PDA

View Full Version : Super teams ruining the league?



latinofire21
12-08-2016, 12:23 AM
I know many of you disagree but I think the 90s were the best for competitiveness. I know there were big threes formed before the Lebum lead big three in Miami but this was the first time that three came together in their prime. Lebum does it again in Cleveland with love and Kyrie.

This is the new trend these days. With payroll skyrocketing it gave golden state the chance to add Durant. Other than a bonifide center they have an allstar at every position.

As a fan I think this is incredibly bad for basketball. Teams like the Clippers who primarily built their teams through the draft have no shot at competing for a title with golden state around. Not that I feel bad for them stern had to veto a deal to get Paul to clipperland but that's another story.

I think the league should implement something similar to what the MLB does. Depending on how good the player is that leaves their drafting team they should get compensation first round picks from the receiving team. It would make it harder to complete these super teams and create more parity in the league.

lol, please
12-08-2016, 12:53 AM
There will always be one, two, or three dominant teams in the league dude.

The 90's had the Bulls, Celtics, and Lakers, and great teams elsewhere for spurts like the Magic, Warriors, Rockets, etc.

A "trend"?

The only "super teams" you can consider as such really have been the Heat, and the Warriors for the last decade or so.

And FFS....LOL @ you making the Clippers an example of drafting well and not being able to get over the hump....THE WARRIORS LITERALLY BUILT THEIR CORE FROM THE DRAFT!!!

:facepalm:

B'sCeltsPatsSox
12-08-2016, 01:05 AM
I know many of you disagree but I think the 90s were the best for competitiveness. I know there were big threes formed before the Lebum lead big three in Miami but this was the first time that three came together in their prime. Lebum does it again in Cleveland with love and Kyrie.

This is the new trend these days. With payroll skyrocketing it gave golden state the chance to add Durant. Other than a bonifide center they have an allstar at every position.

As a fan I think this is incredibly bad for basketball. Teams like the Clippers who primarily built their teams through the draft have no shot at competing for a title with golden state around. Not that I feel bad for them stern had to veto a deal to get Paul to clipperland but that's another story.

I think the league should implement something similar to what the MLB does. Depending on how good the player is that leaves their drafting team they should get compensation first round picks from the receiving team. It would make it harder to complete these super teams and create more parity in the league.

The Clippers built through the draft? The only two drafted players they have on their team are Griffin and Jordan.

tredigs
12-08-2016, 01:17 AM
Dubs won a title and broke records with no top 5 picks and no free agent signings outside of Iggy. My recommendation to other organizations is get your **** together and focus on winning instead of *****ing.

Miltstar
12-08-2016, 01:46 AM
I'm loving the 2016 season so far, it's exciting, teams and players are putting up huge #'s... Everyone know's Golden State is probably gonna win, but I'm enjoying the ride. Having someone that everyone wants to emulate isn't necessarily a bad thing

Basketball is closer to the WWE than any other sport, it's a spectacle as much as it is a sport, players are larger than life and can do things normal humans can't. Golden State is bringing back the Jordan vibe from the 90's.

valade16
12-08-2016, 02:23 AM
The 90's featured only 4 different teams winning the title. Isn't that the least of any decade post 60's?

seikou8
12-08-2016, 02:45 AM
Super-teams have always been apart the league this isn't something new

likemystylez
12-08-2016, 03:23 AM
Dubs won a title and broke records with no top 5 picks and no free agent signings outside of Iggy. My recommendation to other organizations is get your **** together and focus on winning instead of *****ing.

bogut was a number 1 overall pick and livingston was a number 4.

tredigs
12-08-2016, 04:19 AM
bogut was a number 1 overall pick and livingston was a number 4.

Lmao true that. Didn't even think of the ancillary talent. Let's put it this way. The Dubs won the title on the backs of no top-5 draft picks and no marquee free agents (no disrespect to Iggy who was clearly boss in the Finals, but not a top-3 player on the team. And now not top 5). We benched Bogut's *** to win the Finals.

koreancabbage
12-08-2016, 09:44 AM
Iggy's defense on James won it actually. haha. aka GOAT aka Finals MVP and a bad back. That's what a great story looks like.

ya benching Bogut was a great decision.

Hawkeye15
12-08-2016, 10:31 AM
Free agency wasn't even a thing until the early 90's, and even then, it didn't really start to blow up until after the 2000.

Three have always been pockets of times with really only a couple teams that could win it all. I mean look at the first round or two for the 80's Lakers every year, they played terrible teams on their walk to the finals. Boston fleeced a number of teams and built a monster team for the 80's.

