NBA 2020-21 Thread

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

to barnaby jones (some old detective show)

Ouch, that one hurt, right in the rheumatism!

[Déjà Bru]

There is this headline on ESPN.com today:



I don't pay for ESPN+ but I could read enough of the article to know that the "two 22-year-olds" are Luka Dončić and Trae Young.

I don't follow the NBA enough in general to speak about Dončić but having just witnessed Young carve up the Knicks,

• I was surprised to learn that Young is only 22 years old.
• I would say that he is an emerging force. The 76ers are already looking up at the Hawks.

[Antonin]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

There is this headline on ESPN.com today:

Attachment 786724

I don't pay for ESPN+ but I could read enough of the article to know that the "two 22-year-olds" are Luka Dončić and Trae Young.

I don't follow the NBA enough in general to speak about Dončić but having just witnessed Young carve up the Knicks,

• I was surprised to learn that Young is only 22 years old.
• I would say that he is an emerging force. The 76ers are already looking up at the Hawks.

I think Young was drafted the same year my Cavs drafted Collin Sexton. I remember watching Young during his rookie year and thinking, "Wow. I wish we had drafted that guy!" He's a lot of fun to watch.

Luka is just...Luka. An amazing player. I was really disappointed when the Mavs got eliminated. Maybe they will need to make some moves to assemble a better team around him.

[Déjà Bru]

So much for this year's dream team.

[dkgo]

ben simmons might have ended his entire career that series. completely shook

[ezpkns34]

Hawks had the best record in the NBA after changing coaches, so not as much of an upset as some are claiming, in my opinion

[Syd Thrift]

Also Nate McMillan is their new coach and he has the ghost of Lenny Wilkens (who isn’t actually dead but still) guiding him.

[Syd Thrift]

Also Nate McMillan is their new coach and he has the ghost of Lenny Wilkens (who isn’t actually dead but still) guiding him.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

So much for this year's dream team.

And thank goodness, IMO. I do not like teams made up of players who gang up. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge players from attempting to control their own destinies, play where & with whom they want, but I am old school and like to see teams built. To me, when the gang-ups result in titles (see the South Beach Heat, last year's Lakers, Durant-joining G St, as semi-recent examples), it's kinda like, "So what? The biggest, baddest kids on the playground got together and pounded on the other kids. Big deal." So, first with the Lakers, and now with the Nets gone, well, so far so good for these playoffs...

The remaining teams in the NBA have a total of 2 titles won:

Bucks 1 (1971)
Hawks 1 (1958, in St Louis)
Suns 0
Clippers 0

Whoever wins, a looong drought will be snapped.

And they are generally small-market teams - very refreshing... the Clips sorta being the exception, yet they are perennially the step-child in LA. (The Clippers are also the remaining gang-up team; the other three were built by shrewd front offices drafting, trading, signing key role players, etc.)

Just as much as talent, injuries/health are key determinant in who wins the title. Nearly every NBA title of the 80's was heavily influenced by health, and the last two finals were, also. This year will be no different.

[rudel.dietrich]

I was coming here to say the same thing.
Two of the teams have never won a title. The Suns have been around since 1968. The Clippers since 1970.
A lot of even hardcore NBA fans do not realize that the Hawks are one of the oldest franchises in the NBA. Going back to 1946

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by thehef

And thank goodness, IMO. I do not like teams made up of players who gang up. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge players from attempting to control their own destinies, play where & with whom they want, but I am old school and like to see teams built. To me, when the gang-ups result in titles (see the South Beach Heat, last year's Lakers, Durant-joining G St, as semi-recent examples), it's kinda like, "So what? The biggest, baddest kids on the playground got together and pounded on the other kids. Big deal." So, first with the Lakers, and now with the Nets gone, well, so far so good for these playoffs...

The remaining teams in the NBA have a total of 2 titles won:

Bucks 1 (1971)
Hawks 1 (1958, in St Louis)
Suns 0
Clippers 0

Whoever wins, a looong drought will be snapped.

And they are generally small-market teams - very refreshing... the Clips sorta being the exception, yet they are perennially the step-child in LA. (The Clippers are also the remaining gang-up team; the other three were built by shrewd front offices drafting, trading, signing key role players, etc.)

Just as much as talent, injuries/health are key determinant in who wins the title. Nearly every NBA title of the 80's was heavily influenced by health, and the last two finals were, also. This year will be no different.

There is an old quote, about the New York Yankees..."Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for US Steel."

It IS refreshing to see franchises in the hunt that have never been there.

