***2021-2022 NBA Season Thread***

[Going Commando]

11 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Ownerships that want to win can freely go over the cap to build a better team, they are just taxed for it. But most owners just want to pocket that money instead and they should because their fans will just blame the good owners that actually spend on their teams rather than the cheap moronic owners. 

 

 

I think you know it's not that simple.  Most of the league is capped out right now, and the cap jumped 40% in two years.  There is a soft cap, this isn't baseball.  And the league provides teams with a ton of financing to pay their operating costs.

 

Ownership greed is not the reason the NBA is a joke.  An awful CBA and player acquisition system is the reason.

[Renegade7]

@Momma There Goes That ManStop telling yourself that LeBron never seriously considered or was reached out to to go to GS to help you get thru this. From what I've read, GS was fine having a payroll around $180 million and already in the luxury tax before resigning KD. It not happening had nothing to do with money, better believe they'd break the cap even more.  

Edited July 3, 2018 by Renegade7

[Berggy9598]

23 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

No I didn't, I just told you this. My "Not the point" was in regards to your repeated claims that these multiple decades of evidence in any way take precedent over the current state of an organization. That's not ignoring something. That's stating the obvious.

 

 

What does any of this even mean (the last impression means very little)? Down years? It's one thing to have a down year, or two, or three, or four... It's entirely different to have a completely toxic organization full of backbiting (at that time). Thats why you couldn't sign anyone. You mean to tell me (using the logic above) that players should have let that go simply because the Lakers are an illustrious, storied franchise that they should have felt honored to play for? Doesn't make a lot of sense, and reeks of entitlement, and doesn't seem to reflect reality either, which makes your next statement about LeBron strange, considering the Lakers seem to now be on the right track. You'd have had no chance in hell of signing him if all that other stuff was still going on, and yeah, even now, considering the state of the team is still very questionable, I think it's obvious that his motives extend beyond the court, and that he was probably hit with one hell of a sell job. But he had to be sold, did he not? You really think everyone just said "Hey LeBron, we're the Lakers, what's good"? I don't believe for a second that the Lakers brand and the Laker way or whatever y'all bammas call it would be enough, and that's really my point. I just think it  takes a little more than that. Unless you're Kawhi (who seems to act as if he'll die if the Lakers don't trade for him).

 

 

It was (strong emphasis on was) an equal con, there's not really an argument to be had there, honestly

 

 

Because when you say the Lakers are needed, because of everything they have been (which is awesome, quite frankly), you conveniently leave out what they are (before LeBron hits them with the defibrilator), a team that... to use your own words:

 

 

Congrats? 

 

And again, even with all the history involved with that franchise, the present is what will be integral in adding another chapter, and you have to crawl before you can walk to get back to that.

I don't think you have to convince any Lakers fan of the severity of Jim Buss's atrocities. A couple of pages back I referred to it as letting Fredo take over the family business. Not only is he gone, but Kobe Bryant who took the franchise's immediate future as some kind of sick narcissistic lifetime achievement award is gone too.

 

35 wins last season all things considered was actually a huge step in the right direction. I not once said it was purely basketball reasons, but to think someone as self obsessed and image obsessed as LeBron would say f it I'm just going to let the clock wind down and at best scrape an 8th seed for four years is also crazy. My biggest worry would be that he'd take a two year deal and the entire roster would be rebuilt for a two year run, but I think having not watched that much Lakers basketball over the past two seasons (why would anyone who isn't a fan of the team) you guys are underestimating the Ball/Kuzma/Ingram trio. Kuzma right off the bat was made to play with LeBron and Ingram will need a more consistent jump shot but there are aspects of his game that could work well with a player of LeBron vision and passing ability around the basket. Lonzo is where I'm scratching my head a little because he'll never be an off the ball scorer but all three have very high basketball IQs for their age and Lonzo can take some pressure off the LeBron on defense and so could Ingram if he grows into his body. If you look back, I wasn't crazy about the idea of signing LeBron because I watched the kids take their lumps, get their doors blown off, and gradually get better. They took Golden State and Houston to the wire on multiple occasions. I don't want a super team, I want to see the draft picks developed and see what they can do. I was saying this during the regular season I think that was my very first post in this thread. I also admitted that's naive and it's not how things work anymore, so I'm just hoping that trio is part of whatever they do going forward. 

