also have a nice core with Conly/Parsons/Gasol. They'd easily fight for HCA in the East. NINE of the ten players on the All-NBA 1st+2nd Teams played in the West (and still play in the West). The East is still nowhere close. It's the Cavs and pretenders. Talking about a conference where the Raptors stumbled their way into the Conference Finals playing truly lackluster basketball.

I think the hawks are better than the clippers and you can count on the raptors/hawks to be healthy. Hawks match up horribly vs the cavs... They would play well against most other teams... If Bosh comes back healthy I think they are up there as well... Cavs Lost both Delly and Mos and might lose jefferson and as meaningless as that seems its the depth they need

tredigs
07-05-2016, 03:34 AM
Yup. I think the playoff ratings will drop off massively though because I think the warriors pull a lakers and sweep their way through the west and finals or at least come close and that will kill ratings.

Obligatory injury possibilities aside, KD in place of Barnes will likely have some major effects on their style of play that will take quite a bit of time to get used to. I think they figure it out and I have them as favorites for sure, but it won't be all roses. In year 2 - if KD stays - I could see them rolling through the league. The whole core will be in their prime (Dray/Klay in their peak with Curry/KD still likely both top 4 players) and they'll have figured out any kinks they might have. They'll also likely get a couple more nice vet min pieces for the bench. But this season, I'd be surprised if they rolled. Cavs are still very dangerous, and the Spurs just got better with the Pau addition. Their size will be an issue for GS.

More-Than-Most
07-05-2016, 03:40 AM
Obligatory injury possibilities aside, KD in place of Barnes will likely have some major effects on their style of play that will take quite a bit of time to get used to. I think they figure it out and I have them as favorites for sure, but it won't be all roses. In year 2 - if KD stays - I could see them rolling through the league. The whole core will be in their prime (Dray/Klay in their peak with Curry/KD still likely both top 4 players) and they'll have figured out any kinks they might have. They'll also likely get a couple more nice vet min pieces for the bench. But this season, I'd be surprised if they rolled. Cavs are still very dangerous, and the Spurs just got better with the Pau addition. Their size will be an issue for GS.

How was barnes defense compared to Durant in your opinion? I didnt watch barnes enough but personally i thought he was trash

tredigs
07-05-2016, 03:47 AM
How was barnes defense compared to Durant in your opinion? I didnt watch barnes enough but personally i thought he was trash

If it's a question regarding Barnes, the answer is inevitably always, "eh - OK".

KD's defense in the WCF actually changed my perception of him as a player. He's been very good at times on D before, but he showcased his true potential against the Warriors. If he channels that again in the playoffs next year, it's night/day over what Barnes is able to deliver, which is especially huge for GS as it gives Iguodala a bit of a breather (which at his age he'll start to need).

Vee-Rex
07-05-2016, 08:39 AM
I don't think it hurts the NBA at all. Maybe if GS wins multiple championships in a row with ease, it'll start to hurt. But this is fresh now. We all have a new favorite enemy. :D

It's gonna be a little bumpy at first. They won't steamroll the league off the jump but I really do think they'll be clicking in the 2nd half of the season. I put them at 63-65'ish wins. Depending on how it goes, the Spurs could still defeat them in the playoffs, but it'll probably be a long-shot. Year 2 they would definitely have a chance to break the regular season record again and sweep their way through the playoffs, assuming there aren't any issues.

Vee-Rex
07-05-2016, 08:54 AM
O

The ratings will suffer tremendously next season. TV stations will show nothing but GSW again, and the average fan won't tune in. NBA attendance will fall again because fans of small market teams won't be as excited about their team.

I think the ratings will be wonderful next season. You'll have an influx of new haters and bandwagoners but the one thing that will unite them all is their desire to watch GS play (win or lose). How can a 73-win team get better? Well this is it. But you've gotta understand that NOTHING is guaranteed and if last year didn't prove if for you I don't know what to say.

There will be points in time where people will go, "They just lost, THAT'S how you beat them. They're not unbeatable!" and then there will be points in time where people will go, "This team is literally unstoppable and unbeatable." Despite being the possibly the most talented team ever, they're all still human.

I don't see in any way how this is bad for the NBA right now. It's entertaining to witness something we have never seen before, and I say that even if GS rolls through the league and sweep the ECF winner. But there's still a long, long next year. And the year after that. The only time I think the NBA will start to suffer is if GS wins a bunch of titles in the row easily, but there's far too many variables in play (chemistry, injuries, offseason changes to various teams, etc...) to just expect that to happen.

IndyRealist
07-05-2016, 08:57 AM
Absolutely not. Everyone tuned in to watch the Warriors last year, and they will next year too. Realistically only a handful of teams even come close to having a shot at a title. The only people this hurts is OKC. They've never not had Durant, and it sounds like Westbrook is going to get moved too. That team is now Oladipo, Kanter, Adams, and whoever they get back in trade.

BKLYNpigeon
07-05-2016, 09:27 AM
it makes the NBA season more intriguing.

Look at all the people responding to the KD Threads. there one thread thats 1100 pages deep.

koreancabbage
07-05-2016, 09:30 AM
only hurts OKC's market. the after effect is that Westbrook is most likely gone too.

OKC's loss is every other team's gain.

People will want to come to see the GSW play. sold out arenas for all 82 games probably.

LongIslandIcedZ
07-05-2016, 09:43 AM
It definitely hurts what little parity the NBA had left.

As far as the bottom line? Absolutely not. Financially and ratings wise, this will not hurt the NBA at all. Might even help.

BKLYNpigeon
07-05-2016, 09:45 AM
only hurts OKC's market. the after effect is that Westbrook is most likely gone too.

OKC's loss is every other team's gain.

People will want to come to see the GSW play. sold out arenas for all 82 games probably.


Im sure theres also a huge TV Ratings Spike when the Warriors are playing on National TV.


If you think about it, in a way it helps OKC. KD and Westbrook would have left next season for nothing anyway. Now it forces their hand to trade Westbrook for some assets.

IndyRealist
07-05-2016, 10:45 AM
It definitely hurts what little parity the NBA had left.

As far as the bottom line? Absolutely not. Financially and ratings wise, this will not hurt the NBA at all. Might even help.

There's one less contending team, OKC, and we might even gain one more wherever Westbrook goes.

GS also turned over 2/5 of their starting lineup and a good portion of their bench. They may need a year to figure it out.

TrAv=MaGiCfReAk
07-05-2016, 10:49 AM
Its funny tho we will watch a whole season knowing the finals is going to be a rematch again... and probably again and again.

