? in relation to the aussie's trade news

[Chef]

if the rumored trades bringing both paul and melo to the cats had happened it would have been (to say the least) great for us.

my question is about the league in general. if the trend becomes the formation of "super" teams with the stars aligning on the same teams, is this a good thing? there are only so many superstars. if they get all gay on us and decide to be BFF's on the same teams because "it would be fun to play with friends":
1. doesn't that kill the competition of the league ie whatever happened to the best players wanting to compete against not with each other
2. doesn't reduce the league to 6 or 8 super teams and 20 couple teams that don't have a chance?

i am not sure it is a great idea. sure it's great if your team is one of the BFF teams, but if it isn't it would suck, big time. what do you guys think?

[CatNation]

like you said, its great as long as we are one of them. if not then its lame :biggrin:

[Demon DeaCat]

Generally I think competitive balance is a good thing, but I don't really have a problem with the "super team" concept because as long as there is a salary cap of some sort, it's not that easy to do and the extent to which it can be done is somewhat restricted. I think baseball's model (i.e. no salary cap) is not good for that sport because the team with the deepest pockets wins. Even though the NBA just has a soft cap, it's still pretty difficult to do what Miami did.

The other thing is, I don't know if this "trend" is all that new. The Heat certainly aren't the first incarnation of this super team concept. The Rockets tried this back in the 90's when Drexler and Barkley tried to join forces with Olajuwon in hopes of winning a title. The Lakers also tried a version of it when they brought in Payton and Malone to complement Kobe and Shaq. And then of course there was the recent big 3 with the Celtics. The Heat are a little unique in that this is probably the first time free agency has brought 3 stars together with all of them still in the prime of their careers, but nevertheless, we've definitely seen star-studded teams before and yet the league was still competitive and entertaining. I'm not really that worried about it. It usually doesn't work that well anyway. Of those triumvarates, only the Celtics actually won a title.

[Scottley Crue]

Generally I think competitive balance is a good thing, but I don't really have a problem with the "super team" concept because as long as there is a salary cap of some sort, it's not that easy to do and the extent to which it can be done is somewhat restricted. I think baseball's model (i.e. no salary cap) is not good for that sport because the team with the deepest pockets wins. Even though the NBA just has a soft cap, it's still pretty difficult to do what Miami did.

The other thing is, I don't know if this "trend" is all that new. The Heat certainly aren't the first incarnation of this super team concept. The Rockets tried this back in the 90's when Drexler and Barkley tried to join forces with Olajuwon in hopes of winning a title. The Lakers also tried a version of it when they brought in Payton and Malone to complement Kobe and Shaq. And then of course there was the recent big 3 with the Celtics. The Heat are a little unique in that this is probably the first time free agency has brought 3 stars together with all of them still in the prime of their careers, but nevertheless, we've definitely seen star-studded teams before and yet the league was still competitive and entertaining. I'm not really that worried about it. It usually doesn't work that well anyway. Of those triumvarates, only the Celtics actually won a title.
I think you make a great point about the salary cap and it made me think of something else. We saw several teams dump over half their payroll to go after these guys. A lot of these teams struck out leaving them with plenty of cap space, but no big partner to dance with. After seeing the success rate these teams had, how many other teams are going to be willing to throw away half their team and build back up with guys they didn't exactly want in the first place?

[x2pacalypse]

the nba is turning into the premier league

[JGib23]

hard salary cap & revenue sharing will fix this and add competitive balance to the league.

it will suck to lose a season but, it will be good for the long term health of the league.

[x2pacalypse]

just give me my cp3-0 and melo please

[Black]

Source: Gerald Wallace has Fruit Loops for breakfast, with two percent milk.

[jamestheaussie]

The NBA are playing with fire right now and need to take a lesson from the NFL. There's a reason football is still the 8,000 lb gorilla when it comes to the national sports landscape, parity.

One of my non NBA loving friends (but a die hard college hoops fan) said to me:

"I don't watch the NBA because you know who's going to be good and who's going to be bad before the season ever begins."

Part of me agrees with him.

The soft cap really hurts smaller market teams, and now with free agent conferences it's going to beat them down even more. Kevin Durant just spoke out about the stacking of teams on Twitter, he said:

"Now everybody wanna play for the heat and the Lakers? Let's go back to being competitive and going at these peoples!"

