bondom34 wrote:Allowing teams to claim guys on contract elsewhere is entirely unrealistic. And the draft doesn't hurt good teams. It hurts teams that draft poorly, like how free agency hurts ones who can't recruit. American sports are not the same as in other countries, plain and simple. Sorry but I'm just gonna disagree with you on this.
The Draft either harms good teams or it is ineffective at helping bad teams. Basketball is a zero sum game. Everyone can't win. The combined league record will always end up .5. As a result if you try to raise wins at the bottom you are trying to lower wins at the top. If you try to guarantee top players begin their career with bad clubs you also are trying to guarantee good clubs can't get access to them for a long-time.
This is a zero sum game. You can support the draft but you have to be willing to acknowledge the draft is designed to harm good clubs.
bondom34 wrote:Allowing teams to claim guys on contract elsewhere is entirely unrealistic. And the draft doesn't hurt good teams. It hurts teams that draft poorly, like how free agency hurts ones who can't recruit. American sports are not the same as in other countries, plain and simple. Sorry but I'm just gonna disagree with you on this.
The Draft either harms good teams or it is ineffective at helping bad teams. Basketball is a zero sum game. Everyone can't win. The combined league record will always end up .5. As a result if you try to raise wins at the bottom you are trying to lower wins at the top. If you try to guarantee top players begin their career with bad clubs you also are trying to guarantee good clubs can't get access to them for a long-time.
This is a zero sum game. You can support the draft but you have to be willing to acknowledge the draft is designed to harm good clubs.
It helps teams who are able to scout and draft, hurts teams who can't. And it certainly helps bad teams. Yet again, good teams find good players late. Free agency can't do the same.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
bondom34 wrote:Allowing teams to claim guys on contract elsewhere is entirely unrealistic. And the draft doesn't hurt good teams. It hurts teams that draft poorly, like how free agency hurts ones who can't recruit. American sports are not the same as in other countries, plain and simple. Sorry but I'm just gonna disagree with you on this.
The Draft either harms good teams or it is ineffective at helping bad teams. Basketball is a zero sum game. Everyone can't win. The combined league record will always end up .5. As a result if you try to raise wins at the bottom you are trying to lower wins at the top. If you try to guarantee top players begin their career with bad clubs you also are trying to guarantee good clubs can't get access to them for a long-time.
This is a zero sum game. You can support the draft but you have to be willing to acknowledge the draft is designed to harm good clubs.
Of course it's a zero sum game. It doesn't mean it always "harms" good teams. Good teams tend to have good records year after year despite the draft....until something major happens to their talent pool. The wins generally come at the expense of other bad teams or treadmill teams. The worst teams get a boost. The mediocre teams get mediocre draft slots. The best teams get worse draft slots but tend to be more attractive to free agents.
“anyone involved in that meddling to justice”. NO COLLUSION
Owly wrote:A few questions on this since it seems to be your pet peeve.
1) Is the system you advocate for an ideal or something you think could happen within the framework of the NBA (rather than some new, rival, power framework, such as might be formed during a lockout)?
I advocate for it currently as an ideal as path dependency makes it extremely unlikely radical change will come to basketball. I have to come to realize that the draft along with the salary cap, max salaries, franchise territorial rights (a big issue that I and others should discuss more) impede the development of basketball strategy, growth of the labor pool and adoption of best practices. Pointing out that the current structure is really bad for consumers is important.
Long-term I think there is potential for promotion/relegation due to rapid growth in basketball popularity worldwide. Already NBA rookie cap salaries are below what can be offered in Europe and many of the best players are born overseas. The later typically come over when they can get off the rookie scale. In years to come when the salaries get better more and more will never come over. That with the growing percentage of top players being foreign born will result in the NBA getting less and less of the talented players in the league. I expect that American rookies will eventually start heading to Europe especially if Silver and the owners adopt a 2 year age limit. All of this will put significant pressure on current owners and the union as fans begin to recognize the NBA really isn't in another class from other leagues.
At that point I could see some considering a change to a different system with relegation being a real possibility. So it is an ideal for now but possibility long-term.
