NBA Off-season

[Slurktan]

Lastly if you look at the small market teams that have been successful in baseball, these are the ones who never overpay guys. They'll ditch a talented player the second he demands a contract that's more than he's worth. What were talking here is Moneyball. A guy's talent is only half the equation. Really to determine his utility to a team is a guy's talent versus his contract. This is especially true in a league with a fairly hard cap like the NBA. Everyone has more or less the same amount to spend (with some exception for teams who delve into the Luxury Tax), the only way you can outperform them is get a better bang for your buck. Value is everything.

Unfortunately that system does not win championships in the NBA. It won't happen unless the new CBA is dramatically different. As proven by every team that has won since the Cap came into being, unless a team is significantly over the Luxury Tax threshold you have no chance at winning the Championship. (Teams get over the luxury tax by giving out bloated contracts to players who aren't worth it. See - Lamar Odom, Ron Artest)

Moneyball will get you some wins and maybe a 4 seed. If that is good enough for you, more power to you for shopping smart (I wish Toronto did this) It will never win in the NBA. And it will only look good for small market teams like OKC until their respective rookie contracts are up and then they have to start paying. Well unless you think they can get lucky and retool with another crop of fantastic rookie/sophomore players.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Unfortunately that system does not win championships in the NBA. It won't happen unless the new CBA is dramatically different. As proven by every team that has won since the Cap came into being, unless a team is significantly over the Luxury Tax threshold you have no chance at winning the Championship. (Teams get over the luxury tax by giving out bloated contracts to players who aren't worth it. See - Lamar Odom, Ron Artest)

Moneyball will get you some wins and maybe a 4 seed. If that is good enough for you, more power to you for shopping smart (I wish Toronto did this) It will never win in the NBA. And it will only look good for small market teams like OKC until their respective rookie contracts are up and then they have to start paying. Well unless you think they can get lucky and retool with another crop of fantastic rookie/sophomore players.

AFAIK last year was the first the Spurs were over luxury tax.

[Slurktan]

AFAIK last year was the first the Spurs were over luxury tax.

Looking hard for exact salary info on the Spurs championship years. Not much info out there.

Salary Cap number by years

Some sporadic team numbers from the 2000's

In 2004-05 (Championship 3) you are right. The Spurs were just a bit over the cap so not in the luxury. For the 2002-2003 Season (Championship 2) the Spurs were well into the luxury tax. Still looking for the other two title years.

So I was wrong and I will amend my statement, you can win the NBA championship by being in the luxury tax and/or have Tim Duncan on your team. That's it.

EDIT:

Spurs numbers from 2006-2007 Total Salaries at 65,654,320, 12 million over the cap and into the tax although not by much.

Spurs numbers from 1998-1998 Total salaries come up to 43,681,143, 13 million over the cap and into the tax.

[Jaime L]

Unfortunately that system does not win championships in the NBA. It won't happen unless the new CBA is dramatically different. As proven by every team that has won since the Cap came into being, unless a team is significantly over the Luxury Tax threshold you have no chance at winning the Championship. (Teams get over the luxury tax by giving out bloated contracts to players who aren't worth it. See - Lamar Odom, Ron Artest)

I agree to an extent. Any team knocking on the door has been then willing to go over the luxury tax as needed...except Sarver and the Phoenix Suns. I imagine Toronto would have too had they showed the potential to get to the Eastern Conference Finals or NBA Finals (although this would be an interesting case study). Like many teams their ceiling was the second round.

Moneyball will get you some wins and maybe a 4 seed. If that is good enough for you, more power to you for shopping smart (I wish Toronto did this) It will never win in the NBA. And it will only look good for small market teams like OKC until their respective rookie contracts are up and then they have to start paying. Well unless you think they can get lucky and retool with another crop of fantastic rookie/sophomore players.

What I think you're hinting as is that you don't win a title in the NBA without a superstar. You just don't. It's only happened once since the 80s...the 2004 Detroit Pistons and they had enough good players (and a good enough system) to make up for the lack of great. Maybe you can make a case for the 2008 Celtics though Pierce and Garnett were knocking on that door that year. The sad truth is that winning titles in the NBA* comes down to getting the right lottery pick in the right year. Cleveland did nothing to become a contender...they got lucky with the first pick in 2003. Like the Spurs did with the first pick in 1998. The Heat got a diamond in the rough with the fifth pick in Wade and he was good enough to lure Shaq there and win their one title. But if you don't have that superstar, even if you play moneyball successfully, your likely ceiling is the second round. On that we mostly agree. All that said, you can't decide where you pick or who is coming into the NBA that year. All you can do is put yourself in position, like OKC has done...and get lucky with getting a pick good enough to get a transcendent talent (like OKC has done) and put the organization and talent in place to be able to compete in the playoffs. But in the NBA more than any other league you can't turn straw into gold. You need a top 10 guy to win an NBA title. But the degree to which you can get one isn't entirely in your hands. The first pick in the 2000 or 2001 draft is vastly different from the first pick in the 2003 or 2004 draft. Control what you can control, don't overpay on middling talent like Gay, and hope either you get lucky in the lottery or find a way to get enough of the right guys in the right system with the hope you can become the 2004 Pistons. Or at least good and young enough that you can attract the right veteran star(s) to round out your team (like the 2008 Celtics or 2006 Heat). GM skill still factors in, but not as much as "right place, right time"

