Minnesota Sports Forum

Cool and Lloyd -- I understand where you guys are coming from, but it's not nearly as bad as you suggest. The Spurs aren't the only example of smaller market, non-historic franchises succeeded in the NBA. The Thunder, Pacers and Blazers are three more examples of smaller market franchises that have been among the NBA's top teams the past several years. And their success was not the product of any collusion among stars or any backdoor help from the League. Other notably successful smaller market teams that have succeeded through smart front office decision-making rather than any player or League orchestrated collusion include the Rockets, Grizzlies, Raptors (last season). Unless you believe that the League rigged the LeBron draft, Cleveland would be another example of a so-called undesirable market/franchise that has had relatively recent success.

By the way, I doubt Melo will end up signing with the Lakers. The Lakers were horrible last season and I expect they'll be bad next season as well. Miami looks to be on a downward decent and it looks like Pat Riley's most coveted free agents are signing elsewhere. Lowry was coveted by a number of bigger name franchises but chose to re-up with Toronto. Etc. etc.

So it's not that bad, Really, its not. :)

Cool is right Lip. And how are we defining success? We all define it differently. The league has had 5 or 6 teams win titles in the last 30 years? Spurs/Celts/Lakers/Heat and 1 each for Det. and Dallas? I think I'm pretty close here. Oh the 2 for Houston.

I don't call Indiana or OKC a success.

lipoli390 wrote:Cool and Lloyd -- I understand where you guys are coming from, but it's not nearly as bad as you suggest. The Spurs aren't the only example of smaller market, non-historic franchises succeeded in the NBA. The Thunder, Pacers and Blazers are three more examples of smaller market franchises that have been among the NBA's top teams the past several years. And their success was not the product of any collusion among stars or any backdoor help from the League. Other notably successful smaller market teams that have succeeded through smart front office decision-making rather than any player or League orchestrated collusion include the Rockets, Grizzlies, Raptors (last season). Unless you believe that the League rigged the LeBron draft, Cleveland would be another example of a so-called undesirable market/franchise that has had relatively recent success.

By the way, I doubt Melo will end up signing with the Lakers. The Lakers were horrible last season and I expect they'll be bad next season as well. Miami looks to be on a downward decent and it looks like Pat Riley's most coveted free agents are signing elsewhere. Lowry was coveted by a number of bigger name franchises but chose to re-up with Toronto. Etc. etc.

So it's not that bad, Really, its not. :)

Agreed. The biggest problem (outside of officiating & superstar calls) is that it's far too easy for the best of the best to just up and go wherever they want and in the NBA it makes a huge difference compared to the other 3 major sports due to much smaller rosters, etc.

They really need to do something to disincentive star players more for jumping ship. Maybe resigning with your current team should give you an additional year on top of the 1 they already get. Maybe S&Ts should be penalized. Something like S&Ts can only equal 80% of the max UFA contract the player can sign or something like that. idk, just spit balling.

BizarroJerry wrote:Cool is right Lip. And how are we defining success? We all define it differently. The league has had 5 or 6 teams win titles in the last 30 years? Spurs/Celts/Lakers/Heat and 1 each for Det. and Dallas? I think I'm pretty close here. Oh the 2 for Houston.

I don't call Indiana or OKC a success.

IMHO, being a consistent playoff team is a success. Going deeper into the playoffs and of course winning it all.

Besides only 2 teams get to the Finals. Should we just say anyone not in the Finals hasn't been a success? Just sayin'.

Lloyd -- I'd be thrilled if the Wolves could put together the same sort of run the Pacers and Thunder have had the past several years. They're not examples of complete success since they haven't won championships, but I would consider them successful -- or at least achieving a level of success that would be fun to watch and be part of as a fan. Heck -- I'd love to have the level of success Portland had last season. I'd love to have the playoff runs that Portland had when Brandon Roy was there.

I agree it's tougher for smaller market, non-marque organizations to succeed, but it's very possible with good front office management. Portland pulled off a brilliant draft-day deal to draft Aldridge and later drafted Brandon Roy with the 5th pick as part of a swap with the Wolves. More recently, Portland drafted Damian Lillard in the teens. Indiana made a great lower lottery pick in Paul George along with other nice picks and deals. The Thunder took Westbrook at #4, which was much higher than expected. A very savvy pick. Picking Harden at #2 was also brilliant.

I not only agree with Lip and Grey, I think the notion that the only form of success that matters is championships is part of what's wrong with the game these days. Yes, that's the ultimate goal, but just look at some of the effects of what has definitely become a culture of "all or nothing" in the NBA in recent years.

