2019 NBA Offseason Discussion

Moderators: Quotatious, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063, penbeast0, Doctor MJ, PaulieWal

User avatar
eminence
Head Coach
Posts: 6,384
And1: 3,443
Joined: Mar 07, 2015
 

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#601 » by eminence » Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:56 pm

Dwight back in Laker land, lovely.
'17-'18 APBR Win Projections Champion (1st of 20)
'18-'19 5th of 18
User avatar
The High Cyde
Starter
Posts: 2,242
And1: 4,176
Joined: Jun 06, 2014
Location: Wano Kuni
     

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#602 » by The High Cyde » Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:37 pm

Noah was a no no I guess.

Still excited for their season, LeBron || Davis || Howard is still a pretty good defensive front court.

Dwight with LeBron and Davis there to keep him in check should work, but who knows.
Image
NinjaSheppard
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,699
And1: 1,294
Joined: May 18, 2012
 

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#603 » by NinjaSheppard » Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:04 pm

AD's refusal to play center brought Emeka Okafor back into the league as a starter and then saved Dwight Howard's career. Just incredible
giberish
RealGM
Posts: 11,619
And1: 2,513
Joined: Mar 30, 2006
Location: Whereever you go - there you are

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#604 » by giberish » Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:00 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
Baski wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:Draymond Green will end up the most underpaid player of all time by career earnings. His worth to the Warriors is that of a clear-cut MVP and yet he’s paid like the league’s 30th best player.


The cost of staying a part of such a stacked team. There's only so many MVPs the team can pay MVP money. I'm pretty sure he and team regret nothing.


Interesting point of comparison:

Harrison Barnes and Draymond Green were both drafted by the Warriors in 2012.
Barnes was decent, Green was great, and this led them to decide to keep Green and let Barnes go.
Since then Green has continued to be part of the established core of what I'd call a dynasty, and someone I regular consider a Top 10 POY candidate, while Barnes failed with his first team and then went over to one of the worst run pretenders in the entire league.

How has this affected their salaries?
Green's signed two contracts totaling $182 mill that will take him through 2024.
Barnes's signed two contract totaling $157 mill that will take him through 2023.

Slight edge to Green, but in the same ballpark, and that's absolutely crazy.

Of course Barnes being overpaid is a big part of this story, but I think the more profound takeaways are:

1) Prospect status often has a big impact on how much money you get paid. If Barnes were as good as Green he'd have gotten no-brainer full max deals well beyond $200 mill. If Green were as good as Barnes he may well never get off the bench in Golden State and even reaching $10 mill career earnings would be no given.

2) The way these non-contender teams are paying comparable money to Golden State's cuts to what Golden State pays for an essential piece of their dynasty is an incredible competitive contrast. Some of it can be related to ownership/management quality, but more of it has to do with where each team is and what they feel their bottom line needs are.


A huge part of this is timing and the huge cap jump of 2016. Because Draymond was a 2nd round pick he only signed for 3 years and was a FA in 2015. While he signed for under the 25% max, it wasn't that far under. It just became well under 25% when the cap jumped in a year which is a big reason why he's been underpaid on his 2nd contract. Meanwhile Barnes was a FA in 2016 when there was tons of cap space and wildly overpaid contracts going around. So just mediocre at an in-demand position was easily enough to get a full 25% max deal for way more than Draymond was making. IMO if the FA market conditions were the same in 2016 as 2015 Barnes would have gotten less then Klay or Draymond, instead of getting much more.

Barnes has also benefited by 'looking the part' at an in-demand position. Because there aren't enough good 'big wings' around anyone with some ability and who fits the look of what an NBA team thinks the position looks like will get big money. This is just like when mediocre centers would get big money for just looking like an NBA center.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 41,141
And1: 9,148
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for 'Kicks!...and Steph Curry
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#605 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:31 pm

giberish wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Baski wrote:
The cost of staying a part of such a stacked team. There's only so many MVPs the team can pay MVP money. I'm pretty sure he and team regret nothing.


Interesting point of comparison:

Harrison Barnes and Draymond Green were both drafted by the Warriors in 2012.
Barnes was decent, Green was great, and this led them to decide to keep Green and let Barnes go.
Since then Green has continued to be part of the established core of what I'd call a dynasty, and someone I regular consider a Top 10 POY candidate, while Barnes failed with his first team and then went over to one of the worst run pretenders in the entire league.

How has this affected their salaries?
Green's signed two contracts totaling $182 mill that will take him through 2024.
Barnes's signed two contract totaling $157 mill that will take him through 2023.

Slight edge to Green, but in the same ballpark, and that's absolutely crazy.

Of course Barnes being overpaid is a big part of this story, but I think the more profound takeaways are:

1) Prospect status often has a big impact on how much money you get paid. If Barnes were as good as Green he'd have gotten no-brainer full max deals well beyond $200 mill. If Green were as good as Barnes he may well never get off the bench in Golden State and even reaching $10 mill career earnings would be no given.

2) The way these non-contender teams are paying comparable money to Golden State's cuts to what Golden State pays for an essential piece of their dynasty is an incredible competitive contrast. Some of it can be related to ownership/management quality, but more of it has to do with where each team is and what they feel their bottom line needs are.


A huge part of this is timing and the huge cap jump of 2016. Because Draymond was a 2nd round pick he only signed for 3 years and was a FA in 2015. While he signed for under the 25% max, it wasn't that far under. It just became well under 25% when the cap jumped in a year which is a big reason why he's been underpaid on his 2nd contract. Meanwhile Barnes was a FA in 2016 when there was tons of cap space and wildly overpaid contracts going around. So just mediocre at an in-demand position was easily enough to get a full 25% max deal for way more than Draymond was making. IMO if the FA market conditions were the same in 2016 as 2015 Barnes would have gotten less then Klay or Draymond, instead of getting much more.

Barnes has also benefited by 'looking the part' at an in-demand position. Because there aren't enough good 'big wings' around anyone with some ability and who fits the look of what an NBA team thinks the position looks like will get big money. This is just like when mediocre centers would get big money for just looking like an NBA center.


Great points.

Of course "looking the part" WAS the reason why Barnes was seen as a superstar prospect in the first place hence why I include it under the "because of prospect status" umbrella.

Where things get interesting to me is when the same attributes get used both in the latent assessment the NBA world sees in a guy and in the new team convincing themselves they see "upside". It's a form of double counting that definitionally those involved don't seem to realize, and it occurs everywhere, not just in basketball. Once an attribute leads to an accomplishment not directly tied to that attribute, then people often times say "Wow, he accomplished X and he has attribute Y, he's amazing!", and I'll not deny that I try to recognize when I'm in the position to use this casual perception from others to my advantage.

Re: anyone with some ability who fits the look will get big money. Barnes had a below average PER, WS/48 & BPM rates for Sacramento last year. Below average for the league, and weak relative to other Sacramento players. I don't have time for the analysis in full right now, but I'd wager that if you analyzed:

1. Guys who are below average on basically all the holistic measures.
2. Really aren't "doing more than their numbers suggest" guys.
3. Aren't up-and-coming prospects hoping to be franchise cornerstones.
4. Best case scenario is "weak starter" rather than "star" or "key sidekick".

Disproportionately, the guys who get big contracts who meet that description have something about that's causing a team to double count his positive traits. I'm not saying prospect status is the only way to get there, but it's one major way.
In another world...
Your Longshoremen of Long Beach...