There have always been Superteams, it's just that the way to do it now has changed. The Durant/GS thing was totally unique, that would never happen in any other year, it just happened to be, that the league saw the salary cap explode, and nearly every team had room for a max deal or more, including the 73 win Warriors...

Players have more power now. It used to be the front office that had to do everything, building wise. Now players have the power to sort of dictate where they go, and who they play with, to some degree. If people want to get mad at the shift in power (which is ironic since most fight for players rights all the time), than fine.

PowerHouse
12-08-2016, 11:25 AM
The 90's featured only 4 different teams winning the title. Isn't that the least of any decade post 60's?

The 80s also had only 4 with Lakers/Celtics winning most of them. The 76ers/Pistons getting one each.

I dont recall anybody complaining back then about the super teams ruining the league. It was exciting as hell!

Giannis94
12-08-2016, 12:48 PM
I mean good teams have fanbases that are joined on bandwagons and I am a die hard Giannis fan and I'm the troll so I'd say sure.

IndyRealist
12-08-2016, 12:58 PM
3 of their 4 best players they drafted. Same as last year and the year before. Literally every other team in the league could have drafted Draymond before them.

Some organizations are just better ran than the rest.

Chronz
12-08-2016, 01:15 PM
I hate when stars choose to join a super team but that's the doing of a single *****. Hopefully he gets his rings and we can go back to real hooping

warfelg
12-08-2016, 02:23 PM
Yes and no.

Yes the ruin the league because the 82 game season (too long already) becomes less meaningful and a drone.

No because come playoff time these super teams create some compelling drama filled playoff series.

What I would like to see is still some superteams....but more of them that have 2 stars, 2 great role players, 1 good starter, 1 starting quality bench player.

latinofire21
12-08-2016, 02:24 PM
Free agency wasn't even a thing until the early 90's, and even then, it didn't really start to blow up until after the 2000.

Three have always been pockets of times with really only a couple teams that could win it all. I mean look at the first round or two for the 80's Lakers every year, they played terrible teams on their walk to the finals. Boston fleeced a number of teams and built a monster team for the 80's.

There have always been Superteams, it's just that the way to do it now has changed. The Durant/GS thing was totally unique, that would never happen in any other year, it just happened to be, that the league saw the salary cap explode, and nearly every team had room for a max deal or more, including the 73 win Warriors...
Players have more power now. It used to be the front office that had to do everything, building wise. Now players have the power to sort of dictate where they go, and who they play with, to some degree. If people want to get mad at the shift in power (which is ironic since most fight for players rights all the time), than fine.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Yes Jordans Bulls dominated the 90s but the Sonics, Spurs, Jazz, Knicks, Pacers, Rockets, Pistons all were a threat. After the buddy team up in South Beach its become the new trend. I can respect a guy like Westbrook and even Harden who I give a lot of **** too because they decided to buck the trend.

KD going to a 73 win team makes it less enjoyable for me to watch the Warriors. I rooted for them last season to beat Lebron's super team because they were all drafted together. Then they added Durant I think it makes for bad basketball. The Playoffs are fun to watch but if they can blow everyone out then whats the point in watching lol?

I do think they should add compensation picks for when teams try to steal superstars from other teams. There has to be some sort of compensation to teams like OKC who drafted great and just lost a franchise player to free agency. To think if the owner wasn't so cheap they could have had Harden, Westbrook, Durant, and Ibaka as their core. Whos stopping that?

latinofire21
12-08-2016, 02:27 PM
The 80s also had only 4 with Lakers/Celtics winning most of them. The 76ers/Pistons getting one each.

I dont recall anybody complaining back then about the super teams ruining the league. It was exciting as hell!

I certainly didn't complain back then because it was made through drafting and trades. A player didn't force themselves onto a team by taking less money. The best wanted to compete against each other. It wasn't you beat me so next year I will join you. I just think todays superstars lack the competitive spirit. They are much softer than previous generations including the softest of them all Lebron James.

latinofire21
12-08-2016, 02:32 PM
The Clippers built through the draft? The only two drafted players they have on their team are Griffin and Jordan.

The rest of the pieces they built they used to bring Chris Paul to Clipperland. Paul didn't just sign in the offseason. As much as I am not a fan of the Clippers they don't count with whats wrong with the league today.

Generating Assets and moving them for a marquee player is perfectly fine. Its when a superteam is formed through collusion and the losing team in the exchange gets a complete shaft job and the balance of power in the league is completely lopsided that's what makes it a bit unbearable for me.

