NBA 2020-21 Thread

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by pilight

What you're saying makes no sense. LeBron goes out and makes a championship team happen and that's somehow less impressive than if he passively sits back and lets some executive do it?

And its not like he grabbed all the talent in the league, won half a dozen titles and made things completely non-competitive.

LeBron spent a big chunk of his early career waiting for the GM to put together a team, and still managed to haul the crap that Cleveland was able to assemble around him to the finals.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by dkgo

I think you are greatly underestimating how much power a star player has in determining where he goes in a trade. Garnett demanded to leave Minnesota and had to agree to sign an extension with the new team before a trade could happen.

Yes, that's true. No question. But you're looking at this from the player perspective. I'm looking at it moreso from the front office perspective. Pierce, Allen, and KG didn't get together and decide to play together, and then simply leave it to Danny Ainge (and Seattle & Minnesota front offices) to make it happen. Rather, this was primarily Danny wheeling and dealing - and giving up significant assets to put a three-all-star team together.

Originally Posted by dkgo

Managing the salary cap to fit a team together is just as "shrewd" as throwing together some draft picks and players you don't really need for a perennial all-pro who wants to go to your team.

Tell that to all the small-market, non-glamour-destination GM's who have yet to assemble their own gang of all-stars

Originally Posted by ezpkns34

Marc Gasol was a late 2nd round pick who was Far from being considered a top prospect at the time (had yet to play a single minute in the NBA) and was thrown in as a flyer in a trade that was Widely panned when it happened cause Memphis had no leverage from Pau making it known where he wanted to play. The difference between Pau wanting to play with Kobe and Lebron wanting to play with Wade/Bosh is so thin as to question whether there's a line at all
... Marc was literally a throw in who happened to develop into making the trade not be abysmal for the Grizzlies. Just in the same way that the draft picks that went to CLE & TOR from Miami for the LeBron/Bosh sign & trades had the potential to work out if the right players were drafted...

In my opinion, either the Lakers/Gasol & Lebron/Heat get togethers are both "legit" or both "cheap", but I can't envision a scenario where they can be treated as worlds apart in how they were done. The players chose the destination in both scenarios

I'll concede the point. I had recalled the Lakers' acquisition of Pau Gasol of more of a reaction to Andrew Bynum's being lost for the season to injury, and not so much as Pau forcing his way to LA. So, sure, I'll count those Lakers as a mini-gang-up (mini in the sense that it was merely Gasol insisting on his destination - I don't think Kobe was all that involved, other than wanting a big; as opposed to Wade, Bosh & James all actively working together & ganging up).

Originally Posted by pilight

What you're saying makes no sense. LeBron goes out and makes a championship team happen and that's somehow less impressive than if he passively sits back and lets some executive do it?

Think back on your playground days. Which is more impressive when selecting your team and becoming kings of the court? Insisting on having the first three picks and taking the best three players, or taking turns picking players and shrewdly out-picking the other guy?

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

And its not like he grabbed all the talent in the league, won half a dozen titles and made things completely non-competitive.

LeBron spent a big chunk of his early career waiting for the GM to put together a team, and still managed to haul the crap that Cleveland was able to assemble around him to the finals.

No argument. Again, I don't fault the players. I'm just pointing out what's more impressive to me, and what I'm more-likely to root for, and why.

[ezpkns34]

I'll say that when I played pick up games, I personally was able to enjoy both having friends on my team And on the other team. I concede that it's different when you're living the game and traveling constantly, but LeBron would find ways to get mediocre guys he got along with to all his teams also. I think part of it is personality-driven, at least for LeBron

Most of the super teams were made in response to other teams also. Celtics Big 3 to try and overthrow Kobe+Pau, Heat to overtake Celtics, Warriors to reign over Heat, etc

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by thehef

Tell that to all the small-market, non-glamour-destination GM's who have yet to assemble their own gang of all-stars

That's my whole point. Players decide where to play and who to play with regardless of if it's a trade or free agency. Ainge was able to "build" a super team because it was the Celtics and stars want to go there. Same with markets like Miami and LA. If he was the GM of Orlando or Charlotte he could have never traded for Garnett.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by thehef

Think back on your playground days. Which is more impressive when selecting your team and becoming kings of the court? Insisting on having the first three picks and taking the best three players, or taking turns picking players and shrewdly out-picking the other guy?

I was always one of the last ones picked, so it made very little difference to me.

It's more difficult, and therefore impressive, to convince stars to subordinate their games to the biggest star than it is to acquire bunches of players who have no choice in the matter.

[dkgo]

I completely get why you wouldn't want to root for a manufactured super team. I don't either. I'm just saying that the Celtics and Lakers championship teams were exactly that too.

Even teams like the Warriors (before Durant) and the Spurs who were mostly built through years of solid drafting get boring to root for after they win it once.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by dkgo

I completely get why you wouldn't want to root for a manufactured super team. I don't either. I'm just saying that the Celtics and Lakers championship teams were exactly that too.

