Does the Carmelo Anthony trade herald a lack of parity in the NBA?
Posting a little later out of respect for the dearly departed.
To be sure, the NBA isn't MLB...yet. It seems like such a short time ago I was cursing Mitch Kupchak. Only the Lakers, I moaned, could steal Pau Gasol without buying Memphis dinner. With Lamar Odom re-signed, Ron Artest in for the MLE, Derek Fisher hanging around, that Kobe guy, Shannon Brown developing into a 6th man, and Andrew Bynum with fresh plaster on his glass knees, it just seemed to be an impossible job of team building. Well, the impossible is possible when the stars align for the biggest market teams, I muttered to myself. I was willing to ignore Boston and their Big 3 (4)...anything to beat the Lakers.
Of course, my above question is fairly sophomoric, because it's really already happened. Boston is the NBA version of 'Space Cowboys', a bunch of gritty older guys who will get the job done, and may just punch you in the nuts and take your wallet for good measure. Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett will go into the sunset together, while Rajon Rondo, Big Baby, and Kendrick Perkins (maybe) head up the new generation.
Chicago probably scares me more than any other team in the future. Derrick Rose is coming into the full of his powers and will be there well into our own contending window. If Joakim Noah gets healthy, Carlos Boozer stays on the court, and Luol Deng is there to play 4th banana color me apprehensive. Or they could all take turns being injured while D-Rose wills his team to victory anyway, like most of this season. This is the East team done right. D-Rose is an intense competitor and I would be shocked to see him go elsewhere.
I don't want to talk about the Heat...so I won't. It goes without saying.
The Knicks aren't there yet. I know that's contradictory, given the title...but it's only a matter of time before Amar'e's knees have to be encased in carbonite, with all the minutes he's playing. As much as NY fan's are blasting the trade, it cost them an RFA, Michelle Trachtenberg's boyfriend, the man who ate Blake Griffin's armpit, and a PG not named Chris Paul. Keeping Landry Fields is nice, but the Knicks are paper thin. Walsh will have to build within some serious constraints, whether or not the Knicks have a reliable bench in the next two years will be the acid test for his legacy in New York.
A few thoughts outside the supercities after the jump.
Orlando is handcuffed in the bad way that started out as the good way. Like the crazy hot girl (since we all love that metaphor) who promptly informs you upon immobilization that you will be taking part in an involuntary organ donor program and they are fresh out of morphine. Fingers will point to Otis Smith if things go farther south, but when you have Dwight Howard, you can't afford to do anything but double down. You MUST win, because if you don't....will your star go to L.A.? New York? If and when the Magic's cap situation goes sour...well, I'm sure someone will be surprised.
If Orlando is handcuffed, imagine how things are in Atlanta. You just paid Joe Johnson more money than Lebron James and you still don't have a true Center. If they don't get good value for J-Smoov with holes at PG, SF, and C...write this team off for the next 5 years. I say Center because Al Horford will slide over to PF. Of course that's something Mike Bibby and Marvin Williams might take exception to, but they almost certainly won't have the chance to prove it in the second round.
The Western Conference has turned into a game of Jenga with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, so how did all of this come to be? Where's the competitive spirit that drove players to hate each other? Why is teaming up even an option?
Preachy as it sounds, this is the logical consequence of the NBA corporate culture. Like Jay-Z said, 'I'm not a businessman. I'm a business, man.' Why should stars be loyal to these organizations? The players are viewed as commodities and treated accordingly. That's why Lebron James gets a personalized cartoon featuring all the inside jokes he and his teammates enjoyed, and James Singleton gets a one year minimum contract offer and plays in China.
Hey, it's just business, right? As Michael Scott will tell you, 'There's nothing more personal than business.' So why do we get upset when a franchise player jumps ship? As fans, we may think, but don't often say, 'That's our commodity.' Once it becomes obvious it's nearly impossible to get back full value for the outgoing level of talent, we feel betrayed. This is the inevitable result of effecting any theoretical system in the real world; imbalances happen and there's just no way to guarantee that things stay fair.
For myself, I say the Carmelo Anthony trade doesn't so much herald a lack of parity, as it's just one more reminder that when the Finals roll around there won't be any surprises.
