The New NBA - Non Superteams Need Not Apply

[Jon]

The NBA, more then any other of the major sport, is all about having a top 5 player to build around. 


Which means outside of 5 teams, no one else really has a chance.  Therefor, unless you are in Florida or the LA Lakers, you have to hope to get lucky in the draft.  Trading the high payed players helps you 1, save money and 2, get a higher chance at winning the draft lotto.



That's why I really want to see the NBA shift from the star centered rules to more team centered rules.  While having a top 5 star should provide your team an advantage, well run teams that do not get that type of lotto luck can still compete for a title in the playoffs with deep, well designed, talented teams.  (Think those Phoenix teams)

Personally, I get sick watching a team so poorly ran like the Cavs being favorites year after year just because they lucked into Lebron. 

This is true, which tells us two very important things about our short term and long term future:

1) We should have a pretty easy time holding onto Ray Allen if we don't trade him.  No non "super team" is going to want to pay someone his age a big contract and no "super team" is going to have more than the MLE to spend on him.  Thus, the Celtics should be able to pretty much sign him to whatever they want, possibly even a 1-year deal that would retain his value as a trade chip. 

2) We shouldn't be in a rush to break this.  Maybe our chances of winning are far less than they were last year or the year before, but they're still likely better than they'll be if we break this up.  As wdleehi points out, unless we have a plan to get LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Howard, or Duncan (or someone who is going to be the new Kobe or Duncan), we're likely not going to win another title anytime soon. 

[wdleehi]

The NBA, more then any other of the major sport, is all about having a top 5 player to build around. 


Which means outside of 5 teams, no one else really has a chance.  Therefor, unless you are in Florida or the LA Lakers, you have to hope to get lucky in the draft.  Trading the high payed players helps you 1, save money and 2, get a higher chance at winning the draft lotto.



That's why I really want to see the NBA shift from the star centered rules to more team centered rules.  While having a top 5 star should provide your team an advantage, well run teams that do not get that type of lotto luck can still compete for a title in the playoffs with deep, well designed, talented teams.  (Think those Phoenix teams)

Personally, I get sick watching a team so poorly ran like the Cavs being favorites year after year just because they lucked into Lebron. 

This is true, which tells us two very important things about our short term and long term future:

1) We should have a pretty easy time holding onto Ray Allen if we don't trade him.  No non "super team" is going to want to pay someone his age a big contract and no "super team" is going to have more than the MLE to spend on him.  Thus, the Celtics should be able to pretty much sign him to whatever they want, possibly even a 1-year deal that would retain his value as a trade chip. 

2) We shouldn't be in a rush to break this.  Maybe our chances of winning are far less than they were last year or the year before, but they're still likely better than they'll be if we break this up.  As wdleehi points out, unless we have a plan to get LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Howard, or Duncan (or someone who is going to be the new Kobe or Duncan), we're likely not going to win another title anytime soon. 

Actually, that should push team to break up to start the rebuilding (getting lucky) process.

[guava_wrench]

Why blame the system? Are we going to blame the system for Jordan winning 6 titles instead of crediting the player for his dominance?

This is the way basketball works. If you don't like basketball, watch something else.

If you want to lessen the effect of superstars you have two options: (1) make basketball 7 on 7 instead of 5 on 5 or (2) have restrictions on minutes (only let players play in 2 of 4 quarters, for example. Both of these ideas are stupid.

The league is no worse than it was in Bill Russell's time, when the trades were far crazier and it was much easier to win championships if you were serious about the sport.

[angryguy77]

Why blame the system? Are we going to blame the system for Jordan winning 6 titles instead of crediting the player for his dominance?

This is the way basketball works. If you don't like basketball, watch something else.

If you want to lessen the effect of superstars you have two options: (1) make basketball 7 on 7 instead of 5 on 5 or (2) have restrictions on minutes (only let players play in 2 of 4 quarters, for example. Both of these ideas are stupid.

