Poll: Would you lose interest in the NBA if Leonard went to Lakers

[Celtics4ever]

I mainly follow the Celtics, but I think it could make for an anti-climatic playoffs.

[mr. dee]

I'm pretty done with NBA already.  I only care about the C's as it is.  I can honestly say I hate everything about the league except for the C's.

Even the C's were dislikable last season. Hopefully, they revert back to the gritty blue-collar tradition this franchise has always been.

[coco]

I would still follow the Celtics.

But as an NBA fan i would be disappointed with Khawi Leonard

[CF033]

Kawhi needs to go to the Clippers and go against LeBron, not join him.

If he did though I would still watch the celts next year.

[Celtics4ever]

Kawhi better be careful. He has rebuilt his reputation with the championship win in Toronto. He is free to leave, but if he decides to team up with Lebron and Davis, he will (and should) get the KD treatment when he joined the Warriors. 

I don't know about that he is arguably the best player of the three.

I think Kyrie is going to end in LA because the Nets look committed to Russell and they only want Kyrie if he brought another star.

[Briantir]

I had to watch the Warriors Cheat their way to multiple titles with KD...

now LeBron KL and AD...please no.

[action781]

In the next CBA, allow players to sign for up to 50% of the cap. Or make a rule that hard caps how much can be spent on your top five players.

This.  This this this this this this this.  It's the only thing needed.  It's common sense.  The players should love it.  If Kawhi or Butler could earn $40-50 million per year elsewhere, then going to LAL for $30 mil would not be on their radar.  Even the endorsements couldn't make up that difference.  There's no reason guys like Evan Turner and Kent Bazemore should earn more than half as much money as LeBron when they are worth just a tiny fraction of him.  It's stupid for John Wall to be eligible for a larger contract than so many other younger NBA players who are better than him.

If players want to sacrifice 10s of millions of dollars per year to team up together, then I'm happy to give them that freedom to do so.  Just like I'm fine with guys taking the vet min to join a contender that could make more money elsewhere. 

[celticsclay]

I guess I am a bit surprised as many people feel the same as me, but could to know I am not the only one that wants a more competitive league where you don’t know who can win. I do think the nba will address this in the next cba. Obviously this is what they were trying to do with the Supermax, but I think they will adjust the criteria for that (feels weird Beal could make 50 million less cause of how some sportswriters vote)

[celticsclay]

Not at all.  Why would it?

Tp, this is a pretty funny post

*three pages of people explaining in detail why they would lose interest
*page 4: why?

[RJ87]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

[celticsclay]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

[rondofan1255]

Yeah I'm a general NBA fan as well, and the two seasons where almost everyone expected a Warriors win were not as fun (2017 and 2018). 2019 wasn't that suspenseful until the Durant injury. Predictable and boring with all other teams being pretenders barring catastrophic injury. So a few seasons with Kawhi on LAL would not impact my interest since I already lost some interest after Durant's move.

[RJ87]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

Competitive balance has never really existed in the NBA. 5 teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Spurs) account for 50 of the league's 73 titles. Before the Warriors, the were the Heatles, before that the Boston Big 3, before that the Pop/Duncan Spurs, before that Shaq and Kobe. Historically, there was Bird/McHale, the showtime Lakers, Bill Russell's Celtics. Superteams have existed pretty much since the league started and they will exist for the foreseeable future.

So the handwringing now feels a bit disingenuous.

[KGs Knee]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

Competitive balance has never really existed in the NBA. 5 teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Spurs) account for 50 of the league's 73 titles. Before the Warriors, the were the Heatles, before that the Boston Big 3, before that the Pop/Duncan Spurs, before that Shaq and Kobe. Historically, there was Bird/McHale, the showtime Lakers, Bill Russell's Celtics. Superteams have existed pretty much since the league started and they will exist for the foreseeable future.

So the handwringing now feels a bit disingenuous.

I have to concur

[celticsclay]

No.

Let's be honest, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Celtics were in position to pull this off.

But hey, people wanted a warm and fuzzy team so don't hate the Lakers because their team of jerks and divas could get them a 17th banner.

I mean, the second reply goes pretty much directly against this:

So much so that even if the C's were in the same position I would look at it as bad for the league.

But why does it matter what the Lakers do? People have said on and on that they just want a team they can root for and like. They should be happy regardless, no?

A lot of us are not just celtics fans but nba fans. The Celtics part is not really impacted, but enjoying the rest of the league is. I have enjoyed the rest of the league a lot less the last 3 years. It all felt pretty meaningless cause you are basically only rooting for warriors injuries if you want a competitive season. On top of that there is a lot of reporting that teams tanked and did rebuilds cause they didn’t see a path to competing with the warriors havin 4 all nba guys. There wis  a lot of excitement this offseason because it seems like any one of ten teams could realistically win the title. If three top ten players were going to join forces again (which I still don’t think will happen) we will have a non competitive league for another 2-3 years.

Competitive balance has never really existed in the NBA. 5 teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Spurs) account for 50 of the league's 73 titles. Before the Warriors, the were the Heatles, before that the Boston Big 3, before that the Pop/Duncan Spurs, before that Shaq and Kobe. Historically, there was Bird/McHale, the showtime Lakers, Bill Russell's Celtics. Superteams have existed pretty much since the league started and they will exist for the foreseeable future.

So the handwringing now feels a bit disingenuous.

This is objectively false. The warriors the last few years and the heat super teams were significantly bigger favorites to win the title than any time in the last 20 years ( I honestly don’t know before that but I would imagine it extends even further). The last few years you could bet the field against the warriors to win the title at plus odds. Do you know what that mean? It’s unprecedented. How do people not understand that?