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

[PhoSita]

I'm definitely coming around to the idea of eliminating the max contract, or at least increasing it substantially.

It should not be possible for a team under the cap to have room to sign multiple max players.  Unless, perhaps, one of the max guys has been with that same team for a while (see below).


If they do get rid of the max though, I think it would be a good idea to make it so that if a player has been with the same team (not on the same contract as with Bird rights, but actually on the same team) for 3+ years, the cap hit for that player is capped at a certain amount.  Let's say that player's cap hit is limited to something like 30 or 40k. 

That would help teams to hold onto their superstar players without totally limiting their ability to construct a team around that player.


We've seen with the supermax that teams are given the Sophie's choice of either spending destroying their cap sheet to keep their main guy, or letting the centerpiece of their franchise go.  I don't think it makes sense to put teams in that position.

[libermaniac]

I'm definitely coming around to the idea of eliminating the max contract, or at least increasing it substantially.

It should not be possible for a team under the cap to have room to sign multiple max players.  Unless, perhaps, one of the max guys has been with that same team for a while (see below).


If they do get rid of the max though, I think it would be a good idea to make it so that if a player has been with the same team (not on the same contract as with Bird rights, but actually on the same team) for 3+ years, the cap hit for that player is capped at a certain amount.  Let's say that player's cap hit is limited to something like 30 or 40k. 

That would help teams to hold onto their superstar players without totally limiting their ability to construct a team around that player.


We've seen with the supermax that teams are given the Sophie's choice of either spending destroying their cap sheet to keep their main guy, or letting the centerpiece of their franchise go.  I don't think it makes sense to put teams in that position.

Yep.  It's a joke that the Lakers can do about the worst job of managing their team over the past 6 years that is humanly possible, but be in the enviable position of having 3 top 10 players simply due to their location.  But, sadly, the NBA loves superteams and will have no incentive to fix it.

[GC003332]

See Below

[estendius]

Well, superteam happens all the time in NBA.
If Leonard goto Lakers, the final will be the same as Gsw with Durant vs Cavs: boring.

[GC003332]

   Starting with the 84-85 season, the Sixers also added Barkley who would go on to win the MVP with the Suns, so they had Moses, Dr. J, and Barkley all in their 20's on the same team not to mention other HOFers Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.  Yet somehow the Sixers aren't equivalent to the Warriors of today.  That seems a bit strange to me.

Dr J turned 35 during the 84-85 season.

[celticsclay]

   Starting with the 84-85 season, the Sixers also added Barkley who would go on to win the MVP with the Suns, so they had Moses, Dr. J, and Barkley all in their 20's on the same team not to mention other HOFers Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.  Yet somehow the Sixers aren't equivalent to the Warriors of today.  That seems a bit strange to me.

Dr J turned 35 during the 84-85 season.

When the warriors came together Durant was 28, Steph was 28, klay was 26 and dray was 26. They were all coming of making all nba, all four made the all star team the first year I believe and Steph curry and Durant were coming off back to back mvps and healthy. There has never been anything like all of that combined in the last 49 years. I could say this to a 100 people and 99 of them would say yeah that is pretty straight forward it was a stacked team that made the nba less competitive. I found the one person that wants to argue the nba has always been like this and nothing was different. And this dude had the audacity to say it sounded strange lol

[ozgod]

I would want to see the rest of the Faker team before saying they will win the championship with Kawhi next year. Right now they have:

[Androslav]

Kawhi dragging LAkers to the cliff, only to go to Clipps.
A legend.

[JSD]

I would want to see the rest of the Faker team before saying they will win the championship with Kawhi next year. Right now they have:

[img width=389 https://www.spotrac.com/nba/boston-celtics/cap/height=500]https://i.postimg.cc/P5j2mKJR/lakers2019.jpg[/img]

What website is this?


Edit found it.


https://www.spotrac.com/nba/boston-celtics/cap/

[Moranis]

   Starting with the 84-85 season, the Sixers also added Barkley who would go on to win the MVP with the Suns, so they had Moses, Dr. J, and Barkley all in their 20's on the same team not to mention other HOFers Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.  Yet somehow the Sixers aren't equivalent to the Warriors of today.  That seems a bit strange to me.

