|
On July 20 2014 11:21 zev318 wrote:
well if you're gonna be bad in professional sports, its much better to go REALLY bad than just mediocre
It's only "true" in the NBA (and I'm not even sure that's the case,) because of a overvalued infatuation with the draft lottery. The concept in the NBA follows some logic chain that might go something like:
1. No team sport translates individual talents to wins more than basketball.
2. Therefore, to win, a team wants the best individual talent.
3. This individual talent is scarce.
4. This talent is most easily acquired through the amateur draft.
5. Being awful makes it more likely to win, or pick highly in, the amateur draft
You can be decent/mediocre in baseball or football and still plan for a future. Many franchises in the NBA have largely abandoned this thinking. I think it ruins the competitive conceit of a professional sports league but I suppose if you honestly do not think you can win in the future without purposely minimizing your wins in the present, I guess.
|
Points 2-4 can also be restated as "get the most undervalued contracts in the league". Young stars on great contracts and superstars fit this criteria easily.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
at least in baseball there is great value in tanking. the expected value derived from history would give the #1 overall pick more value than 2-10 combined. there is also the way draft spending slots are tied to picks, so #1 represents a lot of money in the artificially depressed draft 'market'
the whole 'give worst teams more help' concept is generally just small market/bad teams subsidy, and in the nba it's pretty strong.
saying the draft in the nba is overvalued is highly puzzling. the nba is precisely the kind of league that accentuates draft value. should perhaps distinguish between overvaluing the top of the draft vs overvaluing lower picks.
|
On the topic of the draft. Id like to say you dont get to use incompetency by the drafters to denigrate the value of tanking. In fact, Id argue that much of that bad drafting is due to the fact that bad organizations end up getting the high picks. The last 3 (4 times) competent organizations that got the number 1 pick ended with Tim Duncan, Elton Brand, Greg Oden, and Derrick Rose. The first 2 are the #1 players from the draft, Rose probably would be if not for unpredictable injuries, and Oden probably would be #2 if not for his terrible injuries.
|
On July 20 2014 01:34 Xeris wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Welp, without Gasol and before the Lin trade and other signings, LA had ~37.1 committed to Kobe, Sacre, Nash, and Randle, leaving them roughly 26 million in cap space.
They could have pushed for something like: 2 years 26 million for any 2 of: Bledsoe, Lance Stephenson, Greg Monroe. Let's assume they get two of them; Lance, Monroe. Now, LA has a starting lineup of: Nash, Kobe, Lance, Randle, Monroe. Way better than the current starting 5. If LA was just going to re-sign its own free agents anyway, they could have easily done so in addition to making these moves. They would not have been able to get Jeremy Lin / Boozer, however. They got 2 picks for the Lin trade, which is awesome - but I think two years with a way more competitive lineup is worth more than a ~20-25 1st round draft pick in 2015.
It doesn't seem like they even tried to go for the 'tier 2' free agents. They could have easily gotten 2 of them with their cap space is my point, and created a competitive team. This year's team is the same as last year + Kobe (maybe healthy, hopefully healthy) and a new coach (def. an improvement). While it will be an improvement, how much is the question. Can 36 year old Kobe carry the team to the playoffs? They won 27 games last year and improved, but most of the other Western teams are either the same or improved too, so how can LA's position in the standings realistically change much? I just don't see it.
They prefer to just ride out 2 seasons with a mediocre team and Kobe instead of comitting longterm to a decent team that can't really contend for a title. It is a totally viable strategy and in my opinion the better choice.
By signing players like Stephenson or Bledsoe you commit to longterm contracts that hurt flexibility for 2016 for a few ranks higher in the standings next year. Cmon man, a Stephenson doesn't put that Laker team into title contention. What good is it to be the 7th seed when you hurt your chances to properly rebuild after Kobe's contract is over?