With basketball since only 5 guys can be on the court at once it really comes down to talent. With other sports like Baseball and Football the formula is build from within. A football equivalent to what Golden State did this season would be Brady joining the Broncos because he wanted to title chase. Everyone knows Brady aint leaving New England. The 90s was like the rest of the sports world. This group is just real ***** for a lack of a better term.

Hawkeye15
12-08-2016, 02:37 PM
That's the point I'm trying to make. Yes Jordans Bulls dominated the 90s but the Sonics, Spurs, Jazz, Knicks, Pacers, Rockets, Pistons all were a threat. After the buddy team up in South Beach its become the new trend. I can respect a guy like Westbrook and even Harden who I give a lot of **** too because they decided to buck the trend.

KD going to a 73 win team makes it less enjoyable for me to watch the Warriors. I rooted for them last season to beat Lebron's super team because they were all drafted together. Then they added Durant I think it makes for bad basketball. The Playoffs are fun to watch but if they can blow everyone out then whats the point in watching lol?

I do think they should add compensation picks for when teams try to steal superstars from other teams. There has to be some sort of compensation to teams like OKC who drafted great and just lost a franchise player to free agency. To think if the owner wasn't so cheap they could have had Harden, Westbrook, Durant, and Ibaka as their core. Whos stopping that?

were they really though? Meh

R. Johnson#3
12-08-2016, 03:02 PM
Super teams have always been around and they don't ruin the league. They can be beaten and it makes for great basketball when it happens. The 2011 finals are a perfect example.

ManRam
12-08-2016, 03:10 PM
I enjoy the NBA less now than I have in ~10 years but I'm not sure how much, if any, super teams play a role in that. There are certainly some other things outside of the game itself factoring into it and maybe the Magic sucking have beaten me down too. IDK. But I haven't attributed it to super teams, quality of play, or any of that. It's mostly just that the regular season doesn't really seem to matter much to me. I just want the playoffs to be here, and it's early December. I know what teams are going to be there and I'm ready for those playoff showdowns. I recognize all the things that normally would interest me (mainly some absurdly good play from a lot of players, young and old)...and I think the NBA is perfectly robust and healthy. But for whatever reason I'm just kinda in an NBA funk. But parity has always sucked and elite teams have always existed. That's not new.

europagnpilgrim
12-08-2016, 03:14 PM
each decade had super teams

nothing is ever new under the sun or dealing in entertainment, its all recycled with a slight twist

LanceUpperCut
12-08-2016, 03:44 PM
There's always been super teams but there formed in a ****** way now. Kind of a cowardly way IMO.

Sly Guy
12-08-2016, 03:54 PM
There's always been super teams but there formed in a ****** way now. Kind of a cowardly way IMO.

I agree, kinda makes the pill of a super team harder to swallow

Vee-Rex
12-08-2016, 04:39 PM
I enjoy the NBA less now than I have in ~10 years but I'm not sure how much, if any, super teams play a role in that. There are certainly some other things outside of the game itself factoring into it and maybe the Magic sucking have beaten me down too. IDK. But I haven't attributed it to super teams, quality of play, or any of that. It's mostly just that the regular season doesn't really seem to matter much to me. I just want the playoffs to be here, and it's early December. I know what teams are going to be there and I'm ready for those playoff showdowns. I recognize all the things that normally would interest me (mainly some absurdly good play from a lot of players, young and old)...and I think the NBA is perfectly robust and healthy. But for whatever reason I'm just kinda in an NBA funk. But parity has always sucked and elite teams have always existed. That's not new.

It's a lot easier to post when your team is relevant and a hot topic of discussion. I remember you posting a lot more back in 2009 and even amidst the trolling Magic fans you were level-headed.

Hopefully you stick around. Perhaps having the Magic on the cusp of being a playoff team will help?

JAZZNC
12-08-2016, 04:40 PM
were they really though? Meh

People really seem to dismiss the fact that Jordan played on some of the most ridiculously stacked teams ever. That said, I feel like those teams were real contenders. I mean a couple complete blown calls by the fees and that 98 series goes 7 at Utah (although we should have still won with possession and up in the final seconds and the ball in the hands of our MVP...ugh that one play will haunt me for the rest of my ****ing life). The Bulls were certainly the better team but they were played close at times and could have lost several series. It is absolutely nothing like this year where it is already a forgone conclusion who's in the Finals barring serious injury....and unless it's Curry or Level that get hurt it's still a given who we are seeing in the Finals.

hugepatsfan
12-08-2016, 05:33 PM
Superteams by themselves aren't bad. You just need competition at the top. Parity in the NBA has never been and never will be a thing. It will always be the select few. But you just want it to be competitive at the top. Even if you have a team that wins a bunch of titles in a short span, you still want them to be challenged at least by a few team. You just don't want one team head and shoulders above the rest. That's what we have right now with GS. And to make things even worse, CLE is head and shoulders above the rest of the East. So you have what seems like no competition in either conference. And then in the Finals you have CLE who you give a puncher's chance, but GS is just soooo much better talent wise. No real intrigue at all. It's just boring and uninteresting from a competitive standpoint.

