NBA Free Agency 2018: Independence day, unless you're in San Antonio

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, chiKanery et al. said:

It’s often been rumored that he is, but honestly in most cases it’s subjective too.

I picked him to highlight how difficult it is to compare people who played several decades apart. It’s difficult to say if we should allow him the benefit of modern medicine and training, and likewise, how do we compare someone like Curry to players from the past? Do we take away his custom ankle orthotics, thus making him someone who’s career would likely already be over? I really don’t know, hence why I like to debate the greatest of a generation more than all time. To be able to discuss the latter, the argument for the athlete needs to be bullet proof like the examples you gave.

Bill Russell would be Anthony Davis with worse scoring, but better defense, passing and rebounding. He'd be a hall of famer, but he wouldn't be paid like one. Teams wouldn't have the brains to build around him, so he wouldn't win nearly as many rings.

[Jaime L]

32 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

It’s often been rumored that he is, but honestly in most cases it’s subjective too.

I picked him to highlight how difficult it is to compare people who played several decades apart. It’s difficult to say if we should allow him the benefit of modern medicine and training, and likewise, how do we compare someone like Curry to players from the past? Do we take away his custom ankle orthotics, thus making him someone who’s career would likely already be over? I really don’t know, hence why I like to debate the greatest of a generation more than all time. To be able to discuss the latter, the argument for the athlete needs to be bullet proof like the examples you gave.

I think an all time great from any era would be great in every era. 

The only exceptions are guys who wouldn't be able to stay healthy in the past (Steph Curry) and George Mikan. Pretty sure even I could break Mikan's ankles driving to the hoop. 

[Fez]

I'm gonna stay over here by myself on the "Actually Kareem was GOAT" island, grimly chuckling at the Jordan vs. LeBron arguments.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I'm gonna stay over here by myself on the "Actually Kareem was GOAT" island, grimly chuckling at the Jordan vs. LeBron arguments.

Poor bastard. If he had better help around him in the 70s (the dark ages of the NBA) he would have been mentioned more in the GOAT debate.

On that note, I find it ironic that people say superteams ruined the NBA, but the 70s didn't have superteams and that era was one of the most unpopular decades in the NBA.

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Poor bastard. If he had better help around him in the 70s (the dark ages of the NBA) he would have been mentioned more in the GOAT debate.

On that note, I find it ironic that people say superteams ruined the NBA, but the 70s didn't have superteams and that era was one of the most unpopular decades in the NBA.

I think for a long time a lot of NBA fans just didn't like Kareem (whether that was residual dislike among white fans for his conversion to Islam, I'm not sure) and that hurt his reputation to the point that he wasn't clearly established in people's minds as the pre-Jordan GOAT (and therefore still in the conversation for GOAT once Jordan became Jordan).

As for superteams, I think people are fan with superteams, so long as there's more than one of them and there can be competition. It's when there is one clearly above the rest that people get restless because everything seems like a foregone conclusion. There's been plenty of years in NBA history where only the Celtics or Lakers really had a shot at winning, but it usually wasn't clear which one was better, so it was still exciting.

[Maithanet]

13 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Poor bastard. If he had better help around him in the 70s (the dark ages of the NBA) he would have been mentioned more in the GOAT debate.

On that note, I find it ironic that people say superteams ruined the NBA, but the 70s didn't have superteams and that era was one of the most unpopular decades in the NBA.

When people say they don't want superteams, what they mean is that they don't want ONE superteam.  One team having a >50% chance of winning a championship before the season starts is just boring.  But if there are 3-5 superteams, and some turnover among their ranks over the years (it's not just the Lakers vs Celtics over and over), then that is great. 

[Esmenet]

I actually think that the Lakers will be the 3 seed in the West and will make a run to the Conf. Championship. The team he has around him, right now at this moment, if far superior defensively. Which will mean A LOT when it comes to playing the Dubs. People always underestimate what LeBron is capable of and just drug a horrible team to the Finals. I'd just like to see them add a shooter or two. Kuzma can knock em down, and Ingram might make a leap shooting wise, ditto with Ball. I'm not saying they'll be champs or anything, but they'll be a decent team that no one will want to face in the playoffs.

As to the subject of GOAT, I favor LeBron. If only for his overall game and his superhuman endurance. Not even the Bulls asked as much of Jordan as the Cavs have the past 4 years, especially last year. Jordan is the greatest competitor and scorer of all time, and when young, he had the greatest "get of my nuts" dunks EVER!