With the flexibility they have, the projected cap raise, Kobe's massive contract coming off the books and some marquee free agents available they can really rebuild into a title contender from 2016 on. Just keep all the options open for a rebuild in 2016. If they need it they can still sign a player of Stephenson's caliber then.
Btw. I think a roster with Lin/Nash, Kobe, Swaggy/Xavier, Boozer and Jordan Hill/Ed Davis could actually be fairly competitive and fun to watch. Kobe's 2005-2007 teams were worse and they made it to +500. Obviously not the same Kobe but he has better teammates this time imho. I could see them getting close to .500
|
On July 20 2014 18:20 AntiGrav1ty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 01:34 Xeris wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Welp, without Gasol and before the Lin trade and other signings, LA had ~37.1 committed to Kobe, Sacre, Nash, and Randle, leaving them roughly 26 million in cap space.
They could have pushed for something like: 2 years 26 million for any 2 of: Bledsoe, Lance Stephenson, Greg Monroe. Let's assume they get two of them; Lance, Monroe. Now, LA has a starting lineup of: Nash, Kobe, Lance, Randle, Monroe. Way better than the current starting 5. If LA was just going to re-sign its own free agents anyway, they could have easily done so in addition to making these moves. They would not have been able to get Jeremy Lin / Boozer, however. They got 2 picks for the Lin trade, which is awesome - but I think two years with a way more competitive lineup is worth more than a ~20-25 1st round draft pick in 2015.
It doesn't seem like they even tried to go for the 'tier 2' free agents. They could have easily gotten 2 of them with their cap space is my point, and created a competitive team. This year's team is the same as last year + Kobe (maybe healthy, hopefully healthy) and a new coach (def. an improvement). While it will be an improvement, how much is the question. Can 36 year old Kobe carry the team to the playoffs? They won 27 games last year and improved, but most of the other Western teams are either the same or improved too, so how can LA's position in the standings realistically change much? I just don't see it.
They prefer to just ride out 2 seasons with a mediocre team and Kobe instead of comitting longterm to a decent team that can't really contend for a title. It is a totally viable strategy and in my opinion the better choice. By signing players like Stephenson or Bledsoe you commit to longterm contracts that hurt flexibility for 2016 for a few ranks higher in the standings next year. Cmon man, a Stephenson doesn't put that Laker team into title contention. What good is it to be the 7th seed when you hurt your chances to properly rebuild after Kobe's contract is over? With the flexibility they have, the projected cap raise, Kobe's massive contract coming off the books and some marquee free agents available they can really rebuild into a title contender from 2016 on. Just keep all the options open for a rebuild in 2016. If they need it they can still sign a player of Stephenson's caliber then. Btw. I think a roster with Lin/Nash, Kobe, Swaggy/Xavier, Boozer and Jordan Hill/Ed Davis could actually be fairly competitive and fun to watch. Kobe's 2005-2007 teams were worse and they made it to +500. Obviously not the same Kobe but he has better teammates this time imho. I could see them getting close to .500
People forget quickly also that last year's squad was .500 without Kobe until injuries decimated the roster.
This year's team looks stronger than last year's and Kobe should be much healthier and able to play from the beginning of the season.
There's no reason to just automatically count them out as a less than 30 win team like last year.
|
On July 20 2014 18:20 AntiGrav1ty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 01:34 Xeris wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Welp, without Gasol and before the Lin trade and other signings, LA had ~37.1 committed to Kobe, Sacre, Nash, and Randle, leaving them roughly 26 million in cap space.
They could have pushed for something like: 2 years 26 million for any 2 of: Bledsoe, Lance Stephenson, Greg Monroe. Let's assume they get two of them; Lance, Monroe. Now, LA has a starting lineup of: Nash, Kobe, Lance, Randle, Monroe. Way better than the current starting 5. If LA was just going to re-sign its own free agents anyway, they could have easily done so in addition to making these moves. They would not have been able to get Jeremy Lin / Boozer, however. They got 2 picks for the Lin trade, which is awesome - but I think two years with a way more competitive lineup is worth more than a ~20-25 1st round draft pick in 2015.
