Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From a competitive standpoint. What changed was that the GM's use to make all of the big moves and trades. Now players are doing the same thing behind the scenes. For example, the Boston big three (Pierce, Allen & Garnett). The GM was smart enough to put those pieces together.
Now with the AAU mentality all the players around the country play against each other and know each other very well. So since the players know each other well and have played together before they want to do it again, but none of them were bold enough to make that move until Lebron did it.
Once he teamed up with Wade and Bosh then it became a popular thing to do. Durant would have never went to GS if Lebron did not make that move to go to Miami. All of sudden it became about rings. Win a ring at all cost and all will be forgotten. There are plenty of NBA hall of famers that never won a ring.
Sure ratings are up this year cause people like to see superteams but that win at all cost mentality will be the downfall of the NBA.
Thoughts?
Ah yes, those pros should not have the choice of where to go: they should enjoy the indentured servitude that athletes used to face in the pros.
The NBA has never been a league of competitive balance. There have always been a few elite teams and a bunch of teams trying to climb (one way or another). The biggest competition problem today is not the elite teams, but the tankers. Teams deliberately trying to put together losing teams makes the league s**t. That's not on the players, it is on the GMs & team owners.
Of course players want to win championships. They get to the top of the league because they are competitive. And legacy demands success. Nique or Pippen? Kobe or Melo? Robinson or Ewing? Baylor or West?
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock
Something does have to be done to restore a level of natural competitiveness in The League, but I'm not sure how they go about doing that. Historically, parity doesn't work in the NBA. It's always been about Super Teams, from the outset, but the difference is the players have too much authority. I don't necessarily mind the Super Team part, but Silver has to reign in the ease with which the players can make these moves. Not necessarily eradicate it, but find a way to make it so that it's so rare that it isn't commonplace...
The downfall of The League would only be if Lebron or George went to a conference finalist this year...
Here's what anti-Lebron's conveniently forget: the year before he went to Miami, 2009-10, that team was a 5-seed, 1st Rd playoff exit team, that lost in 5 to a 4-seed that was only three games better than it in the standings. There was nobody on that team besides Wade---Wade---that was not a great team. In the four years since winning the '06 championship, the Heat were first-round exits all three times they made the playoffs, and we're only a year removed from a 15-win season. People like to say Lebron stacked the deck, my response is, how? That Heat team was going nowhere fast, and he instantly made them championship contenders. And guys hate being honest about this, but had he gone anywhere, he'd have had the same effect...
The truth is we give team builders a greater pass for stacking the deck. In the four years before the Celtics '08 title, the Celtics missed the playoffs three times, were a first round exit the one year they made it, were a year removed from a 24-win season, and BOOM!--next year 66-wins and a trophy. But it's okay because management did it, instead of the players taking in upon themselves?
Closer to the truth is the culture if the NBA began to change with the assemblage of that Boston team, who had a (at the time) Top 10 point guard, and you add a Top 6 player and Top 15 player to another Top 10 player who was already there. That is what planted the seeds of the modern Super Team--let me go out and grab a couple other Top 15 guys to add to my Top 15 guy. The Celtics had a 42-win swing in one season because the NBA at the time wasn't ready for it...
People also conveniently forget that Lebron tried to get Bosh to commit to Cleveland, he wouldn't, so they both said we'll do Miami. Would you view this differwntly if Bosh and Wade went to Cleveland and they won two rings there instead? How would it be different?
The NBA offseason is the best offseason in pro sports. Obviously the LBJ/Wade/Bosh Heat were going to be an elite team. LBJ clearly improved every team, but adding LBJ & Bosh to Wade was a giant move (of course, there were reasonable questions in that era, like how will these three coexist offensively and how will the team protect the rim--a then-boy-wonder coach helped that team overcome any doubts).
Before the Celtics, the Lakers combined Kobe & Shaq, two of the league's very best in the early 2000s to create a superteam. Rodman came over to the Bulls as a Free Agent. Houston added Drexler to Olajuwon. The Suns added Barkley to its stable of quality players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canes2006Champs
While superstars teaming up with other superstars hasn't been good overall for the league, I think the constant stream of one-and-dones has hurt the league as well. This past draft and this upcoming draft had a majority of college freshmen in the top 15. There's no way all of them will be stars, some of these kids will be wishing they had stayed an extra year in college to better develop themselves instead of ending up on one of those biggest NBA draft busts ever lists.
I guess I can't really blame the next crop of superstars for teaming up to create a Heat/Warriors type of team, whoever and whenever that will be. If you are a future NBA superstar reading this and your supporting cast is a group of former college freshmen who still in year 4 are making rookie mistakes like double-dribbling on the fast break or fouling a 3 point shooter in a close game with little time left, well I can't blame you.