The league is no worse than it was in Bill Russell's time, when the trades were far crazier and it was much easier to win championships if you were serious about the sport.

I think they should add another ball. Think of the chaos

[Jon]

The NBA, more then any other of the major sport, is all about having a top 5 player to build around. 


Which means outside of 5 teams, no one else really has a chance.  Therefor, unless you are in Florida or the LA Lakers, you have to hope to get lucky in the draft.  Trading the high payed players helps you 1, save money and 2, get a higher chance at winning the draft lotto.



That's why I really want to see the NBA shift from the star centered rules to more team centered rules.  While having a top 5 star should provide your team an advantage, well run teams that do not get that type of lotto luck can still compete for a title in the playoffs with deep, well designed, talented teams.  (Think those Phoenix teams)

Personally, I get sick watching a team so poorly ran like the Cavs being favorites year after year just because they lucked into Lebron. 

This is true, which tells us two very important things about our short term and long term future:

1) We should have a pretty easy time holding onto Ray Allen if we don't trade him.  No non "super team" is going to want to pay someone his age a big contract and no "super team" is going to have more than the MLE to spend on him.  Thus, the Celtics should be able to pretty much sign him to whatever they want, possibly even a 1-year deal that would retain his value as a trade chip. 

2) We shouldn't be in a rush to break this.  Maybe our chances of winning are far less than they were last year or the year before, but they're still likely better than they'll be if we break this up.  As wdleehi points out, unless we have a plan to get LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Howard, or Duncan (or someone who is going to be the new Kobe or Duncan), we're likely not going to win another title anytime soon. 

Actually, that should push team to break up to start the rebuilding (getting lucky) process.

I don't agree necessarily.  In theory, the more times you get a shot at the lottery, the better.  But all that really matters is that you get lucky in the right lottery.  For all we know we blow this thing up, and end up getting the number #1 pick in a lottery where we get the next Dominique Wilkens.  We get better, but we never get good enough to win it all. 

So I don't think starting over sooner really does all that much, unless you're convinced someone in the next 2-3 years in the draft is a franchise-changer like LeBron, Kobe, or Duncan.  But even then, as we saw in '97, we may not get the #1 pick. 

[wdleehi]

The NBA, more then any other of the major sport, is all about having a top 5 player to build around. 


Which means outside of 5 teams, no one else really has a chance.  Therefor, unless you are in Florida or the LA Lakers, you have to hope to get lucky in the draft.  Trading the high payed players helps you 1, save money and 2, get a higher chance at winning the draft lotto.



That's why I really want to see the NBA shift from the star centered rules to more team centered rules.  While having a top 5 star should provide your team an advantage, well run teams that do not get that type of lotto luck can still compete for a title in the playoffs with deep, well designed, talented teams.  (Think those Phoenix teams)

Personally, I get sick watching a team so poorly ran like the Cavs being favorites year after year just because they lucked into Lebron. 

This is true, which tells us two very important things about our short term and long term future:

1) We should have a pretty easy time holding onto Ray Allen if we don't trade him.  No non "super team" is going to want to pay someone his age a big contract and no "super team" is going to have more than the MLE to spend on him.  Thus, the Celtics should be able to pretty much sign him to whatever they want, possibly even a 1-year deal that would retain his value as a trade chip. 

2) We shouldn't be in a rush to break this.  Maybe our chances of winning are far less than they were last year or the year before, but they're still likely better than they'll be if we break this up.  As wdleehi points out, unless we have a plan to get LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Howard, or Duncan (or someone who is going to be the new Kobe or Duncan), we're likely not going to win another title anytime soon. 

Actually, that should push team to break up to start the rebuilding (getting lucky) process.

I don't agree necessarily.  In theory, the more times you get a shot at the lottery, the better.  But all that really matters is that you get lucky in the right lottery.  For all we know we blow this thing up, and end up getting the number #1 pick in a lottery where we get the next Dominique Wilkens.  We get better, but we never get good enough to win it all. 

