NBA Finals 2018: Do Or Die For The Cleveland LeBrons

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

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.

First off you’re right about going by the luxury tax and I agree with your assessment. I also agree that it would redistribute the wealth, but who cares? LeBron is absolute worth 2/3’s of what you can pay the players, and frankly, there are a lot of guys who are horrifically overpaid. Doing this would make the contracts reflect players actual value.

There’s one other thing, why not dump the salary cap entirely? I come from a city that’s seen as a small market, and historically I would have been against it, but teams are flush with cash right now and they can afford it, and if you can’t, sell your damn team to someone who can.

[DMC]

BTW, the Warriors are able to exist because Thompson and Green (and Durant) signed below market deals.  There's not much any CBA can do about that - your (Tywin's) third rule would help alleviate it, but Thompson signed an extension.  How could the NBA compare competing offers in that case?  Are extensions not allowed?

5 minutes ago, Vin said:

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 ? 

LOL.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I also agree that it would redistribute the wealth, but who cares?

Well, I can think of about 90% of NBA players that would care.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

and frankly, there are a lot of guys who are horrifically overpaid. Doing this would make the contracts reflect players actual value.

First, yes, as that Ringer article noted there's likely to be a market correction to the ridiculous contracts that were handed out - the the Magic giving Biyombo $18 million a year - the year the cap skyrocketed.  Second, I strongly disagree - it would actually lead to undervaluing role players (or even 2nd and 3rd options on many teams) while overvaluing the top 10-20 guys.  While LeBron may be worth that much, there's only one LeBron, and the other top guys would demand and likely get similarly exorbitant salaries without a max.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I come from a city that’s seen as a small market, and historically I would have been against it, but teams are flush with cash right now and they can afford it, and if you can’t, sell your damn team to someone who can.

One very good thing about the CBA - and why the NBA is far more equitable than the NFL and MLB when it comes to players getting a (somewhat) fair piece of the pie vis-a-vis the owners - is because the cap is set as a percentage of the NBA's overall revenue (which in turn helps in sure the players will get that at least that percentage).  I wouldn't wanna fuck with that.

The problem that would arise wouldn't be teams/owners not being able to afford salaries, but rather them hoarding the profits like we see in the MLB with small market teams.

[James Arryn]

The 80’s were basically a super-team era dominated by the Lakers and Celtics and briefly the Sixers, and it’s considered a Golden Age. Then we had the Bulls, another huge fuck you to parity, another Golden Age.

I do not understand why stacked teams built by management choices are fine, but stacked teams built by player choices are the end of times. It’s like how fans almost always side with management in labour disputes, feeling little sympathy for crying ‘millionaires’, but apparently comfortable with the plight of the billionaires. 

[sperry]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

 

Best you can do is the salary floors you suggested. I.e. there is no way for Kevin Durant to be making a salary less than the max. I mean it's still gonna be a ridiculously unfair advantage in attracting free agents, but at least it puts a cap on how many stars you can load on to your team.

 

The NFL does a lot of things poorly, but it does parity and protecting small market franchises the right way. Small markets can hang on their quarterbacks. In an NBA where you have to collaborate with a bunch of stars to have a chance at a title, and the owners of the big city franchises can offer their players ridiculous investment opportunities that will dwarf their actual compensation as players, the small markets are going to have next to zero chance to keep their star players or to win championships. This is exacerbated by the fact that the league has cracked down on tanking by reducing lottery odds, which was the one path small markets had to actually accumulating enough talent to win.

[Rhom]

 

This from the elder Simmons.  I don't see any way that Boogie would agree to a sign and trade that sends him to a Lebron-less Cleveland, but the thought of LBJ, The Brow, Holliday, and maybe Rondo together is intriguing to me.

Hell, it'd be worth it for all of us especially if they kept Rondo.  Would love to see him and James go at it.  Two of the smartest basketball IQs ever, but hard to get along with too.

 

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I do not understand why stacked teams built by management choices are fine, but stacked teams built by player choices are the end of times. It’s like how fans almost always side with management in labour disputes, feeling little sympathy for crying ‘millionaires’, but apparently comfortable with the plight of the billionaires.

