Minnesota Sports Forum

"OKC signing its 2nd best player to a long-term deal is so stupid!" Oh... and Paul George is even dumber!!"

I've seen/heard this narrative in multiple places. I don't understand. One guy claimed that because they messed up and didn't go over the cap 6 years ago... the Thunder shouldn't do it now.

Wait. What?

So for screwing up previously, the team/fans should just accept perpetual mediocrity or just give up all hope? That's the dumbest take I've heard in awhile.

And then you have professional LeBron James bobo, Brian Windhorst, getting all pissy about Paul George signing in OKC and how it didn't make sense.

- When did what's good for the big market teams dominate what's best for the other 25 teams?
- When did what's good for LeBron James dominate what's best for the other 29 teams?

OKC took a HUGE GAMBLE on Paul George. And it paid off. That's a win for every smaller market team in the league... yet because it's easier to write about the Lakers and LeBron mania... it's getting ripped?

Teams and players are being nearly universally encouraged and praised for ditching teams... while teams and players that stick together are being ripped...

That's an NBA this avid fan is not excited to see. I went through an NBA hiatus a decade-plus ago until I was saved by Steve Nash and the 7 seconds or less Phoenix Suns. I fear that I'm going to be more frustrated than elated by the NBA in general in the next few years.

How we look at teams/franchises/loyalty/players is changing. It's NOT about the teams. It's mostly about the players for the casual fans that will continue to take the league to the next level in popularity.

It's working... I just don't like it.

I agree with what you're saying in a general sense. I do think that Windhorst might be in the minority opinion on the George analysis just by being Lebrons lackey. It's in his contract. Most analysis I heard initially was how much of a win it was for OKC. Small markets will always be in a tough spot because the media for profit's sake and the majority of fans live in big markets and cheer for those teams. Which makes it all the more fascinating how the Clippers and Knicks can be so awful.

thedoper wrote:I agree with what you're saying in a general sense. I do think that Windhorst might be in the minority opinion on the George analysis just by being Lebrons lackey. It's in his contract. Most analysis I heard initially was how much of a win it was for OKC. Small markets will always be in a tough spot because the media for profit's sake and the majority of fans live in big markets and cheer for those teams. Which makes it all the more fascinating how the Clippers and Knicks can be so awful.

Yeah. I'm just catching up today on this stuff... and the first two things I read/heard were Windhorst and then the staff at The Ringer.

Well, Windhorst has James to thank for his career.
And The Ringer is in LA... and routinely peddles NBA gossip culture... "It's a funner, easier story to write about..."

AbeVigodaLive wrote:"OKC signing its 2nd best player to a long-term deal is so stupid!" Oh... and Paul George is even dumber!!"

I've seen/heard this narrative in multiple places. I don't understand. One guy claimed that because they messed up and didn't go over the cap 6 years ago... the Thunder shouldn't do it now.

Wait. What?

So for screwing up previously, the team/fans should just accept perpetual mediocrity or just give up all hope? That's the dumbest take I've heard in awhile.

And then you have professional LeBron James bobo, Brian Windhorst, getting all pissy about Paul George signing in OKC and how it didn't make sense.

- When did what's good for the big market teams dominate what's best for the other 25 teams?
- When did what's good for LeBron James dominate what's best for the other 29 teams?

OKC took a HUGE GAMBLE on Paul George. And it paid off. That's a win for every smaller market team in the league... yet because it's easier to write about the Lakers and LeBron mania... it's getting ripped?

Teams and players are being nearly universally encouraged and praised for ditching teams... while teams and players that stick together are being ripped...

That's an NBA this avid fan is not excited to see. I went through an NBA hiatus a decade-plus ago until I was saved by Steve Nash and the 7 seconds or less Phoenix Suns. I fear that I'm going to be more frustrated than elated by the NBA in general in the next few years.

How we look at teams/franchises/loyalty/players is changing. It's NOT about the teams. It's mostly about the players for the casual fans that will continue to take the league to the next level in popularity.

It's working... I just don't like it.

Amen Brother

It's totally about players and not teams. It's about serving the interest of the casual fan. And what sucks is it works, so it's not likely to change until a few owners stop it. I've always had this dream that about 20 or so owners break off and start their own league with a hard cap and level playing field. The NBA would always get the best players, but I would be much more inclined to follow the league where everyone starts from the same place. It will never happen because most owners are in it for the buck, and though they hate the imbalance, it doesn't trump the big numbers they pull in every year.

Some people are probably mad about PG staying in OKC just because they were dead wrong in their prediction. It didn't shock me at all. The signs for him stay have been there for weeks and months.

As for it being all about players...yep and in some cases it completely sucks. In some cases If I sit down and think about it from an individual player's perspective I don't have as much of a problem with it. Lebron at this point has earned the right to do pretty much wherever he wants. He is making an has made a ton of money for other people and is making bank himself. I think some players have the right to do what they want. It's not like an owner or team wouldn't ship them out if the circumstances where right. There is some loyalty out there but not a lot and there is some mutual aspect of it. It can be less fun to be a part of a league where guys move around so much. Why buy a jersey? Dude could be traded tomorrow or leave in a year after basically demanding a trade even if it's justified.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:It's totally about players and not teams. It's about serving the interest of the casual fan. And what sucks is it works, so it's not likely to change until a few owners stop it. I've always had this dream that about 20 or so owners break off and start their own league with a hard cap and level playing field. The NBA would always get the best players, but I would be much more inclined to follow the league where everyone starts from the same place. It will never happen because most owners are in it for the buck, and though they hate the imbalance, it doesn't trump the big numbers they pull in every year.

