NBA Season 2011-2012

Blind_Evil wrote:

Eric Gordon is kind of showing his ass, I think. He's telling people that if the Hornets match his contract offer from the Suns they'll be in the same situation they were with Paul. Obviously, they can just deal with him being disgruntled for the next four years, but that seems like a bad situation. Here's the quote that really bothers me:

Eric Gordon wrote:

They drafted another shooting guard, a combo guard like me, which tells me they have another plan.

That doesn't show a lot of smarts, IMO. A team needs at least three quality guards, and if two of them are combo guards, that's really no problem.

That's possibly as dumb as you can be. It's not like he's the QB and they drafted another QB. They want more talent. Doesn't he want to play on a team with talent?

Also, can we just move New Orleans to Seattle already? This kind of nonsense is going to keep happening indefinitely.

StaggerLee wrote:

My oh my. Jason Kidd to be a Knick. How curious.

I remember seeing him play for the Nets. That was when they were good, though. And yet no one cared then either.

Kidd getting another contract with anyone who isn't contending for the NBA championship is mind boggling to me. At this point in his career he's a good spot up shooter who can play a little defense now and then. Otherwise he's largely washed up. To me the saddest thing in all of this is that the Mavericks willingly blew up a title contender and for what? They're going to lose Terry and Kidd as well. They're officially rebuilding, no?

DSGamer wrote:

Kidd getting another contract with anyone who isn't contending for the NBA championship is mind boggling to me. At this point in his career he's a good spot up shooter who can play a little defense now and then. Otherwise he's largely washed up. To me the saddest thing in all of this is that the Mavericks willingly blew up a title contender and for what? They're going to lose Terry and Kidd as well. They're officially rebuilding, no?

some kind of nonsense where they actually had a shot of clearing enough cap room to land Deron and Dwight in free agency for free. I guess the idea was bring in the relatively younger two so Dirk would be on a contender into his twilight... Woops

as for the Kidd deal it looks like he was brought in to mentor Lin and the Knicks will begrudgingly match the Lin offer. Or face the wrath of their fans.

While they missed out in the sweepstakes for Steve Nash, who would've likely been the starter in New York, the Knicks landed arguably the second-best veteran point guard in free agency, Jason Kidd -- and now the Knicks can focus on re-signing Lin, the likely starter. Even Kidd said in an appearance on ESPN New York radio recently that he wouldn't mind helping develop Lin as the Knicks' main floor general.

Will be interesting to see how they shake out the rest of the roster.

Blind_Evil wrote:

That doesn't show a lot of smarts, IMO. A team needs at least three quality guards, and if two of them are combo guards, that's really no problem.

Well, he did go to IU.

Spoiler:

IU's a fine school but I enjoy sh*tting on them for some reason.

Nicolas Batum wants to be a Timberwolf. The Blazers do not intend on letting that happen.

Batum, "...feels the best fit for him is playing in Minnesota under coach Rick Adelman and alongside point guard Ricky Rubio."

Portland GM Neil Olshey said, "...we intend to match any offer and we will not facilitate any sign-and-trade scenarios."

They have also come to a verbal agreement with Brandon Roy for 2 years, $10 million. I like that deal. Enough money not to insule him but not enough to hamstring the cap situation at all. Hoping that knee therapy did its magic again.

Looks like Dwight's going to Brooklyn. Deron Williams, Joe Johnson, Gerald Wallace, anybody-who-is-over-six-foot-six, and Dwight Howard. Not too shabby. Stupid Nets.

And Pacers will match Hibbert's contract and keep him. Good for them.

The only side of that trade I'm not sure I buy is the Clippers'. They are in win-now mode with the acquisition of Chris Paul. While Marshon Brooks is a decent exchange for a pick likely to be in the 20s, there's some credence to the idea at the bottom of that story, that a contender wouldn't be terribly excited to facilitate the construction of another super team to defeat.

On the other hand, from the Clips' view they are likely to face an elite team out of the East if they do make the finals (not saying they will), and which elite team it is might not make a load of difference.

StaggerLee wrote:

And Pacers will match Hibbert's contract and keep him. Good for them.

Whew.

Max contract on either side for Hibbert gives me a little pause, after hearing some opinions from the experts. The league is clearly moving away from the sort of playstyle that benefits from having immobile, back to the basket guys making huge bank. He's valuable as a rim protector, but vulnerable to the PNR offense.

