Poetic justice

[sturt]

[SalvorMallow]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

What a game though... 

[AUhawksfan]

Lebron doesn't seem upset about it, he knows what he's up against and left it all on the floor.

As much as I think the system needs to change, last night was a very entertaining game. Can't you guys can't let go of being sour for just one second? Lol

[Thomas]

18 minutes ago, AUhawksfan said:

Lebron doesn't seem upset about it, he knows what he's up against and left it all on the floor.

As much as I think the system needs to change, last night was a very entertaining game. Can't you guys can't let go of being sour for just one second? Lol

Agree about the game, it actually convinced me to watch the beginning and the end and a good bit in-between. Was much harder with the first two.

[sturt]

Glad you guys bring it up.

Just want to make a distinction here.

Great games are a natural product of two teams that are very good (which is a proxy for saying "conference champions," no?) playing each other. Decades of NBA Finals routinely feature some number of great games in any given series.

That much, then, is to be expected. I doubt any of us thought there wouldn't be a good game. To the contrary, opposite--my guess is most thought there would be a good game every time. (Though, notably, that hasn't happened).

Point being...

The nausea prompted by the ring-chasing back story of how each team got there isn't mitigated or distracted by there being some number of good games, or even if it were 100% good games.

And to the more specific point of the OP graphic...

Yeah. How poetically just that things would go down just this way.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AUhawksfan said:

Lebron doesn't seem upset about it, he knows what he's up against and left it all on the floor.

As much as I think the system needs to change, last night was a very entertaining game. Can't you guys can't let go of being sour for just one second? Lol

I think you know the answer to that is a hearty ...

[sturt]

Nope... good games happen regardless... and not sure what purpose is served in letting it go.

Letting it go, to the contrary, just seems to promote the idea that "It's all okay," and "Please give us more of some of that!"

Nope. Not one to be limp-wristed in something like this. In sports, in politics, in life... integrity has to matter, imo.

[macdaddy]

I don't really care that much about the what lebron and durant have done.  i think it's bad for the sport and shows a certain amount short-cutting but careers are short and when you're looking at whether you want to play for a championship or are fine just trying hard in OKC then why not.  I think most of us would choose to play on the best team we could. 

I just blame the NBA for continuing to run a league that doesn't make true competition the number one goal.   

[sturt]

@macdaddy, it's not one or the other. It's both.

The bank shouldn't leave their vault open so that just anyone can potentially take stuff.

But most of us have enough integrity anyway that we wouldn't do that.

And I see no problem with being critical of those who do take advantage of the situation.

So, put me down for "both."

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

I don't really care that much about the what lebron and durant have done.  i think it's bad for the sport and shows a certain amount short-cutting but careers are short and when you're looking at whether you want to play for a championship or are fine just trying hard in OKC then why not.  I think most of us would choose to play on the best team we could. 

I just blame the NBA for continuing to run a league that doesn't make true competition the number one goal.   

Well, to be fair, "true competition" isn't the number one goal of any league.

I think what we're seeing is what happens when the whole 'it's just a business' mantra gets out of control.  Kind of a 'when keepin' it business goes wrong' kind of a thing.

Fortunately, the market conditions which facilitated Durant's move will not likely be repeated so we're not likely to see this again (in the same form).  Unfortunately though, I think we'll see players try to weasel their way to super teams.  It'll take them leaving 8 figures on the table to do it though.

My hope is pushback from TV partners at subsequent deals will snap things back money-wise.

ETA: Pick a lane, @sturt.  Stop trying to straddle the fence. 

[macdaddy]

1 minute ago, kg01 said:

Well, to be fair, "true competition" isn't the number one goal of any league.

I think what we're seeing is what happens when the whole 'it's just a business' mantra gets out of control.  Kind of a 'when keepin' it business goes wrong' kind of a thing.

Fortunately, the market conditions which facilitated Durant's move will not likely be repeated so we're not likely to see this again (in the same form).  Unfortunately though, I think we'll see players try to weasel their way to super teams.  It'll take them leaving 8 figures on the table to do it though.

My hope is pushback from TV partners at subsequent deals will snap things back money-wise.

It's true that every league's goal is making money, but they've all setup structures to ensure that the game is played fairly and teams that are in the league have a chance to win.   Now they've all done this because they were forced to or because ultimately they lose money if those principals aren't upheld.   But the NBA has skirted those principals because they believe they make more money by trying to manipulate the game.   

Maybe they are trying to change those things but so far their attempts haven't helped things.   

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

It's true that every league's goal is making money, but they've all setup structures to ensure that the game is played fairly and teams that are in the league have a chance to win.   Now they've all done this because they were forced to or because ultimately they lose money if those principals aren't upheld.   But the NBA has skirted those principals because they believe they make more money by trying to manipulate the game.   

Maybe they are trying to change those things but so far their attempts haven't helped things.   

That's not completely accurate portrayal though.  The reasons the Warriors team was able to be put together weren't related to any failure or overt action by the NBA to facilitate it.

Curry being on a cheap-a** deal was because of his balky ankles.  His deal is set to be up after the coming season IIRC.

Klay/Draymond deals were up prior to the cap increase.  Both are on good deals which, due to the cap increase, fit.

Durant was acquire-able only due to the cap increase which isn't going to be repeated.

The league can't force dumb-a**es like David West to take the most money he's offered.  If he chooses to play for less, what can the league do?

The only failing could be the failure to institute the whole cap-smoothing thing so there was no inordinately large jump in the cap.  However, the league attempted to put it in place but couldn't pass it through collective bargaining IIUC.  IOW, the players didn't allow it.  What was the NBA supposed to do?