It doesn't seem like they even tried to go for the 'tier 2' free agents. They could have easily gotten 2 of them with their cap space is my point, and created a competitive team. This year's team is the same as last year + Kobe (maybe healthy, hopefully healthy) and a new coach (def. an improvement). While it will be an improvement, how much is the question. Can 36 year old Kobe carry the team to the playoffs? They won 27 games last year and improved, but most of the other Western teams are either the same or improved too, so how can LA's position in the standings realistically change much? I just don't see it.
They prefer to just ride out 2 seasons with a mediocre team and Kobe instead of comitting longterm to a decent team that can't really contend for a title. It is a totally viable strategy and in my opinion the better choice. By signing players like Stephenson or Bledsoe you commit to longterm contracts that hurt flexibility for 2016 for a few ranks higher in the standings next year. Cmon man, a Stephenson doesn't put that Laker team into title contention. What good is it to be the 7th seed when you hurt your chances to properly rebuild after Kobe's contract is over? With the flexibility they have, the projected cap raise, Kobe's massive contract coming off the books and some marquee free agents available they can really rebuild into a title contender from 2016 on. Just keep all the options open for a rebuild in 2016. If they need it they can still sign a player of Stephenson's caliber then. Btw. I think a roster with Lin/Nash, Kobe, Swaggy/Xavier, Boozer and Jordan Hill/Ed Davis could actually be fairly competitive and fun to watch. Kobe's 2005-2007 teams were worse and they made it to +500. Obviously not the same Kobe but he has better teammates this time imho. I could see them getting close to .500
You missed the part specifically where I said 2 year contracts. Do you realize that almost every free agent is signing 2-3 year deals? Except for Bosh/Carmelo/Wade, because they know this is their last big contract. LeBron signed a 2 year deal.
The whole reason LA could have pulled it off is because they could have created some pretty crazy 2 year contracts for these guys, but they didn't attempt to do so.
|
On July 21 2014 01:20 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 18:20 AntiGrav1ty wrote:On July 20 2014 01:34 Xeris wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Welp, without Gasol and before the Lin trade and other signings, LA had ~37.1 committed to Kobe, Sacre, Nash, and Randle, leaving them roughly 26 million in cap space.
They could have pushed for something like: 2 years 26 million for any 2 of: Bledsoe, Lance Stephenson, Greg Monroe. Let's assume they get two of them; Lance, Monroe. Now, LA has a starting lineup of: Nash, Kobe, Lance, Randle, Monroe. Way better than the current starting 5. If LA was just going to re-sign its own free agents anyway, they could have easily done so in addition to making these moves. They would not have been able to get Jeremy Lin / Boozer, however. They got 2 picks for the Lin trade, which is awesome - but I think two years with a way more competitive lineup is worth more than a ~20-25 1st round draft pick in 2015.
It doesn't seem like they even tried to go for the 'tier 2' free agents. They could have easily gotten 2 of them with their cap space is my point, and created a competitive team. This year's team is the same as last year + Kobe (maybe healthy, hopefully healthy) and a new coach (def. an improvement). While it will be an improvement, how much is the question. Can 36 year old Kobe carry the team to the playoffs? They won 27 games last year and improved, but most of the other Western teams are either the same or improved too, so how can LA's position in the standings realistically change much? I just don't see it.
