RealGM

1. Yes
2. No

People want to see trades, they don't want teams to be the exact same all season especially if there is a chance to improve their favorite team.

buyouts should be banned. or can't buyout a player until year after traded for

define "good". entertainment-wise, the fans like seeing some blockbusters go down. as for a quality basketball product, usually players staying on the same team for longer periods of time breeds continuity, team cohesion, and chemistry.

Sometimes... Teams like Philadelphia are just a disgrace to the NBA right now. They've completely gutted their roster, trading away Iguodola, Holiday, Hawes, and Turner, getting almost nothing in return. And for what? A few draft picks that might not even turn out? And if they do turn out they'll leave for a better team, run by better management. THAT is bad for basketball.

luss54321 wrote:Sometimes... Teams like Philadelphia are just a disgrace to the NBA right now. They've completely gutted their roster, trading away Iguodola, Holiday, Hawes, and Turner, getting almost nothing in return. And for what? A few draft picks that might not even turn out? And if they do turn out they'll leave for a better team, run by better management. THAT is bad for basketball.

then you agree less activity is better

I dont think it is. the new CBA is trying to force parity in the league like baseball and football, I know the other goal is to help teams keep homegrown talent, but this should in turn lead to trades, teams with high salary numbers should be trading away players to bad teams with low salary numbers. Thus avoiding the tax all the while improving the badder teams.

IMO the CBA main two points was to attempt parity and help small market teams keep star players.

But it also should have caused James Harden type decisions with teams who have a budding star, but itll be to expensive to keep him.


So some say this is good for basketball, i dont kno maybe itll take a couple years and the sting of that tax bill will cause owners to trade away marginal-very good players if there not title contenders.

I think it is. The trade deadline is good for a media frenzy and some interesting storylines but for the teams it often doesnt work out. Continuity is best for a basketball team, and I think a franchise. Fans get attached to players that spend most of their careers with a team.

knicksup19 wrote:

luss54321 wrote:Sometimes... Teams like Philadelphia are just a disgrace to the NBA right now. They've completely gutted their roster, trading away Iguodola, Holiday, Hawes, and Turner, getting almost nothing in return. And for what? A few draft picks that might not even turn out? And if they do turn out they'll leave for a better team, run by better management. THAT is bad for basketball.

then you agree less activity is better

Yes... That was my point... Sometimes it's better

The ~new CBA is catching up with the league. This is such an ugly year.

But it's also about a lot of teams deciding to back off and look 3-5 years down the road rather than try to compete with Lebron in his prime.

luss54321 wrote:Sometimes... Teams like Philadelphia are just a disgrace to the NBA right now. They've completely gutted their roster, trading away Iguodola, Holiday, Hawes, and Turner, getting almost nothing in return. And for what? A few draft picks that might not even turn out? And if they do turn out they'll leave for a better team, run by better management. THAT is bad for basketball.

Iggy was going to leave anyways and I don't think a lot of people expected Bynum to sit out all year. Jrue Holiday is a really good PG, but trading him got them Noel and it gives them a better chance at getting one of the best players in one of the best drafts in years. Also MCW probably wouldn't have played nearly as much if they still had Holiday. Hawes and Turner really don't matter.

Bball0000 wrote:define "good". entertainment-wise, the fans like seeing some blockbusters go down. as for a quality basketball product, usually players staying on the same team for longer periods of time breeds continuity, team cohesion, and chemistry.

Basketball is a sport. Is is good for basketball? No. All the entertainment points relate to marketing as the business side. If GMs did a better job collectively then players wouldnt demand trades. So the more trades occur the more I interpret as proof that lack of parity is caused by inept ownership and management that lack the skill to build a winning franchise. Players want to leave because owners cant create a winning environment. No rule change will ever create parity because the problem is management. If anyone is to blame, its David Stern for approving teams being sold to inept owners within the last20 years or so. He's damaged the game more than he's helped it and takes credit for others work. His retirement is the best thing to happen to the game. The NBA needs more Mark Cubans (diehard-fan-first businessmen) and less Dan Gilberts (business-first casual fans).

dkjjr wrote:People want to see trades, they don't want teams to be the exact same all season especially if there is a chance to improve their favorite team.

Wrong. Only casual fans want to see a lot of trades because they dont understand the game. Great teams need very few trades. Struggling teams need the multiple movements from the draft, trades & signings to improve. Thus, the more trade activity the more proof of mediocrity & poor management in the league.

Pedro wrote:

dkjjr wrote:People want to see trades, they don't want teams to be the exact same all season especially if there is a chance to improve their favorite team.

Wrong. Only casual fans want to see a lot of trades because they dont understand the game. Great teams need very few trades. Struggling teams need the multiple movements from the draft, trades & signings to improve. Thus, the more trade activity the more proof of mediocrity & poor management in the league.

And how many fans are just casual fans? I'd say most, since people are constantly posting trade scenarios for their team to get better on sites like this.