I thought we wouldn't have worry a super team again after bron went back to cavs but damn this super team is even better and younger and will be a beast for a long time

TrAv=MaGiCfReAk
07-05-2016, 10:57 AM
I feel bad for okc fans tho ... they have lost alot of guys with little to show for it, the stars they have had are from draft not signings and they are a small market team. As a magic fan i can relate ......

Not to mention it seemed pretty solid kd was coming back , so that makes it even worse. I wondered how they would look with oladipo added too but I do think dipo will look nuch better without kd cuz he needs the ball to be effective on offense...

Not to mention dipo is Also a FA after next year and can walk. So if they don't trade Russel or dipo they could lose both for nothing. If they trade Russel it would prob be smart to shop dipo also.

a couple days ago someone made a good point.... this whole GS option for KD was only available NOW .... if he didn't come now they would have had to resign Harrison Barnes and others and next time around kd couldn't go there and this dynasty wouldn't be available... the window was now take it or leave it

Scoots
07-05-2016, 11:34 AM
only hurts OKC's market. the after effect is that Westbrook is most likely gone too.

OKC's loss is every other team's gain.

People will want to come to see the GSW play. sold out arenas for all 82 games probably.

Probably? They've sold out every game for the last 2 years already (IIRC).

I don't think it hurts the NBA because the NBA is about the players as much as the teams and the NBA didn't lose a player. The NBA is probably happier in general because the worst teams in the NBA last year got significantly better in the off-season. Sixers, Lakers, Celtics, and Wolves have the potential to win twice as many games this year as last (I said POTENTIAL, I'm not making a prediction). But history shows that the NBA isn't much affected by how some team or another does during the season ... it's the star players that sell.

Scoots
07-05-2016, 11:36 AM
Its funny tho we will watch a whole season knowing the finals is going to be a rematch again... and probably again and again.

I thought we wouldn't have worry a super team again after bron went back to cavs but damn this super team is even better and younger and will be a beast for a long time

The team LeBron went back to has 4 max contracts ... another super team.

TrAv=MaGiCfReAk
07-05-2016, 11:46 AM
The team LeBron went back to has 4 max contracts ... another super team.

Yea your right I dunno why i guess they seem beatable to me (not bad but beatable) this GSW team does not seem beatable anytime soon.

Scoots
07-05-2016, 12:53 PM
Yea your right I dunno why i guess they seem beatable to me (not bad but beatable) this GSW team does not seem beatable anytime soon.

Try to think of them as a team where none of their top 6 players is an NBA big man, and that the rest of the roster has 1 big (Zaza) on a <$3M contract and a bunch of late draft/undrafted rookies.

KnicksorBust
07-05-2016, 12:59 PM
I want to watch the Warriors more to see how Durant fits and root for them to lose and I want to watch the Thunder more to see if Westbrook puts up 30-10-10 every game. Win win.

KnicksorBust
07-05-2016, 01:00 PM
Honestly is there a more entertaining player in the league to have to carry his team than Westbrook? Lebron is the best AT DOING IT. But Westy is better entertainment .

FlashBolt
07-05-2016, 01:02 PM
Honestly is there a more entertaining player in the league to have to carry his team than Westbrook? Lebron is the best AT DOING IT. But Westy is better entertainment .

Only because he's younger and plays on another motor. LeBron at 2008 was just as fun to watch for me.

shep33
07-05-2016, 01:07 PM
It hurt it bigtime cause the West had the only quality and competitive ball in the NBA. By picking the Dubs, Durant not only stacks the Warriors who didn't even need him, but also weakened arguably their toughest opponent in the Thunder.

I do think the Dubs won't win this year. People are underestimating the Spurs... They added Pau who produced twice as much as timmy

FlashBolt
07-05-2016, 01:11 PM
It hurt it bigtime cause the West had the only quality and competitive ball in the NBA. By picking the Dubs, Durant not only stacks the Warriors who didn't even need him, but also weakened arguably their toughest opponent in the Thunder.

I do think the Dubs won't win this year. People are underestimating the Spurs... They added Pau who produced twice as much as timmy

Agreed. Even though we beat the Spurs, I always thought Spurs would have given Warriors trouble.

ghettosean
07-05-2016, 01:17 PM
It clearly hurts the NBA basically there are 2 teams going to the finals GSW and the Cavs.... Previously we only knew that Lebron and the Cavs were going to the finals as the Spurs and the a lesser extent OKC and LAC stood in the way of the Warriors now with Durant it's going to be what happened in the east for the last 5+ years. If you are a fan of any other team in the league aside from these 2 it hurts the NBA a lot in my opinion as there is going to be a lack of competition in the West as well now not just the Eastern Conference.

Tony_Starks
07-05-2016, 01:18 PM
Business wise it doesn't hurt the NBA in the slightest, it increases its popularity if anything.

Do you realize how many people are going to tune in to Warrior games, even if it's just to get their hate on? Remember the "Heatles?" This will be that on steroids.

As far as the rest of the league goes the gm's that have proven to know what they're doing will still be ok, the ones that have proven to be incompetent will continue to do so.

FlashBolt
07-05-2016, 01:21 PM
It clearly hurts the NBA basically there are 2 teams going to the finals GSW and the Cavs.... Previously we only knew that Lebron and the Cavs were going to the finals as the Spurs and the a lesser extent OKC and LAC stood in the way of the Warriors now with Durant it's going to be what happened in the east for the last 5+ years. If you are a fan of any other team in the league aside from these 2 it hurts the NBA a lot in my opinion as there is going to be a lack of competition in the West as well now not just the Eastern Conference.

Stop lying. You're just happy Warriors are probably going to beat the Cavs and LeBron's championship chances are much lower now.

Scoots
07-05-2016, 01:28 PM
Agreed. Even though we beat the Spurs, I always thought Spurs would have given Warriors trouble.

And even more this year with the Warriors only bigs being Zaza and a few rookies (2 of them are currently injured).

Hawkeye15
07-05-2016, 01:30 PM
Business wise it doesn't hurt the NBA in the slightest, it increases its popularity if anything.

Do you realize how many people are going to tune in to Warrior games, even if it's just to get their hate on? Remember the "Heatles?" This will be that on steroids.

As far as the rest of the league goes the gm's that have proven to know what they're doing will still be ok, the ones that have proven to be incompetent will continue to do so.


pretty much spot on

ghettosean
07-05-2016, 01:31 PM
Stop lying. You're just happy Warriors are probably going to beat the Cavs and LeBron's championship chances are much lower now.