And just from looking at the stats myself, it seems he's not a great asset offensively.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Max contract on either side for Hibbert gives me a little pause, after hearing some opinions from the experts. The league is clearly moving away from the sort of playstyle that benefits from having immobile, back to the basket guys making huge bank. He's valuable as a rim protector, but vulnerable to the PNR offense.

And just from looking at the stats myself, it seems he's not a great asset offensively.

Curious what stats lead you to think Roy's not a solid offensive contributor. He gets ~3 O-boards/game, ~2 assists, shoots well from the free throw line and gets there a couple times per game. He's not their first option, but he is far from a hindrance.

He lacks the kind of athleticism you see from the top big men, but he's not exclusively back-to-the-basket. At Georgetown he ran the offense from the top of the key. He's still got work to do on his 18-footer, but he does have a decent touch (if he is a bit liberal with his willingness to shoot it, sometimes).

For a 25-year-old, I certainly think he's worth this contract. The number of quality centers in the league is far fewer than the number of teams, so I'm not surprised he commanded max money. And for first contract post draft, max isn't really that crazy. It's $58 million over 4 years. Not obscene.

I know it's not an extraordinary contract. Big guys that defend and aren't a liability on offense get loads, like the Mavs found out with Tyson Chandler. Bums me out because the Wolves are likely going to have to offer Pekovic the max after next year, assuming he plays well again. Friggin' JaVale McGee is probably going to get 4 years and 40 million.

Specifically regarding Hibbert, I just think at 7'2" he should be shoot a better percentage. He's And if it's lower because he's not as close to the rim as other big guys, he should be in there more often.

I guess they have to spend the money on someone, but the league is increasingly dominated by athleticism and from what I saw of him in the playoffs he can get negated by that sort of team.

StaggerLee wrote:

For a 25-year-old, I certainly think he's worth this contract. The number of quality centers in the league is far fewer than the number of teams, so I'm not surprised he commanded max money. And for first contract post draft, max isn't really that crazy. It's $58 million over 4 years. Not obscene.

That is obscene. Every time I see how much money an NBA player is taking to the bank I find it obscene o_O

Have there been any recent instances of a player being in negotiation with another team only to reply something along the lines of 'thanks for this bazillion dollar offer but, honestly, I'm still at a loss over what to do with this half-a-bazillion I'm already earning and I kind of like my team and city, so... no thanks. I seem to have misplaced my car keys, but I can still pick up a new Mercades before I leave town. No sweat.'?

The problem, honestly, is the salary cap. In the interest of making things "fair" they've created this system where the starting point is a max contract. That's the starting negotiating point for most players. It worked in so far as Indiana got to keep their player and Miami didn't overpay for him. But part of me wonders if they accomplished anything in the collective bargaining agreement if players can hold a gun to their team's head for a max contract.

Eh? That happens, but not in this case. This is the fair market saying Roy Hibbert is worth 4 years, 58 million to the Blazers, and the Pacers, after weighing their options, deciding they'd rather foot the same bill than lose him. This isn't caused the salary cap. Plain ol' NBA personnel ineptitude, I think.

One contributing problem is that the league just tends to fall in love with size and overvalue the big guys (another case in point, the Knicks are going to be paying Marcus Camby about $4 when he's 41). I guess I can't blame them, most of the great dynasties have revolved around great big men, but I don't speak of Roy Hibbert in the same breath as Shaq, Tim Duncan, or Olajuwon.

The salary cap and rookie contracts and restricted free agency all were made in an attempt to allow teams to retain the players they develop. This works great in theory. In reality though, players have proven fickle and demanding. The grass is perpetually greener on the other side, and rather than wait for their own team to develop around them, they want to team up with other young stars to find success ASAP (probably partially caused by the media pressure that comes with losing). I don't know how football manages it, but players tend to stick with their teams a lot better in the NFL.

J.A. Adande has a piece on the subject of competitive balance and the new CBA up over at ESPN. Worth reading in regards to this discussion.

Football teams have 55 players each and non-guaranteed contracts. I think there is still plenty of movement you just don't notice it as much because there are so many other players that stay put.

I think the problem with regards to the cap and market value for these guys is that Hibbert ends up making the same as Durant, Lebron, etc. -- The Max (I know Lebron took a little less). If there were no cap Durant et al. would be making a ton MORE and Hibbert's deal wouldn't seem so bad (if in fact you think that).

carrotpanic wrote:

I think the problem with regards to the cap and market value for these guys is that Hibbert ends up making the same as Durant, Lebron, etc. -- The Max (I know Lebron took a little less). If there were no cap Durant et al. would be making a ton MORE and Hibbert's deal wouldn't seem so bad (if in fact you think that).