They prefer to just ride out 2 seasons with a mediocre team and Kobe instead of comitting longterm to a decent team that can't really contend for a title. It is a totally viable strategy and in my opinion the better choice. By signing players like Stephenson or Bledsoe you commit to longterm contracts that hurt flexibility for 2016 for a few ranks higher in the standings next year. Cmon man, a Stephenson doesn't put that Laker team into title contention. What good is it to be the 7th seed when you hurt your chances to properly rebuild after Kobe's contract is over? With the flexibility they have, the projected cap raise, Kobe's massive contract coming off the books and some marquee free agents available they can really rebuild into a title contender from 2016 on. Just keep all the options open for a rebuild in 2016. If they need it they can still sign a player of Stephenson's caliber then. Btw. I think a roster with Lin/Nash, Kobe, Swaggy/Xavier, Boozer and Jordan Hill/Ed Davis could actually be fairly competitive and fun to watch. Kobe's 2005-2007 teams were worse and they made it to +500. Obviously not the same Kobe but he has better teammates this time imho. I could see them getting close to .500 You missed the part specifically where I said 2 year contracts. Do you realize that almost every free agent is signing 2-3 year deals? Except for Bosh/Carmelo/Wade, because they know this is their last big contract. LeBron signed a 2 year deal. The whole reason LA could have pulled it off is because they could have created some pretty crazy 2 year contracts for these guys, but they didn't attempt to do so.
its great to sit here and be like oh why didnt they offer 2/30 for bledsoe, but why would bledsoe sign that? the suns would match that immediately. there is a reason why the suns are not offering him max 5 years and only 4 years cause he's been injured a lot. and that's what bledsoe is holding out for.
and what does signing lance/bledsoe to 2 year contracts really do for the lakers? so they might get a 8 seed and get bounced in the 1st round?
|
On July 21 2014 01:29 zev318 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2014 01:20 Xeris wrote:On July 20 2014 18:20 AntiGrav1ty wrote:On July 20 2014 01:34 Xeris wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Welp, without Gasol and before the Lin trade and other signings, LA had ~37.1 committed to Kobe, Sacre, Nash, and Randle, leaving them roughly 26 million in cap space.
They could have pushed for something like: 2 years 26 million for any 2 of: Bledsoe, Lance Stephenson, Greg Monroe. Let's assume they get two of them; Lance, Monroe. Now, LA has a starting lineup of: Nash, Kobe, Lance, Randle, Monroe. Way better than the current starting 5. If LA was just going to re-sign its own free agents anyway, they could have easily done so in addition to making these moves. They would not have been able to get Jeremy Lin / Boozer, however. They got 2 picks for the Lin trade, which is awesome - but I think two years with a way more competitive lineup is worth more than a ~20-25 1st round draft pick in 2015.
It doesn't seem like they even tried to go for the 'tier 2' free agents. They could have easily gotten 2 of them with their cap space is my point, and created a competitive team. This year's team is the same as last year + Kobe (maybe healthy, hopefully healthy) and a new coach (def. an improvement). While it will be an improvement, how much is the question. Can 36 year old Kobe carry the team to the playoffs? They won 27 games last year and improved, but most of the other Western teams are either the same or improved too, so how can LA's position in the standings realistically change much? I just don't see it.
They prefer to just ride out 2 seasons with a mediocre team and Kobe instead of comitting longterm to a decent team that can't really contend for a title. It is a totally viable strategy and in my opinion the better choice. By signing players like Stephenson or Bledsoe you commit to longterm contracts that hurt flexibility for 2016 for a few ranks higher in the standings next year. Cmon man, a Stephenson doesn't put that Laker team into title contention. What good is it to be the 7th seed when you hurt your chances to properly rebuild after Kobe's contract is over? With the flexibility they have, the projected cap raise, Kobe's massive contract coming off the books and some marquee free agents available they can really rebuild into a title contender from 2016 on. Just keep all the options open for a rebuild in 2016. If they need it they can still sign a player of Stephenson's caliber then. Btw. I think a roster with Lin/Nash, Kobe, Swaggy/Xavier, Boozer and Jordan Hill/Ed Davis could actually be fairly competitive and fun to watch. Kobe's 2005-2007 teams were worse and they made it to +500. Obviously not the same Kobe but he has better teammates this time imho. I could see them getting close to .500 You missed the part specifically where I said 2 year contracts. Do you realize that almost every free agent is signing 2-3 year deals? Except for Bosh/Carmelo/Wade, because they know this is their last big contract. LeBron signed a 2 year deal. The whole reason LA could have pulled it off is because they could have created some pretty crazy 2 year contracts for these guys, but they didn't attempt to do so. its great to sit here and be like oh why didnt they offer 2/30 for bledsoe, but why would bledsoe sign that? the suns would match that immediately. there is a reason why the suns are not offering him max 5 years and only 4 years cause he's been injured a lot. and that's what bledsoe is holding out for. and what does signing lance/bledsoe to 2 year contracts really do for the lakers? so they might get a 8 seed and get bounced in the 1st round?
