Is this collusion?

[soap07]

Players getting together and deciding that they are going to play together -- especially if they decide they will play on a specific team -- prior to free agency and negotiations with team officials is a problem because it undermines the ability of GMs to build winning teams. 

I disagree with this - why would it undermine the ability of GMs to build winning teams? Make your team a free agent destination and this won't be a problem.

I want an NBA where great teams are built from the ground up by smart GMs and well-run organizations that are good at scouting, acquiring, and developing talent.  I don't want an NBA where great teams are created when (as Rick Reilly puts it) the best kids on the playground decide to get together and beat up everybody else.

I would argue, as others have on this thread, Riley did the very thing that you're talking about. Who drafted Mario Chalmers? Who traded Michael Beasley? Who developed Udonis Haslem? Are you against free agency in general? Nevertheless, what the Heat trio did was not entirely unprecedented. Stars have tried to pull this stuff for years.

If a team wants to amass 3 superstars the way the Heat did, they should be prepared to trade away assets they've put together and developed over a long period of time (like the Celtics did).

This is exactly what the Heat did. You may not like the end result, but hey, other teams weren't smart enough.

[Edgar]

Hi this is King James...Dwaynes Wades puppet



Throwing up in 3...2..

[Fan from VT]

Players getting together and deciding that they are going to play together -- especially if they decide they will play on a specific team -- prior to free agency and negotiations with team officials is a problem because it undermines the ability of GMs to build winning teams. 

I disagree with this - why would it undermine the ability of GMs to build winning teams? Make your team a free agent destination and this won't be a problem.

I want an NBA where great teams are built from the ground up by smart GMs and well-run organizations that are good at scouting, acquiring, and developing talent.  I don't want an NBA where great teams are created when (as Rick Reilly puts it) the best kids on the playground decide to get together and beat up everybody else.

I would argue, as others have on this thread, Riley did the very thing that you're talking about. Who drafted Mario Chalmers? Who traded Michael Beasley? Who developed Udonis Haslem? Are you against free agency in general? Nevertheless, what the Heat trio did was not entirely unprecedented. Stars have tried to pull this stuff for years.

If a team wants to amass 3 superstars the way the Heat did, they should be prepared to trade away assets they've put together and developed over a long period of time (like the Celtics did).

This is exactly what the Heat did. You may not like the end result, but hey, other teams weren't smart enough.

I agree, Miami followed the "conventional wisdom" to a tea. Most teams kind of plan on doing it this way, but then get caught up in either over rating intermediate success or holding on to fading hopes too long (Celtics?).

Miami had a young team of assets: Wade, Odom, Butler, even Eddie Jones was valuable. They decided to swing for the fences, banked on Wade not being a fluky rookie year (a la the next steve francis/damon stoudemire; wade's numbers were less impressive than both as a rookie), and traded 3 of their best 4 for an aging Shaq. They smartly fill out the roster with vets: payton, mourning. They win it all.

Then, they avoid the fatal flaw of always being behind the eight ball in a post-championship team that has peaked: ditch shaq, extend NOBODY except wade, even though they knew they were "wasting" a couple seasons of Wade's prime. Of course, by doing this, sucking it up and taking their lumps, not being enticed by the unrealistic short term, then quickly regaining relevancy, they succeeded in NOT wasting his ENTIRE prim whiling away the time on a band-aided perennial early round playoff team.


That's actually easy to plan, but hard to execute, because all team execs and fans think they are better than they really are, and the impulse is to think you're close, and make short term moves to go for it all. I mean, boston had to tank and some fans handled it terribly. Even now there's a major rift between maintaining 2012 room at all costs, and thinking we should do whatever it takes to stay near the top now; no matter which one is the "right" move, one side is going to be upset.   

[PosImpos]

Players getting together and deciding that they are going to play together -- especially if they decide they will play on a specific team -- prior to free agency and negotiations with team officials is a problem because it undermines the ability of GMs to build winning teams.  