Now you're making me sound like an NBA shill which I'm not.  I just don't necessarily think the league failed in this instance.

[macdaddy]

2 minutes ago, kg01 said:

That's not completely accurate portrayal though.  The reasons the Warriors team was able to be put together weren't related to any failure or overt action by the NBA to facilitate it.

Curry being on a cheap-a** deal was because of his balky ankles.  His deal is set to be up after the coming season IIRC.

Klay/Draymond deals were up prior to the cap increase.  Both are on good deals which, due to the cap increase, fit.

Durant was acquire-able only due to the cap increase which isn't going to be repeated.

The league can't force dumb-a**es like David West to take the most money he's offered.  If he chooses to play for less, what can the league do?

The only failing could be the failure to institute the whole cap-smoothing thing so there was no inordinately large jump in the cap.  However, the league attempted to put it in place but couldn't pass it through collective bargaining IIUC.  IOW, the players didn't allow it.  What was the NBA supposed to do?

Now you're making me sound like an NBA shill which I'm not.  I just don't necessarily think the league failed in this instance.

I suppose but Durant isn't there for one season.  He knows they will all find a way to make it work because there are ways for GS and Cleveland to go waaaay over the cap to continue their dominance.     

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, macdaddy said:

I suppose but Durant isn't there for one season.  He knows they will all find a way to make it work because there are ways for GS and Cleveland to go waaaay over the cap to continue their dominance.     

 

 

Good point.  That's actually a really good point.  Hard cap these b*tches?

However, if Iguodala takes the most he's offered, then he's no longer a Warrior.  So it seems there are things the league could do to limit it, but player-choice still has the potential to break things down.

[macdaddy]

3 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Good point.  That's actually a really good point.  Hard cap these b*tches?

However, if Iguodala takes the most he's offered, then he's no longer a Warrior.  So it seems there are things the league could do to limit it, but player-choice still has the potential to break things down.

Yeah.   And I don't know what's better really.   I mean we don't want owners controlling guys whole careers but there is definite improvement that needs to be made.   To me though the officiating is still a problem that elevates great players to borderline unstoppable players.   That's the first place to go.  

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Yeah.   And I don't know what's better really.   I mean we don't want owners controlling guys whole careers but there is definite improvement that needs to be made.   To me though the officiating is still a problem that elevates great players to borderline unstoppable players.   That's the first place to go.  

I agree there as well.  A carry is a carry is a carry.  They're the best in the world, right?  Then I'm sure they can learn to properly maneuver the ball without having to be bailed out by you not calling palming.

Uniform officiating would do wonders for me as it would level the playing field and not, as you say, turn great players into unstoppable players.

The problem is their old fallback that so much is subjective.  Fouls calls, for example, are really subjective.  I'm not talking about the blatant missed calls.  I'm talking the ordinary, run-o-the-mill foul calls.  It can be really subjective even if star-status doesn't come into play.

[sturt]

28 minutes ago, kg01 said:

I just don't necessarily think the league failed in this instance.

You had me up to that laaaaaaast sentence.

[AHF]

This scenario is created fundamentally by the fact that there is a cap on maximum salaries.  It will continue to be repeated in different formulations until the NBA fixes this.  Right now, guys would rather give up a couple million a year in salary to team up with other superstars and reap that money back in spades in post-ring endorsements.

Saying this won't repeat is just wrong.  At the end of this season, we will be at 5 "stacked team" rings out of the last 6 championships.  With the retirement of Tim Duncan, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[sturt]

To @kg01 and @macdaddy's discussion...

Why have sports leagues been so pointed over the decades of their existence to maintain some clear distance between themselves and the betting world?

Maybe you'd agree, it's because they recognize that to the degree that people sense that the outcomes are slanted, they also recognize that the popularity of their sport (vis-a-vis their ability to make money from the sport) is compromised, if not destined for failure.

The principle still holds here... it's not good for the sport for people to perceive that the outcomes are slanted. Iow, it's not good for the sport for people to have obvious reason to question the integrity of the outcomes.

Mind you... I understand why Silver is so dogged determined to try to slosh over it all... he's got potentially more and more of this coming down the tracks through 2023 at least... (that is, if it doesn't occur to them that they do actually have some way of blunting the effect independent of the CBA, but I'm not inclined to think the leveraged minutes option is even something that's occurred to them, let alone been granted any serious thought). So, if he doesn't perceive any way to remedy it, self-interest demands that he take the position "You guys are making too much of this."

That's what the profit motive does to people. Sometimes it works in a good way--prompting ingenuity and better mouse traps and better quality of life. Sometimes it works this other way where it causes people to forsake principles they otherwise would ordinarily hold.

[AUhawksfan]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Nope... good games happen regardless... and not sure what purpose is served in letting it go.

Letting it go, to the contrary, just seems to promote the idea that "It's all okay," and "Please give us more of some of that!"

Nope. Not one to be limp-wristed in something like this. In sports, in politics, in life... integrity has to matter, imo.

No one claimed you to be "limp-wristed" and I'd hope you're not insinuating that of me either.

That's fine if you want to stand on your principles, I agree with the reasoning.  If you look at what Adam Silver said last night and the Finals ratings nothing is going to change though.  I'm just being realistic on that piece.

I like basketball too much to not watch and I was at least impressed and entertained by some of the play last night.  At the end of the day, pro sports is a business over everything else.  If you want to stand by your principles and boycott then that's fine but that shouldn't question anybody else's integrity just because they want to be entertained.