Chronz
12-08-2016, 06:00 PM
On the real, can we bring back handchecking

DanG
12-08-2016, 06:40 PM
Meh, tough to say. I think the Eastern conference needs another superstar though. Had KD gone there, the regular season would have more of a meaning to it.

Before the Miami big 3 the NBA sure wasn't as predictable. Right now there is pretty much a 0,1% chance anyone has a shot at beating a healthy Cavs squad.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
12-09-2016, 12:12 AM
Meh, tough to say. I think the Eastern conference needs another superstar though. Had KD gone there, the regular season would have more of a meaning to it.

Before the Miami big 3 the NBA sure wasn't as predictable. Right now there is pretty much a 0,1% chance anyone has a shot at beating a healthy Cavs squad.

I was too young for Jordan's Bulls, but I feel like people said this same exact thing about them. And a decent amount of people earlier this decade thought the Bulls would trounce Miami in the EC.

Giannis94
12-09-2016, 10:45 AM
Meh, tough to say. I think the Eastern conference needs another superstar though. Had KD gone there, the regular season would have more of a meaning to it.

Before the Miami big 3 the NBA sure wasn't as predictable. Right now there is pretty much a 0,1% chance anyone has a shot at beating a healthy Cavs squad.

They have one, but you probably wouldn't have heard of him. He plays for the Bucks.

Vee-Rex
12-09-2016, 12:08 PM
They have one, but you probably wouldn't have heard of him. He plays for the Bucks.

I know you guys are excited about acquiring Delly but I wouldn't call him a superstar just yet. He's definitely close, though.

Giannis94
12-09-2016, 12:12 PM
I know you guys are excited about acquiring Delly but I wouldn't call him a superstar just yet. He's definitely close, though.

If you wanna go there Delly at 4/38>>>>>TT 5/82. And a Greek God>>>>an Akron King.

Vee-Rex
12-09-2016, 12:39 PM
If you wanna go there Delly at 4/38>>>>>TT 5/82. And a Greek God>>>>an Akron King.

:laugh2:

mightybosstone
12-09-2016, 01:15 PM
There have always been and will always be super teams. But whatever terms you want to use to describe them—super teams, Big 3, Big 4, ring chasers, etc.—the league is always more interesting when there are dominant teams with a lot of stars. When you gets these Lakers/Celtics and Cavaliers/Warriors type rivalries, it's not just more interesting to watch, but the league is more popular and making more money. Nobody wants to watch championships with teams like the 2000s Pistons or Duncan/Parker/Ginobili Spurs even though they certainly have merit.

And I agree that it's frustrating when a guy like Durant joins a team like Golden State. Ideally you want the top 5ish guys in the league playing on different teams. But if Golden State faces Cleveland again in the Finals, that matchup will get a ton of viewers compared to seeing the Spurs take on Toronto or Boston. And if it's good for the league and I can still enjoy watching games, then I'm OK with it.

canzano55
12-10-2016, 01:56 PM
I've been saying this for years - the NBA has NO SUSPENSE at all.

The NFL, NHL, MLB (post-Sox/Yankees dominance) Soccer...lieterally every other sport outside of the NBA is rife with suspense.

The NBA today is like what the WWF used to be on Saturday mornings when wrestling stars would beat up on no-names lol.

valade16
12-10-2016, 02:10 PM
I've been saying this for years - the NBA has NO SUSPENSE at all.

The NFL, NHL, MLB (post-Sox/Yankees dominance) Soccer...lieterally every other sport outside of the NBA is rife with suspense.

The NBA today is like what the WWF used to be on Saturday mornings when wrestling stars would beat up on no-names lol.

I'd say the NBA regular season has very little suspense overall, but that's partially due to length (MLB regular season has no suspense until the final 15 games or so as well).

In the playoffs the first couple rounds have no suspense as the dominant teams knock off the lesser teams, but after that it has as much if not more suspense than any other league.

