ATL - New Lottery Rules Move to Owner Vote - pg59

[Ron Swanson]

Shocked to read that 500k was the largest sum any team has ever been fined for tampering. It sure seems that the league isn't making it a priority to stop this kind of thing. That's not even pocket change for NBA franchises. That's the lint underneath the pocket change.

It's almost like they believe player movement to bigger markets and free agency drives up ratings.....

[Rainwater]

Not sure how the Bucks are ever going to find a second star, who isn't in his 30's and on the way down....seems to me the plan is all in on Jabari and then take your chances on an aging star who's better years are behind them....won't get you a championship but could put you in line with some of the 80's teams.....then again Giannis will be out of here so fast because you could never build around him.

I don't know if they are pursuing an aging star but I do agree that it looks like the current plan is to go all in with Jabari and to continue to improve from within. Honestly, it is a great idea. And a core of Giannis, Parker, Middleton as the 1,2, and 3 options, respectively, is not that bad especially if they improve and stay healthy. In a league where stars are needed to win titles, my fear is that Parker does not come back healthy and the Bucks are stuck in Hawks Territory where they are good enough to make the playoffs but not good enough to do any damage.

[Ron Swanson]

As much as I'm a proponent of talent above all else in the NBA, the "2 or more stars" model isn't some common formula. Golden State's 2015 title squad was built around one star (Curry) and some great secondary players (Klay, Draymond, Iguodala, Bogut), while a team like the Thunder failed to win a single championship despite having nearly a decade of Russ/KD.

I think that the whole super-team craze has led people to believe that pairing superstar level players has become the only way to win. That's not to say that you can win a title surrounding Giannis with four 3&D wings, but that also entirely depends on you see Brogdon/Middleton/Thon, and to a lesser extent, Jabari, panning out.

[chonestown]

As much as I'm a proponent of talent above all else in the NBA, the "2 or more stars" model isn't some common formula. Golden State's 2015 title squad was built around one star (Curry) and some great secondary players (Klay, Draymond, Iguodala, Bogut), while a team like the Thunder failed to win a single championship despite having nearly a decade of Russ/KD.

I think that the whole super-team craze has led people to believe that pairing superstar level players has become the only way to win. That's not to say that you can win a title surrounding Giannis with four 3&D wings, but that also entirely depends on you see Brogdon/Middleton/Thon, and to a lesser extent, Jabari, panning out.

PBS Logo Face is in the conversation for best SG in the NBA and the Michigan Nutgrabber is both an all-star and NBA defensive player of the year. They're more than secondary players. I will grant that the Dubs' depth is a wise situation to emulate, but without top-level performers, they're the Milsap-Teague-Horford Hawks or - spicy take forthcoming - the 2017-18 Celtics.

[Ron Swanson]

As much as I'm a proponent of talent above all else in the NBA, the "2 or more stars" model isn't some common formula. Golden State's 2015 title squad was built around one star (Curry) and some great secondary players (Klay, Draymond, Iguodala, Bogut), while a team like the Thunder failed to win a single championship despite having nearly a decade of Russ/KD.

I think that the whole super-team craze has led people to believe that pairing superstar level players has become the only way to win. That's not to say that you can win a title surrounding Giannis with four 3&D wings, but that also entirely depends on you see Brogdon/Middleton/Thon, and to a lesser extent, Jabari, panning out.

PBS Logo Face is in the conversation for best SG in the NBA and the Michigan Nutgrabber is both an all-star and NBA defensive player of the year. They're more than secondary players. I will grant that the Dubs' depth is a wise situation to emulate, but without top-level performers, they're the Milsap-Teague-Horford Hawks or - spicy take forthcoming - the 2017-18 Celtics.

Swap out Teague with Curry on that 60-win Hawks team and they're pretty much the 2015 Warriors. That's kinda the point. That "once in a generation superstar" dictates everything about your team. Without them? Well....

[chonestown]

As much as I'm a proponent of talent above all else in the NBA, the "2 or more stars" model isn't some common formula. Golden State's 2015 title squad was built around one star (Curry) and some great secondary players (Klay, Draymond, Iguodala, Bogut), while a team like the Thunder failed to win a single championship despite having nearly a decade of Russ/KD.

I think that the whole super-team craze has led people to believe that pairing superstar level players has become the only way to win. That's not to say that you can win a title surrounding Giannis with four 3&D wings, but that also entirely depends on you see Brogdon/Middleton/Thon, and to a lesser extent, Jabari, panning out.

