The superstars joining forces issue

[LooseCannon]

Now with the superteam in Miami, the league balance would STILL be very off.  We'd have to cut at least 2 more teams. 

Kneecapping LeBron James would be much easier.  Dan Gilbert should add a more competent Jeff Gillooly to the payroll.

[wiley]

Let's face it.  Durant is going to be the anti-Lebron.  He is not going to tease the league and create a situation where 13 teams do nothing but clear cap space for 2 or 3 years prior to his free agency year. 

In fact, style-wise, he already is the anti-Lebron. 

I'm not against what Lebron did in joining forces with friends in Miami, because it fits his personality, his dancing, his entire schtick, all the ego-related things we've been complaining about the past few years....The way he did it  was one of the suckiest NBA episodes in quite a while, an off-court uber-dance, but that's Lebron, so we just have to sit back and watch.  It will be very interesting to watch Miami play this year....very entertaining.  I don't hate Lebron.  He's got some good qualities.  But I like what Durant represents much more and will root for that type of player every time...

But my point is that I think most players, including Chris Paul, aren't like Lebron.  We won't see cap clearing activity by teams on this level again imo.

Chris Paul is in a lousy position and I don't see his wanting out as a follow up to Lebron-gate.
Cleveland actually bent over backwards multiple times to please Lebron.  N.O.'s got nothing to offer Paul, no money/desire to improve the team...He should get out of there.  He doesn't need a Miami-type arrangement.  He can lead any number of upcoming teams with smart owners to the promised land....

In case this post was confusing.  The gist is that Lebron in the long run will be an aberration, especially when he leaves Miami after 2 or 3 years....

[bdm860]

Actually stars teaming up is good for the league.  Hmmm let's think back, when was the NBA at it's best? Was it when the Lakers and Celtics were stacked in the 80's?  I mean how many top 50 players of all times were on both of those teams?

You know what I want to watch?  Good, competitive basketball.  I'd rather see like a 4 team league with all the best players on it playing each other every game, than a 30 team league with only 1 good player on a team and a bunch of scrubs.

[Who]

Chris Paul was on a team that was vying for top position in the Western Conference. That was a title contender. And then he watched it all fall apart ... that is a painful experience for a player. Like watching your career flash before your eyes.

To make matters worse, the Hornets have continued to decline and have failed to turn things around. So Paul's frustrations and unhappiness is steadily growing throughout all of this time.

In other words, the early success Chris Paul achieved has worked against the Hornets because of the sudden + painful decline.

[OmarSekou]

Actually stars teaming up is good for the league.  Hmmm let's think back, when was the NBA at it's best? Was it when the Lakers and Celtics were stacked in the 80's?  I mean how many top 50 players of all times were on both of those teams?

You know what I want to watch?  Good, competitive basketball.  I'd rather see like a 4 team league with all the best players on it playing each other every game, than a 30 team league with only 1 good player on a team and a bunch of scrubs.

Exactly. People watch sports to watch greatness. People also love to watch recognizable faces and stars in the sport. The Heat have already gotten people talking about basketball and we're in the off season. They'll generate $, interest and excitement.

People will turn in to watch the Heat and the Knicks if they get their 3. We've seen the Celts go from a national punch line to the "most hated team in the league" (because of the haters). Of Miami, Cleveland and Toronto there was only 1 good team before the trade. After the trades, there is still only 1 good team.

It's honestly insane how people want it every way possible. A guy takes a huge contract and he's "selfish and not trying to win". A guy takes a cut to stay with his team and he's "loyal, but stupid and not trying to win". A guy takes a cut to join a good team and "he's afraid of achieving greatness on his own". The only time people are happy is when someone overachieves and has great accomplishments beyond what's expected of them. But if that's the expectation...

In conclusion, better teams are good for the sport. This isn't like baseball because the cap rules are completely different. What the Heat are doing isn't really a sustainable model. So we'll see how this all plays out. I'll never fault a guy for trying to win, and I'll never say it's easy to win a championship, regardless of who is on your team.