LOL...

All I can say is when I look at this year everyone knew Lebrons team was coming out of the east (everyone has known this for the past 5 or 6 years and never said anything different we all knew this) at least with Golden State we would say they have to beat the spurs but it won't be easy and others have mentioned OKC and LAC being a threat also but now we all know it's going to be a cake walk like it was in the east at least in the west we got to see the warriors battle it out with OKC but now it's going to be the Cavs and Warriors giving a beat down to everyone and they'll meet up as rested as possible. The only small glimmer of joy I get out of this is that Lebron doesn't get to sit, wait and rest while his only competition that stands between him and a ring is slugging it out in an epic battle out west. Beyond that and the upcoming finals it's most likely going to be a very very boring NBA playoffs in 2017.

SiteWolf
07-05-2016, 01:31 PM
I struggle to see how adding Durant even strengthens that team. There's still only the one ball and there's now fewer guys to rebound misses. From a 'what team would KD strengthen the most' standpoint, that would have been the Spurs.

But, he was already on a team that came close to knocking the Warriors out. Hopefully the Thunder can do something like the Blazers did when Aldridge left- actually improve overall with pieces filled in after he left.

ghettosean
07-05-2016, 01:36 PM
Business wise it doesn't hurt the NBA in the slightest, it increases its popularity if anything.

Do you realize how many people are going to tune in to Warrior games, even if it's just to get their hate on? Remember the "Heatles?" This will be that on steroids.

As far as the rest of the league goes the gm's that have proven to know what they're doing will still be ok, the ones that have proven to be incompetent will continue to do so.


pretty much spot on

I agree with you both on the Warriors increasing popularity (for them and there team and whomever they play)... What about Sacremento vs Portland or Utah vs Milwaukee. I agree that the fan base in general may increase but there are 25 - 30 teams that are going to suffer along with there own fanbases.... These fanbases will suffer because of the continuous direction the league is going in.

Hawkeye15
07-05-2016, 01:42 PM
I agree with you both on the Warriors increasing popularity (for them and there team and whomever they play)... What about Sacremento vs Portland or Utah vs Milwaukee. I agree that the fan base in general may increase but there are 25 - 30 teams that are going to suffer along with there own fanbases.... These fanbases will suffer because of the continuous direction the league is going in.

and what things like this do are bring the average, fair weather fan into the mix. Many hardcore NBA fans will hate the Warriors now, but they won't go anywhere. This ropes in even more fans

You may want to address changing your signature now, there is a new sheriff in town

tredigs
07-05-2016, 02:25 PM
I agree with you both on the Warriors increasing popularity (for them and there team and whomever they play)... What about Sacremento vs Portland or Utah vs Milwaukee. I agree that the fan base in general may increase but there are 25 - 30 teams that are going to suffer along with there own fanbases.... These fanbases will suffer because of the continuous direction the league is going in.

You say this, but this is a league that was essentially saved 35 years ago when two massive stars came on board for Boston and LA. That's 10 straight seasons of the Lakers and/or Celtics in the Finals, followed by a couple Pistons years and then the double-3 peat by Jordan's Bulls, who simply ran the NBA in the 90's. Coincidentally, coinciding with the most popular era of NBA basketball. Now with the Cavs and Warriors going to b2b Finals with legendary players and/or teams, we have seen the most viewership since those 90's Bulls (and most ticket sales in history in b2b seasons). Thanks to this move I expect that to rise again next year and actually challenge the popularity of 90's basketball again.

mgjohnson7851
07-05-2016, 02:41 PM
You have no clue what you're talking about.

The NBA set their single season record for attendance last season (21,972,129), eclipsing the 2nd highest season ever which was 2014/15. The WCF's on TNT were the most viewed WCF's in cable history. TNT's playoff coverage as a whole (everything but the Finals) was up 16% overall. Viewership overall in the Finals was up 1% from last season, and up over 30% from the Spurs/Heat Finals in 2014. It was the most watched Finals since Jordan's Bulls last run in '98. And the only Finals in the last 30 years that had more viewership were all Showtime Lakers and Jordan's Bulls. You know... dominant dynasties...

The NBA has never and will never have 12 teams that can win a title. Next season will be no different. And it will likely be more popular than ever.

The per team attendance was down. You just had 4 teams consistently selling out to raise that number....another bad sign for the NBA.

The WCF was also only popular because again, it looked like GSW was going to win. The finals took huge viewership in games 6 and 7 to basically break even with last year.

The Lakers and Bulls could still be beat, and that's what drew people in. People won't watch this unless GSW looks like they'll choke.

I know the NBA has never had 10 teams capable of winning....I'm sure the owners would absolutely love that to happen though.

FlashBolt
07-05-2016, 02:44 PM
The per team attendance was down. You just had 4 teams consistently selling out to raise that number....another bad sign for the NBA.

The WCF was also only popular because again, it looked like GSW was going to win. The finals took huge viewership in games 6 and 7 to basically break even with last year.

The Lakers and Bulls could still be beat, and that's what drew people in. People won't watch this unless GSW looks like they'll choke.

I know the NBA has never had 10 teams capable of winning....I'm sure the owners would absolutely love that to happen though.

Well, the money isn't coming out of nowhere. The product is making money. A lot. So you're saying one thing but the players getting paid, the franchise getting sold for billions, etc., says another. Safe to say, the owners are making lots of money and a few of them can care less who really wins. They bought it as an investment. Only a few can say they truly care.. guys like Cuban, Allen, Balmer.

Tony_Starks
07-05-2016, 02:54 PM
Enough already with the small markets. Dan Gilbert was the main one crying about how the system wasn't fair for them, they were losing money, they can't compete with the Big Markets, "parody".....blah blah blah.

BUT when he got Lebron back what did he do? Put some players around him, accumulated the highest payroll in the league, added smart vets to contribute like RJ, and got himself a ring.

No matter what the players are doing in free agency there's no way to get around spending money and making smart moves.

KD damn near went to Boston as a result of Ainge doing just that, other gm's need to take notice.

tredigs
07-05-2016, 02:58 PM
The per team attendance was down. You just had 4 teams consistently selling out to raise that number....another bad sign for the NBA.

The WCF was also only popular because again, it looked like GSW was going to win. The finals took huge viewership in games 6 and 7 to basically break even with last year.

The Lakers and Bulls could still be beat, and that's what drew people in. People won't watch this unless GSW looks like they'll choke.