The Warriors were in a 3-1 hole to the Thunder and came back, and then got a 3-1 lead on the Cavs and lost 4-3 in the Finals. There was more suspense for the NBA Finals than last year's Superbowl and this year's World Series.

Shammyguy3
12-10-2016, 04:52 PM
No they don't ruin them, as us fans age we only notice things older fans have already known (in regards to watching the Lakers/Celtics kill the 80s, the Pistons late 80s, the Bulls in the 90s, the Lakers in the 00s, etc)

To make it more exciting, i suggest

a) Drop the # of games from 82 to 68

b) play the games from November 1st through April 1st.

c) get rid of the 4 games in 5 nights, and have ZERO back to backs

d) institute a hard-cap, an actual hard-cap

mike_noodles
12-10-2016, 05:05 PM
I find myself less and less interested in the NBA. Part of that is the team I cheer for, part of that is dominance of a handful of teams.

mike_noodles
12-10-2016, 05:14 PM
I'd say the NBA regular season has very little suspense overall, but that's partially due to length (MLB regular season has no suspense until the final 15 games or so as well).

In the playoffs the first couple rounds have no suspense as the dominant teams knock off the lesser teams, but after that it has as much if not more suspense than any other league.

The Warriors were in a 3-1 hole to the Thunder and came back, and then got a 3-1 lead on the Cavs and lost 4-3 in the Finals. There was more suspense for the NBA Finals than last year's Superbowl and this year's World Series.

Did you even watch the WS? It was far far better than any other championship battle in the last calendar year. The baseball season has far more suspense and intrigue than the NBA regular season could ever hope for. Sure the last 15 games are the most exciting if your team is in the hunt, but it's like that for the last 10% of any season in any league. The NBA is the league with the least amount of suspense in the playoffs. In the first two rounds in each of the other leagues, anyone can win, not so in the NBA.

Scoots
12-10-2016, 11:19 PM
They have one, but you probably wouldn't have heard of him. He plays for the Bucks.

If you probably haven't heard of him then, by definition, he can't be a superstar.

Giannis94
12-11-2016, 12:20 PM
If you probably haven't heard of him then, by definition, he can't be a superstar.

Thats because we are a small market team and the band-wagon fans only jump on a stars team after he reaches "start status". So in 2 years now, all the Cavs, Warriors and former heat fans will all be Bucks and Wolves fans including yourself and tredigs.

tredigs
12-11-2016, 12:47 PM
Thats because we are a small market team and the band-wagon fans only jump on a stars team after he reaches "start status". So in 2 years now, all the Cavs, Warriors and former heat fans will all be Bucks and Wolves fans including yourself and tredigs.

For the other actual Bucks fans on here who have sounded off on this kid, I'd just like it to be known that we don't hold clown shoes over here against you. Every village has their idiot.

Scoots
12-11-2016, 01:05 PM
Thats because we are a small market team and the band-wagon fans only jump on a stars team after he reaches "start status". So in 2 years now, all the Cavs, Warriors and former heat fans will all be Bucks and Wolves fans including yourself and tredigs.

I've been a fan of the Bucks (not as "my" team but as a fan) since the 70s. But my point was that if people haven't heard of a player he's not a superstar. Giannis will probably never be a superstar and where he plays is only part of it ... it's also that his name is tough, and he doesn't show much character to the press.

Giannis94
12-11-2016, 01:10 PM
I've been a fan of the Bucks (not as "my" team but as a fan) since the 70s. But my point was that if people haven't heard of a player he's not a superstar. Giannis will probably never be a superstar and where he plays is only part of it ... it's also that his name is tough, and he doesn't show much character to the press.

Well the Greek God took down Curry and crew last year and an Akron King this year. Next step: New Orleans.

Scoots
12-11-2016, 01:39 PM
Well the Greek God took down Curry and crew last year and an Akron King this year. Next step: New Orleans.

The Bucks made the finals?

Giannis94
12-11-2016, 01:58 PM
The Bucks made the finals?

They have as many titles as the Cavs and I'll take my odds on the Bucks gettign a 2nd before the Cavs if thats what you're referencing.

benny01
12-11-2016, 03:49 PM
you do know that giannis plays for the Bucks right. My love for drinking pabst by the gallon in some of the grimiest punk bars in the midwest not withstanding, Milwaukee is a shithole. How in Gods holy hell do you expect that giannis will ever get anyone around him to get him to the next level? lebron couldn't do it in Cleveland without a ring. Regardless of their actual skills, Lebron was the next Jordan and couldn't get any help. Giannis will be a great player for the team that trades an aging veteran and some picks for him in 2 seasons when giannis comes to the same realization. sucks being a Bucks fan same as it sucks being a T'wolves fan etc...Barring something like Lebron coming to town, players have too much control over their futures in the NBA for small market teams in the north to ever truly be competitive.