And now introducing...
The Song of Westeros...
LeBron James
John Stockton
Bobby Jones
Rudy Gobert
Khris Middleton
Connie Hawkins
Otto Porter
Ryan Anderson
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 41,141
And1: 9,148
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for 'Kicks!...and Steph Curry
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#606 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:54 pm

Dr Spaceman wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
eminence wrote:There are plenty of people in the world for whom a money difference at that level just doesn't mean a thing.


Green was vocal about not taking another pay cut not too long ago - so he certainly attached meaning to money then. Something changed his mind, and whatever it was, it was interesting.

My guess?

I think that he came to appreciate the opportunity to 1) lock up a guaranteed $100 mill a year early while 2) generating a narrative that made him look bold, loyal, and like he didn't care about money.

And I think that he absolutely made the right call. Maybe he could have taken a bit less of a discount and achieved the same thing, but if Green wants to become an absolute legend, he would be a fool to jeopardize his spot in Golden State when he knows Steph & Klay are already on board. There is no better place for him to go so why take the risk of another year simply to drive a hard bargain with an organization that might take their chances without you?

I know that ownership has said they want to keep all 3 guys forever, but if Green looks old next year and then demands a 5 year max as he breaches 30, you have to expect GS to balk at that. GS is hoping that it will make sense to keep all 3 guys until they retire, but they aren't going to make it happen simply for sentimental reasons. It has to keep being the best way for team success going forward and when they leave their primes, it may not.


I’m not going to tell people what they should prioritize. Green can value loyalty all he wants and he’s smart to do so right up until the point GSW decides it’s prudent to trade him, which by the way is much easier when he’s making $25 million as opposed to 35. And if Green does indeed “look old” next year you have to think that’s on the table.

The only reasonable analogue here is Dirk Nowitzki. He took massive paycuts dead in his prime, giving up over $200 million over his career so Dallas could build a contender around him. Very, very different circumstances though. For one thing, Dirk had no-trade clauses and for another his relationship with Dallas was much closer to Steph than it was Draymond.

I don’t think GSW fans feel the way about Draymond the way they do about Curry or the way dallas fans did about Dirk. I don’t think many would be shedding crocodile tears if he were traded for comparable value. If Golden State ends up not being competitive with this aging core it’s very clear who will be on the chopping block first after these negotiations.

And frankly I think it’s reasonable to ask why the other members of the trio were not willing to give up money like Green did to keep this ship afloat.


Re: easier to trade. Sure, but they won't trade him until things head south, and when they do, they'll be the bad guys, not Draymond. It's fair to say that there's a lot we can't predict, but if you're someone whose legendary status is inherently tied to to the players you play with, doing what you can to make sure you get to stay is generally what I'd call the wise move.

Of course someone might believe that Draymond somewhere else will gain even more acclaim. Those who believe that would come to very different conclusions. I think thought that as valuable as Draymond is, it's unlikely that he'll ever be so celebrated again if he left for another team.

Re: reasonable to ask why other members were not willing to give up money. Sure we can ask, but I think in general NBA superstars have concluded that pay cuts are a scam. The justification for them is to allow the team to acquire other great players which their team would be able to do if not for the rules the NBA owners put in place to keep salaries down. If I'm Steph Curry and I'm worth north of $100 mill per year to my franchise, I'm probably pretty frustrated with the idea that I'm being greedy for taking $40 mill.

It's worth noting that with respect to Dirk that whatever pay cuts he took, the team literally never acquired another great player after they let Steve Nash walk 15 years ago, so the notion that he's the guy we hold up and say "See, look at what all the team was able to accomplish because he took a pay cut" is actually an argument in the other direction in my book.

I think the clear cut truth here is that Draymond saw the benefit of looking like he valued team over money in part because he saw dangers in demanding a max deal. It would have been very different if Steph had done it.

Klay's an interesting case of course because in the bizarre NBA landscape demand for him is more like Steph than Draymond despite being a worse player than Draymond.
In another world...
Your Longshoremen of Long Beach...

And now introducing...
The Song of Westeros...
LeBron James
John Stockton
Bobby Jones
Rudy Gobert
Khris Middleton
Connie Hawkins
Otto Porter
Ryan Anderson
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 41,141
And1: 9,148
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for 'Kicks!...and Steph Curry
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#607 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:04 pm

Dr Spaceman wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
Lebron has consistently made great choices though. He is a dynasty unto himself. He has appeared in every Finals this decade except two. By any standards he is ludicrously successful.


Success doesn't mean you made the best choice, particularly when you have so much else in your favor.

I didn't think returning to Cleveland was a great choice, but I understood the emotional pressure and respected it at the time. (It became closer and closer to a bad choice with the way he approached the Cavalier situation, but I'll avoid focusing on that here because it's not the really bad decision.)

The really bad decision was to come to the Lakers and give full trust to Magic Johnson to build a team around. LeBron didn't have to do that. He could have come to LA and said the type of team he wanted built around him, it's not like he hadn't done that before. This mistake may well result in him never winning another title, and him never winning another title will almost certainly hurt his legacy, and he very much cares about his legacy.

You can argue all the reasons why it was pretty understandable for LeBron to assume Magic understood what LeBron needed because it's basically the same thing Magic needed, the fact remains, LeBron took his empowerment and used it to make this decision, and it wasn't a wise one.


I couldn’t disagree more with you on Cleveland. I think it’s perhaps the smartest decision and NBA player has ever made.

Lebron could’ve been Chris Paul and just been totally pragmatic with his decisions and end up not really loved by anyone in particular. Chris Paul doesn’t have fans in the way a Kobe or Dirk or Duncan does. Lebron wouldn’t either.

Basically every classic story ever told involves a hero returning to the place where his journey started with new skills and smarts to finally slay that dragon, from Gilgamesh to Odysseus to Bruce Wayne. It’s important here that Lebron didn’t only return to Cleveland, he chose Cleveland. And he brought them a title in what will probably go down as the biggest event in basketball history and probably sports. I have watched maybe 10 baseball games in my life. I know that Babe Ruth called his shot. I’ve never really watched Hockey but I know about the 1980 Olympic team. Certain moments just live on in the cultural imagination, and the image of Lebron collapsing a bawling and screaming “CLEVELAAAAAAAAND” into the microphone has solidified him as a legend in a way no one else has really gotten to do.

Human brains are wired to remember stories, not details. 50 years from now no one is going to remember who anytime Irving even is. But there will be a SkyHookFTW or 70sFan still here building up the legend of Lebron for the next generation.

I grew up attending basketball camps and playing for my school team and being totally engrossed in the sport and I’ve probably heard the anecdote about MJ being cut from his high school team 100+ times. And you know what? It’s not even true. His coach had a policy of not letting Freshman play varsity even though he was by far their best player. But Jordan has built a narrative and lives on in the cultural imagination through things like this.

Lebron is the American Dream. Poor Kid from a single family home in rust-belt-nowhere USA turned billionaire philanthropist who got his mom out of the ghetto and gave generations of kids in his hometown the opportunities he never had. He is the Bruce Wayne of Cleveland and that’s how they’ll remember him. They are on his side in a way not even chicagoans are for MJ.

I think it’s important to remember that while we all love talking about this stuff here, none of it really matters. In 50 years most of it will be forgotten. What won’t be forgotten is how Lebron made people feel and the narrative he built. I can’t thhink of anyone who’s done it better than him.

As far as LA, I honestly just think basketball wasn’t his main concern. Fine to hold it against him in a basketball sense but I think selling it as “he put his faith in Magic” makes it seem much worse than it is.


Great points about Cleveland.