PBS Logo Face is in the conversation for best SG in the NBA and the Michigan Nutgrabber is both an all-star and NBA defensive player of the year. They're more than secondary players. I will grant that the Dubs' depth is a wise situation to emulate, but without top-level performers, they're the Milsap-Teague-Horford Hawks or - spicy take forthcoming - the 2017-18 Celtics.

Swap out Teague with Curry on that 60-win Hawks team and they're pretty much the 2015 Warriors. That's kinda the point. That "once in a generation superstar" dictates everything about your team. Without them? Well....

It comes down to me valuing Green and Thompson significantly higher than Horford and Milsap. That's where we diverge.

[Badgerlander]

Shocked to read that 500k was the largest sum any team has ever been fined for tampering. It sure seems that the league isn't making it a priority to stop this kind of thing. That's not even pocket change for NBA franchises. That's the lint underneath the pocket change.

It's almost like they believe player movement to bigger markets and free agency drives up ratings.....

I guess if you dont count the Joe Smith debacle with the Timberwolves lol

[raferfenix]

I think that the whole super-team craze has led people to believe that pairing superstar level players has become the only way to win. That's not to say that you can win a title surrounding Giannis with four 3&D wings, but that also entirely depends on you see Brogdon/Middleton/Thon, and to a lesser extent, Jabari, panning out.

Agreed.

I could see Hakeem's Rockets championship teams being a model for success for Giannis.

That's not to say he'd play back to the basket in the same way he did. Hakeem wouldn't play that way either if he were in the league today.

Rather one particularly dominant mobile 2-way big man who makes role players around him dramatically better.

Either way it looks like we're trying out this model this season, so we'll see how it goes.

[Pachinko_]

As much as I'm a proponent of talent above all else in the NBA, the "2 or more stars" model isn't some common formula. Golden State's 2015 title squad was built around one star (Curry) and some great secondary players (Klay, Draymond, Iguodala, Bogut), while a team like the Thunder failed to win a single championship despite having nearly a decade of Russ/KD.

I think that the whole super-team craze has led people to believe that pairing superstar level players has become the only way to win. That's not to say that you can win a title surrounding Giannis with four 3&D wings, but that also entirely depends on you see Brogdon/Middleton/Thon, and to a lesser extent, Jabari, panning out.

I think reducing all of basketball analysis to a dick measurement between superstars is pretty lazy to be honest.
I think NBA in general underrates how powerful a well balanced and well coached team can be. For example it always surprised me how late in the summer teams come together as teams and that players spend most their offseason working out alone. I've seen junior teams in Europe start camp earlier than that and working on each play again and again until they can perform it like clockwork by September. I honestly think there is an opportunity there and smart people like Brad Stevens and Pop exploit it. The Celtics last year had one star (who is probably in the wrong sport to be honest, he should be a jockey) and a bunch of glorified role players, and I'm still not convinced the Cavs would have such an easy time if IT didn't have a million problems from spitting out teeth to his hip to losing his sister. The Spurs have consistently a great team with only one real star, but also a thousand plays they can perform flawlessly at the drop of a hat. And what do we all do instead? We say they have Lebron and we don't, therefore lets all drop our panties and bend over. And keep someone's beer buddy as a coach.

[Profound23]

The funniest part about this entire thing is it was about a week of Cavs fans talking about how Boston alienated IT and he there is no way they could welcome him back now. They also went on and on about how the Nets could win enough games that the pick becomes less valued than Irving (which is true but in my opinion still worth the gamble).

Now, they are the ones who alienated IT. I mean you held up acquiring him and Crowder for a 2nd round pick? If I am IT and Crowder I don't want to play in Cleveland after my contract is up either. And the Nets pick was being picked apart, but somehow now a 2nd round pick made the whole deal worth it?

OK?

[M-C-G]

Bringing this over from the T&T thread. He remember when everyone wanted this guy so bad?

The Bulls might be moving on from Payne, as well, and a source close to the situation explained Thursday why that might be best for the -organization.

“We knew the second practice [after he was acquired] that he couldn’t play at [an NBA] level,’’ the source said. “The only reason it took two practices was because we thought maybe it was nerves in the first one.

“Any [Bulls] coach who says differently is lying. . . . We got ‘Garred’ on that one.’’

http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/source-bulls-got-gar-red-in-the-cameron-payne-trade/

[crkone]

Bringing this over from the T&T thread. He remember when everyone wanted this guy so bad?

The Bulls might be moving on from Payne, as well, and a source close to the situation explained Thursday why that might be best for the -organization.

“We knew the second practice [after he was acquired] that he couldn’t play at [an NBA] level,’’ the source said. “The only reason it took two practices was because we thought maybe it was nerves in the first one.