Giannis94
12-11-2016, 05:33 PM
you do know that giannis plays for the Bucks right. My love for drinking pabst by the gallon in some of the grimiest punk bars in the midwest not withstanding, Milwaukee is a shithole. How in Gods holy hell do you expect that giannis will ever get anyone around him to get him to the next level? lebron couldn't do it in Cleveland without a ring. Regardless of their actual skills, Lebron was the next Jordan and couldn't get any help. Giannis will be a great player for the team that trades an aging veteran and some picks for him in 2 seasons when giannis comes to the same realization. sucks being a Bucks fan same as it sucks being a T'wolves fan etc...Barring something like Lebron coming to town, players have too much control over their futures in the NBA for small market teams in the north to ever truly be competitive.

Listen up homie, I never said MKE wasn't a shithole. Cleveland, Detroit and MKE are very similar (I've been to all 3 and have friends that say the same thing).

I expect Giannis to get people around him because unlike Lebron. he is a self-less, friendly, energetic player that teammates love. He doesn't have an ego and doesn't show his self-entitledness on the court. Lebron was the chosen one that Cle got via a *lottery (lol)*.

In regards to your comment about "2 seasons"- Giannis is playing out his rookie deal and then signed a contract extension 4/100- which you are probably unaware of as you were probably watching CNN, TNT or SportsCenter. So in fact, he will be around for 4 1/2 more years. He also clearly stated that he loves MKE, which cannot be said Lebron after leaving CLE once before. If he truly loved CLE- he wouldn't of left.

Oh, to make it clear- he is well worth more than that. He is probably worth upwards of $500+ million as he got us a new stadium.

Oh, and you're missing a person in your timeline. It goes Jordan->Lebron->Giannis.

I can concede that MKE is a shithole but at least we have Giannis, Walker and Ryan.

Scoots
12-11-2016, 07:48 PM
They have as many titles as the Cavs and I'll take my odds on the Bucks gettign a 2nd before the Cavs if thats what you're referencing.

No, I was referring to your "Well the Greek God took down Curry and crew last year and an Akron King this year." The Warriors and the Cavs made the finals and you are saying the Bucks are better right? And that they "took down" the Warriors and Cavs.

It doesn't matter. Giannis is an incredible player, but he's not a superstar yet since you need notoriety to be a superstar.

Giannis94
12-11-2016, 09:59 PM
No, I was referring to your "Well the Greek God took down Curry and crew last year and an Akron King this year." The Warriors and the Cavs made the finals and you are saying the Bucks are better right? And that they "took down" the Warriors and Cavs.

It doesn't matter. Giannis is an incredible player, but he's not a superstar yet since you need notoriety to be a superstar.

Notoriety? Okay.

Guess who said the following. Hint: The thing he s most well known for the past 8 years is playing golf

"Greek or American, we're all cheering for Giannis Antetokounmpo, who seems to be getting better each year," said Obama, who, like many of us, stumbled through the pronunciation of Giannis' 13-letter last name.

cmellofan15
12-11-2016, 10:02 PM
LMAO you guys shouldn't argue with a guy who thinks Giannis ****ing Antetokounmpo took down Curry or Lebron in any facet of basketball. it's pretty obvious he's trolling you

Giannis94
12-11-2016, 10:07 PM
LMAO you guys shouldn't argue with a guy who thinks Giannis ****ing Antetokounmpo took down Curry or Lebron in any facet of basketball. it's pretty obvious he's trolling you

http://media.jrn.com/images/1500*1912/b99619519z.1_20151120000953_000_gmlde6o7.1-0.jpg

Scoots
12-12-2016, 12:35 AM
LMAO you guys shouldn't argue with a guy who thinks Giannis ****ing Antetokounmpo took down Curry or Lebron in any facet of basketball. it's pretty obvious he's trolling you

Agreed

Captain Moroni
12-12-2016, 01:32 AM
In answer to the OP, yes super teams are killing the NBA. Does anyone think Cleveland and GS won't meet in the finals? The rest of the teams are just meager pawns

Jeffy25
12-12-2016, 01:46 AM
There will always be one, two, or three dominant teams in the league dude.

The 90's had the Bulls, Celtics, and Lakers, and great teams elsewhere for spurts like the Magic, Warriors, Rockets, etc.

