Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 20 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 293
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Rockford IL
    Posts
    5,240

    Critisism of forming super-teams

    It seems that everybody in sports media cries about the forming of super-teams by NBA free agents. I think this is unwarranted. When a good player has yet to win a league title, the media (and some fans) constantly rip on that player for not going all the way. But when that player tries to do something about it through free agency, those same critics cry about that too. You can't have it both ways and still be fair.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    7,993
    It's never about fair, it's about entertainment.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    16,986
    Quote Originally Posted by MidwestJimmy View Post
    It seems that everybody in sports media cries about the forming of super-teams by NBA free agents. I think this is unwarranted. When a good player has yet to win a league title, the media (and some fans) constantly rip on that player for not going all the way. But when that player tries to do something about it through free agency, those same critics cry about that too. You can't have it both ways and still be fair.
    You also can't team up and then try and claim the glory for yourself as if "you did this". No, a team full of All-Stars did it. Cheating and colluding did it. Jumping on a bandwagon did it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    65,617
    I really think this is a purely basketball issue for multiple reasons:

    1 - There's always the rings comparison. They always talk about the 60's and 70's timeframe. In the 1964 season this was the NBA: Boston Celtics, Cincinnati Royals, Philadelphia 76ers, New York Knicks, Los Angeles Lakers, St. Louis Hawks, Baltimore Bullets, Detroit Pistons, San Francisco Warriors. And you played 10 games against each other team for an 80 game season, then a division semi-finals for 2 seed v 3 seed in 5, and a division finals 1 seed v SF winner in 7 game, then Finals in a 7 game. Jump to the 76-77 season and you are up from 9 to 22 teams; but you still played ever team the same amount of times (4 now) to create the 82 game season, 4v5 and 3v6 with 1&2 getting a bye, then the 1 playing the 4v5 winner and 2 playing the 3v6 winner.

    Basically my first issue is guys get compared, ring wise, to players that played at a time when the path to rings was much easier. Imagine if the rounds went Bo5, Bo7, Bo7, Bo7 again. Or even Bo3, Bo5, Bo7, Bo7. Because that's basically what it was. Or the playoffs did the top 10 in each conference with top and byes for the top teams.

    2 - No other sport is as dependent on single great players than the NBA. So to be seen as a "great player" you have to get a ring because a team winning could be dependent on that. This is less about the rings argument but if the NBA can find a way to get less reliant on single players on a team, then it makes it easier to talk about great players sans rings. Look at the NFL where Dan Marino, Jim Kelly being ringless doesn't prevent them from being all time greats; and a guy like Drew Brees even having one cements him as an all time great. But in the NFL, NHL, MLB we understand inherently that great players are dependent on good teammates.

    3 - Fans don't know how to express how and why a guy is good or better than another player without resorting to rings. Because we've gotten such short attention spans that stats and counting numbers have become a 'go to' way of expressing what a players value is over being able to watch, break down, and converse about film of a player. There's a bunch of things I could go to as an example, but the easiest at the moment comes from the DPOY conversation. The go to is all these stats, which are inherently tilted to certain positions, and no one wants to talk about what they see and watch with their eyes. They are reliant on being able to plug numbers to tell them the story.

    _________________________

    Now all of that being said, I don't find it unfair to talk about the lack of success of great players and dislike the teaming up of players at the same time. Because there are often times great player stuck in bad situations who feel like they have to team up to be good. Maybe the issue is they aren't that great and because they put up numbers on a bad team doesn't mean they can lift a team over the top (Sorry to people that love these guys but Bradley Beal, Zach LaVine, Karl Anthony-Towns come to mind right now). Maybe the issue is these guys are hard working yet limited guys who fans have convinced themselves are great players when they aren't (DeMar DeRozen, Jimmy Butler). Maybe the issue is teams are just fawning over potential forever and we lose track of how flawed the player currently is (Kristaps Porzingis, Devin Booker [yes he belongs here], Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Brandon Ingram). Maybe the issue is the guys just don't realize they aren't what they try to be (Russell Westbrook, Dame Lillard). Heck, maybe part of the issue is our tendency to "crown" players before they have shown the capability to be it (Zion Williamson, Trae Young [?], De'Aaron Fox).

    All those reasons to me are what push so many of these guys to team up. We call too many guys these days superstars and potential all time greats, force them to be something greater than they are, and then they decide "well I got to team up to be what they call me". I think it's time to bring back that 'balance' of what we call players and properly talk about them. It's become too much, especially in the NBA, either you are a Superstar, key rotational guy, or scrub. I think if they (media) and we (fans) were willing to change how we talk about players together then some of this mindset would change.