[jdpapa3]

Agreed that better teams are good for the sport, but we're on our way to the NBA Finals being the only interesting games of the season.

[wdleehi]

Actually stars teaming up is good for the league.  Hmmm let's think back, when was the NBA at it's best? Was it when the Lakers and Celtics were stacked in the 80's?  I mean how many top 50 players of all times were on both of those teams?

You know what I want to watch?  Good, competitive basketball.  I'd rather see like a 4 team league with all the best players on it playing each other every game, than a 30 team league with only 1 good player on a team and a bunch of scrubs.

But they were not the only two teams stacked.

You had the 76ers.

You had the Pistons coming on.

Eventually the Bulls.

Houston was good.

Portland was deep.

The Bucks were good.



Of course, it was also more of a team league back then.  Having stars of coursed help, but because they were just better players.  Not because the league had adjusted the rules and the superstar calls that happen today.


The league has changed.  You have to have one of the very few superstars  to really compete.  Therefor, when a bunch end up on a one or two teams, most of the league is unimportant.  Fans don't go to those games.


While I have no issue with the players doing this, having this happen is terrible for the NBA's current set up. 

[action781]

@action781

I think the desire among fans to contract teams is usually (and unfortuantely) informed by how a particular set of franchises are doing in a particular season. If we were having this conversation in the late 1990's, there's absolutely no way anyone would suggest getting rid of the Pacers; the same goes for the Wolves in 2004, or the Nets in 2002 or 2003.

Also, usually the teams fans want to get rid of are smaller-market franchises like Indiana, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Sacramento, New Orleans, Toronto (even though it's one of the largest cities on the continent, it's still considered a backwater basketball town by many), etc. What these same fans tend to forget is that these small-market teams have solid fanbases, which is especially evident when said teams are enjoying any measure of success (hell, even Toronto fans were out in full force a few seasons ago when they had a 47-win season). Getting rid of these teams would thus, in my opinion, be almost as disastrous as the Sonics relocation two years ago.

Right, I understand that.  That's why I included in my post the:

Note:  No way do I think these owners actually give up these franchises.  It's just one example of how eliminating some teams could strengthen the overall quality of the NBA.  You could do it just as well with any 4 going-nowhere franchises.

By "going no-where franchises" I didn't simply mean the ones with the bleakest current outlook.  I meant franchises that are in a small market and also don't have a rich fan base.  I'm not too well-read on this topic, but I'd put N.O., Charlotte, and Memphis in that category since they've had franchises come and go.   Maybe Minnesota or Milwaukee as a 4th.  I just used those teams because it would be an example of getting rid of 4 bad teams from the league which would inevitably happen once ANY 4 teams are eliminated, even LA, Boston, Orlando, Miami since those players would just go to other teams and make them stronger.

[More Banners]

The idea that stars collecting on a handful of teams being bad for the league may be doesn't seem to be true, though it may be bad for competitiveness.  The idea that it's new, or that the C's Big 3 started it, shows ingorance of our own franchise history.

In over a half-century, the majority of championships were won by two teams.  If the Pistons and Bulls are added in, it's close to 70ish% of titles won by 4 teams.  Today, there are 30 teams (!) with cap and trade rules that attempt to create balance, yet still the Celtics and Lakers met in the finals in 2 of the last 3 years, and the Pistons were in the ECF for most of the last decade.  Look at the HOF:  what teams did most of the NBA inductees play for?  Did anyone notice that we had a superteam in '86, with FIVE future HOFers?