I disagree with this - why would it undermine the ability of GMs to build winning teams? Make your team a free agent destination and this won't be a problem.

Here's the problem -- not every team in the league has the option of making themselves a free agent destination.  If you're not a big market, you have to get really lucky in draft and get a major superstar to attract other free agents.  Under current rules, you might still lose that major superstar you got in the draft because they'll bolt for nothing or coerce you into trading them for a jumble of prospects (i.e. 5 nickels for a quarter).

I want an NBA where great teams are built from the ground up by smart GMs and well-run organizations that are good at scouting, acquiring, and developing talent.  I don't want an NBA where great teams are created when (as Rick Reilly puts it) the best kids on the playground decide to get together and beat up everybody else.

I would argue, as others have on this thread, Riley did the very thing that you're talking about. Who drafted Mario Chalmers? Who traded Michael Beasley? Who developed Udonis Haslem? Are you against free agency in general? Nevertheless, what the Heat trio did was not entirely unprecedented. Stars have tried to pull this stuff for years.

Credit to the Heat for drafting and developing Chalmers and Haslem.  Those were good moves.  However, those are just role players.  The Heat aren't a great organization just because they developed two solid role players.  Am I supposed to give them credit for drafting Michael Beasley (sort of a bust for #2 overall), not developing him well, and then trading him for nothing to make cap space because they knew they'd be signing free agents come 2010?  I wouldn't call that good management.

If a team wants to amass 3 superstars the way the Heat did, they should be prepared to trade away assets they've put together and developed over a long period of time (like the Celtics did).

This is exactly what the Heat did. You may not like the end result, but hey, other teams weren't smart enough.

Um, how were other teams not smart enough?  Many other teams did exactly the same thing.  Many other teams had cap space and money to throw at free agents.  Wade, James, and Bosh just picked Miami.  Was that partly because Pat Riley has a winning resume and made a good pitch?  Sure.  But was it also partly because Miami is inherently a nice place to play.  Absolutely.

The greatness of the Heat has something to do with their management.  I will admit that.  A badly managed team could not have pulled off what they did.  But they didn't do anything spectacular.  They didn't have to.  They had a nice destination, money, and a team president with a good reputation.  Ultimately, this version of the Heat was created because LeBron, Wade, and Bosh decided to play together in Miami.  That's it.

[Dante]

If these guys had agreed among themselves to play for the Celtics, would you have cried "collusion"? Lets assume we would have been able to sign them while keeping KG, PP, Ray, Rondo> What a bench we would have. Would we have cried "wolf"?

[Edgar]

If these guys had agreed among themselves to play for the Celtics, would you have cried "collusion"? Lets assume we would have been able to sign them while keeping KG, PP, Ray, Rondo> What a bench we would have. Would we have cried "wolf"?

Well to be honest
people was mad for giving soon to be superstars Gerald Green and Al jeferson and Super Bluesteel getting Ray and KG
so..
anything could happend

[soap07]

Here's the problem -- not every team in the league has the option of making themselves a free agent destination.  If you're not a big market, you have to get really lucky in draft and get a major superstar to attract other free agents.  Under current rules, you might still lose that major superstar you got in the draft because they'll bolt for nothing or coerce you into trading them for a jumble of prospects (i.e. 5 nickels for a quarter).

Well, if you happen to draft a major superstar, you usually have that star for six or seven years before they consider bolting for nothing. That gives you seven years to build a championship core around that player....and if the team (big or small market) can't do so, I don't see any problem with the player leaving. And yes, luck is required, but that's true of all sports.

Credit to the Heat for drafting and developing Chalmers and Haslem.  Those were good moves.  However, those are just role players.  The Heat aren't a great organization just because they developed two solid role players.  Am I supposed to give them credit for drafting Michael Beasley (sort of a bust for #2 overall), not developing him well, and then trading him for nothing to make cap space because they knew they'd be signing free agents come 2010?  I wouldn't call that good management.

