We are now tied with Brooklyn.

[BballTim]

  You know you're just perpetuating those tanker stereotypes when you start threads like this, right?

I anticipated this response; you'll note that I did not jump for joy or say anything along the lines of I TOLD YOU SO!

I just noticed it when I checked the standings and figured I'd post it.

  You were jumping for joy on the inside, we could tell.

  Tanker.


  Seriously, though, rooting for teams like the Nets or Knicks to do well would be almost as soul-sucking as rooting for the Celts to lose.

Haha.  Was it my body language that gave it away?

Yeah, it's a weird state of affairs to be sure.  Coming into the season I thought that rooting for the Nets, at least, would not be so bad, what with KG and Pierce there.  But the Nets are just depressing.

  My only thought about the Nets is feeling sorry for KG.

[obnoxiousmime]

it's watered the league down. way to go out Stern.

Wait, putting talent together on superteams has "watered the league down"? I thought the typical definition of watered-down league was one where most teams had one or two good players, leading to many mediocre rather than several great teams.

It depends on your perspective.

If you're the type of fan who just wants to watch the best 4 or 5 teams, particularly when they play against one another, then you want as much of the talent in the league to be concentrated in the top tier.

If you actually want there to be drama in the standings and competitive games happening all the time, then you'd probably prefer a league where the best 10-20 players are on different teams.

In any case, even with the league as it is right now (top-heavy), if you took a handful of the better teams in the West and swapped them with some of the weaker teams in the East, things would seem a lot more balanced.

How many games would Denver or Minnesota win if they were in the Eastern Conference?

For as long as I've watched the NBA it's always only a handful of teams at the top that have any shot at a title. I'm not sure how this year is any different, with the Spurs, OKC, Pacers, and Heat being contenders in my eyes.

If you mean that the middle is softer than I would say the Conferences being so unbalanced is distorting things. If a few of the good-but-not-great Western teams were in the East they would have more crappy Eastern teams on their schedule and their records would improve.

It's also just bad luck that two Eastern playoff teams from last year lost their stars in Lopez and Rose.

EDIT: I forgot to add that Atlanta lost Horford for the year.

[fairweatherfan]

Also, I'd guess that the fans of teams in the biggest, glitziest markets aren't especially bothered by players colluding.  It's probably depressing for fans of teams in less exciting locations, because it means that no matter how well their team is managed, they will likely still be at a major disadvantage compared to teams that can just sign a bunch of really good players in free agency.

Yeah, I think that's fair, especially with 1-2 players being able to make a huge difference in a team's success.  But players constantly leaving small markets for big is true of every league that's not the NFL, and the NFL has way too much parity for me.  And unlike baseball, the salary rules make this much harder to do unless players take voluntary pay cuts.

But I also think a lot of people implicitly like the idea of the NBA working like a fantasy team, where players are just passive assets that you shuffle around.  Players having minds of their own and the agency to act on it just muddles that picture.

[fairweatherfan]

never let the inmates run the asylum.

The problem with that analogy is that players aren't insane (most of em, anyway).  Do you think employees in other fields being able to decide who they work for is "inmates running the asylum"?  If not, what's different about the NBA?

[fantankerous]

never let the inmates run the asylum.

The problem with that analogy is that players aren't insane (most of em, anyway).  Do you think employees in other fields being able to decide who they work for is "inmates running the asylum"?  If not, what's different about the NBA?

Hear, hear.

[GreenWarrior]

never let the inmates run the asylum.

The problem with that analogy is that players aren't insane (most of em, anyway).  Do you think employees in other fields being able to decide who they work for is "inmates running the asylum"?  If not, what's different about the NBA?

apples & oranges man c'mon.

if every field of work had employees that were free agents this country or any country for that matter would be stuck in the dark ages.

it's a perfect analogy for any business.

[GreenWarrior]

never let the inmates run the asylum.

The problem with that analogy is that players aren't insane (most of em, anyway).  Do you think employees in other fields being able to decide who they work for is "inmates running the asylum"?  If not, what's different about the NBA?

Hear, hear.

really?

ok, lets look at it this way. the nba is a toy company and every employee wants to work in advertising cuz they have the choice of where they get to work. but there's no one to build their toys, ship 'em, drive trucks to get the product out there etc.

what kind of business do we have left here?

[Kane3387]

If it wasn't for injuries then it wouldn't be so one sided with Miami and Indiana.

If amare could stay healthy and be 2011 amare, and rose, and the nets, and Bynum, and a few others the east would have three to four more teams that could challenge the top two.

There has never been more talent in the nba with this many teams. Sadly a lot of that talent is hurt.