Is there hope on the horizon, anything to challenge the mercenary attitude that seems poised to dominate the NBA landscape for the foreseeable future? I'd have to say the teams I've got my hopes pinned on are the Thunder and the Wizards (surprise).
Well, the who shouldn't shock anyone, but I want to pay lip service to the how. We say we're missing the mean, and that's true. Mean comes from a sense of identity, of us versus them. It's the 80's style nasty that a team will have to rock to stand up to the superteams. The subsuper market teams will have to run like a small business built on smarts, loyalty, and grit while dealing with the mind numbing paranoia that their star is eyeing greener pastures.
But until that happens, it's a pipe dream, capturing lightning in a bottle, San Antonio or bust. Nothing is going to change the formula, to get a new generation of rookies seriously looking at staying with their teams unless a group like OKC can follow the Spurs' example, break the glass ceiling and prove that you don't have to leave home to be great.
86 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Thunder are lucky Durant is such a quiet, good guy.
Let’s hope Wall shows us the same loyalty with Lebron whispering in his ear. Or that we can franchise him under the new CBA.
Stern's mentioned parity as something he'd like to reinforce in the new CBA
I hope he means it, because the consistent dominance of large-market teams over small ones, even if it gets ratings, cheapens the competitiveness of the league.
Great post, Exile.
From the District of Columbia, home of the hyperbolic paraboloid transitional floating zone defense.
by mr. 91 on Feb 22, 2011 11:17 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I actually laughed out loud with your first statement.....
Stern’s mentioned parity as something he’d like to reinforce in the new CBA
Anyone that believes that Stern wants parity is foolishly naive. EVERYTHING Stern has done during his tenure as Commissioner is to pump up the marquee teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Knicks) – while doing nothing to help or even keep from hindering the smaller market, second tier, minor league teams…. like Seattle………
Watch in a year or two when New Orleans become a two-time NBA loser (oh yeah- you forgot they used to have the New Orleans Jazz there, right?) as the League (read: David Stern) contracts the Hornets…
Watch as the smaller market teams, like Minnesota, Indiana and yes, even our own Washington Wizards, become the minor league training grounds for the next generation of Super Stars to bolt to the glamor, glitz, endorsements and Championships available in LA, Chicago and New York.
It’s already happened folks – you just don’t realize it yet… The top 5 markets in the NBA (LA, Chicago, New York, Boston and Detroit) have been to the finals 65% of the time…. Occasionally, a Tampa Bay Rays (Once a decade) situation occurs, and the stars align, the young players gel, and the karma is right and the Spurs (4) or Bucks (2) or Wizards (4) can sneak into the Finals for a year or two….. but only 35% of the time…. and that percentage is shrinking…. thanks to David Stern
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Feb 22, 2011 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think Washington, D.C. should be mentioned
next to Minnesota, Indiana, Milwaukee, etc. Yes we are a smaller market team right now, but with the right ownership, management, and culture in place, we should be headed in the right direction, similar to the level of a Chicago. LA and NY are obviously the top two markets, and Boston has the legacy, but there’s no reason DC shouldn’t be able to compete with Chicago. Chicago was nothing before 1991.
The future of our beloved organization rests on the shoulders of Ted Leonsis and Ernie Grunfeld……let’s just hope they know what they’re doing.
by PhenomenalSwag on Feb 22, 2011 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Didn't you hear?
The Minnesota rebuild is complete…heh. Boston has the legacy and Chicago only has Michael Jordan? I get what you’re saying…and I think we can compete with the Bulls eventually…but we’re a long way from three-peating
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
agreed. management is everything
just look at Dallas. They were a joke for 25 years in a very large market. Then Cuban bought them. Now they are perennial contenders. When Dirk gets old they will struggle, obviously, but they have built up so much goodwill with the fan base over the years that they will survive even when they are losing.
by John Park Williams on Feb 22, 2011 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
?
Market size has nothing to do with how well the team is run. Chicago’s a bigger market because it’s a bigger city.