I look back on the 'good ole days' of the NBA. In the late 80's and early 90's every single team had a player who I would consider to be an all-star or a superstar, and lucky teams may have one superstar and one all star. As the early 90's became the mid to late 90's it became the need for 2 stars. Olajuwon and Drexler in Houston... then Kobe and Shaq in Los Angeles in the beginning of this decade.

Then Boston made it about getting three stars... and that's where we sit. Is it going to become 4 stars next? I really think it's getting out of hand.

[Chef]

Generally I think competitive balance is a good thing, but I don't really have a problem with the "super team" concept because as long as there is a salary cap of some sort, it's not that easy to do and the extent to which it can be done is somewhat restricted. I think baseball's model (i.e. no salary cap) is not good for that sport because the team with the deepest pockets wins. Even though the NBA just has a soft cap, it's still pretty difficult to do what Miami did.

The other thing is, I don't know if this "trend" is all that new. The Heat certainly aren't the first incarnation of this super team concept. The Rockets tried this back in the 90's when Drexler and Barkley tried to join forces with Olajuwon in hopes of winning a title. The Lakers also tried a version of it when they brought in Payton and Malone to complement Kobe and Shaq. And then of course there was the recent big 3 with the Celtics. The Heat are a little unique in that this is probably the first time free agency has brought 3 stars together with all of them still in the prime of their careers, but nevertheless, we've definitely seen star-studded teams before and yet the league was still competitive and entertaining. I'm not really that worried about it. It usually doesn't work that well anyway. Of those triumvarates, only the Celtics actually won a title.

the larger problem i have with this is as a basketball history fan too. my biggest problem with the miami move is that all 3, but most importantly lbj and wade, are in their primes. we can no longer even entertain the will lbj ever be better than jordan conversation because he just announced himself as at best one of two great players but IMO as a sidekick. it is different than developing a team through trades or the draft as "superteams" in past decades. i would just rather see these guys take durant's approach and try to beat every one. the nba has been about business for awhile now, but the players are starting to figure out that joining forces/friendly competition is better for business than knock down drag out fights for dominance. it's like a corporate merger. the only way to combat this is to shrink the league to about 16 teams, but then some of the current day "stars" would be bench warmers. here's what i would do to make the league more competitive aside from a hard cap.

1. 60 game season
2. reverse lottery after pick 1, the closer you are to making the playoffs the more chances you have to land a good draft pick. cuts tanking.

[Demon DeaCat]

the larger problem i have with this is as a basketball history fan too. my biggest problem with the miami move is that all 3, but most importantly lbj and wade, are in their primes. we can no longer even entertain the will lbj ever be better than jordan conversation because he just announced himself as at best one of two great players but IMO as a sidekick. it is different than developing a team through trades or the draft as "superteams" in past decades. i would just rather see these guys take durant's approach and try to beat every one. the nba has been about business for awhile now, but the players are starting to figure out that joining forces/friendly competition is better for business than knock down drag out fights for dominance. it's like a corporate merger. the only way to combat this is to shrink the league to about 16 teams, but then some of the current day "stars" would be bench warmers. here's what i would do to make the league more competitive aside from a hard cap.

1. 60 game season
2. reverse lottery after pick 1, the closer you are to making the playoffs the more chances you have to land a good draft pick. cuts tanking.

I'd agree with you that a hard cap is the best way to prevent the stockpiling of talent, however, a hard cap would also make it much more difficult for teams to keep their draft picks beyond their rookie contract. I think there's something to be said for players being able to establish an identity with a particular team.

What I'd actually like to see is a combination of a soft and hard cap, similar to what the Bobcats FO has self-impoosed, where the current luxury tax threshhold, or some other figure, would become the hard cap. This would still allow teams to go over the soft cap to re-sign their own players, but they wouldn't be able to spend infinite amounts of money. To me, this seems like a reasonable compromise. I just think teams that draft well and spend years developing talent should have some advantage when it comes to re-signing that player. How frustrating would it be if Henderson or DJ turned into a stud but we had to let them walk because we were already at the cap, had no expiring contracts, and couldn't re-sign them.

In the end though, even with a hard cap, if teams want to spend most of it on 3 guys and then pay peanuts to everyone else like Miami did, they'd still be able to do that.

As for the draft, I think the lottery has done a pretty good job of preventing teams from tanking. Very rarely does the team with the worst record actually get the #1 pick. Also, it seems that reversing the lottery order to give the top picks to playoff teams would only allow the good teams to get better and keep the bad teams bad. I don't see how that would promote parity.

