EPTNBA Offseason 2012 - Page 57
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On July 21 2012 00:26 Chunhyang wrote: Good article!!! Also, I'm glad that the CBA is having some of its intended effects. Knicks being dissuaded form keeping Lin is a good thing. I imagine Knicks fans will be sour graping for a while though, and will pray to their diety's that he fails at basketball in Houston. You know if it was any other team (except maybe the Lakers) I would agree that the Lin episode is an example of new CBA working. Except it is the Knicks and more specifically it is the Dolan-owned Knicks. This man is not known for caring about contract sizes (your current NYK roster is more than enough proof). If you think the 43 million luxury tax hit is the reason, then you haven't really paid attention to the NYK franchise in the past several years. | ||
|
Creationism
China505 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On July 20 2012 09:10 RowdierBob wrote: Draft picks are absolutely essential for any small market team to succeed. In fact, it's pretty much the only way they'll become relevant. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise! The big market teams have so many intangibles in their favour (that you can't legislate against) that pretty much prohibits a small market team ever being able to make a big trade/FA signing. They have to draft well to succeed. Which brings me to a question: should the NBA get rid of max contracts? I'm a firm believer in the yes corner. It depends a lot on what you mean by relevant. In the last 20 years, the only teams that I could identify that won with only one star were the Mavs and the first Heat team. Of the other teams, only one, the San Antonio Spurs, won with out trading for a star. (You can argue that this was extremely aberrational as they double-dipped on Robinson and Duncan and then grabbed two players that no one was even looking at, Parker and Ginobili.) This suggests that trades, not the draft, are the primary determinant of who wins championships. Otherwise, we would expect that the teams who won the draft would win the championships, but I'd characterize 8 of the championships as having been won by teams whose dominant player was acquired through a trade. I'm not exactly sure what small market means. Unless you consider SA small market, and there are reasons not to, no small market team has won the championship since the '78-'79 Supersonics. The reason I'm focusing on the last 20 years is because of changes to the CBA and such that allowed teams like LA to buy championships. In the last 20 years, though, the only times I'd attribute a team to getting a star because of being X franchise and then winning the championship are the Lakers with Kobe and Shaq and the '11-'12 Heat. And even the Heat didn't benefit so much because they were the Heat but because of Wade/Riley. A lot of stars started to act like this was the case, though, in the wake of The Decision, so we'll see how it turns out. I doubt that many of these teams will be successful except for the possible Howard to Lakers scenario. Can you draft a 50 win team and maybe break even on the budget? Sure. Are you going to win a championship with it? Probably not. I agree that giving teams a max contract waiver or something like that might be a solution. You can alter the CBA when you think teams are leveraging an unfair advantage, but when players are deciding who goes where, and by extension who wins, for 'non-market' reasons everything goes out the window. And I think that's bad for parity and the NBA. My point about the picks in the Bynum-Howard scenario is that when you measure uncertainties against proven top shelf talents, it is very unlikely that you are going to get anything near your value back. This isn't football where you can trade a great linebacker for two good linebackers and get value. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:51 Jerubaal wrote: The dollars and cents parts of it were pretty good. I kind of choked on the parts about Lebron and Carmelo trying to build 'families'. Give me a break. Ya I think that was chapter 1, which is the only one I didn't read actually b/c I got that sense for it too =P On July 21 2012 03:24 Judicator wrote: Care to explain the real reason in your opinion? To be fair, I don't think the point of the article-series was to say it was all about the luxury tax being the reason like you say. The whole thing does a good job because it shows the different angles to the story, when a lot of people perceive it to be so black or white. There were actually many different factors that contributed to the decision, so it would be more fair to say the luxury tax was simply one of those reasons (although the major one imo).You know if it was any other team (except maybe the Lakers) I would agree that the Lin episode is an example of new CBA working. Except it is the Knicks and more specifically it is the Dolan-owned Knicks. This man is not known for caring about contract sizes (your current NYK roster is more than enough proof). If you think the 43 million luxury tax hit is the reason, then you haven't really paid attention to the NYK franchise in the past several years. (edit)I guess I kind of find your statement/logic a little contradictory. So all their