NBA Finals 2018: Do Or Die For The Cleveland LeBrons

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

To quote NBA Jam, the best arcade video game ever made, "That's the nail in the coffin!" 

[Jaime L]

15 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

This man does not fucking learn.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfcU8fwXcAAIlbI.jpg

I'm prepared to hear his argument. But I need all his thoughts laid out in a letter. Comic Sans font mandatory. 

[briantw]

2 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

This man does not fucking learn.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfcU8fwXcAAIlbI.jpg

Seems like that's taken wildly out of context.  He says eventually, which implies that LeBron has left and the Cavs are rebuilding.  I mean, do you honestly expect the guy to say, "Yeah, once LeBron is gone we're never going to contend again."

Come the fuck on.

[Red Tiger]

9 hours ago, briantw said:

Seems like that's taken wildly out of context.  He says eventually, which implies that LeBron has left and the Cavs are rebuilding.  I mean, do you honestly expect the guy to say, "Yeah, once LeBron is gone we're never going to contend again."

Come the fuck on.

Yeah, I know. Point remains.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I was reading some NBA rumors this morning, and now Stephen A. Smith is saying similar things. The speculation is LeBron is going to the Lakers with either Chris Paul or Paul George, and if all three are willing to take an under market value contract, all three could go there. Furthermore, they’ll try and flip some of their young players, which I read as Ingram and Ball, for a third or fourth All-Star. If they can pull this off, the Warriors will absolutely be pushed.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

44 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I was reading some NBA rumors this morning, and now Stephen A. Smith is saying similar things. The speculation is LeBron is going to the Lakers with either Chris Paul or Paul George, and if all three are willing to take an under market value contract, all three could go there. Furthermore, they’ll try and flip some of their young players, which I read as Ingram and Ball, for a third or fourth All-Star. If they can pull this off, the Warriors will absolutely be pushed.

As if the Lakers and their fans were not already insufferable... 

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

As if the Lakers and their fans were not already insufferable... 

It's frustrating that so many of Lebron's reasonable free agency options are to my least favorite teams. 

[DanteGabriel]

Yeah, all my good will for LeBron goes up in smoke if he goes to the fucking Lakers.

[sperry]

Silver is not taking nearly enough shit for what is happening under his watch. He took over in 2014, and the league is not in a better place than it was when he did.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, sperry said:

Silver is not taking nearly enough shit for what is happening under his watch. He took over in 2014, and the league is not in a better place than it was when he did.

The NBA definitely needs to do something about these superteams.  Basketball always struggles with the haves and the have-nots, but the existing financial incentives are completely screwed up.  It seems like something where the Max contract is 30% of the team salary cap, and then the next max contract a team could offer is 25%, and then 20%, etc, would help tamp down on collecting too much talent on one team, because NBA All-Stars are never going to be happy to have to take less money and admit they are second/third banana. 

[sperry]

14 minutes ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

The NBA definitely needs to do something about these superteams.  Basketball always struggles with the haves and the have-nots, but the existing financial incentives are completely screwed up.  It seems like something where the Max contract is 30% of the team salary cap, and then the next max contract a team could offer is 25%, and then 20%, etc, would help tamp down on collecting too much talent on one team, because NBA All-Stars are never going to be happy to have to take less money and admit they are second/third banana. 

 

They've got to figure something out. There's so much amazing talent in the league right now. These guys should be battling it out, not aggregating into 3-4 super teams.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

It seems like something where the Max contract is 30% of the team salary cap, and then the next max contract a team could offer is 25%, and then 20%, etc, would help tamp down on collecting too much talent on one team, because NBA All-Stars are never going to be happy to have to take less money and admit they are second/third banana.

I'm not sure what the answer is - although I suspect the Player's Association would balk at restricting a team to only one max contract.  Here's an interesting article on the problem - although it too does not provide a solution:

Quote

Instead of abolishing the max altogether, the players’ union wound up negotiating other changes, including a new set of possible max contracts. A free agent or designated rookie could now earn up to 25 percent of the cap, designated rookies or veterans could now earn up to 30 percent if they hit certain criteria, and superstar players that hit certain qualifications are eligible for the designated veteran player extension, or the “supermax,” which can be up to 35 percent of the cap but can only be given by the team that drafted the player. The latter two were similar in the previous CBA, while the supermax is a brand-new creation.

But the new menu of max offerings isn’t exactly working as intended. The whole point of these changes, from the owners’ POV, was to help teams keep star players by giving them greater financial incentive to stay, thus preventing another scenario like Durant going to the Warriors. But totally deserving candidates, like Paul George and Gordon Hayward, didn’t meet the qualifications for the supermax; George would’ve wanted out anyway, and Hayward walked even with Utah offering an extra year of financial security. The Kings didn’t want to pay Cousins more than $200 million, so they traded him. And Griffin, at “only” 30 percent of the cap, was an injury and financial risk the Clippers weren’t willing to take.

Players can earn way more money than ever before from the team that drafted them. But that doesn’t mean owners will want to spend it, nor that players will want to take it. The biggest issue, however, is that signing such deals has made it it tremendously difficult to build a title-contending team around that player.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Commissioner Tywin already fixed this, but nobody would listen. Fixing this would be easy. First, you eliminate max contracts. Second, you put hard floors for contracts based on career achievements (number of times being an All-Star, All-NBA, MVP, etc.). Finally, no player can accept a contract that’s valued at less than 75% of another contract they’ve been offered by a team they’ve indicated they’d consider signing with. That fixes everything.