I know the NBA has never had 10 teams capable of winning....I'm sure the owners would absolutely love that to happen though.

So what you're saying is that the elite star-driven teams are driving attendance and viewership, but that they are the problem? We had much more league-wide parity from '02-'09 where 6 different teams won the Finals and another 5 competed in it. '02-'09 were the "dead years" for NBA hoops from a popularity standpoint. In the last 7 years the resurgence in popularity and the influx of $ to the players and teams has been staggering. The league is in a VERY good place right now, and I don't think the Warriors are exactly going to hurt that.

Hint: Kobe + Shaq on one team making title runs = massively more popular on the aggregate than Kobe and Shaq separated.

valade16
07-05-2016, 04:03 PM
Wasn't the least popular era of the NBA the 60's when one team ran over the entire league for a decade?

IndyRealist
07-05-2016, 06:05 PM
Wasn't the least popular era of the NBA the 60's when one team ran over the entire league for a decade?

Comparisons pre-David Stern simply aren't valid. The league was barely on TV, it simply wasn't the same.

IndyRealist
07-05-2016, 06:07 PM
The per team attendance was down. You just had 4 teams consistently selling out to raise that number....another bad sign for the NBA.

The WCF was also only popular because again, it looked like GSW was going to win. The finals took huge viewership in games 6 and 7 to basically break even with last year.

The Lakers and Bulls could still be beat, and that's what drew people in. People won't watch this unless GSW looks like they'll choke.

I know the NBA has never had 10 teams capable of winning....I'm sure the owners would absolutely love that to happen though.

Why? The league on the whole had extremely high attendance, TV viewership was up, more people were paying attention, and they made boatloads of money. Why is it bad for the NBA, exactly?

lol, please
07-06-2016, 06:00 AM
I struggle to see how adding Durant even strengthens that team. There's still only the one ball and there's now fewer guys to rebound misses. From a 'what team would KD strengthen the most' standpoint, that would have been the Spurs.

But, he was already on a team that came close to knocking the Warriors out. Hopefully the Thunder can do something like the Blazers did when Aldridge left- actually improve overall with pieces filled in after he left.

Durant stretches the floor to make the team basically uncontainable. He adds length, height, high bball IQ, and a ridiculously wet jumper.

The ball will move around the floor in more ways and at a greater rate. The Warriors will get a consistent outlet of scoring through Durant, something we haven't seen for a Warrior ourside the splash bros since DLee left.

And you can always have one of - Curry, Klay, Durant in the game.

And you can also keep one of - Green, Iggy in the game as well.

Our sets will be so much more diverse.

Sportsguy9695
07-06-2016, 06:41 AM
I think this is the new face of the nab. your gonna see the superstars making super teams like they just did. and like how Miami did a few years ago

ldawg
07-06-2016, 07:39 AM
help the nba even better if Wade goes to Cavs

IndyRealist
07-06-2016, 08:58 AM
help the nba even better if Wade goes to Cavs

Talking to the Nuggets. Wade wants to get paid.

theafrosamurai
07-06-2016, 09:08 AM
It won't be bad for the NBA but from my fan standpoint it will be. I most likely will watch less than I did last year but I'm just one person and no real blow for TV ratings. I went into the last NBA season thinking only 3 teams had a legit shot being the Spurs, Warriors and Cavs. I didn't see the OKC playoff run coming so I watched the playoff games but my regular season watching was at an all time low for me. Won't matter at all as everyone will tune anyway.

As a buddy of mine calls it.."Rings on the Cheap", not in a monetary sense but in a cowardice way.

nycericanguy
07-06-2016, 09:22 AM
it's bad for the game in that OKC is now ruined, especially since WB now probably leaves too. and this is just a bad trend overall of guys not being competitive and wanting the easy way out.

but fans will still watch and you'll have more casual fans watching to see GSW dominate. It will be good for ratings and the popularity of the game. Great teams have always existed in the NBA, though it wasn't done the same way back then. I don't think parity is good, I think it's boring. but at the same time you don't want the best players all just teaming up.

I think it kinda takes the fun out of it for some GSW fans too... I mean on the surface I'm sure it's great to have Durant, but at this point, adding Durant to a 73 win team... what would a championship really even mean? They have to win it just to save embarrassment of NOT winning it, but it wouldn't really be an accomplishment to win it.

Tony_Starks
07-06-2016, 09:41 AM
OKC is not now ruined. OKC was ruined the day they decided to be cheap and not keep James Harden. Had they made the sacrifice that winning franchises make they would've had their own homegrown Superteam and a couple rings to show for it. They played cheap knowing full well that eventually the TV money would change the landscape and contracts would skyrocket. Hardens contract would be a bargain now.

Instead the guys behind the desk saved a few million and kept the team as marginal contenders for years until KD decides to go after a better chance to win.

All their own doing.

TOsportsFANatic
07-06-2016, 10:17 AM
This has been one of the worst off-season's in sports history for any sport. A collectively bargained agreement has never failed so miserably. We have backups and possible 3rd stringers making upwards of $8 to $10 million year. We have below average players being paid more than superstars. A top 5 team lost a top 3 player to unrestricted free agency and the craziest super team of all time was formed. These are all things a collective bargaining agreement is supposed to stop. A lock out is looming and it could be a very long ugly one.



Don't care what anyone says, this kills the NBA.

The NBA's biggest problem is parity. It always has been and more than likely always will be unless they get very creative in terms of cap space.

Last year was one of the most boring regular seasons to watch in terms of the lack of parity. And that's saying something because the last 10 years there has been virtually zero parity in the league.

So you now go from a sport that had 4 legitimate title contending teams last year in CLE/OKC/SA/GS (I'm not counting LAC or TOR because let's be honest those teams were never winning it all) and you're eliminating one of the big four teams and making one of the other ones exponentially better.

There is literally zero chance that a team not named the Spurs/Warriors/Cavs are winning a title next year. And that's being generous because San Antonio arguably has a slim chance to none to beat GS.

I have never seen a year in professional sports in which you can go into the season knowing that only 2 or 3 teams have a chance at winning it all. It has never happened in Baseball, never in Hockey, and never in Football. It doesn't even happen in the ****ing Premier League.

This is horrible for the league. I know I won't be watching any of the regular season. Oh well, maybe this will finally have a positive impact on the NHL.