Owly wrote:2) What is it that you find reprehensible about Donald Sterling and why is he more representative of the NBA ownership (than say Holt, or just an average owner)? It seems like Sterling is raised to aggrivate people's distate for him, but your issue is with him is, I think, his being cheap (fwiw as noted by others previously he arrived in the NBA when it was more free market, including no salary cap, so I'm not sure this a market vs non-market thing). Also are you of the belief that there aren't bad, cheap, immoral or profiteering owners in non-US model sports, that there are less of them, or what?
Sterling is brought up to show you can basically not give a **** in the NBA for decades and end up a big time winner with a who gives a **** about the consumer attitudes. People need to recognize there are costs to keeping every club in the big leagues no matter what.
Sterling and the owners have never really operated in a free market. I don't believe he was around in the ABA time. You can correct me if I'm wrong. The current cartel structure exists to protect them from competition from rival leagues. Currently owners have agreed they can veto another team moving to their city. The Celtics, as an example, make money hand over fist. Many small market owners complain about the financial strains on their franchise with trying to compete. In a true market they would just move to Boston and attempt to undercut the Celtics on price. Instead it just gets vetoed and the owners work as a cartel to suppress labor costs while also giving out welfare checks. That isn't anything close to an ideal competitive market.
I am sure there are other crappy owners in relegation leagues but at least they have a market check on their stupidity. They would either find a way to be cheap while maintaining interest in their club, change their practices or go away into bankruptcy. This is ideal for consumers.
Owly wrote:3) Do you truly believe that the best framework for player scouting and development would be one in which U.S.-based pro teams were trying to keep their prospects underwraps and competing monetarily for them. At what age? Are governments going to be happy with this? How about foreign teams? This is by no means a suggestion that the US college system (and AAU before that) system is without flaws, but I'm wondering how considered this revamping of international player scouting/development is.
I am extremely confident that a global competition for labor will result in improved conditions for human beings throughout the globe. I have begun to recognize how beneficial globalization is to the poor in the developing world.
Yes, I want foreign clubs trying to compete for talent all around the world. Yes, I want American clubs competing for talent all around the world. The desperate search for top flight basketball players will lead to investment in the poorest parts of the world which will help people improve their lives. As a side benefit, the quality of basketball will go up.
Owly wrote:4) Do you consider this a moral matter or just one of basketball quality? If the former, who do you believe is harmed by the present system (and who is taking advantage)?
The moral component is discussed a bit above. The lack of competition serves to limit the need for investment in poorer parts of the world. Consumers are also harmed due to its negative impact on basketball quality as I've stated in other posts. They are interrelated.
5) Are you of the belief that a national, non-developmental second tier league would be economically viable (and indeed sufficient for such teams to compete in terms of international scouting)? A third tier?
Yes, I think it could be economically competitive. The lower levels succeed in Europe and many of the minor leagues are big money makers in America. Minor League Baseball makes a lot of money. College Football and Basketball make a ton of money. Those professional minor league clubs are true ethically horrendous due to the student-athlete scam. There is a greater demand for basketball than currently being met by the NBA.
I am not sure if the top level will end up with 30 clubs though.
Owly wrote:I'm not unsympathetic to your complaints and have a few issues with the system, though there are always tradeoffs. Genuinely curious as to what your stance is here. My own takes on the questions in spoilers.
I hope you understand my position. I tried to avoid reading your take to avoid structuring my answers as a response.
Spoiler:
FWIW my own responses/inclination
1) No. Owners aren't going to risk a relegation model (nor are players insofar as a such a system risks salary security).
2) Personally I dislike the various "isms". Sterling's being cheap is seperate. The getting away with being cheap could be considered annoying, except he would have surely made more money in LA by having a good team. That he made that much at the end was annoying, but more to do with markets and timing than the NBA's structure. There are plenty of dreadful owners in soccer (and obviously scope for corruption within its organisation fwiw) for instance, though I couldn't say claim to be able to compare what percentage versus what percentage are "bad" in various ways in the NBA.
2/4) Insofar as there is a matter of people getting cheated by the present system I guess you could say historic LA Clippers fans. But anyone with as purported a strong belief in markets as you are suggesting can't really argue that.
3) No. I don't think the implied international youth system would be viable or good.
4) Basketball quality. That is to say whilst any moral issue would be more important, the structure of basketball is agreed to by both main parties and the distinctions between the systems, if they exist are more likely to be in the quality of basketball produced.