Clearly the entire rationale for returning to Cleveland was to have that hometown success. I get it, but when you're choosing to go back and return to play for an incompetent man you hate for good reason, you have to think really hard about what your approach will be, and I take issue with LeBron's approach.

He won the title in a glorious moment so everything else will likely be erased, but of course, he shouldn't have won that title. If GS doesn't get rattled at the wrong moment, LeBron doesn't get that '15-16 title, and then what happens? The embarrassment of leaving Cleveland empty handed again would have done HUGE damage to legacy unless it was immediately followed with huge success on his next team.

From this lens, I see the Cleveland move as one that he was very lucky it worked out.

Now at the same time, when he went back to Cleveland he didn't know that GS would turn into with competent coaching, and a world where Mark Jackson remains the coach in GS probably leads to at least one title, so it is unfair to talk about LeBron as "lucky" with too much vehemence. Just saying:

The move back to Cleveland is only a success because he won a title there, and he could have easily failed, in part because of the way he forced the Cavs to make short-term moves because he didn't trust them to make long-term moves. I would have told LeBron to consider the very real possibility that he wouldn't win a title under incompetent Cavs management, and to seriously think about how he would spin the narrative in such a circumstance.

And to the extent he was trying to spin a positive narrative, well, his drama regularly got in the way.

Re: basketball not his main concern in LA. He's a fool if he thinks his stardom won't suffer if the Lakers are a joke. One thing to prioritize the Lakers, another thing to let incompetence run wild.
In another world...
Your Longshoremen of Long Beach...

And now introducing...
The Song of Westeros...
LeBron James
John Stockton
Bobby Jones
Rudy Gobert
Khris Middleton
Connie Hawkins
Otto Porter
Ryan Anderson
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 16,201
And1: 11,100
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#608 » by HeartBreakKid » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:18 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Success doesn't mean you made the best choice, particularly when you have so much else in your favor.

I didn't think returning to Cleveland was a great choice, but I understood the emotional pressure and respected it at the time. (It became closer and closer to a bad choice with the way he approached the Cavalier situation, but I'll avoid focusing on that here because it's not the really bad decision.)

The really bad decision was to come to the Lakers and give full trust to Magic Johnson to build a team around. LeBron didn't have to do that. He could have come to LA and said the type of team he wanted built around him, it's not like he hadn't done that before. This mistake may well result in him never winning another title, and him never winning another title will almost certainly hurt his legacy, and he very much cares about his legacy.

You can argue all the reasons why it was pretty understandable for LeBron to assume Magic understood what LeBron needed because it's basically the same thing Magic needed, the fact remains, LeBron took his empowerment and used it to make this decision, and it wasn't a wise one.


I couldn’t disagree more with you on Cleveland. I think it’s perhaps the smartest decision and NBA player has ever made.

Lebron could’ve been Chris Paul and just been totally pragmatic with his decisions and end up not really loved by anyone in particular. Chris Paul doesn’t have fans in the way a Kobe or Dirk or Duncan does. Lebron wouldn’t either.

Basically every classic story ever told involves a hero returning to the place where his journey started with new skills and smarts to finally slay that dragon, from Gilgamesh to Odysseus to Bruce Wayne. It’s important here that Lebron didn’t only return to Cleveland, he chose Cleveland. And he brought them a title in what will probably go down as the biggest event in basketball history and probably sports. I have watched maybe 10 baseball games in my life. I know that Babe Ruth called his shot. I’ve never really watched Hockey but I know about the 1980 Olympic team. Certain moments just live on in the cultural imagination, and the image of Lebron collapsing a bawling and screaming “CLEVELAAAAAAAAND” into the microphone has solidified him as a legend in a way no one else has really gotten to do.

Human brains are wired to remember stories, not details. 50 years from now no one is going to remember who anytime Irving even is. But there will be a SkyHookFTW or 70sFan still here building up the legend of Lebron for the next generation.

I grew up attending basketball camps and playing for my school team and being totally engrossed in the sport and I’ve probably heard the anecdote about MJ being cut from his high school team 100+ times. And you know what? It’s not even true. His coach had a policy of not letting Freshman play varsity even though he was by far their best player. But Jordan has built a narrative and lives on in the cultural imagination through things like this.

Lebron is the American Dream. Poor Kid from a single family home in rust-belt-nowhere USA turned billionaire philanthropist who got his mom out of the ghetto and gave generations of kids in his hometown the opportunities he never had. He is the Bruce Wayne of Cleveland and that’s how they’ll remember him. They are on his side in a way not even chicagoans are for MJ.

I think it’s important to remember that while we all love talking about this stuff here, none of it really matters. In 50 years most of it will be forgotten. What won’t be forgotten is how Lebron made people feel and the narrative he built. I can’t thhink of anyone who’s done it better than him.

As far as LA, I honestly just think basketball wasn’t his main concern. Fine to hold it against him in a basketball sense but I think selling it as “he put his faith in Magic” makes it seem much worse than it is.


Great points about Cleveland.

Clearly the entire rationale for returning to Cleveland was to have that hometown success. I get it, but when you're choosing to go back and return to play for an incompetent man you hate for good reason, you have to think really hard about what your approach will be, and I take issue with LeBron's approach.

He won the title in a glorious moment so everything else will likely be erased, but of course, he shouldn't have won that title. If GS doesn't get rattled at the wrong moment, LeBron doesn't get that '15-16 title, and then what happens? The embarrassment of leaving Cleveland empty handed again would have done HUGE damage to legacy unless it was immediately followed with huge success on his next team.

From this lens, I see the Cleveland move as one that he was very lucky it worked out.

Now at the same time, when he went back to Cleveland he didn't know that GS would turn into with competent coaching, and a world where Mark Jackson remains the coach in GS probably leads to at least one title, so it is unfair to talk about LeBron as "lucky" with too much vehemence. Just saying:

The move back to Cleveland is only a success because he won a title there, and he could have easily failed, in part because of the way he forced the Cavs to make short-term moves because he didn't trust them to make long-term moves. I would have told LeBron to consider the very real possibility that he wouldn't win a title under incompetent Cavs management, and to seriously think about how he would spin the narrative in such a circumstance.

And to the extent he was trying to spin a positive narrative, well, his drama regularly got in the way.

Re: basketball not his main concern in LA. He's a fool if he thinks his stardom won't suffer if the Lakers are a joke. One thing to prioritize the Lakers, another thing to let incompetence run wild.

He's so lucky that his 2 best teammates were injured the first playoff run they had, and he had the great fortunate Kevin Durant joining the Warriors in an unprecedented super team of all super teams.

The Cavs could not have easily failed because the Cavs had three all-stars with one of them being a superstar. All things considering, they had a pretty damn good chance as any other franchise LBJ could have joined. You think he would have done better if he joined the Spurs because they have Popovich or something?
Dr Spaceman
General Manager
Posts: 8,069
And1: 9,548
Joined: Jan 16, 2013
Location: Praha
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#609 » by Dr Spaceman » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:59 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Green was vocal about not taking another pay cut not too long ago - so he certainly attached meaning to money then. Something changed his mind, and whatever it was, it was interesting.

My guess?

I think that he came to appreciate the opportunity to 1) lock up a guaranteed $100 mill a year early while 2) generating a narrative that made him look bold, loyal, and like he didn't care about money.

And I think that he absolutely made the right call. Maybe he could have taken a bit less of a discount and achieved the same thing, but if Green wants to become an absolute legend, he would be a fool to jeopardize his spot in Golden State when he knows Steph & Klay are already on board. There is no better place for him to go so why take the risk of another year simply to drive a hard bargain with an organization that might take their chances without you?