Rank City
1 New York
2 Los Angeles
3 Chicago
4 Philadelphia
5 Boston
6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
7 Dallas-Ft. Worth
8 Washington, DC
9 Atlanta
10 Houston
11 Detroit
12 Tampa-St. Petersburg
13 Seattle-Tacoma
14 Phoenix
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul
16 Cleveland-Akron
17 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
18 Denver
19 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto
20 Orlando-Daytona Beach
21 St. Louis
22 Pittsburgh
23 Portland, Oregon
24 Baltimore
25 Indianapolis
26 San Diego
27 Charlotte
28 Hartford-New Haven
29 Raleigh-Durham
30 Nashville
31 Kansas City, Missouri
32 Columbus, Ohio
33 Milwaukee
34 Cincinnati
35 Greenville-Spartanburg, Asheville, Anderson
36 Salt Lake City
37 San Antonio
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce
39 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo
40 Birmingham
41 Harrisburg-Lancaster
42 Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News
43 New Orleans
44 Memphis
45 Oklahoma City
46 Albuquerque-Santa Fe
47 Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem, NC
48 Las Vegas
49 Buffalo
50 Louisville, KY
Actually, the Wiz market is DC and Baltimore
and that makes it the 4 th largest market in the country.
by hambonejackson on Feb 22, 2011 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
i don't think
Washington is a small market by any means. DC proper isn’t a large city, but the surrounding area is one of the top 10 or so most populous metro areas in the US.
I think our team is a large market team that’s called a “can’t do right” team like the LA Clippers and the GS Warriors in San Fran/Oakland/San Jose and that’s what makes these teams not popular destinations.
by thewiz06 on Feb 22, 2011 5:23 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
the Lakers are good because of good management
They took Kobe Bryant while the Golden State Warriors took Todd Fuller. They traded for Pau Gasol while the Warriors gave Andris Biedrins the exact same contract extension.
I hate David Stern. I am not trying to defend him. But, Stern promotes stars, not markets. Do you not remember the early 2000s when Vince Carter’s Raptors and Allen Iverson’s 76ers were crammed down our throats. Both teams were unwatchable, yet, we got a heavy dose of them on TNT every week.
New York has sucked for 13 years! Big markets of course help to lure free agents. But thats true for every profession. I have no problem with the direction the league is going. I also have no problem with contraction.
I live in North Carolina. Charlotte does not deserve a team. They should be contracted today. The difference between LBJ (the best player in the NBA) and Gerald Wallace (arguably the 30th best player in the NBA) is so huge that the team with the 30th best player stands no chance. I am all in favor of fewer, stronger teams.
by John Park Williams on Feb 22, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
Sign me up too
and restructure the schedule so there are fewer, more meaningful games in the regular season & playoffs.
Unfortunately, it ain’t gonna happen.
Let me take that back
The schedule won’t change, but contraction looks more and more likely.
even if we had fewer teams in the NBA,
There still must be a team that’s last place every year. And if the NBA were to contract, would the Wizards be a team that the league considers for folding? We don’t have much playoff success, we can’t attract great players here despite how great the city is, etc. Charlotte on the surface seems like one of the first candidates to fold, but it’s still a new franchise, and Michael Jordan, the greatest of all time owns the team.
by thewiz06 on Feb 22, 2011 5:31 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Glad I could brighten your day :p
From the District of Columbia, home of the hyperbolic paraboloid transitional floating zone defense.
by mr. 91 on Feb 22, 2011 3:36 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Glad I could brighten your day :)
From the District of Columbia, home of the hyperbolic paraboloid transitional floating zone defense.
by mr. 91 on Feb 22, 2011 3:37 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Unless the new CBA does something about it
this spells doom for parity in the NBA.
When players decide where they go then big markets and superteams are inevitable.
The Carmelo Anthony trade is what the NBA will look like if the franchise tag comes into existence
Personally I think it’s BS. If he wants to leave there is a way and it involves leaving alot of money on the table. He managed to have it both ways.
I wish people would stop oversimplifying the whole big markets-small markets thing. It’s about owners not markets. Some of the bigger luxury tax spenders over the last few years are Orlando, San Antonio, Utah, Cleveland. It’s not like LA’s market has helped the Clippers overcome Donald Sterling. I know claiming it’s big v. small makes a tidy good v. evil storyline but it’s not accurate.
Parity will never happen in the NBA. Unless the ownerships/Front office are all the same skill level there will be no parity. There will always be perennial losers and winners. I’m all for getting rid of the MLE and getting rid of extend and trades(which would have prevented Carmelo to NYK). The main reason certain clubs don’t compete is shitty ownership/Front Office. The big v. small market stuff is just a distraction.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 22, 2011 11:38 AM EST via mobile reply actions 3 recs
I tend to agree
DC has always had the money to pay any FA yet we always suck. Why? Because either we dont go after them or they dont want to come here, or we pay the wrong guys, or we trade away the guys we should keep. Hindsight is always 20/20, but we’ve had enough talent pass through here over the last 20yrs to have had a few contenders rather than be constant dregs of the league.
I want the level of parity in the NFL.
It’s not perfect, there are perennial winners and cellar dwellers, but parity? Any given Sunday.
Let’s look at your examples. Orlando is in big trouble long term, and that’s assuming Howard doesn’t leave to form another superteam. San Antonio caught lightning in a bottle and drafted smart and lucky while creating an excellent culture, as I said, they’re the example a young, small-market team has to copy. Utah has been like Phoenix, always in the mix, never taking it to the top. Yes, I know the Suns made it to the Finals once…I live here. You’re bringing up Cleveland as a counterpoint to the parity argument? They’re a case study for a player being the culture rather buying into one. And as far as the Clippers…that’s a ludicrous example. Who the hell would give a Clippers player the benefits of a big market when the Lakers are right next door?
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
Upsets happen all the time in the NBA regular season too
Cleveland just beat the Lakers. We beat the Celtics a few weeks ago. The list goes on and on.
The NFL has parity because they play 16 games plus one-game playoffs. If the NBA did that, it’d have an “any given Sunday” feeling to it too.
yes but the 7 game series makes it very unlikely that a playoff upset will occur.
by les boulez bomber on Feb 22, 2011 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah...
I’d definitely be in favor of shorter playoff series (cringes)…make the games mean more, where if a lower seeded team stole a game, it could spell disaster.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
Parity = lesser games
It’s why the NCAA tournament is so addictive and the NBA playoffs are so predictable.
another part about parity in college basketball
Is that the venues are in neutral locations for the most part. In the NBA, that just won’t happen.
To add on the parity concept, in d-1 college hoops, for every conference besides the Ivy League, most if not all the schools in the league will be in a conference tournament, so in theory, most D-1 schools could get a spot in the dance, even if their regular seasons weren’t good.
So should every team in the NBA get in the playoffs, or should we have a quick four team tournament to determine the 8 seed for each conference’s playoffs?
by thewiz06 on Feb 22, 2011 5:43 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
upsets happen in the regular season because players take games off, have an off night, or are a bit tired because the league scheduled them many games in a short amount of time, sometimes on the road
by les boulez bomber on Feb 22, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
BAB-
Yes, big vs. small market is a red herring, however the have vs. have not is very much real.
by MR on Feb 22, 2011 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
funny
i was thinking these superteams were forming precisely because the nba had achieved parity – or at least about as good as they were going to do with the nature of the nba and the best players meaning so much more than in other sports.
cleveland had lebron, so they’re always drafting late in the first round and they lacked the financial flexibility to acquire better players. therefore lebron bolts. that’s akin to parity in my mind.
this latest move by the knicks… i’m not ready to say that’s going to get the knicks anywhere.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Feb 22, 2011 11:41 AM EST reply actions
Good Point
New York has sucked for most of the last decade. Maybe this should be embraced as Parity in action. I was trying to think of an equivalent small market team in terms of suckitude over the last decade and tough to think of one off the top of myhead. Would people be as outraged if Minny got him?
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 22, 2011 11:55 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
The definition of parity is real tricky
This NY trade is a win for parity if you define it as the ability of languishing franchises to turn around quickly (although the turn-around is still in question). It’s a loss for parity if you define it as the ability of small market teams to compete with large market teams. All I know is the Wiz never seem to win any of it (except the lottery last year thank the high heavens).
Agree about the Knicks.
Big holes at the bench and Center with little to no flexibility. We’ll see how it shakes down.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
Didn't we say the same things about Boston
when they acquired Ray Allen and KG?
no bench
No center
no financial flexibility to add players…..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
And that's why Danny Ainge won Exec of the Year, ya?
That’s the brass ring for Donnie Walsh.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
yeah thats what i said. i couldn't have been more wrong
i though tthe celtics had just loaded the Timberwolves the same way that the Vikings loaded the Cowboys when the Vikings traded all those players/picks for Herschell Walker.
