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

[Bozo the kKklown]

7 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

 

 

The Bulls were always the favorite but the Jazz had a legit chance to beat them. It came down to 3 or 4 plays at the end of the series each year with Utah. It was certainly more enjoyable to watch cause the talent was better on the teams that the Bulls beat in the finals compared to what the Warriors have beaten in GS. I also prefer that style of basketball when guys would play in the post. 

I would have liked to see the Bulls against the Rockets if Jordan hadn't been suspended. 

two things, which I feel I have said before.

 

1) You did not say this but I have to make this clear, the Utah Jazz were not a great team. Look at their team and consider that Malone and Stockton had been together for so long and every other great western conference team ran through them until they got old and the Jazz were the last ones standing.

 

2) The Jazz had a legit chance in the 1998 series because of Pippen's back being on fire, not because they were on near the same level. The Jazz were never a real threat to the Bulls until they got old and injured.

 

The Warriors from 2015-18 had as many game 7s as the Bulls had in the entire run in the 1990s and we they were on the brink versus the Thunder and lost to the Cavs.

 

Also, 90s NBA was awful stylistically, imo.

54 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

And the Bull won both in 6 games and the Bulls had home court so game 7 would have been in Chicago.

tbf, in 1998 the Bulls did not have homecourt.

 

54 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

So here's a question, at the end of the season if Simmons keeps doing what he's doing, is Ben Simmons worth at least the #1 pick in the draft?

 

Let's say Cleveland ends up with the #1 pick, will they trade at least that pick for Simmons straight up?

for RJ Barrett or Zion Williamson? idk

 

I am still not 100% sure that Simmons is gonna be that guy. He has not attempted a three-pointer this season and doesn't seem interested in working on his shot.

[Going Commando]

17 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

No one thought Jordan was losing in the 1990s. Especially not to the Pacers. 

 

The Pacers took the Bulls to 7 in '98.  Their margin in that series was +19.  That was a much, much closer series than this Houston series that Golden State won by a margin of +61, and that's what people are clinging to as a demonstration that the NBA isn't a one team league.

[Bozo the kKklown]

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

The Pacers took the Bulls to 7 in '98. 

 

Cool, no one thought the Bulls would lose that series.

[PeterMP]

47 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

The Pacers took the Bulls to 7 in '98.  Their margin in that series was +19.  That was a much, much closer series than this Houston series that Golden State won by a margin of +61, and that's what people are clinging to as a demonstration that the NBA isn't a one team league.

 

That was also the end of their run.  Jordan had clearly gotten older.  Pippen's back was an issue and had started to slip vs. the GS vs. Houston series is right in the middle of their supposed run.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by PeterMP

[Going Commando]

22 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Cool, no one thought the Bulls would lose that series. 

 

Who has thought anyone would beat this Warriors team?  Momma is the only one, and he's been lying to himself since Durant signed there in order to preserve interest in the NBA.

 

This Warriors team is a significantly better than that Bulls team was, and their competition is worse.  They toy with teams and blow them out in ways that the Bulls never could.

 

And I repeat my original point that the 90's sucked when the Bulls were a juggernaut.  And it is worse now than it was then.  The NBA is not fun when there is an unbeatable team in the league.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

for RJ Barrett or Zion Williamson? idk

 

I am still not 100% sure that Simmons is gonna be that guy. He has not attempted a three-pointer this season and doesn't seem interested in working on his shot.

 

Simmons, like most very good to great players, can succeed if he fits with the rest of the team.  He's not an elite player Lebron or that level of player.

 

The problem is for the Sixers he doesn't fit with Emiid or Fultz (at least what Fultz is now vs. what they thought he'd be before the injury/mental issues) so they'd be better off moving him or Fultz (or Embiid) and just given what each does and is likely to bring back, Simmons seems like the best option.

 

For me the question is can the Sixers sit tight and see how the lottery plays out and still get a really high pick for him, or do they need to roll the dice now and hope things break their way.

 

Which is more likely:

 

1.  If Cleveland has the #1 pick, they trade that pick at least straight up for Simmons.

 

2.  Now, Cleveland trades Osman, Sexton, and their 2019 1st round pick for Simmons and a bench player (e.g. TJ McConnel).

 

I think #2 probably, which means you need to start talks today to move Simmons.

Edited October 31, 2018 by PeterMP

[Mr. Sinister]

I thought Houston could beat them last year. I do not think anyone can beat them this year.

