NBA Offseason: The Draft, Free Agency and Trade Rumors Oh My!

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, sperry said:

Pau Gasol is a really good defensive player, and had a strong defensive season least year.

 

 

There are more teams that would want this than teams that wouldn't want it.

 

La Lakers, La Clippers, Chicago, New York, Brooklyn, Boston, Golden State, San Antonio would likely be in favor. Maybe Dallas, maybe Houston (although neither of those teams have accomplished things in FA that would make you believe that they should be in favor). 

 

The rest of the franchises have to wonder how they will ever keep a superstar player, and know that they won't ever obtain one in free agency. Everybody knows that guys like Damian Lillard, DeMarcus Cousins, Anthony Davis, and Paul George will be bolting for greener pastures when they start hitting UFA over the next few seasons. 

Sure. But anything the owners can't present a united front on, they have no chance of getting into the CBA if the players are completely opposed. And the players would be completely opposed. That makes this different from stuff like revenue allocation, since all owners are in favor of more money going to them.

[Maithanet]

29 minutes ago, Fez said:

I don't see this happening. The players would be completely opposed and most of the large market owners would be too, so I don't think there's a way for that to show up in the CBA.

What could happen would be an agreement to keep a salary cap but eliminate contract size restrictions (at least on dollars, maybe keep the years limit). It would be a lot harder to put together superteams if teams that aren't going down that path can say to players they really want 'hey, we'll pay you double what they can."

I agree it is unlikely.  The frustrating thing about it is that the NBA needs it a lot more than the NFL does.  In football, a single player (even a quarterback) cannot turn a team from mediocre to champ.  If NFL players wanted to form a superteam, even assuming a few stars were willing to take a modest pay cut, they would still run out of money long before the roster was completed.  At best you could make a talented team better, but you couldn't construct a prohibitive favorite in the NFL (and that is a big part of what makes the NFL great).

In contrast, NBA careers are longer, a single player leaving can destroy a franchise, and the money a player can make from endorsements changes the calculus of star players in a huge way.  Even if Milwaukee could offer a star player $50 million, it would still probably be worth it to take $25 million to play in a big market.  Doubly so if the big market team is going on deep playoff runs every year to improve the player's profile. 

Something like each team having one franchise tag would really help with competitive balance, and that would in turn help the league.  I understand that the Lakers, Knicks and Heat wouldn't want to give up their advantage, but I think that the owners would be wise to fight for this.  You could make it really generous to the player, like it can only be offered at the same time as a max contract, and the player gets to choose between a 1 year deal for 125% of the "max" otherwise allowable or a Max Contract.  And it would then have escalators like the NFL, where if you use the franchise tag a second year, it goes up to 150% and then 175%, etc. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Sounds like Wade to Cleveland might actually happen. He turned down 2 years, $40 million from the Heat. 

[sperry]

15 minutes ago, Fez said:

Sure. But anything the owners can't present a united front on, they have no chance of getting into the CBA if the players are completely opposed. And the players would be completely opposed. That makes this different from stuff like revenue allocation, since all owners are in favor of more money going to them.

 

Maybe. There are plenty of provisions designed to help small market teams already in existence, though. Stuff like Bird Rights are supposed to provide financial incentive to players to stick with the teams that drafted them.  The problem is, for the game's true superstars who are pulling in $50 million a year in endoresements, a few million year on their contract doesn't matter.

 

The owners know that competitive balance is good for the league. They also have the NFL as a shining example that it doesn't matter where your elite franchises are, if you put a good product on display people are going to eat it up. Parity is a good thing.

[Relic]

2 hours ago, Calibandar said:

Another thing I now wonder about: Does OKC still make the Ibaka trade a week before Duran'ts free agency, if they know he's going?

I would say no, don't do it. But reading today that Sam Presti might have had an idea that this might happen, I actually think he would have made that trade anyway. 

Of course they do. It's a much better trade now than it was then, in hindsight. OKC is no longer a contender, so they did the best thing they could do if they want to rebuild. They got multiple players for one dude who was probably not going to resign next year. They got younger, cheaper, and acquired good first round draft pick too. Great trade for them. 

[David Selig]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

Barnes was a good player, despite the playoff meltdown.

 

If any recall, before James Harden was traded to Houston, he was absolutely atrocious in the NBA finals against Miami.  It was a very Harrison Barnes-esque performance.  He obviously showed that that was a fluke.  Barnes isn't James Harden, but he's a damn good player and I think he's worth what he was paid. That being said, obviously that's not a loss for the Warriors since Durant is a big upgrade over him.

Harden had a crazy scoring efficiency all season and his per minute stats were great in 2012. None of this applies to Barnes. Barnes has been a slightly average player his whole career and hasn't improved at all in his last few seasons. No way he's worth the max.