That's where I was headed. Hibbert would be valued more fairly if the max deal wasn't the starting point for negotiations.

I'm not sure either ditching the cap, making it higher, or raising the max deal fixes the situation though. All it takes is one GM who is desperate to get the big name to save his job and you've got the max deals flying for good-not-great players all over again.

Seriously, someone knowledgeable about the NFL, step in here and let me know how they handle it. Small market teams can do well and it seems that truly well run organizations succeed in the long term rather than those that get lucky in the draft or have the most money to spend.

Soooooo.....

Chandler (Camby)
Amare (Jefferies)
Carmelo (Novak)
?? match Fields offer? Shumpert not back till Jan supposedly? JR Smith hasnt been resigned.
Lin (Kidd)

Depending how the SG spot shakes out thats seems like a fairly deep balanced team. Almost to deep and it needs to be more front loaded. I honestly have no clue what to expect from that team. The floor is never gels and first round playoff exit and the ceiling is?

jowner wrote:

Soooooo.....

Chandler (Camby)
Amare (Jefferies)
Carmelo (Novak)
?? match Fields offer? Shumpert not back till Jan supposedly? JR Smith hasnt been resigned.
Lin (Kidd)

Depending how the SG spot shakes out thats seems like a fairly deep balanced team. Almost to deep and it needs to be more front loaded. I honestly have no clue what to expect from that team. The floor is never gels and first round playoff exit and the ceiling is?

Sticking with my expectations of the last 10 years for the Knicks: they'll stink. Not horrendously. But given the market and what you'd think you could get (all the players that talk about how great it is to play in the Garden), best they'll do is first round exit.

As listed, the team has exactly 1 shooter (Novak), and he can't do much else at all. Plus the big whole at the 2.

Blind_Evil wrote:

I'm not sure either ditching the cap, making it higher, or raising the max deal fixes the situation though. All it takes is one GM who is desperate to get the big name to save his job and you've got the max deals flying for good-not-great players all over again.

Seriously, someone knowledgeable about the NFL, step in here and let me know how they handle it. Small market teams can do well and it seems that truly well run organizations succeed in the long term rather than those that get lucky in the draft or have the most money to spend.

Wouldn't call myself an expert, but the big difference is hard cap vs soft cap. The NBA has (for as long as I've been old enough to pay attention, at least) had a soft cap. There are penalties for going over, but teams can still do it. The current CBA is the first version where there is a hard cap of sorts, but it only applies in certain situations and can be circumvented. The NFL has a hard cap (and a hard floor). No team can go over, period. It seems to me the result is NFL teams being a lot more concerned about where they spend money.

Another big difference is guaranteed money. NFL contracts are not fully guaranteed - often-times key players get a certain $ guaranteed, but the rest isn't. This doesn't just mean incentive bonuses, rather it means the team can cut the player and not pay the rest of the contract. So in the NFL, you might have a 4 year deal, but if you get cut after year 2, you don't get paid for years 3 & 4. There's nothing like that in the NBA (excluding team-options on contracts, but that really is a different story). Strangely, you'd think fully guaranteed contracts would lower NBA $, but as DSGamer mentioned, it seems most NBA deals gravitate towards the max. There's always some team willing to overpay, and then it's a matter of keeping your talent, so the team matches.

As far as the Knicks go, that looks great on paper until you remember that Anthony is a black hole and destroys the chemistry of the team. I loved that team with Lin, Novak and gang going crazy when Anthony was out. It was clear that good chemistry + shooters was much better than guys standing around watching Carmelo run out the clock.

DSGamer wrote:

As far as the Knicks go, that looks great on paper until you remember that Anthony is a black hole and destroys the chemistry of the team. I loved that team with Lin, Novak and gang going crazy when Anthony was out. It was clear that good chemistry + shooters was much better than guys standing around watching Carmelo run out the clock.

Bingo. The only good thing that came from the trade for Carmelo was not having a PG and finding Lin. But that's not worth the hell that is watching Carmelo destroy the offense, chemistry, and team.

I want to know if anything else is on the plate for the Lakers post Nash trade.