 

In the past, the keys to the Lakers were the biggest draw in free agency, but Jim Buss and Kobe Bryant put a swift end to that. At the end of the day though LeBron James and his objectionably enormous ego don't sign with the Lakers if he doesn't believe he can be the face of a Lakers team that can compete for titles, and you better believe he vetted the heck out of the basketball factors before he made the decision to sign. The way the NBA is ran his vetting process probably started during the timeout before Kyrie Irving hit the shot to win him the title in Cleveland. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Berggy9598

[The Evil Genius]

 

[LetMeSeeYourWarFace21]

3 hours ago, spjunkies said:

WTF is the point of the NBA having a salary cap? Seems like the top talent rotates between 6 teams and the rest of the teams are screwed.

 

I don't get it.

 

Honestly, I can't even blame the NBA for the Cousins to GSW signing. Hardly any teams reached out to Cousins (including our bum ass good for nothin GM). 

[Mr. Sinister]

33 minutes ago, LetMeSeeYourWarFace21 said:

 

Honestly, I can't even blame the NBA for the Cousins to GSW signing. Hardly any teams reached out to Cousins (including our bum ass good for nothin GM). 

 

Partially why I'm not really that torn up about this. They are already a team that shook themselves into Durant, and are what they are. What are they gonna do, become more historic? Blow people out by 10 more pts? Ridiculous. It's an achilles, anyway. People stayed away for good reason, now because he went to GS, all of a sudden that ****s gonna heal like Weapon X

Edited July 3, 2018 by Mr. Sinister

[Kilmer17]

The nba is broken beyond repair.  They just don’t realize it yet. 

[justice98]

4 hours ago, LetMeSeeYourWarFace21 said:

 

Honestly, I can't even blame the NBA for the Cousins to GSW signing. Hardly any teams reached out to Cousins (including our bum ass good for nothin GM). 

 

Yet people wanna complain about the rules. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Boogie won't be ready until about halfway through the season though, right?

[The Evil Genius]

9 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Boogie won't be ready until about halfway through the season though, right?

 

Yep. Conservative estimate I've read is late January. 

 

How is the NBA more broken than say..the showtime Lakers and the mid 80s Celtics who had 3-4 HOFers on each team?

 

On top of that, how does a broken NBA produce more teams winning the title than any eecade since the 1970s? Unless your argument is that the NBA was broken sometime in the 1980s.

Edited July 3, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Spaceman Spiff]

4 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Yep. Conservative estimate I've read is late January. 

 

How is the NBA more broken than say..the showtime Lakers and the mid 80s Celtics who had 3-4 HOFers on each team?

 

It's a good point.  But those teams were drafted and traded for.  I think people hold that in higher esteem than free agents banding together and making plans.  

 

Curious to see how he fits in, especially since he won't be ready until halfway through the season. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Spaceman Spiff

[Momma There Goes That Man]

9 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I think you know it's not that simple.  Most of the league is capped out right now, and the cap jumped 40% in two years.  There is a soft cap, this isn't baseball.  And the league provides teams with a ton of financing to pay their operating costs.

 

Ownership greed is not the reason the NBA is a joke.  An awful CBA and player acquisition system is the reason.

 

No, it's not that simple but it's not the fault of the system either. Another reason is the teams that are capped out are only in that position because their cap space burns a hole in their pocket and they can't help themselves giving bad/average players really bad contracts. Get better executives. The amnesty was a saving grace from these bad decisions and even with a reset a bunch of them immediately went out and did the exact same thing again. 

 

You shouldn't reward that stupidity or greed by leveling the playing field so the greedy and moronic have a better chance. 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

4 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

It's a good point.  But those teams were drafted and traded for.  I think people hold that in higher esteem than free agents banding together and making plans.  

 

Steph, Klay, Draymond all drafted though by the Dubs...the Celtics didn't draft Bill Walton (he was one of their HOFers I mentioned). The Lakers core 3 were drafted though...

Edited July 3, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[justice98]

7 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

It's a good point.  But those teams were drafted and traded for.  I think people hold that in higher esteem than free agents banding together and making plans.  

 

Curious to see how he fits in, especially since he won't be ready until halfway through the season. 

 

I'm curious why one way is better than another when the end result is the same.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

9 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@Momma There Goes That ManStop telling yourself that LeBron never seriously considered or was reached out to to go to GS to help you get thru this. From what I've read, GS was fine having a payroll around $180 million and already in the luxury tax before resigning KD. It not happening had nothing to do with money, better believe they'd break the cap even more.  

