Phx-Suns.Net

Shabazz wrote:

Indy wrote:

Shabazz wrote:Simplest solution for a more even distribution of stars across multiple teams is to remove the max salary while leaving the salary cap/luxury tax. Teams and players would have tough decisions to make if stars could earn what they're actually worth. Durant would have had a lot to think about if Golden State offered him $25M per, but a team like Brooklyn (just an example) offered him $45M per.

But that seems to really hurt most players. It is great for the top 20 guys in the league, but the next 250 get killed in that.

I don't know that I agree. It would be interesting. If you signed LeBron for $100M/year, you wouldn't have money to sign anyone else and LeBron wouldn't be up for that. I think it would create a dilemma for the quasi-stars. Teams would possibly feel forced to offer them insane salaries if they can't land top tier players and then they'd have to decide between those salaries and taking a big hit to play with the franchise guys.

Also, those top 20 players are probably responsible for 80% of the marketing and fan interest. They "deserve" to be making more.

They are making more, though not with their NBA salaries. Doesn't Harden have a 200M shoe deal?

Ring_Wanted wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:I think the NBA already does a pretty good job of giving players reasons to stay in small markets.

I can't really agree with this, although things have changed a little. Ask Houston, OKC (twice), Minni, Sacto or Memphis. The only reason small markets are not abandoned more frequently is because there is a right to match offer sheets, but after that, a well consolidated star can get basically the same money elsewhere if he is smart about the duration of his deals.

Who did those team lose without compensation? Durant is the only player I can think of.

Memphis has a competitive team despite being a city that nobody in any field wants to move to, with the possible exception of charity workers.
Minnesota has one of the best young teams in the NBA, and they got it by trading away star players for draft assets when they didn't have enough talent to compete.
Doesn't Houston have one of the most popular players on the planet? When were they a victim in free agency?
OKC chose to trade Harden and pay Ibaka, and they chose not to build a basketball culture that entices players to stay. They have drafted well, but otherwise they have not managed their roster well.
Sacramento is one of the worst run franchises in the NBA, and their star is a head case. The NBA should in no way make it easier for teams like the Kings.

Botom line for me: It's OK for teams with better management to get better players. That's part of the competition. The Warriors have done a great job, from drafting, to free agent signings, to coaching and team culture. Is it really bad if that results in them winning for a couple of years?

O_Gardino wrote:The Warriors have done a great job, from drafting, to free agent signings, to coaching and team culture. Is it really bad if that results in them winning for a couple of years?

Don't forget reneging on deals. They're great at that as well.

Superbone wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:The Warriors have done a great job, from drafting, to free agent signings, to coaching and team culture. Is it really bad if that results in them winning for a couple of years?

Don't forget reneging on deals. They're great at that as well.

I don't get the reference. What deal?

O_Gardino wrote:

Superbone wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:The Warriors have done a great job, from drafting, to free agent signings, to coaching and team culture. Is it really bad if that results in them winning for a couple of years?

Don't forget reneging on deals. They're great at that as well.

I don't get the reference. What deal?

Steph Curry for Amare.

Our draft room went crazy when GSW drafted Curry because they had a deal in place. It is well documented.

Superbone wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Superbone wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:The Warriors have done a great job, from drafting, to free agent signings, to coaching and team culture. Is it really bad if that results in them winning for a couple of years?

Don't forget reneging on deals. They're great at that as well.

I don't get the reference. What deal?

Steph Curry for Amare.

Our draft room went crazy when GSW drafted Curry because they had a deal in place. It is well documented.

I thought we just had a deal in place for their pick for Amare. We didn't know who would be there, and when Steph fell, they decided to keep it. Still bullshit, but not technically for Curry.

Indy wrote:

Superbone wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Superbone wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:The Warriors have done a great job, from drafting, to free agent signings, to coaching and team culture. Is it really bad if that results in them winning for a couple of years?

Don't forget reneging on deals. They're great at that as well.

I don't get the reference. What deal?

Steph Curry for Amare.

Our draft room went crazy when GSW drafted Curry because they had a deal in place. It is well documented.

I thought we just had a deal in place for their pick for Amare. We didn't know who would be there, and when Steph fell, they decided to keep it. Still bullshit, but not technically for Curry.

http://www.warriorsworld.net/2016/07/27 ... toudemire/

O_Gardino wrote:Who did those team lose without compensation? Durant is the only player I can think of.

Instead of Houston I wanted to say Orlando, my bad.