I guess that all depends upon what one considers manufactured, vs super team, vs ganging up. I mean, manufactured can certainly include shrewd drafting & trading and other filling out a team with good role players. A super team can be manufactured in any number of ways. Ganging up is when players get together and choose their destination.

Certainly, star players, even back in the day, have at least some influence on where they play. However, by my definition, the 80's Celtics & Lakers, the 90's Bulls & Rockets, the Duncan Spurs, the KG/Pierce Celtics, and the pre-Durant Warriors maybe have been super teams, but they were not examples of gang-ups. I'll concede that in some cases - such as the Bryant/Gasol Lakers - it's a fine line.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by pilight

I was always one of the last ones picked, so it made very little difference to me.

Originally Posted by pilight

It's more difficult, and therefore impressive, to convince stars to subordinate their games to the biggest star than it is to acquire bunches of players who have no choice in the matter.

Much easier to win - and not much shrewdness & savvy involved - if you award yourself the first three picks on the playground. But if you and I alternate picks and I then beat you, I'm going to be much more impressed with my team-building skills.

In many cases, the trade-off to subordinating their games is to compete for a title. In addition, in the case of the gang-ups, it's not the front office that has to convince those stars. Rather, the players got together and decided that on their own, and from there the front office had it pretty easy.

To take this to the extreme, if - in a couple years from now - Giannis, Embiid, Trey, Booker, and Tatum decide to gang up in some glamour city, and proceed to go 79-3 and romp through the playoffs for the title, is it really that much of an accomplishment? I mean, sure, they get credit for (the good fortune of) staying healthy, and for sharing the ball, but when the U.S.A. thumps Angola in the Olympics... big deal...

[Syd Thrift]

I don't feel like giving every team something resembling equal footing and then making professional sports into a contest where the best front offices win is or ever has been how things work. In that respect I feel like European football has this figured out way, way more than we do - I semi-root for Fulham for example, who, in spite of being a London-based team, is never going to compete for the UK Premier League championship and really the high-water mark of their existence was the year they were the runner-up in the Europa League (the 2nd tier all-Europe championship). Typically at least IME fans of these lower tier teams don't complain when a guy they signed turns into a superstar and then gets sold off to a bigger, better power - if anything, they're often grateful for the time the player was there and also happy that the money and exposure from that guy might help push them up to that next level, whatever that is.

With the US, though, there's always that sense that any team in the major professional leagues could, theoretically, win their league championship if everything panned out just right. I think that sounds nice but it's not really true and along with that comes these frankly poisonous ideas that a. large market teams doing what large market teams have the resources to do is bad, and b. if my team doesn't compete at that higher level, there's something seriously wrong, either with my team or with the league they're in.

The NBA is a star-driven league and if anything it might have an issue surrounding the fact that there are too *many* checks and balances placed on the large markets that make it more or less impossible for a rich owner running a team that brings in tons more revenue to buy their way out of bad moves the way it's very, very possible for a team like the Yankees, for instance, or even to some extent a big-time NFL team like the Dallas Cowboys. Maybe the Knicks under James Dolan would have, for example, been mired in mediocrity or worse without all of the checks and balances but, like... right now the Mavericks are just plain stuck with a big man who is paid to be their #2 but who is clearly not. They're straight up not going to get #2 level value for Kristaps Porzingis and they can't go out and buy a replacement because his salary puts them over the cap.

Now... given that large market teams are hamstrung like this, and given that so, so much of a player's, even an inner-circle Hall of Famer's, prestige is tied into whether or not they won a championship, is it *really* that strange that great players have begun to take matters into their own hands? Had LeBron not moved on to Miami, won titles there, then let Cleveland get high draft picks so they could support championship runs, I can guarantee that he'd be treated a lot like Karl Malone or Charles Barkley are treated today rather than being mentioned in the same breath as Michael Jordan. Kevin Durant was in the same situation in OKC (also screw the Thunder but that's besides the point), especially once they let James Harden go for a song and with that took away any realistic chance of building a championship caliber roster. And that's not even talking about the lower tier guys who want to chase a ring to cap off a good career. Are the Ray Allens and Blake Griffins of the world really doing anyone a disservice with that?

[dkgo]

everyone thinking they could eventually have a chance is what keeps fans interested though. the US has so much competition with other pro sports and college teams for fans eyeballs/money. You cant sell "we want to challenge for 20th in the league"

I agree with your other point and blame the emergence of loud idiots like stephen a smith as the reason durant went to golden st. if all a guy hears is that his career is a failure without a championship of course hes going to take the easy path to get one.

the media has bastardized what it really means to say an athlete "wants to win." it is admirable when a player is motivated to elevate their own game and get the most from their teammates. going to a team that is already championship caliber because you "want to win" is not the same thing at all.