That’s definitely been my worst call in recent memory. I thought the TWolves had acquired two stars (BigAl and Gerald Green), a solid rotation player (RGomes) and picks in exchange for a vastly overrated player in Garnett. I was so off.
That is why I think this deal was a no-brainer for the Knicks.
by John Park Williams on Feb 22, 2011 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
they had perkins and rondo
who both have turned out to be great and/or above average. rondo was a homerun for ainge, and the acquisition of the superstars allowed perkins to do what perkins does best.
The artist formerly known as ledellforlife.
I don't know
I think a lot of these moves are smoke and mirrors. Right now, adding multiple superstars to one team is the chic thing to do in the NBA. It is a movement, but it hasn’t necessarily equal success. I think Boston is the only example of success so far in this era with that strategy, partly because it is early in the era, but also because there are things that they have that go beyond having multiple superstars. They have great coaching, great management, good role players and a sound philosophy for winning. Talent doesn’t always equal success. Boston works because those guys buy into that system and they put their egos aside so they can win.
Miami doesn’t appear to have that quite yet and even if they do, they have some severe weaknesses that will probably prevent them from ever being a championship team. Parity is created, not by the distribution of talent, but by the salary caps and management of the rosters. Miami will only go as far as Pat Riley can take them. Right now they have a tight cap space, and a big need for a C and PG at the least. Even if they can get those pieces, are they a guarantee to work well together? Not necessarily. So what options do they have, they will be stuck with three superstar players at the prime of their careers who may not be have enough talent around them to get them over the hump, so although it may look nice to have these stars, having them alone doesn’t equal success.
As for NY, the verdict is yet to be determined. Carmelo and Amare definitely are no guarantee to be a good combination, but even if they are, what Donnie Walsh adds around them will do more for that team than what they have right now. The move is a big splash, it’s attractive, it’s a sexy move, but let’s face facts, NY doesn’t play defense, they have no bench, lack depth behind Amare in the front court, and they will have to find another PG after Chauncey Billups is gone. That’s a lot to change and there is no guarantee that it will work.
So to me, teams like the Thunder and even the Spurs are examples that parity isn’t determined by the big moves. Making these moves is more of a strategy than a guaranteed formula for success. Every GM is going to have their way of accomplishing goals, but I think we should focus more on the results to see if this is really changing the landscape of parity in the NBA. To me it is not.
by ThePGPhenomenon on Feb 22, 2011 11:51 AM EST reply actions
To be fair
San Antonio is close…but if you say they aren’t, wouldn’t Miami be the ONLY team with three superstars? The Knicks have two, now. It’s a little early to judge Miami’s body of work. Saying they can’t or won’t succeed feels premature. Boston is the template for talent meets culture, no doubt, but Miami’s team defense gives the lie to no culture down there. It’s a group commitment, but I need to see how it holds up in the postseason.
As far is New York…yup. They’re paper thin. And Walsh’s maneuvering at this point will determine his legacy and how deep the Knicks go in the playoffs, but that’s why you pay GMs millions of dollars. As it’s been said, you can build yourself a contender, but a championship takes luck.
The Spurs are my example, yes…from a historical perspective. But that won’t work for the newest generation of stars, because when they play San Antonio they see Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili backed up a deep supporting cast. They see a superteam.
That’s why, as I said, the Thunder are so crucial to re-establishing parity. Like the Spurs they caught lightning in a bottle and are growing a strong team culture besides. If they can win a championship, hopefully Durant and Westbrook can set the example for staying to play for the team that drafted you. If and when that happens, maybe the same happens for Griffin and Gordon, then Wall and…dammit, guess we need another superstar.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 1:04 PM EST up reply actions
Great post. It brings up a lot of questions/comments
1. It’s the super-friends thing that bothers me the most. This is probably an old-fashioned reaction, but strong-arming your way to play with your all-star buddies just doesn’t seem right. It stinks of collusion, which I guess isn’t necessarily against the rules but feels wrong. That being said, I’d be ecstatic right now if I was a fan of the Heat; the have-nots always whine about the haves.
2. Which is the more preferable scenario: organizations that destroy parity (MLB) or players who gang together to destroy parity (what’s happening here)?