I agree with these posts. True, there may have been many "super teams" in the past, but I would suggest that this is the most extreme case there has ever been. I mean, GS just set the NBA record for most wins ever in a single season, and now they're adding KD to that team?!? That seems like a surefire indicator that parity has reached a record low in this league, and no other league seems to have less parity than the NBA. I think there will be more teams following the Sixers approach of intentionally tanking for longer periods of time, because they don't see any hope of a championship. Imagine if half the teams in the league took this approach because the knew they had no chance in hell otherwise? This is bad for business.

I don't even think a hard cap would solve this, as elite players have shown a willingness to take less money to team up for better odds of getting a ring. I think the only solution is something along the lines of a "franchise" player designation, and a limit on how many any given team can have.

hugepatsfan
07-06-2016, 10:34 AM
If GS just steamrolls the NBA like they figure to it will be bad. If a couple more super-super teams form then it will be great for the overall NBA, even if it absolutely kills the sport in some markets.

We probably see a huge ratings spike like we did with MIA but what made that sustained good for the NBA is that there was a point in watching to root for MIA to lose. On paper right now, it doesn't seem like there's even a point for rooting against GS because it isn't even remotely plausible they don't win. They have to be the greatest chokers in the history of any sport ever not to win. They should be ashamed of themselves for even losing a game TBH - they're that stacked. They'll be a draw at first but that will eventually get old if no other teams form a group where there's still some element of competition left in the sport.

Chronz
07-06-2016, 12:03 PM
OKC is not now ruined. OKC was ruined the day they decided to be cheap and not keep James Harden. Had they made the sacrifice that winning franchises make they would've had their own homegrown Superteam and a couple rings to show for it. They played cheap knowing full well that eventually the TV money would change the landscape and contracts would skyrocket. Hardens contract would be a bargain now.

Instead the guys behind the desk saved a few million and kept the team as marginal contenders for years until KD decides to go after a better chance to win.

All their own doing.

How many teams have actually hit the repeater tax? Much less in consecutive years when things get really punitive? I recall championship caliber teams giving up talent to avoid it, like the Heat did before Bron left.

I think they should have retained Harden and traded him a few years later if need be but they blew it up too soon. Still, there was alot of shady **** that damaged OKC's payroll, things that didn't happen to other franchises. The league screwed them with what they did to KD's contract.

hugepatsfan
07-06-2016, 12:05 PM
How many teams have actually hit the repeater tax? Much less in consecutive years when things get really punitive? I recall championship caliber teams giving up talent to avoid it, like the Heat did before Bron left.

I think they should have retained Harden and traded him a few years later if need be but they blew it up too soon. Still, there was alot of shady **** that damaged OKC's payroll, things that didn't happen to other franchises. The league screwed them with what they did to KD's contract.

What did they do to KD's contract?

Scoots
07-06-2016, 12:21 PM
How many teams have actually hit the repeater tax? Much less in consecutive years when things get really punitive? I recall championship caliber teams giving up talent to avoid it, like the Heat did before Bron left.

I think they should have retained Harden and traded him a few years later if need be but they blew it up too soon. Still, there was alot of shady **** that damaged OKC's payroll, things that didn't happen to other franchises. The league screwed them with what they did to KD's contract.

The repeater tax IS in consecutive years ... or do you mean getting into the tax and staying there for 3 or more years? The repeater tax has only been in effect since 2013 so there hasn't been enough time to really test it yet.

IndyRealist
07-06-2016, 01:15 PM
I'd say if backups and 3rd stringers are making $8m/yr, this CBA succeeded wildly.

The imbalance of contracts and some stars being underpaid has nothing to do with the CBA, and everything to do with the TV deal. People have such short memories.

Scoots
07-06-2016, 02:31 PM
I'd say if backups and 3rd stringers are making $8m/yr, this CBA succeeded wildly.

The imbalance of contracts and some stars being underpaid has nothing to do with the CBA, and everything to do with the TV deal. People have such short memories.

Also the league tried to avoid this issue but were denied by the players ... so when the star players start complaining about being underpaid we can point to this and explain how it's their fault.

Next year when the Warriors are $65M under the cap who should they target?

Saddletramp
07-06-2016, 05:08 PM
it's bad for the game in that OKC is now ruined, especially since WB now probably leaves too. and this is just a bad trend overall of guys not being competitive and wanting the easy way out.

but fans will still watch and you'll have more casual fans watching to see GSW dominate. It will be good for ratings and the popularity of the game. Great teams have always existed in the NBA, though it wasn't done the same way back then. I don't think parity is good, I think it's boring. but at the same time you don't want the best players all just teaming up.

I think it kinda takes the fun out of it for some GSW fans too... I mean on the surface I'm sure it's great to have Durant, but at this point, adding Durant to a 73 win team... what would a championship really even mean? They have to win it just to save embarrassment of NOT winning it, but it wouldn't really be an accomplishment to win it.

Yeah, I kind of thought this too. Wasn't there a report saying Curry wasn't recruiting Durant as hard as Iggy, Draymond and Klay? I have a feeling he wouldn't have joined the Cavs if he was eligible this year and didn't already have a title. I think he's more of a beat 'em but never join 'em kind of guy.

I kind of feel bad for Curry. In 2014, everyone was hurt and people were questioning their title. In 2015, they lost (and if he was injured, he never talked about it) and going forward, they have KD so anything other than a title would be laughable but a title win would have fans saying "Well no ****, they added Durant to a 73 win team."

Saddletramp
07-06-2016, 05:17 PM
I agree with these posts. True, there may have been many "super teams" in the past, but I would suggest that this is the most extreme case there has ever been. I mean, GS just set the NBA record for most wins ever in a single season, and now they're adding KD to that team?!? That seems like a surefire indicator that parity has reached a record low in this league, and no other league seems to have less parity than the NBA. I think there will be more teams following the Sixers approach of intentionally tanking for longer periods of time, because they don't see any hope of a championship. Imagine if half the teams in the league took this approach because the knew they had no chance in hell otherwise? This is bad for business.

I don't even think a hard cap would solve this, as elite players have shown a willingness to take less money to team up for better odds of getting a ring. I think the only solution is something along the lines of a "franchise" player designation, and a limit on how many any given team can have.

yeah, and with endorsements making guys millions, the NBA cash isn't as vital to some of these guys.