So I don't think starting over sooner really does all that much, unless you're convinced someone in the next 2-3 years in the draft is a franchise-changer like LeBron, Kobe, or Duncan.  But even then, as we saw in '97, we may not get the #1 pick. 

No.


You just keep trading your good players to stay in the lotto till you get lucky.


The Clippers are still waiting to get lucky.

[Jon]

The NBA, more then any other of the major sport, is all about having a top 5 player to build around. 


Which means outside of 5 teams, no one else really has a chance.  Therefor, unless you are in Florida or the LA Lakers, you have to hope to get lucky in the draft.  Trading the high payed players helps you 1, save money and 2, get a higher chance at winning the draft lotto.



That's why I really want to see the NBA shift from the star centered rules to more team centered rules.  While having a top 5 star should provide your team an advantage, well run teams that do not get that type of lotto luck can still compete for a title in the playoffs with deep, well designed, talented teams.  (Think those Phoenix teams)

Personally, I get sick watching a team so poorly ran like the Cavs being favorites year after year just because they lucked into Lebron. 

This is true, which tells us two very important things about our short term and long term future:

1) We should have a pretty easy time holding onto Ray Allen if we don't trade him.  No non "super team" is going to want to pay someone his age a big contract and no "super team" is going to have more than the MLE to spend on him.  Thus, the Celtics should be able to pretty much sign him to whatever they want, possibly even a 1-year deal that would retain his value as a trade chip. 

2) We shouldn't be in a rush to break this.  Maybe our chances of winning are far less than they were last year or the year before, but they're still likely better than they'll be if we break this up.  As wdleehi points out, unless we have a plan to get LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Howard, or Duncan (or someone who is going to be the new Kobe or Duncan), we're likely not going to win another title anytime soon. 

Actually, that should push team to break up to start the rebuilding (getting lucky) process.

I don't agree necessarily.  In theory, the more times you get a shot at the lottery, the better.  But all that really matters is that you get lucky in the right lottery.  For all we know we blow this thing up, and end up getting the number #1 pick in a lottery where we get the next Dominique Wilkens.  We get better, but we never get good enough to win it all. 

So I don't think starting over sooner really does all that much, unless you're convinced someone in the next 2-3 years in the draft is a franchise-changer like LeBron, Kobe, or Duncan.  But even then, as we saw in '97, we may not get the #1 pick. 

No.


You just keep trading your good players to stay in the lotto till you get lucky.


The Clippers are still waiting to get lucky.

Which is exactly why I'm not in a rush to rebuild in either way.  Lots of teams have gotten burned in the draft and free agency.  I remember when the Bulls got burned by both the draft (Curry/Chandler) and free agency (when the cleared all that cap room to make a run at Duncan, McGrady, or Hill and got Ron Mercer instead). 

[wdleehi]

The NBA, more then any other of the major sport, is all about having a top 5 player to build around. 


Which means outside of 5 teams, no one else really has a chance.  Therefor, unless you are in Florida or the LA Lakers, you have to hope to get lucky in the draft.  Trading the high payed players helps you 1, save money and 2, get a higher chance at winning the draft lotto.



That's why I really want to see the NBA shift from the star centered rules to more team centered rules.  While having a top 5 star should provide your team an advantage, well run teams that do not get that type of lotto luck can still compete for a title in the playoffs with deep, well designed, talented teams.  (Think those Phoenix teams)

Personally, I get sick watching a team so poorly ran like the Cavs being favorites year after year just because they lucked into Lebron. 

This is true, which tells us two very important things about our short term and long term future:

1) We should have a pretty easy time holding onto Ray Allen if we don't trade him.  No non "super team" is going to want to pay someone his age a big contract and no "super team" is going to have more than the MLE to spend on him.  Thus, the Celtics should be able to pretty much sign him to whatever they want, possibly even a 1-year deal that would retain his value as a trade chip. 

2) We shouldn't be in a rush to break this.  Maybe our chances of winning are far less than they were last year or the year before, but they're still likely better than they'll be if we break this up.  As wdleehi points out, unless we have a plan to get LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Howard, or Duncan (or someone who is going to be the new Kobe or Duncan), we're likely not going to win another title anytime soon. 

