@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:
So a superstars, who almost always get maximum contracts no matter where they play, are not motivated by money (*). They are motivated by rings.
Let's presume that for a moment.
You are no doubt aware of what happened in the wake of KD's defection; GSW had to waive the rights to Bogut and Ezeli, and let Harrison Barnes go (no harm there). They picked up another scrub Center, which means -- once again -- that they are weak up the middle. If you will recall in the final game, they were tired and out-rebounded. How does KD help that?
He doesn't. But what GSW did, strategically perhaps, is weaken OKC, who was their only true rival in the West. OKC pushed the GSW to 7 games in their season, which tired the hell out of GSW's Splash Brothers -- who couldn't make a shot in the final game, leaving the heavy lifting to Draymond Green (who played a hell of a game, but played it alone).
So, no. I don't think GSW is going to get a ring next year -- sorry. They have to address other problems, namely their lack of depth and weakness up the middle. And if KD starts getting ankle problems, or Curry's legs give out, you're in huge trouble in the playoffs.
So, I'm going to call it. I'm perfectly happy to eat crow. GSW ain't gonna get a ring next year. LeBron had a year to plan, train, and get his team better -- and they performed better. Richard Jefferson's already said he may come back after KD was traded -- no doubt to try and whomp on the Warriors again.
And, if you want an ultimate final? Let's see if Russell Westbrook takes a cut to go and play for the Cavs, shifting Kyrie Irving to SG. Because Westbrook seems pissed enough to do that.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede said in The basketball thread:
You are no doubt aware of what happened in the wake of KD's defection; GSW had to waive the rights to Bogut and Ezeli, and let Harrison Barnes go (no harm there). They picked up another scrub Center, which means -- once again -- that they are weak up the middle. If you will recall in the final game, they were tired and out-rebounded. How does KD help that?
He doesn't. What they are hoping for is to exploit the very core of smallball; that 3 is larger than 2. Getting open shots, moving the ball, getting open looks and scoring at a decent (40%+) rate then play swarming defense - which KD can help given his absurd wingspan - to make it hard for the other offense to get in the paint.
So, no. I don't think GSW is going to get a ring next year -- sorry. They have to address other problems, namely their lack of depth and weakness up the middle. And if KD starts getting ankle problems, or Curry's legs give out, you're in huge trouble in the playoffs.
I think they are placing too many of their eggs in an increasingly smaller basket. Sure those are amazing eggs but it is still just that one basket and they have two guys with chronic ankle issues. The playoffs are a marathon where everyone is playing at 100%, very physical, very rough... they'll have very little ability to make up for a single injury like this.
The other funny thing? Other teams are adjusting the same way. For example DWade - feeling neglected as once again he won't have even remotely the biggest contract in Miami - is talking to Cleveland (!) now. Do I think it's gonna happen? Naw, the guy will retire with a Heat jersey on... but it shows the Cavs' intentions, if they can add a superstar they will, which will cost them some depth too. I'd expect at least one of JR Smith/Shumpert to go, with Delly/Mozgov already on to greener pastures paved with $$, and perhaps it won't even stop there.
So, I'm going to call it. I'm perfectly happy to eat crow. GSW ain't gonna get a ring next year. LeBron had a year to plan, train, and get his team better -- and they performed better. Richard Jefferson's already said he may come back after KD was traded -- no doubt to try and whomp on the Warriors again.
I'm more interested in the future further down the line. The Thunder are about to blow their roster up, so if Boston dangles their treasure trove of picks and grabs Westbrook... that's one fantastic team right there. On the other end? Minnesota, building their own young core around an immergent superstar.
And, if you want an ultimate final? Let's see if Russell Westbrook takes a cut to go and play for the Cavs, shifting Kyrie Irving to SG. Because Westbrook seems pissed enough to do that.
The difference between a Heatles wet-dream fantasy like DWade playing for the Cavs and Westie is that it takes time to build chemistry. Westbrook might take months, even a season... Wade already has it.
Getting DWade is a distinct possibility. LeBron may take a pay cut to get there, but others would need to pitch in.
One thing about this year's playoffs: it's about depth and durability. The Cavs got it done because they were resilient and deep; Richard Jefferson, although he didn't get many points, rebounded like a man possessed, and made the most of his time. DWade isn't exactly known for his durability, but he's a substantial upgrade over J.R. Smith (whose value I still don't understand).