I thought the move was made to free up space for Haslem, which by any standards, is a pretty good move. But besides that, do you think it's easy to convince guys in their athletic primes to take pay cuts to play with them (Haslem, Miller)? Do you think it's easy to clear out enough cap space for 3 near max guys?

Um, how were other teams not smart enough?  Many other teams did exactly the same thing.  Many other teams had cap space and money to throw at free agents.  Wade, James, and Bosh just picked Miami.  Was that partly because Pat Riley has a winning resume and made a good pitch?  Sure.  But was it also partly because Miami is inherently a nice place to play.  Absolutely.

The greatness of the Heat has something to do with their management.  I will admit that.  A badly managed team could not have pulled off what they did.  But they didn't do anything spectacular.  They didn't have to.  They had a nice destination, money, and a team president with a good reputation.  Ultimately, this version of the Heat was created because LeBron, Wade, and Bosh decided to play together in Miami.  That's it.

Well for one thing, keep in mind every other team tried to do the same thing. However, not one other team freed up enough space to land 3 guys. Cleveland, LA and the Nets all were poorly managed with bad contracts galore. Who else is left? The Knicks, maybe.

No, this did not just happen because the 3 of them decided to play together in Miami. The only way the 3 of them could play together was to go to Miami and Riley created that situation - an unprecedented move in the history of the NBA. Whether done through spectacular or unspectacular means, it is still a spectacular outcome. It is really not much different than the 2008 Celtics - where Ainge built the assets up over years and then cashed them in. The move was spectacular, but the process to get there wasn't.

And if the 3 really created the situation by themselves and it had minimal to do with the Heat management, I think all 3 would have gone to New York without any questions asked. They couldn't.

[PosImpos]

Here's the problem -- not every team in the league has the option of making themselves a free agent destination.  If you're not a big market, you have to get really lucky in draft and get a major superstar to attract other free agents.  Under current rules, you might still lose that major superstar you got in the draft because they'll bolt for nothing or coerce you into trading them for a jumble of prospects (i.e. 5 nickels for a quarter).

Well, if you happen to draft a major superstar, you usually have that star for six or seven years before they consider bolting for nothing. That gives you seven years to build a championship core around that player....and if the team (big or small market) can't do so, I don't see any problem with the player leaving. And yes, luck is required, but that's true of all sports.

Credit to the Heat for drafting and developing Chalmers and Haslem.  Those were good moves.  However, those are just role players.  The Heat aren't a great organization just because they developed two solid role players.  Am I supposed to give them credit for drafting Michael Beasley (sort of a bust for #2 overall), not developing him well, and then trading him for nothing to make cap space because they knew they'd be signing free agents come 2010?  I wouldn't call that good management.

I thought the move was made to free up space for Haslem, which by any standards, is a pretty good move. But besides that, do you think it's easy to convince guys in their athletic primes to take pay cuts to play with them (Haslem, Miller)? Do you think it's easy to clear out enough cap space for 3 near max guys?

Um, how were other teams not smart enough?  Many other teams did exactly the same thing.  Many other teams had cap space and money to throw at free agents.  Wade, James, and Bosh just picked Miami.  Was that partly because Pat Riley has a winning resume and made a good pitch?  Sure.  But was it also partly because Miami is inherently a nice place to play.  Absolutely.

The greatness of the Heat has something to do with their management.  I will admit that.  A badly managed team could not have pulled off what they did.  But they didn't do anything spectacular.  They didn't have to.  They had a nice destination, money, and a team president with a good reputation.  Ultimately, this version of the Heat was created because LeBron, Wade, and Bosh decided to play together in Miami.  That's it.

Well for one thing, keep in mind every other team tried to do the same thing. However, not one other team freed up enough space to land 3 guys. Cleveland, LA and the Nets all were poorly managed with bad contracts galore. Who else is left? The Knicks, maybe.

No, this did not just happen because the 3 of them decided to play together in Miami. The only way the 3 of them could play together was to go to Miami and Riley created that situation - an unprecedented move in the history of the NBA. Whether done through spectacular or unspectacular means, it is still a spectacular outcome. It is really not much different than the 2008 Celtics - where Ainge built the assets up over years and then cashed them in. The move was spectacular, but the process to get there wasn't.