Maybe those teams got some kind of compensation for their lost star, but we know in the NBA a dollar is worth vastly more than a bunch of dimes. Howard (and obviously Shaq and Penny), Garnett, Vince Carter, Kevin Love, Pau Gasol, Melo etc. Cousins smells like he is this close to demand a trade, and absolutely going to bolt if he hits FA. Horford basically said he left Atlanta because he doesn't want to play in front of an empty arena, despite the Hawks being a winning and exciting team under coach Bud. GSW, now mighty, were ditched by Baron Davis for LA. Gary Payton wanted nothing to do with Milwaukee despite them trading Ray Allen in his prime for him.

There is a long list of stars who left smaller market teams and despite wins being an obvious factor, my belief is that if money was not basically equal once you reach that status, they would be more motivated to stay. In that sense, I think the NBA can do better via some CBA tweaks.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:Who did those team lose without compensation? Durant is the only player I can think of.

Instead of Houston I wanted to say Orlando, my bad.

Maybe those teams got some kind of compensation for their lost star, but we know in the NBA a dollar is worth vastly more than a bunch of dimes. Howard (and obviously Shaq and Penny), Garnett, Vince Carter, Kevin Love, Pau Gasol, Melo etc. Cousins smells like he is this close to demand a trade, and absolutely going to bolt if he hits FA. Horford basically said he left Atlanta because he doesn't want to play in front of an empty arena, despite the Hawks being a winning and exciting team under coach Bud. GSW, now mighty, were ditched by Baron Davis for LA. Gary Payton wanted nothing to do with Milwaukee despite them trading Ray Allen in his prime for him.

There is a long list of stars who left smaller market teams and despite wins being an obvious factor, my belief is that if money was not basically equal once you reach that status, they would be more motivated to stay. In that sense, I think the NBA can do better via some CBA tweaks.

Well, Orlando makes a lot more sense for your case than Houston.

Still, I'm not offended by any of those moves. All those guys, with the exception of Shaq and possibly Melo, left teams that weren't going anywhere. In half of those cases, the team is probably glad to see the guy leave. Sac is just stupid if they don't trade Cousins this season.

To me (and to most fans, I think), Boston is going to be far more interesting this season than either the Celtics or the Hawks were last season. I would rather the league have 6 or 8 very good teams than 10 or 12 ok ones. Do you really want teams with terrible management like Milwaukee and Sacramento to be able to hold on to special players and keep them from getting deep into the playoffs? Not me.

It's true that the knicks / lakers / celtics seems more likely to draw free agents. But with the Clips and Nets struggling, it's hard to argue that it is just about the size of the city. It has to do with the size of the market, which has a lot to do with how well the team has managed itself over it's history.

Superbone wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Superbone wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:The Warriors have done a great job, from drafting, to free agent signings, to coaching and team culture. Is it really bad if that results in them winning for a couple of years?

Don't forget reneging on deals. They're great at that as well.

I don't get the reference. What deal?

Steph Curry for Amare.

Our draft room went crazy when GSW drafted Curry because they had a deal in place. It is well documented.

Different ownership and management.

O_Gardino wrote:It doesn't matter to me at all, except that I hate hearing people talk s*** when a guy moves in free agency. I think the various ways teams can be built and disassembled adds a lot of interesting stuff to the off season.

The specifics are different than the old days, but the practice of players moving around is not any different. Ask Kareem, Wilt, Shaq. Moses Malone played for like 13 different teams. I mean, in the real old days, players jumped between leagues. Dudes like DRobinson and RMiller are rare in the history of the NBA.

Really interesting the way McDyess was lured back to the Nuggets, eh? Its just free agency.....

I think it's just as much right of the player to decide what's good for him as it is the right for the fans to decide whether they like such moves. I can understand both sides, equally.

Only thing I want to add to this is, I think at the end of the day, I will remember that Durant went to GSW to get his ring. That definitely affects his legacy in my mind, though I don't know if that is the case with other fans. Had he stayed in OKC and won one or two championships, he would have been among the best SFs ever. Now, he maxes out as Clyde Drexler, which still isn't bad, but he ranks lower than Wade or Dumars for me.

pickle wrote:I think it's just as much right of the player to decide what's good for him as it is the right for the fans to decide whether they like such moves. I can understand both sides, equally.

Only thing I want to add to this is, I think at the end of the day, I will remember that Durant went to GSW to get his ring. That definitely affects his legacy in my mind, though I don't know if that is the case with other fans. Had he stayed in OKC and won one or two championships, he would have been among the best SFs ever. Now, he maxes out as Clyde Drexler, which still isn't bad, but he ranks lower than Wade or Dumars for me.