1. Stars forcing their way off teams to get to teams where they think they can win it all. Miami is the biggest example of this, and Love is probably most close to home, but there are plenty of other examples. To some degree, I get this. It's nice to win. But it's gotten so out of hand its like the only loyalty players have anymore is to their own chances of winning it all. And it's not entirely their fault, fans (and notice how many more fans there are of players, versus fans of TEAMS there are lately?) and sportswriters so often tell good players, "you deserve to be on a contender, you deserve to win championships." And these players believe it because the idea that nothing else matters but rings, that everything else is failure has become so pervasive recently. So this "all or nothing" attitude is part of what's driving a more individual, cynical, selfish, entitled approach to free agency among players (*ahem* Love), particularly star players, that is driving talent away from teams where they used to stay and remain loyal and have a loyal fan base.

2. Tanking. That's right. Why does all of this tanking happen? Because teams aren't just happy to try to be good year in and year out and get a little better every year. When the idea that championships are the only things that matter takes hold, the logic of "if you're not a contender, blow it up and go for the lottery for several years" takes hold, and look what that's done to the league. It's pathetic. What's happening right now in Philadelphia right now is just sad. I get that there's a natural ebb and flow to a team's development, and sometimes it makes sense to let a veteran go because they don't necessarily fit where you're at as a team, but it's gone way beyond that in recent years. Because we've so overemphasized the importance of championships, it's like we've pervasively created a race to the bottom, as teams gut their rosters and pray for the #1 pick where they can hopefully get the next LeBron. It's a disservice to fans and to the league. It's also why you're seeing the same teams at the top in recent years, the rest of them decided if they can't win it all, they'd rather blow it up.

3. Roster gutting to create tons of cap space for free agents. This is what the Lakers and the Heat have just done, where they basically stop signing any long-term contracts except for their stars (who are now even getting shorter deals with opt out clauses so they can chase rings elsewhere if it doesn't work out), and just sign a bunch of ring-chasers and other vets to 1 year deals that come off the books so they can go for another big free agent the next offseason. If championships are all that matters, who needs to be consistently good with the same set of veteran players? No, just do whatever it takes to keep your 1 or 2 or 3 stars happy, give the short stick to every other vet out there with a one year contract, try to get another star next year, and fill in the roster as needed each year. This is a bummer because even if the team wins multiple championships, like Miami winning two, it's not even necessarily the same team because they bring in different guys. Other than Chalmers and Haslem, who else was on that Heat team with the big three all 4 years? That kind of turnover undermines the loyalty between teams and players, between fans and the team that make basketball great. And if more and more teams start doing it, it will hurt those "good but not great" players and boost crazy roster turnover year to year. The only consistency on some of these teams would be their stars, and everybody else turns over. What kind of a world is that?

To me, championships are the ultimate goal, but what's wrong with just winning and having a good season and being a threat in the playoffs? What's wrong with being consistently good year in and year out? What's wrong with being loyal to your team, loyal to your players, loyal to your city? Are we so obsessed with championships that we're going to overlook the accomplishments of players like Stockton and Malone and Barkley? Is the ultimate measure of how good a player is really the number of rings he has? (Adam Morrison is better than Stockton and Malone and Barkley then). It's time to tone down the "everything other than a championship is failure" attitude and recognize how it's been hurting the league.

OKC or maybe even Indiana may win a title but let's be honest those teams are absolutely a success. OKC had a bunch of top picks and made the right pick every time including an out of the box Westbrook pick. Some people were down on Harden (I said he had high upside than Mayo) and Ibaka was a steal and Reggie Jackson was a nice pickup. Unless something weird happens they are a legit threat to win the Championship for years. That's success.

Pacers don't have quite the star poeer of OKC but they did it with taking later picks of Hibbert, Paul George and even Lance. They rose to be the 2nd best team in their conference despite not having what was their best player in Granger doing much of anything for them on the court or in trade value. I could live with being a team that only gets to the conference finals. If you can get that far you have a pretty good shot and moving on.

As I said in another thread one thing that saves the NBA for me is guys like Dirk, Z-bo and the Spurs guys taking less money. There is still some sense of team in the league. Another nice moment was calling Isaih Austin's name on draft night. I'll admit I got choked up on that it was a wonderful gesture and he seems like quite the young man. To me Silver is knocking it out of the park this first year.

Back to Miami. Here is the thing look at Miami's situation and tell me how is Bosh and Wade plus a couple young PGs better than 20 other teams in the league? Spolstra is the difference maker on that team besides Lebron IMO. Put Lebron on the 76ers and they would be a playoff team and ring chasers can sign there if they want. Put him on the Bucks same deal. Yes Wade and Bosh are better than the top guys on those teams, but how much better and I picked 2 of the worst teams in he league. My point is and we all know this that if Miami can't bring in at least 1 more player of substance they aren't much better BEFORE Lebron than like maybe 20+ teams in the league. Thats a real problem for Miami keeping Lebron IMO. Its going to be interesting in how both Miami and the Lakers situations play out this summer.

I wonder when it gets to the point that Miami starts going in another direction. Offering Max money to players like Hayward/Monroe/Parsons/etc.

LIP- Humphries is an idiot who will relish the glitz of South each and playing with LeBron.

Couldn't agree more. Hope to hell Flip does NOT pursue him. Even Kim thought he was a snake