ESPN Just finished reading the ESPN article, and I must say it's about damn time some sports writer/analyst actually brought this out. Why in MJ's name is the league even considering adding another team when there are several below average(Warriors), or troubled franchises(Clippers)? Side note: What was the writer thinking with this comment: But they had talent, even in reserves Dennis Rodman, John Salley and Vinny Johnson -- players who'd be All-Stars today. John Salley......
"Today's players are remarkable physical and athletic specimens who can do things the greatest in the game only imagined. Fans gasped at Dr. J. Now, 12-year-olds do those moves. Seven-footers were given lessons 20 years ago not on traveling but which foot to put in front of the other. Today, Kevin Garnett plays every position." Dumb. The most high-flying NBAers today can't do a lot of the things Dr. J did. Some of his dunks in traffic were just amazing. And Garnett does NOT play every position. That is just stupid. And no way Vinnie Johnson would be an All-Star today.
Are you aware that the Clipps are one of the leagues most profitable franchises? You can criticize Sterling's methodology all you want, but with a salary output of only around $32m, he makes money. Very good money. And he bought the team for dirt cheap. I doubt the other owners want to reimburse him for the market value
Thats not necessarily true. Many of the players now can do what Dr. J did. Look at guys like Vince Carter, Desmond Mason, Tracy McGrady, Jason Richardson, Darius Miles, Gerald Wallace and even Stave Francis. True, Garnett does not play every position, but he could if he had to. He can handle the ball like a point guard and post up like a center.
he is right about the nba at this point in time, but it is in a period of transition to including the world..kind of like how hockey is now. wait about 10 years and see if there are too many franchises when the nba is completely stocked with foreign talent and hopefully some of the foreign team fundamentals that we have lost in america
"Troubled" in the sense that the owner isn't known to spend mad amounts of money towards his players. Reason why you don't see too many players stay there for many years, at least any Good players. I'd be suprised to see Odom, Brand, Miller, and Olowokandi there in 5 years. And I'm not talking about the NBA from a financial stand-point, but from purely a basketball perspective......much of the League either sucks or is below average.
Contract? No, add three teams. First there are good players. Second there will be no places left to threaten to move an existing franchise! Finally, Dan Langhi and Jason Collier will each get 20 minutes a game!
I think the main point about todays players is that PHYSICALLY they are better then some of the great players in the past. But alot of these physically gifted players have not got skills anywhere near the great players of the past. I agree that the NBA needs to cut about 4 teams. There are so many average players in the league right now and its hurting the NBA. Just think of when the NBA was at its best in the mid 90's. Winning streaks meant a whole lot, to be a great scorer was incredible and all stars were great all round players. Now who cares who is leading the scoring. You have players tossing up 50 shots a game at times. Winning streaks are easy with so many garbage teams around and an allstar selection is nothing special The fact that players are still playing at the age of 40 says alot. I'd like the NBA to be a league of great teams who play great basketball. Not an exibition for great players to show how much better they are then the average players surrounding them.
I thought it was a terrible article. He regurgitates a lot of the 'truths' about the league that, imo, are myth. Also on the ballot are Antonio Davis, Ilgauskas, Mutombo, Ratliff, Kurt Thomas and Ben Wallace. In fact, of the guys he lists, only Battie is even on the ballot. This is my big gripe. Trends in shooting percentages and scoring don't have to do with the players' decreasing offensive skills but their increasing defensive skills. Could Wilt Chamberlain have even remotely approached 100 points in today's NBA. Not a chance. Could players routinely get those obscene rebounding averages of yesteryear now? No way. It is not because today's average player has gotten worse but because he's gotten better. The gap has closed significantly bewteen the great and the average, which keeps the great from looking as good as their predecessors. I think this and his further explication of the "community support market" is actually very astute. I think Charlotte was very proud of being in the big-time and were disposed to well-supporting their team as a result. Great business model, I'd say. But then he goes on to imply that people who go for love of basketball are more loyal than people who go for municipal pride. Does that make any sense, especially when he's arguing that the quality of the product is deteriorating? If it was just love of basketball that had people attending, why would they go to watch a bad product? People who go for city-pride would stick with the team no matter how much they suck. He's right that there is no guarantee. And, they probably won't get the initial surge Charlotte first gave the NBA. But, it is a good basketball town. The only reason their attendance was so low was the animosity between the city and the owners and the team's impending departure. As for it being bad for a long time, I think that will depend on the quality of the management and luck. Chicago had trouble get FA talent due to a disdain for the management. Toronto didn't have so much trouble getting veterans to sign with them and they became competitive pretty quickly. He's suffering from the good-ole-days-itis. Sure, Kevin McHale looked great decades ago. Could he have had the same success in an era where teams actually play defense? He wants more brawling in the NBA? Rivalries are fun, though it is hard to agree with an argument that wants fighting. Even so, I don't think rivalries can be manufactured. They're organic. How many times a season did the Celtics and Lakers play one another?
