2016-17 NBA Season

[Tim]

It's a pretty bad idea if competitive balance is a priority for you.

If Charlotte can offer the maximum amount and Chicago can offer the maximum amount and Miami can offer the maximum amount, the Hornets are never getting Anthony Davis.

True, but the Pelicans can offer more. So you're incentivized to develop an Anthony Davis. Or tank to get one. It's obviously not perfect, but it's better than two or three teams spending 10 times more than anyone else and winning ever year.

Right. The Pelicans can, others can't. But the amount NO is able to offer more than others isn't a wide enough margin to matter, IMO. Or at least, it doesn't seem to have been at this point.

[thrill]

I don't get this conversation for a few reasons.

1 - In the last 10 seasons, 8 different teams have won championships. The league is more dynamic than ever from that perspective.
2 - It's not like we don't have a bunch of examples of why no salary cap actually decreases competitive balance.

[SHOW]

http://www.marca.com/en/2014/09/17/en/f ... 55504.html

3 - If what you're really complaining about is the fact that your team can't win a championship without superstars, I question why you even like the NBA. Superstars dominating the league is inherent to the NBA. Basketball allows you to give your best players the most touches. That can't and won't change. Needing to have multiple top 10 players on the planet on your team to win a title with very few exceptions has and always will be a part of the NBA. If you don't like that, then why do you like the league?

[Tim]

I don't get this conversation for a few reasons.

1 - In the last 10 seasons, 8 different teams have won championships. The league is more dynamic than ever from that perspective.
2 - It's not like we don't have a bunch of examples of why no salary cap actually decreases competitive balance.

[SHOW]

http://www.marca.com/en/2014/09/17/en/f ... 55504.html

3 - If what you're really complaining about is the fact that your team can't win a championship without superstars, I question why you even like the NBA. Superstars dominating the league is inherent to the NBA. Basketball allows you to give your best players the most touches. That can't and won't change. Needing to have multiple top 10 players on the planet on your team to win a title with very few exceptions has and always will be a part of the NBA. If you don't like that, then why do you like the league?

1. I think those 8 teams have won like the last 30 championships.
2. I can't speak to soccer as I don't pretend to watch or follow it, so I will take your word for it.
3. I agree. I want my team to be able to spend as much money as they want to for Russell Westbrook and Kristaps Porzingis when they are available. I don't think either would consider Charlotte otherwise.

[MrCrowesGarden]

Warriors have better odds of going undefeated than eight teams have of winning the title.

That's crazy! Belongs in the "things that sound false but are true" thread.

My Nuggets are in a pretty good place. They have as much young depth as any team in the league, and potential star players in guys like Jokic, Mudiay and Murray. If they can buy into Mike Malone's defensive mindset, they could surprise some folks this year.

They're certainly making my Pelicans look bad thru a half.

Well, minus Anthony Davis, but he does that to a lot of teams.

[MrCrowesGarden]

50 points, 16 rebounds, 7 steals, 5 assists, 4 blocks... and they still lose.

[Tim]

50 points, 16 rebounds, 7 steals, 5 assists, 4 blocks... and they still lose.

I hope he stays healthy all year.

[thrill]

50 points, 16 rebounds, 7 steals, 5 assists, 4 blocks... and they still lose.

Mother of god. [expletive] me. This is a Wilt Chamberlain line.

[themiddle54]

1 - In the last 10 seasons, 8 different teams have won championships.

It's a bit more slanted. 8 teams in 18 years. Roll it back a bit and it's 10 teams 33 years. From 1987-2003 every champ repeated, except the Spurs, who won twice in that range within a few years without repeating because of a Lakers mini-dynasty. The NBA Champions are generally from dynasties or mini-dynasties. Most teams who have won one have won multiples, and the outliers in there--the recent Mavs and Pistons and Cavs and Warriors champs--have gone to another finals within a handful of years if not in consecutive years.

Free Agency in the NBA is kind of a non-factor for 75%+ of the league. A very good Celtics team got Horford and an all-time-great Warriors team added KD. The rest of the league rushed to spend a flush of new $$$$$ on overpays for role players.

The way to build a champ seems to be
--get lucky in the Lottery
--get lucky by finding someone who you can sucker in a trade

[thrill]

1 - In the last 10 seasons, 8 different teams have won championships.

It's a bit more slanted. 8 teams in 18 years. Roll it back a bit and it's 10 teams 33 years. From 1987-2003 every champ repeated, except the Spurs, who won twice in that range within a few years without repeating because of a Lakers mini-dynasty. The NBA Champions are generally from dynasties or mini-dynasties.

You know that part of my point that you didn't quote?

The league is more dynamic than ever from that perspective.

Thanks for inadvertently adding the details that reinforce my point which I didn't think we're necessary since we all understand NBA history, even though you were misguided in disagreeing.

My point was that there's this narrative that the NBA isn't competitive, when in reality, it's more competitive than ever.
That in itself is misguided and probably an illusion because of the unprecedented movement of the best player in the league, which barely ever happens in their prime.

[themiddle54]

Thrill, sorry, I didn't mean to diminish your post or anything by just taking a small quote.

As far as the La Liga comparison, there are non-financial considerations. Do you take the same amount of money to play for Madrid, assured that you'll be playing in the Champions League this year and next, the biggest stage in world sport outside the World Cup, or do you take the same money from Deportivo knowing you won't play any UEFA matches? Do you play for Madrid, if you're a young French center back, knowing it will put you in a good spot to audition for your national club due to exposure, or do you play for Deportivo where that opportunity is diminished? The reality is Madrid goes on world tours, is in the Champions League every year, raises the profiles of all their players exponentially over other clubs, and all that non-salary stuff matters to players. So their salary is higher not just because they pay a lot, but because the attraction between those clubs and those players is mutual.

In the EPL, Chelsea and Man City used to be doormats. They got billionaire owners who started buying every piece of talent in sight. Now they're perennial contenders who have won lots of hardware the past decade or so. The lack of a salary cap there has brought more competition to the EPL, and it's not just ManCity and Arsenal and Liverpool anymore. While the glamour of La Liga's two biggest clubs tilts that league, the billions that went into the EPL in a cap-free system has made that league more competitive.

As to the dynamic nature of the current NBA, here are the seeds of all NBA finalists since 1980:

[SHOW]

2016: 1 - 1
2015: 1 - 2
2014: 1 - 2
2013: 1 - 2
2012: 2 - 2
2011: 3 - 2
2010: 1 - 4
2010s average: 1.85
2009: 1 - 3
2008: 1 - 1
2007: 3 - 2
2006: 2 - 4
2005: 2 - 2
2004: 3 - 2
2003: 1 - 2
2002: 3 - 1
2001: 2 - 1
2000: 1 - 1
2000s average: 1.9
1999: 1 - 8
1998: 1 - 1
1997: 1 - 1
1996: 1 - 1
1995: 6 - 1
1994: 2 - 2
1993: 2 - 1
1992: 1 - 1
1991: 1 - 3
1990: 1 - 3
1990s average: 1.95
1989: 1 - 1
1988: 1 - 2
1987: 1 - 1
1986: 1 - 2
1985: 1 - 1
1984: 1 - 1
1983: 1 - 1
1982: 1 - 3
1981: 1 - 6
1980: 1 - 3
1980s average: 1.55

There's not much change, since the 90s, in who gets to the finals on average, and the marginal change in the average seed of the finalists is inching lower, not higher. Not that it matters, it's so small. There might be more competition for the #4 seed in the league, but the difference between being a 5 and 4 seed really doesn't do much to change a team's shot at a title or going to the Finals.