past business decisions with the old-CBA define what decisions they will do under the new-CBA? That means if they actually do make changes in their financial decisions bc of the CBA (which I can argue letting Lin go was a change from their previous ways), it doesn't matter because their old, poor choices dictate that it isn't a change but rather a bad move by not overspending like they are used to doing? Maybe that is why I was confused a little, apologies if I didn't follow correctly. edit2:grammar | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On July 21 2012 03:39 Jerubaal wrote: It depends a lot on what you mean by relevant. In the last 20 years, the only teams that I could identify that won with only one star were the Mavs and the first Heat team. Of the other teams, only one, the San Antonio Spurs, won with out trading for a star. (You can argue that this was extremely aberrational as they double-dipped on Robinson and Duncan and then grabbed two players that no one was even looking at, Parker and Ginobili.) This suggests that trades, not the draft, are the primary determinant of who wins championships. Otherwise, we would expect that the teams who won the draft would win the championships, but I'd characterize 8 of the championships as having been won by teams whose dominant player was acquired through a trade. I'm not exactly sure what small market means. Unless you consider SA small market, and there are reasons not to, no small market team has won the championship since the '78-'79 Supersonics. The reason I'm focusing on the last 20 years is because of changes to the CBA and such that allowed teams like LA to buy championships. In the last 20 years, though, the only times I'd attribute a team to getting a star because of being X franchise and then winning the championship are the Lakers with Kobe and Shaq and the '11-'12 Heat. And even the Heat didn't benefit so much because they were the Heat but because of Wade/Riley. A lot of stars started to act like this was the case, though, in the wake of The Decision, so we'll see how it turns out. I doubt that many of these teams will be successful except for the possible Howard to Lakers scenario. Can you draft a 50 win team and maybe break even on the budget? Sure. Are you going to win a championship with it? Probably not. I agree that giving teams a max contract waiver or something like that might be a solution. You can alter the CBA when you think teams are leveraging an unfair advantage, but when players are deciding who goes where, and by extension who wins, for 'non-market' reasons everything goes out the window. And I think that's bad for parity and the NBA. My point about the picks in the Bynum-Howard scenario is that when you measure uncertainties against proven top shelf talents, it is very unlikely that you are going to get anything near your value back. This isn't football where you can trade a great linebacker for two good linebackers and get value. By only using championship teams, you are making your sample size so tiny, that it doesn't even mean anything. What about Allen Iverson in the 2001 Finals? Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson (draft day trade) for the 2002 Nets? Lebron James in 2007? Even Reggie Miller, Rik Smits and Dale Davis in 2000. Shaq in 95. And you're ignoring that in the last 30 years Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwan, Scottie Pippen, Karl Malone, John Stockton and Patrick Ewing were all aquired and retained through the draft. EDIT: Well, Pippen was a draft day trade, I believe. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:31 MassHysteria wrote: Ya, ESPN really came through on that 6-article series. I am still in shock I read that on their site I have to say lol. ESPN having quality journalism is definitely a nice surprise compared to some of their front page articles. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
I hesitate to make a statement like 'nothing but the championship matters', but basketball is such a wonky sport that it's hard to assign value to other benchmarks. Your examples make some arguments for what kind of success can be found in the draft, but even that doesn't look especially rosy. Iverson, Miller and Ewing made it to the Finals exactly twice. Even the vaunted Jazz only made it to the Finals twice and it wasn't like there was a great dynasty in the West. My two main points, which I think are supported by this evidence, are that trading stars for picks is damaging and relying only on the draft will not win championships. | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