I mean, I get why people would argue "management choices" actually means sound team management is rewarded, but yes, I entirely agree this is a major problem with fandom - in all sports.  Don't know if you realize it Ty, but the line of argument you're making is actually fairly GOP/Libertarian boilerplate. 

20 minutes ago, sperry said:

The NFL does a lot of things poorly, but it does parity and protecting small market franchises the right way. Small markets can hang on their quarterbacks.

Yeah the NBA instituting a franchise tag is an interesting idea to entertain.

6 minutes ago, Rhom said:

I don't see any way that Boogie would agree to a sign and trade that sends him to a Lebron-less Cleveland, but the thought of LBJ, The Brow, Holliday, and maybe Rondo together is intriguing to me.

Don't see it happening either, but I'd love to see James and Davis team-up.  That'd be my favorite destination for James (well, other than Orlando which obviously would never...ok, stop laughing!)

[briantw]

1 hour ago, Vin said:

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.

Hard to see LeBron and Pop co-existing.  The Spurs are a system team and LeBron is the type of player who has more or less refused to do anything other than play his own style for the entirety of his career.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

37 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

BTW, the Warriors are able to exist because Thompson and Green (and Durant) signed below market deals.  There's not much any CBA can do about that - your (Tywin's) third rule would help alleviate it, but Thompson signed an extension.  How could the NBA compare competing offers in that case?  Are extensions not allowed?

The second would also help with that. I think extensions on rookie deals are fine. There has to be incentives for keeping players, and this basically means you can keep a guy you draft for 8-9 years if you want to. I more worried about free agents joining already loaded teams on the cheap. If LeBron wants to sign a max deal with Philly, that's cool, but Durant should be the last guy to do what he did (and I say that knowing I defended his move. Yes, I am a hypocrite). 

Quote

Well, I can think of about 90% of NBA players that would care.

It may be callous, but 

Quote

Second, I strongly disagree - it would actually lead to undervaluing role players (or even 2nd and 3rd options on many teams) while overvaluing the top 10-20 guys.  While LeBron may be worth that much, there's only one LeBron, and the other top guys would demand and likely get similarly exorbitant salaries without a max.

And guess what, that's on the owners and the GMs. I feel like a lot of the financial rules are designed to protect these people from themselves. 

Quote

One very good thing about the CBA - and why the NBA is far more equitable than the NFL and MLB when it comes to players getting a (somewhat) fair piece of the pie vis-a-vis the owners - is because the cap is set as a percentage of the NBA's overall revenue (which in turn helps in sure the players will get that at least that percentage).  I wouldn't wanna fuck with that.

The problem that would arise wouldn't be teams/owners not being able to afford salaries, but rather them hoarding the profits like we see in the MLB with small market teams.

Hmm, that's interesting. Honestly I need to read up more on how the rules have changed.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

The 80’s were basically a super-team era dominated by the Lakers and Celtics and briefly the Sixers, and it’s considered a Golden Age. Then we had the Bulls, another huge fuck you to parity, another Golden Age.

I do not understand why stacked teams built by management choices are fine, but stacked teams built by player choices are the end of times. It’s like how fans almost always side with management in labour disputes, feeling little sympathy for crying ‘millionaires’, but apparently comfortable with the plight of the billionaires. 

My best guess is that the Warriors feel different for most fans because there's a lack of doubt. We all know how it's going to end. My love of beautiful basketball trumps my disappointment for the lack of doubt, but that's beginning to change as the Warriors blow people out. 

[Vin]

3 minutes ago, briantw said:

Hard to see LeBron and Pop co-existing.  The Spurs are a system team and LeBron is the type of player who has more or less refused to do anything other than play his own style for the entirety of his career.

I agree completely.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Best you can do is the salary floors you suggested. I.e. there is no way for Kevin Durant to be making a salary less than the max. I mean it's still gonna be a ridiculously unfair advantage in attracting free agents, but at least it puts a cap on how many stars you can load on to your team.

I'm not sure guys should be forced to take the max, but they should be forced to take a percentage of what another team is willing to offer. I put out the 75% as a feeler, but I'd be open to raising it based on career accomplishments.  