But we all know the one way that doesn't work and that's paying middling talent superstar premiums.

*Unless you're a privileged franchise like the Lakers who can attract talent like Shaq and Kobe even though you drafted neither for the sole reason that you are the Lakers.

[Slurktan]

What I think you're hinting as is that you don't win a title in the NBA without a superstar. You just don't. It's only happened once since the 80s...the 2004 Detroit Pistons and they had enough good players (and a good enough system) to make up for the lack of great. Maybe you can make a case for the 2008 Celtics though Pierce and Garnett were knocking on that door that year. The sad truth is that winning titles in the NBA* comes down to getting the right lottery pick in the right year. Cleveland did nothing to become a contender...they got lucky with the first pick in 2003. Like the Spurs did with the first pick in 1998. The Heat got a diamond in the rough with the fifth pick in Wade and he was good enough to lure Shaq there and win their one title. But if you don't have that superstar, even if you play moneyball successfully, your likely ceiling is the second round. On that we mostly agree. All that said, you can't decide where you pick or who is coming into the NBA that year. All you can do is put yourself in position, like OKC has done...and get lucky with getting a pick good enough to get a transcendent talent (like OKC has done) and put the organization and talent in place to be able to compete in the playoffs. But in the NBA more than any other league you can't turn straw into gold. You need a top 10 guy to win an NBA title. But the degree to which you can get one isn't entirely in your hands. The first pick in the 2000 or 2001 draft is vastly different from the first pick in the 2003 or 2004 draft. Control what you can control, don't overpay on middling talent like Gay, and hope either you get lucky in the lottery or find a way to get enough of the right guys in the right system with the hope you can become the 2004 Pistons. Or at least good and young enough that you can attract the right veteran star(s) to round out your team (like the 2008 Celtics or 2006 Heat). GM skill still factors in, but not as much as "right place, right time"

But we all know the one way that doesn't work and that's paying middling talent superstar premiums.

I agree with all that. However I think that one big reason that you see teams like Memphis blowing a ton of cash on a Rudy Gay is because they agree with that too. And they know the bigger inescapable fact of the NBA - if you are a small market at best you will get 7-8 years out of a star before he leaves. Take OKC for example, as good as they may look they will implode because they either 1)won't be able to afford all the young guys on the cap or 2) Have their star leave to LA or another such team. They only way to get people of even marginal "starhood" stay in a small market is to overpay them grossly, otherwise they are gone. Tim Duncan is the only huge star who ever stayed in a small market, it's not likely to happen again. Hopefully in the next CBA they will be able to get a hard cap because that will do a lot to get rid of that mentality.

[Trebla]

Yeah, only Detroit comes to mind but I think more of the 80's. The Bad Boys had Isiah Thomas and a bunch of very good role players: Joe Dumars, Laimbeer, Rodman, Mark Aguire, Microwave Vinny Johnson, Rick Mahorn, Spider Salley, James Edwards. Gods that team was deep. :stunned: These days you pretty much need two stars. The '04 pistons were pretty similar.

There have been reports that Dwayne Wade is going back for a 2nd meeting with Chicago. Tons of speculation why but one reason really interested me. Even if they were to sign LeBron and Bosh and keep him, they still need to sign like 7 minimum salary players. So they will only be able to get young fringe players or veterans on their last legs. Or a players that REALLY wants a ring.

But we saw a "Dream Team" in 2004 fall to less talented but deeper team when the Pistons beat the Lakers. The Jordan Bulls had two great players but also had a very deep role-playing team. I remember ppl saying that the Orlando Magic could beat the Bulls in '96 because they had a much better starting 5 with Penny, Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Horace Grant and Shaq. I remember "A great team with Luc Longley as the starting center? no way!" The Bulls swept them. Depth, depth, depth.

That could be why the Bulls are so enticing. They have a great young point guard and lunch bucket big man. They have Brad Miller and Taj Gibson. They may or may not have Luol Deng, an overpaid yet pretty good player. No other team has that depth or the cap room.

I have no idea who they will get. I think LeBron is Plan A and Wade 1A. I can't imagine both. Bosh or Boozer are the more likely 2nd player. Though one radio station was speculating that the one secenario they saw that LeBron and Wade could both come to Chicago is that the Bulls did a sign and trade that dealt Derrick Rose. THAT is a tough call but the one I could see. I think Wade and Rose are too similar. Losing Rose would be hard but to get Dwayne Wade? Hmmmm...I think you have to.

[aeu]

And in other ridiculous news, the T-Wolves re-sign Darko to a four year, 20 mil deal. Why, David Kahn?

Well, Darko has championship experience. That's gotta count for something :P

There are ridiculous deals every year in free agency, but this year is particularly crazy. I can understand the deals Joe Johnson and Rudy Gay got. They both got much more than they are worth, but at least I can understand the thinking behind it. However the deals some of these marginal players got, especially so early in the process are unbelievable.

Darko got $20 mil. Channing Fry and Amir freakin Johnson got $30 mil. Drew Gooden got $34M!!! I don't know what to think at this point.

The best deal I heard was Steve Blake to Lakers for $16M / 4 years. That sounds about right and looks like an absolute steal compared to these other deals.

Here's something that I feel has been under-reported: If LeBron were to stay in Cleveland, could they sign anyone else this year? I haven't heard any of that talk which surprises me since I think there's a chance that he will stay in Cleveland.

Cavs have something like $50 mil committed without Lebron. They will be way over the cap if they resign him. To sign up players straight up: They have their mid-level exception ($5.5 M). They may have the bi-annual exception too (about $1.5M or so), but I think they used it last year to sign Z and do not have it this year. They can sign players for the league minimum.

Other than that, they need to do sign and trades. They have some pieces (Hickson, Varejo, maybe Delonte West), but major sign and trades are usually very hard when you don't have cap space and hence require other team to take back a lot of salary. (Actually, I can't remember such a deal ever happening of the top of my head.)

They also need centers. Both Shaq and Z are free agents.

[Slurktan]

Who is Amir Johnson???

PF on the Raptors. I'm not too distressed by that contract. He was wanted by multiple teams as it's pretty rare to find a 5 year vet who can score inside and rebound but is only 23. Certainly better than blowing the same amount on somebody like Drew Gooden.

[Relic]

If i were Donnie Walsh this is what i'd do...

I'd sign Joe Johnson to the max. Out of all the FA not named Lebron or Wade he is the most desirable. I like Bosh but i don't like using David Lee for him. So i sign Joe Johnson. I then sign Brendan Haywood and resign David Lee.Then i start collecting expiring contracts (already have Curry's massive deal) and trade for Chris Paul or Mello half way thru the season. I think this is the BEST case scenario the Knicks can hope for.

Does anyone have a good virtual GM site that i can use to see if i can make that work?

[AutumnEvenings]

FD and I, both being the righteous Laker-haters that we are, have our own little fantasy, wherein the Clippers sign LeBron (and he did have talks with them :lol:), Bosh, Wade, pick up Fisher, maybe even Shaq. They then pound the hell out of the Lakers at the Staples center four times a year for the next three years. All the celebrities (except Jack Nicholson) become Clippers fans. Clippers win the Pacific, Phil Jackson decides he'd rather coach there. Kobe turns tail and runs to Maimi, and then Lebron and Wade chase him and play in Orlando. The Lakers implode and get sent back to Minnesotta, who rejects them and sends them to, like, Wisconsin, and LA only has one basketball team and no one gets extra free home games every season.

A girl can dream.

Tim Duncan is the only huge star who ever stayed in a small market, it's not likely to happen again.

Maybe I'm baised, but I think John Stockton was a huge star. Karl Malone maybe as well. They both stayed in Utah, and we're the 4th smallest market and the smallest NBA city. (Granted, that's right now, but it was probably about the same 15 years ago). So, I dunno. I think players can become identified with their team and not just seek out money. Malone only left for his one-year stint in search of a ring after Stockton, half his identity, retired. The Jazz really weren't the Jazz anymore.

I also think that goes to GMs/coaches/owners: don't fuck around trading players just for the hell of it. Deron Williams is still pissed that we traded Brewer for nothing, and has made it clear that that made him not really want to stay in Utah forever. Brewer wasn't the best 2 in the world, but there was no solid reason to trade him. It just disrupts team unity, and makes all the players think "well, that could be me, why should I invest".

Anyway.

There are strong rumors that the Blazers were really close to pulling off a trade for Chris Paul, but that the Hornet's owner backed off on being willing to trade Paul. :crying:

Fuck Portland. What on earth are you guys doing, trying to steal Matthews from us? Didn't work with Millsap, won't work with Matthews. Trying to sign a Williams-wanna-be now? I love my Jazz, you guys apparently want to just be us. ;)

[add-on]

I agree with all that. However I think that one big reason that you see teams like Memphis blowing a ton of cash on a Rudy Gay is because they agree with that too. And they know the bigger inescapable fact of the NBA - if you are a small market at best you will get 7-8 years out of a star before he leaves. Take OKC for example, as good as they may look they will implode because they either 1)won't be able to afford all the young guys on the cap or 2) Have their star leave to LA or another such team.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Take the example of the Spurs again. They got all their key championship guys (Robinson, Duncan, Ginobili and Parker) via the draft. Then when it came time to keep a winning product together, the Spurs ponied up for their big three, and paid into the luxury tax. At the same time, when certain role players started to get too expensive (Stephen Jackson, Malik Rose), they let them walk.

Yes, it takes a certain amount of luck to find yourself with the number one pick when a stud like Duncan is available. But building a contender also takes the ability to know which guys you pay, and which guys you let walk. For that price, the Grizz had to let Gay walk. Because when you're a small market team and you haven't managed to luck into a superstar in the draft, the number one thing you need to have going for you is flexibility.

And that's what Presti has done in OKC. He's compiled a lot of young talent, all while keeping his team free of albatross contracts like Luol Deng's. So while OKC's ceiling with this current roster is probably middle of the pack in the West, Presti has the chips to maybe nab a talented vet at the trade deadline that could put this team over the top.

Or maybe they won't do that. Maybe it'll be something completely different. The point is that OKC has options. After this Rudy Gay contract, Memphis is running low on them.

The key for Presti will be to figure out how good Green, Harden, and Westbrook are, then pay them, deal them, or let them walk accordingly.

They only way to get people of even marginal "starhood" stay in a small market is to overpay them grossly, otherwise they are gone. Tim Duncan is the only huge star who ever stayed in a small market, it's not likely to happen again.

I think it depends more on what the organization in that small market has done to put a winning product around that star. For example, it's been made pretty clear in the last two seasons that LeBron is not going to be winning a championship with the team Dan Gilbert and Ferry put around him in Cleveland. The Raptors failure to build a contender around Bosh was quite a bit more spectacular, due in equal parts, I feel, to the several terrible moves the organization made over the last couple of years and to the fact that you can't build a contender around just Chris Bosh.

OTOH, I think OKC have a good chance to keep Durant as long as they keep trending upward.

I have no idea who they will get. I think LeBron is Plan A and Wade 1A. I can't imagine both. Bosh or Boozer are the more likely 2nd player. Though one radio station was speculating that the one secenario they saw that LeBron and Wade could both come to Chicago is that the Bulls did a sign and trade that dealt Derrick Rose. THAT is a tough call but the one I could see. I think Wade and Rose are too similar. Losing Rose would be hard but to get Dwayne Wade? Hmmmm...I think you have to.

I don't. And I would be fuming if they did this.

The difference between their talent right now is not that great, and with each passing year Wade will be declining and Rose will be improving. Wade will be 29 next season and Rose just came of drinking age, which means that for the second half of whatever deal Wade signs, he'll be on the downward end of his prime. Rose has another couple of years before he even hits his. I don't want to mortgage the future for a 2-3 year window.

So...I no longer want two max free agents. At least I don't think I do. Just LeBron. Then the extra space goes to a shooter (Reddick, Miller) and a mobile big (...I dunno, Scola?). As much star power as a LeBron/Rose/Bosh team would have, they'd also be really easy to defend because the Bulls would be left without a shooter to space the floor. The only way I'd really want to have two max guys come to the Bulls would be if we could also somehow unload Deng's contract onto somebody.

[Jaime L]

Think Lebron is going to hold off on the move he makes for fear of being vilified. There's still some question what his top priority is. Is it 1) To be a global icon (The Knicks) 2) To win a title (Team up with the other star FAs and go to either Chicago, Dallas or Miami) 3) To win a title but only on his own terms (be sure to team up with Bosh at the most, maybe not even him, stay away from Wade or Johnson) 4) Play for his buddy (Nets) or 5) Be liked and respected (stay in Cleveland).

If 5) turns out to be the biggest deal for him, he can double this effect by taking signing a minimum contract or some nominal amount with Cleveland and let them max out Bosh or whomever else he wants. He'd still make a a ton from his endorsements (maybe even net him some more as it'll make him better liked) and he'd gain living legend status in Cleveland and Ohio in general. Feel like he's always wanted to be a superstar who defers to his teammates to a greater degree than the Kobes of the world. To be the magnanimous Jordan. This would allow him to double down on that public persona. I also think there's about a 0% chance of this happening.

Lebron's a frontrunner. It's why he wears Yankee hats caps and shows up on the Cowboy sidelines. I think he's going to leverage whatever deal gives him the best shot at a title and not give a damn over how it makes him look that he couldn't do it alone and couldn't do it where he was at.

[add-on]

If i were Donnie Walsh this is what i'd do...

I'd sign Joe Johnson to the max. Out of all the FA not named Lebron or Wade he is the most desirable. I like Bosh but i don't like using David Lee for him. So i sign Joe Johnson. I then sign Brendan Haywood and resign David Lee.Then i start collecting expiring contracts (already have Curry's massive deal) and trade for Chris Paul or Mello half way thru the season. I think this is the BEST case scenario the Knicks can hope for.

Does anyone have a good virtual GM site that i can use to see if i can make that work?

I don't think you have the cap space to sign Johnson, Lee and Haywood. The Knicks are at, what, 35 mil under? Signing Johnson and Lee would presumably take pretty damn close to 30 of that. Haywood is expected to get at least 8 mil a year.

Also, since Curry's expiring contract is only worth 11.3 mil, you'd have to do some serious tinkering to make up the difference in Melo's contract (17.1).

[Slurktan]

And that's what Presti has done in OKC. He's compiled a lot of young talent, all while keeping his team free of albatross contracts like Luol Deng's. So while OKC's ceiling with this current roster is probably middle of the pack in the West, Presti has the chips to maybe nab a talented vet at the trade deadline that could put this team over the top.

Or maybe they won't do that. Maybe it'll be something completely different. The point is that OKC has options. After this Rudy Gay contract, Memphis is running low on them.

The key for Presti will be to figure out how good Green, Harden, and Westbrook are, then pay them, deal them, or let them walk accordingly.

OKC has certainly built well through the draft. However Durant, Green, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden are on rookie scale contracts. If they continue to play the way they have, then OKC is fucked when those rookie contracts are up. Either they are going into the luxury tax heavy (that's if Durant and co actually want to stay there) or they are going to lose 2 of them. Or of course the new CBA changes things around. That would be nice.

[Slurktan]

Maybe I'm baised, but I think John Stockton was a huge star. Karl Malone maybe as well. They both stayed in Utah, and we're the 4th smallest market and the smallest NBA city. (Granted, that's right now, but it was probably about the same 15 years ago). So, I dunno. I think players can become identified with their team and not just seek out money. Malone only left for his one-year stint in search of a ring after Stockton, half his identity, retired. The Jazz really weren't the Jazz anymore.

I'd strongly disagree that those two were "huge stars". Very strongly. Great players but not at that level. Huge stars to me are players like Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, LeBron, Wade, and Duncan. I'm sorry but neither of those two are on that level.

[awesome possum]

I think Stockton and Malone combined made a huge star. They were one of the few teams that, if the Bulls as they were didn't exist at the time, would have won at least one championship together. Separate they were special but not that special. Together, they were a superstar combination.

[Slurktan]

I think Stockton and Malone combined made a huge star. They were one of the few teams that, if the Bulls as they were didn't exist at the time, would have won at least one championship together. Separate they were special but not that special. Together, they were a superstar combination.

They had that situation twice. Couldn't beat Olajuwon however so unfortunately for Jazz fans that line is false.

[Trebla]

I'd strongly disagree that those two were "huge stars". Very strongly. Great players but not at that level. Huge stars to me are players like Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, LeBron, Wade, and Duncan. I'm sorry but neither of those two are on that level.

They were on the 1st Dream Team. *Every player on that team was a HOF player. Stockton is number one in assists and steals in NBA History. Malone is #2 all-time in points,

*College add-on Christian Laetner does not count!

[Relic]

I don't think you have the cap space to sign Johnson, Lee and Haywood. The Knicks are at, what, 35 mil under? Signing Johnson and Lee would presumably take pretty damn close to 30 of that. Haywood is expected to get at least 8 mil a year.

Also, since Curry's expiring contract is only worth 11.3 mil, you'd have to do some serious tinkering to make up the difference in Melo's contract (17.1).

Well, how much do you think Lee is going to get elsewhere?

[Whiskeyjack]

Well, how much do you think Lee is going to get elsewhere?

The main rumor I've read about the Knicks is that they are signing Stoudemire. Seems unlikely that they'd get him and also keep Lee.