I know that ownership has said they want to keep all 3 guys forever, but if Green looks old next year and then demands a 5 year max as he breaches 30, you have to expect GS to balk at that. GS is hoping that it will make sense to keep all 3 guys until they retire, but they aren't going to make it happen simply for sentimental reasons. It has to keep being the best way for team success going forward and when they leave their primes, it may not.


I’m not going to tell people what they should prioritize. Green can value loyalty all he wants and he’s smart to do so right up until the point GSW decides it’s prudent to trade him, which by the way is much easier when he’s making $25 million as opposed to 35. And if Green does indeed “look old” next year you have to think that’s on the table.

The only reasonable analogue here is Dirk Nowitzki. He took massive paycuts dead in his prime, giving up over $200 million over his career so Dallas could build a contender around him. Very, very different circumstances though. For one thing, Dirk had no-trade clauses and for another his relationship with Dallas was much closer to Steph than it was Draymond.

I don’t think GSW fans feel the way about Draymond the way they do about Curry or the way dallas fans did about Dirk. I don’t think many would be shedding crocodile tears if he were traded for comparable value. If Golden State ends up not being competitive with this aging core it’s very clear who will be on the chopping block first after these negotiations.

And frankly I think it’s reasonable to ask why the other members of the trio were not willing to give up money like Green did to keep this ship afloat.


Re: easier to trade. Sure, but they won't trade him until things head south, and when they do, they'll be the bad guys, not Draymond. It's fair to say that there's a lot we can't predict, but if you're someone whose legendary status is inherently tied to to the players you play with, doing what you can to make sure you get to stay is generally what I'd call the wise move.

Of course someone might believe that Draymond somewhere else will gain even more acclaim. Those who believe that would come to very different conclusions. I think thought that as valuable as Draymond is, it's unlikely that he'll ever be so celebrated again if he left for another team.

Re: reasonable to ask why other members were not willing to give up money. Sure we can ask, but I think in general NBA superstars have concluded that pay cuts are a scam. The justification for them is to allow the team to acquire other great players which their team would be able to do if not for the rules the NBA owners put in place to keep salaries down. If I'm Steph Curry and I'm worth north of $100 mill per year to my franchise, I'm probably pretty frustrated with the idea that I'm being greedy for taking $40 mill.

It's worth noting that with respect to Dirk that whatever pay cuts he took, the team literally never acquired another great player after they let Steve Nash walk 15 years ago, so the notion that he's the guy we hold up and say "See, look at what all the team was able to accomplish because he took a pay cut" is actually an argument in the other direction in my book.

I think the clear cut truth here is that Draymond saw the benefit of looking like he valued team over money in part because he saw dangers in demanding a max deal. It would have been very different if Steph had done it.

Klay's an interesting case of course because in the bizarre NBA landscape demand for him is more like Steph than Draymond despite being a worse player than Draymond.


Re: Dirk, The Mavs certainly acquired great players after Nash left. Jason Kidd, Shawn Marion, Caron Butler, Tyson Chandler were all great. Not as great as Nash, but from 2009-2011 they could all be considered top 15ish players at various points, and it’s precisely that depth of quality guys that allowed them to survive Butler’s injury in 2011 and take down teams that were far less balanced in the postseason. The Mavs had a top 10 guy at every position that season and that type of team construction is very rare. Dirk’s sacrifice is basically the whole reason he has a championship ring.

And I do understand what you’re saying about Draymond and public perception and all that. But I just don’t think banking on loyalty is ever smart, especially when it comes to corporations. The truth is he can make the Warriors look like the bad guy all he wants but the Warriors have an appetite for big fish and if he’s part of a deal that nets them, say, Karl Towns in a few years literally no one will even remember Draymond. I mean are Clipper fans upset about Blake Griffin?

Dray’s pay cut here actually hurt his chance to be a Warrior lifer, IMO. The reason I bring up Steph is not to call him greedy but to say if this was part of a pre-conceived plan to bring on more talent (like the big 3 in Miami did in 2011) then I’d be in favor. But Draymond is acting alone here and gave up money for no clear concrete reason. Steph should take all the money in the world. But if they want to pull in another Kevin Durant it needed to be all 3 of them who took pay cuts, otherwise Draymond is just giving the team money for free with no guarantees given back to him.
“I’m not the fastest guy on the court, but I can dictate when the race begins.”
Dr Spaceman
General Manager
Posts: 8,069
And1: 9,548
Joined: Jan 16, 2013
Location: Praha
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#610 » by Dr Spaceman » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:13 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Success doesn't mean you made the best choice, particularly when you have so much else in your favor.

I didn't think returning to Cleveland was a great choice, but I understood the emotional pressure and respected it at the time. (It became closer and closer to a bad choice with the way he approached the Cavalier situation, but I'll avoid focusing on that here because it's not the really bad decision.)

The really bad decision was to come to the Lakers and give full trust to Magic Johnson to build a team around. LeBron didn't have to do that. He could have come to LA and said the type of team he wanted built around him, it's not like he hadn't done that before. This mistake may well result in him never winning another title, and him never winning another title will almost certainly hurt his legacy, and he very much cares about his legacy.

You can argue all the reasons why it was pretty understandable for LeBron to assume Magic understood what LeBron needed because it's basically the same thing Magic needed, the fact remains, LeBron took his empowerment and used it to make this decision, and it wasn't a wise one.


I couldn’t disagree more with you on Cleveland. I think it’s perhaps the smartest decision and NBA player has ever made.

Lebron could’ve been Chris Paul and just been totally pragmatic with his decisions and end up not really loved by anyone in particular. Chris Paul doesn’t have fans in the way a Kobe or Dirk or Duncan does. Lebron wouldn’t either.

Basically every classic story ever told involves a hero returning to the place where his journey started with new skills and smarts to finally slay that dragon, from Gilgamesh to Odysseus to Bruce Wayne. It’s important here that Lebron didn’t only return to Cleveland, he chose Cleveland. And he brought them a title in what will probably go down as the biggest event in basketball history and probably sports. I have watched maybe 10 baseball games in my life. I know that Babe Ruth called his shot. I’ve never really watched Hockey but I know about the 1980 Olympic team. Certain moments just live on in the cultural imagination, and the image of Lebron collapsing a bawling and screaming “CLEVELAAAAAAAAND” into the microphone has solidified him as a legend in a way no one else has really gotten to do.

Human brains are wired to remember stories, not details. 50 years from now no one is going to remember who anytime Irving even is. But there will be a SkyHookFTW or 70sFan still here building up the legend of Lebron for the next generation.

I grew up attending basketball camps and playing for my school team and being totally engrossed in the sport and I’ve probably heard the anecdote about MJ being cut from his high school team 100+ times. And you know what? It’s not even true. His coach had a policy of not letting Freshman play varsity even though he was by far their best player. But Jordan has built a narrative and lives on in the cultural imagination through things like this.

Lebron is the American Dream. Poor Kid from a single family home in rust-belt-nowhere USA turned billionaire philanthropist who got his mom out of the ghetto and gave generations of kids in his hometown the opportunities he never had. He is the Bruce Wayne of Cleveland and that’s how they’ll remember him. They are on his side in a way not even chicagoans are for MJ.

I think it’s important to remember that while we all love talking about this stuff here, none of it really matters. In 50 years most of it will be forgotten. What won’t be forgotten is how Lebron made people feel and the narrative he built. I can’t thhink of anyone who’s done it better than him.

