For starters, I think you'd have to use other metrics than just simply the number of teams who won championships over the course of a decade. For instance has the disparity increased between the winners and the losers? Also, I'd say the way many of those old teams were built had more to do with smart incremental team building and a huge helping of luck. Here we're hypothetically talking about a situation where the same four or so teams are competing every year because they happen to be located in a large market/attractive city. Like, I said I don't think this will happen. But I have no problem with the NBA trying to discourage it anyway. Because, why wouldn't I? I'll ask again. My team is not located in one of those four cities.
I see you have been skimming my post. I've said first and foremost I am a fan of COMPETITIVE basketball.....and a Houston Rocket fan 2nd to this. So even if these players wanted to team up on this team I would STILL have an issue with it. <Sorry but you are wrong. The NBA's entire audience will not walk away. Actually, far from it. Nor will it die a lonely death because YOU choose to walk away.> Actually, sir, you are wrong because you have taken what I said out of context.I never said that the audience would definitely walk away, I said that this may happen if the "superfriends" kick continues. I was simply saying that if the NBA audience did so, that the league would die. I said this to drive home the point that WE, the audience, are in charge here. Not the players or the owners. Please stop twisting my post to suit your purposes. <You don't have to watch anymore. You won't be missed, 4 more people will watch instead of you.> U mad? <So basically, we've concluded this isn't bad for the NBA or for basketball fans in general. Rather, this is just bad for you.> No, we have basically concluded that you like to twist posts to suit your own purposes.
You are right. A league dominated by a few super teams may be good for casual fans, but is bad for die hard fans. (I assume you are a die hard fan, or else you wouldn't be posting on this site.) The people who "became" Lakers, Celtics, Bulls fans because they were winning and because of superstar personalities weren't real basketball fans. They would leave when those things were gone. The NBA dominated by the Bill Russell Celtics was not a very entertaining league. It almost died were it not for David Stern's marketing genius in the 80s. Those things can't last. You have to have a core of die hard fans to support a league. To keep the die hard fans, you need to have a league that is competitive. If more than 2/3 of teams are irrelevant, then it's not a very good league. Why do you think they have the draft system? Why didn't they just let rookies choose wherever they want to play? The same reasons for the draft should apply to veterans too. The only thing that prevents the league from doing that is the leverage the players union has had so far.
No I'm not....of course the NBA doesn't depend entirely on one person. Stop with the H.S. level arguments. I'm speaking of the fan base as a whole. Stop thinking small and see the bigger world around you. In the post you quoted I'm simply saying that the customer (in this case the FANS, has every right to complain about a product that they don't find satisfactory.) Do you disagree? THE FANBASE, i.e. people like me, run the NBA. WE have the power. WE are the consumers. If WE get tired of the product then the business goes under. Do you understand......or will you twist this to?
No, it hasn't. Every season since I can remember, you have around 4-5 teams with a legit chance to win the title. Even using recent seasons...say the past 10 years...there have only been around 4-5 teams with a legit shot at the title. So even is all of these superteams are in a few major markets, you still have about 4-5 teams with a legit shot to win the title. Nothing has changed (the end result). Let's just call a spade a spade. You guys keep saying smart team building when the majority of times it's been asset collection via high draft picks (sometimes acquired via tanking), trades (sometimes clear ripoffs) and free agent signings (the same thing folks have an issue with now). The 80's Lakers got Kareem because he wanted a trade and had the #1 pick when Magic came out. The Celtics got Bird because they drafted him early, something that was then immediately outlawed. Some may say that's smart, but how is drafting a dude early ok and a free agent deciding where to play shady? The McHale/Parish trade was a clear ripoff. The trade to get LA worthy was a clear ripoff. That takes care of the majority of titles in the 80's. The Bulls tanked to get Jordan just like we tanked to get Hakeem. That takes care of the majority of titles in the 90's. The Rodman trade was a clear ripoff. Shaq signed with LA as a free agent (LeBron before LeBron) and supposedely Kobe refused to go anywhere but LA. The Spurs tanked to get Duncan. That takes care of the majority of titles in the 2000's. Even the Pistons came up on the Sheed deal, which lead to their title in 2004. And do we even need to go into how the current Lakers and Celtics were rebuilt overnight? I think it's completely hypocritical to say that those old ways of building teams, mostly through tanking and getting over on trades, is smart and legit but some dude deciding where to play is shady or wrong. It just makes no sense. I guess that's my main beef. Us tanking to get Hakeem is ok. The Gasol trade is ok. The Rodman trade was ok. Take note that both of the last 2 trades...complete BS trades...created teams better than the current Miami team. Yet dudes choosing to play together is what's shady. Just ass backwards to me. I get that. But at the end of the day you still only have 4 teams competing...just like for the past 3 decades. And your team can still compete just like old teams did...get a high pick, draft a star and build a competitive team so he will stay (ala Durant or Rose).