The NBA has never truly been a balanced, competitive league.  It probably never will.  Recent developments are nothing really new, it just came together in a new way.  Now, rather than Red making crazy deals (like trading the Ice Capades?) to accumulate top talent, like with much else in the NBA, the balance of power has shifted completely from owners to players, and now the players have gone the extra step, not just making the guaranteed money while owners have all of the risk (and less than half the BBRI), but now players get to make roster decisions, too.  THAT shift will be what drives the next CBA:  power (and, of course, money, but I think money will be easier to agree on than many think).  

Small market teams have more to fear from losing players (or the ability to get/keep players) than from paying salaries, even guaranteed ones.  Look how long Cleveland has to wait for their (low) picks received from Miami.  They got royally shafted because they players are in control of the franchise, not the owners.

Limiting the # of max contracts sounds like it would work, but the pseudosuperteams come together often because someone (or several) players take less money, either the stars or role players, or likely both (as KG took less money to come to Boston, and then Posey took short money in the short run).

Look for a franchise-player tag in the next CBA that will make it near impossible for a team to lose their top player (and half the value of their franchise) so easily.  If the money issue is close and it goes to a vote of player's union members, don't expect the majority of the 400+ players to vote to keep letting a small handful of players hold the league hostage, either.  I'm sure some of them might want a chance to win a title without having to take the minimum to have the chance because the only contenders have 3 max deals on the books.

[EmilioBonilla]

The idea that stars collecting on a handful of teams being bad for the league may be doesn't seem to be true, though it may be bad for competitiveness.  The idea that it's new, or that the C's Big 3 started it, shows ingorance of our own franchise history.

In over a half-century, the majority of championships were won by two teams.  If the Pistons and Bulls are added in, it's close to 70ish% of titles won by 4 teams.  Today, there are 30 teams (!) with cap and trade rules that attempt to create balance, yet still the Celtics and Lakers met in the finals in 2 of the last 3 years, and the Pistons were in the ECF for most of the last decade.  Look at the HOF:  what teams did most of the NBA inductees play for?  Did anyone notice that we had a superteam in '86, with FIVE future HOFers?

The NBA has never truly been a balanced, competitive league.  It probably never will.  Recent developments are nothing really new, it just came together in a new way.  Now, rather than Red making crazy deals (like trading the Ice Capades?) to accumulate top talent, like with much else in the NBA, the balance of power has shifted completely from owners to players, and now the players have gone the extra step, not just making the guaranteed money while owners have all of the risk (and less than half the BBRI), but now players get to make roster decisions, too.  THAT shift will be what drives the next CBA:  power (and, of course, money, but I think money will be easier to agree on than many think).  

Small market teams have more to fear from losing players (or the ability to get/keep players) than from paying salaries, even guaranteed ones.  Look how long Cleveland has to wait for their (low) picks received from Miami.  They got royally shafted because they players are in control of the franchise, not the owners.

Limiting the # of max contracts sounds like it would work, but the pseudosuperteams come together often because someone (or several) players take less money, either the stars or role players, or likely both (as KG took less money to come to Boston, and then Posey took short money in the short run).

Look for a franchise-player tag in the next CBA that will make it near impossible for a team to lose their top player (and half the value of their franchise) so easily.  If the money issue is close and it goes to a vote of player's union members, don't expect the majority of the 400+ players to vote to keep letting a small handful of players hold the league hostage, either.  I'm sure some of them might want a chance to win a title without having to take the minimum to have the chance because the only contenders have 3 max deals on the books.

Thing is that Ray was brought in and THEN KG came along because he's seen what Boston had to offer, Ray wasn't calling up KG and saying "hey lets build a super team with Pierce." That's the difference between the Celts and the Heat, the new super 3 had all the power in making it happen, while the Celts ownership is what made everything happen. Our players did not do a thing, our players were towards the end of their prime, while Miami's have upcoming superstars that haven't even reached their primes.

[KCattheStripe]

What I do have a problem is when younger and younger players start demanding their team wins now even when they are 25 or younger.

This is something that NBA fans should have a problem with?