As far as LA, I honestly just think basketball wasn’t his main concern. Fine to hold it against him in a basketball sense but I think selling it as “he put his faith in Magic” makes it seem much worse than it is.


Great points about Cleveland.

Clearly the entire rationale for returning to Cleveland was to have that hometown success. I get it, but when you're choosing to go back and return to play for an incompetent man you hate for good reason, you have to think really hard about what your approach will be, and I take issue with LeBron's approach.

He won the title in a glorious moment so everything else will likely be erased, but of course, he shouldn't have won that title. If GS doesn't get rattled at the wrong moment, LeBron doesn't get that '15-16 title, and then what happens? The embarrassment of leaving Cleveland empty handed again would have done HUGE damage to legacy unless it was immediately followed with huge success on his next team.

From this lens, I see the Cleveland move as one that he was very lucky it worked out.

Now at the same time, when he went back to Cleveland he didn't know that GS would turn into with competent coaching, and a world where Mark Jackson remains the coach in GS probably leads to at least one title, so it is unfair to talk about LeBron as "lucky" with too much vehemence. Just saying:

The move back to Cleveland is only a success because he won a title there, and he could have easily failed, in part because of the way he forced the Cavs to make short-term moves because he didn't trust them to make long-term moves. I would have told LeBron to consider the very real possibility that he wouldn't win a title under incompetent Cavs management, and to seriously think about how he would spin the narrative in such a circumstance.

And to the extent he was trying to spin a positive narrative, well, his drama regularly got in the way.

Re: basketball not his main concern in LA. He's a fool if he thinks his stardom won't suffer if the Lakers are a joke. One thing to prioritize the Lakers, another thing to let incompetence run wild.


With respect Doc, I really want you to re-think this:

If GS doesn't get rattled at the wrong moment


Because if you’re going to go down this route you have to start getting into all the other times the Warriors were “rattled at the wrong time”. The series before the Warriors were down 3-1 to The Thunder coming off consecutive 24 and 28 point losses. Two years later they’d find themselves down 3-2 to the Rockets after failing to score 95 points in consecutive games.

The Warriors sure seem to get rattled at the wrong time a lot. Matter of fact it’s seemed to happen in pretty much every competitive series they’ve played. I’ve grown really tired of the revisionism that’s gone on about the Warriors run; they’ve barely slipped through by the skin of their teeth a number of times.

I don’t want to play the historical revisionism game. I just think it’s logically inconsistent to say Lebron got lucky in 16 but not acknowledge that the Warriors got just as lucky the series before and the year before facing Cleveland without 2 of the big 3.

The reality is if you wipe away the injuries to Kyrie and Chris Paul it’s within the realm of possibility GSW leaves this era with just the 1 title in 17. At no other time did they look like a team that couldn’t be beaten (and frankly several of the other times they looked like they should be beaten.

The Warriors were shook in that Rockets series. They looked completely lost and like they’d forgotten who they are. My memory of the Thunder series isn’t that sharp but there’s all sorts of interviews about how the locker room after game 4 could’ve been a funeral.

I just chafe at the idea that a Warriors dynasty was inevitable and that Bron was lucky to steal one off them. I don’t think that’s accurate at all. And with that in mind, what basketball situations were actually better than Cleveland in 2015? His plan to trade long-term assets for short term gain even makes more sense if you think he never planned to retire there, which I don’t think he did.
“I’m not the fastest guy on the court, but I can dictate when the race begins.”
User avatar
Baski
Starter
Posts: 2,399
And1: 1,682
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#611 » by Baski » Tue Aug 27, 2019 11:46 am

Dr Spaceman wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
I couldn’t disagree more with you on Cleveland. I think it’s perhaps the smartest decision and NBA player has ever made.

Lebron could’ve been Chris Paul and just been totally pragmatic with his decisions and end up not really loved by anyone in particular. Chris Paul doesn’t have fans in the way a Kobe or Dirk or Duncan does. Lebron wouldn’t either.

Basically every classic story ever told involves a hero returning to the place where his journey started with new skills and smarts to finally slay that dragon, from Gilgamesh to Odysseus to Bruce Wayne. It’s important here that Lebron didn’t only return to Cleveland, he chose Cleveland. And he brought them a title in what will probably go down as the biggest event in basketball history and probably sports. I have watched maybe 10 baseball games in my life. I know that Babe Ruth called his shot. I’ve never really watched Hockey but I know about the 1980 Olympic team. Certain moments just live on in the cultural imagination, and the image of Lebron collapsing a bawling and screaming “CLEVELAAAAAAAAND” into the microphone has solidified him as a legend in a way no one else has really gotten to do.

Human brains are wired to remember stories, not details. 50 years from now no one is going to remember who anytime Irving even is. But there will be a SkyHookFTW or 70sFan still here building up the legend of Lebron for the next generation.

I grew up attending basketball camps and playing for my school team and being totally engrossed in the sport and I’ve probably heard the anecdote about MJ being cut from his high school team 100+ times. And you know what? It’s not even true. His coach had a policy of not letting Freshman play varsity even though he was by far their best player. But Jordan has built a narrative and lives on in the cultural imagination through things like this.

Lebron is the American Dream. Poor Kid from a single family home in rust-belt-nowhere USA turned billionaire philanthropist who got his mom out of the ghetto and gave generations of kids in his hometown the opportunities he never had. He is the Bruce Wayne of Cleveland and that’s how they’ll remember him. They are on his side in a way not even chicagoans are for MJ.

I think it’s important to remember that while we all love talking about this stuff here, none of it really matters. In 50 years most of it will be forgotten. What won’t be forgotten is how Lebron made people feel and the narrative he built. I can’t thhink of anyone who’s done it better than him.

As far as LA, I honestly just think basketball wasn’t his main concern. Fine to hold it against him in a basketball sense but I think selling it as “he put his faith in Magic” makes it seem much worse than it is.


Great points about Cleveland.

Clearly the entire rationale for returning to Cleveland was to have that hometown success. I get it, but when you're choosing to go back and return to play for an incompetent man you hate for good reason, you have to think really hard about what your approach will be, and I take issue with LeBron's approach.

He won the title in a glorious moment so everything else will likely be erased, but of course, he shouldn't have won that title. If GS doesn't get rattled at the wrong moment, LeBron doesn't get that '15-16 title, and then what happens? The embarrassment of leaving Cleveland empty handed again would have done HUGE damage to legacy unless it was immediately followed with huge success on his next team.

From this lens, I see the Cleveland move as one that he was very lucky it worked out.

Now at the same time, when he went back to Cleveland he didn't know that GS would turn into with competent coaching, and a world where Mark Jackson remains the coach in GS probably leads to at least one title, so it is unfair to talk about LeBron as "lucky" with too much vehemence. Just saying:

The move back to Cleveland is only a success because he won a title there, and he could have easily failed, in part because of the way he forced the Cavs to make short-term moves because he didn't trust them to make long-term moves. I would have told LeBron to consider the very real possibility that he wouldn't win a title under incompetent Cavs management, and to seriously think about how he would spin the narrative in such a circumstance.

And to the extent he was trying to spin a positive narrative, well, his drama regularly got in the way.

Re: basketball not his main concern in LA. He's a fool if he thinks his stardom won't suffer if the Lakers are a joke. One thing to prioritize the Lakers, another thing to let incompetence run wild.