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I think for a long time a lot of NBA fans just didn't like Kareem (whether that was residual dislike among white fans for his conversion to Islam, I'm not sure) and that hurt his reputation to the point that he wasn't clearly established in people's minds as the pre-Jordan GOAT (and therefore still in the conversation for GOAT once Jordan became Jordan).

As for superteams, I think people are fan with superteams, so long as there's more than one of them and there can be competition. It's when there is one clearly above the rest that people get restless because everything seems like a foregone conclusion. There's been plenty of years in NBA history where only the Celtics or Lakers really had a shot at winning, but it usually wasn't clear which one was better, so it was still exciting.

 

1 hour ago, Esmenet said:

I actually think that the Lakers will be the 3 seed in the West and will make a run to the Conf. Championship. The team he has around him, right now at this moment, if far superior defensively. Which will mean A LOT when it comes to playing the Dubs. People always underestimate what LeBron is capable of and just drug a horrible team to the Finals. I'd just like to see them add a shooter or two. Kuzma can knock em down, and Ingram might make a leap shooting wise, ditto with Ball. I'm not saying they'll be champs or anything, but they'll be a decent team that no one will want to face in the playoffs.

As to the subject of GOAT, I favor LeBron. If only for his overall game and his superhuman endurance. Not even the Bulls asked as much of Jordan as the Cavs have the past 4 years, especially last year. Jordan is the greatest competitor and scorer of all time, and when young, he had the greatest "get of my nuts" dunks EVER!

Fair.

[Calibandar]

I just wonder what Bill Simmons would say when he read this thread and saw someone just say that Bill Russell wouldn't even be a starter in today's NBA 

[Jaime L]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I'm gonna stay over here by myself on the "Actually Kareem was GOAT" island, grimly chuckling at the Jordan vs. LeBron arguments.

Kareem as the GOAT is like saying Hank Aaron is the GOAT in baseball. 20 years of being consistently great. There's an argument there in both cases but it rests on how much you value consistency and longevity vs. peak. 

[DMC]

7 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

What's "laughably dumb" is you thinking there is a correct answer to this question when "greatness" is an inherently subjective term, and anyone can fit whatever objective metrics of each player exist to their narrative of which player is "better." 

Definitely not, lol. 

This is classic.  You lecture me on not dismissing anyone's opinion on a subjective debate as laughably dumb.  Then, immediately, you agree that any Kobe/Lebron comparison is "definitely not" worth merit.  And then you laugh.

[briantw]

4 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

On a different note, I know nobody cares about my Wolves, but it sounds like things are improving with KAT. There have been a number of reports lately from the local insider websites and it sounds like his problems weren’t with Thibs or ownership but with Butler (shocking, who could have predicted this other than, well, every Wolves fan). I expect Butler to be traded before the deadline, and would happily take some young Celtics players please!

Ultimately, I think the Wolves sealed their fate when they signed Wiggins to that godawful contract for no reason.  No one would have given him anywhere near that money in the open market, and he sure as shit isn't even worth half of it.  That's the kind of contract we'll look back on in a few years when Towns demands a trade and mark it as the moment that any chance of contending passed the Wolves by.  Just a remarkably awful decision.  Right up there with trading Harden right after making the Finals.

[IamMe90]

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is classic.  You lecture me on not dismissing anyone's opinion on a subjective debate as laughably dumb.  Then, immediately, you agree that any Kobe/Lebron comparison is "definitely not" worth merit.  And then you laugh.

Spare me. I opined that I agreed with someone, which is my opinion, and used the phrase "lol," which, as a ubiquitous internet filler word, is emphatically not the same as actually laughing at someone. Furthermore, there was no one actually here endorsing the viewpoint that was supposedly insulting to begin with. Finally, what I did not do is say people who think that Kobe is better than LeBron or Michael Jordan are "laughable dumbasses." Gtfo with this bs comparison, your post was not only a direct attack at another user here, but it was significantly more incendiary as well. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

I opined that I agreed with someone, which is my opinion, and used the phrase "lol," which, as a ubiquitous internet filler word, is emphatically not the same as actually laughing at someone. Furthermore, there was no one actually here endorsing the viewpoint that was supposedly insulting to begin with. Finally, what I did not do is say people who think that Kobe is better than LeBron or Michael Jordan are "laughable dumbasses." Gtfo with this bs comparison, your post was not only a direct attack at another user here, but it was significantly more incendiary as well.