 

They did not have the cap space to sign him for what he would command unless they traded Klay and a bunch of other players, Durant opted out and took less etc. There is no scenario where Lebron or Golden State seriously considered this possibility. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Steph, Klay, Draymond all drafted though by the Dubs...the Celtics didn't draft Bill Walton (he was one of their HOFers I mentioned). The Lakers core 3 were drafted though...

 

Totally agree about Steph, Klay and Draymond.  The Warriors drafted smart, there's no doubt about it.  I think they get knocked because they added Durant, and now Boogie.  

 

Celtics didn't draft Bill Walton, but he was an energy/glue guy off the bench by that time of his career, he didn't fill up the stat sheet while he was there.  Still good enough to be 6th man of the year.  Certainly wasn't the guy he was in Portland.  Celtics traded for Parrish, I believe they traded for Dennis Johnson, too.  Drafted McHale.  

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

They did not have the cap space to sign him for what he would command unless they traded Klay and a bunch of other players, Durant opted out and took less etc. There is no scenario where Lebron or Golden State seriously considered this possibility. 

 

Why do yall keep saying that?  Don't yall see how far over luxury tax they are and how far they said they were willing to go?  Your not listening, GS doesn't care about the cap the way some other teams do or have to.

[justice98]

11 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Yep. Conservative estimate I've read is late January. 

 

How is the NBA more broken than say..the showtime Lakers and the mid 80s Celtics who had 3-4 HOFers on each team?

 

On top of that, how does a broken NBA produce more teams winning the title than any eecade since the 1970s? Unless your argument is that the NBA was broken sometime in the 1980s.

 

I mean, add the Sixers, cuz when the '83 76ers got Moses, they had the last 3 MVPs and 4 All-Stars, 3 players on the All-Defensive first team.  Not to mention, Bobby Jones was an all-star the year before in 82 and was the 6th MOY in 83.  If that ain't a superteam, I dont know what is

 

Superteams were rampant in the 80s.  This complaint about superteams is just a recent thing.  

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Why do yall keep saying that?  Don't yall see how far over luxury tax they are and how far they said they were willing to go?  Your not listening, GS doesn't care about the cap the way some other teams do or have to.

 

Because them being willing to exceed the cap doesnt absolve them from following the rules.  You can only exceed the cap for your own players and exceptions, like they did Boogie.  They couldnt have just signed Lebron outright without a million and one machinations.  

[Spaceman Spiff]

6 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

I'm curious why one way is better than another when the end result is the same.

 

As I said, I think people hold drafting, trading and acquiring picks in higher esteem then adding FAs, that seems to be the perception.  People talk about guys like Auerbach and Reilly building teams in reverential tones.  What doesn't get mentioned in the same reverential tones is Durant joining the already super team that beat him in the playoffs. 

 

I don't particularly care, the NBA has had loaded teams going back to the Celtics in the 60s.  

 

 

[Going Commando]

8 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

No, it's not that simple but it's not the fault of the system either. Another reason is the teams that are capped out are only in that position because their cap space burns a hole in their pocket and they can't help themselves giving bad/average players really bad contracts. Get better executives. The amnesty was a saving grace from these bad decisions and even with a reset a bunch of them immediately went out and did the exact same thing again. 

 

You shouldn't reward that stupidity or greed by leveling the playing field so the greedy and moronic have a better chance.

 

 

Do you really think everyone in the NBA except for the people in Golden State are simply greedy morons and that's why they can't compete?

 

This may come as a surprise, but the NBA is full of smart people who've forgotten more about basketball and running basketball operations than any of us will ever know.  People make decisions according to the incentive structures they face. 

 

The average NBA fan knows almost nothing about how the NBA's player acquisition system works.  I bet that not a single person in here could tell me how the most common cap exceptions work without looking them up and studying them.  I know, because I doubt I could do it and I've spent a ton of time studying Larry Coon's FAQ.  The NBA's CBA and player acquisition system is a monstrosity.  It's been pell-melled into this byzantine absurdity (all done because they don't have a hard cap), and the result is that there have been loads of unintended consequences and incentives built into the system that have effectively killed competition in the league.

 

The NBA is the only major revenue American league that has this problem, and they're the only ones trying to do things vastly different from everybody else.  All of you know this is true.  We deserve a first rate basketball league, not a jumped up Harlem Globetrotters traveling exhibition.