Come on it's not that complex. All these younger FA's are signing shorter deals so they can sign new deals when the new TV money comes through. LA could've signed or attempted to sign several players that would let them be competitive this coming year. It also allows them to appear like a competently managed team that can include that they have a few decently talented young guys that they can bring back on the roster already. They would have the advantage on those dudes by holding the extra year and being able to resign them over the cap. They can't do that now. Does anyone think Durant is going to pick an LA team that's totally empty just because it's LA?
Suppose Lance explodes this year playing for a team that will have some spacing, LA could have been in on the ground floor there and if he busts it's a short deal that doesn't clog your cap anyway. It wouldn't have hurt the Lakers any to at least make Bledsoe a pitch of more $ for less years. If he wants the years or the Suns match that's no loss for LA, and at worst they can drive up the price for a potential rival to keep an important player.
I'm glad LA is incompetent but there's no point arguing that poor roster management is anything else. They aren't even going to be good at tanking.
|
On July 21 2014 02:39 Haiq343 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2014 01:29 zev318 wrote:On July 21 2014 01:20 Xeris wrote:On July 20 2014 18:20 AntiGrav1ty wrote:On July 20 2014 01:34 Xeris wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Welp, without Gasol and before the Lin trade and other signings, LA had ~37.1 committed to Kobe, Sacre, Nash, and Randle, leaving them roughly 26 million in cap space.
They could have pushed for something like: 2 years 26 million for any 2 of: Bledsoe, Lance Stephenson, Greg Monroe. Let's assume they get two of them; Lance, Monroe. Now, LA has a starting lineup of: Nash, Kobe, Lance, Randle, Monroe. Way better than the current starting 5. If LA was just going to re-sign its own free agents anyway, they could have easily done so in addition to making these moves. They would not have been able to get Jeremy Lin / Boozer, however. They got 2 picks for the Lin trade, which is awesome - but I think two years with a way more competitive lineup is worth more than a ~20-25 1st round draft pick in 2015.
It doesn't seem like they even tried to go for the 'tier 2' free agents. They could have easily gotten 2 of them with their cap space is my point, and created a competitive team. This year's team is the same as last year + Kobe (maybe healthy, hopefully healthy) and a new coach (def. an improvement). While it will be an improvement, how much is the question. Can 36 year old Kobe carry the team to the playoffs? They won 27 games last year and improved, but most of the other Western teams are either the same or improved too, so how can LA's position in the standings realistically change much? I just don't see it.