Quote

The NFL does a lot of things poorly, but it does parity and protecting small market franchises the right way. Small markets can hang on their quarterbacks. In an NBA where you have to collaborate with a bunch of stars to have a chance at a title, and the owners of the big city franchises can offer their players ridiculous investment opportunities that will dwarf their actual compensation as players, the small markets are going to have next to zero chance to keep their star players or to win championships. This is exacerbated by the fact that the league has cracked down on tanking by reducing lottery odds, which was the one path small markets had to actually accumulating enough talent to win.

You're the lawyer here, would it be legal to force players to disclose their off the court investments and the like? I'm not saying make them public, but so the league can investigate shady looking deals. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, briantw said:

Hard to see LeBron and Pop co-existing.  The Spurs are a system team and LeBron is the type of player who has more or less refused to do anything other than play his own style for the entirety of his career.

I could see LeBron being willing to do so at this juncture in his career.  While I know he's always expressed admiration for Coach K, hasn't he expressed similar admiration for Pop as well?  The problem, however, is I don't see James viewing the Spurs as sufficiently competitive without Leonard, who would probably be traded for him.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The second would also help with that. I think extensions on rookie deals are fine. There has to be incentives for keeping players, and this basically means you can keep a guy you draft for 8-9 years if you want to.

Wait, isn't the second a salary floor for players?  How does that help with this (although in general I agree with having a floor)?  

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If LeBron wants to sign a max deal with Philly, that's cool, but Durant should be the last guy to do what he did (and I say that knowing I defended his move. Yes, I am a hypocrite).

Well, it should be noted that LeBron/Wade/Bosh basically did the same thing Durant did in order to all fit in Miami.  Again, if players are willing to sign below-market deals, it's hard for any CBA to address this - would Durant's deal even violate your 75% rule?

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And guess what, that's on the owners and the GMs. I feel like a lot of the financial rules are designed to protect these people from themselves. 

It's very hard to be contending without having at least one top 20 player in the league, so no, I don't think that'd be entirely on the owners/GMs.

[briantw]

3 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

I could see LeBron being willing to do so at this juncture in his career.  While I know he's always expressed admiration for Coach K, hasn't he expressed similar admiration for Pop as well?  The problem, however, is I don't see James viewing the Spurs as sufficiently competitive without Leonard, who would probably be traded for him.

All I know is that LeBron is fifteen years into his career, shows little sign of declining, and has basically ran his own system on every team he's been on.  I'd imagine that's why his teams tend to be bad when he's off the court.  When your entire system is designed around one guy, you're gonna struggle when that guy sits or gets hurt.  

At any rate, while LeBron has certainly expressed admiration for Pop (which makes sense, as Pop is probably the greatest NBA coach of all time), I'm not sure that means he'd be willing or able to co-exist in the Spurs' system long-term.  If he went there, I'd give it about two months before LeBron starts to get sick of Pop calling him out whenever he fucks up and would do his typical power struggle.  He did it with the Heat.  He did it with the Cavs.  It's just who he is.  He's a drama queen, and if he's not getting exactly what he wants, he'll undermine coach and front office.  He did it with the Cavs this year by intentionally throwing games the entire month of February.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, briantw said:

At any rate, while LeBron has certainly expressed admiration for Pop (which makes sense, as Pop is probably the greatest NBA coach of all time), I'm not sure that means he'd be willing or able to co-exist in the Spurs' system long-term.  If he went there, I'd give it about two months before LeBron starts to get sick of Pop calling him out whenever he fucks up and would do his typical power struggle.  He did it with the Heat.  He did it with the Cavs.  It's just who he is.  He's a drama queen, and if he's not getting exactly what he wants, he'll undermine coach and front office.  He did it with the Cavs this year by intentionally throwing games the entire month of February.

Yeah I agree with this, but I think it's still conceivable - if the Spurs could figure out a way to still keep Leonard (although I don't think that's possible).  He could sign a 1+1 deal - I wouldn't be surprised if he does this if he's able to (rather than having to opt-in and traded) regardless to continue to keep his options open.  Dude has enough money.

