By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sports Discussion - NBA offseason is wild

The West got a whole lot better so far. This upcoming season there will probably be at least two sup 500 teams in the East that will make the playoffs.



Around the Network

Ya the state of the East is pretty sad. Lebron could probably sit out like the entire regular season if he wanted, and the Cavs would still make the playoffs.



TH3-D0S3R said:
pokoko said:
Really, though, what is the NBA going to do about the Eastern Conference? Not only has it been worst conference for years, it now seems like it's dropping even further. Unless you get to play on LeBron's team, why even go? (Well, unless you have a big contract provision for an All-Star appearance) The NFL, on the other hand, has done a fantastic job of creating parity. The NBA has to want that--though I don't know about the Player's union.

The NFL I find to be completely different than the NBA, and not really comparable in that sense. In the NFL, it's more of an all around team game. There's only one person in the NFL who could single handedly carry his team to the playoffs (Brady, who at this point IS the GOAT), and even then he needs a little help on the O-Line and Defensive ends. In the NBA, the best players win. Period. Allen Iverson had a team of complete bums, and led them to the Finals where he won a game against Kobe and Shaq. Lebron did the same in 07, only difference is he got swept. The big 3 Heat and the Warriors today have shown us the only thing that matters is star power. Outside of Bosh, Wade, James, and maybe Allen when he was there, can you name a DECENT player. The Warriors may have Iggy and Livingston, but they always find a way to have 1-2 of their big 4 constantly in the game, mainly because they're not THAT deep. When it comes to all around depth, I would argue pre trade deadline that the Lakers were one of the more well rounded teams when it came to players who were all around decent. They ended as the second worst team in the league.

In the NBA, it's about the names. Why do you think the Timberwolves who were considered up and coming are all of a sudden now considered Davids going against Goliath when all they did was add 2 people and got rid of a pretty decent young guy? You can build a decent team in the NBA, but the stars are what put you over. In the NFL, you need every position to be good for you to have a chance, in the NBA, you need to have 3-5 great pieces and everything else just be passable.

What you said doesn't negate what I said at all.  Parity is about contract rules and salary cap structure.  Teams with several superstars shouldn't be able to afford more superstars. 



pokoko said:
TH3-D0S3R said:

The NFL I find to be completely different than the NBA, and not really comparable in that sense. In the NFL, it's more of an all around team game. There's only one person in the NFL who could single handedly carry his team to the playoffs (Brady, who at this point IS the GOAT), and even then he needs a little help on the O-Line and Defensive ends. In the NBA, the best players win. Period. Allen Iverson had a team of complete bums, and led them to the Finals where he won a game against Kobe and Shaq. Lebron did the same in 07, only difference is he got swept. The big 3 Heat and the Warriors today have shown us the only thing that matters is star power. Outside of Bosh, Wade, James, and maybe Allen when he was there, can you name a DECENT player. The Warriors may have Iggy and Livingston, but they always find a way to have 1-2 of their big 4 constantly in the game, mainly because they're not THAT deep. When it comes to all around depth, I would argue pre trade deadline that the Lakers were one of the more well rounded teams when it came to players who were all around decent. They ended as the second worst team in the league.

In the NBA, it's about the names. Why do you think the Timberwolves who were considered up and coming are all of a sudden now considered Davids going against Goliath when all they did was add 2 people and got rid of a pretty decent young guy? You can build a decent team in the NBA, but the stars are what put you over. In the NFL, you need every position to be good for you to have a chance, in the NBA, you need to have 3-5 great pieces and everything else just be passable.

What you said doesn't negate what I said at all.  Parity is about contract rules and salary cap structure.  Teams with several superstars shouldn't be able to afford more superstars. 

That is silly. I look at baseball and have no problem with there being no salary cap. It has not hurt the competition within that sport and also creates phenonenal underdog stories that we all love. I also have no problem with Soccer having a lack of salary cap. It did nothing to stop Leicester City winning the premier league last year. Lets not act like parity is about money and not about talent and team chemistry.

Cavs had the highest payroll in NBA history last season and that payroll did not stop Golden State from romping them. Lets not blame lack of parity on money. There has never been much parity in the NBA anyway.

The NFL creates an illusion of parity (New England has been in nothing less than the AFC Finals every season but two since like 2001, after all) through the, "one and done" playoff structure that give more leeway to upsets. In a best of seven atmosphere, the, "parity illusion" is removed because the best team almost always wins.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

West Power Rankings:
1) Golden State
2) San Antonio
3) Houston?
4) Oklahoma City?



Around the Network
Miguel_Zorro said:

West Power Rankings:
1) Golden State
2) San Antonio
3) Houston?
4) Oklahoma City?

I would say this:

Distant 1st Warriors

2nd Spurs

3rd Timberwolves

4th Rockets

5th Jazz WITH Hayward

6th Thunder



Paul George is the missing piece OKC needs and he will be back up to Westbrook and another play maker and second scorer. OKC won the deal, Paul George is way better than the two players they gave up for him. OKC are now a contender for the NBA title and they have landed Paul George. The Cavs have missed out on the two players they wanted: Chris Paul and Paul George. They may have to settle for an old, slow Carmelo Anthony or an older Dwayne Wade.



TH3-D0S3R said:
Miguel_Zorro said:

West Power Rankings:
1) Golden State
2) San Antonio
3) Houston?
4) Oklahoma City?

I would say this:

Distant 1st Warriors

2nd Spurs

3rd Timberwolves

4th Rockets

5th Jazz WITH Hayward

6th Thunder

I'd like to see the Timberwolves do well, but right now I have them in the 6 slot.



Crazy indeed. It's kind of sad that none of it really matters in a Lebron/GSW era.



"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"

GhaudePhaede010 said:
pokoko said:

What you said doesn't negate what I said at all.  Parity is about contract rules and salary cap structure.  Teams with several superstars shouldn't be able to afford more superstars. 

That is silly. I look at baseball and have no problem with there being no salary cap. It has not hurt the competition within that sport and also creates phenonenal underdog stories that we all love. I also have no problem with Soccer having a lack of salary cap. It did nothing to stop Leicester City winning the premier league last year. Lets not act like parity is about money and not about talent and team chemistry.

Cavs had the highest payroll in NBA history last season and that payroll did not stop Golden State from romping them. Lets not blame lack of parity on money. There has never been much parity in the NBA anyway.

The NFL creates an illusion of parity (New England has been in nothing less than the AFC Finals every season but two since like 2001, after all) through the, "one and done" playoff structure that give more leeway to upsets. In a best of seven atmosphere, the, "parity illusion" is removed because the best team almost always wins.

What a silly thing to say.  Do you not understand that money is a big factor in bringing in talent?  "Illusion of parity" doesn't make sense, either.  The best team winning is fine, the point is that other teams have a chance to build themselves up and often do.  The Falcons, Panthers, and Saints have all been to the SuperBowl in the last seven years coming out of the same division.  You can pencil in what is going to happen each year in the NBA.  If you think it's the same as the NFL's "illusion" of parity then you don't know what you're talking about.

Also, bringing up the Cavs as an example of having a high-price team not doing well?  The team that has been to three straight title games?  Seriously?  

If you're fine with the way the NBA is right now then just say so.  You don't need to be condescending.