[BIGCatBobcat]

Now this is a discussion I can get into! I think that the whole Aussie thought process (rumors of course) comes from the feeling that we are 4th fiddle in the division. Heat, obviously, have more buzz around them than the champion Lakers, the 2nd place Celtics, everyone. Then there's Orlando with their own little "trio" of Howard, Lewis and Nelson with some nice supporting players. Atlanta now has their "max" guy and Horford and super #6 Crawford.

Optimism for what we've got and true tests on the court is what I think we need. Not "rosterbation" as Arnott calls it. I like rosterbation as much as the next guy, but realistically, we have an all-star team usa invitee in Wallace, possible All-Star and a guy who got a vote for MVP (like it or not) in Jackson. I really feel like DJ is going to do something great this year, and if he doesn't, yikes. Tyrus Thomas almost slipped my mind! How could that be? That guy is going to turn heads in the league.

Above all, ILBIT as they say.

[teej]

I like rosterbation as much as the next guy

Via taking your talents to South Beach? :biggrin:

[BIGCatBobcat]

Via taking your talents to South Beach? :biggrin:

Is that what the jackass, sorry, KING, said? I thought it was take my chances in South Beach. By the way, I've been in Florida all week, havent seen a Heat sticker anywhere, haven't watched the local news but they could care less from the vibe I'm getting. Even if you got LeBron, after that whole TV and dragging it out and everyone waiting with sarcastically baited breath, would you really feel great about it? Inside you'd think, jeeze, what a joke! But I'm sure you'd defend yourself to fans of other teams with "Who's better than James, Wade and Bosh?"

Would it be worth tanking 2 years ago? Would it be worth getting rid of any jersey except Wade's because that's what they have, Wade and now that Anthony guy, and I think Chalmers, that's it.

I don't like it, it doesn't help you get behind a team, it's like watching only Jenna Jameson and no amateur porn. It may be the best, but you still feel dirty and there's no fun in it. (Porn and rosterbation, I really am getting waaaaayyy too into NBA ball).

[Ghost Kat]

Forget Carmelo.....Just get CP3 here

[Cats4lif3]

Honestly I like Gerald in the lineup with cp3 alot better then melo. Plus we save money and we can use diaw for another trade

[jpf_v2.0]

The biggest thing I don't like is that it's Nazr we'd part with instead of Diop (I understand why it's that way but...), but I guess we can't get rid of ALL our bad contracts in one swoop.

[Chef]

I'd agree with you that a hard cap is the best way to prevent the stockpiling of talent, however, a hard cap would also make it much more difficult for teams to keep their draft picks beyond their rookie contract. I think there's something to be said for players being able to establish an identity with a particular team.

What I'd actually like to see is a combination of a soft and hard cap, similar to what the Bobcats FO has self-impoosed, where the current luxury tax threshhold, or some other figure, would become the hard cap. This would still allow teams to go over the soft cap to re-sign their own players, but they wouldn't be able to spend infinite amounts of money. To me, this seems like a reasonable compromise. I just think teams that draft well and spend years developing talent should have some advantage when it comes to re-signing that player. How frustrating would it be if Henderson or DJ turned into a stud but we had to let them walk because we were already at the cap, had no expiring contracts, and couldn't re-sign them.

In the end though, even with a hard cap, if teams want to spend most of it on 3 guys and then pay peanuts to everyone else like Miami did, they'd still be able to do that.

As for the draft, I think the lottery has done a pretty good job of preventing teams from tanking. Very rarely does the team with the worst record actually get the #1 pick. Also, it seems that reversing the lottery order to give the top picks to playoff teams would only allow the good teams to get better and keep the bad teams bad. I don't see how that would promote parity.

i do like the idea of both a soft and hard cap. it would piss me off if teams couldn't keep a nucleus in tact. and i guess there is nothing preventing guys from taking less money to play with a specific team or player. i just think it is really really gay that these guys did it in their primes and not towards the ends of their careers.

as for the draft. the playoff teams would still not be lottery eligible. it would just be a reverse lottery for picks 2-14. in other words, the team with the best non-playoff record gets the most chances for pick 2. it just seems like the same 5 teams are in the bottom 5 of records year after year. so if the lottery obviously isn't helping them, shouldn't we be designing it to help the teams that are almost there.