Dr J turned 35 during the 84-85 season.

When the warriors came together Durant was 28, Steph was 28, klay was 26 and dray was 26. They were all coming of making all nba, all four made the all star team the first year I believe and Steph curry and Durant were coming off back to back mvps and healthy. There has never been anything like all of that combined in the last 49 years. I could say this to a 100 people and 99 of them would say yeah that is pretty straight forward it was a stacked team that made the nba less competitive. I found the one person that wants to argue the nba has always been like this and nothing was different. And this dude had the audacity to say it sounded strange lol

you keep repeating this yet when Moses joined the 82-83 Sixers, he was the reigning MVP.  The MVP directly before him was Dr. J.  Moses would win the MVP again their first season together (Dr. J finished 5th - they were both 1st Team All NBA) and they won 65 games and went 12-1 in the playoffs to win the title.  That team also had future HOFers Bobby Jones and Mo Cheeks (they both finished tied for 3rd for DPOY that year), as well as All Star Andrew Toney.  Moses, Dr. J, and Cheeks all started the 83 All Star game and Toney was a reserve.  So they also had 4 All Stars.

Now explain to me how the Warriors are any different again?

[celticsclay]

   Starting with the 84-85 season, the Sixers also added Barkley who would go on to win the MVP with the Suns, so they had Moses, Dr. J, and Barkley all in their 20's on the same team not to mention other HOFers Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.  Yet somehow the Sixers aren't equivalent to the Warriors of today.  That seems a bit strange to me.

Dr J turned 35 during the 84-85 season.

When the warriors came together Durant was 28, Steph was 28, klay was 26 and dray was 26. They were all coming of making all nba, all four made the all star team the first year I believe and Steph curry and Durant were coming off back to back mvps and healthy. There has never been anything like all of that combined in the last 49 years. I could say this to a 100 people and 99 of them would say yeah that is pretty straight forward it was a stacked team that made the nba less competitive. I found the one person that wants to argue the nba has always been like this and nothing was different. And this dude had the audacity to say it sounded strange lol

you keep repeating this yet when Moses joined the 82-83 Sixers, he was the reigning MVP.  The MVP directly before him was Dr. J.  Moses would win the MVP again their first season together (Dr. J finished 5th - they were both 1st Team All NBA) and they won 65 games and went 12-1 in the playoffs to win the title.  That team also had future HOFers Bobby Jones and Mo Cheeks (they both finished tied for 3rd for DPOY that year), as well as All Star Andrew Toney.  Moses, Dr. J, and Cheeks all started the 83 All Star game and Toney was a reserve.  So they also had 4 All Stars.

Now explain to me how the Warriors are any different again?

I’ve literally provided pages and pages of evidence here including odds, elo rankings, individual accolades etc and you just choose not to accept them. We haven’t even added the fact that the warriors added a top 3 player to the team that set all the all times wins record. Your comparison for a 2 time champion warriors teamis to compare a philly team with some individual accolades (while it cool you found a team with 4 all stars, as other posters mentioned even the fact there were 8-10 less teams make that a bit less remarkable than warriors accomplishment) that never won the championship? I honestly don’t even get where you are going with this stuff, but it doesn’t seem like this is going anywhere. I guess at some level this most recent point by you strikes me as particularly humorous cause it is arguing my point. The 76ers were a very good team that year, but they lost. And you know why? There were other good teams and the league was more competitive. Thank you for coming full circle on this

[Moranis]

   Starting with the 84-85 season, the Sixers also added Barkley who would go on to win the MVP with the Suns, so they had Moses, Dr. J, and Barkley all in their 20's on the same team not to mention other HOFers Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.  Yet somehow the Sixers aren't equivalent to the Warriors of today.  That seems a bit strange to me.

Dr J turned 35 during the 84-85 season.