Argue at the margins all you want, your dismissive response still directly contradicts the "when "greatness" is an inherently subjective term, and anyone can fit whatever objective metrics of each player exist to their narrative of which player is "better"" edict you gave me.  And I like how now I somehow called people "laughable dumbasses."  No, I didn't.  I said an opinion was laughably dumb.  Opinions are frequently subject to analogous ridicule around here.  That's because it's a discussion board.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

Bill Russell would be Anthony Davis with worse scoring, but better defense, passing and rebounding. He'd be a hall of famer, but he wouldn't be paid like one. Teams wouldn't have the brains to build around him, so he wouldn't win nearly as many rings.

If he had the benefits of modern nutrition, strength training and the other advantages current players enjoy, sure. But I'm skeptical that he would have a ton of success if we plucked him from his heyday and dropped him into today's league. 

3 hours ago, Jaimstoyevesky said:

I think an all time great from any era would be great in every era. 

The only exceptions are guys who wouldn't be able to stay healthy in the past (Steph Curry) and George Mikan. Pretty sure even I could break Mikan's ankles driving to the hoop. 

Again, on a level playing field, sure. But there are so many advantages available to today's players that it would make it unfair for past players if they didn't get them too.

3 hours ago, Fez said:

I'm gonna stay over here by myself on the "Actually Kareem was GOAT" island, grimly chuckling at the Jordan vs. LeBron arguments.

Kareem is the best big man, but often times when players get ranked today the bigs are in their own category. 

1 hour ago, Calibandar said:

I just wonder what Bill Simmons would say when he read this thread and saw someone just say that Bill Russell wouldn't even be a starter in today's NBA 

We'll be in the deadest of dead sports seasons once Wimbledon and the World Cup are finished. Time for hot take season to start.

32 minutes ago, briantw said:

Ultimately, I think the Wolves sealed their fate when they signed Wiggins to that godawful contract for no reason.  No one would have given him anywhere near that money in the open market, and he sure as shit isn't even worth half of it.  That's the kind of contract we'll look back on in a few years when Towns demands a trade and mark it as the moment that any chance of contending passed the Wolves by.  Just a remarkably awful decision.  Right up there with trading Harden right after making the Finals.

Eh, I know you're more into the advanced analytics than I, but his game was improving year to year based on the eye test. I said two years ago on this forum that I did not want the Wolves to trade for Butler unless it was a straight swap with Wiggins. They are not a good fit together, but once LaVine went down the trade made sense. As I said before, I'll give it another year or two before I accept that it was a disaster, but it could end up being one. 

Also, speaking of LaVine, I recall someone here saying they hated the contract. It's actually not a bad one if LaVine is healthy. The dude is a microwave on the offensive side of the ball. It's just that he's a bad defender. Like really bad. But in the end he's basically Devin Booker with a lower usage rate, and getting that at $20m a year is better than Booker at $32m a year.

[briantw]

17 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Eh, I know you're more into the advanced analytics than I, but his game was improving year to year based on the eye test. I said two years ago on this forum that I did not want the Wolves to trade for Butler unless it was a straight swap with Wiggins. They are not a good fit together, but once LaVine went down the trade made sense. As I said before, I'll give it another year or two before I accept that it was a disaster, but it could end up being one. 

Well, the main thing that separates stars from role-players is efficiency.  The problem with Wiggins is that, while he scores a decent chunk of points and plays a lot of minutes, he's not efficient in the slightest.  He's a low-efficiency volume scorer.  And that's fine if he's your sixth man on the MLE, or even someone who is only moderately overpaid like Jordan Clarkson.  The issue with Wiggins is that he's being paid like he's LeBron or Durant when he's never even statistically been an above replacement level guy.

Wiggins was supposed to be, at worst, a 3&D guy, but four years later he still can't shoot threes all that well and he's still awful on defense.  He just hasn't shown anywhere near the level of improvement you'd expect to see from a guy you gave a max contract to.

Also, if you had told me at the time of the Wiggins trade that, five years later, I'd still much prefer having Love than Wiggins, I'd have thought you were crazy.  Funny how things work out.  Kevin Love is making less than Wiggins this year despite actually being a productive NBA player.  

Lot of people thought the Cavs lost that trade, but here we are today and Love is an actual asset while Wiggins' contract is completely untradeable. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

45 minutes ago, briantw said:

Well, the main thing that separates stars from role-players is efficiency.  The problem with Wiggins is that, while he scores a decent chunk of points and plays a lot of minutes, he's not efficient in the slightest.  He's a low-efficiency volume scorer.  And that's fine if he's your sixth man on the MLE, or even someone who is only moderately overpaid like Jordan Clarkson.  The issue with Wiggins is that he's being paid like he's LeBron or Durant when he's never even statistically been an above replacement level guy.

Wiggins was supposed to be, at worst, a 3&D guy, but four years later he still can't shoot threes all that well and he's still awful on defense.  He just hasn't shown anywhere near the level of improvement you'd expect to see from a guy you gave a max contract to.

Also, if you had told me at the time of the Wiggins trade that, five years later, I'd still much prefer having Love than Wiggins, I'd have thought you were crazy.  Funny how things work out.  Kevin Love is making less than Wiggins this year despite actually being a productive NBA player.  

Lot of people thought the Cavs lost that trade, but here we are today and Love is an actual asset while Wiggins' contract is completely untradeable. 

The biggest problem with Wiggins last season is that they tried to make him a 3&D guy when that clearly isn't his lane. I wouldn't take anything away from his past season other then Thibs is a bad coach. That's my entire takeaway from the season, and I'm glad people got to see it on display in the playoffs. 

As far who you'd prefer having now, it depends on the team. If you're in the bottom half of the league you'd take Wiggins. If you're a top 10ish team with some chance of contending if GS didn't exist, you'd take Love. Love really isn't that good of a player, and lives on the reputation of yesteryear when he was putting up inflated stats while accomplishing nothing. 

I will agree though that the narrative from four years ago has changed unless Wiggins randomly has a crazy season this year. I disagree that he isn't tradable though. Bad teams with hopeless fans would take him, it's just the Wolves will get next to nothing in return and may even have to include a pick or two. And the reason they had to offer him that much was because another team would have too. The didn't want to risk repeating the debacle with Love.

[briantw]

2 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

The biggest problem with Wiggins last season is that they tried to make him a 3&D guy when that clearly isn't his lane. I wouldn't take anything away from his past season other then Thibs is a bad coach. That's my entire takeaway from the season, and I'm glad people got to see it on display in the playoffs. 

As far who you'd prefer having now, it depends on the team. If you're in the bottom half of the league you'd take Wiggins. If you're a top 10ish team with some chance of contending if GS didn't exist, you'd take Love. Love really isn't that good of a player, and lives on the reputation of yesteryear when he was putting up inflated stats while accomplishing nothing. 

I will agree though that the narrative from four years ago has changed unless Wiggins randomly has a crazy season this year. I disagree that he isn't tradable though. Bad teams with hopeless fans would take him, it's just the Wolves will get next to nothing in return and may even have to include a pick or two. And the reason they had to offer him that much was because another team would have too. The didn't want to risk repeating the debacle with Love.

Yeah, but the other problem with Wiggins is that he wasn't even remotely efficient before he regressed under Thibs.  Even in his best season thus far, he's been a below replacement level player.

Also, I don't think the team matters at all right now.  Love, no matter the team, is an asset.  At the very worst, you can probably flip him at the deadline for a younger guy and a draft pick.  Wiggins, on the other hand, is a player who has never shown any indications that he'll be anything other than an inefficient volume guy, and he quite literally has the worst contract in the entire NBA right now.  I don't care if I'm the Hinke Sixers.  I'm taking Kevin Love all day every day.  I can always trade him.  I can't trade Wiggins, and I'm certainly not holding out hope that he ever becomes a star.  Too big a risk for a guy on the books for the next five years at an average of around thirty million a year.

No intelligent GM would take on Wiggins' contract.  Which means you guys should be calling up Sacramento yesterday. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

IT to the Nuggets on a one year, $2m deal. Damn that dude lost on a ton of money due to that hip injury.

[Red Tiger]

2 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

IT to the Nuggets on a one year, $2m deal. Damn that dude lost on a ton of money due to that hip injury.

And his shitty attitude.