[Syd Thrift]

TBF Barkley left Philadelphia for Phoenix and then Houston, largely in search of a ring himself. The Mailman did the same with the Lakers at the very end of his career. Ring chasing is not an entirely new phenomenon. If there’s a difference, it’s that players are more willing to do so in the midst of their prime now and more open about wanting to play alongside their friends in the league.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by dkgo

Ainge was able to "build" a super team because it was the Celtics and stars want to go there. Same with markets like Miami and LA. If he was the GM of Orlando or Charlotte he could have never traded for Garnett.

Not really. The list of stars going to Boston via free agency is pretty short...

Ainge already had Pierce under contract. He then attempted to trade for Garnett but - as we know - KG made it clear that he wanted to go where he had a chance to win, and he looked at Boston's roster and didn't think that with himself, Pierce, and spare parts that it was strong enough. So on draft night (or shortly thereafter), Ainge pulled the trigger to acquire Ray Allen (without any sort of pre-approval from Allen; it was just a normal trade). At that point, KG was good with going to Boston, but it was still up to Ainge to find a way to get Minnesota to agree. So I believe KG absolutely would've gone to Orlando - maybe Charlotte - or some other city if he felt the team would be strong enough to compete for a title... And no, Boston is not a similar market (as far as players wanting to go there) to LA or Miami.

So, with KG going to Boston, this was definitely a case of a star player forcing his way out (of Minnesota) and having veto power over where he was going, but it was definitely NOT a case of players ganging up; KG, Pierce, and Allen did not get together and decide they were going to play together in Boston. Ainge had to work hard to build that title contender, not just clear cap room and welcome guys with open arms, ala Pat Riley with James & Bosh.

Note: That's not a shot at Riley. It's just to illustrate the difference between what Ainge did - build a title contender - vs Riley merely saying "Hell YES!" when Wade (who as a free agent at the time), James, and Bosh informed him that they wanted to play for the Heat... And credit where credit is due: Both Ainge and Riley - regardless of how they acquired their three stars - had to finish building the team by acquiring the right role players, and both did quite well in that respect.)

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

TBF Barkley left Philadelphia for Phoenix and then Houston, largely in search of a ring himself. The Mailman did the same with the Lakers at the very end of his career. Ring chasing is not an entirely new phenomenon. If there’s a difference, it’s that players are more willing to do so in the midst of their prime now and more open about wanting to play alongside their friends in the league.

Not that you are saying otherwise, but Barkley-in-his-prime going to Phx was very different that Malone-on-his-last-legs going to LA. Had Barkley won a title there (and he came about as close as you can), the headline would've been a career-defining "Barkley Leads Suns to Title." However, had Malone (and Payton) won a title with LA, the headline would've essentially been, "Malone Sponges Off Shaq & Kobe to Win a Ring that He Couldn't Get for Himself in Utah." Not literally, of course. But it would not have been the same as if he & Stockton had managed to beat the Bulls in the late 90's... IOW, Barkley went to Phx to try to go get a ring, whereas Malone went to LA to try to find a ring before retiring.

[pilight]

I was already tired of teams like Portland "interviewing" Becky Hammon for PR, but the Blazers have gone a step further. They've resorted to a whisper campaign against her to deflect criticism of their botched coaching search.

[thehef]

I'm surprised the Billups hiring seems to be getting more criticism than Kidd's. Chauncey has merely been accused of something awful, whereas with Kidd, he pled guilty... I'm not saying we shouldn't care about something Billups may or may not have done, but the criticism should be primarily on the hiring of the guy whom we know was guilty.

[pilight]

Whatever happened between Billups and the woman was probably less lurid than his detractors would like but also more problematic than his defenders would be comfortable with.

Blazers PR people have screwed this up royally. It should have been a one day story.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by pilight

Whatever happened between Billups and the woman was probably less lurid than his detractors would like but also more problematic than his defenders would be comfortable with.

Blazers PR people have screwed this up royally. It should have been a one day story.

Perhaps. But why is getting so much more bad pub than the Mavs' hiring of Kidd?

[pilight]

The Blazers said everyone in the organization was aware of the incident, then Damian Lillard claimed he wasn't. They said they did a thorough investigation then declined to give any details about it (who was commissioned, what kind of details were found, etc.). They cut off questioning about it in the introductory presser. And, of course, the main reason he was hired was to convince Lillard to stay with the team and immediately after he was announced Lillard is demanding a trade.

[Antonin]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

And its not like he grabbed all the talent in the league, won half a dozen titles and made things completely non-competitive.

LeBron spent a big chunk of his early career waiting for the GM to put together a team, and still managed to haul the crap that Cleveland was able to assemble around him to the finals.

I think it was a bit more complicated than that. The situation in Cle was unique, maybe unique in the entire history of basketball, where you had a young super-duper talent that the front office was bending over backwards trying to appease.

[Antonin]

It's been an interesting series so far, but I wish they would stop showing Giannis' knee bending backwards over and over...