“Any [Bulls] coach who says differently is lying. . . . We got ‘Garred’ on that one.’’

http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/source-bulls-got-gar-red-in-the-cameron-payne-trade/

Ouch

[bankrupt euro]

So, the Bulls turned two 1sts (16 & 19) to McBuckets, and then slapped Taj on to get Payne.

Taj, Gary Harris and the Nurkinator made Payne

My god

[Rainwater]

As much as I'm a proponent of talent above all else in the NBA, the "2 or more stars" model isn't some common formula. Golden State's 2015 title squad was built around one star (Curry) and some great secondary players (Klay, Draymond, Iguodala, Bogut), while a team like the Thunder failed to win a single championship despite having nearly a decade of Russ/KD.

I think that the whole super-team craze has led people to believe that pairing superstar level players has become the only way to win. That's not to say that you can win a title surrounding Giannis with four 3&D wings, but that also entirely depends on you see Brogdon/Middleton/Thon, and to a lesser extent, Jabari, panning out.

I really do think you underestimate the talent level of Klay and Draymond. While Curry is a SUPERSTAR and GS has great roles players, Klay and Draymond are definitely stars as well. I completely disagree with you on the "2 or more stars" forumla as not being common. In the last 20 years every single team that has won the finals has had at least 2 or more stars with the exception of the Pistons in 04 or Dallas in 2011. If you want to go back 10 mores years you can say the 94 Rockets (95 excluded as they acquired Dexler that same year). People say that the Spurs had one star yet their finals run may generate 5 Hall of Famers. You mention Russ/KD not being able to win a title, the only reason that was the case is in the two years they had that ablitiy they lost to a Miami team with LBJ, Wade and Bosh then a GS team with Curry, Klay, and Draymond.

While the super-team craze may not be the only way to win a title, it is certainly the most commonly used. People think this "Super team craze" started with the LBJ and the heat while in all honesty one can say that the NBA was bulit on the back's of Superstar Teams ie the Lakers and Celtics. And I honestly believe there is no other American sports leauge where stars have such an influence on winnning titles. Adam Silver himself said this in an interivew: "We’re never going to have NFL-style parity in this league," Silver told reporters in advance of Game 1 of the NBA Finals. "It is the nature of this league that certain players are so good that those teams are likely almost automatically, if that player remains healthy, to become playoff teams, and especially mixed with other great players.

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/adam-silver-nba-will-never-have-nfl-style-parity-lebron-cavaliers-curry-warriors-060216

There is a reason why Lebron joins teams with established stars and recurits them. He knows this is star driven league.

[leroyjw10]

Kyrie Irving without a beard is unrecognizable. Half thought that was Randy Moss for a second.

[Pachinko_]

I really do think you underestimate the talent level of Klay and Draymond. While Curry is a SUPERSTAR and GS had great roles players, Klay and Draymond are definitely stars as well. I completely disagree with you on the "2 or more stars" forumla as not being common. In the last 20 years every single team that has won the finals has had at least 2 or more stars with the exception of the Pistons in 04 or Dallas in 2011. If you want to go back 10 years you can say the 94 Rockets (95 excluded as they acquired Dexler that same year). People say that the Spurs had one star but their finals run may generate 5 Hall of Famers. You mention Russ/KD not being able to win a title, the only reason that was the case is in the two years they had that ablitiy they lost to a Miami team with LBJ, Wade and Bosh then a GS team with Curry, Klay, and Draymond.

While the super-team craze may not be the only way to win a title, it is certainly the most commonly used. People think this "Super team craze" started with the LBJ and the heat while in all honesty one can say that the NBA was bulit on the back's of Superstar Teams ie the Lakers and Celtics. And honestly believe there is no other American sports leauge where stars have such an influence on winnning titles. Adam Silver himself said this in an interivew. "We’re never going to have NFL-style parity in this league," Silver told reporters in advance of Game 1 of the NBA Finals. "It is the nature of this league that certain players are so good that those teams are likely almost automatically, if that player remains healthy, to become playoff teams, and especially mixed with other great players.

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/adam-silver-nba-will-never-have-nfl-style-parity-lebron-cavaliers-curry-warriors-060216

There is a reason why Lebron joins teams with established stars and recurits them. He knows this is star driven league.

The fact that something is historically so most of the time doesn't necessarily mean it's the only way or the best way. Maybe it's been like that because people are lazy or incompetent and have screwed up everything else that matters. System-people-culture is very hard to build and takes a long time, so what are we gonna do? Push all our chips on a trade in the summer to get a big name, and if it works out good if it doesnt we're screwed for a decade but hey, we tried, too bad. We did what other teams do.
No man, that's lazy.