5) Without knowing for sure, I haven't seen evidence that it would be.
My quibbles with the system as it presently is, otoh, are: draftees are locked into their initial team for too long, individual player maxes, and the way in which luck plays a large role in where players end up in terms of happening to have cap-room at the right time. Whether wholesale change would be required to alter these situations and whether that is desireable is arguable. As per (1) I'd consider it highly unlikely in any case.
Thanks for the response, it has allowed me to better understand your positions, even where I don't agree with them.
I'd argue the draft hurts bad teams more than good teams. Now obviously the exception is if you hold the pick when the generational prospect arrives(Shaq/Duncan/Lebron) but mostly teams high in the lottery stay in the lottery for long stretches. And they tend to over-value high draft picks rather than realizing immediate value for good veterans. Especially since teams draft more and more projects--so by the time those players are ready to help then they have to be paid big money or let go and this false allure of cheap talent fools them into continuing to build through the draft.
Conversely good teams either use their picks as ammo in deals(see Dallas as exhibit A) or they identify players who fit what they do(see San Antonio) and don't try and hit home runs with every pick but just grab solid value deep in the draft.
Bottom line is there just aren't many and sometimes not any true franchise changers each year in the draft. And bad teams have bad management which means they take the wrong players for the wrong reasons, they hire bad coaches who don't develop them and the cycle continues.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
PaulieWal wrote:With all the drama surrounding the Bulls I decided to look at Rose's season....how the hell is he getting a pass for his level of play? He's got to be one of the worst players in the league this year. 42% TS, 9 PER, -4.3 BPM, -7.4 On/Off.
Whats so strange is he is somehow worse than last year. Which is sad cause unlike the previous 3 seasons he wasn't rehabbing anything. He actually went into the offseason healthy. Combined with a full season (relatively speaking) under his belt, there was no way to expect him to this bad.
Maybe Im underestimating that orbital injury. I dunno
SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I don’t think LeBron was as good a point guard as Mo Williams for the point guard play not counting the scoring threat. In other words in a non shooting Rondo like role Mo Williams would be better than LeBron.
Player 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts POY Shares 1. Michael Jordan 21 0 0 0 0 210 1.000 2. Magic Johnson 0 18 2 1 0 132 0.662 3. Charles Barkley 0 1 9 6 4 74 0.352 Hakeem Olajuwon 0 2 6 9 3 74 0.352 5. Karl Malone 0 0 3 3 4 28 0.133 6. Patrick Ewing 0 0 1 1 4 12 0.057 7. John Stockton 0 0 0 1 4 7 0.033 8. Kevin Johnson 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.010
That's a bit surprising to me. I'm not terribly familiar with the circumstances surrounding Magic in that Finals (I believe he got hurt, played 5 minutes in G3, and sat out G4 (EDIT: Actually, looks like he was hurt in game 2; Scott also missed the series). Maybe if he was healthy, LA steals a game or two, and the voting is different.
Back to Jordan. I get that the first round win over Cleveland was big, and that the stretch as a PG seems impressive (I haven't watched any of the Knicks series, so it's possible he played at a ridiculous level). Scottie and Horace also were still very much works in progress (that was the first year the two became full-time starters). But that season, I wonder if he was closer defensively to 88 (absolute monster with a crazy motor), or to his first three years in the league? Also, I've seen some turnarounds, but I'm not sure that his post game was where it was a bit later (or maybe working out with Grover gave him the durability/confidence to seemingly go to it more from 90 through 93).
All in all I don't mind the win, but it just seems strange that nobody else received a first place vote.
Something I'm missing here?
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
Player 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts POY Shares 1. Michael Jordan 21 0 0 0 0 210 1.000 2. Magic Johnson 0 18 2 1 0 132 0.662 3. Charles Barkley 0 1 9 6 4 74 0.352 Hakeem Olajuwon 0 2 6 9 3 74 0.352 5. Karl Malone 0 0 3 3 4 28 0.133 6. Patrick Ewing 0 0 1 1 4 12 0.057 7. John Stockton 0 0 0 1 4 7 0.033 8. Kevin Johnson 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.010
That's a bit surprising to me. I'm not terribly familiar with the circumstances surrounding Magic in that Finals (I believe he got hurt, played 5 minutes in G3, and sat out G4 (EDIT: Actually, looks like he was hurt in game 2; Scott also missed the series). Maybe if he was healthy, LA steals a game or two, and the voting is different.
Back to Jordan. I get that the first round win over Cleveland was big, and that the stretch as a PG seems impressive (I haven't watched any of the Knicks series, so it's possible he played at a ridiculous level). Scottie and Horace also were still very much works in progress (that was the first year the two became full-time starters). But that season, I wonder if he was closer defensively to 88 (absolute monster with a crazy motor), or to his first three years in the league? Also, I've seen some turnarounds, but I'm not sure that his post game was where it was a bit later (or maybe working out with Grover gave him the durability/confidence to seemingly go to it more from 90 through 93).
All in all I don't mind the win, but it just seems strange that nobody else received a first place vote.
Something I'm missing here?
It was between Magic and Mike at the time. The feeling I got was that the injury played a big part in some voter's decision; others simply had prime energy Jordan over everybody in history. The Magic injury played a big part in me putting Mike number 1 that season.
In retrospect, I put too much weight into that injury to Magic in the Finals. Without the injury, I believe I actually had Magic over Jordan that season at the time the RPOY project was running, but counting what actually happened, I voted Magic below MJ, Hakeem, and Barkley.
If we redid it, I'd put Magic at 1 or 2. Not sure.
As for Jordan...Because of who comprised his team, it was probably advantageous to have him handle the ball more often. Bad offensive teams can't afford to move a superstar scorer off-ball because bad offensive teams lack passing and ball movement, which means the chances of that superstar scorer getting the touches and USG% necessary to maximize his positive impact on the offense are lower. When you've got a superstar scorer on a truly inept offensive team, best bet is to give him the ball and let him create. I suppose that was the strategy at the time. Once Pippen developed and the triangle was installed, they could afford to move Jordan off-ball because at some point, within 24 seconds, he's going to get the ball on most possessions, and he'll be able to impact the offense in a huge fashion (even on a non-inept offense!). (NOTE: I believe moving superstar scorers off-ball is almost always the correct strategy on a great offensive team.)
His post moves weren't as sharp as they'd become in terms of technique and skill, but he was still effective. Defensively, I'd venture to say he was closer to his 1988 self.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
I'm glad to see it, should help Noel and Okafor tons.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
I'm glad to see it, should help Noel and Okafor tons.
Meanwhile, we get 2 2nd rounders for a player averaging 14-9 per 48 and having a on court net rating of 5 ish.
I'm hoping dell does some chess master stuff.
General consensus on the Pelicans forum is that it was way worth it though, so I'm probably missing something
They were pretty high seconds I believe, Philly probably overpaid value wise but they desperately needed a real PG. I feel like they owned a car and decided not to change the oil until like 15000 miles, so instead of 30 bucks to get the oil change they had to pay for a new engine when it blew up.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
I'm glad to see it, should help Noel and Okafor tons.
Meanwhile, we get 2 2nd rounders for a player averaging 14-9 per 48 and having a on court net rating of 5 ish.
I'm hoping dell does some chess master stuff.
General consensus on the Pelicans forum is that it was way worth it though, so I'm probably missing something
They were pretty high seconds I believe, Philly probably overpaid value wise but they desperately needed a real PG. I feel like they owned a car and decided not to change the oil until like 15000 miles, so instead of 30 bucks to get the oil change they had to pay for a new engine when it blew up.
in the 30-35 range I believe
Otoh, knowing the Pelicans we are gonna trade the picks for the return of the white mamba
Part of me believes this is part of a huge mapped out plan by dell
Meanwhile, we get 2 2nd rounders for a player averaging 14-9 per 48 and having a on court net rating of 5 ish.
I'm hoping dell does some chess master stuff.
General consensus on the Pelicans forum is that it was way worth it though, so I'm probably missing something
They were pretty high seconds I believe, Philly probably overpaid value wise but they desperately needed a real PG. I feel like they owned a car and decided not to change the oil until like 15000 miles, so instead of 30 bucks to get the oil change they had to pay for a new engine when it blew up.
in the 30-35 range I believe
Otoh, knowing the Pelicans we are gonna trade the picks for the return of the white mamba
Part of me believes this is part of a huge mapped out plan by dell
Send Evans or Gordon to OKC for Waiters/McGary/Novak pls.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
I'm glad to see it, should help Noel and Okafor tons.