I'm from the St. Louis area, and their Stanley Cup run just a couple of years ago was ... amazing.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

I was coming here to say the same thing.
Two of the teams have never won a title. The Suns have been around since 1968. The Clippers since 1970.
A lot of even hardcore NBA fans do not realize that the Hawks are one of the oldest franchises in the NBA. Going back to 1946

A lot of that is because they’ve moved around a lot. It’s pretty similar to I think how people think of the Oakland A’s and the Minnesota Twins - less founding members of the AL, more expansion targets of the 60s. Or for that matter the Arizona Cardinals, formerly the St. Louis Cardinals and formerly formerly the Chicago Cardinals.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by thehef

And thank goodness, IMO. I do not like teams made up of players who gang up. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge players from attempting to control their own destinies, play where & with whom they want, but I am old school and like to see teams built. To me, when the gang-ups result in titles (see the South Beach Heat, last year's Lakers, Durant-joining G St, as semi-recent examples), it's kinda like, "So what? The biggest, baddest kids on the playground got together and pounded on the other kids. Big deal." So, first with the Lakers, and now with the Nets gone, well, so far so good for these playoffs...

What is the difference between players deciding to build a team and a GM deciding to build a team? Cleveland got a championship because LeBron brought in the players to do it. The management in Cleveland had shown that they were completely unable to do so. Why is it bad if LeBron (or whatever player) does the work rather than a GM?

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

What is the difference between players deciding to build a team and a GM deciding to build a team? Cleveland got a championship because LeBron brought in the players to do it. The management in Cleveland had shown that they were completely unable to do so. Why is it bad if LeBron (or whatever player) does the work rather than a GM?

Well, it goes back to the playground thing I mentioned above. A GM can't just decide to gang up, say, three of the best players. Well, to some degree he can if ownership is willing to spend a bunch on salaries and on cap taxes. But that, too, would fit into my "gang up" category (aka "the Yankees," aka "U.S. Steel" )

If we look back to semi-recent non-gang-up teams that won titles, the Pierce & KG Celtics, Bryant & Gasol Lakers, Steph's pre-Durant Warriors, the Spurs... none of those front offices simply decided to load up on marquee players through free agency. Rather, each and every star player was acquired through the draft or trades. So in my definition of "built" it means that the front office had to give up or expend something (in addition to piles of cash) to get those players. Shrewdness (and, to a degree, luck) was involved. Not just ganging up.

So, for example, what Danny Ainge and Mitch Kupchack did over a decade ago to build their title teams took skill and guts. What LeBron, Wade, and Bosh did a few years back with assembling that Heat team was basically a no-brainer. No skill, brilliance, or significant risk required. I mean, Pat Riley, as smart of a GM as there is, didn't really need to think all that long and hard about whether or not to welcome James & Bosh to Miami, or risk much of anything to make it happen. (That the South Beach Heat's championship totals ended up far short of expectation is nice karma, IMO.)

But I get it. Some people like the gang-ups. I just prefer when acumen and risk are involved in actually building a team.

On a related note, when it comes to "buy out season" I much prefer to see players take a risk and go to a team that is not the favorite, and try to make a real difference. IOW, when - just as an example - Blake Griffin decided to take the safe route and go to a Net team that was the favorite with or without him, just to chase a title that would mostly be earned by others, I don't respect that as much as if he would've chosen, say, the Hawks or Knicks or Celtics.

IOW, the safe choice is going to a favorite and trying to contribute. The bold choice is going to a team that's not quite one of the favorites and trying to be the guy who makes the difference in bringing that team the level of one of the favorites.

[dkgo]

I sorta get what you are saying, but your examples don't make much sense.

The Celtics with Pierce/Garnett/Allen were the original "gang up" Big 3 that everyone else started to imitate in the last decade or so. The Lakers trading for Gasol because he wouldn't resign with Memphis is functionally the same as free agency.

The Nets traded for Durant and Harden (which you seem to think is fine). Durant missed an entire season with a torn achilles (obvious risk) and they gave up a ton of assets for Harden. Griffin was obviously ring chasing but isn't really a big factor on the team anyway.

I definitely think very little of an individual player like Durant who went to a team that already won a ring without him since it proves absolutely nothing for him. But I don't really see anything wrong with trying to put good players together on a team however you can, that's the whole point.

[pilight]

Miami traded for both Chris Bosh and LeBron James and drafted Dwyane Wade. None of them were signed as free agents.

Bill Russell once played on a team with nine Hall of Famers, but sure, last year's champs that started Javale McGee and Avery Bradley most of the time was a "super team".

[thehef]

Originally Posted by dkgo

I sorta get what you are saying, but your examples don't make much sense.

The Celtics with Pierce/Garnett/Allen were the original "gang up" Big 3 that everyone else started to imitate in the last decade or so. The Lakers trading for Gasol because he wouldn't resign with Memphis is functionally the same as free agency.