They prefer to just ride out 2 seasons with a mediocre team and Kobe instead of comitting longterm to a decent team that can't really contend for a title. It is a totally viable strategy and in my opinion the better choice. By signing players like Stephenson or Bledsoe you commit to longterm contracts that hurt flexibility for 2016 for a few ranks higher in the standings next year. Cmon man, a Stephenson doesn't put that Laker team into title contention. What good is it to be the 7th seed when you hurt your chances to properly rebuild after Kobe's contract is over? With the flexibility they have, the projected cap raise, Kobe's massive contract coming off the books and some marquee free agents available they can really rebuild into a title contender from 2016 on. Just keep all the options open for a rebuild in 2016. If they need it they can still sign a player of Stephenson's caliber then. Btw. I think a roster with Lin/Nash, Kobe, Swaggy/Xavier, Boozer and Jordan Hill/Ed Davis could actually be fairly competitive and fun to watch. Kobe's 2005-2007 teams were worse and they made it to +500. Obviously not the same Kobe but he has better teammates this time imho. I could see them getting close to .500 You missed the part specifically where I said 2 year contracts. Do you realize that almost every free agent is signing 2-3 year deals? Except for Bosh/Carmelo/Wade, because they know this is their last big contract. LeBron signed a 2 year deal. The whole reason LA could have pulled it off is because they could have created some pretty crazy 2 year contracts for these guys, but they didn't attempt to do so. its great to sit here and be like oh why didnt they offer 2/30 for bledsoe, but why would bledsoe sign that? the suns would match that immediately. there is a reason why the suns are not offering him max 5 years and only 4 years cause he's been injured a lot. and that's what bledsoe is holding out for. and what does signing lance/bledsoe to 2 year contracts really do for the lakers? so they might get a 8 seed and get bounced in the 1st round? Come on it's not that complex. All these younger FA's are signing shorter deals so they can sign new deals when the new TV money comes through. LA could've signed or attempted to sign several players that would let them be competitive this coming year. It also allows them to appear like a competently managed team that can include that they have a few decently talented young guys that they can bring back on the roster already. They would have the advantage on those dudes by holding the extra year and being able to resign them over the cap. They can't do that now. Does anyone think Durant is going to pick an LA team that's totally empty just because it's LA? Suppose Lance explodes this year playing for a team that will have some spacing, LA could have been in on the ground floor there and if he busts it's a short deal that doesn't clog your cap anyway. It wouldn't have hurt the Lakers any to at least make Bledsoe a pitch of more $ for less years. If he wants the years or the Suns match that's no loss for LA, and at worst they can drive up the price for a potential rival to keep an important player. I'm glad LA is incompetent but there's no point arguing that poor roster management is anything else. They aren't even going to be good at tanking.
shorter deals sure, but they're not 2 years like everyone assumes that the lakers want.
lowry 4 years
lance 3 years
chandler 3 years
hayward 4 years
that's pretty much all the young FAs there was.
how do you know the lakers never reached out to these players? they could have asked bledsoe's agent about a shorter contract (when bledsoe already turned down a 4 year, why would he go for less years, everyone knows that he wants the max 5 years), and they said no. drive up the price? oh you mean like what houston did for lin and it basically fucked them in the ass? they signed lin and ended up having to send a 1st rounder to get rid of him.
and like you said durant isnt going to pick LA just cause its LA, that could have been the case for all these players. everyone thinks the lakers should just sign anyone they can or something without a real reason. being competitive is great, unless you're just competing for a 8th seed and a 1st round exit. that does not help a franchise at all.
im not arguing for their management, im just saying why does everyone think if the lakers just offered these players a contract, that they would've came to LA 100% or some shit.
|
On July 21 2014 01:20 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 18:20 AntiGrav1ty wrote:On July 20 2014 01:34 Xeris wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Welp, without Gasol and before the Lin trade and other signings, LA had ~37.1 committed to Kobe, Sacre, Nash, and Randle, leaving them roughly 26 million in cap space.
They could have pushed for something like: 2 years 26 million for any 2 of: Bledsoe, Lance Stephenson, Greg Monroe. Let's assume they get two of them; Lance, Monroe. Now, LA has a starting lineup of: Nash, Kobe, Lance, Randle, Monroe. Way better than the current starting 5. If LA was just going to re-sign its own free agents anyway, they could have easily done so in addition to making these moves. They would not have been able to get Jeremy Lin / Boozer, however. They got 2 picks for the Lin trade, which is awesome - but I think two years with a way more competitive lineup is worth more than a ~20-25 1st round draft pick in 2015.