3. A lot of this goes back to a topic discussed here a lot: build through the draft or buy your talent. On one end of the spectrum, the Spurs are almost entirely draft-built. On the other, the Heat, Knicks, and Celtics have built through acquisition. And in the middle sit the Lakers, who seem to be good at both.
4. All of Ted’s talk about building through the draft is nice, but I just want the Wiz to get better fast. The 1st-half product was a horror to behold most of the time.
The Spurs won the lotto when Admiral came out, then Duncan.
That’s not a plan no matter how much Ted talks up the draft. Wiz need to start targeting major FAs once the new CBA is in place. When I say target I dont mean have the guy on the roster next year, I mean know whom they are going to go after the following offseason.
But if something comes up this offseason….DO IT. Passing on a young elite talent because we’re supposedly going the draft route is not a winning formula. You need elite talent to win in the nba, and the draft does not provide it every year
ted is for fa signings to complete the team
Rather than to start a team (knicks). The new max contract amts should be much more reasonable, so I think we’ll be in the conversation for some of those future FA’s.
by thewiz06 on Feb 22, 2011 5:34 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
2. NFL situation…where nobody’s happy, but everyone competes. Of course, it’s a different world over there.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
what do you mean no one is happy. the fans are happy…thats why it is the most popular sport in the country by far! last i checked i am a fan, not a player or owner.
by les boulez bomber on Feb 22, 2011 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
Was referring
to players and owners because that’s how jvflail posited his statement. I believe a good compromise leaves nobody happy…but agree that’s usually when the fans win.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
all career players and owners make multimillions over their career. in addition, players get a meaningful pension and owners get all the capital gains when they sell. you have 30 cities throughout the country to choose to play. if they arent happy it is because of greed.
by les boulez bomber on Feb 22, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
The last thing you will ever see
Is me coming in to defend one side’s morality or the other’s in a battle of millionaire’s and billionaire’s
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
lol gotcha,,,we share that. they will sort it out n i will check it out when they do. i think they could offer a better product and all make more money. but basketball is the hardest sport to do that with because only 5 players playing, maybe 8-10 in rotation and 15 on the roster. one player can really make a difference…and when you stack three top ones on a half dozen teams in a league with 30+ teams, its easy to have problems
by les boulez bomber on Feb 22, 2011 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
Should we try and get Gallo now??
TNT should've treated Lebron's return to Cleveland game like 2k11 and cut the game off after the Cavs were down by 30. lol
i was thinking the same thing.
if we offered Hinrich and took back Al Harrington & Gallo. Is Gallo worth having AlHarrington’s worthless a$$? I think so.
by John Park Williams on Feb 22, 2011 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
regardless…the nba is a lot less interesting to me and became a lot more so with super teams. seriously, 120mm is not enough reason for lebron to stay home and try to win one? just one example out of many. the skills are incredible. the game could be played better. but i just dont relate to what their offering me when i consider what they make, what i am asked to pay with what i make, and the odds that my team can matter.
by les boulez bomber on Feb 22, 2011 1:09 PM EST reply actions
its just my feeling as a fan. the nba is less interesting. i can just catch the few games a year that matter
by les boulez bomber on Feb 22, 2011 1:19 PM EST reply actions
I actually have read revenue studies and leagues as a whole are most succesfully with parity
So funny to think David Stern or the league as a whole wants to be top heavy. I know people think that sounds good, but attendance across the board and overall fan interest is higher with parity, across all pro sports. David Stern has to know this, because it is a fact, parity has to be brought into a balance.
One of the many reasons the NFL has overtaken the sporting landscape is that it has been the most parity driven major sport for awhile. There are other reasons too though.
by Jon Kelman on Feb 22, 2011 1:35 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
the NBA will never have the same parity as the NFL: You can't compare basketball to football
Say the NBA got radical and pulled a Madden-style shakeup of rosters via an ultimate draft: every player up for grabs through a draft. The draft snakes around, so the team that picks first also picks 60th, and the team that picks 30th also picks 31st.
Team A: would pick LBJ 1st and Serge Ibaka 60th.
Team B: would pick Danny Granger 30th and Al Jefferson 31st.
What team would you take? Team A wins by a country mile. A single great player can do much with the ball in their hands that it trumps 5 good players.