Yes... if you have second and third year guys start demanding trades cause their teams are rebuilding the league will have major issues. You cant have 30 winning teams and good young players are gonna get drafted onto bad teams more often then not. If the players start forcing their way to play with their superstar friends in their third year in the league while still under contract, the league could not sustain 30 teams.

And having less than 30 teams is a problem?

Reread the end of the previous post. The poster was saying that 30 teams is too many if players want to play with their superstar friends. In such a situation, we should probably only have 8 or so teams.

You also can't have 30 winning teams because it is mathematically impossible, not because it is too many teams. I don't see the previous post as being a critique on the number of teams in the league, but rather a critique of expectations.

Think about my post again. I have no problem if the actions of young starts lead to the elimination of some franchises.

[bdm860]

Actually stars teaming up is good for the league.  Hmmm let's think back, when was the NBA at it's best? Was it when the Lakers and Celtics were stacked in the 80's?  I mean how many top 50 players of all times were on both of those teams?

You know what I want to watch?  Good, competitive basketball.  I'd rather see like a 4 team league with all the best players on it playing each other every game, than a 30 team league with only 1 good player on a team and a bunch of scrubs.

But they were not the only two teams stacked.

You had the 76ers.

You had the Pistons coming on.

Eventually the Bulls.

Houston was good.

Portland was deep.

The Bucks were good.



Of course, it was also more of a team league back then.  Having stars of coursed help, but because they were just better players.  Not because the league had adjusted the rules and the superstar calls that happen today.


The league has changed.  You have to have one of the very few superstars  to really compete.  Therefor, when a bunch end up on a one or two teams, most of the league is unimportant.  Fans don't go to those games.


While I have no issue with the players doing this, having this happen is terrible for the NBA's current set up. 

Really, all you did wdleehi was name some teams that were good, but we have the same amount of good teams and contenders now.  The Bucks and Bulls were good, but did anybody really think they were going to win the championship in the 80's?  They probably have the same odds then as Portland or OKC had last year.

Championship contenders then:  Lakers, Celtics, Sixers (first half of decade), Pistons (second half of decade), Houston in the middle, Bulls up and coming.
Championship contenders now:  Lakers, Celtics, Magic, Heat, with Spurs and Mavs past contenders that you still can't sleep on, and Portland, Chicago, and OKC up and coming.  Looks about the same to me.

The thing is people are making a big deal out of nothing.  1), typical championship contenders are stacked.  Celtics and Lakers have been stacked the last few years, just like the Celtics and Lakers were stacked in the 80's.  There's really never more than a handful of legit contenders every year, just like there is this year no matter where Chris Paul goes.

Chris Paul to the Knicks, they're still not a contender.  Man if he thinks New Orleans is poorly run, wait till he gets on the Knicks.
Chris Paul to the Lakers only makes them better on paper, but probably wouldn't really help them be any better, he's not a triangle type guy, actual it probably makes them worse.
Chris Paul to the Magic, this could actually make them better, but Orlando is still a contender with or without Paul, doesn't shift the NBA's balance of power.

2).  I'm about as excited about a Boston/Toronto game this up coming season as I was last.  Just like I will be equally excited about a Boston/Hornets game this year if Paul is traded as I was last year (ok maybe that one is a little different, because I do like the Rondo/Paul matchup).  Before the "LeBron team building model" went into effect, there were still a bunch of crappy teams that most people never really cared to watch.  In the 80's there were a lot of crappy teams people never cared to watch too.

3).  There's a lot more star players out there. The regular economy will work it self out.  Some will want more money and would rather sign big contracts, some only want stats and don't really want to sacrifce stats for wins (SHAWN MARION!).  Also players leaving give other players a chance to shine.  Think back late 90's Phoenix, you have Kevin Johnson AND Jason Kidd AND Steve Nash on the same team.  If Kidd left because he wanted to play on a real contender, we'd probably get to see Steve Nash step up and shine on the Suns instead of having to get traded to Dallas before people took notice.  Trevor Ariza just left a championship team last season to take more money.  It happens, always will.