[Bozo the kKklown]

20 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

And I repeat my original point that the 90's sucked when the Bulls were a juggernaut.  And it is worse now than it was then.  The NBA is not fun when there is an unbeatable team in the league.

I don't think many people think the 90s sucked in the NBA. (even tho it was a terrible era with regards to the style of play)

 

The NBA right now is a league that is actually growing with ratings and interest. And the game of today is actually phenomenal. Way better product than the 90s.

 

17 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Simmons, like most very good to great players, can succeed if he fits with the rest of the team.  He's not an elite player Lebron or that level of player.

 

The problem is for the Sixers he doesn't fit with Emiid or Fultz (at least what Fultz is now vs. what they thought he'd be before the injury/mental issues) so they'd be better off moving him or Fultz (or Embiid) and just given what each does and is likely to bring back, Simmons seems like the best option.

 

For me the question is can the Sixers sit tight and see how the lottery plays out and still get a really high pick for him, or do they need to roll the dice now and hope things break their way.

 

Which is more likely:

 

1.  If Cleveland has the #1 pick, they trade that pick at least straight up for Simmons.

 

2.  Now, Cleveland trades Osman, Sexton, and their 2019 1st round pick for Simmons and a bench player (e.g. TJ McConnel).

 

I think #2 probably, which means you need to start talks today to move Simmons.

yeah, in retrospect the Sixers blew it not drafting Tatum.

 

But i don't know if Barrett or Williamson are that level of talent. Williamson, I fear for his knees. Barrett is supposed to be the big player in this class but I don't see much that stands out as elite. (from the HS games I have seen)

 

IDK, its a tough call. I just do not believe that much in Ben Simmons because he did not do any work on his game this summer from how this season has started.

 

If Cleveland is offering that second package though, I would take it. (which probably cant happen due to the salary cap)

Edited October 31, 2018 by BenningRoadSkin

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I don't think many people think the 90s sucked in the NBA. (even tho it was a terrible era with regards to the style of play)

 

The NBA right now is a league that is actually growing with ratings and interest. And the game of today is actually phenomenal. Way better product than the 90s.

 

yeah, in retrospect the Sixers blew it not drafting Tatum.

 

But i don't know if Barrett or Williamson are that level of talent. Williamson, I fear for his knees. Barrett is supposed to be the big player in this class but I don't see much that stands out as elite. (from the HS games I have seen)

 

IDK, its a tough call. I just do not believe that much in Ben Simmons because he did not do any work on his game this summer from how this season has started.

 

If Cleveland is offering that second package though, I would take it. (which probably cant happen due to the salary cap)

 

That trade absolutely works.

 

The Cavs don't even need to take McConnell if they don't want to.

 

Simmons for Osman and Sexton (and the 2019 1st round pick) works.

Edited October 31, 2018 by PeterMP

[ixcuincle]

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

Simmons for Osman and Sexton (and the 2019 1st round pick) works.

how? If the Cavs get a top two pick, that salary makes it not work for the salary cap.

[Hersh]

Why would the Cavs trade for Simmons? They are in full rebuild, Simmons doesn't advance anything for them and he will be a FA sooner since this is his third year. No guarantee the guy would resign.

[PeterMP]

18 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

how? If the Cavs get a top two pick, that salary makes it not work for the salary cap.

 

I'm talking about making the trade now and not waiting until the end of the season.  They won't take into account the Cavs pick for the salary cap if you do it now, right?

 

(Or am I wrong and they have to take into account the possible value of the pick?  I've never heard of anybody assigning values to future picks in a trade before.  In the context of the cap, isn't that trade just Simmons and McConnell for Osman and Sexton?)

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm talking about making the trade now and not waiting until the end of the season.  They won't take into account the Cavs pick for the salary cap if you do it now, right?

 

(Or am I wrong and they have to take into account the possible value of the pick?  I've never heard of anybody assigning values to future picks in a trade before.  In the context of the cap, isn't that trade just Simmons and McConnell for Osman and Sexton?)

I am not sure how it works.

[PeterMP]

18 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Why would the Cavs trade for Simmons? They are in full rebuild, Simmons doesn't advance anything for them and he will be a FA sooner since this is his third year. No guarantee the guy would resign.

 

Because their owner doesn't seem so bright, the Cavs aren't really is full rebuild.  They've got several contracts, including the big contract they gave to Love this off season, that they have no real way of getting out from under that is going to prevent a true full rebuild.

 

Simmons gives you a bonafide NBA star who while might not be elite certainly has a lot of value vs. taking the risk of getting something of value in the NBA draft and not getting a bust.   The Cavs with Simmons might be a playoff team and that might put people in the seats.