I think in the next couple of years when LeBron either retires or is nowhere near the player he is now, and the likes of Westbrook/Curry/Durant are out of their primes, we might be seeing something of a talent crisis in the NBA. As in the talent is lacking and what is there is not very compelling to watch. For every 'Greek Freak' or Porzingis, there will be about 10-15 Ben McLemore, Anthony Bennett or Nerlens Noel types. Outright busts or players who were thought to be future stars but could not live up to the hype.
There are always draft busts. There are always new stars. We have a great set of talents right now in the NBA. Among the young stars, AD, Kawhi, KAT, Porzingis, Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Simmons, and Drummond offer a bright future for the NBA.
Plenty of great players left after one year or skipped college altogether. Many of those players would be wasting their time in the NCAA when they could be devoted full-time to basketball and earning pro salaries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
This was where Durant was smart. I'd guess he'll way more than make up the money he left on the table from endorsements etc. driven by his titles.
The underlying story of the Durant move to Oakland--aside from obvious basketball reasons--was definitely Nike's war on Under Armour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magaalot
Also no matter what people say about Durant "choosing the easy way" to win titles, he's got a decent chance of winning 3 or maybe even 4 Finals MVPs, so "choosing the easy way" would definitely be worth it legacy-wise.
Curry has struggled in the NBA Finals (Kyrie Irving averaged more PPG, FG% and 3PT% than Curry in 2016 and 2017 NBA Finals), so I like Durant's chances.
This is such a silly talking point. Durant wants to win. He went to a team with a perfect basketball fit with management clearly willing to spend money on a contender--neither of which he had in OKC.
As for Curry's "struggles" in the Finals:
2017
26.8/9.4/8.0 on .440/.388/.897 (.619 TS%--besting Kyrie's .558) is not a struggle.
2016
22.6/3.7/4.9 on .403/.400/.929 (.580 TS%--besting Kyrie's .564) is not a struggle.
2015
26/6.3/5.2 on .443/.385/.885 (.585 TS%--besting Kyrie's one game .512) is not a struggle. Kyrie has never shot better in the Finals than Curry's worst performance. And playmaking is--obviously--advantage #30.
You can frame the scenario any different ways, but at the end of the day KD was on a team that SHOULD (up 3-1) have beat the Warriors with the talent they already had. There aren’t many all-time greats losing a 3-1 lead and blowing a chance at a ring. KD’s career will forvever be tainted by what happened in 2016...and his follow up move of joining that team.
At this point, I’d say expectations are as high for KD than they used to be for Lebron. Not winning a championship would look REALLY bad for Durant and Curry considering they are both prime MVPs with a great supporting cast.
You can frame the scenario any different ways, but at the end of the day KD was on a team that SHOULD (up 3-1) have beat the Warriors with the talent they already had. There aren’t many all-time greats losing a 3-1 lead and blowing a chance at a ring. KD’s career will forvever be tainted by what happened in 2016...and his follow up move of joining that team.
At this point, I’d say expectations are as high for KD than they used to be for Lebron. Not winning a championship would look REALLY bad for Durant and Curry considering they are both prime MVPs with a great supporting cast.
Yep, its ironic that Durant wanted less pressure, but really has put himself under more pressure (in terms of now having to prove he isn't just a ring-chaser) by going to GS.
If he'd stayed in OKC there wouldn't be pressure to win championships, because everybody would rate GS ahead of them still, and now Houston.
Then again, maybe Durant doesn't care what people think of him.
And at least physically his career is easier now, not having to carry GS everynight.
Durant going to Golden State, like LeBron going to Miami, is a result of the media and fans obsession with judging great players by titles. We basically discount many great individual players because they did not win a team award. We then worship other players because they won multiple team awards. And yes, I'm talking about Micheal Jordan. The man is deified for winning six championships.
Meanwhile the greatness of players like Reggie Miller, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, and many others is diminished. Malone is the second leading scorer of all time. Stockton is the all time assist leader. And they're hardly ever talked about. Reggie Miller is on TV so that at least keeps his name out there. But if he wasn't on TV doing games his name would never come up. Same for Barkley. Whenever topics about the 90's come up its like 75% Jordan, 10% Olajuwon, and 15% everyone else.
Current NBA players hear that narrative all day. We think guys are trying to be like Mike. I think they are trying NOT to be like Chuck, Reggie, Karl, John (Stockton and Starks), Shawn (Kemp), Patrick, and many others. If I was as great at basketball as Kevin Durant there's no way I'm retiring and having people second guess my greatness for not winning a title. And make no mistake. History will be very forgiving to Durant and his move to Oakland.
Durant going to Golden State, like LeBron going to Miami, is a result of the media and fans obsession with judging great players by titles. We basically discount many great individual players because they did not win a team award. We then worship other players because they won multiple team awards. And yes, I'm talking about Micheal Jordan. The man is deified for winning six championships.
Meanwhile the greatness of players like Reggie Miller, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, and many others is diminished. Malone is the second leading scorer of all time. Stockton is the all time assist leader. And they're hardly ever talked about. Reggie Miller is on TV so that at least keeps his name out there. But if he wasn't on TV doing games his name would never come up. Same for Barkley. Whenever topics about the 90's come up its like 75% Jordan, 10% Olajuwon, and 15% everyone else.
Current NBA players hear that narrative all day. We think guys are trying to be like Mike. I think they are trying NOT to be like Chuck, Reggie, Karl, John (Stockton and Starks), Shawn (Kemp), Patrick, and many others. If I was as great at basketball as Kevin Durant there's no way I'm retiring and having people second guess my greatness for not winning a title. And make no mistake. History will be very forgiving to Durant and his move to Oakland.
With extremely rare exceptions, the legends of basketball have always been champs. In a game where a single player dramatically impacts game results, the best players win. This is not football, where a legend like Barry Sanders can't overcome the garbage teams put together around him.
Yes, basketball is a team game, and no player does it alone. But in a free agency era, players have the opportunity to play for well put together teams--if they are willing. And all of the 90s guys you listed played for some loaded teams. They couldn't get it done because they weren't good enough. You can say the same for the 80s. The legends are Magic, Bird, IT, Moses, Dr. J, Kareem. There were lots of other guys putting together some individually brilliant seasons. The goal of basketball is to win the games. The guys who win the games will forever be atop basketball's Mt. Rushmore.
People hardly remember the Decision today, and it will further fade with distance. No one today discusses Shaq's moves to L.A. & Miami. Those moves helped Shaq produce 4 titles, cementing him among the all-time great players & a top 4 center in NBA history, with Kareem, Russell, and Hakeem.
Before the Celtics, the Lakers combined Kobe & Shaq, two of the league's very best in the early 2000s to create a superteam. Rodman came over to the Bulls as a Free Agent. Houston added Drexler to Olajuwon. The Suns added Barkley to its stable of quality players.
Rodman wasn't a superstar. He wore out his welcome in San Antonio before joining the Bulls. And Drexler was past his prime when he went to Houston.
Rodman wasn't a superstar. He wore out his welcome in San Antonio before joining the Bulls. And Drexler was past his prime when he went to Houston.
Drexler went to Houston during his age 32 season, still scoring over 20/game and having been to 7 straight all-star games. He was not at his very best, but he was still an excellent player.
Rodman was one of the league's best defender when he went to Chicago.
Drexler went to Houston during his age 32 season, still scoring over 20/game and having been to 7 straight all-star games. He was not at his very best, but he was still an excellent player.
Rodman was one of the league's best defender when he went to Chicago.
They were both good players, my point is it's not the same as what guys are doing lately. Purposely getting together in the offseason to plan their next moves so as to eliminate competition.
With extremely rare exceptions, the legends of basketball have always been champs. In a game where a single player dramatically impacts game results, the best players win. This is not football, where a legend like Barry Sanders can't overcome the garbage teams put together around him.
Yes, basketball is a team game, and no player does it alone. But in a free agency era, players have the opportunity to play for well put together teams--if they are willing. And all of the 90s guys you listed played for some loaded teams. They couldn't get it done because they weren't good enough. You can say the same for the 80s. The legends are Magic, Bird, IT, Moses, Dr. J, Kareem. There were lots of other guys putting together some individually brilliant seasons. The goal of basketball is to win the games. The guys who win the games will forever be atop basketball's Mt. Rushmore.
People hardly remember the Decision today, and it will further fade with distance. No one today discusses Shaq's moves to L.A. & Miami. Those moves helped Shaq produce 4 titles, cementing him among the all-time great players & a top 4 center in NBA history, with Kareem, Russell, and Hakeem.
But when Shaq arrived in LA there was no all-time great there.
Kobe was nowhere near an all-time great when Shaq arrived.
So Shaq didn't look like a ring-chaser at all.
In fact he had a better roster in Orlando than he had in LA when he first arrived.
And when Shaq went to Miami the world viewed it as a missed opportunity because Shaq-Kobe were headed for many more rings....
Even after Shaq won a ring with Miami, people still viewed Shaq-Kobe's breakup as a big mistake.
Rodman wasn't a superstar. He wore out his welcome in San Antonio before joining the Bulls. And Drexler was past his prime when he went to Houston.
I agree, Rodman is definitely not a superstar.
Plus even as an all-star Rodman is deeply flawed (no scoring ability of any kind whatsoever).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