Even if they were open to being traded, teams aren't going to trade guys like Lebron, Kobe, Wade, CP3, Deron, etc. unless they're forced to, i.e. star has declared they're leaving a la CP3/D12, or the star is not working out a la Deron. Plus, like you said, teams are trying to get multiple stars on their teams, and they're not going to get any closer to that by trading star for star. So what's left for teams that are stuck in the unenviable position of having a star player about to become a free agent who has made it clear they don't want to be there anymore or who the teams have determined should not be there anymore? What's the next best thing to getting a star player? There are basically only a few good assets you could target beyond a star player: cap relief (i.e. expiring contracts), draft picks, and/or non-star players. If you stick with the idea that the only chance for success is by having a star, then only the first two really offer the possibility of getting one. Cap relief would allow a team to sign a star FA in case one becomes available later, and draft picks could allow you to draft one. Non-star players won't be enough to let you be a serious contender, and would also leave you as a middle of the road team that can win but isn't going anywhere. It's virtually impossible to trade a bunch of non-star players for a star player, unless the star player is being traded by a team that already has a bunch of stars. Even then it's still unlikely because smart teams will know that it's always better to have too many stars than too few, and that you can find role players a lot easier than you can star players. So it's not really a matter of teams choosing to go with draft picks or cap relief in exchange for a leaving star, as opposed to trading star for star. It's a matter of the best available option, which rarely includes getting another legitimate star in a trade. If you can't get an established star then you have to hope to find one that isn't established yet, or put yourself in a position to sign a star in the future when one becomes available. The relying on the draft will not win championships argument is countered by the Spurs and the Thunder. Sure, they got lucky, but they were/are championship contenders who got there via drafting and not trading. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On July 21 2012 06:13 Jerubaal wrote: You make it sound like a stalemate, though, but there are clearly teams who do make the trades. Maybe if Minnesota and Orlando knew what LA and Boston know, they would never trade and there really would be deadlock. As it is, teams like them constantly trade away stars and blow up teams and have nothing to show for it. Not sure who you're responding to and what you mean. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On July 21 2012 06:13 Jerubaal wrote: You make it sound like a stalemate, though, but there are clearly teams who do make the trades. Maybe if Minnesota and Orlando knew what LA and Boston know, they would never trade and there really would be deadlock. As it is, teams like them constantly trade away stars and blow up teams and have nothing to show for it. You've missed XalCyric's scenario. Imagine that you have Michael Jordan on a 1 year deal and you've approached him for an extension. However, you have been constantly rebuffed. What is your recourse? You can't keep saying that teams trade away their stars for worthless/unknown draft picks and that that's a bad deal. Yeah...clearly. But their hands have been forced. Players have access to free agency because that's their collectively negotiated right - thank God. So, do you let Michael Jordan play the year out and bid him adieu? I guess you could. At least it will spare you the act of actually handing away his contract to another team. But then that really is nothing, literally. You get nothing except fond memories. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:02 slyboogie wrote: Also, did anyone notice how outrageously reasonable OJ Mayo's contract was? 2/$8mil and a player option? What? I think I guessed 4/$31 with the Suns - yikes. Did he have no other buyers? I'm all for rebuilding your value but man. Ya! Really surprised by that. Such a good deal for the Mavs. Player option for 2nd year is nice for Mayo though, he pretty much has 2 tries to ball out. If he does really good that first year, opt out and cash in with a nice contract. If he feels he didn't do well or could do better, or was dealing with injury, or w/e random reason and wants to have another try on the 2nd year for a chance on a better contract, then opt in. I wonder how much he really left on the table by not going to Phoenix though. I think if I knew exactly how much he could have gotten, it would be easier to have an opinion if it was a shrewd move or not but ya pretty surprised too. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
| ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
| ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On July 21 2012 10:52 rei wrote: why yes for Jordan hill? less than 5points a game 60% ft%. He must be a defensive specialist? This article explains it well: http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/lakers/post/_/id/32088/source-jordan-hill-to-re-sign-with-the-lakers The Lakers have very few options to shore up their bench this season, and getting Hill was one of them. He is a solid backup big who showed that he can play spot minutes and provide solid rebounding and defense. From what I understand, the Lakers had his partial Bird rights, which is why they were able to offer him even that much. We've all seen how inflated the value of PF/Cs can get in the NBA. To be able to get a guy who fits what the team needs at a reasonable price is a great deal for a team in desperate need of that kind of help at that kind of price. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
I have to admit that it feels like there may be some truth to it. | ||
| ||