[DMC]

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Commissioner Tywin already fixed this, but nobody would listen. Fixing this would be easy. First, you eliminate max contracts. Second, you put hard floors for contracts based on career achievements (number of times being an All-Star, All-NBA, MVP, etc.). Finally, no player can accept a contract that’s valued at less than 75% of another contract they’ve been offered by a team they’ve indicated they’d consider signing with. That fixes everything.

Eliminating max contracts would just explode the salaries of the NBA's elite.  That's why the max was instituted in the first place - Jordan was making $33 million in 1998 when the salary cap was $27 million and the average payroll was $32.7 million.  I don't see that how that would solve the problem at all.

[sperry]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Commissioner Tywin already fixed this, but nobody would listen. Fixing this would be easy. First, you eliminate max contracts. Second, you put hard floors for contracts based on career achievements (number of times being an All-Star, All-NBA, MVP, etc.). Finally, no player can accept a contract that’s valued at less than 75% of another contract they’ve been offered by a team they’ve indicated they’d consider signing with. That fixes everything.

 

Your 2 and 3 are absolutely things that should happen. Because that counters something else, which is a MAJOR problem which is not being talked about.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23532594/how-kevin-durant-building-silicon-valley-empire

If you can get through the nausea induced by Kevin Durant pretending he's a Venture Capitalist, you'll get to the heart of this issue: the Warriors are owned by and surrounded by elite venture capitalists, and they are cherry picking deals for guys like Durant to be able to participate in. It's not a surprise that he's willing to sign for less money, when the owners of the team are getting him access to slam dunk venture capital investments that random investors would have no shot at participating in, even if they had the cash. It's a serious problem, and one that I'm surprised the other owners aren't pitching a fit about.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, sperry said:

If you can get through the nausea induced by Kevin Durant pretending he's a Venture Capitalist

Are you saying that Kevin Durant's year at University of Texas did not prepare him to compete with Warren Buffett?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

Eliminating max contracts would just explode the salaries of the NBA's elite.  That's why the max was instituted in the first place - Jordan was making $33 million in 1998 when the salary cap was $27 million and the average payroll was $32.7 million.  I don't see that how that would solve the problem at all.

That the point though. It forces the owners to be more responsible, and if they want to blow their load on one guy, the rest of the team would suffer. If there was no max and hard floors, Golden State, and teams like them, would not be able to exist for more than a few seasons. If Durant and Curry require 80 of your salary cap, say good bye to Klay, Draymond and their good bench players. This system would for teams to decide between stars, leading to more teams with stars and thus a better overall quality of basketball and a more competitive landscape across the league.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Your 2 and 3 are absolutely things that should happen. Because that counters something else, which is a MAJOR problem which is not being talked about.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23532594/how-kevin-durant-building-silicon-valley-empire

If you can get through the nausea induced by Kevin Durant pretending he's a Venture Capitalist, you'll get to the heart of this issue: the Warriors are owned by and surrounded by elite venture capitalists, and they are cherry picking deals for guys like Durant to be able to participate in. It's not a surprise that he's willing to sign for less money, when the owners of the team are getting him access to slam dunk venture capital investments that random investors would have no shot at participating in, even if they had the cash. It's a serious problem, and one that I'm surprised the other owners aren't pitching a fit about.

I’ve always wondered about this, and how you can prevent it without obstructing their legitimate business interests. It’s hard to see how it would hold up in any court, and you it creates a horrific imbalance. Furthermore, how do we handle post-career sweetheart deals? Scenario:

Kraft: Hey Tommy, take a home town deal.

Brady: Guarantee me part ownership after I retire.

Kraft: Deal, and in the meantime, I’d like to introduce you Dick and Harry, their top guys on Wall St. But of course in no way am I trying to funnel extra money to you outside of your contract.

They wink at each other.

Honestly I’ve always suspected this goes on with elite players. And I have no idea how you prevent it.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

That the point though. It forces the owners to be more responsible, and if they want to blow their load on one guy, the rest of the team would suffer. If there was no max and hard floors, Golden State, and teams like them, would not be able to exist for more than a few seasons. If Durant and Curry require 80 of your salary cap, say good bye to Klay, Draymond and their good bench players. This system would for teams to decide between stars, leading to more teams with stars and thus a better overall quality of basketball and a more competitive landscape across the league.

I think all it would do is increase the inequality between player salaries - as in the top players would get shitloads of money while mid-level players would get relative peanuts.  That doesn't seem to be much of a solution inasmuch as just redistributing wealth to the top guys.  Also, let's not really measure it by the salary cap but rather the luxury tax - that's the actual cap that owners are averse to going too much over (whereas the salary cap has always been rather easily circumvented).  One solution is to do what the MLB just did - make going over the luxury tax incredibly punitive (especially frequently/consistently going over).  However, I have a problem with this because in general it tends to lead to depressing salaries and players getting a smaller piece of the revenue pie, which sucks, because fuck the owners.

[Vin]

I can understand the frustrations that these super teams bring but as a sixers fan who's team is on the cusp of being pretty good after years of tanking (blessed be the process and hallowed be its' arbiter Sam hinkie ) , can you maybe wait a bit on blowing up the system ? 

Personally it's the fact that average players are getting huge contrasts that bothers me and hurts teams most .

BTW any truth to the LeBron spurs rumours ? I'm having trouble picturing LeBron with a serious coach who stands up-to him and pop is nothing if not serious.