About your franchise play designation idea, I've thought of something along those lines. Have a hard cap but every team has an uncapped slot that doesn't count towards the hard cap. Not sure what number would make the hard cap work but maybe (give teams a five year heads up but for this rendering let's say it starts next year) $100 million plus an uncapped spot. With the cap number going up 10%(?) every year? Maybe have that uncapped spot only 1 year deals or only 4 year deals? Haven't fleshed it out and it'll never happen but something should happen at some point if they really want to have small market teams matter or they might as well contract 4-10 teams.

likemystylez
07-06-2016, 05:34 PM
just wondering everyones opnion. is it better for the league to blatantly tank year after year like the 76ers and the lakers the last few yrs, or is it better to load up, draft well, manage your cap and try to build a dynasty?


LOL The spurs were a powerhouse the last 20 yrs, and they just casually added Aldridge last summer and nobody said a word. I know Durant is better- but there are people who are saying Durant shoulda went to the spurs just cuz okc beat the spurs. So adding Durant and Aldridge in back to back summers is perfectly fine- and the warriors adding Durant and david lee in 2010 after 20+ yrs of no quality free agent signings is a huge problem?

FlashBolt
07-06-2016, 05:37 PM
OKC is not now ruined. OKC was ruined the day they decided to be cheap and not keep James Harden. Had they made the sacrifice that winning franchises make they would've had their own homegrown Superteam and a couple rings to show for it. They played cheap knowing full well that eventually the TV money would change the landscape and contracts would skyrocket. Hardens contract would be a bargain now.

Instead the guys behind the desk saved a few million and kept the team as marginal contenders for years until KD decides to go after a better chance to win.

All their own doing.

Marginal contenders? You mean 2 minutes away from reaching the NBA Finals? We've been one of the top five franchise in terms of achievements the past five seasons.

Miami
Cleveland
Warriors
Spurs
OKC

likemystylez
07-06-2016, 05:53 PM
Marginal contenders? You mean 2 minutes away from reaching the NBA Finals? We've been one of the top five franchise in terms of achievements the past five seasons.

Miami
Cleveland
Warriors
Spurs
OKC

Ironic thing is... since the thunder let go of Harden. they have won more games, and won more playoff series than any team in the league over that stretch. (also that includes a down yr in 2014-2015 when they finished 9th seed)

they didn't win a ring, but they were as strong of a contender as anybody in the NBA. Im sure Durant looks at that and says- wonder where that puts us if we had kept harden??? and breaking up a team of 22, 23 yr old stars who just made the playoffs and were all yrs before even hitting their prime- is ridiculous.

meanwhile- warriors lose in the finals and they are doing everything under the sun to try and get better. Must seem like a breath of fresh air

jason
07-06-2016, 05:53 PM
only hurts OKC's market. the after effect is that Westbrook is most likely gone too.

OKC's loss is every other team's gain.

People will want to come to see the GSW play. sold out arenas for all 82 games probably.

Colin Cowherd said something interesting about how Cleveland was the Heat's 2nd best viewers when Lebron left and vice versa when he went back. I expect the same this year

FlashBolt
07-06-2016, 05:59 PM
Ironic thing is... since the thunder let go of Harden. they have won more games, and won more playoff series than any team in the league over that stretch. (also that includes a down yr in 2014-2015 when they finished 9th seed)

they didn't win a ring, but they were as strong of a contender as anybody in the NBA. Im sure Durant looks at that and says- wonder where that puts us if we had kept harden??? and breaking up a team of 22, 23 yr old stars who just made the playoffs and were all yrs before even hitting their prime- is ridiculous.

meanwhile- warriors lose in the finals and they are doing everything under the sun to try and get better. Must seem like a breath of fresh air

Yup. We were contenders every season outside the injury-ridden ones where Westbrook/KD fell into injuries at the wrong time.

hugepatsfan
07-06-2016, 06:33 PM
just wondering everyones opnion. is it better for the league to blatantly tank year after year like the 76ers and the lakers the last few yrs, or is it better to load up, draft well, manage your cap and try to build a dynasty?


LOL The spurs were a powerhouse the last 20 yrs, and they just casually added Aldridge last summer and nobody said a word. I know Durant is better- but there are people who are saying Durant shoulda went to the spurs just cuz okc beat the spurs. So adding Durant and Aldridge in back to back summers is perfectly fine- and the warriors adding Durant and david lee in 2010 after 20+ yrs of no quality free agent signings is a huge problem?

We want dynasties but it's no fun to watch if no one else is close. The Spurs have been at or near the top of the NBA for years but there have been so many different legitimate threats to them. The Lakers had a 3-peat and another back to back in that span. The Heat had a back to back with their Big 3. The Pistons only won one title but were an awesome title-contending team for years. BOS as well with the Big 3. The Mavs won one later but for years were a legit title contender for the whole decade before that. The Pacers had years where they were up there even though they never won. The Suns/Kings all had extended runs of being real title contenders even though they broke through. The Cavs with Lebron competed every year. MIA (before Lebron) won a title and had another great run when Shaq was still in his semi-prime. Dwight got the Magic to the Finals for a year.

Right now GS is just so much better than everyone else that there aren't any room for those types of legitimate challengers to make it interesting. That's the difference in this case. "Exactly how much better are they than everyone else" isn't really an intriguing storyline for people not a fan of that team. Everyone should have tremendous respect for the GS front office. Granted, the cap spike definitely was a stroke of luck for them but they were in position to capitalize on that luck because of the unbelievable job they did. Enough praise can't be heaped on them for building this team. But that doesn't make it interesting to watch as a neutral fan.

Oefarmy2005
07-06-2016, 06:49 PM
We want dynasties but it's no fun to watch if no one else is close. The Spurs have been at or near the top of the NBA for years but there have been so many different legitimate threats to them. The Lakers had a 3-peat and another back to back in that span. The Heat had a back to back with their Big 3. The Pistons only won one title but were an awesome title-contending team for years. BOS as well with the Big 3. The Mavs won one later but for years were a legit title contender for the whole decade before that. The Pacers had years where they were up there even though they never won. The Suns/Kings all had extended runs of being real title contenders even though they broke through. The Cavs with Lebron competed every year. MIA (before Lebron) won a title and had another great run when Shaq was still in his semi-prime. Dwight got the Magic to the Finals for a year.

Right now GS is just so much better than everyone else that there aren't any room for those types of legitimate challengers to make it interesting. That's the difference in this case. "Exactly how much better are they than everyone else" isn't really an intriguing storyline for people not a fan of that team. Everyone should have tremendous respect for the GS front office. Granted, the cap spike definitely was a stroke of luck for them but they were in position to capitalize on that luck because of the unbelievable job they did. Enough praise can't be heaped on them for building this team. But that doesn't make it interesting to watch as a neutral fan.