With respect Doc, I really want you to re-think this:

If GS doesn't get rattled at the wrong moment


Because if you’re going to go down this route you have to start getting into all the other times the Warriors were “rattled at the wrong time”. The series before the Warriors were down 3-1 to The Thunder coming off consecutive 24 and 28 point losses. Two years later they’d find themselves down 3-2 to the Rockets after failing to score 95 points in consecutive games.

The Warriors sure seem to get rattled at the wrong time a lot. Matter of fact it’s seemed to happen in pretty much every competitive series they’ve played. I’ve grown really tired of the revisionism that’s gone on about the Warriors run; they’ve barely slipped through by the skin of their teeth a number of times.

I don’t want to play the historical revisionism game. I just think it’s logically inconsistent to say Lebron got lucky in 16 but not acknowledge that the Warriors got just as lucky the series before and the year before facing Cleveland without 2 of the big 3.

The reality is if you wipe away the injuries to Kyrie and Chris Paul it’s within the realm of possibility GSW leaves this era with just the 1 title in 17. At no other time did they look like a team that couldn’t be beaten (and frankly several of the other times they looked like they should be beaten.

The Warriors were shook in that Rockets series. They looked completely lost and like they’d forgotten who they are. My memory of the Thunder series isn’t that sharp but there’s all sorts of interviews about how the locker room after game 4 could’ve been a funeral.

I just chafe at the idea that a Warriors dynasty was inevitable and that Bron was lucky to steal one off them. I don’t think that’s accurate at all. And with that in mind, what basketball situations were actually better than Cleveland in 2015? His plan to trade long-term assets for short term gain even makes more sense if you think he never planned to retire there, which I don’t think he did.

I think the fact that they got to the top despite being shook so many times is a testament to how inevitable the dynasty was. It definitely wasn't inevitable before July 4th , 2016. But right after, anything could've happened barring catastrophic injury (2019) and they were a shoo-in. Even though I believe Lebron and his 2017 and 2018 teams gave far less of a challenge than they should have, It was such an overwhelming talent advantage.
Funniest Nicknames for NBA players I've ever heard on realgm:
1. Nicholas Kaboom
2. Lasoftus Aldridge
3. Glass
4. LeBaby
5. Zaza Pacheapshot
6. Stone Cold Steve Adams
7. Rapestaps Rapezingis :lol: :lol: :lol:
8. Yawnnis Icantshootthough
Dr Spaceman
General Manager
Posts: 8,069
And1: 9,548
Joined: Jan 16, 2013
Location: Praha
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#612 » by Dr Spaceman » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:39 pm

Baski wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Great points about Cleveland.

Clearly the entire rationale for returning to Cleveland was to have that hometown success. I get it, but when you're choosing to go back and return to play for an incompetent man you hate for good reason, you have to think really hard about what your approach will be, and I take issue with LeBron's approach.

He won the title in a glorious moment so everything else will likely be erased, but of course, he shouldn't have won that title. If GS doesn't get rattled at the wrong moment, LeBron doesn't get that '15-16 title, and then what happens? The embarrassment of leaving Cleveland empty handed again would have done HUGE damage to legacy unless it was immediately followed with huge success on his next team.

From this lens, I see the Cleveland move as one that he was very lucky it worked out.

Now at the same time, when he went back to Cleveland he didn't know that GS would turn into with competent coaching, and a world where Mark Jackson remains the coach in GS probably leads to at least one title, so it is unfair to talk about LeBron as "lucky" with too much vehemence. Just saying:

The move back to Cleveland is only a success because he won a title there, and he could have easily failed, in part because of the way he forced the Cavs to make short-term moves because he didn't trust them to make long-term moves. I would have told LeBron to consider the very real possibility that he wouldn't win a title under incompetent Cavs management, and to seriously think about how he would spin the narrative in such a circumstance.

And to the extent he was trying to spin a positive narrative, well, his drama regularly got in the way.

Re: basketball not his main concern in LA. He's a fool if he thinks his stardom won't suffer if the Lakers are a joke. One thing to prioritize the Lakers, another thing to let incompetence run wild.


With respect Doc, I really want you to re-think this:

If GS doesn't get rattled at the wrong moment


Because if you’re going to go down this route you have to start getting into all the other times the Warriors were “rattled at the wrong time”. The series before the Warriors were down 3-1 to The Thunder coming off consecutive 24 and 28 point losses. Two years later they’d find themselves down 3-2 to the Rockets after failing to score 95 points in consecutive games.

The Warriors sure seem to get rattled at the wrong time a lot. Matter of fact it’s seemed to happen in pretty much every competitive series they’ve played. I’ve grown really tired of the revisionism that’s gone on about the Warriors run; they’ve barely slipped through by the skin of their teeth a number of times.

I don’t want to play the historical revisionism game. I just think it’s logically inconsistent to say Lebron got lucky in 16 but not acknowledge that the Warriors got just as lucky the series before and the year before facing Cleveland without 2 of the big 3.

The reality is if you wipe away the injuries to Kyrie and Chris Paul it’s within the realm of possibility GSW leaves this era with just the 1 title in 17. At no other time did they look like a team that couldn’t be beaten (and frankly several of the other times they looked like they should be beaten.

The Warriors were shook in that Rockets series. They looked completely lost and like they’d forgotten who they are. My memory of the Thunder series isn’t that sharp but there’s all sorts of interviews about how the locker room after game 4 could’ve been a funeral.

I just chafe at the idea that a Warriors dynasty was inevitable and that Bron was lucky to steal one off them. I don’t think that’s accurate at all. And with that in mind, what basketball situations were actually better than Cleveland in 2015? His plan to trade long-term assets for short term gain even makes more sense if you think he never planned to retire there, which I don’t think he did.

I think the fact that they got to the top despite being shook so many times is a testament to how inevitable the dynasty was. It definitely wasn't inevitable before July 4th , 2016. But right after, anything could've happened barring catastrophic injury (2019) and they were a shoo-in. Even though I believe Lebron and his 2017 and 2018 teams gave far less of a challenge than they should have, It was such an overwhelming talent advantage.


That’s a fair perspective. I think if the Thunder has Lebron in place of Durant or the Rockrts in place of Harden the Warriors lose either series because Lebron has the experience and closing ability.

I do think though that the Rockets have about a 70% chance of closing out the 18 series if Paul stays healthy. I don’t think anything was inevitable about that season. They were resilient sure, but it’s very different from the OKC series where they jsut figured it out and out classed them.
“I’m not the fastest guy on the court, but I can dictate when the race begins.”
User avatar
Basileus777
Head Coach
Posts: 7,083
And1: 1,333
Joined: Jul 13, 2007
Location: New Jersey
 

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#613 » by Basileus777 » Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:54 pm

The Chris Paul injury thing doesn't make for a compelling narrative because Houston never takes the lead in that series if Iggy doesn't get hurt.
User avatar
Baski
Starter
Posts: 2,399
And1: 1,682
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#614 » by Baski » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:35 pm

Basileus777 wrote:The Chris Paul injury thing doesn't make for a compelling narrative because Houston never takes the lead in that series if Iggy doesn't get hurt.

It also doesn't make for a compelling narrative imo because CP3 getting hurt was a given.

But for real I don't think Iggy would've swung that series anymore than MBAM would've. Extra defense on Houston's perimeter guys would've been nice but it was an ugly series already and Iggy wasn't contributing much on offense besides the slight possibility of that wide open clutch 3 Iggy seems to hit every series.
Funniest Nicknames for NBA players I've ever heard on realgm:
1. Nicholas Kaboom
2. Lasoftus Aldridge
3. Glass
4. LeBaby
5. Zaza Pacheapshot
6. Stone Cold Steve Adams
7. Rapestaps Rapezingis :lol: :lol: :lol:
8. Yawnnis Icantshootthough
User avatar
Baski
Starter
Posts: 2,399
And1: 1,682
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#615 » by Baski » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:46 pm

Dr Spaceman wrote:That’s a fair perspective. I think if the Thunder has Lebron in place of Durant or the Rockrts in place of Harden the Warriors lose either series because Lebron has the experience and closing ability.

