NBA 2021 - Randle Hearts

[Relic]

1 minute ago, Rhom said:

Don't forget LA last year and the possibility of Brooklyn this year.

Oh yeah, lol, totally forgot about the lakers. That was a very very weird season. Oops. 

Re: the Nets they NEED Harden. Without him they aint doing shit. Which is sort of crazy to say about a team that has Durant and Kyrie on the roster. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Relic said:

Which of these markets would you classify as "big" ?

Well, just in terms of ranking metropolitan areas, Dallas ranks 4th, Miami 7th and the Bay Area 12th.  The Greater Toronto Area would rank 6th according to wikipedia.

[Rhom]

1 minute ago, Relic said:

Oh yeah, lol, totally forgot about the lakers. That was a very very weird season. Oops. 

Re: the Nets they NEED Harden. Without him they aint doing shit. Which is sort of crazy to say about a team that has Durant and Kyrie on the roster. 

Yeah, I'm no Brooklyn believer overall, but I will admit that they have been better for the most part than I expected them to be.

Overall, I agree that there's more grown teams than we sometimes remember.  But even as much as Golden State grew with Steph/Klay/Draymond... they became a poster child for the all star team ups when Durant came over.

Toronto, Dallas, and San Antonio really are the best examples of growing your own talent and then having the stars align just right.

[Relic]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, just in terms of ranking metropolitan areas, Dallas ranks 4th, Miami 7th and the Bay Area 12th.  The Greater Toronto Area would rank 6th according to wikipedia.

The term big market refers to the size of the TV audience, i think? Id Google but im sunburnt and dead tired. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Relic said:

The term big market refers to the size of the TV audience, i think? Id Google but im sunburnt and dead tired. 

Sure, that's another way.  There, Dallas is ranked 5th and the Bay Area 6th.  Miami, strangely, falls to 18th for whatever reason.  But I'd definitely call the Heat a big market team.  Dallas as well.  Golden State?  Meh.  Toronto, probably not, but that's more to do with a lack of popularity within a high potential market.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I'm still not sure why Tywin is complaining, his Twolves will be a major beneficiary of the current system this year. Along with the Rockets, Pistons and Magic, we will all be getting a young stud player to help improve our talent. That's exactly the way it's supposed to work.

Not really since our pick is only top three protected, but even if that wasn't the case I would still be arguing that the current system is not ideal. 

17 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

I'm not for it, but I'm the one I'm discussing is the one brought up by Zach Lowe, where teams take turns to pick in a thirty year cycle and will pick 1-30 in the cycle. It introduces its own set of problems, but what it does do is fix the current problem of teams trying to lose. Whether the solution is worse than the problem is another matter, but the solution works.

I would be more supportive of a wheel type system if it only impacted the top pick, but I have no idea how you would do that and then have a different system for the other 29 picks. Furthermore, you're screwing over the non-glamor franchises if they're forced into getting bottom 10 first round picks for a decade.

Quote

Its not complicated at all? You know exactly which pick you're getting if you trade and the rules that apply now to prevent teams from selling their future will also apply probably.

So you've given up on preventing Hinkie level tanking? Any extra tournament is more entertaining for sure. But if it is about quality in regular season games, I think its a lateral move.

Could be, but the flexibility of the NBA allows them to scrap such a change if it turns out to be a bad idea. I'm not sure you could scrap the wheel in the same way given the long term nature of it. 

As I sit here considering it, wouldn't a wheel work better if instead of a 30 year plan, you did a six year one and clustered teams five teams into different groups with a mini-lottery? No one get's a guaranteed number one pick, but every team would get a top five pick every six drafts. That seems like a better idea than drafting from 21-30 for a decade (another idea I think would be better is to give a team a pick in the top 10, 11-20 and 21-30 in a three year period and stagger that out). 

 

 

[Proudfeet]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I would be more supportive of a wheel type system if it only impacted the top pick, but I have no idea how you would do that and then have a different system for the other 29 picks. Furthermore, you're screwing over the non-glamor franchises if they're forced into getting bottom 10 first round picks for a decade.