Football is different. The reason why their is such turnover is because 22 players play half the game, and the difference between the most important player (arguably the QB) and the least important player (arguably the LG) is not huge. Everyone matters. You cant run if you cant block. You can’t score if you cant run. Etc. Etc.
But, LBJ can score even if he shares the court with Varejau, Ilgauskus, JoelAnthony, and Dampier.
In the NFL, you can win with 15 very good players. In the NBA, you need a superstar.
by John Park Williams on Feb 22, 2011 1:39 PM EST reply actions
and i agree with you….basketball is the hardest sport to achieve parity. they could do a better job. its not even close now
by les boulez bomber on Feb 22, 2011 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
but i will point out that college basketball has done a much better job. and is a better product for fans despite the talent level. so the nba sure has a lot of room to grow in this dept
by les boulez bomber on Feb 22, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
I know it's a naive sentiment
And I understand the difference between basketball and football, mostly at this point, I’m just interested to see what an NBA franchise tag looks like before I start getting down to brass tacks
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
Franchise tag isn't about Parity in the NFL it's about Salary Suppression
It’s about not wanting to pay player X what he would earn on the market for another team. In the NBA your trying to stop people who are already turning down larger offers from their club. Different problems. The Carmelo Anthony saga is exactly what results from a Franchise tag. A year of drama and eventually Denver gets compensated and Melo leaves. I just think any frnachise tag would only be applicable for a very few cases per decade where a Superstar won’t take a max from his own team and it would enforce unnecesary acrimony. It just takes negotiating brinksmanship to another level so now we hear about Training Camp holdout’s, people sitting out the beginning of the season, etc…. Which is good for media types but kinda boring/unseemly for myself.
I understand the sentiment I just don’t think it’s effective in creating Larry Bird’s, Reggie Millers, etc….. I still thinking paying them more to stay in house and an organization winning are the 2 best methods for that.
I just wish they would address how the system rewards teams for not trying and allows teams with richer owners to spend way more than others could. That is what is important and needs to be fixed. Populist rabble-rousing that argues poorly thought out plans for Franchise Tags or oversimplifies into a Big Market -Small Markets storylines just gets us further from what is needed. Though it does play well with the Torches and Pitchforks crew.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 22, 2011 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
also, sorry if this is a dumb question, but who is the "dearly departed?"
did I miss something?? you posted late out of respect for whom?
Carmelo?
by John Park Williams on Feb 22, 2011 1:50 PM EST reply actions
Denver fans
The bandwagon fans, in any case. I think this was as could as it could possibly get for them dealing with New York
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
yep
but, something about rewarding donald sterling & glen taylor for mark cuban’s hard work just seems wrong
by John Park Williams on Feb 22, 2011 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah there'd have to be a discussion to make it work right
Maybe raise the minimum payroll to prevent a Pittsburgh Pirates situation.
But I think I’d accept that evil because the huge problem with the league now is that it’s more profitable to be the Lakers and suck than it is to be the Spurs and win. Something has to be done so small-market teams don’t have to choose between winning and losing money.
"Maybe raise the minimum payroll to prevent a Pittsburgh Pirates situation."
Cringeee
I hope you meant Florida Marlins.
Well, them too
I was thinking more the Pirates taking their revenue sharing money and pocketing it to make a profit.
Maybe future revenue sharing
The thing about revenue sharing is that it cannot affect the team as an asset. For every owner there is an army of investors. and they invest on future income stream and they borrow off those assets and they will not be happy, to say the least. One way of revenue sharing is one thing every team has in common and that is goodwill. Goodwill is a co-dependency issue. The Lakers could argue that their goodwill raises the value of the NBA and the counter argument is that they would not be the Lakers if there were not bad teams in NBA to beat. So teams can use their goodwill to borrow money to set up the NBAs IMF. It could be a revenue driven company in which smaller markets get bigger shares of stocks.You just have to do it in a way where Stern is not accused of being a communist.
by hambonejackson on Feb 22, 2011 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
i have a question....
would you all think about trading javale mcgee straight up for mosgov from the nuggets now? or maybe for mosgov and a 2nd rd pick? the man is looking very solid, but im not sure if i would make the deal. the reason im asking is because espn said the nuggets are looking to move mosgov, gallinari, or felton possibly now.