And if the 3 really created the situation by themselves and it had minimal to do with the Heat management, I think all 3 would have gone to New York without any questions asked. They couldn't.

If "clearing enough cap space for 3 max free agents" is the bar for a well managed team, we've set the bar far too low.

[mgent]

Players getting together and deciding that they are going to play together -- especially if they decide they will play on a specific team -- prior to free agency and negotiations with team officials is a problem because it undermines the ability of GMs to build winning teams.  

I disagree with this - why would it undermine the ability of GMs to build winning teams? Make your team a free agent destination and this won't be a problem.

Here's the problem -- not every team in the league has the option of making themselves a free agent destination.  If you're not a big market, you have to get really lucky in draft and get a major superstar to attract other free agents.  Under current rules, you might still lose that major superstar you got in the draft because they'll bolt for nothing or coerce you into trading them for a jumble of prospects (i.e. 5 nickels for a quarter).

I want an NBA where great teams are built from the ground up by smart GMs and well-run organizations that are good at scouting, acquiring, and developing talent.  I don't want an NBA where great teams are created when (as Rick Reilly puts it) the best kids on the playground decide to get together and beat up everybody else.

I would argue, as others have on this thread, Riley did the very thing that you're talking about. Who drafted Mario Chalmers? Who traded Michael Beasley? Who developed Udonis Haslem? Are you against free agency in general? Nevertheless, what the Heat trio did was not entirely unprecedented. Stars have tried to pull this stuff for years.

Credit to the Heat for drafting and developing Chalmers and Haslem.  Those were good moves.  However, those are just role players.  The Heat aren't a great organization just because they developed two solid role players.  Am I supposed to give them credit for drafting Michael Beasley (sort of a bust for #2 overall), not developing him well, and then trading him for nothing to make cap space because they knew they'd be signing free agents come 2010?  I wouldn't call that good management.

If a team wants to amass 3 superstars the way the Heat did, they should be prepared to trade away assets they've put together and developed over a long period of time (like the Celtics did).

This is exactly what the Heat did. You may not like the end result, but hey, other teams weren't smart enough.

Um, how were other teams not smart enough?  Many other teams did exactly the same thing.  Many other teams had cap space and money to throw at free agents.  Wade, James, and Bosh just picked Miami.  Was that partly because Pat Riley has a winning resume and made a good pitch?  Sure.  But was it also partly because Miami is inherently a nice place to play.  Absolutely.

The greatness of the Heat has something to do with their management.  I will admit that.  A badly managed team could not have pulled off what they did.  But they didn't do anything spectacular.  They didn't have to.  They had a nice destination, money, and a team president with a good reputation.  Ultimately, this version of the Heat was created because LeBron, Wade, and Bosh decided to play together in Miami.  That's it.

If drafting Beasley as the second option behind Wade so that the team stayed relevant and sold tickets while waiting for LeBron to come to town, how is that bad management?

[byennie]

I really don't think Miami management deserves the finger pointing here. The problem is Dwayne Wade and LeBron James acting like spoiled children. Turn those two into consummate professionals and I don't see how anyone can really complain about anything other than the same old competitive advantage that big market teams have always had. It's South Beach, and there's no state tax. Players want to play there, same way they want to play in New York & LA. But that's the NBA, and pretty much every other pro sport.

Miami already won 1 championship by making a bold move for Shaq. That window closed, so they took their next shot at a championship cast. I wish the league was more "fair", but then again, in a fair league you have to consider that your Celtics might only win a championship every 30 years or so. We have a lot of advantages too.

People are talking like they signed 3 max free agents. No, they drafted Dwayne Wade and already built one championship team around him. Winning the LeBron sweepstakes... well he did have to play for SOMEONE. And does throwing out their whole roster in order to add Chris Bosh as well really make them much better than if they just signed LeBron and kept more other pieces? Bosh is borderline for a max player that is your 3rd option. They could arguably have more talent without him. LeBron was the real prize. Adding Bosh to the mix is what made it all come together, because they could sell LeBron on it.