[Snakehead]

what Miami did should never be allowed.

...and before anyone says "the Celtics did it 1st". there's a difference paul, ray & KG were coming to the end of their careers. not 3 players in their prime in the top 10 - 20 in overall players in the league.

it's watered the league down. way to go out Stern.

Because Miami didn't lose to Dallas and wasn't seconds away from losing to the Spurs last season.

Nothing has been watered down.  What Miami did is how free agency works.  Give it up, just whining at this point.

I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around the logic that when management creates a stacked roster it's A-OK but when players exercise their free agency rights to create a stacked roster it's an abomination against the game somehow. 

It's like players are supposed to be mindless automatons that quietly go where they're told and exercising control over their own careers is a travesty and must be banned.  Bring back the reserve clause!

never let the inmates run the asylum.

Employees are inmates?  Says a lot about how you look at this.

I hope people are trying to dictate your job opportunities and criticizing you when you choose the ones that give you the ability to be most successful.

But I bet you don't think of players as people.

never let the inmates run the asylum.

The problem with that analogy is that players aren't insane (most of em, anyway).  Do you think employees in other fields being able to decide who they work for is "inmates running the asylum"?  If not, what's different about the NBA?

Hear, hear.

really?

ok, lets look at it this way. the nba is a toy company and every employee wants to work in advertising cuz they have the choice of where they get to work. but there's no one to build their toys, ship 'em, drive trucks to get the product out there etc.

what kind of business do we have left here?

I hope you realize what a crazy and awful analogy that is for this situation.

This is like any employee choosing to work for a company that has an opening.

[fairweatherfan]

never let the inmates run the asylum.

The problem with that analogy is that players aren't insane (most of em, anyway).  Do you think employees in other fields being able to decide who they work for is "inmates running the asylum"?  If not, what's different about the NBA?

apples & oranges man c'mon.

if every field of work had employees that were free agents this country or any country for that matter would be stuck in the dark ages.

it's a perfect analogy for any business.

You're leaving out a huge part of the equation - players aren't just forcing themselves into whatever position they want, the employers want to hire them.  Very badly, in a lot of cases.

In virtually every other occupation this is fine and happens all the time, including my occupation and in all likelihood yours.  If someone told me I should be forbidden from signing on to a great situation with an employer that wanted to hire me, I'd suggest they do a few things unfit for CB posting.  What's different about NBA players that they shouldn't have this freedom? 

[GreenWarrior]

i'm just going to say this.

it seems like you guys aren't seeing the NBA as a whole. is each team it's own business? sure, but they're all part of one league.   

I acknowledge the fact that players should have a chance to play for a championship, every player should have a chance...or at least want to have a chance.

as far as picking and choosing goes? no I don't think players should have a choice of where they go. nope! not at all.

I bet at least 90% of the players would want to go to a Miami, LA, or settle for a Texas team if they had their choice.

cause i'm sure wade, bosh, & bron would go play in minn. if the opportunity presented itself.   

[PhoSita]

Also, I'd guess that the fans of teams in the biggest, glitziest markets aren't especially bothered by players colluding.  It's probably depressing for fans of teams in less exciting locations, because it means that no matter how well their team is managed, they will likely still be at a major disadvantage compared to teams that can just sign a bunch of really good players in free agency.

Yeah, I think that's fair, especially with 1-2 players being able to make a huge difference in a team's success.  But players constantly leaving small markets for big is true of every league that's not the NFL, and the NFL has way too much parity for me.  And unlike baseball, the salary rules make this much harder to do unless players take voluntary pay cuts.

But I also think a lot of people implicitly like the idea of the NBA working like a fantasy team, where players are just passive assets that you shuffle around.  Players having minds of their own and the agency to act on it just muddles that picture.

I must admit, I do enjoy that idea.

I'd much rather see championship teams built with good drafting and trading. 

Obviously, Miami didn't just get a title by default.  The players, once they came together, still had to figure out how to work together.  Now that they've reached that point, though, they're dominating the NBA.

I guess it's because I identify more with the people running the teams than with the players themselves, so I want to see championships as, in large part, an achievement of the people making strategic moves in the front office, rather than as the work of the players on the court.

[fairweatherfan]

Also, I'd guess that the fans of teams in the biggest, glitziest markets aren't especially bothered by players colluding.  It's probably depressing for fans of teams in less exciting locations, because it means that no matter how well their team is managed, they will likely still be at a major disadvantage compared to teams that can just sign a bunch of really good players in free agency.

Yeah, I think that's fair, especially with 1-2 players being able to make a huge difference in a team's success.  But players constantly leaving small markets for big is true of every league that's not the NFL, and the NFL has way too much parity for me.  And unlike baseball, the salary rules make this much harder to do unless players take voluntary pay cuts.