Does Anthony going to the knicks herald a lack of parity in the NBA?
No. George Mikan going to the Minneapolis Lakers did that.
NJ and Denver did a great job of playing the Knicks.
I’m glad that superfriends teams thus far have to start out as empty shells.
Agreed.
Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory, Isaiah Thomas.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 22, 2011 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
New Jersey especially did well.
They greatly weakened not only their division rival but their future crosstown rival.
by MR on Feb 22, 2011 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
i dunno how NJ won
The knicks looks stronger on paper.
Since last season, prokhorov has pulled out Jay Z to be the “cool factor” in terms of recruiting leBron and melo and they failed in their mission to make a FA or trade splash. The only thing they still have is a young foundation while the knicks are committed to winning now in the nrxt few seasons or bust.
by thewiz06 on Feb 22, 2011 6:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Well, this won't help
The NBPA suggested that non-playoff teams receive two picks in the first round with playoff teams receiving none — that playoff teams get their two picks in the second round under a similar format at the first round for the lottery teams:
Rather than changing the salary structure to level the playing field for small market teams, an alternative was proposed that would involve making drastic changes to the draft process.
The union made the argument that the quickest way to turn around “crummy” teams is through the draft. Because first-round picks have become so valuable in today’s NBA and many teams have had success building a roster with this model, the union feels that the best way to increase parity is to focus the draft around the underachieving teams.
I can already see team ditching the playoffs
Do you really want to be the 8th seed in the playoffs if you can score 2 first round picks the next season? its the mrginal teams that will take the hit. I just can’t see team like Philly taking the same hit as LA. The 8 seed will fight to be the 9th seed. That is too hard a hit for fringe teams. Maybe the top 4 seeds give to the bottom 4 seeds.
by hambonejackson on Feb 22, 2011 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
I guess you're saying
That perhaps the bottom four teams get two first round picks and the top four teams based on regular season record have no first round picks but two second round picks?
Wonder how the order will shape out.
by thewiz06 on Feb 22, 2011 6:41 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Total BS from the Union designed to shield players from more restrictive contracts.
“Because first-round picks have become so valuable in today’s NBA and many teams have had success building a roster with this model”
Which teams? In the draft column you have the Thunder and the Spurs(who lucked into 2 of the best Bigs in nba history).
In the FA/trades column you have….every other successful team.
The Union is going to make the argument it’s all about the draft because they don’t want franchise tags and non-guaranteed contracts.
I think its unworkable
If team A offers a guaranteed contract of x amount and you offer that same player x amount guaranteed and y amount not guaranteed, either you are paying close to the guaranteed offered him with your own guaranteed, or you are over paying for that player with your y amount.
by hambonejackson on Feb 22, 2011 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
How's this for a suggestion?
Any player on a Max Contract can’t be traded for 2 seasons after signing it(So no extend and trades). Also no MLE or Bi-Annual. If teams wanna wreck their cap to get 2-3 Max guys let them fill out the rest of their team with scrubs. Teams can still go over to keep guys in house(Those storied rivalries where everyone hates each other comes from keeping whole teams together). Then teams can only get true Super-Teams(starters and depth) if they are amazing drafters/developers of talent. Just some thoughts off the top of my head.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 22, 2011 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
How about
allowing teams to add an additional 10% to a salary to retain their own FAs and that 10% would not count against the cap. That gives the players their incentive to stay but doesn’t create a Hawks situation where keeping your own guy cripples you.
by MR on Feb 22, 2011 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Seems like a good idea that would also prevent owners from using
the CAP as an excuse as to why they “had” to let players leave.
But I think for real parity there has to be a way to penalize organizations that try and sign away other teams FAs/RFAs the way the franchise tag does in the NFL. Not that I’m advocating it, just that I imagine it’s what many of the owners want.
Change in DC!
Leonisis will facilitate it! Change teh name. the look, the culture. Get the kid on the highlights in a sweet uni with a LOUD arena, and other, better players will take notice and want to go there. Just make it the new “To Be” place in the east. There is not a New York Atmosphere or a beach to lure in the players… So make it the best arena on the East Coast!!!

by 

