First, the decision is 100% up to what the player is comfortable with. Unfortunately, there is less of a feeling of "this is my team through thick and thin" than there used to be, but then with greater mobility, that's probably inevitable. As a fan we may not like it, and we can complain about it, but such are the rules. Removing the maximum salary is about the only real way of giving the team with "Larry Bird Rights" a chance to retain him because they could theoretically outbid everyone else.

As for Durant's legacy, I see him well above Dumars - Joe was clearly not the top dog with the Pistons, or even close. The pecking order there was Isiah Thomas and then the guys like Bill Laimbeer and Joe Dumars. Durant is a four-time scoring champion on a team that was consistently a contender for the NBA Finals (actually playing in the Finals once). There's a pretty short list of guys who can claim that - Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan. So you have to put him on any list of the top 5 players in the league now.

I would have to agree that Joe isn't in the same league as KD. I would argue that Wade was arguably never the best player on his championship teams. I know he had amazing stats in the finals his first time with Shaq against the Mavs, but still. KD could be the best player on the Warriors next year. You never know.

Yeah I understand what you guys were saying, and I hesitated when I said Dumars. But I do place more value on a guy who sticks with his team... I'm disappointed that guys like Pierce and Wade left their original teams, and even more so with Durant. He chased a ring, that's all there is to it for me. He may be an alpha dog, but to me a top player has to have the competitiveness and confidence that he can take his supporting cast to the promised land. As soon as he gives up on that, his ranking drops in my book.

This exacerbated by the fact that I think with Adams' rapid development, OKC was the favorite to win the championship this year for me. At least on equal levels with the Warriors and Cavs. If he was stuck in a situation like AD, I could be more forgiving. In this case, I chose to err on the side of being mean.

At least KG was traded.

I don't even care Durant left. OKC sucks. It sucks worse than Texas which really fucking sucks (except for you Austin, you little oasis of sanity in an otherwise back asswards state.) Let the guy live his life. It sucks for OKC fans but they stole a team anyway and can all eat a... hot dog for all I care.

Hhaha for sure. Fans in Seattle must be overflowing with schadenfreude.

pickle wrote:Yeah I understand what you guys were saying, and I hesitated when I said Dumars. But I do place more value on a guy who sticks with his team... I'm disappointed that guys like Pierce and Wade left their original teams ...
...
At least KG was traded.

Wasn't Pierce also traded to the Nets?

pickle wrote:Yeah I understand what you guys were saying, and I hesitated when I said Dumars. But I do place more value on a guy who sticks with his team... I'm disappointed that guys like Pierce and Wade left their original teams, and even more so with Durant. He chased a ring, that's all there is to it for me. He may be an alpha dog, but to me a top player has to have the competitiveness and confidence that he can take his supporting cast to the promised land. As soon as he gives up on that, his ranking drops in my book.

This exacerbated by the fact that I think with Adams' rapid development, OKC was the favorite to win the championship this year for me. At least on equal levels with the Warriors and Cavs. If he was stuck in a situation like AD, I could be more forgiving. In this case, I chose to err on the side of being mean.

At least KG was traded.

Why is it honorable/have a higher value for a guy to stick with the team that drafted him? It isn't like the team wouldn't be willing to trade him if a better offer came along, so why is it bad for a player to take a better offer? Seems like a double standard to me, with the benefit going to billionaire owners instead of the workers.

Indy wrote:

pickle wrote:Yeah I understand what you guys were saying, and I hesitated when I said Dumars. But I do place more value on a guy who sticks with his team... I'm disappointed that guys like Pierce and Wade left their original teams, and even more so with Durant. He chased a ring, that's all there is to it for me. He may be an alpha dog, but to me a top player has to have the competitiveness and confidence that he can take his supporting cast to the promised land. As soon as he gives up on that, his ranking drops in my book.

This exacerbated by the fact that I think with Adams' rapid development, OKC was the favorite to win the championship this year for me. At least on equal levels with the Warriors and Cavs. If he was stuck in a situation like AD, I could be more forgiving. In this case, I chose to err on the side of being mean.

At least KG was traded.

Why is it honorable/have a higher value for a guy to stick with the team that drafted him? It isn't like the team wouldn't be willing to trade him if a better offer came along, so why is it bad for a player to take a better offer? Seems like a double standard to me, with the benefit going to billionaire owners instead of the workers.

It's our romantic vein. You value it as much if the team treats the lifer well and takes care of their side of the deal providing a decent team. It is so absurd that FOs end up alienating players like Kevin Garnett.