Meanwhile, we get 2 2nd rounders for a player averaging 14-9 per 48 and having a on court net rating of 5 ish.
I'm hoping dell does some chess master stuff.
General consensus on the Pelicans forum is that it was way worth it though, so I'm probably missing something
They were pretty high seconds I believe, Philly probably overpaid value wise but they desperately needed a real PG. I feel like they owned a car and decided not to change the oil until like 15000 miles, so instead of 30 bucks to get the oil change they had to pay for a new engine when it blew up.
This is Hinkie reading the writing on the wall. Colangelo means they're trying not to lose games at the expense of development anymore and this move for Ish will make them miles better and their rookies miles better.
bondom34 wrote:They were pretty high seconds I believe, Philly probably overpaid value wise but they desperately needed a real PG. I feel like they owned a car and decided not to change the oil until like 15000 miles, so instead of 30 bucks to get the oil change they had to pay for a new engine when it blew up.
in the 30-35 range I believe
Otoh, knowing the Pelicans we are gonna trade the picks for the return of the white mamba
Part of me believes this is part of a huge mapped out plan by dell
Send Evans or Gordon to OKC for Waiters/McGary/Novak pls.
Otoh, knowing the Pelicans we are gonna trade the picks for the return of the white mamba
Part of me believes this is part of a huge mapped out plan by dell
Send Evans or Gordon to OKC for Waiters/McGary/Novak pls.
Gee for durant
Take it or leave it
Add in AD and maybe.
AD/Westbrook PnR though.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
I'm glad to see it, should help Noel and Okafor tons.
Meanwhile, we get 2 2nd rounders for a player averaging 14-9 per 48 and having a on court net rating of 5 ish.
I'm hoping dell does some chess master stuff.
General consensus on the Pelicans forum is that it was way worth it though, so I'm probably missing something
They were pretty high seconds I believe, Philly probably overpaid value wise but they desperately needed a real PG. I feel like they owned a car and decided not to change the oil until like 15000 miles, so instead of 30 bucks to get the oil change they had to pay for a new engine when it blew up.
Did you own a car and decide not to change the oil until like 15000 miles, so instead of 30 bucks to get the oil change you had to pay for a new engine when it blew up? Because this is far too specific an analogy.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
Meanwhile, we get 2 2nd rounders for a player averaging 14-9 per 48 and having a on court net rating of 5 ish.
I'm hoping dell does some chess master stuff.
General consensus on the Pelicans forum is that it was way worth it though, so I'm probably missing something
They were pretty high seconds I believe, Philly probably overpaid value wise but they desperately needed a real PG. I feel like they owned a car and decided not to change the oil until like 15000 miles, so instead of 30 bucks to get the oil change they had to pay for a new engine when it blew up.
Did you own a car and decide not to change the oil until like 15000 miles, so instead of 30 bucks to get the oil change you had to pay for a new engine when it blew up? Because this is far too specific an analogy.
Fortunately I'm not quite that dumb with my cars. However completely unrelated when I was in college I got in a fender bender on I-81 (or 83?) and myself and my parents installed a new bumper on my 1990s Buick. Grey bumper on a white Buick that looked like a boat, classic look.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
So a couple quick thoughts from the game yesterday:
I guess the Cavs are just going to default to their "bully ball" in close 4th quarters now? Just seems like such a waste of the big 3 especially as Love has the tendency to disappear for stretches int eh offense as it is. And to me it just makes no sense to have a game plan for the first 44 minutes and then just clear everyone out for LeBron in the last 4. They did go on a run yesterday, but the Warriors quickly figured it out.
Also, as weird as it seems to talk like this about a virtually undefeated team, the Spurs have matched them now in SRS and this question has occurred to me: do the Warriors need another "guy"? I mean that a lot of teams can stagger minutes such that one of their stars can stay on the floor as the bench units come in, but I'm concerned when that guy is Thompson for the Warriors. He just tends to drift, and they can run plays for him but defense's never seem overly concerned. He's stoppable. The team is hyper-optimized around Chrry, which is a great thing, but I do wonder whether they have enough identity outside of him.
“I’m not the fastest guy on the court, but I can dictate when the race begins.”
.