    But there's always, ALWAYS, to me the issue of the NBA has the worst cap setup in all of professional sports. No sport has (1) limited earning potential, (2) the ability to manipulate the cap, (3) such a high percent of the league constantly operate over those numbers, (4) a relative ease of adding/retaining players. Look at the situation that happened in Brooklyn. Two guys took slightly less than max to get a 3rd paid (honestly that was dumb), but because they were able to manipulate holds and extension dates then they were able to have the cap space to sign them outright; but then on top of that the ability to be OVER the cap and trade a single starter, and take on money in the real, but tossing the hope of better picks in the future is absurd.

    I'd propose the following to make it harder for teams to trade for stars when already over the cap:
    1 - The current rule is 125%+$100,000 is the max that can come in when you are over the cap. I'd update that to has to be within 1% of each other. Using the Harden trade as a template, that would mean that DeAndre Jordan, Spencer Dinwiddie, Joe Harris, Kyrie Irving, or Kevin Durant would have to had been included in the deal to get it done.

    2 - TPE's only count as 25% of the salary that is outgoing. Take what happened for the Celtics. They basically did an S&T with a team that didn't really need to do it. Instead of getting a $28.5mil TPE for a team to give them 2 2nds that are unlikely to convert; they would get a $7.125mil TPE. Given the rules allow TPE's to be combined it can still be super valuable. But it makes it harder to later in the season basically use it to skip the buyout market, or get a guy for basically nothing and not have to lose a player for it.

    3 - Kill all the difference Exemptions that exist. Kill them. Every team over the cap get's an Over The Cap Expemption (OTCE) that's an average of all the current exemptions. Every team can only have a single player on this contract at a time. That would stop a team from purposely to get to the big MLE and split it between two players. So if it's $7mil and you give a guy $3.5mil out of it....too bad, you used it. And if you give a guy a 3 year contract on it and you want a different guy the next year....too bad, you used it. Want to trade a guy that has it on another team...sorry got to get rid of yours because...too bad, you used it.

    4 - Change up the max contract rules. Keep the current new team max money, same team max money, and super max. But I would also do this: Changing teams and signing a max can go to a 4+1; same team non-supermax contract can go to 5+1; and supermx contracts can go to a 6+1. Allow teams to pay the league a "contract insurance fee" if they choose, that allows them to get the money back should the player see a career altering injury (few players would qualify for this, like Chris Bosh, Chandler Parsons, basically career ending or same injury multiple years in a row that's season ending to be determined by NBA doctors). This would allow teams to keep players longer if they choose, and have a way to get that cap space back.

    5 - Tied to the above, when it comes to trades, teams can't send out picks further in the future than any contracts that are included in the trade. If you are not trading out any contracts the max you can go is 5 years in the future. For this one again go back to the Harden trade. The longest term contract included in the trade is Caris LeVert at 3 years, yet the Nets traded 1st round picks that are 4 more years in the future. By going to this rule, the Nets would have been able to give up 2 1sts and 1 swap as opposed to 4 1sts and 3 swaps. This again would really impact player movement, but it would also give pressure for teams to get back better competing teams, because you can't just give away great players for picks.

    Lastly, and this isn't a need to do: The league should either contract by about 4 teams or add 2 more and instill stricter cap rules (like hard caps). Either make it easier for talent to colese onto single teams and have a bunch of great teams just in a dog fight every single year; OR have more teams, spread the star talent out, and get more diversity in winners year to year by making player movement more volatile year to year.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    29,088
    I think players have always formed to make super teams. As a fan I have no issue with it. Its just more entertainment for us to see teams with multiple stars battling it out.

    I would hate to see great players waste their careers for x amount of years like KG did in Minnesota. For me as a fan, it was way more fun to watch KG in Boston for those few years vs watching him on the Twolves for over a decade with no real talent around him.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,439
    I think the league wants them honestly so that probably a main reason nothings done. There were super teams before players realized they could do it in fa.

    Remove the max contract for individuals would be the biggest fix but players wouldnít agree to that because it funnels more into only a few players.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    10,593
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    I think players have always formed to make super teams. As a fan I have no issue with it. Its just more entertainment for us to see teams with multiple stars battling it out.

