Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
I'm not sure Minnesota or Milwaukee "tanked" either. They were bad, but I don't think they were intentionally bad. They also hit on some picks (including a second rounder in Mil) and made good trades (Love to the Cavs).
Philly openly tanked and it has, now, paid off. However, for a while, their direction didn't make much sense at all. I mean, how many centers/pfs do you need on one team?
After the Wolves traded Garnett, they tried winning the honest way. It didn't work. They were just bad. Not bad on purpose. Just bad.
After years of being bad and getting shit on by the NBA lottery in 2011 when they should have had the #1 and Kyrie Irving, I think their moves lined up perfectly with the tanking strategy. They traded their only good player (Love) for all young guys. They threw the dice on supremely talented yet ultra raw college players like Lavine and Muhammad. They even traded a half decent veteran and like the 2nd best player on the team at the time for an overpriced Kevin Garnett, clearing the way for more losses. Sportscasters openly complained about them tanking all the time for the past couple years.
Just because you're already bad to begin with doesn't mean you're not tanking. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
Who wouldn't choose Boston over SLC?
Top 4 coach, Top 4 roster, Top 4 GM. They won the East last year and only flamed out due to Isiah's injury. They added Tatum, who's going to be a stud, and still have a Lottery pick in 2018.
Plus, Hayward's playing for his college coach.
I think it would suck if SLC had the "power" to force him to stay, especially after 7 years.
The Celtics didn't flame out because of IT's injury. They lost 2 games by +30 and were pretty much dominated the whole series. I am a Celtics fan and if they have to get rid of 2 out of the 3 of Crowder, Smart or Bradley along with Olynk now being gone they won't be very good. Sure they will make the playoffs but that is because the East sucks. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mcaj22:
only three players last season shot 43% or better on 4.5+ catch and shoot three pointers per game
1. Steph
2. Klay
3. Swaggy
Warriors replaced Ian Clark and Matt Barnes with Swaggy P and Omri Casspi. Actual shooters. They are going to be even better next season, they have a bomb squad on their second unit now.
Yup, Warriors brought in more guys who can shoot from 3 better than what they had last year on their bench. [Reply]
Spurs signed Rudy Gay to 2-years, $17.2 Mill. Nice signing, if he can stay healthy this should give us some more firepower to keep up with the Warriors. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Spurs signed Rudy Gay to 2-years, $17.2 Mill. Nice signing, if he can stay healthy this should give us some more firepower to keep up with the Warriors.
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Every team he's left has got better.
He's got a lot of bad habits. He doesn't seem like a good fit but he has to know that being on the Spurs means sacrifice and a lot of passing so I think he will adjust and do fine.
I've always thought Rudy Gay would work very well as a role player on a contender. Has all the tools necessary to be a great one. Time to see if that's true. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
How does Tim Hardaway Jr get 4 years, 72 million and Tyreke Evans only gets 1-yr 3 million. Tyreke Evans is waaaay more valuable of a player.
And you thought Phil Jackson was the problem in NY hahaha nope [Reply]
So here's an asinine idea to address the talent gap across the NBA:
A "talent cap."
Instead of forcing teams to make decisions based off a salary cap (which is also necessary), you could have a committee of guys every couple seasons designate "A" players (top 20 in the league), B players and so on.
No team can sign more than two A guys. You can draft them and retain them, but if you've already got an A player, you can't bring a 2nd over in FA. That would have shut down the Heat from forming and Durant wouldn't be in GS. Meanwhile they can still get paid.
Similar rules with B and C players. If you sign a B player and you turn him into an A player, he doesn't count as a 2nd A player. You get the idea.
This would depend on somewhat arbitrary rulings from this hypothetical committee, but that's a hell of a lot better knowing exactly who your top 2 teams in the finals are going to be before the season starts.
It will also force teams to draft better (though the draft needs its own reforms). If you can draft two A players, you can keep them both. It incentivizes players who respond to coaching, because everybody will be hunting for Bs and Cs and looking to turn them into A- and B-quality players.
It's outside the box, but I'm just looking to bust up superteams, as they are ruining the NBA. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
So here's an asinine idea to address the talent gap across the NBA:
A "talent cap."
Instead of forcing teams to make decisions based off a salary cap (which is also necessary), you could have a committee of guys every couple seasons designate "A" players (top 20 in the league), B players and so on.
No team can sign more than two A guys. You can draft them and retain them, but if you've already got an A player, you can't bring a 2nd over in FA. That would have shut down the Heat from forming and Durant wouldn't be in GS. Meanwhile they can still get paid.
Similar rules with B and C players. If you sign a B player and you turn him into an A player, he doesn't count as a 2nd A player. You get the idea.
This would depend on somewhat arbitrary rulings from this hypothetical committee, but that's a hell of a lot better knowing exactly who your top 2 teams in the finals are going to be before the season starts.
It will also force teams to draft better (though the draft needs its own reforms). If you can draft two A players, you can keep them both. It incentivizes players who respond to coaching, because everybody will be hunting for Bs and Cs and looking to turn them into A- and B-quality players.
It's outside the box, but I'm just looking to bust up superteams, as they are ruining the NBA.
that is asinine. Also, your b and c rule contradicts your a rule. If a b developed into an a doesn't count as an a, you could sign another a, which contradicts your first asinine rule. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
that is asinine. Also, your b and c rule contradicts your a rule. If a b developed into an a doesn't count as an a, you could sign another a, which contradicts your first asinine rule.
I probably didn't make it clear.
If you have an A, and acquire a B that turns into an A, you have "legally" obtained two A's.
If all you had was a B, but later he was upgraded to an A, you do not get to sign an A free agent, as you would have two A's and would disrupt league balance.
I know it's convoluted, but pretty much nothing you guys have suggested is a safeguard against superteams. This is a guarantee that could ostensibly land Players Association approval. [Reply]