I am also interested if Nash will get flustered with the head cases. But I think it will hold up for a while so long as, was said above, that everyone is getting easy buckets. He also addresses the need for a consistent scorer or a scorer that can get 30 points at will. Or if it isn't needed he won't not take a blow to the ego.

The Lakers had a terrible weakness in second team scoring. It is a shame they could not have picked Odom back up as I think Odom and Nash is a good combo, a great fast break combo and a good second team scoring combo.

I think Gasol will be a good combo with Nash despite the up tempo reducing Gasol's minutes. (he is going to tire out and it is going to effect his playoff play if his minutes are not looked after carefully.) I think the trade off is that Gasol will not stretch the defense with his ranged shots. I think he'll be down low and moving less to conserve for the running game.

Barnes is a flyer who will benefit from Nash. I think all the young players will see their numbers increase from the up tempo game which should boost their confidence. There are a couple that look really promising to me.

Whew, now that I am out of breath, it is going to be an exciting year for the Lakers. (barring injuries, knock on wood)

edit: if I was a strategist, I would only run the up tempo game with the second team. I don't think there are many teams that can surpass a Nash led team in the up tempo game. So at worst, the second team will trade baskets, while Kobe rests, instead of losing leads. The second team can give it all they've got on both ends of the court since it is only going to be for 10-15 minutes. That should allow Kobe etal to play looser and more deadly.

The interesting thing about the Nash trade, to me, is that it's a sign of a number of teams that feel that right now they are still in the championship window. Miami, OKC, Boston, Lakers, Clippers all clearly feel like they're in the championship window with teams like Boston and the Lakers having a smaller window open to them due to aging stars.

Now Brooklyn feels like they're in the same spot. Otherwise they wouldn't go after Joe Johnson, Deron Williams AND resign Gerald Wallace. The Knicks clearly think that the window, if it's even there, is closing as Amare and Melo get older. So they've made moves in this direction.

What I find fascinating about this is that there are so many teams making what are obviously short term moves that may actually wreck their future flexibility while it seems that OKC and Miami are going to be going at it for a decade. I'm sure one of those teams can break through, but it's a strange time to have so many teams going "all in" so blatantly at the same time.

I just find it fascinating what Nash will finally do with multi-championship talent/veterans? And the Lakers kinda put all in by wagering the window is closed in 3 years. But it ended up costing them, nothing?

I think the Lakers match up favorably to the Heat. I am not sure they are better matched for the Thunder though other than the second team scoring angle for blowing leads. The Spurs are the Spurs and always an achilles heal for the Lakers. This is less so in recent years than at the turn of the century.

The Celtics just lost Ray Allen but I didn't follow up on what they got in return. If the gain was marginal, then Chicago (and Indiana?) is the only threat to Miami from the east.

Well, that's just it. There are a number of teams that are all-in because there isn't really a better option. Boston, Knicks, Brooklyn, etc. But they aren't in a championship window. The Spurs, Lakers, etc. are teams that legitimately should go all in now before their respective stars completely lose their effectiveness.

Yeah, I think like you said especially in the current NBA climate, no team has a choice. If you are not making moves to expect a championship no matter how realistic, you'll be fired, lose all your stars to poutiness or free agency or more likely, all of the above.

I keep trying to envision how the Lakers are going to work if they stay as currently assembled. I see how bringing Nash in could extend Gasol's usefulness since his shooting will fit well in a pick and roll game with Nash. My concern, were I a Laker's fan, would be how Nash and Kobe are going to function together. They are both used to dominating the ball as the lead guard for their teams, albeit in very different offenses. Are they going to switch back and forth between a pick and roll with Nash creating and a drive and kick with Kobe creating?

thoughts?

I'm getting irritated with guys coming off their rookie contracts into restricted free agency and being idiots about it. Specifically, Eric Gordon and Nicolas Batum. If you really want to go anywhere you want, accept the damn qualifying offer and wait another year. Don't jump the gun and end up stuck where you don't want to be for another four years, or in the sh*tty situation of trade demands, etc.

Blind_Evil wrote:

I'm getting irritated with guys coming off their rookie contracts into restricted free agency and being idiots about it. Specifically, Eric Gordon and Nicolas Batum. If you really want to go anywhere you want, accept the damn qualifying offer and wait another year. Don't jump the gun and end up stuck where you don't want to be for another four years, or in the sh*tty situation of trade demands, etc.

It seems they're all quite excited to prove their self-centered douchebaggery. Sad for them. If only teams would see that and then say "actually, we don't want that kind of attitude on our team"