I dunno about that. Any of 2012-2016 Lebron I'm 100% on board with that, but with 2018 Lebron I have my reservations. I dunno why but facing Durant turns him into a player I do not like.
Funniest Nicknames for NBA players I've ever heard on realgm:
1. Nicholas Kaboom
2. Lasoftus Aldridge
3. Glass
4. LeBaby
5. Zaza Pacheapshot
6. Stone Cold Steve Adams
7. Rapestaps Rapezingis :lol: :lol: :lol:
8. Yawnnis Icantshootthough
Dr Spaceman
General Manager
Posts: 8,069
And1: 9,548
Joined: Jan 16, 2013
Location: Praha
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#616 » by Dr Spaceman » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:53 pm

Basileus777 wrote:The Chris Paul injury thing doesn't make for a compelling narrative because Houston never takes the lead in that series if Iggy doesn't get hurt.


The Rockets made a lot of strategic changes in game 4, most notably benching Moute who had played 40 minutes in the series and was -50 overall. Luc had the worst plus/minus on the team in each of the first three games including -7 in a game they won by 22 and was -28 in 15 minutes (!) in game 3.

Iguodala was a difference maker but getting a player who was killing you that much off the floor as well as the decision to slow the pace down, the off-ball switching defense they instituted, etc. Make enough of a difference for me to believe the Rockets could still be favored in those two games even with Iggy.

Moute had an overall net rating of -30 in the 2018 postseason. He was about as bad as Melo was for the Thunder that year.
“I’m not the fastest guy on the court, but I can dictate when the race begins.”
User avatar
Outside
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 3,116
And1: 3,641
Joined: May 01, 2017
 

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#617 » by Outside » Tue Aug 27, 2019 11:21 pm

Re: Draymond and Barnes, I'm late to the discussion, and lots of good points made, but will add my two cents.

I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone mentioned that the Warriors offered Barnes a four-year, $64 million extension after their first title in 2015, and he turned it down. That same offseason, Klay signed a four-year, $70 million extension and Draymond signed a five-year, $82 million extension (almost the same per year as they offered Barnes, one extra year).

That was a generous offer to Barnes, but he was looking at being a big fish in another pond rather than a smaller fish in the Warriors pond. Barnes refusal to sign the extension caused some friction with the other core players, especially after Klay and Draymond agreed to their extensions. They thought Barnes was going against the spirit of the group, where everyone was taking a little less and doing what they could to keep the core together. Barnes made it look more about himself at the expense of the team.

It looked even worse in the next offseason when Barnes held out for max free agent money after a horrible postseason -- 9.0 pts, 5.1 reb, 44.6% EFG, 47.4% TS, and a particularly awful finals.

As for Draymond taking less with his recent extension, there are mitigating factors that mean less money with the Warriors makes financial sense.

-- We won't know unless he plays elsewhere, but there's good reason to believe that the Warriors are the best fit for him, possibly by a wide margin.

-- His ancillary income will likely be much greater with the Warriors, both because of the Silicon Valley connection and remaining associated with the Warriors success.

-- Having seen multiple players go down with serious injuries, including two on his own team, it can be prudent to take the money now rather than hope for more later. He just saw Cousins lose a huge amount of money after getting injured in New Orleans.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 41,141
And1: 9,148
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for 'Kicks!...and Steph Curry
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#618 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:58 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:He's so lucky that his 2 best teammates were injured the first playoff run they had, and he had the great fortunate Kevin Durant joining the Warriors in an unprecedented super team of all super teams.

The Cavs could not have easily failed because the Cavs had three all-stars with one of them being a superstar. All things considering, they had a pretty damn good chance as any other franchise LBJ could have joined. You think he would have done better if he joined the Spurs because they have Popovich or something?


Please don't make this about small crap. You want to argue that if we ran a simulation 5000 times and some universes there is no Kerr Warriors then on average he wins 3 titles in Cleveland, cool. The fact remains that it was a huge risk deciding to come back to an incompetent, arrogant owner which he did in the name of legacy, but which could have easily backfired, and that LeBron did things while he was there that made it more likely to backfire because of the chip he had on his shoulder about said owner.

People should not be acting like LeBron is playing 3-dimensional chess here.
In another world...
Your Longshoremen of Long Beach...

And now introducing...
The Song of Westeros...
LeBron James
John Stockton
Bobby Jones
Rudy Gobert
Khris Middleton
Connie Hawkins
Otto Porter
Ryan Anderson
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 41,141
And1: 9,148
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for 'Kicks!...and Steph Curry
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#619 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:28 am

Dr Spaceman wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
I’m not going to tell people what they should prioritize. Green can value loyalty all he wants and he’s smart to do so right up until the point GSW decides it’s prudent to trade him, which by the way is much easier when he’s making $25 million as opposed to 35. And if Green does indeed “look old” next year you have to think that’s on the table.

The only reasonable analogue here is Dirk Nowitzki. He took massive paycuts dead in his prime, giving up over $200 million over his career so Dallas could build a contender around him. Very, very different circumstances though. For one thing, Dirk had no-trade clauses and for another his relationship with Dallas was much closer to Steph than it was Draymond.

I don’t think GSW fans feel the way about Draymond the way they do about Curry or the way dallas fans did about Dirk. I don’t think many would be shedding crocodile tears if he were traded for comparable value. If Golden State ends up not being competitive with this aging core it’s very clear who will be on the chopping block first after these negotiations.

And frankly I think it’s reasonable to ask why the other members of the trio were not willing to give up money like Green did to keep this ship afloat.


Re: easier to trade. Sure, but they won't trade him until things head south, and when they do, they'll be the bad guys, not Draymond. It's fair to say that there's a lot we can't predict, but if you're someone whose legendary status is inherently tied to to the players you play with, doing what you can to make sure you get to stay is generally what I'd call the wise move.

Of course someone might believe that Draymond somewhere else will gain even more acclaim. Those who believe that would come to very different conclusions. I think thought that as valuable as Draymond is, it's unlikely that he'll ever be so celebrated again if he left for another team.

Re: reasonable to ask why other members were not willing to give up money. Sure we can ask, but I think in general NBA superstars have concluded that pay cuts are a scam. The justification for them is to allow the team to acquire other great players which their team would be able to do if not for the rules the NBA owners put in place to keep salaries down. If I'm Steph Curry and I'm worth north of $100 mill per year to my franchise, I'm probably pretty frustrated with the idea that I'm being greedy for taking $40 mill.

It's worth noting that with respect to Dirk that whatever pay cuts he took, the team literally never acquired another great player after they let Steve Nash walk 15 years ago, so the notion that he's the guy we hold up and say "See, look at what all the team was able to accomplish because he took a pay cut" is actually an argument in the other direction in my book.

I think the clear cut truth here is that Draymond saw the benefit of looking like he valued team over money in part because he saw dangers in demanding a max deal. It would have been very different if Steph had done it.

Klay's an interesting case of course because in the bizarre NBA landscape demand for him is more like Steph than Draymond despite being a worse player than Draymond.