 

Simmons might not re-sign there, but you've got a couple of years to figure things out before that's an issue and even if you end up trading him that last year before his deal expires because he won't re-sign, you are likely to get some value back.

 

(This is funny considering you brought up trading Wall to the Suns in the Wizards thread.  The Suns have no interest in Wall.  There's a much better chance that Cleveland would give you that sort of package for Simmons than the Suns would give you a 1st round pick for Wall, especially given the issue of matching salaries.)

11 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I am not sure how it works.

 

I'm pretty sure future picks don't count.  You have no idea with the lottery and the rest of the season where the Cavs are going to pick so you can't count that as money towards the caps and the Sixers will have contracts coming off their books before the contract with that player would have to be signed.

Edited October 31, 2018 by PeterMP

[Going Commando]

43 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I don't think many people think the 90s sucked in the NBA. (even tho it was a terrible era with regards to the style of play) 

  

The NBA right now is a league that is actually growing with ratings and interest. And the game of today is actually phenomenal. Way better product than the 90s. 

 

The 90s were lame except in the two years mid-decade when Jordan was retired and before Grant Hill and Penny Hardaway and Larry Johnson got hurt and Shawn Kemp got fat and weird.  Then it went back to sucking.  The 2000's were much more fun.  Even though the Lakers were the team to beat, the Spurs and Kings and Pistons could still beat them.  The Mavs and Suns were fun.  Young LeBron and young CP3 were fun.

 

This decade sucks now.  The NBA's popularity is built on a house of memes.  It's sold as a melodramatic soap opera of big personalities rather than an actual game because the competition itself is a farce.  And the style of play is crappy too.  It's a Nike Hoops Summit game of chucked threes and awful officiating.

[Hersh]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Because their owner doesn't seem so bright, the Cavs aren't really is full rebuild.  They've got several contracts, including the big contract they gave to Love this off season, that they have no real way of getting out from under that is going to prevent a true full rebuild.

 

Simmons gives you a bonafide NBA star who while might not be elite certainly has a lot of value vs. taking the risk of getting something of value in the NBA draft and not getting a bust. 

 

Simmons might not re-sign there, but you've got a couple of years to figure things out before that's an issue and even if you end up trading him that last year before his deal expires because he won't re-sign, you are likely to get some value back.

 

(This is funny considering you brought up trading Wall to the Suns in the Wizards thread.  The Suns have no interest in Wall.  There's a much better chance that Cleveland would give you that sort of package for Simmons than the Suns would give you a 1st round pick for Wall, especially given the issue of matching salaries)

 

I'm pretty sure future picks don't count.  You have no idea with the lottery and the rest of the season where the Cavs are going to pick so you can't count that as money towards the caps and the Sixers will have contracts coming off their books before the contract with that player would have to be signed.

 

 

I brought up the Suns cause they need a PG and they could fit a super max contract in comfortably since they are young most everywhere else. I have no idea which teams would be interested in Wall if he was available but I'd trade him asap. 

As for the Cavs, I disagree that they are in full rebuild. I would not be surprised if they cut JR Smith soon and they are looking to trade Korver since they are playing their young guys. Their books will take a couple years to clear out a few contracts but given that they will suck, they can easily collect high draft picks during that time. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

The 90s were lame except in the two years mid-decade when Jordan was retired and before Grant Hill and Penny Hardaway and Larry Johnson got hurt and Shawn Kemp got fat and weird.  Then it went back to sucking.  The 2000's were much more fun.  Even though the Lakers were the team to beat, the Spurs and Kings and Pistons could still beat them.  The Mavs and Suns were fun.  Young LeBron and young CP3 were fun.

 

This decade sucks now.  The NBA's popularity is built on a house of memes.  It's sold as a melodramatic soap opera of big personalities rather than an actual game because the competition itself is a farce.  And the style of play is crappy too.  It's a Nike Hoops Summit game of chucked threes and awful officiating.

The 90s NBA sucked the entire decade. They moved the three-point line in as well and the Cavs and Hawks were playing games to finish 86-84. It effing sucks.

 

The NBA of today is an awesome league because they, and soccer, are the two sports that translate well to social media.

 

The freedom of movement as well and there are several gigantic stars in the league today.

 

The Warriors will win the title, barring an injury, but the league is at its best place it has ever been.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Hersh said:

I brought up the Suns cause they need a PG and they could fit a super max contract in comfortably since they are young most everywhere else. I have no idea which teams would be interested in Wall if he was available but I'd trade him asap. 

As for the Cavs, I disagree that they are in full rebuild. I would not be surprised if they cut JR Smith soon and they are looking to trade Korver since they are playing their young guys. Their books will take a couple years to clear out a few contracts but given that they will suck, they can easily collect high draft picks during that time. 

 

The Suns can't take on a supermax without the Wizards taking 2 years of Ryan Anderson at $20 miillion a year back.  They do need a PG,but they are clearly in rebuilding mode  (which is how they ended up with Anderson).  Wall doesn't fit their timeline at all.  That trade is not happening.

 

I think their owner is worried about his bottom line and he's over the tax now, and probably can't even get under it next year.  I think he's interested in putting butts in the seat or at least lowering his tax payment and with Simmons the Cavs might be a playoff team or he can be flipped with a bad contract to get them closer to the cap and lower the tax.

 

I don't think their owner wants to wait a few years of being bad to have another roll of the dice with the draft (remember Anthony Bennett), but even if that's the case, they can flip Simmons for future picks.  Osmans even closer to being a free agent than Simmons. 

 

Even if they are re-building, it makes sense for them.  They get some value for Osman.

 

I'm not sure they'd do it, but it isn't like it is completely ridiculous.  If you are trying to rebuild, Simmons isn't a bad piece to have, and if you are trying to win now, Simmons isn't a bad piece to have.

Edited October 31, 2018 by PeterMP

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

The NBA of today is an awesome league because they, and soccer, are the two sports that translate well to social media.

 

Soccer has something that the NBA will never have in it's current structure--bonafide competition and a multitude of permanently strong fanbases.

 

The NBA is turning into a league where 90% of the fans follow the drama in the media and only tune in for a dozen nationally televised games a season.  The NBA's revenue is being propped up by a ruinously bad TV deal that ESPN and TNT made right as people started cutting their cords.  The NBA has a problem coming down the road when this deal expires because they can't even come close to getting people to watch 30 teams 82 times a year.

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Soccer has something that the NBA will never have in it's current structure--bonafide competition and a multitude of permanently strong fanbases.

 

The NBA is turning into a league where 90% of the fans follow the drama in the media and only tune in for a dozen nationally televised games a season.  The NBA's revenue is being propped up by a ruinously bad TV deal that ESPN and TNT made right as people started cutting their cords.  The NBA has a problem coming down the road when this deal expires because they can't even come close to getting people to watch 30 teams 82 times a year.

1

That is American society and really western society.

 

And the NBA is the only league that is actually growing, not just revenues. The kids love the NBA. 

[Going Commando]

6 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

And the NBA is the only league that is actually growing, not just revenues. The kids love the NBA.  

 

Yeah, but kids don't buy tickets.  Or cable packages.  If the NBA is going to market to young fans then they need to start making money off streaming.

 

And kids love pro-wrestling too.  But most grow out of that interest.  The biggest thing the NBA needs to do is make the actual games they stage to be habitually fun to watch.

[PeterMP]

NBA regular season ratings up last year.

 

https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/nba-ratings-1202752848/

 

other US pro sports leagues not.

[Hersh]

55 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The Suns can't take on a supermax without the Wizards taking 2 years of Ryan Anderson at $20 miillion a year back.  They do need a PG,but they are clearly in rebuilding mode  (which is how they ended up with Anderson).  Wall doesn't fit their timeline at all.  That trade is not happening.

 

I think their owner is worried about his bottom line and he's over the tax now, and probably can't even get under it next year.  I think he's interested in putting butts in the seat or at least lowering his tax payment and with Simmons the Cavs might be a playoff team or he can be flipped with a bad contract to get them closer to the cap and lower the tax.

 

I don't think their owner wants to wait a few years of being bad to have another roll of the dice with the draft (remember Anthony Bennett), but even if that's the case, they can flip Simmons for future picks.  Osmans even closer to being a free agent than Simmons. 

 

Even if they are re-building, it makes sense for them.  They get some value for Osman.

 

I'm not sure they'd do it, but it isn't like it is completely ridiculous.

 

If the Wizards went into full rebuild, taking back Anderson in the deal would be an easy no-brainer. It’s all about gathering as many high picks as possible.

 

While I agree that the Cavs owner is terrible, I doubt he cares too much about making the playoffs short term. 

[StillUnknown]

 

KAT might actually smile tonight 

Edited October 31, 2018 by StillUnknown