    I would hate to see great players waste their careers for x amount of years like KG did in Minnesota. For me as a fan, it was way more fun to watch KG in Boston for those few years vs watching him on the Twolves for over a decade with no real talent around him.
    Itís great if you live in a big market like LA or NY. If you live in Cleveland itís not that great. As a Mavs fan I REALLY wanted Giannis to come to Dallas to play with Luka however I loved seeing him stay in Milwaukee. It takes all the competitiveness out of the game when you have multiple future hall of famers teaming up (unless itís done organically). I prefer to see players stay with the city that drafted them, as long as that team is making every effort to win. Think about Hakeem building a legacy in Houston, Stockton/Malone in Utah, David Robinson then Duncan in San Antonio, or Dirk on Dallas. When the majority of the cities in the league can build a fan base around a player for their team, thatís more beneficial to the NBA than having a bunch of hall of famers in their prime colluding to join up in NY or LA.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    59,289
    Itís close to ruining the league. I think the Nets big 3 played 12 games together and it really doesnít matter. The journey is much more important for teams that are dependent on maximizing role players. When you have to maximize role player the magic is in chemistry and work. When you throw together Harden, KD, and Kyrie you just roll the balls out like a substitute gym teacher and watch those guys stunt on everyone


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,009
    I don't rag on players for not winning rings. But I do see rings as weaker if a team was stacked compared to the competition. It's only fair.
    Durant's rings were pretty weak. Most of those Celtic and Laker rings were pretty weak. LeBron's ring in Cleveland was stronger than any ring Jordan ever won. Detroit rings were pretty strong. The Spurs' rings were moderately impressive.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    65,617
    Quote Originally Posted by mrblisterdundee View Post
    I don't rag on players for not winning rings. But I do see rings as weaker if a team was stacked compared to the competition. It's only fair.
    Durant's rings were pretty weak. Most of those Celtic and Laker rings were pretty weak. LeBron's ring in Cleveland was stronger than any ring Jordan ever won. Detroit rings were pretty strong. The Spurs' rings were moderately impressive.
    We gotta give the GOAT ring to Dirk then no?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    10,593
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    We gotta give the GOAT ring to Dirk then no?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The Warriors (pre-KD) also did it organically. They won with the team they drafted. They just happed to draft great players. That team and Dirkís Mavs were more impressive wins than any title in the last 10 years.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    29,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.B View Post
    Itís great if you live in a big market like LA or NY. If you live in Cleveland itís not that great. As a Mavs fan I REALLY wanted Giannis to come to Dallas to play with Luka however I loved seeing him stay in Milwaukee. It takes all the competitiveness out of the game when you have multiple future hall of famers teaming up (unless itís done organically). I prefer to see players stay with the city that drafted them, as long as that team is making every effort to win. Think about Hakeem building a legacy in Houston, Stockton/Malone in Utah, David Robinson then Duncan in San Antonio, or Dirk on Dallas. When the majority of the cities in the league can build a fan base around a player for their team, thatís more beneficial to the NBA than having a bunch of hall of famers in their prime colluding to join up in NY or LA.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last time I checked bro, Cleveland had a super team while the Knicks havenít be relevant for years and years.

    I donít think it has anything to do with the city itself. KG didnít want to go to Boston, but then they added Ray Allen and kept Pierce and at that point KG said where do I sign. It was the allure of forming a super team that got him there, not the city itself.

    Sure places like LA and Miami will always have an allure but guys will team up anywhere. Look at Brooklyn for example. Brooklyn represents one borough of a big market, they donít even have half the market in NY. And the Knicks had equal opportunity to get Kyrie and Durant, they opted to go to Brooklyn which def has a smaller market than the Knicks.


    Chicago is a big market I canít remember the last time they were a really good team.
    The Knicks are a big market, they finally made the playoffs but they havenít been able to attract free afents for years
    Houston is a big market and they just went in to rebuild mode after failing to build a winner around Harden.
    I would say Dallas is a pretty big market and they havenít been able to attract free agents either.
    The Warriors donít have the biggest market in California but have had the most success of any team in Cali in the last decade

    The nerrative use to be about big markets having an advantage and I would say itís still true to a point, with places like Miami and LA simply because those are the two most desirable cities to live in but if you think about it, these players would essentially team up anywhere.
    Last edited by smith&wesson; 06-02-2021 at 11:50 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    29,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.B View Post
    The Warriors (pre-KD) also did it organically. They won with the team they drafted. They just happed to draft great players. That team and Dirkís Mavs were more impressive wins than any title in the last 10 years.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I would argue though that building a team through the draft takes a tremendous amount of luck and canít be the only avenue a team takes to contention. Take a look at the twolves history of picks for example.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    29,088
    Also NBA free agency is one of the most exciting things in sports. Itís wild, and we all love it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.B View Post
    The Warriors (pre-KD) also did it organically. They won with the team they drafted. They just happed to draft great players. That team and Dirkís Mavs were more impressive wins than any title in the last 10 years.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    But at the same time, they beat a team with Lebron and nobody (and then lost to that team the next year when they got healthy) and then got gifted Durant. Iíd put those rings lower than most.

Page 1 of 20 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •