GatewayRedbirds.com

Socnorb11 wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

It's like Lebron getting all the flack for the Heatles when D-Wade reaped the benefits. No one said "Wade wants another ring but now that Shaq is gone he needs Lebron to do it."

Because Lebron made that decision, not Wade. Why should Wade catch heat for a decision that Lebron made?

Because he was as much a part of it as Lebron was?

The problem isn't really the players' decisions, but the system that makes the options all similar enough to enable them.

If you made it easier for teams to differentiate offers to FA's, then maybe you'd still see some Durants who take less money to go to/stay with a super team(and ultimately that's always going to be a flaw in a sport where 1-3 players determine who wins) but until you give teams a chance to overcome that, it's going to happen over and over. That's cool for worker's empowerment I guess, but it makes for terrible competitive sport.

If the argument was for a hard cap--but with no maximum contract-- I would listen.

The ability to evaluate talent and make deals is far more common (though the Blazers are sure historically bad at it when it matters most) than individual basketball abilities and gifts that transform the competitive balance of a league.

Nobody said that Durant can't have help. He had Westbrook.

Socnorb11 wrote:Nobody said that Durant can't have help. He had Westbrook.

He also had Harden, but the only reason he got traded was so OKC didn't have to pay the luxury tax.

And let's not all of a sudden pretend like every Tom, Dick and Harry thought they'd be better off trading Russ.

Anyhow I see where this is going.

BottenFieldofDreams wrote:
IW nothing. If Draymond didn't have a genital fixation they win 73 and the title. Baseball is so different than basketball it doesn't matter.

And if Curry isn't slowed by injury. So the Dubs were beatable last year because they can be exposed to injury and the...excessiveness, let's say, of one of their stars. They added a guy to basically ensure they won instead of being sure they get near the finish line. They improved their team, which no team should be condemned for doing if we're having a sane and sober discussion, and I think we agree on that, it's just that you think that a player of a certain talent should not be able to go to a team of a certain level of quality because...

BottenFieldofDreams wrote:My desire for meaningful basketball is built on the league of my formative years. It sucks that it's getting so far away from me, because my team team didn't win six championships when I was a kid. Instead they ripped my heart out a bunch of times in cruel and tragic ways (Drexler going certainly being one of them). Now if they win it will be because of some silly AAU conglomerate if trends continue, and that's not what I've paid my dues for.

Which, come on. The Lakers won 4 of the first 5 NBA Championships and the level of "meaningful parity" in the league has been about at that level since with the exception of the short run in the 70s. Otherwise, eras on the NBA have been defined by the elite teams who dominate them.

BottenFieldofDreams wrote:At what point is ZERO parity (barring catastrophic injury) just not enough for you?

As a root-for-the-name-on-the-back-of-the-shirt fan, I don't really care. I like watching great teams, and there is no possible better outcome last year than Dubs-Cavs III.

There's a thing with NBA players, that ring thing. Barkley never got one. He chased, he went to Phoenix and they ran into Jordan in the Finals. Paul is probably the greatest player ever to not play in a Finals. He's ring-chasing by going to Houston. Players don't want to be Barkley, they don't want to be the guy who was among the 10 best of their era but who never get a ring. Shaq, LeBron, Barkley, Paul, Drexler, Karl Malone, and host of others at some point in their career--from pre-peak through peak to over-the-hill--have chased a ring.

What should Kevin Durant have done? He's not going to go to half the teams in the league who are bad/rebuilding. He's not going to stay in OKC where he's unhappy playing with a horrible overrated chucker who takes more shots than he does even though he's, as per this thread, the best scorer in the game. In his career, for his own personal job choice that we as fans frankly have no say in, what, when we overstep the lines of what's reasonable and insist what he should do with that personal choice, should he do? If he went to CLE would that be ok? Spurs? Celtics? If he goes to any of those teams it nearly decides the championship last year, such is the greatness of Durant, so are any of them acceptable? What would be ok for you for Durant to do with his own personal career choice?

Socnorb11 wrote:Nobody said that Durant can't have help. He had Westbrook.

You have to allow for the possibility that Westbrook does not qualify as "help."

There are players in this league like Drummond who the average fan is blind to because they don't understand that his 38% or whatever FT% essentially wipes out everything positive that he does on the floor. But he led the league in rebounding 2 years ago! Yeah, but he's a net negative overall because his offensive efficiency is so pathetic.

If there's a Bill James of basketball analytics it's Dean Oliver and Oliver taught us that there are four things that are important to winning basketball. 1. shoot a high FG%, 2. don't turn the ball over, 3. get offensive boards, 4. shoot a lot from the free throw line. Westbrook does only one of those things well and he is utterly pathetic at the other three. Pathetic. Not just, like, oh, he's not perfect, but awful. Bad shooter, shattered the prior turnover record (whch Harden even bested), and not a good rebounder it's just the system is the bigs box out so he can get D boards and fly down the court to take a low-return shot or turn the ball back over. He's not efficient and because he's so high-usage while being so inefficient, when the day comes that we have decent basketball metrics and not just box-score derived metrics, the curtain is going to get peeled back and we're going to have to be honest about just how bad Russell Westbrook is. Durant had the opposite of help. The guy you defined as the best scorer in the league took fewer shots than Westbrook the last year they were together because Westbrook is a ball hog. So he bolted, because he didn't want to put up with that little bit of insanity anymore and he wanted to have help instead of having a hindrance. He went to another star's team where he was happy being third on the team in FGA/36min because they were doing something meaningful and not just chucking up missed FGA and turning the ball over nonstop and they had a chance at winning rather than finishing 3rd-4th perpetually.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:
No, my example is actually perfect. It's okay for a star player to get help if ownership signs a player, drafts a player or trades for one, but it's not okay for a star player to use his free agency?

Do you call out the Warriors GM and ownership for a lack of competitive spirit for signing Durant or do you just blame KD?

Your example isn't the same thing at all. Pippen didn't decide to join the Bulls. Jordan didn't decide that Pippen would join the Bulls because he couldn't beat the Pistons. Pippen is essentially Klay Thompson. I'm talking about a top 2 or 3 player in the league deciding to join the top team in the league.

Yeah, I'll throw the Warriors GM & ownership in there, too. Although for them, there's financial incentive, so it's more of a business move.

And that's why it's perfect.

Players who stay on the team and get help from ownership = A-okay

Players who leave to get help = monsters.

It's like Lebron getting all the flack for the Heatles when D-Wade reaped the benefits. No one said "Wade wants another ring but now that Shaq is gone he needs Lebron to do it."

Right, Wade is a selfless hero who took less money so they could add LeBron. LeBron is the bad guy, Wade is fine. And now because Wade did that it's ok that he holds the Bulls to 24 million dollars to be a malcontent since he was such a Good Franchise Guy for another team. He thought he was going to a contender (which was dumb b/c GarPax but whatever) and he got a lemon.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:The Bulls gave Jordan Rodman, and apparently, it's okay to get help that way.

They also added a three-time EuroLeague Final Four MVP who utterly dominated European basketball at a time when going after international guys wasn't super sexy around the league.

themiddle54 wrote: ...if we're having a sane and sober discussion

Oh yeah. There's that condescension I've missed like candy. I know it must be exhausting being so correct and rational so I won't pile on your workload. But before I go, can you please do that old hit from the politics threads about how empathetic you are to other people's points of views?