Re: Dirk, The Mavs certainly acquired great players after Nash left. Jason Kidd, Shawn Marion, Caron Butler, Tyson Chandler were all great. Not as great as Nash, but from 2009-2011 they could all be considered top 15ish players at various points, and it’s precisely that depth of quality guys that allowed them to survive Butler’s injury in 2011 and take down teams that were far less balanced in the postseason. The Mavs had a top 10 guy at every position that season and that type of team construction is very rare. Dirk’s sacrifice is basically the whole reason he has a championship ring.

And I do understand what you’re saying about Draymond and public perception and all that. But I just don’t think banking on loyalty is ever smart, especially when it comes to corporations. The truth is he can make the Warriors look like the bad guy all he wants but the Warriors have an appetite for big fish and if he’s part of a deal that nets them, say, Karl Towns in a few years literally no one will even remember Draymond. I mean are Clipper fans upset about Blake Griffin?

Dray’s pay cut here actually hurt his chance to be a Warrior lifer, IMO. The reason I bring up Steph is not to call him greedy but to say if this was part of a pre-conceived plan to bring on more talent (like the big 3 in Miami did in 2011) then I’d be in favor. But Draymond is acting alone here and gave up money for no clear concrete reason. Steph should take all the money in the world. But if they want to pull in another Kevin Durant it needed to be all 3 of them who took pay cuts, otherwise Draymond is just giving the team money for free with no guarantees given back to him.


Re: Mavs certainly acquired great players. You and I have different standards if you think those post-prime cast-offs are great players. The only one of that bunch that was remotely all-star quality at that point was Chandler, and that was because he figured out how to really be useful for the first time in Dallas.

I'm not saying the Mavs were incompetent in that player acquisition here - I like what they did - but they built what they built acquiring players that were not exactly the subject of a bidding war. There was a reason why even as they were approaching their lone title were turning their sites to lure actual superstars: They knew they hadn't acquired anyone that could be a co-star to Dirk or carry them going forward as Dirk aged. They knew if they did nothing, they'd largely become irrelevant over the bulk of the 2010s. Which of course they did, because they never were able to acquire any great players to play with Dirk while he was still great himself.

Re: I don't think loyalty is ever smart. As I've said, I'm talking about the perception of loyalty not actual loyalty. Dray is smart to make it look like he didn't care about money, but he clearly cared about money else he wouldn't have railed against taking "another pay cut" not too long ago. The value of the perception of loyalty pays dividends with everyone. The corporate, the teammates, and the fans.

I'll also note that while this would be true of anyone, there's also the matter of legacy to consider. If Draymond wants to be seen as a legend who people keep bringing up after he retires, he should stay with Steph.

It's interesting you brought Marion. There you have a Draymond-type who shattered his legacy by leaving Phoenix. He was a 4-time all-star who probably would have been an 8-time all-star if he'd simply swallowed his pride and stayed in Phoenix with a smile on his face. Instead he left and went to the East where it was much easier to make all-star (go look at the East all-star in '08-09, it's pathetic), and he couldn't even get consideration as he failed his way out of Miami and Toronto before ending up as a mere "great role player" in Dallas that no one would remember if they hadn't won the title.

Not every decision in your career is a battle of negotiation with your employer, and while it's painful to let your employer "skim off the top" from what you contribute, you always have to consider the entirety of the context your are in and how you're benefiting from it. Just because your boss doesn't deserve you doesn't mean you're not in the best situation for you to succeed.

Re: no one will remember Dray. I think people will remember Dray because people will remember the Warriors. No matter what happens in the future, what the Warriors did from '14 to '19 stands as the best 5 year run of any franchise in a very long time and it made Steph, Dray, and Klay into guys who are locks for the Hall as long as they don't do anything too foolish. Nothing will erase those 5 years, and the odds that the Warriors will match those 5 years again are very, very small no matter who they get. But if Dray craps all over everything in bitterness on the way out because he doesn't get the contract offer he wants, and then the Warriors win another title, then the narrative becomes "it was always about the Splash Brothers!". Even if Dray does really well on his next team, his legacy will get hurt by leaving...and there's a really good chance in my mind that Dray moving to a new team doesn't go so well. The danger of a Marionesque downward spiral would be very real.

Oh and if KAT joins the Warriors and they win the title? Unless he's the clear cut alpha, the headline will be "Splash Brothers win another title". Consider the ambivalent way Durant felt like he was received in GS. Anyone joining the Warriors at this point is likely to be seen as riding coattails.

Re: hurts his chances of being a lifer. I think you're talking about one specific scenario, and in that scenario Green staying in GS as an albatross doesn't exactly help his legacy. When guys think about being a lifer the idea is that there's an overwhelming feeling of gratitude toward them in their later years. If people instead feel "My god, that guy's contract has hurt us so bad, I hate every time I hear his name called because it's a reminder of why we're hamstrung now and can't win titles.' I'm not saying I'd take the pay cut to avoid being an albatross, but the value of being a lifer is certainly dependent on how it is achieved.
In another world...
Your Longshoremen of Long Beach...

And now introducing...
The Song of Westeros...
LeBron James
John Stockton
Bobby Jones
Rudy Gobert
Khris Middleton
Connie Hawkins
Otto Porter
Ryan Anderson
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 41,141
And1: 9,148
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for 'Kicks!...and Steph Curry
   

Re: 2019 NBA Offseason Discussion 

Post#620 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:38 am

Dr Spaceman wrote:[
With respect Doc, I really want you to re-think this:

If GS doesn't get rattled at the wrong moment


Because if you’re going to go down this route you have to start getting into all the other times the Warriors were “rattled at the wrong time”. The series before the Warriors were down 3-1 to The Thunder coming off consecutive 24 and 28 point losses. Two years later they’d find themselves down 3-2 to the Rockets after failing to score 95 points in consecutive games.

The Warriors sure seem to get rattled at the wrong time a lot. Matter of fact it’s seemed to happen in pretty much every competitive series they’ve played. I’ve grown really tired of the revisionism that’s gone on about the Warriors run; they’ve barely slipped through by the skin of their teeth a number of times.

I don’t want to play the historical revisionism game. I just think it’s logically inconsistent to say Lebron got lucky in 16 but not acknowledge that the Warriors got just as lucky the series before and the year before facing Cleveland without 2 of the big 3.

The reality is if you wipe away the injuries to Kyrie and Chris Paul it’s within the realm of possibility GSW leaves this era with just the 1 title in 17. At no other time did they look like a team that couldn’t be beaten (and frankly several of the other times they looked like they should be beaten.

The Warriors were shook in that Rockets series. They looked completely lost and like they’d forgotten who they are. My memory of the Thunder series isn’t that sharp but there’s all sorts of interviews about how the locker room after game 4 could’ve been a funeral.

I just chafe at the idea that a Warriors dynasty was inevitable and that Bron was lucky to steal one off them. I don’t think that’s accurate at all. And with that in mind, what basketball situations were actually better than Cleveland in 2015? His plan to trade long-term assets for short term gain even makes more sense if you think he never planned to retire there, which I don’t think he did.


My statement wasn't about the Warriors, it was about the spectrum of LeBron's potential results. I'm not discrediting the on-court achievement, I'm critiquing the notion that because we ended up winning a title his choice to go back to Cleveland is an indication of great decision making process.
In another world...
Your Longshoremen of Long Beach...

And now introducing...
The Song of Westeros...
LeBron James
John Stockton
Bobby Jones
Rudy Gobert
Khris Middleton
Connie Hawkins
Otto Porter
Ryan Anderson

Return to Player Comparisons