Well stated. Honestly, the only reason to watch the finals this year was to see if GS will fall on their face(I mean, I know people like Curry, but I can't stand the arrogance of turning around and walking back before his shot goes in), and they sure did. It will be the only reason to watch the playoffs this upcoming season - to see if they choke at some point in the playoffs, because that's about the only way they can loose next year - if they beat themselves.

Chronz
07-06-2016, 07:17 PM
Yeah, first time in history 4 All-NBA players and the last 3 MVP's have ever joined forces to play on 1 team. Only the Olympic teams come close to that kind of fire power.

Chronz
07-06-2016, 07:22 PM
What did they do to KD's contract?

Apparently they grandfathered in his newly signed contract (that he signed somewhat in desperation and would later regret) and directly applied the Derrick Rose rule to it. Increasing the dollar amount by about 3M each year, it was something they hadn't planned for. I say directly applied cuz I guess teams are suppose to be able to negotiate %'s with the player but not with KD and OKC.

When Harden was dealt to Houston, it was seen as a sign of the system working.


Thats what I heard on the recent truehoop podcast so take it for what its worth but these are guys who have worked with teams and still have connections on the inside. I was corroborated by 2 of them and the others were as shocked as I was. You should check it out

Chronz
07-06-2016, 07:23 PM
The repeater tax IS in consecutive years ... or do you mean getting into the tax and staying there for 3 or more years? The repeater tax has only been in effect since 2013 so there hasn't been enough time to really test it yet.

Yeah I meant to say once you get knee deep in that ****.

Chronz
07-06-2016, 07:27 PM
I'd say if backups and 3rd stringers are making $8m/yr, this CBA succeeded wildly.

The imbalance of contracts and some stars being underpaid has nothing to do with the CBA, and everything to do with the TV deal. People have such short memories.

I want to see what happens when everything normalizes. Once teams start getting saddled by their lofty contracts. I doubt most of the guys making this money would have much longer to do so if there werent so many teams with money and flexibility. The market for a Mozzy wont be so high in about 3 years IMO, then again contract lengths are so short it really might just be a pipe dream. Oh well, its a radical new age of massive player movement that breeds discussion and interest in the league. Look at PSD of late

SfgiantsJD3
07-06-2016, 08:49 PM
Yeah, first time in history 4 All-NBA players and the last 3 MVP's have ever joined forces to play on 1 team. Only the Olympic teams come close to that kind of fire power.

Its not like 3 players decided to sign w GSW and KD joined them, lots of teams chose not to draft Curry, Thompson or Green. GSW either got lucky, drafted well or both. Other than Iguodala and David Lee (trades/sign trade) the warriors haven't signed a major FA in years.

Chrisclover
07-06-2016, 09:28 PM
Lakers better package all their young guys for a Cousins trade, cuz Westbrook is coming.
Cousins isn't that worthy. Him teaming up with Westbrook is a huge headache for coaches. What if they start a fight? That's likely.

likemystylez
07-07-2016, 09:32 AM
Don't care what anyone says, this kills the NBA.

The NBA's biggest problem is parity. It always has been and more than likely always will be unless they get very creative in terms of cap space.

Last year was one of the most boring regular seasons to watch in terms of the lack of parity. And that's saying something because the last 10 years there has been virtually zero parity in the league.

So you now go from a sport that had 4 legitimate title contending teams last year in CLE/OKC/SA/GS (I'm not counting LAC or TOR because let's be honest those teams were never winning it all) and you're eliminating one of the big four teams and making one of the other ones exponentially better.

There is literally zero chance that a team not named the Spurs/Warriors/Cavs are winning a title next year. And that's being generous because San Antonio arguably has a slim chance to none to beat GS.

I have never seen a year in professional sports in which you can go into the season knowing that only 2 or 3 teams have a chance at winning it all. It has never happened in Baseball, never in Hockey, and never in Football. It doesn't even happen in the ****ing Premier League.

This is horrible for the league. I know I won't be watching any of the regular season. Oh well, maybe this will finally have a positive impact on the NHL.

Funny, were you worried about parity when the warriors were winning 19 games a year, and missing the playoffs for 15 yrs straight or whatever? Nobody was trying to get them top tier players so they could be more competitive. everybody said nobody wants to go there cuz they have a losing culture, then a new owner came in and made it a winning culture - and people still dont want anybody going there.

but people would rather have the celtics get both horford and durant... just a few yrs after getting both garnett and allen... and dont even get me started on the 1960s celtics (talk about controlling the nba)

let the warriors have 4 or 5 yrs of relavence - they are definitely as deserving as any team of getting a few breaks to go there way

likemystylez
07-07-2016, 09:37 AM
We want dynasties but it's no fun to watch if no one else is close. The Spurs have been at or near the top of the NBA for years but there have been so many different legitimate threats to them. The Lakers had a 3-peat and another back to back in that span. The Heat had a back to back with their Big 3. The Pistons only won one title but were an awesome title-contending team for years. BOS as well with the Big 3. The Mavs won one later but for years were a legit title contender for the whole decade before that. The Pacers had years where they were up there even though they never won. The Suns/Kings all had extended runs of being real title contenders even though they broke through. The Cavs with Lebron competed every year. MIA (before Lebron) won a title and had another great run when Shaq was still in his semi-prime. Dwight got the Magic to the Finals for a year.

Right now GS is just so much better than everyone else that there aren't any room for those types of legitimate challengers to make it interesting. That's the difference in this case. "Exactly how much better are they than everyone else" isn't really an intriguing storyline for people not a fan of that team. Everyone should have tremendous respect for the GS front office. Granted, the cap spike definitely was a stroke of luck for them but they were in position to capitalize on that luck because of the unbelievable job they did. Enough praise can't be heaped on them for building this team. But that doesn't make it interesting to watch as a neutral fan.

not really luck- they arent out there offering tyler johnson a 50 million dollar deal. They arent offering kent bazemore a 70 million dollar deal. This is the stuff that is going to prolong the division in talent accross the nba so much more so than 1 guy signing with one team. when 80% of the gms are wasting their cap space on role players rather than put themselves in a position to build a competitive team- I see that as a bigger problem for the division in power and overall parity than 1 free agent signing on one team.

hugepatsfan
07-07-2016, 11:04 AM
Funny, were you worried about parity when the warriors were winning 19 games a year, and missing the playoffs for 15 yrs straight or whatever? Nobody was trying to get them top tier players so they could be more competitive. everybody said nobody wants to go there cuz they have a losing culture, then a new owner came in and made it a winning culture - and people still dont want anybody going there.

but people would rather have the celtics get both horford and durant... just a few yrs after getting both garnett and allen... and dont even get me started on the 1960s celtics (talk about controlling the nba)

let the warriors have 4 or 5 yrs of relavence - they are definitely as deserving as any team of getting a few breaks to go there way

Jesus dude, you're being so dense. No one is saying they want the Warriors to suck forever. No one wants them doomed to <20 wins a year. People are just annoyed that one team is so much better than anyone else that the thrill of competition in the sport is gone. That's all. No one is even mad at the Warriors for trying to sign Durant. No one here is saying they shouldn't have tried for him. People are mad at Durant for being such a weak competitor that he ditched his championship caliber team for one that's better because competition is what makes sports fun for most.