15 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

Again, if players are willing to sign below-market deals, it's hard for any CBA to address this - would Durant's deal even violate your 75% rule?

Quoting myself here rather than editing because I looked into it - Durant's 2016-17 salary with the Warriors was $26.5 million while according to this the max he could sign with a non-OKC team would have been $28.4 million.  So no, the 75% rule wouldn't have approached preventing Durant from signing with GS.  ETA:  Er, should have read that better, sorry - he could have signed a 1+1 deal with a non-OKC team for a two year average of $32.6 million.  As his average in the two years with GS was 25.75, that divided by 32.6 is 79%.  So, close!  But still no cigar.

[briantw]

2 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

Yeah I agree with this, but I think it's still conceivable - if the Spurs could figure out a way to still keep Leonard (although I don't think that's possible).  He could sign a 1+1 deal - I wouldn't be surprised if he does this if he's able to (rather than having to opt-in and traded) regardless to continue to keep his options open.  Dude has enough money.

It's definitely conceivable.  I just think it's a situation where it'll look good on paper, but eventually the two will clash.  I don't think LeBron wants a coach like Pop who actually holds him accountable.  If he did, he wouldn't have spent so much effort getting a lame duck like Lue in charge of his team.

[sperry]

52 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

The 80’s were basically a super-team era dominated by the Lakers and Celtics and briefly the Sixers, and it’s considered a Golden Age. Then we had the Bulls, another huge fuck you to parity, another Golden Age.

I do not understand why stacked teams built by management choices are fine, but stacked teams built by player choices are the end of times. It’s like how fans almost always side with management in labour disputes, feeling little sympathy for crying ‘millionaires’, but apparently comfortable with the plight of the billionaires. 

 

The main thing is competition, and I'm not sure why you are having so much difficulty understanding it. The league was great in 2015 and 2016, when the Warriors were the best team, but had legitimate competition from Cleveland, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, etc. Then Kevin Durant joined the team, and the competition was gone. The outcome of this past season was a foregone conclusion. Unless one team scoops up a ton of other superstars (which also isn't good for the game, long term), it will be a foregone conclusion for as long as that big 4 remains in tact. Even when the Heat team got together and became the villains of the league, the teams they faced off with in the finals had a legitimate shot.

 

The other reason it's not celebrated, is because of how it came to be. The original Warriors felt like a team that was put together due to the smarts of the front office. They snagged Curry, Klay, and Green when plenty of other franchises had a shot at drafting those guys and passed on the opportunity. It actually was pretty inspiring, as every team's franchise looked at the Warriors and OKC and felt like "wow, if we make the right draft picks, that could be us." Then the league's second best player left his excellent situation in OKC to join the already best team in the league, and it was over. The fans of other franchises realized that the path to legit competitiveness had been blocked by that one highly uncompetitive move.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

I could see LeBron being willing to do so at this juncture in his career.  While I know he's always expressed admiration for Coach K, hasn't he expressed similar admiration for Pop as well?  The problem, however, is I don't see James viewing the Spurs as sufficiently competitive without Leonard, who would probably be traded for him.

Yes, he has a great deal of admiration for Pop. It's the only reason he'd go to the Spurs. That said, can we count on Pop hanging around much longer? The death of his wife could make him want to retire and spend time with family and friends (being a coach could also keep his mind away from his lose, so it goes both ways.)

Quote

Wait, isn't the second a salary floor for players?  How does that help with this (although in general I agree with having a floor)?  

In general it would help prevent super teams, especially with stack high end role players. Perhaps there was a miscommunication.

Quote

Well, it should be noted that LeBron/Wade/Bosh basically did the same thing Durant did in order to all fit in Miami.  Again, if players are willing to sign below-market deals, it's hard for any CBA to address this - would Durant's deal even violate your 75% rule?

I know, and a lot of people thought it ruined the league back then (it clearly didn't). And going off the numbers I heard before, I believe it would. I thought I heard KD could sign a deal that would average out at $40m a year, so making $25m would. Also, 75% should work as a base, allowing that number to grow with the number of individual achievements one has (say +1% per All-Star appearances, +3% per All-NBA nods and +10% for each MVP you 've won).