Anyway, I despise these guys, but really, it's just LeBron and Wade that need to grow up. The rest is just an organization doing it's best to compete.

[PosImpos]

Players getting together and deciding that they are going to play together -- especially if they decide they will play on a specific team -- prior to free agency and negotiations with team officials is a problem because it undermines the ability of GMs to build winning teams. 

I disagree with this - why would it undermine the ability of GMs to build winning teams? Make your team a free agent destination and this won't be a problem.

Here's the problem -- not every team in the league has the option of making themselves a free agent destination.  If you're not a big market, you have to get really lucky in draft and get a major superstar to attract other free agents.  Under current rules, you might still lose that major superstar you got in the draft because they'll bolt for nothing or coerce you into trading them for a jumble of prospects (i.e. 5 nickels for a quarter).

I want an NBA where great teams are built from the ground up by smart GMs and well-run organizations that are good at scouting, acquiring, and developing talent.  I don't want an NBA where great teams are created when (as Rick Reilly puts it) the best kids on the playground decide to get together and beat up everybody else.

I would argue, as others have on this thread, Riley did the very thing that you're talking about. Who drafted Mario Chalmers? Who traded Michael Beasley? Who developed Udonis Haslem? Are you against free agency in general? Nevertheless, what the Heat trio did was not entirely unprecedented. Stars have tried to pull this stuff for years.

Credit to the Heat for drafting and developing Chalmers and Haslem.  Those were good moves.  However, those are just role players.  The Heat aren't a great organization just because they developed two solid role players.  Am I supposed to give them credit for drafting Michael Beasley (sort of a bust for #2 overall), not developing him well, and then trading him for nothing to make cap space because they knew they'd be signing free agents come 2010?  I wouldn't call that good management.

If a team wants to amass 3 superstars the way the Heat did, they should be prepared to trade away assets they've put together and developed over a long period of time (like the Celtics did).

This is exactly what the Heat did. You may not like the end result, but hey, other teams weren't smart enough.

Um, how were other teams not smart enough?  Many other teams did exactly the same thing.  Many other teams had cap space and money to throw at free agents.  Wade, James, and Bosh just picked Miami.  Was that partly because Pat Riley has a winning resume and made a good pitch?  Sure.  But was it also partly because Miami is inherently a nice place to play.  Absolutely.

The greatness of the Heat has something to do with their management.  I will admit that.  A badly managed team could not have pulled off what they did.  But they didn't do anything spectacular.  They didn't have to.  They had a nice destination, money, and a team president with a good reputation.  Ultimately, this version of the Heat was created because LeBron, Wade, and Bosh decided to play together in Miami.  That's it.

If drafting Beasley as the second option behind Wade so that the team stayed relevant and sold tickets while waiting for LeBron to come to town, how is that bad management?

It was bad management because he became a bust and they ended up giving him away for nothing only a couple years after drafting him . . . . what would you call that?

[soap07]

It was bad management because he became a bust and they ended up giving him away for nothing only a couple years after drafting him . . . . what would you call that?

I think we can agree to disagree on whether Beasley is a bust or not. Is he a disappointment considering where he was drafted? Yes. But overall, a decent player.

[mgent]

Not to mention, the franchise had to intentionally be bad for a while by showing self restraint to not use MLE, etc., to stay relevant in the short term.

Sure, it sounds simple to "just clear space," but how many teams have actually successfully cleared enough capspace to add two max FA's to one superstar already in place? None, because it's hard for GMs to tank enough in the short term to allow themselves capspace a year or two later. They (really the owners) have terrible self control.

Yeah the cap space was already there, I remember looking at it and Wade, Chalmers and Beasley were the only guys under contract way before LeBron became a free agent.  I was thinking "why go to New York by yourself when you can team up with Wade?"  Now I think New York was just a smoke screen.