We are bad or below average on the coach front, the GM front, the owners front, our systems and plays are primitive, our defense is faulty at best, our basketball vision of "length and owning the future" is mostly marketing fluff. And instead of fixing those things we will adopt the theory that none of this matters, all you need is Kyrie to give the ball to and everybody move aside so he can do his thing. How convenient, the Bucks discovered the easy way out of being a real team.

[Rainwater]

I really do think you underestimate the talent level of Klay and Draymond. While Curry is a SUPERSTAR and GS had great roles players, Klay and Draymond are definitely stars as well. I completely disagree with you on the "2 or more stars" forumla as not being common. In the last 20 years every single team that has won the finals has had at least 2 or more stars with the exception of the Pistons in 04 or Dallas in 2011. If you want to go back 10 years you can say the 94 Rockets (95 excluded as they acquired Dexler that same year). People say that the Spurs had one star but their finals run may generate 5 Hall of Famers. You mention Russ/KD not being able to win a title, the only reason that was the case is in the two years they had that ablitiy they lost to a Miami team with LBJ, Wade and Bosh then a GS team with Curry, Klay, and Draymond.

While the super-team craze may not be the only way to win a title, it is certainly the most commonly used. People think this "Super team craze" started with the LBJ and the heat while in all honesty one can say that the NBA was bulit on the back's of Superstar Teams ie the Lakers and Celtics. And honestly believe there is no other American sports leauge where stars have such an influence on winnning titles. Adam Silver himself said this in an interivew. "We’re never going to have NFL-style parity in this league," Silver told reporters in advance of Game 1 of the NBA Finals. "It is the nature of this league that certain players are so good that those teams are likely almost automatically, if that player remains healthy, to become playoff teams, and especially mixed with other great players.

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/adam-silver-nba-will-never-have-nfl-style-parity-lebron-cavaliers-curry-warriors-060216

There is a reason why Lebron joins teams with established stars and recurits them. He knows this is star driven league.

The fact that something is historically so most of the time doesn't necessarily mean it's the only way or the best way. Maybe it's been like that because people are lazy or incompetent and have screwed up everything else that matters. System-people-culture is very hard to build and takes a long time, so what are we gonna do? Push all our chips on a trade in the summer to get a big name, and if it works out good if it doesnt we're screwed for a decade but hey, we tried, too bad. We did what other teams do.
No man, that's lazy.

We are bad or below average on the coach front, the GM front, the owners front, our systems and plays are primitive, our defense is faulty at best, our basketball vision of "length and owning the future" is mostly marketing fluff. And instead of fixing those things we will adopt the theory that none of this matters, all you need is Kyrie to give the ball to and everybody move aside so he can do his thing. How convenient, the Bucks discovered the easy way out of being a real team.

First, as i stated in bold building a super team is not the only way to win a title its just been common practice in the NBA. And second, as mentioned in a prior post, I like what the Bucks are doing. The growth of their young players will lead to internal improvement especially the core of Giannis, Parker, and Middleton. The only thing I fear is Jabari's health. While it would have been nice to see the Bucks pull off the Irving trade, just because it did not occur doesn't mean everything is doom and gloom. Everything will be just fine.

[Ron Swanson]

Gordon Hayward looks like a **** leprechaun.

[stellation]

Gordon Hayward looks like a **** leprechaun.

[Pachinko_]

First, as i stated in bold building a super team is not the only way to win a title its just been common practice in the NBA. And second, as mentioned in a prior post, I like what the Bucks are doing. The growth of their young players will lead to internal improvement especially the core of Giannis, Parker, and Middleton. The only thing I fear is Jabari's health. While it would have been nice to see the Bucks pull off the Irving trade, just because it did not occur doesn't mean everything is doom and gloom. Everything is just fine.

yeah sorry, I wasn't arguing or responding as such, more like thinking out loud and elaborating on what you said.

But I only like some of the things the Bucks do. The owners are not all bad, they've been good with the arena and the community, they are generally energetic, and that joint decision model they have and hiring a GM internally has advantages as well as weaknesses, you can argue both ways. The reason I said they're average to bad is because they're not basketball people and have no experience running a team. I'd mostly be ok with everything they do but the main thing that gives me pause is why the hell they insist on the non-coach we have. The guy has literally shown nothing other than having social circles around the league. Maybe they still think that having an x-player has advantages, or maybe he's their pal, I don't know, but both reasons are wrong.