Here's the rub... for most of us, it's always been about the players... even back to Bird and Magic. Definitely during the Jordan era. And it's just kept becoming more and more obvious.

It's worked. The league has gone from tape delayed Finals games to 365-day coverage.

But the pendulum has switched a bit. Players are expected to switch teams... or get ripped for it. Heck, Garnett was ripped a bit, circa 2007. Imagine it now... it would be relentless.

Is it because of our reliance on social media?
More coverage?
Smaller world where provincialism is sorta dying?

Personally, I don't know how the game will be sustainable in the end if swings too far... unless TV and other rights become so universal and profitable that the in-game or local experience simply doesn't matter any more.

I'd say the fans are the ones losing AGAIN with this latest trend. But are we? Or, is it only the guys holding a hose on the lawn scaring the neighboring kids away?

I hate this trend... but I fear I'm in the abject minority and thus, the lonely, angry old man on his lawn.

This trend is here to stay as long as GS keeps the big 4. The reason everyone wants guys to move is to create teams to challenge GS. They don't want Warriors in 4 every year. They want Lebron and PG in LA and CP3 and Harden in Houston to try to take the juggernaut down. Every move is going to be not good enough so they want even more to be stacked. Bill Simmons talking about ways LA could have gotten all 3 of Lebron, PG and Kawhi. The Warriors need to break up for the league to get back to normal in terms of a desire for monstar teams over what used to be a standard 3 player super team. They have 4 so everyone else needs at least 3 to even have a shot and there's only so many superstars available to move teams every year.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:It's totally about players and not teams. It's about serving the interest of the casual fan. And what sucks is it works, so it's not likely to change until a few owners stop it. I've always had this dream that about 20 or so owners break off and start their own league with a hard cap and level playing field. The NBA would always get the best players, but I would be much more inclined to follow the league where everyone starts from the same place. It will never happen because most owners are in it for the buck, and though they hate the imbalance, it doesn't trump the big numbers they pull in every year.

Here's the rub... for most of us, it's always been about the players... even back to Bird and Magic. Definitely during the Jordan era. And it's just kept becoming more and more obvious.

It's worked. The league has gone from tape delayed Finals games to 365-day coverage.

But the pendulum has switched a bit. Players are expected to switch teams... or get ripped for it. Heck, Garnett was ripped a bit, circa 2007. Imagine it now... it would be relentless.

Is it because of our reliance on social media?
More coverage?
Smaller world where provincialism is sorta dying?

Personally, I don't know how the game will be sustainable in the end if swings too far... unless TV and other rights become so universal and profitable that the in-game or local experience simply doesn't matter any more.

I'd say the fans are the ones losing AGAIN with this latest trend. But are we? Or, is it only the guys holding a hose on the lawn scaring the neighboring kids away?

I hate this trend... but I fear I'm in the abject minority and thus, the lonely, angry old man on his lawn.

As for how far this swings and what effect it has...the thing is Abe the game is growing globally and the market there is massive in China alone. Who are many of people in another country going to be interested in? A player or a franchise in a place they have likely never been?

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:It's totally about players and not teams. It's about serving the interest of the casual fan. And what sucks is it works, so it's not likely to change until a few owners stop it. I've always had this dream that about 20 or so owners break off and start their own league with a hard cap and level playing field. The NBA would always get the best players, but I would be much more inclined to follow the league where everyone starts from the same place. It will never happen because most owners are in it for the buck, and though they hate the imbalance, it doesn't trump the big numbers they pull in every year.

Here's the rub... for most of us, it's always been about the players... even back to Bird and Magic. Definitely during the Jordan era. And it's just kept becoming more and more obvious.

It's worked. The league has gone from tape delayed Finals games to 365-day coverage.

But the pendulum has switched a bit. Players are expected to switch teams... or get ripped for it. Heck, Garnett was ripped a bit, circa 2007. Imagine it now... it would be relentless.

Is it because of our reliance on social media?
More coverage?
Smaller world where provincialism is sorta dying?

Personally, I don't know how the game will be sustainable in the end if swings too far... unless TV and other rights become so universal and profitable that the in-game or local experience simply doesn't matter any more.

I'd say the fans are the ones losing AGAIN with this latest trend. But are we? Or, is it only the guys holding a hose on the lawn scaring the neighboring kids away?

I hate this trend... but I fear I'm in the abject minority and thus, the lonely, angry old man on his lawn.

As for how far this swings and what effect it has...the thing is Abe the game is growing globally and the market there is massive in China alone. Who are many of people in another country going to be interested in? A player or a franchise in a place they have likely never been?

Yeah. I get it. I know it's working to expand the popularity of the game.

I'm simply whining that it misses its mark entirely with me.