A "trend"?

The only "super teams" you can consider as such really have been the Heat, and the Warriors for the last decade or so.

And FFS....LOL @ you making the Clippers an example of drafting well and not being able to get over the hump....THE WARRIORS LITERALLY BUILT THEIR CORE FROM THE DRAFT!!!

:facepalm:

This.

This is a game where you need top 5 players in the league to realistically win (something I used to disagree with). In other sports that are more team orientated, super teams don't really win it. The NBA has always had super teams. This isn't new.

Scoots
12-12-2016, 08:33 AM
In answer to the OP, yes super teams are killing the NBA. Does anyone think Cleveland and GS won't meet in the finals? The rest of the teams are just meager pawns

This makes you sound like you haven't been a fan of the NBA for too long. It has always been true that there are only a few teams with a realistic chance to win a title. There have been surprise winners for sure, but most years and year after year there are clearly favored teams to start each year. In 66 years of the NBA the Lakers have made the finals 31 times ... nearly half of the seasons in NBA history had one team in the finals. The Celtics have been in the finals 21 times, the Sixers 9, the Warriors and Knicks 8, the Pistons 7, the Bulls and Spurs 6 times. Most of those finals appearances pre-date free agency so they are not all super-teams and yet the NBA has always been fairly predictable.

Also, the NBA has had it's biggest growth when it was the most predictable ... Magic with the Lakers and Bird with the Celtics, and Jordan and the Bulls.

Giannis94
12-12-2016, 08:48 AM
In answer to the OP, yes super teams are killing the NBA. Does anyone think Cleveland and GS won't meet in the finals? The rest of the teams are just meager pawns
Tend to agree but if you add SA and LBJs Heat you can take it back 5-10 years

Hawkeye15
12-12-2016, 04:32 PM
Notoriety? Okay.

Guess who said the following. Hint: The thing he s most well known for the past 8 years is playing golf

"Greek or American, we're all cheering for Giannis Antetokounmpo, who seems to be getting better each year," said Obama, who, like many of us, stumbled through the pronunciation of Giannis' 13-letter last name.

It's clear Giannis is going to be the best player in the game for a good 4-5 year stretch.

Giannis94
12-12-2016, 08:40 PM
It's clear Giannis is going to be the best player in the game for a good 4-5 year stretch.

At least, in fact I'd put my wager on the over. He just turned 22. Barring injury, theres not a single thing slowing him down.

benny01
12-12-2016, 10:10 PM
Listen up homie, I never said MKE wasn't a shithole. Cleveland, Detroit and MKE are very similar (I've been to all 3 and have friends that say the same thing).

I expect Giannis to get people around him because unlike Lebron. he is a self-less, friendly, energetic player that teammates love. He doesn't have an ego and doesn't show his self-entitledness on the court. Lebron was the chosen one that Cle got via a *lottery (lol)*.

In regards to your comment about "2 seasons"- Giannis is playing out his rookie deal and then signed a contract extension 4/100- which you are probably unaware of as you were probably watching CNN, TNT or SportsCenter. So in fact, he will be around for 4 1/2 more years. He also clearly stated that he loves MKE, which cannot be said Lebron after leaving CLE once before. If he truly loved CLE- he wouldn't of left.

Oh, to make it clear- he is well worth more than that. He is probably worth upwards of $500+ million as he got us a new stadium.

Oh, and you're missing a person in your timeline. It goes Jordan->Lebron->Giannis.

I can concede that MKE is a shithole but at least we have Giannis, Walker and Ryan.

Winning comes first, I can name about 100 guys that went places to win. I don't really know of any that moved to Milwaukee to play with really "good guys". It's your fairy tale I guess.
I said 2 years because I figure that's about how long it will take for him to be recognized as a top 5-10 player by most. Then the questions will start about why they can't get over the hump, does he have enough help, etc...Thats about the time guys decide to bail. Also about the time the Bucks will have to decide how they will handle him going forward. Will he resign, who can we pair with him etc...Decision time. That's when you get what you can for him and move on. Remember that durant loved and would never leave OKC. It's something guys drafted in small markets say about 2 seasons before they leave.
First go round with the NBA?

Giannis94
12-12-2016, 10:42 PM
Winning comes first, I can name about 100 guys that went places to win. I don't really know of any that moved to Milwaukee to play with really "good guys". It's your fairy tale I guess.
I said 2 years because I figure that's about how long it will take for him to be recognized as a top 5-10 player by most. Then the questions will start about why they can't get over the hump, does he have enough help, etc...Thats about the time guys decide to bail. Also about the time the Bucks will have to decide how they will handle him going forward. Will he resign, who can we pair with him etc...Decision time. That's when you get what you can for him and move on. Remember that durant loved and would never leave OKC. It's something guys drafted in small markets say about 2 seasons before they leave.
First go round with the NBA?
Will respond tomorrow as am mobile. Never said I watch NBA. In fact I recently stated it's not worth watching until the finals, I think in this thread

benny01
12-12-2016, 10:55 PM
Will respond tomorrow as am mobile. Never said I watch NBA. In fact I recently stated it's not worth watching until the finals, I think in this thread

So you've never seen him play?

Scoots
12-12-2016, 11:57 PM
Look at the under $5M list and production per $ ... the best run teams get the best deals on free agents, maybe sign the best free agents, and maybe just get the most out of their players.

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/introducing-cost-per-win-and-the-list-of-most-valuable-nba-free-agent-signings-182720757.html

Maybe teams should be limited to how many minimum contracts they can sign. Right now it's unlimited by the cap.

Giannis94
12-13-2016, 12:01 AM
So you've never seen him play?

I watch Giannis play nightly. Every time he is on. Before him? I would only watch if I got lower bowl tickets for under $10

KnickNyKnick
12-13-2016, 01:00 AM
yup Knicks are ruining the league. #Supermariobrosteam

warfelg
12-13-2016, 08:57 AM
Just wait for the Young Scrappy and Hungary (AKA 76ers) to sign a max while we still have a crapton of cap, 1 budding superstar (Embiid), 1 potential superstar (Simmons), heap of Assets (Noel, Okafor, RoCo, Hollis), and picks. We still got our own high picks, LAL pick, Kings swap, 2019 Kings pick, and a bevy of 2nds in the upcoming years.

If you step back and keep and open eye to it....the way this Sixers team is set up is something that should start to make the NBA tremor a bit.

KnickNyKnick
12-13-2016, 10:07 AM
theyre gonna have cap problems eventually if they try to hold on to most of them. Very good trade chips though to bring a Max player to Philly. Sixers are well set up i agree. so many options for them, hope they execute well (management i mean)

Giannis94
12-13-2016, 10:28 AM
yup Knicks are ruining the league. #Supermariobrosteam

but self-proclaimed dream teams don't ruin the league. they make it.

Scoots
12-13-2016, 10:40 AM
Just wait for the Young Scrappy and Hungary (AKA 76ers) to sign a max while we still have a crapton of cap, 1 budding superstar (Embiid), 1 potential superstar (Simmons), heap of Assets (Noel, Okafor, RoCo, Hollis), and picks. We still got our own high picks, LAL pick, Kings swap, 2019 Kings pick, and a bevy of 2nds in the upcoming years.

If you step back and keep and open eye to it....the way this Sixers team is set up is something that should start to make the NBA tremor a bit.

Not quite yet.

Hawkeye15
12-13-2016, 11:15 AM
At least, in fact I'd put my wager on the over. He just turned 22. Barring injury, theres not a single thing slowing him down.

yeah, probably. I am thinking 4-5 MVP's or so

Giannis94
12-13-2016, 11:22 AM
yeah, probably. I am thinking 4-5 MVP's or so

I'll take the over. DM me if you want a 12-14 year bet and we can figure out the financials if you take 4 and under.

Vee-Rex
12-13-2016, 11:32 AM
I'll take the over. DM me if you want a 12-14 year bet and we can figure out the financials if you take 4 and under.

I'll take the over on your over. BAE gets at least 9 mvps, mark my words. DM me if you wanna put some money on that, fa sho.

warfelg
12-13-2016, 11:46 AM
Not quite yet.

It was tongue in cheek trolling of a certain someone.

Giannis94
12-13-2016, 11:56 AM
I'll take the over on your over. BAE gets at least 9 mvps, mark my words. DM me if you wanna put some money on that, fa sho.

We have had to switch the name from BAE to GOAT due to the negative connotations with the term BAE, and Giannis is truly the GOAT after getting us a new stadium (thank you Walker)

Hawkeye15
12-13-2016, 12:00 PM
I'll take the over on your over. BAE gets at least 9 mvps, mark my words. DM me if you wanna put some money on that, fa sho.

I might take that bet dawg

Giannis94
12-13-2016, 12:02 PM
I might take that bet dawg

3 way fun way? I'll go in with Finals MVP's counting as 1/2 MVP meaning that if he gets 2 FMVP's that equates to 1 regular season?