I'm not just saying this because it's how it played out.  I literally couldn't understand why the Heat had all this cap space and nobody was taking about them as a possible destination.  I don't think it's a coincidence that they had everybody coming off the books the year LeBron was a FA, when they already had a superstar that they could've been building around the second Shaq left.

I agree. And I believe that this was the real reason behind "The Decision". Why would you make a whole TV show about something that obviously wasn't decided in the short time LeBron was a free agent? I have always thought that the show was another smoke screen.

As for collusion. As an NBA player you are not allowed to talk to players from other teams about joining your organization. Of course players talk, but there has to be rules about collusion. If not, a player could turn into a trojan horse within an organization.

Yep.  It's not like players can be fired.  When you sign that contract you're making a commitment to that team and you should keep that respect and loyalty until your time has expired.  It's not like FAs are forced to pick a new team that day, they're given plenty of time.

[mgent]

Players getting together and deciding that they are going to play together -- especially if they decide they will play on a specific team -- prior to free agency and negotiations with team officials is a problem because it undermines the ability of GMs to build winning teams. 

I disagree with this - why would it undermine the ability of GMs to build winning teams? Make your team a free agent destination and this won't be a problem.

Here's the problem -- not every team in the league has the option of making themselves a free agent destination.  If you're not a big market, you have to get really lucky in draft and get a major superstar to attract other free agents.  Under current rules, you might still lose that major superstar you got in the draft because they'll bolt for nothing or coerce you into trading them for a jumble of prospects (i.e. 5 nickels for a quarter).

I want an NBA where great teams are built from the ground up by smart GMs and well-run organizations that are good at scouting, acquiring, and developing talent.  I don't want an NBA where great teams are created when (as Rick Reilly puts it) the best kids on the playground decide to get together and beat up everybody else.

I would argue, as others have on this thread, Riley did the very thing that you're talking about. Who drafted Mario Chalmers? Who traded Michael Beasley? Who developed Udonis Haslem? Are you against free agency in general? Nevertheless, what the Heat trio did was not entirely unprecedented. Stars have tried to pull this stuff for years.

Credit to the Heat for drafting and developing Chalmers and Haslem.  Those were good moves.  However, those are just role players.  The Heat aren't a great organization just because they developed two solid role players.  Am I supposed to give them credit for drafting Michael Beasley (sort of a bust for #2 overall), not developing him well, and then trading him for nothing to make cap space because they knew they'd be signing free agents come 2010?  I wouldn't call that good management.

If a team wants to amass 3 superstars the way the Heat did, they should be prepared to trade away assets they've put together and developed over a long period of time (like the Celtics did).

This is exactly what the Heat did. You may not like the end result, but hey, other teams weren't smart enough.

Um, how were other teams not smart enough?  Many other teams did exactly the same thing.  Many other teams had cap space and money to throw at free agents.  Wade, James, and Bosh just picked Miami.  Was that partly because Pat Riley has a winning resume and made a good pitch?  Sure.  But was it also partly because Miami is inherently a nice place to play.  Absolutely.

The greatness of the Heat has something to do with their management.  I will admit that.  A badly managed team could not have pulled off what they did.  But they didn't do anything spectacular.  They didn't have to.  They had a nice destination, money, and a team president with a good reputation.  Ultimately, this version of the Heat was created because LeBron, Wade, and Bosh decided to play together in Miami.  That's it.

If drafting Beasley as the second option behind Wade so that the team stayed relevant and sold tickets while waiting for LeBron to come to town, how is that bad management?

It was bad management because he became a bust and they ended up giving him away for nothing only a couple years after drafting him . . . . what would you call that?

Well you disregarded everything I said, but I'd call it genius considering where they are now.

[soap07]

When you sign that contract you're making a commitment to that team and you should keep that respect and loyalty until your time has expired.

In spirit, I see what you're saying. But in terms of respecting the contract, all you really have to do is show up to practice and play hard in games. What you say off the court in private has no bearing on your commitment to your team at the time, I don't think.