30 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

How is the NBA more broken than say..the showtime Lakers and the mid 80s Celtics who had 3-4 HOFers on each team?

 

The NBA has always operated like a sideshow rather than a first rate major revenue league.  It's almost always had serious issues with competition.  It's just worse now than it has ever been.  It's time for the NBA to level up, not regress.

[Bozo the kKklown]

I think people are mad that the Warriors actually have a great front office and it exposes how bad hte rest of these front offices are.

 

Thats the only thing because there is no reason to be mad at them helping their team. Be mad that the players didn't want to smooth the cap - which ironically is why the Warriors got Durant and Cousins. In a regular market, they obviously don't get Durant and this year is the opposite of 2016. Many teams do not have cap space and cannot afford to splash that much risky investments.

 

If you want to get mad, get mad that your team's front office is terrible and has no vision. (like Grunfeld and the Wizards, or whatever the hell the Bucks are doing that will eventually cost them Giannis, etc)

[justice98]

13 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

As I said, I think people hold drafting, trading and acquiring picks in higher esteem then adding FAs, that seems to be the perception.  People talk about guys like Auerbach and Reilly building teams in reverential tones.  What doesn't get mentioned in the same reverential tones is Durant joining the already super team that beat him in the playoffs. 

 

I don't particularly care, the NBA has had loaded teams going back to the Celtics in the 60s.  

 

 

 

But why do they hold it in higher esteem is my question.  What I'm trying to drill down to is what specifically makes one better than the other. 

 

That was exactly my point from yesterday that superteams have been a part of the fabric of the NBA.  They've always been there, they never went away, it's just the last 5-10 years that it's become outrageous to people.

Edited July 3, 2018 by justice98

[PeterMP]

24 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Why do yall keep saying that?  Don't yall see how far over luxury tax they are and how far they said they were willing to go?  Your not listening, GS doesn't care about the cap the way some other teams do or have to.

 

The only way the could have signed Lebron is:

1.  if he takes the MLE, which is what Boogie did, and is about $5 million.

 

2.  They start trading some of their other high priced players without taking back much money and get way under the cap.

 

They could not have kept the team they have and signed Lebron to the contract the Lakers did.

 

The Boogie signing is an odd situation where because of his injury and other concerns, he's considered a really good player that nobody wanted to give much money to (apparently) so for him to take a 1 year MLE contract might make sense.

 

(It seems to me like the Pels messed up here.  I'm not a big fan of Cousins (he's not a very good defensive player), but I would have been interested in him at $6 million a year.  I don't know their cap situation, but they had Cousins Bird's rights.  It seems like they should have been able to sign Cousins for $6 million a year and get Randal, no?  Did they just assume a larger contract was out there for Cousins or did Cousins give GSW a massive discount?  Or maybe they just felt that Cousins wouldn't accept a role where he wasn't a clear starter every night.)

Edited July 3, 2018 by PeterMP

[Spaceman Spiff]

4 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

 

The average NBA fan knows almost nothing about how the NBA's player acquisition system works.  I bet that not a single person in here could tell me how the most common cap exceptions work without looking them up and studying them.   

 

IIRC, can't teams go above the cap to retain their players?  Like GSW can re-sign Steph without the cap penalty because it'll keep him in GS for life?  I remember reading somewhere that this was their answer to the NFL's problem of not being able to keep stars with their teams for an entire career.  Of course this was several years ago, I don''t remember it clearly.  

 

The inherent problem with basketball (and therefore, the NBA) is that if you get one guy like LeBron to switch a team, he automatically makes that team a title contender.  No other sport has the ability for one player to shift the power dynamic of the league with a decision to go to another team.  Maybe if a QB joins a team (looking at you, Alex Smith) he can make them a playoff contender but there's still so much else that needs to be done to put them over the top.  It can't happen in baseball, Mike Trout can't make his team a contender.  Not sure about how hockey works but I doubt it.  

[Going Commando]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Did they just assume a larger contract was out there for Cousins or did Cousins give GSW a massive discount?)

 

I think it's clear that Cousins told NO he wasn't interested in resigning with them for a short term deal at the start of FA.  New Orleans was the first team to reach out to him.  And I think it's also clear that New Orleans did not offer him a long term deal, or else he probably would have stayed there.

 

I don't think Cousins received any long term offers.

 

Cousin wants to win a ring and try the market again next summer when there might be more money to spend.