As I sit here considering it, wouldn't a wheel work better if instead of a 30 year plan, you did a six year one and clustered teams five teams into different groups with a mini-lottery? No one get's a guaranteed number one pick, but every team would get a top five pick every six drafts. That seems like a better idea than drafting from 21-30 for a decade (another idea I think would be better is to give a team a pick in the top 10, 11-20 and 21-30 in a three year period and stagger that out). 

You've evidently still never bothered to look it up. Or even read my posts. Teams aren't going one to thirty in order, that's just stupid.

Anyway, I'm not supportive of a wheel system. As I mentioned before, they could try their best to smooth out the order of the picks so that teams don't  pick too high or low consecutively, but there are only so many high value picks which means that they can only prevent having high peaks, but teams will still enter low lull periods. Top ten is not the same as top three or top five, and the gap in value between say, the twentieth and thirtieth picks might be smaller than eighth to eleventh. And small things like that could impact other stuff like free agency. If your prize rookie isn't working out, how do you sign or resign players?

Also, it makes rebuilding hard. Teams know exactly where their picks are going to be, so the price you can demand for giving up a good player or taking up salary will likely be less. And if you whiff on a pick, you're done for the foreseeable future. 

But what it does is that there is nothing gained from losing! Mission accomplished. 

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Could be, but the flexibility of the NBA allows them to scrap such a change if it turns out to be a bad idea. I'm not sure you could scrap the wheel in the same way given the long term nature of it. 

True. I'd imagine teams would be very put out if it was scrapped in the middle. You'd have to run out the entire cycle unless it was so disliked that teams due for the top picks want it scrapped too.

__

So, what happened to relegating owners? You're the one sitting here criticising me for not responding to your posts and all? And whatever I apparently missed out?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

So, what happened to relegating owners? You're the one sitting here criticising me for not responding to your posts and all? And whatever I apparently missed out?

Relegating owners would be a dream. Not having them would be even better. But in our pipe dream scenarios this is probably the least likely to happen.

Quote

You've evidently still never bothered to look it up. Or even read my posts. Teams aren't going one to thirty in order, that's just stupid.

Anyway, I'm not supportive of a wheel system. As I mentioned before, they could try their best to smooth out the order of the picks so that teams don't  pick too high or low consecutively, but there are only so many high value picks which means that they can only prevent having high peaks, but teams will still enter low lull periods. Top ten is not the same as top three or top five, and the gap in value between say, the twentieth and thirtieth picks might be smaller than eighth to eleventh. And small things like that could impact other stuff like free agency. If your prize rookie isn't working out, how do you sign or resign players?

Also, it makes rebuilding hard. Teams know exactly where their picks are going to be, so the price you can demand for giving up a good player or taking up salary will likely be less. And if you whiff on a pick, you're done for the foreseeable future. 

I have looked it up, but there are a few proposals. There's the fixed 1-30 wheel, a staggered wheel (discussed above which is the best of bad options) and one that makes no sense at all (arbitrarily deciding what should be within it and what shouldn't). 

I don't really disagree with the rest of what you wrote, and we agree it locks the league into a thirty year decision and that seems like a truly awful idea.

Quote

But what it does is that there is nothing gained from losing! Mission accomplished. 

I guess not if you take the best of bad options, but it also doesn't compel teams to win either. The theory behind my idea is that it would still motivate teams to be as good as they can possibly be. You're never going to completely fix that problem, but I'm seeking to find a way to make each game matter more and produce the highest level of play (which is why I also want to remove roughly 25% of the games).

[Proudfeet]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Relegating owners would be a dream. Not having them would be even better. 

Dream with the double meaning of it not being practical or feasible in the least? Sure. I'm just asking a small aspect of how you'd think it will work in finding buyers in such a scenario. You're determined to avoid backing up any of it and yet still espouse its superiority at every turn. Its ridiculous.

I think its more likely that you have no owners as in all teams are collectively owned under the league than relegating owners is, for what its worth.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I have looked it up, but there are a few proposals. There's the fixed 1-30 wheel, a staggered wheel (discussed above which is the best of bad options) and one that makes no sense at all (arbitrarily deciding what should be within it and what shouldn't). 

Then you haven't read my posts. 

And your search results and search terms must be very different from mine.

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I guess not if you take the best of bad options, but it also doesn't compel teams to win either. The theory behind my idea is that it would still motivate teams to be as good as they can possibly be. You're never going to completely fix that problem, but I'm seeking to find a way to make each game matter more and produce the highest level of play (which is why I also want to remove roughly 25% of the games).

Teams aren't compelled to win in any scenario. You're missing the forest for the trees. Teams want the draft pick to win the championship. But it seems its all about winning the draft pick for you.

And as I've said repeatedly, you're only moving the goal. Teams don't generally enter the season looking to lose, they look at where they are midway through the season and recalibrate. It changes nothing for you if you're already a bottom team (or top team for that matter) and regardless of which iteration you came up with, you're already on pace anyway. And for every team that wants to improve its seeding, there will be another team that wants to qualify for it. 

You're also overstating the problem. Teams are trying to win for the future. The current season is hopeless. Its better to spend time developing your players so that you get a better chance the next season, regardless of lottery odds. And unless you're at the bottom, that tiny extra .5% isn't worth losing for anyway. You're playing a lottery vs another team playing bingo. You can still win, but how much will you wager on it?

It is also not the solution to the most hardcore tankers who sold their team for other teams first round picks. They'd likely still have their own (can't trade first round picks in consecutive years or something) which will benefit from losing even in your system (what's the furthest they can fall vs how realistic it is that they win), and their record doesn't matter for the picks they traded for.

Also, I'd bet that the Cyber Ninjas thought that they had a good theory too. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Dream with the double meaning of it not being practical or feasible in the least? Sure. I'm just asking a small aspect of how you'd think it will work in finding buyers in such a scenario. You're determined to avoid backing up any of it and yet still espouse its superiority at every turn. Its ridiculous.

Finding buyers shouldn't be an issue given how so many business giants want to get into sports leagues. Where it gets a bit more complicated is how you independently evaluate a franchise, how you finance a deal with several parties involved and how much debt should the league have to take on if a buyer doesn't meet their asking price, among a number of things. My honest answer is that I'm not really qualified to give one if it truly affected this many people's lives, but it's not like I haven't considered it.

Quote

I think its more likely that you have no owners as in all teams are collectively owned under the league than relegating owners is, for what its worth.

Did I at some point forget to mention the German model? It was something I had not heard of until just a few weeks ago when all the ESL shit went down, but I was stunned to learn that their soccer teams are by law 51% fan owned. Please yes give me all of that! 

I'll try to get back to the rest of your post tomorrow. It's my birthday in three minutes and I'm going to smoke a joint to close out this miserable COVID year of my life.

[BigFatCoward]

Whether he stat hunts or not, 182 for Russ. And in all almost certainly a 4th season of averaging a triple double when nobody thought it was possible 5 years ago. 

[Proudfeet]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Finding buyers shouldn't be an issue given how so many business giants want to get into sports leagues. Where it gets a bit more complicated is how you independently evaluate a franchise, how you finance a deal with several parties involved and how much debt should the league have to take on if a buyer doesn't meet their asking price, among a number of things. My honest answer is that I'm not really qualified to give one if it truly affected this many people's lives, but it's not like I haven't considered it.

Finding a buyer for a couple of teams long-term isn't an issue. Relegation is different. And the league financing buyers is something I didn't think of but seems ripe for exploitation.

Besides that, it seems that the extent of involvement of owners is to appoint GMs and approve spending beyond the salary cap. Some are more outspoken than others, but they aren't generally involved in the running of the team otherwise. Wouldn't it be easier to disqualify GMs for a couple of years if you really want to go down that route?

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Did I at some point forget to mention the German model? It was something I had not heard of until just a few weeks ago when all the ESL shit went down, but I was stunned to learn that their soccer teams are by law 51% fan owned. Please yes give me all of that! 

Not that it matters, but don't the Green Bay Packers have a similar structure? I seem to have that impression.

[baxus]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Did I at some point forget to mention the German model? It was something I had not heard of until just a few weeks ago when all the ESL shit went down, but I was stunned to learn that their soccer teams are by law 51% fan owned. Please yes give me all of that! 

How would you implement the transition from the current state to the one you are talking about here?

Do you see NBA fans getting the money to buy 51% of their clubs? Or owners just saying: "Oh, our fans are such good guys, let's give them this present worth billions of dollars"? I may be wrong, but I'd say both are just as (un)likely.

[Proudfeet]

Just read that Jaylen Brown is out for the season. If its any consolation to Boston fans, having Hayward likely wouldn't have helped either as he's been out for a month now. It seemed like Walker was just rounding into form after his injury too. Celtics can't catch a break this season.

Oh, and for those who thought KD didn't deserve a video tribute from GS, Bryn Forbes just got one for playing four seasons with the Spurs averaging 20 minutes a game. 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Not that it matters, but don't the Green Bay Packers have a similar structure? I seem to have that impression.

Yes.  Well, actually more so than just 51%.  They are publicly owned and no one is allowed to hold more than ~4 percent of the shares.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Finding a buyer for a couple of teams long-term isn't an issue. Relegation is different. And the league financing buyers is something I didn't think of but seems ripe for exploitation.

I can't recall the details off the top of my head and I don't have time to look them up, but the league having to control the then NO Hornets is probably where you should look to see if it was exploited. 

Quote

Besides that, it seems that the extent of involvement of owners is to appoint GMs and approve spending beyond the salary cap. Some are more outspoken than others, but they aren't generally involved in the running of the team otherwise. Wouldn't it be easier to disqualify GMs for a couple of years if you really want to go down that route?

Bad GMs get fired though. Bad owners keep hiring failed front offices. See the Wolves. I hate shitting on Taylor because he's done a lot of good outside of his tenure as owner of the team, but he is god awful at hiring at every level.

6 hours ago, baxus said:

How would you implement the transition from the current state to the one you are talking about here?

Do you see NBA fans getting the money to buy 51% of their clubs? Or owners just saying: "Oh, our fans are such good guys, let's give them this present worth billions of dollars"? I may be wrong, but I'd say both are just as (un)likely.

Oh it's never going to happen here. But I am curious if the backlash from the ESL attempt might lead to laws in England that eventually transition the EPL into a similar model as the Bundesliga. 

[baxus]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Oh it's never going to happen here. But I am curious if the backlash from the ESL attempt might lead to laws in England that eventually transition the EPL into a similar model as the Bundesliga. 

England would run into the same wall trying to convert Premier League clubs' ownership structure into Bundesliga model.

It comes down to not being able to just take someone's property and give it to someone else, except in some kind of nationalisation move that was common in communist countries. I mean, China could do it but I don't see any western country doing it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, baxus said:

England would run into the same wall trying to convert Premier League clubs' ownership structure into Bundesliga model.

Probably, but it's at least within the realm of possibility, even if that is <5%. There's no chance of it happening here. None.

Quote

It comes down to not being able to just take someone's property and give it to someone else, except in some kind of nationalisation move that was common in communist countries. I mean, China could do it but I don't see any western country doing it.

The U.S. government can take property and I'd assume European governments can as well, but there would be no way to justify it in this case. What they could do that wouldn't run afoul of the law (I assume) is find a way to coerce owners into selling a majority share of their teams, and I think that could prove to be popular in England. 

[WarGalley]

Warriors steal the game again tonight. I like their chances in a play-in game but can't see them taking a series.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I've had Knicks v. Lakers on in the background while working after dinner and I have to say, the Knicks are pretty good and Randle looks great.

14 minutes ago, WarGalley said:

Warriors steal the game again tonight. I like their chances in a play-in game but can't see them taking a series.

Wiggins with the random 38 point night.