[Relic]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

Pau Gasol is a really good defensive player, and had a strong defensive season least year.

No, he isn't. He's an ok (at best) rim protector, but he's got zero lateral quickness, and can;t switch screens. Since switching is how you play defense in this current version of the NBA, and since he's got plodding speed in transition at best, Gasol's defensive value is nearly zero. 

If you don't believe me just go look at some analytics. 

[David Selig]

Quote

The owners know that competitive balance is good for the league.

 

Do they? NBA took off in popularity in the early 80s when the Lakers and Celtics dominated with their stacked teams. The Jordan dominance in the 90s was great for the league too. And the Heat superteam did wonders for the ratings.

 

[Tinker]

4 minutes ago, David Selig said:

 

Do they? NBA took off in popularity in the early 80s when the Lakers and Celtics dominated with their stacked teams. The Jordan dominance in the 90s was great for the league too. And the Heat superteam did wonders for the ratings.

 

The Warriors got great ratings this year as well which is very good for the league 

[sperry]

8 minutes ago, Relic said:

No, he isn't. He's an ok (at best) rim protector, but he's got zero lateral quickness, and can;t switch screens. Since switching is how you play defense in this current version of the NBA, and since he's got plodding speed in transition at best, Gasol's defensive value is nearly zero. 

If you don't believe me just go look at some analytics. 

 

Gasol was a big net positive in both Defensive RPM and and defensive win shares this past season.

[Relic]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

Gasol was a big net positive in both Defensive RPM and and defensive win shares this past season.

huh, so he does. I guess those numbers reflect defensive rebounding and blocks, which Gasol DOES get. Altho he team gets out rebounded with him on the floor. And he CAN'T switch, so he can't play against most lineups GS will trot out. 

[sperry]

5 minutes ago, Relic said:

huh, so he does. I guess those numbers reflect defensive rebounding and blocks, which Gasol DOES get. Altho he team gets out rebounded with him on the floor. And he CAN'T switch, so he can't play against most lineups GS will trot out. 

 

I'm not sure he needs to switch since he can protect the rim. Parker, Green, Leonard, Aldridge, Gasol lineup doesn't just get eviscreated defensively by the Warriors, and can put some major strain on a Warriors "death" lineup.

 

This is going to be an interesting season. The Warriors have gone all in on small ball, while their competition in the West have some pretty damn good frontcourts. There is a decent chance that the Warriors play in their first 3 playoff rounds:  New Orleans or Minnesota in round 1, LA Clippers, Memphis, or OKC in round 2, SA in the WFC. That is a lot of really good big men you're facing with basically zero true post players in your rotation.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

There are only two things that could stop this team: bad chemistry and injuries.  Kerr will need to make sure chemistry doesn't fall apart and frankly I think that Kerr did a bad job last year on the whole.  I think the choice to go for 73 wins was a mistake and it left the starters mentally and physically exhausted.  Then in the playoffs, he was more or less outcoached by both Donovan and Lue.  I think that a lot of Kerr's "genius" is just the decision to let Curry being overwhelmingly good at basketball. 

 Yeah, I don't think Kerr did a bad job so much as this team more or less runs itself. They had so little resistance during the course of the season that Kerr and the coaching staff really don't have to do much more than minor tweaks. I agree that he was outcoached by Donovan and Lue. Once Bogut went out in Game 5, it seemed like he had no answer for replacing him in the rotation. I was listening to Simmon's last podcast last night, and he made the fair point that continuing to play Ezeli and Barnes as much as he did in Game 7 was a bad mistake. Why he didn't give Speights and Barbosa some more minutes there was beyond me.   

[Maithanet]

14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Yeah, I don't think Kerr did a bad job so much as this team more or less runs itself. They had so little resistance during the course of the season that Kerr and the coaching staff really don't have to do much more than minor tweaks. I agree that he was outcoached by Donovan and Lue. Once Bogut went out in Game 5, it seemed like he had no answer for replacing him in the rotation. I was listening to Simmon's last podcast last night, and he made the fair point that continuing to play Ezeli and Barnes as much as he did in Game 7 was a bad mistake. Why he didn't give Speights and Barbosa some more minutes there was beyond me.   

Playing Ezili late in the 4th quarter may have cost the Warriors the series, as it allowed Lebron to get 5 easy points and tie the game.  I assume Kerr was playing Barnes for his defense, although he really isn't a good enough defender to make up for being a complete ghost on offense.  Losing Bogut meant that Kerr had a lot fewer options in terms of defensive rotation, and he didn't seem to have the confidence to put in his offense-first bench guys like Barbosa and Speights.