It doesn't seem like they even tried to go for the 'tier 2' free agents. They could have easily gotten 2 of them with their cap space is my point, and created a competitive team. This year's team is the same as last year + Kobe (maybe healthy, hopefully healthy) and a new coach (def. an improvement). While it will be an improvement, how much is the question. Can 36 year old Kobe carry the team to the playoffs? They won 27 games last year and improved, but most of the other Western teams are either the same or improved too, so how can LA's position in the standings realistically change much? I just don't see it.
They prefer to just ride out 2 seasons with a mediocre team and Kobe instead of comitting longterm to a decent team that can't really contend for a title. It is a totally viable strategy and in my opinion the better choice. By signing players like Stephenson or Bledsoe you commit to longterm contracts that hurt flexibility for 2016 for a few ranks higher in the standings next year. Cmon man, a Stephenson doesn't put that Laker team into title contention. What good is it to be the 7th seed when you hurt your chances to properly rebuild after Kobe's contract is over? With the flexibility they have, the projected cap raise, Kobe's massive contract coming off the books and some marquee free agents available they can really rebuild into a title contender from 2016 on. Just keep all the options open for a rebuild in 2016. If they need it they can still sign a player of Stephenson's caliber then. Btw. I think a roster with Lin/Nash, Kobe, Swaggy/Xavier, Boozer and Jordan Hill/Ed Davis could actually be fairly competitive and fun to watch. Kobe's 2005-2007 teams were worse and they made it to +500. Obviously not the same Kobe but he has better teammates this time imho. I could see them getting close to .500 You missed the part specifically where I said 2 year contracts. Do you realize that almost every free agent is signing 2-3 year deals? Except for Bosh/Carmelo/Wade, because they know this is their last big contract. LeBron signed a 2 year deal. The whole reason LA could have pulled it off is because they could have created some pretty crazy 2 year contracts for these guys, but they didn't attempt to do so.
I didn't specifically miss anything. It's just not true.
We don't know what the Lakers offered. You can't claim they didn't offer anything. They might have offered those 2 year deals to everyone but why the hell would the players just take the deals the Lakers want to offer? It's not like the players automatically accept just because the Lakers come knocking.
As posted above: Stephenson is the shortest with 3 years. Parsons is a 3 years max with a trade kicker, Hayward was 4 years, Lowry was 4 years, Avery Bradley 4 years, even Patty Mills was 3 years. No way in hell is Bledsoe gonna take a 2 year deal. Even their own Pau Gasol didn't want 20m/2y.
|
So, two major themes have been emerging since Lebron's "Second Decision" that I really disagree with, and would like to hear some feedback on. First is that the new Lebron is "mature" and second is that he is a "brilliant businessman". I see no real evidence of either.
First, on maturity. The "evidence" that is cited to support this notion is that last time he did "The Decision" TV show, followed by the "Pep Rally" in Miami. This time, of course he wrote a letter in SI. Am I the only one who thinks a 7 year old after seeing the fallout of the first two would have done the same? I am pretty sure a lab rat wont touch a hot surface that burns him a second time. So really, he has reached the maturity level of a small child. Congratulations?
Second, on business brilliance. Apparently this is presumed because of his ability to recognize that taking short term deals will allow him to maximize his income based on a presumed increase in the salary cap. This isn't brilliance, this is something that sportswriters were easily able to figure out, and something that a C Student in Accounting at Ohio State would have figured out. This is not being a great businessman, it is being an average businessman.
Or what about his Beats deal? Admittedly it looks good, but in reality he just took equity in lieu of payment from a company that really (at the time) couldn't pay him substantially for his sponsorship. The only way this is actually a hard choice for him is if he had an offer on the table from Bose, or another premium headphone company and turned that down to do the Beats deal.