Quote

It's very hard to be contending without having at least one top 20 player in the league, so no, I don't think that'd be entirely on the owners/GMs.

True, but the key ti winning in any salary capped league is not just having talent, but having it at value. Offering bad value contracts is on the front office. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, briantw said:

It's definitely conceivable.  I just think it's a situation where it'll look good on paper, but eventually the two will clash.  I don't think LeBron wants a coach like Pop who actually holds him accountable.  If he did, he wouldn't have spent so much effort getting a lame duck like Lue in charge of his team.

His record with coaches certainly would suggest this, granted.  I just think at this point he's gonna prioritize winning while he can much more so than he ever has - even than when going to Miami where it was also kinda because he wanted to play with his friends.  Wouldn't be surprised if in the next 2-3 years he essentially acts as a mercenary looking for the best opportunity to win (I think there was a Ringer article about this as well a few weeks back).

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In general it would help prevent super teams, especially with stack high end role players. Perhaps there was a miscommunication.

Not really a miscommunication, but perhaps different conceptions of what the salary floor would be - I don't think it'd be high enough (or should be) to have much of an effect on preventing super teams.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I thought I heard KD could sign a deal that would average out at $40m a year, so making $25m would.

He could sign for $40m a year with OKC, but not with other teams (see my edit above for how much he could sign elsewhere).  Are you saying the standard is how much the player can sign with his previous team (which has been designed to be higher for awhile now)?  Because if so, that's essentially a franchise tag-lite.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

True, but the key ti winning in any salary capped league is not just having talent, but having it at value.

Well, that's true of any sport, salary cap or no - look at how much having team control is valued in the MLB.

[sperry]

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure guys should be forced to take the max, but they should be forced to take a percentage of what another team is willing to offer. I put out the 75% as a feeler, but I'd be open to raising it based on career accomplishments.  

You're the lawyer here, would it be legal to force players to disclose their off the court investments and the like? I'm not saying make them public, but so the league can investigate shady looking deals. 

It would have to be bargained for and added to the CBA, which the players would never agree to. Mainly, I just think this will have to be something the owners police themselves. The problem being, that the Golden State owners are part of the new Tech establishment, and the new Tech establishment has a well-documented history of thinking they should be able to do whatever they damn well please.

 

Also, I'd love to take a look inside Steph Curry's investments. Remember that he signed an absolutely laughable extension (something like 4 years $48 million), under the pretense of him being injury prone. Except for the fact that he'd only been hurt for one season, so it doesn't really add up. I wouldn't be surprised if he was mouthfed some ridiculous VC opportunities. 

[James Arryn]

32 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

I mean, I get why people would argue "management choices" actually means sound team management is rewarded, but yes, I entirely agree this is a major problem with fandom - in all sports.  Don't know if you realize it Ty, but the line of argument you're making is actually fairly GOP/Libertarian boilerplate. 

To be fair, Ty is hardly unusual in this. A lot of LW political folk I know get pretty supply-side when it comes to pro sports. To me the reasoning, though probably unconscious, is the same: you can draw a line between how often X changes and fan loyalty, regardless of why it changes. So, players change a lot more than franchises relocate, so fans naturally take the aristocracy’s side simply because it’s what they identify with more. So, long time player hits free agency and leaves (assuming his team wants him) is some kind of a betrayal for reasons (always found, always specific to that situation, but always, always there) whereas when a team trades a long time ‘loyal’ player when they think it improves their chances of success, that’s possibly sad, but just the nature of the business. Fans are therefore more comfortable with more power being in the management’s hands than in the labour’s hands, and the labour union is often treated as the obstacle to the ideal (ie fighting caps, fighting for greater player freedom, etc) and this generally holds true regardless of their political norms, in my experience.

And, yeah, sound management being rewarded isn’t so much a wrong as a double standard. If sound management = maximizing chances of success, why doesn’t manly virtue enter into it as when players deminstrate a grasp of sound management? I know you agree, not arguing with you, just the idea.