But I also think a lot of people implicitly like the idea of the NBA working like a fantasy team, where players are just passive assets that you shuffle around.  Players having minds of their own and the agency to act on it just muddles that picture.

I must admit, I do enjoy that idea.

I'd much rather see championship teams built with good drafting and trading. 

Obviously, Miami didn't just get a title by default.  The players, once they came together, still had to figure out how to work together.  Now that they've reached that point, though, they're dominating the NBA.

I guess it's because I identify more with the people running the teams than with the players themselves, so I want to see championships as, in large part, an achievement of the people making strategic moves in the front office, rather than as the work of the players on the court.

Thing is, I like that idea better too.  Everybody hates the guy who stacks the teams in pickup, and situations like the Heat's are kinda a similar idea at a much higher level.  Success through savvy management just feels more satisfying somehow.

But I just can't get past that players have a limited career with a highly valued skillset and ought to have some say in how they spend that time maximizing what they get out of that ability.  Not to mention that being an attractive destination for players is part of savvy management.  The opposite philosophy results in treating players like property, which is really unseemly for a number of reasons.

I think the salary cap and especially new luxury taxes are a very good check against that process getting out of hand, though.  Want to play with your buddies or in a nice city?  Better be an elite talent or willing to take a paycut.

[PhoSita]

Also, I'd guess that the fans of teams in the biggest, glitziest markets aren't especially bothered by players colluding.  It's probably depressing for fans of teams in less exciting locations, because it means that no matter how well their team is managed, they will likely still be at a major disadvantage compared to teams that can just sign a bunch of really good players in free agency.

Yeah, I think that's fair, especially with 1-2 players being able to make a huge difference in a team's success.  But players constantly leaving small markets for big is true of every league that's not the NFL, and the NFL has way too much parity for me.  And unlike baseball, the salary rules make this much harder to do unless players take voluntary pay cuts.

But I also think a lot of people implicitly like the idea of the NBA working like a fantasy team, where players are just passive assets that you shuffle around.  Players having minds of their own and the agency to act on it just muddles that picture.

I must admit, I do enjoy that idea.

I'd much rather see championship teams built with good drafting and trading. 

Obviously, Miami didn't just get a title by default.  The players, once they came together, still had to figure out how to work together.  Now that they've reached that point, though, they're dominating the NBA.

I guess it's because I identify more with the people running the teams than with the players themselves, so I want to see championships as, in large part, an achievement of the people making strategic moves in the front office, rather than as the work of the players on the court.

Thing is, I like that idea better too.  Everybody hates the guy who stacks the teams in pickup, and situations like the Heat's are kinda a similar idea at a much higher level.  Success through savvy management just feels more satisfying somehow.

But I just can't get past that players have a limited career with a highly valued skillset and ought to have some say in how they spend that time maximizing what they get out of that ability.  Not to mention that being an attractive destination for players is part of savvy management.  The opposite philosophy results in treating players like property, which is really unseemly for a number of reasons.

I think the salary cap and especially new luxury taxes are a very good check against that process getting out of hand, though.  Want to play with your buddies or in a nice city?  Better be an elite talent or willing to take a paycut.

At least in recent years, there are more teams that have failed trying to do essentially what the Heat did -- i.e. the Lakers and the Knicks -- than those that have succeeded.  And there are a handful of teams built the "right way" who at least have a pretty good chance of unseating the Heat.

[obnoxiousmime]

i'm just going to say this.

it seems like you guys aren't seeing the NBA as a whole. is each team it's own business? sure, but they're all part of one league.   

I acknowledge the fact that players should have a chance to play for a championship, every player should have a chance...or at least want to have a chance.

as far as picking and choosing goes? no I don't think players should have a choice of where they go. nope! not at all.

I bet at least 90% of the players would want to go to a Miami, LA, or settle for a Texas team if they had their choice.

cause i'm sure wade, bosh, & bron would go play in minn. if the opportunity presented itself.   

Well, then I guess you would love for the MLB to go back to when the owners colluded to keep players on slave wages and prevent them from being able to play for another team their entire careers? Sure, that's great for the owners and great for the fans who hate free agency but somehow I don't think that's very fair to the players, now is it?

Your statement that the collected teams are really just actually one big "company" and not 30 individual companies breaking antitrust laws is exactly what the owners argue every time they attempt to break the union before a CBA negotiation. Quite simply it is a totally fraudulent argument made by billionaire owners whose primary intent is to pay players as little as they possibly can while pretending it is for "the good of the game."