What I think we see, is that in comparison to the totally idiotic business deals that many high profile athletes engage in, Lebron looks good, but its not brilliance its competence. But I guess competence is amazing when you live in a land of fools.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is all w/e because le decision wasnt even his own producton. he has learned to have msg discipline andnot let espn run with it
|
On July 21 2014 07:05 cLutZ wrote:
So, two major themes have been emerging since Lebron's "Second Decision" that I really disagree with, and would like to hear some feedback on. First is that the new Lebron is "mature" and second is that he is a "brilliant businessman". I see no real evidence of either.
First, on maturity. The "evidence" that is cited to support this notion is that last time he did "The Decision" TV show, followed by the "Pep Rally" in Miami. This time, of course he wrote a letter in SI. Am I the only one who thinks a 7 year old after seeing the fallout of the first two would have done the same? I am pretty sure a lab rat wont touch a hot surface that burns him a second time. So really, he has reached the maturity level of a small child. Congratulations?
Second, on business brilliance. Apparently this is presumed because of his ability to recognize that taking short term deals will allow him to maximize his income based on a presumed increase in the salary cap. This isn't brilliance, this is something that sportswriters were easily able to figure out, and something that a C Student in Accounting at Ohio State would have figured out. This is not being a great businessman, it is being an average businessman.
Or what about his Beats deal? Admittedly it looks good, but in reality he just took equity in lieu of payment from a company that really (at the time) couldn't pay him substantially for his sponsorship. The only way this is actually a hard choice for him is if he had an offer on the table from Bose, or another premium headphone company and turned that down to do the Beats deal.
What I think we see, is that in comparison to the totally idiotic business deals that many high profile athletes engage in, Lebron looks good, but its not brilliance its competence. But I guess competence is amazing when you live in a land of fools.
my feedback is you got too much lebron haterade in your system 
|
meanwhile, wiggins was playing in the summer league without having signed a contract? seems like a bad way to protect yourself.
|
sports journalism is full of circlejerking idiots who spin out narratives for attention and self-promotion, and generally take everything way too seriously. Kinda like real journalism except it's sports so they can get away with it.
|
Drama bait time. Which player leaves a bigger legacy on the game when they retire: Kobe or Duncan? But take the LA/celeb hype out and focus only on basketball.
|
Who leaves a bigger legacy, but we're not allowed to factor in hype? Isn't that an oxymoron? Anyway, still Kobe. Duncan's legacy will always be diminished because he's always had help and Pop and his system.
|
What do you mean by "bigger legacy"?
|
On July 20 2014 16:36 oneofthem wrote:
at least in baseball there is great value in tanking. the expected value derived from history would give the #1 overall pick more value than 2-10 combined. there is also the way draft spending slots are tied to picks, so #1 represents a lot of money in the artificially depressed draft 'market'
the whole 'give worst teams more help' concept is generally just small market/bad teams subsidy, and in the nba it's pretty strong.
saying the draft in the nba is overvalued is highly puzzling. the nba is precisely the kind of league that accentuates draft value. should perhaps distinguish between overvaluing the top of the draft vs overvaluing lower picks.
You rarely see outright tanking in the MLB. The Astros are the only team I'm aware of that has clearly gone down that path for baseball-winning reasons. The Marlins are a different, more amazing, story.
The only justification for tanking is that it, hypothetically, puts a team on the best track for winning a championship. The only possible reason that could even be close to true, is that intentionally losing (or minimizing your wins, I don't care,) increases your chance at a high lottery pick.
If you look at the past decade (conveniently after the league defining 2003 draft,) you can find 3 players who even led the team that drafted them to a conference finals: Dwight Howard, Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose. And of course, we can bicker over how much each star meant to their team: a lot, everything, some.
Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Blake Griffin, Anthony Davis, Stephen Curry, James Harden, John Wall, LaMarcus Aldridge, Al Horford. These are all super sweet players who have the talent to win NBA championships. But most of them won't. Probably just one of them, honestly.
Do you honestly believe a core of LaMarcus Aldridge and Damian Lillard and Wes Matthews and Nic Batum can win an NBA Championship? Of course not. They should blow it up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