When the warriors came together Durant was 28, Steph was 28, klay was 26 and dray was 26. They were all coming of making all nba, all four made the all star team the first year I believe and Steph curry and Durant were coming off back to back mvps and healthy. There has never been anything like all of that combined in the last 49 years. I could say this to a 100 people and 99 of them would say yeah that is pretty straight forward it was a stacked team that made the nba less competitive. I found the one person that wants to argue the nba has always been like this and nothing was different. And this dude had the audacity to say it sounded strange lol

you keep repeating this yet when Moses joined the 82-83 Sixers, he was the reigning MVP.  The MVP directly before him was Dr. J.  Moses would win the MVP again their first season together (Dr. J finished 5th - they were both 1st Team All NBA) and they won 65 games and went 12-1 in the playoffs to win the title.  That team also had future HOFers Bobby Jones and Mo Cheeks (they both finished tied for 3rd for DPOY that year), as well as All Star Andrew Toney.  Moses, Dr. J, and Cheeks all started the 83 All Star game and Toney was a reserve.  So they also had 4 All Stars.

Now explain to me how the Warriors are any different again?

I’ve literally provided pages and pages of evidence here including odds, elo rankings, individual accolades etc and you just choose not to accept them. We haven’t even added the fact that the warriors added a top 3 player to the team that set all the all times wins record. Your comparison for a 2 time champion warriors teamis to compare a philly team with some individual accolades (while it cool you found a team with 4 all stars, as other posters mentioned even the fact there were 8-10 less teams make that a bit less remarkable than warriors accomplishment) that never won the championship? I honestly don’t even get where you are going with this stuff, but it doesn’t seem like this is going anywhere. I guess at some level this most recent point by you strikes me as particularly humorous cause it is arguing my point. The 76ers were a very good team that year, but they lost. And you know why? There were other good teams and the league was more competitive. Thank you for coming full circle on this

The 83 Sixers won the title.  They went 12-1 in the playoffs. 

The 82 Sixers won 58 games and lost in 6 games in the NBA Finals and then added the reigning MVP to their team.  The Sixers

So to recap, the Sixers lost a close series in the NBA Finals and then added the reigning MVP to their team and won the title.   Seems pretty similar to the Warriors that lost in the Finals and then added a former MVP (not the reigning one).

[celticsclay]

   Starting with the 84-85 season, the Sixers also added Barkley who would go on to win the MVP with the Suns, so they had Moses, Dr. J, and Barkley all in their 20's on the same team not to mention other HOFers Mo Cheeks and Bobby Jones.  Yet somehow the Sixers aren't equivalent to the Warriors of today.  That seems a bit strange to me.

Dr J turned 35 during the 84-85 season.

When the warriors came together Durant was 28, Steph was 28, klay was 26 and dray was 26. They were all coming of making all nba, all four made the all star team the first year I believe and Steph curry and Durant were coming off back to back mvps and healthy. There has never been anything like all of that combined in the last 49 years. I could say this to a 100 people and 99 of them would say yeah that is pretty straight forward it was a stacked team that made the nba less competitive. I found the one person that wants to argue the nba has always been like this and nothing was different. And this dude had the audacity to say it sounded strange lol

you keep repeating this yet when Moses joined the 82-83 Sixers, he was the reigning MVP.  The MVP directly before him was Dr. J.  Moses would win the MVP again their first season together (Dr. J finished 5th - they were both 1st Team All NBA) and they won 65 games and went 12-1 in the playoffs to win the title.  That team also had future HOFers Bobby Jones and Mo Cheeks (they both finished tied for 3rd for DPOY that year), as well as All Star Andrew Toney.  Moses, Dr. J, and Cheeks all started the 83 All Star game and Toney was a reserve.  So they also had 4 All Stars.

Now explain to me how the Warriors are any different again?

I’ve literally provided pages and pages of evidence here including odds, elo rankings, individual accolades etc and you just choose not to accept them. We haven’t even added the fact that the warriors added a top 3 player to the team that set all the all times wins record. Your comparison for a 2 time champion warriors teamis to compare a philly team with some individual accolades (while it cool you found a team with 4 all stars, as other posters mentioned even the fact there were 8-10 less teams make that a bit less remarkable than warriors accomplishment) that never won the championship? I honestly don’t even get where you are going with this stuff, but it doesn’t seem like this is going anywhere. I guess at some level this most recent point by you strikes me as particularly humorous cause it is arguing my point. The 76ers were a very good team that year, but they lost. And you know why? There were other good teams and the league was more competitive. Thank you for coming full circle on this

The 83 Sixers won the title.  They went 12-1 in the playoffs. 