Actually, that should push team to break up to start the rebuilding (getting lucky) process.

I don't agree necessarily.  In theory, the more times you get a shot at the lottery, the better.  But all that really matters is that you get lucky in the right lottery.  For all we know we blow this thing up, and end up getting the number #1 pick in a lottery where we get the next Dominique Wilkens.  We get better, but we never get good enough to win it all. 

So I don't think starting over sooner really does all that much, unless you're convinced someone in the next 2-3 years in the draft is a franchise-changer like LeBron, Kobe, or Duncan.  But even then, as we saw in '97, we may not get the #1 pick. 

No.


You just keep trading your good players to stay in the lotto till you get lucky.


The Clippers are still waiting to get lucky.

Which is exactly why I'm not in a rush to rebuild in either way.  Lots of teams have gotten burned in the draft and free agency.  I remember when the Bulls got burned by both the draft (Curry/Chandler) and free agency (when the cleared all that cap room to make a run at Duncan, McGrady, or Hill and got Ron Mercer instead). 

Which is where the luck comes in. 

[sk7326]

The lottery requires luck.  The salary cap requires luck - after all it penalizes teams for keeping teams together.  If you wanted to test great management, you'd abolish both the draft and the salary cap - but that will never happen because the NBA wants the guaranteed costs.

[Jon]

The NBA, more then any other of the major sport, is all about having a top 5 player to build around. 


Which means outside of 5 teams, no one else really has a chance.  Therefor, unless you are in Florida or the LA Lakers, you have to hope to get lucky in the draft.  Trading the high payed players helps you 1, save money and 2, get a higher chance at winning the draft lotto.



That's why I really want to see the NBA shift from the star centered rules to more team centered rules.  While having a top 5 star should provide your team an advantage, well run teams that do not get that type of lotto luck can still compete for a title in the playoffs with deep, well designed, talented teams.  (Think those Phoenix teams)

Personally, I get sick watching a team so poorly ran like the Cavs being favorites year after year just because they lucked into Lebron. 

This is true, which tells us two very important things about our short term and long term future:

1) We should have a pretty easy time holding onto Ray Allen if we don't trade him.  No non "super team" is going to want to pay someone his age a big contract and no "super team" is going to have more than the MLE to spend on him.  Thus, the Celtics should be able to pretty much sign him to whatever they want, possibly even a 1-year deal that would retain his value as a trade chip. 

2) We shouldn't be in a rush to break this.  Maybe our chances of winning are far less than they were last year or the year before, but they're still likely better than they'll be if we break this up.  As wdleehi points out, unless we have a plan to get LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Howard, or Duncan (or someone who is going to be the new Kobe or Duncan), we're likely not going to win another title anytime soon. 

Actually, that should push team to break up to start the rebuilding (getting lucky) process.

I don't agree necessarily.  In theory, the more times you get a shot at the lottery, the better.  But all that really matters is that you get lucky in the right lottery.  For all we know we blow this thing up, and end up getting the number #1 pick in a lottery where we get the next Dominique Wilkens.  We get better, but we never get good enough to win it all. 

So I don't think starting over sooner really does all that much, unless you're convinced someone in the next 2-3 years in the draft is a franchise-changer like LeBron, Kobe, or Duncan.  But even then, as we saw in '97, we may not get the #1 pick. 

No.


You just keep trading your good players to stay in the lotto till you get lucky.


The Clippers are still waiting to get lucky.

Which is exactly why I'm not in a rush to rebuild in either way.  Lots of teams have gotten burned in the draft and free agency.  I remember when the Bulls got burned by both the draft (Curry/Chandler) and free agency (when the cleared all that cap room to make a run at Duncan, McGrady, or Hill and got Ron Mercer instead). 

Which is where the luck comes in. 

Agreed.