Need a PG,? You have Paul, Williams, Rose, Rondo, Wall, Kidd, Parker, Nash, Billups, etc.  You're not really going to run out of good players.

Need a big man (that may or may not play in the post)?  You have Howard, Bosh, Dirk, KG, Randolph, David West, Stoudemire, Elton Brand, Lamarcus Aldridge, Tyson Chandler, Griffin, Lopez, David Lee, Big Al, etc.

There are a lot of good players out there, a few switching teams isn't going to hurt anything.  If Paul joins a stacked team, he probably won't be viewed as the premier point guard anymore because he won't be doing as much and therefore someone like Deron Williams will be viewed as better.

You think the league would have been worse, if instead of spending 11 years in Minnesota, Garnett asked for a trade to a contender after a few seasons?  Maybe Garnett goes to the Pacers or Knicks in the late 90's/early 2000's.  I don't think the league would have been any worse.  I stand by my opinion, it would have been better.  But say Garnett did ask to be traded and went to the Pacers, so now he's on the Pacers and it's early 2000's, now  Jermaine O'Neal wouldn't get his chance to shine on the Pacers, so he ends up somewhere else, and now another team has an All-Star player.  See how it works? 

[bdm860]

Right now I'm not excited about watching the Hornets play, nor am I excited about watching the Knicks play, but if Paul got traded to the Knicks, I would now be much more excited to watch the Knicks.  So we just added one more team I'm excited about watching, without creating any fewer teams I want to watch.  So again I think it's good for the NBA.

But now if Paul goes to the Lakers or Magic, well I'm still excited about watching them play (from a purely basketball talent perspective, still hate the Lakers  ), but I'm still not excited about watching the Hornets play, so nothing was lost.  So it's not bad for the NBA.

[slamtheking]

the only issue I have with how Miami came together is it seems like collusion by the players to almost rig the set up to ensure a title-contender as best they can.  There's no way the owners would be allowed to collaborate in such a lopsided manner to build a team up or to manipulate player movement to create that much of a lopsided swing in talent.

I don't fault Miami for playing within the rules to get the cap space needed to sign Bron and Bosh nor would I fault Wade for recruiting Bron and Bosh HAD HE ALREADY BEEN UNDER CONTRACT TO MIAMI.  That would be no different than the recruiting of Sheed last year.  What bothered me was a set of players not under contract to any team conspiring to play together to create a superteam.

I also don't feel this situation relates to what Boston or even LA did 3 years ago in assembling their championship line-ups.  in those cases, both teams worked out trades with other teams and brought those players together within the established forum for talent acquisition.  Completely different from Miami which won the sweepstakes for swiping someone else's talent with little to no cost to themselves (sorry, draft picks for Bron isn't going to even begin to balance out the talent loss for Cleveland).

[FallGuy]

What I do have a problem is when younger and younger players start demanding their team wins now even when they are 25 or younger.

This is something that NBA fans should have a problem with?

Yes... if you have second and third year guys start demanding trades cause their teams are rebuilding the league will have major issues. You cant have 30 winning teams and good young players are gonna get drafted onto bad teams more often then not. If the players start forcing their way to play with their superstar friends in their third year in the league while still under contract, the league could not sustain 30 teams.

And having less than 30 teams is a problem?

Reread the end of the previous post. The poster was saying that 30 teams is too many if players want to play with their superstar friends. In such a situation, we should probably only have 8 or so teams.

You also can't have 30 winning teams because it is mathematically impossible, not because it is too many teams. I don't see the previous post as being a critique on the number of teams in the league, but rather a critique of expectations.

Think about my post again. I have no problem if the actions of young starts lead to the elimination of some franchises.

Good luck with that. Stern is not contracting a team anymore than the players' union is going to give up jobs.

The most you may get is a relocation.