Nope. No question that Pierce, KG, and Allen were happy to join forces, but they didn't make those trades happen (sure, KG, as a veteran who was under contract had say-so in where he went). Pierce was already a veteran Celtic. Allen was acquired in return for two - at the time - legitimate NBA players, plus Jeff Green, who had just been selected #5 in the draft. Garnett was acquired for several players, including some young prospects and highly-regarded Al Jefferson. This was not at all a case of NBA players choosing to "gang up." Rather, it was shrewd mauevering on the part of Danny Ainge.

The Lakers gave up plenty of assets - including top-prospect Marc Gasol (Pau's brother, who had been playing in Europe) - in order to acquire Pau Gasol. So no gang up there, either. Not the same as free agency because - unlike free agency - the Lakers had to give up a decent haul to get him.

Originally Posted by dkgo

The Nets traded for Durant and Harden (which you seem to think is fine). Durant missed an entire season with a torn achilles (obvious risk) and they gave up a ton of assets for Harden. Griffin was obviously ring chasing but isn't really a big factor on the team anyway.

Sure, Durant was technically traded by the Warriors to the Nets. But Durant was a free agent and chose his destination, and the trade was a "sign & trade" to facilitate the transaction... He & Kyrie clearly ganged up. Whether Harden was part of that group ganging up is probably debatable... The point about Griffin wasn't really about him being part of the gang-up; just about when a guy gets bought out, whether he takes the safe route (which Griffin did) or takes a risk.

Originally Posted by dkgo

I definitely think very little of an individual player like Durant who went to a team that already won a ring without him since it proves absolutely nothing for him.

Totally agree. The bold & confident move would've been to sign with a team that was merely missing a superstar leader, and try to take them to title. Rather than the safe move of going to team whose young and dynamic core 3 had already won a title.

Originally Posted by dkgo

But I don't really see anything wrong with trying to put good players together on a team however you can, that's the whole point.

Well, like I said, I don't begrudge players from wanting to go where they want, team up with the best, etc. I'm just saying that as a fan, I much more respect what it takes to build a winning team through the kinds of moves that come with risk & chance.

Originally Posted by pilight

Miami traded for both Chris Bosh and LeBron James and drafted Dwyane Wade. None of them were signed as free agents.

Sure, technically traded. But there's no question that Wade, James, and Bosh chose to "gang up" and play in Miami. No criticsm of Pat Riley, but he didn't exactly have to make crafty moves to acquire James & Bosh. He did what any GM would do in that situation: Welcome those players with open arms. Nothing close to actual value was given up by Miami to acquire those two guys, both of whom were free agents. (Remember The Decision? That was James telling the world where he had decided to go. It wasn't as if somebody had to call him to let him know that the Cavs had traded him.)

Originally Posted by pilight

Bill Russell once played on a team with nine Hall of Famers

Most of whom were acquired via the draft, and all of whom were acquired via savvy (maybe a few were lucky?) front office moves. None of them chose to "gang up." Of course that was a different era, and without free agency, players had no way to gang up. So that's pretty much irrelevant.

Originally Posted by pilight

...but sure, last year's champs that started Javale McGee and Avery Bradley most of the time was a "super team".

Not sure of the point here. James and Davis were the ones who chose to "gang up." And, to be sure, both Bradley, McGee and host of other role players chose to gang up with James & Davis.

To be clear, while I do consider James & Davis as a "gang up" I don't really consider the 2020 Lakers a super team. As far as NBA champs throughout history go, I'd consider the 2020 L's to be among the weakest ever, and while no team can pick the strength or health of their opponents, they certainly benefited from those circumstances (the recently powerhouse Western Conference seeing its power teams revert to ordinary; the Heat being decimated by injuries in the finals). The L's top two players were certainly among the top 5 or so players in the league, but beyond that there was nothing special at all about their roster, and I doubt there are many championship teams from the past 40 years that they could beat. I mean, we'll never know, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a previous champion they could beat. Maybe 2019 Toronto. Maybe one the James' Cavs teams. That's about it.

At any rate, I kinda see it similar to this: Let's say I've got two neighbors, both of whom run successful businesses. The guy on my right worked hard and built his business from scratch. The guy on my left inherited his money, bought an established business and basically just watches the money roll in. Nothing at all wrong with the guy on the left's good fortune, but the guy on my right is the one whose efforts are more impressive, to me.

[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.

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.

[ezpkns34]

Originally Posted by thehef

The Lakers gave up plenty of assets - including top-prospect Marc Gasol (Pau's brother, who had been playing in Europe) - in order to acquire Pau Gasol. So no gang up there, either. Not the same as free agency because - unlike free agency - the Lakers had to give up a decent haul to get him.

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


https://www.nba.com/lakers/news/0802...ofthedeal.html
https://www.si.com/nba/2008/02/01/gasol-trade


Couple roundups of the trade at the time, 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

[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?