The 82 Sixers won 58 games and lost in 6 games in the NBA Finals and then added the reigning MVP to their team.  The Sixers

So to recap, the Sixers lost a close series in the NBA Finals and then added the reigning MVP to their team and won the title.   Seems pretty similar to the Warriors that lost in the Finals and then added a former MVP (not the reigning one).

So your final argument is that the 83 76ers were an extremely dominant team that was the most dominating team in the NBA (for one season) until Durant joined the Warriors? I can accept that there was another time in history 34 years ago where this happened. Thankfully the guys on the team were older and the 76ers were only able to have this two year run with one title. It was great for the NBA there will also great teams in Boston, Milwaukee and LA so the rest of the 80's had some really great matchups. The concern with this warriors team was that theyw ere all 26-28 and had a chance at a 6 or 7 year run. Thankfully for the league's competitive purposes Durant's injury stopped that from being more than back to back mostly non-competitive championships.

[mmmmm]

Count me in the, "This makes no difference to me", column.

The NBA has and always will be dominated by a tiny handful of teams during any given era.   That's just the nature of the game.

How strong a singular favorite any one team is doesn't change that.   Even if Kawhi joins the Lakers and even if they suddenly were to be 'historically highest favorites' to win the title next year, that doesn't really mean much.   That's the kind of stat that some team has to own after all.

The Warriors were able to add Durant through a unique convergence of events.   In particular, the fact of his free agency happening at the exact time when the NBA's new TV contract caused a massive spike in the salary cap.   That, more than anything, was what lead to their ability to form that 'super team'.

And even having done that, they still were not invulnerable to the competitive balance forces and the random fortunes of injury.   They won two titles and then the CBA realities and the wear and tear grind (playing all those extra playoff games every year takes a toll) have caught up to them.

The Lakers may or  may not be able to replicate being just as strong of a 'super team' as the Warriors were.  Unlike the Warriors, they aren't benefiting from an anomalous spike in the salary cap to simply 'add to an already strong roster'.   They have had to completely strip down to bare bones first to trade for Davis and then to make cap room for Kawhi (they hope).   They could end up far more top-heavy, with their three superstars and pretty much nothing else around them.   One injury to any of the big 3 could derail everything.

I will definitely not lose any interest if Kawhi goes there.  It will just be part of the story to watch play out.

[celticsclay]

Count me in the, "This makes no difference to me", column.

The NBA has and always will be dominated by a tiny handful of teams during any given era.   That's just the nature of the game.

How strong a singular favorite any one team is doesn't change that.   Even if Kawhi joins the Lakers and even if they suddenly were to be 'historically highest favorites' to win the title next year, that doesn't really mean much.   That's the kind of stat that some team has to own after all.

The Warriors were able to add Durant through a unique convergence of events.   In particular, the fact of his free agency happening at the exact time when the NBA's new TV contract caused a massive spike in the salary cap.   That, more than anything, was what lead to their ability to form that 'super team'.

And even having done that, they still were not invulnerable to the competitive balance forces and the random fortunes of injury.   They won two titles and then the CBA realities and the wear and tear grind (playing all those extra playoff games every year takes a toll) have caught up to them.

The Lakers may or  may not be able to replicate being just as strong of a 'super team' as the Warriors were.  Unlike the Warriors, they aren't benefiting from an anomalous spike in the salary cap to simply 'add to an already strong roster'.   They have had to completely strip down to bare bones first to trade for Davis and then to make cap room for Kawhi (they hope).   They could end up far more top-heavy, with their three superstars and pretty much nothing else around them.   One injury to any of the big 3 could derail everything.

I will definitely not lose any interest if Kawhi goes there.  It will just be part of the story to watch play out.

This is a good point, but Leonard and James and Davis may be so good it doesn't matter. It is hard to say. The worst problem though with a huge prohibitive favorite like the warriors is that teams stop going for it. There are a ton of comments from executives or stories from writers like Lowe where teams talked about doing a longer rebuild, not wanting to sacrifice assets to compete because the warriors were so good it was pointless. It is entirely possible our very own Celtics did not pull the trigger on trades for Butler or George cause Ainge felt the team still most likely wouldn't beat the warriors (to be fair, i don't think i ever saw that in writing, but it is a reasonable examples).