[dlpin]

Not true.  Before Stern took over with the emergance of Magic and Bird, good teams won more often vs. the best player. 


In today's NBA, it would likely have been Wilt winning a ton of titles vs. Russell because Wilt played the superstar game while Russell played the team game. 

Again, changing the rules to support team play over superstars will not remove Superstars from the championship.  It will remove the team that has terrible management/coaching the lucked into that one star from being contenders. 

I'm sorry, but you are clearly wrong. First, using that celtics team as an example of how superstarts didn't matter as much is wrong. Those celtics teams were filled with superstars, and are exactly the definition of super team. And a hard cap would clearly break up the celtics before it would break up any of the contenders.

Second, back then, just as now, just a few teams actually competed for the title.

Third, how often did the good team beat the best player before Stern, and how often does the best team beat the best player now? Kobe's and Lebron's failures without a decent team show that not much has changed. Even Jordan had to have a pretty good team around him.

So how is what I said not true, again? Which seasons had more than 3 or 4 teams with realistic shots at the title? And before Stern teams with stars but no chance of a title were also giving those stars away to rebuild. Now it's Gasol, Amare, etc. Back then it was Kareem from the Bucks to the Lakers, Oscar Robertson from the Royals to the Bucks, Wilt from the warriors to the 76rs, and so on.

[sk7326]

Not true.  Before Stern took over with the emergance of Magic and Bird, good teams won more often vs. the best player. 


In today's NBA, it would likely have been Wilt winning a ton of titles vs. Russell because Wilt played the superstar game while Russell played the team game. 

Again, changing the rules to support team play over superstars will not remove Superstars from the championship.  It will remove the team that has terrible management/coaching the lucked into that one star from being contenders. 

I'm sorry, but you are clearly wrong. First, using that celtics team as an example of how superstarts didn't matter as much is wrong. Those celtics teams were filled with superstars, and are exactly the definition of super team. And a hard cap would clearly break up the celtics before it would break up any of the contenders.

Second, back then, just as now, just a few teams actually competed for the title.

Third, how often did the good team beat the best player before Stern, and how often does the best team beat the best player now? Kobe's and Lebron's failures without a decent team show that not much has changed. Even Jordan had to have a pretty good team around him.

So how is what I said not true, again? Which seasons had more than 3 or 4 teams with realistic shots at the title? And before Stern teams with stars but no chance of a title were also giving those stars away to rebuild. Now it's Gasol, Amare, etc. Back then it was Kareem from the Bucks to the Lakers, Oscar Robertson from the Royals to the Bucks, Wilt from the warriors to the 76rs, and so on.

When the best player beat the best team - the examples are rare:

2006: Heat over Mavericks
1995: Rockets over Magic
1978: Bullets over Sonics
1975: Warriors over Bullets

Team's got to be good.  With the Celtics of those years, remember the Celts were picking 10-12 every year even when they won titles!  So the players would be higher valued.  The hard cap would have forced the team apart maybe ... but more realistically it would have greated a huge gap in earnings.  In 1973, Cowens, JoJo and Hondo would have earned 75% of the payroll and the other guys would be a revolving door.  It would have tested Tommy's ability to adapt.

[Moranis]

The NBA, more then any other of the major sport, is all about having a top 5 player to build around. 


Which means outside of 5 teams, no one else really has a chance.  Therefor, unless you are in Florida or the LA Lakers, you have to hope to get lucky in the draft.  Trading the high payed players helps you 1, save money and 2, get a higher chance at winning the draft lotto.



That's why I really want to see the NBA shift from the star centered rules to more team centered rules.  While having a top 5 star should provide your team an advantage, well run teams that do not get that type of lotto luck can still compete for a title in the playoffs with deep, well designed, talented teams.  (Think those Phoenix teams)

Personally, I get sick watching a team so poorly ran like the Cavs being favorites year after year just because they lucked into Lebron. 

The Cavs are far from poorly run.  They may not be the best run team out there, but they aren't poorly run.  I've actually liked much of what Ferry did.