If the Celtics got Durant/Horford they'd be a strong contender but there would still be real competition a the top of the NBA. No one would have been mad really if Horford went to the Warriors. It would have been a big improvement for them but not one so great that it made the whole league feel futile to even pay attention to. You have it in your head that people are mad at the Warriors for being good. That's not true at all. People just think they're so much better than everyone else that the league isn't interesting unless you're a GS fan.

hugepatsfan
07-07-2016, 11:07 AM
not really luck- they arent out there offering tyler johnson a 50 million dollar deal. They arent offering kent bazemore a 70 million dollar deal. This is the stuff that is going to prolong the division in talent accross the nba so much more so than 1 guy signing with one team. when 80% of the gms are wasting their cap space on role players rather than put themselves in a position to build a competitive team- I see that as a bigger problem for the division in power and overall parity than 1 free agent signing on one team.

If the cap spike didn't happen this year you guys wouldn't have been in position to extend Durant. That's the luck I'm referring to. And as I said, you guys were smart to put yourself in position to capitalize on that through smart deals you have out. But it's definitely helped out by the luck of a cap spike at the perfect opportunity. Sports is always a combination of lucky and good so you shouldn't take that as an insult in the slightest. It's just a fact that to do anything great in sports you need a little bit of luck on your side.

Chronz
07-07-2016, 01:29 PM
Its not like 3 players decided to sign w GSW and KD joined them, lots of teams chose not to draft Curry, Thompson or Green. GSW either got lucky, drafted well or both. Other than Iguodala and David Lee (trades/sign trade) the warriors haven't signed a major FA in years.

Am I suppose to care about that?

lmfao it makes no difference. KD knew what was in place, the ENTIRE WORLD saw what that core is/was capable of. In a way, I would actually be slightly less mad if they had all just created their own super power because at least then there would be some unknown elements and perhaps an actually understandable circumstance that led to their departure from their prior team or something.

hugepatsfan
07-07-2016, 01:34 PM
Its not like 3 players decided to sign w GSW and KD joined them, lots of teams chose not to draft Curry, Thompson or Green. GSW either got lucky, drafted well or both. Other than Iguodala and David Lee (trades/sign trade) the warriors haven't signed a major FA in years.

You're missing the whole point. No one is saying it's "cheap" how their team was built. No one is hurling any criticism at the team. People are just thinking it's a soft move by KD to choose to sign there, which I think anyone should be able to admit it is.

MarkieMark48
07-07-2016, 01:43 PM
Its not like 3 players decided to sign w GSW and KD joined them, lots of teams chose not to draft Curry, Thompson or Green. GSW either got lucky, drafted well or both. Other than Iguodala and David Lee (trades/sign trade) the warriors haven't signed a major FA in years.

Curry being hurt the early part of his career landed GS a very favorable contract for him allowing the room for a max deal.

tredigs
07-07-2016, 02:02 PM
Curry being hurt the early part of his career landed GS a very favorable contract for him allowing the room for a max deal.

Rest assure, teams were not lining up to give him the max. They took the gamble on him (twice - by not giving him to Milwaukee instead of Monta in the Bogut deal), and it paid off. They went boom or bust. And business, it's a BOOMIN'!

MarkieMark48
07-07-2016, 02:52 PM
Rest assure, teams were not lining up to give him the max. They took the gamble on him (twice - by not giving him to Milwaukee instead of Monta in the Bogut deal), and it paid off. They went boom or bust. And business, it's a BOOMIN'!

possibly b/c he was hurt?

I'm not saying anyone was lining up to give him the max.. im saying it allowed them to offer him a favorable contract b/c of his injuries. Is there anything false about that?

tredigs
07-07-2016, 03:06 PM
possibly b/c he was hurt?

I'm not saying anyone was lining up to give him the max.. im saying it allowed them to offer him a favorable contract b/c of his injuries. Is there anything false about that?

Where is there a lapse in communication here? Myers and the Warriors bet on him when he was down and it paid off (they reportedly would have paid more, but the market was not there).

FlashBolt
07-07-2016, 03:15 PM
Where is there a lapse in communication here? Myers and the Warriors bet on him when he was down and it paid off (they reportedly would have paid more, but the market was not there).

He's saying it paid off for them and they now have a favorable contract.

Scoots
07-07-2016, 03:25 PM
Rest assure, teams were not lining up to give him the max. They took the gamble on him (twice - by not giving him to Milwaukee instead of Monta in the Bogut deal), and it paid off. They went boom or bust. And business, it's a BOOMIN'!

I keep seeing that Curry to Bucks thing and it's been pretty soundly debunked that Curry was NEVER even considered to be in that deal.

SfgiantsJD3
07-07-2016, 03:35 PM
Yeah, first time in history 4 All-NBA players and the last 3 MVP's have ever joined forces to play on 1 team. Only the Olympic teams come close to that kind of fire power.


You're missing the whole point. No one is saying it's "cheap" how their team was built. No one is hurling any criticism at the team. People are just thinking it's a soft move by KD to choose to sign there, which I think anyone should be able to admit it is.

I get the overall point, my statement was in context to this part of the quote and I should have been clearer that 3 were already there which is different than two or 3 players going to a different team to build a team.
"have ever joined forces to play on 1 team."

The other side of the argument is the Warriors were lucky in 2015 and didn't face stiff competition and the Cavs were hurt, GSW wasn't able to repeat so they needed to get better, playoff results say they aren't that good of a team and Curry is weak against strong opponents, either way GSW wasn't capable of getting it done and tried to improve.
The Warriors are still weak inside so we will see how they match up against the Spurs and Cavs and anyone with multiple bigs that can move the ball.

MarkieMark48
07-07-2016, 03:38 PM
He's saying it paid off for them and they now have a favorable contract.

its like im :bang: