PDA

View Full Version : State of the NBA



HandsOnTheWheel
06-06-2017, 11:58 PM
Add Kevin Durant to a 73 win team in a rapidly changing NBA landscape, you're left with what could be the best team ever this season, and in these Finals. The question gets begged, what to make of this super team and what does the future of the league hold in store? Assuming the Warriors go on to win this series, how does the league get impacted moving forward? Do contenders alike make serious moves, casting aside future picks and players to try and bolster their roster to attempt to attain the level/tier below this Warriors superteam? (No realistic team imaginable can compete with these guys). Do Warriors go on to win 75-80 games each year (barring injuries) in the coming seasons with possibly 5-6 straight championships? What do you make of the whole situation and your thoughts on the integrity of the game/general state of the league at the present moment?

EDIT: In no way is this questioning ratings or how well the NBA is doing as ratings are supposedly up from last year and is probably still one of the most watched sporting events currently.

tredigs
06-07-2017, 12:22 AM
The Warriors are one of the greatest teams ever on paper (and are playing like it up to this point), but A) Other teams do potentially have the means to challenge them in coming seasons, the NBA always shifts a LOT quicker than people think. We thought that the Thunder were going to run the West for a decade after their first Finals run at age 21 and 22. We thought the Miami superteam would run the league and win at least 3 to 4 ships if they stayed together. And B) This series is not over yet. Let's see if the #3-7 guys on Cleveland actually start to play closer to the levels they have for the past month and a half when they get back home. I still would not be shocked by a Warriors sweep, but I think we're going to see that the Cavs are not even that far off from making it a more watchable, competitive series. We got a big glimpse of it until midway through the 3rd quarter in game 2 last night. I actually think that could have been a great game had guys like Korver and Deron hit their relatively easy/open looks and not deferred.

75-80 games? Come on dude. Everything has to go right + a ton of effort to even reach 70. They'll win in the mid to high 60's for the next few years barring injury though. Then probably become a 50 to low 60 win team a year or two before they shift the team a bit or decline. As a fan I'm hoping for a slow but constant shift.

BKLYNpigeon
06-07-2017, 12:25 AM
Overreaction.

this team will only be around for 3 years. Nobody in the league really cares, They're all making money.

The CBA is up in 7 years, so no rule changes till then.

Bostonjorge
06-07-2017, 12:27 AM
Cavs have a total of 5 losses total in the east playoffs the past 3 years. So of course the best way to fix the NBA is to make the the Cavs even stronger by making the east even weaker then it already is. Then the NBA will be fixed.

tredigs
06-07-2017, 12:28 AM
Overreaction.

this team will only be around for 3 years. Nobody in the league really cares, They're all making money.

The CBA is up in 7 years, so no rule changes till then.

I don't see any way that they're not still a top contender if not favorite in 4 and 5 years unless there are big injuries to be honest, but you never know. I do think the NBA's future is extremely bright and the Warriors will get to play some amazing teams.

Bostonjorge
06-07-2017, 12:30 AM
Giving the Cavs a bigger payroll then their already biggest pay role ever will fix the league. The east playoffs is always the highlight of NBA playoffs. So let's throw more great players on the same Cavs team every time to fix the league.

tredigs
06-07-2017, 12:33 AM
Cavs have a total of 5 losses total in the east playoffs the past 3 years. So of course the best way to fix the NBA is to make the the Cavs even stronger by making the east even weaker then it already is. Then the NBA will be fixed.

That's an insane/ridiculous fact that goes unnoticed among the cries about the Warriors. That's six sweeps in 3 years for the Cavs. So basically we only get to see one series a year with Lebron and his team playing at their best and actually facing the West team that can take it (because that's what top West teams are also like).

BKLYNpigeon
06-07-2017, 12:34 AM
Blame the Players and Players Association.

NBA suggested that they should have cap smoothing. But the players got greedy and wanted it all the TV up front.


Thats how we landed KD.

LA_Raiders
06-07-2017, 12:50 AM
Is all about the Warriors and Cavs for the next 3 years, after that LeQueen will slow down and the Warriors will dominate. LeQueen will demand to add another all star to his team and the easy will just become even more garbage, but at least they can compete vs the dubs in the finals. The NBA is a 2 team league much similar to the Spanish soccer league; and it sucks cause the outcome has two options only.

BKLYNpigeon
06-07-2017, 01:15 AM
Is all about the Warriors and Cavs for the next 3 years, after that LeQueen will slow down and the Warriors will dominate. LeQueen will demand to add another all star to his team and the easy will just become even more garbage, but at least they can compete vs the dubs in the finals. The NBA is a 2 team league much similar to the Spanish soccer league; and it sucks cause the outcome has two options only.

Atletico Madrid is Legit.

GoferKing_
06-07-2017, 04:14 AM
Well, GSW is winning for the next +/- 4 years, nad LeBron with whatever team he is on will be there. So the rest of the teams should focus on developing players.

FOXHOUND
06-07-2017, 06:08 AM
The 1980's is heralded by many as the "Golden Age" of basketball. The 80's Lakers played in 8 NBA Finals, winning 5 of them. The 80's Celtics played in 5 NBA Finals, winning 3 of them.

The 1990's is heralded by many as the "Jordan Era" of basketball. The 90's Bulls played in 6 NBA Finals, winning all 6 of them.

The 2000's is heralded by many as the "Western Dynasty Era" of basketball. The 00's Lakers played in 7 NBA Finals, winning 5 of them. The 00's Spurs played in 3 NBA Finals, winning all 3 of them. The east was largely their punching bag.

In the 2010's, I guess it will be known as the "Super Team Era" of basketball. LeBron James has played in 6 NBA Finals between Miami and Cleveland, winning 3 of them, with this being his 7th. The Warriors have played in 2 NBA Finals, winning 1, and look poised to win a 2nd in their 3rd. If they go to play in the next two, that will be 5 NBA Finals with up to 4 wins for the decade. With seemingly no one to challenge the Cavs in the east in the near future as of today, it appears that LeBron will play in all but the first NBA Finals of the 2010's. The Warriors + LeBron are seemingly a lock to win 7 of the 10 NBA Finals this decade.

The current state of the NBA is same old story, just different faces.

warfelg
06-07-2017, 06:45 AM
Blame the Players and Players Association.

NBA suggested that they should have cap smoothing. But the players got greedy and wanted it all the TV up front.


Thats how we landed KD.

This is what I've been saying but for some reason it turns into the players wouldn't get their money.

The dirty secret is the top player reps in the PA knew this could happen and they rejected it for their own benefit. Just like the change in age limit for the super max, the change in rules, etc.

The sooner people realize that CP3, LBJ, and other older players that are higher up in player representation of the PA were selfish rd and ****ed the NBA for their own personal gains the better off we will all be.

mike_noodles
06-07-2017, 07:11 AM
This is what I've been saying but for some reason it turns into the players wouldn't get their money.

The dirty secret is the top player reps in the PA knew this could happen and they rejected it for their own benefit. Just like the change in age limit for the super max, the change in rules, etc.

The sooner people realize that CP3, LBJ, and other older players that are higher up in player representation of the PA were selfish rd and ****ed the NBA for their own personal gains the better off we will all be.

This is wrong, at least to only blame the top players. At least 50% of the rest voted and agreed.

Chronz
06-07-2017, 07:48 AM
Misleading title. This ain't no super team, this is far more unprecedented, an absolute cheat team the league has no way of curtailing due to the numerous factors that went into their success. League is ducked for awhile, enjoy it while we have the illusion of anything other than hoping bron never declining or several dubs getting injured or one of their players wanting an actual challenge ala okc big4

warfelg
06-07-2017, 08:19 AM
This is wrong, at least to only blame the top players. At least 50% of the rest voted and agreed.

Because what happened was misrepresented. And a lot of writers were surprised that it happened.

http://www.sbnation.com/2015/3/11/8192081/nba-salary-cap-smoothing-2016-players-union

And not only that the meeting only had 50 players at it:

They're here now, with the union's rejection of two "smoothing" proposals from the NBA to manage the flood of new money from dramatically increased TV rights fees beginning with the 2016-17 season. Michele Roberts, the NBPA's new executive director, said the team reps voted unanimously to reject both proposals during a meeting that included about 50 players.


To be clear, Roberts' concern is referencing money paid to individual players rather than total compensation to the players as a whole. Although the smoothing proposal would eventually have made the players whole once it was fully phased in, with the help of shortfall payments, not every current player will be under contract throughout the duration of the smoothing proposal. High-profile 2016 free agents like LeBron James and Kevin Durant will now be able to fully maximize the value of their next contracts rather than starting those deals at an artificially reduced figure. Similarly, marginal players, older players and those who might suffer serious injuries as the smoothing played out might have been taking a financial hit without sufficient delayed gratification to show for it personally. This depends on whether or not the shortfall payments covered their decreased earning power.

Do you know what a big part of the NBA proposed?

In cap smoothing they would have increased the cap by the same percentage each year, and take the remaining money and divided it among players that met certain minutes and games qualifiers evenly.

There's literally no way in my mind if that was opened up to the entirety of the NBA players that they would reject cap smoothing if that were the case.

Not only that if you look at who was on the board at that time and you realize it's almost all guys that would see a benefit from this:
CP3 (deal up in 2017), LBJ (deal up in 2016), James Jones, Andre Igoudala, Anthony Tolliver, Carmelo Anthony, Stepgen Curry, Kyle Korver, Pau Gasol, Paul Milsap, Kyrie Irving, JJ Reddick, Russell Westbrook, CJ McCollum, Kyle Lowry, Gordon Hayward

You want to tell me all the big names bound to get contracts right as that spike happened didn't know exactly what they were doing and what could happen if the spike were allowed to happen?

The NBA preferred smoothing for two main reasons: foster competitive balance, enable better planning, and the league also believes dramatic spikes in the salary cap lend itself to unpredictability, including dips in the salary cap.

The league would rather have the cap make a more gradual jump from $67.4 million in 2015-16 to $78-$79 million in 2016-17 and then another increase to $90 million in 2017-18, instead of a $23 million increase from one season to the next. But the league is also not bent out of shape about the union's decision.

As NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said at All-Star weekend, "I don't want to act like it's a terrible problem to have. We're thrilled that based on the interest in the NBA we're able to command these big increases in the television market. And we will live with our deal."

The league also preferred to more evenly distribute talent to teams throughout the league but the spike in the cap will open the market to teams who might not otherwise be in the market for top free agents. But competitive balance isn't the union's problem.

It's interesting how the NBA foresaw this happening, the NBPA didn't give a ****, and now there's a rising vocal opinion that it's bad. And even go outside this board and talk to people about the NBA and you'll hear the same thing over and over "I don't care because I know who'd going to win." I mean look at that again: The owners want a balanced league. In a balanced league where more teams are competitive and you have a better talent distribution you have better games, better games mean more people watching, and more people watching means more money on the next deal!!!

I mean I'm sorry, I can't accept that much of this leadership was in place when they got the change for the over 36 rule to over 38 rule. Your top two players in the NBPA benefited directly from it. Chris Paul and Lebron James are the President and VP of the players association that negotiated this and they are the main benefactors from it, along with quite a few players on that list I put up earlier. Now they can get the full max, because a 5 year deal puts them at 37.

Wake up and realize the older outgoing generation of NBA players screwed the new generation and rank and file players hard.

warfelg
06-07-2017, 08:37 AM
Effectively there is a reason the NBPA higher ups wanted to avoid this vote going to the players as a whole. A majority of players in the NBA are on minimum, low contracts, rookie deals, or just signed deals. Those guys would have easily said no because non of those deals were going to increase with the spike in the cap. If it ever got to them they would have rejected it easily. Those players would want smoothing with a bonus proposal where players that were 'underpaid' would be able to get get some bonus money that was given to the union to distribute as they saw fit. And if it went to the masses of the players I'm sure they would have wanted to vote on some way for guys that wouldn't benefit from the increase (see above) could get the bonus over the top paid players.

crewfan13
06-07-2017, 09:43 AM
For all of their faults, this isn't a issue with the PA. It's not like only Lebron and chris Paul benefitted from the windfall of cash. There was a ton of mid tier guys that signed huge contracts last year. And there will be a bunch more signed this year. And those contracts will be used by agents as building blocks for future contracts for the rest of the league. Player X will say that player Y makes a certain amount of money, I'm clearly better than him, so you need to pay me this much. Don't be fooled into thinking this only helped the top players.

And the smoothing option seems like a good plan. And the "extra" payments would have helped league minimum guys. But it's still a proposal to allow the owners to save money or make more money. In the smoothing option, the owners wouldn't have been able to or forced into the highest levels of luxury tax. Less money in the cap means less chance to go way over. By inserting all the money into the ecosystem right away, it forces owners to decide how high over the cap they want to go. If they would have done the smoothing option, the owners would have simply had to pay up to the tv deal money. By inserting it all up front, players had the chance to force owners into paying more by forcing them well over the cap for the best teams.

As annoying as it is as a fan, players love when a team like the cavs goes way over the cap. Let's say a Kyle Korver signs with Cleveland for the mid level exception instead of signing with a team under the cap, like let's say Denver. Now, Denver still has the money to spend under the cap space to apply to someone else, whereas Cleveland can't spend that money if they don't use the exception (since they have no cap space). Like I said, rejecting the smoothing option made a lot of mid tier players a lot of money too.

And the only reason this is an issue is because of Durant's decision. If Durant would have resigned with OKC, no one would have brought this up. The only people that would complain about the lack of smoothing would be fans whose teams signed guys like dellevadova, mozgov and others to stupid deals. I don't blame Durant. He made a decision that he thought would be best for him. That's his right. It sucks, but it's also not the PA's fault. In a smoothing situation, these guys all just would have signed short term deals to reenter free agency when the cap tipped out anyways.

warfelg
06-07-2017, 09:58 AM
Your take on smoothing is wrong. Silver was going to hand over the different between what the cap could have been and what it was.

hugepatsfan
06-07-2017, 09:59 AM
NBA needs more tanking. That's right - more. Teams stuck in the middle need to recognize they're going nowhere. And trade their decent players to teams on the verge. Instead though, those teams in the middle cling on so they can get potential playoff revenue and it leaves those huge gaps between the top tier and the second tier.

DET is going nowhere but good players like Drummond, Tobias Harris, KCP, Marcus Morris could help teams like CLE and SA get closer to GS. They could help BOS/HOU/WAS/TOR/OKC/LAC get closer to CLE/SA. IND is going no where with Paul George - they could jumpstart their rebuild and strengthen a contender by trading him. CHI has Jimmy Butler and garbage. Where the **** is Charolette going with Walker/Batum/MKG? What the **** good are Evan Fournier, Vucevic and Evan Fournier doing in ORL? These teams aren't on any sort of path to contending but they keep their good players and rob the second/third tier teams from getting closer to the next tier and they rob themselves of building a foundation that might be able to compete (though obviously no guarantee.

I'm not saying every non-elite team should sell. MIL is a "middle ground" team right now but there's a path to improve and build. MIN isn't even in the playoffs but the foundation is there. PHI is a team that should be on the upswing over the next couple of years.

If you're stuck on the treadmill of the middle tier take what you can get for your players. You'll get a head start on trying to build something with the ability to grow. And the good teams have more talent available to them in trades.

likemystylez
06-07-2017, 10:11 AM
]Cavs have a total of 5 losses total in the east playoffs the past 3 years[/B]. So of course the best way to fix the NBA is to make the the Cavs even stronger by making the east even weaker then it already is. Then the NBA will be fixed.

wtf???

2017 3 losses so far
2016 they had atleast 5 losses that I remember
2015 4 losses in the finals alone

Im counting atleast 12, and I didnt bother to look up the first and second round of any series the last few yrs. those 12 were just losses off the top of my head and I dont even follow the cavs. Im a dubs fan

hugepatsfan
06-07-2017, 10:16 AM
wtf???

2017 3 losses so far
2016 they had atleast 5 losses that I remember
2015 4 losses in the finals alone

Im counting atleast 12, and I didnt bother to look up the first and second round of any series the last few yrs. those 12 were just losses off the top of my head and I dont even follow the cavs. Im a dubs fan

He said in the "East playoffs". He had one loss this year in the East. 3 of those losses you remember last year were in the finals. All 4 of those finals losses in 2015 were to the West. You should read what you respond to.

BKLYNpigeon
06-07-2017, 10:33 AM
I don't see any way that they're not still a top contender if not favorite in 4 and 5 years unless there are big injuries to be honest, but you never know. I do think the NBA's future is extremely bright and the Warriors will get to play some amazing teams.

sure of course, but they with the new salary cap structure, The Warriors would have to part with Klay or Draymond. Theres just no possible way the Warriors could keep all of them when they start paying the Repeater Luxury Tax.

in 2 years Cavs will start paying TRIPLE of their Luxury Tax.

Scoots
06-07-2017, 10:49 AM
Overreaction.

this team will only be around for 3 years. Nobody in the league really cares, They're all making money.

The CBA is up in 7 years, so no rule changes till then.

The NBA can change rules, their ability to change them is just a little more limited between CBAs.

If Cousins goes to Cleveland it all changes.

COOLbeans
06-07-2017, 10:54 AM
The Warriors are one of the greatest teams ever on paper (and are playing like it up to this point), but A) Other teams do potentially have the means to challenge them in coming seasons, the NBA always shifts a LOT quicker than people think. We thought that the Thunder were going to run the West for a decade after their first Finals run at age 21 and 22. We thought the Miami superteam would run the league and win at least 3 to 4 ships if they stayed together. And B) This series is not over yet. Let's see if the #3-7 guys on Cleveland actually start to play closer to the levels they have for the past month and a half when they get back home. I still would not be shocked by a Warriors sweep, but I think we're going to see that the Cavs are not even that far off from making it a more watchable, competitive series. We got a big glimpse of it until midway through the 3rd quarter in game 2 last night. I actually think that could have been a great game had guys like Korver and Deron hit their relatively easy/open looks and not deferred.

75-80 games? Come on dude. Everything has to go right + a ton of effort to even reach 70. They'll win in the mid to high 60's for the next few years barring injury though. Then probably become a 50 to low 60 win team a year or two before they shift the team a bit or decline. As a fan I'm hoping for a slow but constant shift.


People are just mad that their teams suck. If there were better playoff series, then this wouldnt be a conversation. When Shaq and Kobe were destroying teams along with the Spurs, nobody cared because there were other good matchups and teams in the league. Fun players like Iverson, Vince, Yao Ming and Mcgrady to watch ETC. Everybody knew they were'nt going to win but at least they'd put up a fight.

Now that most of the other teams are horrible, and the players are too, and lack any credibility and personality, all these guys can do is complain about the future state of the league and ***** about it

BKLYNpigeon
06-07-2017, 11:22 AM
Lets say the Warriors didn't get KD and they were just as dominate this year.


Is it still an issue?

warfelg
06-07-2017, 11:33 AM
Lets say the Warriors didn't get KD and they were just as dominate this year.


Is it still an issue?

Not really because you say they are just a dominate team.

But they didn't do that the last two years. They have had some series they had to fight in. Ones they had to play great.

hugepatsfan
06-07-2017, 11:45 AM
Lets say the Warriors didn't get KD and they were just as dominate this year.


Is it still an issue?

No. The Warriors were an all time great team obviously but so was CLE. I know GS ultimately lost but it was a 7 game series that came down to the final minutes and the all time career moment of the arguable GOAT. GS was better but CLE has a puncher's chance which they obviously capitalized on. It was a fair fight.

SA wasn't as good as GS but they were reasonable close enough to challenge. Same with OKC while they had Durant. In the East no one is/was close to CLE which was definitely a problem in the East. No doubt about that. But league-wide as a whole I thought you had a great situation where you had the clear cut favorite but then 3 teams in SA, OKC, CLE that could knock them off if they played great and GS slipped up a bit (like they did in the Finals). I maintain, even with my bias aside, it would have been great for KD to choose BOS because then instead of OKC being in that tier you have BOS in it which balances out the East/West situation.

So while GS was the best but still reasonably challenged by a couple teams, adding KD just took them to another level. CLE and SA were worse than GS but close enough to have a shot at them (like CLE put together an all time comeback to do). Add another all-time great to that team and now no one is close. It's no longer "the overwhelmingly likely outcome" that they win... it's total formality now.

warfelg
06-07-2017, 12:05 PM
No. The Warriors were an all time great team obviously but so was CLE. I know GS ultimately lost but it was a 7 game series that came down to the final minutes and the all time career moment of the arguable GOAT. GS was better but CLE has a puncher's chance which they obviously capitalized on. It was a fair fight.

SA wasn't as good as GS but they were reasonable close enough to challenge. Same with OKC while they had Durant. In the East no one is/was close to CLE which was definitely a problem in the East. No doubt about that. But league-wide as a whole I thought you had a great situation where you had the clear cut favorite but then 3 teams in SA, OKC, CLE that could knock them off if they played great and GS slipped up a bit (like they did in the Finals). I maintain, even with my bias aside, it would have been great for KD to choose BOS because then instead of OKC being in that tier you have BOS in it which balances out the East/West situation.

So while GS was the best but still reasonably challenged by a couple teams, adding KD just took them to another level. CLE and SA were worse than GS but close enough to have a shot at them (like CLE put together an all time comeback to do). Add another all-time great to that team and now no one is close. It's no longer "the overwhelmingly likely outcome" that they win... it's total formality now.

If KD chose Boston/Washington and both east and west had 2-4 good teams where you can look at one team and say they should come out but wouldn't be shocked if someone else did....the NBA could print money.

Just imagine a east top 4 seeds of:
Cleveland with LBJ, Kyrie, and Love
Washington with Wall, Beal, KD
Boston with IT, Horford, and a slew of talented role players
Toronto with Lowry, Derozen, Val

Those strengths and weaknesses are so varied, but you would pick Cleveland as the favorite still because of LBJ.

Then a west where the top 4 are:
Golden State with Curry, Klay, Dray
Spurs with LMA, Kawhi
Houston with Harden and that system
Portland with Lillard and CJ

Yea Golden State likely comes out but again, that's three teams near the top with some strong supporting casts and benches that could make things interesting.

KnicksorBust
06-07-2017, 12:17 PM
The 1980's is heralded by many as the "Golden Age" of basketball. The 80's Lakers played in 8 NBA Finals, winning 5 of them. The 80's Celtics played in 5 NBA Finals, winning 3 of them.

The 1990's is heralded by many as the "Jordan Era" of basketball. The 90's Bulls played in 6 NBA Finals, winning all 6 of them.

The 2000's is heralded by many as the "Western Dynasty Era" of basketball. The 00's Lakers played in 7 NBA Finals, winning 5 of them. The 00's Spurs played in 3 NBA Finals, winning all 3 of them. The east was largely their punching bag.

In the 2010's, I guess it will be known as the "Super Team Era" of basketball. LeBron James has played in 6 NBA Finals between Miami and Cleveland, winning 3 of them, with this being his 7th. The Warriors have played in 2 NBA Finals, winning 1, and look poised to win a 2nd in their 3rd. If they go to play in the next two, that will be 5 NBA Finals with up to 4 wins for the decade. With seemingly no one to challenge the Cavs in the east in the near future as of today, it appears that LeBron will play in all but the first NBA Finals of the 2010's. The Warriors + LeBron are seemingly a lock to win 7 of the 10 NBA Finals this decade.

The current state of the NBA is same old story, just different faces.

No it's not the same old story. Even the previous "greatest team of all-time" the Bulls got challenged along the way. I just wrote all about it in another thread http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?923940-Do-NBA-fans-really-want-parity&p=31663736#post31663736

This is different.


Misleading title. This ain't no super team, this is far more unprecedented, an absolute cheat team the league has no way of curtailing due to the numerous factors that went into their success. League is ducked for awhile, enjoy it while we have the illusion of anything other than hoping bron never declining or several dubs getting injured or one of their players wanting an actual challenge ala okc big4

Bingo.


Not really because you say they are just a dominate team.

But they didn't do that the last two years. They have had some series they had to fight in. Ones they had to play great.

Exactly. The difference between the Curry-Durant Warriors and the rest of the league is the largest talent discrepancy since maybe the 50s/60s but I can't talk in detail about that era. It's like nothing I've seen before growing up in the late 80s/90s.

mrblisterdundee
06-07-2017, 01:33 PM
To change the situation the NBA is in, fans need to stop paying attention, stop watching games and stop providing revenue. The NBA needs to feel it in the pocketbook before making any changes.

crewfan13
06-07-2017, 01:43 PM
Your take on smoothing is wrong. Silver was going to hand over the different between what the cap could have been and what it was.

That's if there's a shortfall. If players salaries exceeded their portion of basketball related income, it would hurt the players. In a case where basketball related income exceded the players share, the NBA would have paid the union a check to distribute money up to the "proposed" salary cap, which probably would have been negotiated at the cap for this year.

The salary cap this year was $94 mill. The average salary commitment from nba teams this year was $99 million. So players would have ended up leaving $150 million in the table in total if 51% of basketball related income was under the $2.8 billion dollars ($94 mill times 30 teams).

It makes sense why they did it. In a smoothing case, the players money is contingent on a few things like BRI and maxed out based upon the $94 mill cap. By not smoothing, players salaries were not maxed out because teams often spend over the limit. In all honesty, the smoothing probavly wouldn't hurt the players because I'm guessing BRI was fairly high. But there's no down side from a total money paid to players perspective to rejecting smoothing.

Chronz
06-07-2017, 02:07 PM
NBA needs more tanking. That's right - more. Teams stuck in the middle need to recognize they're going nowhere. And trade their decent players to teams on the verge. Instead though, those teams in the middle cling on so they can get potential playoff revenue and it leaves those huge gaps between the top tier and the second tier.

DET is going nowhere but good players like Drummond, Tobias Harris, KCP, Marcus Morris could help teams like CLE and SA get closer to GS. They could help BOS/HOU/WAS/TOR/OKC/LAC get closer to CLE/SA. IND is going no where with Paul George - they could jumpstart their rebuild and strengthen a contender by trading him. CHI has Jimmy Butler and garbage. Where the **** is Charolette going with Walker/Batum/MKG? What the **** good are Evan Fournier, Vucevic and Evan Fournier doing in ORL? These teams aren't on any sort of path to contending but they keep their good players and rob the second/third tier teams from getting closer to the next tier and they rob themselves of building a foundation that might be able to compete (though obviously no guarantee.

I'm not saying every non-elite team should sell. MIL is a "middle ground" team right now but there's a path to improve and build. MIN isn't even in the playoffs but the foundation is there. PHI is a team that should be on the upswing over the next couple of years.

If you're stuck on the treadmill of the middle tier take what you can get for your players. You'll get a head start on trying to build something with the ability to grow. And the good teams have more talent available to them in trades.
Might as well contract some teams cuz nobody is going to watch the league if they are all that shotty. Aren't the tv numbers down this year as it is?

Chronz
06-07-2017, 02:14 PM
To change the situation the NBA is in, fans need to stop paying attention, stop watching games and stop providing revenue. The NBA needs to feel it in the pocketbook before making any changes.

That could take time if it's At all possible to kill the league.

tredigs
06-07-2017, 02:18 PM
To change the situation the NBA is in, fans need to stop paying attention, stop watching games and stop providing revenue. The NBA needs to feel it in the pocketbook before making any changes.

So NOT make this the most watched Finals* since Jordan's Bulls Finals run (edging out last years ratings)? Roger that.

*This years playoffs overall being up across the board.

So, not that. OK. Well then get to it kids. You've got a lot of not watching to catch up on.

ewing
06-07-2017, 02:58 PM
The NBA product right now is at its worse since the early 2000s. Its a shame too b/c there is no reason for it to be unentertaining, it just is b/c the biggest star have created an unbalanced playing field

LOb0
06-07-2017, 03:01 PM
This has been the worst playoffs I've seen. What was the most intense moments? Celtics vs Wizards? Terrible.

TrueFan420
06-07-2017, 03:15 PM
Atletico Madrid is Legit.

No doubt but they don't have the money to keep up. They'll always lose their top players. Similar to Dortmund in Germany. Bayern will always be top.

ewing
06-07-2017, 03:16 PM
This has been the worst playoffs I've seen. What was the most intense moments? Celtics vs Wizards? Terrible.

the Celtic/Wiz overtime game was great and The Spurs/Griz game where KL went nova but lost in OT was great too

tredigs
06-07-2017, 03:25 PM
This has been the worst playoffs I've seen. What was the most intense moments? Celtics vs Wizards? Terrible.

I blame the Warriors for all the other 15 teams not playing memorable series, personally. Only makes sense.

Jokes aside, I do think tonight will be a very good game. The Cavs almost got there in G2 before they started choking late in the 3rd quarter.

LOb0
06-07-2017, 04:14 PM
I blame the Warriors for all the other 15 teams not playing memorable series, personally. Only makes sense.

Jokes aside, I do think tonight will be a very good game. The Cavs almost got there in G2 before they started choking late in the 3rd quarter.


A Warriors Thunder rematch would have saved this playoffs. So yeah I still blame Durant.

HandsOnTheWheel
06-08-2017, 12:00 AM
Lets go Preds ;)

FOXHOUND
06-08-2017, 01:25 AM
No it's not the same old story. Even the previous "greatest team of all-time" the Bulls got challenged along the way. I just wrote all about it in another thread http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?923940-Do-NBA-fans-really-want-parity&p=31663736#post31663736

This is different.

I mean, the 2001 Lakers went 15-1 in the playoffs and most likely go undefeated if they didn't have to sit for two weeks waiting for the ECF to finish. If Kawhi doesn't get hurt, Spurs are at worst winning game 1. They were in competitive in game 3 for a good bit without him. Gobert was hurt, Nurkic was hurt.

I get it, this playoff run has been super dominant, but all of their competition leading up to the Finals also had big injuries to make that worse. Nobody remotely challenged Cleveland in the east, they just haven't gotten it done. Tonight should have been a win, tough loss. Let's also not get ahead of ourselves and act like they just swept 3 postseasons in a row already.

The push is coming, be patient. The foe-foe-foe 83 76ers went 12-1 and swept the Magic-Kareem Lakers in the Finals, of all teams. The 89 Pistons went 15-2, sweeping the Lakers but at the end of their powers, and only losing those two games to Jordan's Bulls in the ECF. Bulls in 91 went 15-2, sweeping the Pistons in the ECF and Knicks in the 1st round while beating the 76ers and, once again, the Lakers in 5. The 71 Bucks went 12-2 and set the Finals margin of victory record that still stands today, the next closest being 2014. On that note, the Warriors will break that record if they win that last game by 8 points.

Is this playoff run the best ever? Maybe, as mentioned the injury circumstances but hard to argue with the record and point differential. But even if it is the best, it's just one of the all-time dominant playoff runs in that group and I'm sure I missed some.

They have yet to win 5 rings, like the Lakers and Spurs of 99-00+, or 6 rings, like the 90's Bulls, or 5 rings, like the 80's Lakers, or even 3 rings like the 80's Celtics. Let's not preemptively crown them like people tried to do with Miami in 2010. As we learned with that team, life comes at you fast...

Scoots
06-09-2017, 12:06 AM
Lets go Preds ;)

Go Pens.

Gibby23
06-09-2017, 12:15 AM
This has been the worst playoffs I've seen. What was the most intense moments? Celtics vs Wizards? Terrible.

True. If Rondo didn't get hurt the Bulls would have moved on.

BKLYNpigeon
06-09-2017, 12:28 AM
Remember when Jordan and the bulls owned the 90s?

Nobody complained, we all watched the greatness and beautiful basketball.


Time to stop hating on the warriors, eventually you will have to give them Some respect. They play basketball at its purest form and it's really fun to watch.

MTar786
06-09-2017, 06:08 AM
Because what happened was misrepresented. And a lot of writers were surprised that it happened.

http://www.sbnation.com/2015/3/11/8192081/nba-salary-cap-smoothing-2016-players-union

And not only that the meeting only had 50 players at it:




Do you know what a big part of the NBA proposed?

In cap smoothing they would have increased the cap by the same percentage each year, and take the remaining money and divided it among players that met certain minutes and games qualifiers evenly.

There's literally no way in my mind if that was opened up to the entirety of the NBA players that they would reject cap smoothing if that were the case.

Not only that if you look at who was on the board at that time and you realize it's almost all guys that would see a benefit from this:
CP3 (deal up in 2017), LBJ (deal up in 2016), James Jones, Andre Igoudala, Anthony Tolliver, Carmelo Anthony, Stepgen Curry, Kyle Korver, Pau Gasol, Paul Milsap, Kyrie Irving, JJ Reddick, Russell Westbrook, CJ McCollum, Kyle Lowry, Gordon Hayward

You want to tell me all the big names bound to get contracts right as that spike happened didn't know exactly what they were doing and what could happen if the spike were allowed to happen?

The NBA preferred smoothing for two main reasons: foster competitive balance, enable better planning, and the league also believes dramatic spikes in the salary cap lend itself to unpredictability, including dips in the salary cap.

The league would rather have the cap make a more gradual jump from $67.4 million in 2015-16 to $78-$79 million in 2016-17 and then another increase to $90 million in 2017-18, instead of a $23 million increase from one season to the next. But the league is also not bent out of shape about the union's decision.

As NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said at All-Star weekend, "I don't want to act like it's a terrible problem to have. We're thrilled that based on the interest in the NBA we're able to command these big increases in the television market. And we will live with our deal."

The league also preferred to more evenly distribute talent to teams throughout the league but the spike in the cap will open the market to teams who might not otherwise be in the market for top free agents. But competitive balance isn't the union's problem.

It's interesting how the NBA foresaw this happening, the NBPA didn't give a ****, and now there's a rising vocal opinion that it's bad. And even go outside this board and talk to people about the NBA and you'll hear the same thing over and over "I don't care because I know who'd going to win." I mean look at that again: The owners want a balanced league. In a balanced league where more teams are competitive and you have a better talent distribution you have better games, better games mean more people watching, and more people watching means more money on the next deal!!!

I mean I'm sorry, I can't accept that much of this leadership was in place when they got the change for the over 36 rule to over 38 rule. Your top two players in the NBPA benefited directly from it. Chris Paul and Lebron James are the President and VP of the players association that negotiated this and they are the main benefactors from it, along with quite a few players on that list I put up earlier. Now they can get the full max, because a 5 year deal puts them at 37.

Wake up and realize the older outgoing generation of NBA players screwed the new generation and rank and file players hard.

great post! very insightful

IndyRealist
06-09-2017, 06:38 AM
The 1980's is heralded by many as the "Golden Age" of basketball. The 80's Lakers played in 8 NBA Finals, winning 5 of them. The 80's Celtics played in 5 NBA Finals, winning 3 of them.

The 1990's is heralded by many as the "Jordan Era" of basketball. The 90's Bulls played in 6 NBA Finals, winning all 6 of them.

The 2000's is heralded by many as the "Western Dynasty Era" of basketball. The 00's Lakers played in 7 NBA Finals, winning 5 of them. The 00's Spurs played in 3 NBA Finals, winning all 3 of them. The east was largely their punching bag.

In the 2010's, I guess it will be known as the "Super Team Era" of basketball. LeBron James has played in 6 NBA Finals between Miami and Cleveland, winning 3 of them, with this being his 7th. The Warriors have played in 2 NBA Finals, winning 1, and look poised to win a 2nd in their 3rd. If they go to play in the next two, that will be 5 NBA Finals with up to 4 wins for the decade. With seemingly no one to challenge the Cavs in the east in the near future as of today, it appears that LeBron will play in all but the first NBA Finals of the 2010's. The Warriors + LeBron are seemingly a lock to win 7 of the 10 NBA Finals this decade.

The current state of the NBA is same old story, just different faces.

And this doesn't even include the Bill Russel era.

warfelg
06-09-2017, 07:31 AM
And people who want to talk about any teams and "no one was mad about..." and that team came together before 1988:

Shut the **** up.

No seriously. Don't even bring those teams up.

Free Agency didn't really exist pre-1988. Before that time if your contract ended and you wanted to play elsewhere, the team signing you had to send compensation to the team that you had played for before. So if you were at all good, you weren't going anywhere.

So I have the following reasons hat you can't be mad or use the pre-1988 teams:
#1 - There was no FA so those great players never hit the open market for an already good team to sign.
#2 - There was no salary cap, so when a team had a good player, there was no "penalty" to keeping him.
#3 - When a team wanted a player they had to give something up. It's not like players just walked from team to team when they wanted. The Lakers had to give up stuff to get Kareem.

So back then, when teams got better, they were trading for them, drafting for them, or developed them. I always see the thing of Magic and Worthy being number one picks to an already really damn good Lakers team, but they traded for both of them.

A reminder of how the Lakers ended up with Magic:

Traded by the New Orleans Jazz (as a 1979 1st round draft pick) with a 1977 1st round draft pick (Kenny Carr), a 1978 1st round draft pick (Freeman Williams) and a 1980 2nd round draft pick (Sam Worthen) to the Los Angeles Lakers for a 1977 2nd round draft pick (Essie Hollis) and a 1978 1st round draft pick (Jack Givens). This exchange was arranged as compensation for Utah signing veteran free agent Gail Goodrich on 1976-07-19.

And how they ended up with Worthy:

Traded by the Cleveland Cavaliers (as a 1982 1st round draft pick) with Butch Lee to the Los Angeles Lakers for Don Ford and a 1980 1st round draft pick (Chad Kinch).

In both of those cases a team made a really bad trade to "save money" and "be better right now" and the Lakers really benefited. They didn't know at the time those picks would become Magic and Worthy. Those picks could have easily been a lower pick and they don't end up with those guys. It's not like Magic and Worthy were playing elsewhere and forced their way to the Lakers.

The Celtics did a similar thing at the same time. The Bulls did similar things in the late 80's too.

TL;DR:
Complaining about people not "whining" about pre-1988 superteams is stupid because it shows you don't know your NBA history.

archdevil84
06-09-2017, 07:36 AM
its because of lebron james. He's so insanely good that these superteams not to be formed to challenge him. Lebrons supporting cast is solid but without him they are a 6th seed at best. Without durant i think the cavs wouldve been favorites this year considering how lebron played in the previous rounds (basically toying with the raps and celts) So as long as lebron is still MVP worthy and in the league there will be a 2 superteams, the one he plays on and the one he plays against in the finals

FOXHOUND
06-09-2017, 09:25 AM
And this doesn't even include the Bill Russel era.

Oh, of course not lol. I also mixed up the 2000's, it should be 4 and 4 for Lakers and Spurs (99-00 for Spurs should be in and 09-10 for Lakers should be out).

FOXHOUND
06-09-2017, 09:32 AM
And people who want to talk about any teams and "no one was mad about..." and that team came together before 1988:

Shut the **** up.

No seriously. Don't even bring those teams up.

Free Agency didn't really exist pre-1988. Before that time if your contract ended and you wanted to play elsewhere, the team signing you had to send compensation to the team that you had played for before. So if you were at all good, you weren't going anywhere.

So I have the following reasons hat you can't be mad or use the pre-1988 teams:
#1 - There was no FA so those great players never hit the open market for an already good team to sign.
#2 - There was no salary cap, so when a team had a good player, there was no "penalty" to keeping him.
#3 - When a team wanted a player they had to give something up. It's not like players just walked from team to team when they wanted. The Lakers had to give up stuff to get Kareem.

So back then, when teams got better, they were trading for them, drafting for them, or developed them. I always see the thing of Magic and Worthy being number one picks to an already really damn good Lakers team, but they traded for both of them.

A reminder of how the Lakers ended up with Magic:


And how they ended up with Worthy:


In both of those cases a team made a really bad trade to "save money" and "be better right now" and the Lakers really benefited. They didn't know at the time those picks would become Magic and Worthy. Those picks could have easily been a lower pick and they don't end up with those guys. It's not like Magic and Worthy were playing elsewhere and forced their way to the Lakers.

The Celtics did a similar thing at the same time. The Bulls did similar things in the late 80's too.

TL;DR:
Complaining about people not "whining" about pre-1988 superteams is stupid because it shows you don't know your NBA history.

And maybe instead of telling people to "shut the **** up about not knowing NBA History", you shouldn't ignore that Curry, Klay and Green were also drafted by Golden State. Maybe also look into how Kareem Abdul-Jabbar became a Laker, if you aren't aware. A name conveniently left out of your post. Maybe also look into why there was a group of teams in the 80's with a great collection of talent while many were bone dry, not just the Lakers and Celtics.

Maybe people should stop being so salty that one team was able to draft three All-NBA players, including a 2-time MVP, with the 7th, 11th and 35th pick while there are teams tanking every year that haven't been able to get one yet with 4 top 6 picks. #someprocessesarebetterthanothers :rolleyes:

Sly Guy
06-09-2017, 09:38 AM
And maybe instead of telling people to "shut the **** up about not knowing NBA History", you shouldn't ignore that Curry, Klay and Green were also drafted by Golden State. Maybe also look into how Kareem Abdul-Jabbar became a Laker, if you aren't aware. A name conveniently left out of your post. Maybe also look into why there was a group of teams in the 80's with a great collection of talent while many were bone dry, not just the Lakers and Celtics.

Maybe people should stop being so salty that one team was able to draft three All-NBA players, including a 2-time MVP, with the 7th, 11th and 35th pick while there are teams tanking every year that haven't been able to get one yet with 4 top 6 picks. #someprocessesarebetterthanothers :rolleyes:

he's not mad at the 2015-16 Warriors. He's salty at the 2016-17 ones though.

FOXHOUND
06-09-2017, 09:50 AM
he's not mad at the 2015-16 Warriors. He's salty at the 2016-17 ones though.

But the 2016-17 Warriors are nothing without their draft picks, they're just Kevin Durant, Andre Iguodala and Zaza and nobody is scared of that trio. Well, maybe Zaza. :D

warfelg
06-09-2017, 09:57 AM
he's not mad at the 2015-16 Warriors. He's salty at the 2016-17 ones though.

What I'm getting to is the people say "no one was mad about the 70's so and so, showtime Lakers, etc" don't realize those teams didn't have FAs signing with them to make an elite team all time great. They gave up stuff to bring in those guys.

And I'm not salty. It's just disingenuous to say there were super teams back then and never admit that they didn't sign a top 5 NBA player to add to an already top 5 NBA player.

Mr.B
06-09-2017, 09:58 AM
I didn't read anyone's comments I just want to post my own opinion. I believe it was Jerry West that said recently that he feels sorry for the fans of the NBA. From the moment KD signed with GS we all knew who was going to be in the finals. It took away all of the hope and fun for any team that might have a chance for a title in any other season.

Saddletramp
06-09-2017, 04:39 PM
But the 2016-17 Warriors are nothing without their draft picks, they're just Kevin Durant, Andre Iguodala and Zaza and nobody is scared of that trio. Well, maybe Zaza. :D

You still don't get it. What they did by drafting solid guys and trading for Bogut and signing Iguodala were all normal. Them being able to bring in the second best player in the world this year wasn't.

He didn't mean literally everything with last year's roster was cool but literally everything with this year's roster isn't. The difference was the changes, not what was already there.

FOXHOUND
06-09-2017, 05:31 PM
You still don't get it. What they did by drafting solid guys and trading for Bogut and signing Iguodala were all normal. Them being able to bring in the second best player in the world this year wasn't.

He didn't mean literally everything with last year's roster was cool but literally everything with this year's roster isn't. The difference was the changes, not what was already there.

I get it, I'm just calling it out for the sour grapes that it is. Maybe if OKC was willing to pay the luxury tax they never trade Harden and Durant is still there? I don't feel sorry for them, just their fans.

warfelg
06-09-2017, 05:43 PM
You still don't get it. What they did by drafting solid guys and trading for Bogut and signing Iguodala were all normal. Them being able to bring in the second best player in the world this year wasn't.

He didn't mean literally everything with last year's roster was cool but literally everything with this year's roster isn't. The difference was the changes, not what was already there.

^^^this guy gets it.

Scoots
06-09-2017, 06:33 PM
We are not talking enough about the impact of one of the rule changes in the new CBA to make super teams less likely ... contracts of vets can now be extended a year earlier than before. That "small" change means that the number of potential free agents next year (and potentially ongoing past that, but with the largest impact next year) could plumet so teams are more likely to overpay in the probable larger pool this year.

And to be a bit more relevant to the team in question those are contracts the Warriors will potentially have to beat to keep some of their key depth.

FOXHOUND
06-09-2017, 06:49 PM
^^^this guy gets it.

Neither of you get it lol.

Saddletramp
06-09-2017, 07:14 PM
Neither of you get it lol.

You're the one bringing up OKC and not realizing what war is saying. You clearly don't get any of this at all. That's pretty much your thing, though so at least you're consistent.

tredigs
06-09-2017, 07:17 PM
Finals ratings now up 14% from last year, which in itself were the highest rated since Jordan's final Bull's run. Game 3 up 22% from last year. Seems fans have never been more interested.

smith&wesson
06-09-2017, 07:28 PM
I say just put the other 28 teams in the dleague. Lets watch the cavs and warriors for 82 games 😉

Also lets give the cavs Harden to make things fair.

tredigs
06-09-2017, 07:31 PM
I say just put the other 28 teams in the dleague. Lets watch the cavs and warriors for 82 games 😉

Also lets give the cavs Harden to make things fair.

Why would we give the team with the best player in the NBA and multiple All Stars + by far the highest salaried roster even more advantages just because they got out-hustled? But hey, let's do it : )

metswon69
06-09-2017, 07:46 PM
Finals ratings now up 14% from last year, which in itself were the highest rated since Jordan's final Bull's run. Game 3 up 22% from last year. Seems fans have never been more interested.

Fans like dominance and thinking they are witnessing history which if the Warriors win tonight, they are accomplishing such.

It will be interesting what the ratings are like if Warriors/Cavs is the finals for the next 2-3 years. That will really speak to how good or bad the NBA is doing. That said, casual fans don't care about parity.

warfelg
06-09-2017, 08:26 PM
Fans like dominance and thinking they are witnessing history which if the Warriors win tonight, they are accomplishing such.

It will be interesting what the ratings are like if Warriors/Cavs is the finals for the next 2-3 years. That will really speak to how good or bad the NBA is doing. That said, casual fans don't care about parity.

I also wonder what the market share is like for the ratings being up.

If it's not drawing in major markets and the extra pull is the Midwest rooting against KD that would be kinda interesting.

tredigs
06-09-2017, 08:38 PM
I also wonder what the market share is like for the ratings being up.

If it's not drawing in major markets and the extra pull is the Midwest rooting against KD that would be kinda interesting.

Curry leads the NBA in jersey sales. 'Bron is #2. KD is #3. Kyrie is #5.

That tells you all you need to know. Four of the top 5 jersey's kids and young adults in this world are wearing are 100% healthy and playing in this series. That's going to generate a massive audience. If this was Celtics Spurs, it would be the lowest rated Finals of all time.

smith&wesson
06-09-2017, 08:50 PM
Why would we give the team with the best player in the NBA and multiple All Stars + by far the highest salaried roster even more advantages just because they got out-hustled? But hey, let's do it : )
Because they are going to play against eachother for 82 games lol so might as well make it a bit more even lol

FOXHOUND
06-09-2017, 09:04 PM
You're the one bringing up OKC and not realizing what war is saying. You clearly don't get any of this at all. That's pretty much your thing, though so at least you're consistent.

Yes, because this conversation is happening if Durant stays in OKC, right? Every team is playing by the same rules and every team benefited from the cap hike. Is Boston in the ECF without Horford? Is Houston good without Gordon and Anderson? Are these players Durant? No, but guess what those teams aren't the Warriors.

Every super loaded team in history has benefited from "abnormal" circumstances. These Cavs wouldn't exist without winning three #1 picks in four years while having another two #4's in that span and LeBron happening to be from Cleveland. Wanna complain about that? Wanna complain about collusion in 2008 leading to the 2010 Miami Heat? Wanna complain about the Vlade for Kobe trade followed by the Shaq signing being locked in thanks to the Lakers cache? Wanna complain about the Bulls adding an All-NBA player in Rodman and then becoming a 72-win team?

Every single decade in the NBA except the 70's has been dominated in championships by 1 or 2 teams. Is it fair to any team in the east that the best player in the NBA has been playing on stacked teams the last 7 years while these teams barely have a single All-NBA player? It's sports. It's competition. It's not about what's fair or normal, it's about winning. Get over it. When the ratings start plummeting, then this thread should exist. As stands, the ratings are doing great.

Saddletramp
06-09-2017, 10:33 PM
Yes, because this conversation is happening if Durant stays in OKC, right? Every team is playing by the same rules and every team benefited from the cap hike. Is Boston in the ECF without Horford? Is Houston good without Gordon and Anderson? Are these players Durant? No, but guess what those teams aren't the Warriors.

Every super loaded team in history has benefited from "abnormal" circumstances. These Cavs wouldn't exist without winning three #1 picks in four years while having another two #4's in that span and LeBron happening to be from Cleveland. Wanna complain about that? Wanna complain about collusion in 2008 leading to the 2010 Miami Heat? Wanna complain about the Vlade for Kobe trade followed by the Shaq signing being locked in thanks to the Lakers cache? Wanna complain about the Bulls adding an All-NBA player in Rodman and then becoming a 72-win team?

Every single decade in the NBA except the 70's has been dominated in championships by 1 or 2 teams. Is it fair to any team in the east that the best player in the NBA has been playing on stacked teams the last 7 years while these teams barely have a single All-NBA player? It's sports. It's competition. It's not about what's fair or normal, it's about winning. Get over it. When the ratings start plummeting, then this thread should exist. As stands, the ratings are doing great.

That's not even what was being discussed. It has nothing to do with OKC or anyone else. There was only one KD level player this offseason (Lebron wasn't going anywhere after winning) and only one 73 win team. For him to join that was a cowardly move. No one was upset at the Warriors for any moves at all but they were/are upset by one guy ring chasing in his prime. And that happened 11 months ago. And since when has early draft picks been "abnormal"? And guys talking together before they're FAs is "abnormal"? Get out of here with that. A 33% jump in the cap is certainly abnormal, but not all of those things were.

You immediately called War out on crying about how GS drafted well when no one was crying about GS drafting well. You've just really




You know what, man? I'm just not even any more with this garbage.

macc
06-09-2017, 11:28 PM
I don't really care so much about the superteama. The NBA has always had teams who dominated over a few years, bulls, spurs, Lakers etc.

I just think the NBA is boring now. The great big man is extinct. So we don't get to see the battles down low. The mid range shot is all but gone, I loved watching Jordan, Kobe, AI crossover into a midrange jumper.

The back down game is almost completely gone. Very few players shoot a nice turn around fadaway.

No more rivalries, no hate for each other because a year later the best players will be on the same team.

It's not physical at all.

It's all 3s and fast break dunks. Spread the floor and spot up jumpers. I've been an NBA first guy for over 20 years but these days I'll take hockey 7 days a week over the nba. Never thought I would ever say that.

GREATNESS ONE
06-09-2017, 11:42 PM
You're the one bringing up OKC and not realizing what war is saying. You clearly don't get any of this at all. That's pretty much your thing, though so at least you're consistent.

You're anger and troll mode has no end... guess we all get it now.

MrfadeawayJB
06-11-2017, 08:44 AM
Finals ratings are up this year, but it's going to be terrible to watch in regular season. People are realizing that the reg season means nothing because we all know who's gonna be in the finals year after year.

Scoots
06-11-2017, 09:23 PM
Yes, because this conversation is happening if Durant stays in OKC, right?

KD was not staying in OKC. Celtics, Clippers, Spurs, Heat, or maybe the Wizards were I think the only other possible destinations. Had he chosen the Celtics, Heat, or Wizards we may not be seeing the Cavs in the finals.

Saddletramp
06-11-2017, 09:40 PM
KD was not staying in OKC. Celtics, Clippers, Spurs, Heat, or maybe the Wizards were I think the only other possible destinations. Had he chosen the Celtics, Heat, or Wizards we may not be seeing the Cavs in the finals.

But those teams don't guarantee a ring. That's why he didn't go there.

Jamiecballer
06-11-2017, 09:48 PM
But those teams don't guarantee a ring. That's why he didn't go there.
I would ask how you know that, sir. How do you know that is why he wanted that situation. Did you talk to him or something, have a little texty texty

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

FOXHOUND
06-11-2017, 11:04 PM
KD was not staying in OKC. Celtics, Clippers, Spurs, Heat, or maybe the Wizards were I think the only other possible destinations. Had he chosen the Celtics, Heat, or Wizards we may not be seeing the Cavs in the finals.

What I meant was there is no freak out for some people if he chose a destination other than Golden State.

AllBall
06-13-2017, 01:15 AM
I'm afraid that teams will react in a way that will create a poor NBA product after tonight. Hope I'm wrong.

Scoots
06-13-2017, 09:35 AM
I'm afraid that teams will react in a way that will create a poor NBA product after tonight. Hope I'm wrong.

Based on the tanking to close out the season they already started.

PurpleLynch
06-13-2017, 09:54 AM
Good as ever I think, economically speaking.
Obviously, the game is changing and a lot of people are not happy with that, above all for the shrinking of the big man role.
I think tha's not true, big men are just adapting their game to the new era and actually we're having a resurgence of young and talented bigs[Davis, KAT, Drummond, Cousins, Gobert, Jokic, Turner,Whiteside, Embiid(if he stays healthy)] plus some old school centers with modern features like M. Gasol, Horford,Jordan,Lopez and Plumlee.