Wait, how are you judging this? What we're predicting might happen (four super teams) hasn't even happened yet, so there are not results to compare. I think you are helping to prove my point. Okay...so why did the other teams do these trades? I wasn't old enough to follow the NBA at this time. Was their evidence of a conspiracy at work? Unless there was foul play involved, I don't see how these could be considered anything but smart moves. If there was "foul play" involved, then yes of course that would be bull****. LOL, ten years later the Rockets win a championship. You're reaching here. What about all the quality role players that the Bulls and Rockets picked up? What about Pippen? Please explain to me how every single one of the moves was tainted. What about the Spurs and their forward thinking of drafting international players? And Rasheed Wallace, seriously? You're actually trying to make the argument that 2000s Pistons team was built through "getting over on trades" more than intelligent team building? If anything that's just survival of the smartest. Serious question...do you like basketball? I honestly don't know how you could if you truly think it is this rigged. Or are you just exaggerating to make your point? Tell me the downside of the NBA taking measures to prevent the forming of super teams through player collusion? Right now your argument seems to be that all NBA success is rigged, so we should just let it become even more rigged.
I'm judging it based on the leagues history. In most seasons, only 4-5 teams have a legit shot to win the title and we generally know who all of those teams are before the season even starts. Go back through league history and you will see. So in that regard, nothing has changed (if we have say 4 super teams with a shot to win). Even as far as asset consolidation, will those 4 teams be any better (talent wise 1-12) then the current Lakers or Celtics)? Remember the Miamo trio took paycuts and have no $$ leftover for the rest of their roster. What future trio do you see being better than the Jordan/Pippen/Rodman one, or the Bird/McHale/Parish one, or the Kareem/Magic/Worthy one? And all of those teams could afford to get quality help at spots 4-12. So even in terms of stacked rosters, this is still nothing new. So what's different? Not really. My point is even though they changed the rule, no one says "Oh Red is so shady for drafting Bird early". They say he was brilliant for taking advantage of a loophole. No one says teams are shady for tanking. Yet we say these players are shady for choosing where to go as free agents. That is backwards. Because they are idiots? No some want to save money (see Memphis). I'm not arguing that there is a conspiracy. I'm arguing about the hypocrisy that it's acceptable to rip one team off...in a clear ripoff (i.e. the Gasol trade) but it's shady for a man to choose where to play as a free agent. And yet you are here saying that's a smart move. Yet signing for less years and risking $$ for the chance to choose your own path and not relying on a team to get you talent isn't smart...it's shady? Notice the difference? And I'm not saying you are saying it's shady per se, but it baffles me how you can have a problem with the latter but none with the former. I'm not reaching at all. We had immediate success after we tanked in back to back seasons to get Hakeem and Ralph. It only took us 10 years to get a title because we couldn't get a high enough pick to nab abother star and our management was incompetent. But it's easier to build when you have a stud....which we had due to our tanking. So if you don't have a problem with us tanking to get the cornerstone of our title teams then why is it a problem for 2 free agents to choose where to play? Did the Heat not pick up quality role players for their team as well? Did they not manage their cap as to where they could afford to get 3 man guys? It's not like the majority of teams were in position to do that. Full props for that. How many titles would those players have with SA if they never tanked to get Duncan? Were the Heat not forward thinking by getting under the camp in time for the summer? No, I'm arguing that they got a key cog in Wallace through a bs deal....bs as far as not giving up much for him (a bunch of average players and two picks). I don't think I ever stated anything was rigged. There is no downside but it's extremely dumb to prevent the forming of super teams when that's what the leagues history is based upon. The only difference is players can now have a say in the choice. You won't have any more super teams than you have had for the past 30 years. IMO you won't even have better teams than some of the teams from prior years (i.e. 96-98 Bulls). It's just silly. "Super teams are fine as long as we make it happen, even if it involves tanking and ripoff trades....that we are smart for doing. But oh no....you free agents can't make it happen. That is wrong!!"
Awesome. post. Can Not Agree More. Also wanted to include Deron Williams response (which i for one am incline to believe atm, since 2012 is still quite abit aways.) <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dtDuOWXKdPc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