Again, I'll say it: GSW ain't gonna get a ring this year. I would not be surprised if DWade moves north to sabotage the team that banked on how nice he truly is to keep him from being paid what he deserves (which is Kobe money).
@Ganymede
Oh I completely understand why most sports fans feel they way they do about star athletes changing employers. It is just one of those things that makes zero sense to me.
I do not feel a cashier need only work for one store ever why would i feel that way about a power forward?
As far as some of the other points I think it is a negative sign that are culture obsesses as much as it does about athletes and other celebs as much as it does, and any parent who hasn't taught their children that athletes aren't to be emulated is doing an absolutely shitty job. The "But athletes are special" argument is why we get lings like the Baylor scandal or the various assaults that get swept under the rub or Ray Lewis being celebrated as a hero despite obstructing justice in a murder case.
the only time I tend to side with the team loyalty thing is holding out when a contract is in place. In that case you signed a deal live up to it, in any other case I am a big proponent of the free market, labor has to right to decide where to work as long as they can find a management willing to agree to the terms.
@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
I do not feel a cashier need only work for one store ever why would i feel that way about a power forward?
On that point I'm torn.
For one yes, you are of course right. They are both employees of a company hired to do a job so why would it be any different?
For another... they are different. The cashier performs a service that's useful in itself - so does a doctor, a bus driver or a programmer. But an athlete... no one's life is gonna be saved because LeBron blocked the fuck out of Curry, you know? It's all about inspiration, entertainment, projecting hopes and dreams into something which on its own is meaningless.
What does it mean to be a fan realistically? Nothing. You are supporting a company? A color? An idea - what idea is that? And what does 'supporting a team' mean in practical terms? What does it matter if one team wins a title other than what fans emotionally invest in it?
Nothing.
But fans do invest emotionally in it. So that investment is something to be protected because that is where the money is - unless you inspire all those guys to watch, buy tickets and jerseys and talk about it there's nothing in it than some tall guys bouncing a leather ball.
@Arkandel
Part of it might come down to the type of fan you are. If it is a sport I like I can watch it even if I do not care about either team the play itself entertains me, the laundry worn by the players does not matter.
I do follow and consider myself to support some teams for example on the thread topic I am a T-wolves fan, have been since they first came into existence when I was in junior high.
Recently they have been very entertaining, so I have watched a lot of their games, for a lot (possibly most) of their history they have not been an entertaining team to watch so while I checked the box scores daily and followed the team I did not watch them I would watch two entertaining teams play while not cheering for anything but quality play.
And while sports does not save lives I do consider providing entertainment a valuable service, maybe not a necessary one but a valuable one.
Now I will cheer for certain athletes but that is not always based on weather they play for a team I like. I have never liked the Cowboys but was a huge Emmitt Smith fan, and cheered for him despite the team he played for. And there are certain players I dislike and will cheer against even when they are playing for teams that I love.
I don't have a large emotional investment in the teams I follow though. Again I think a lot of this might be the teams I grew up cheering, none are "big name" franchises and only the Twins have ever won championships (1987, 1991). I know the season will end in failure so I enjoy the ride but make sure my emotional seat belt is buckled though cause the crash is coming, for proof of that I give you the end of the Vikes- Seahawks playoff game of this January.
@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
The "But athletes are special" argument is why we get lings like the Baylor scandal or the various assaults that get swept under the rub or Ray Lewis being celebrated as a hero despite obstructing justice in a murder case.
I didn't say that athletes are special. I said they aren't like everyone else. The corporation employing the cashier doesn't spend millions of dollars getting the public to adore them, thereby causing the public to spend billions of dollars. The corporation doesn't spend time and effort to create a local cultural icon out of the cashier.
Your example is non-sequitur. The Baylor Scandal occurred because people were stupid and foolish. Cover-ups occur because people are stupid and foolish. No one said anyone should get away with murder because of their fame, and neither you nor I can prove that Ray Lewis received a lower punishment due to his fame alone.
Sports teams spend billions of dollars creating products and commodities to create their own little sub-culture. In that sub-culture are adults, like you and me, and children who aspire to greatness. When their cultural icons act, children take their cues. That's why I support intra-sport punishment above and beyond what the legal system can dole out.
It's one thing to support the free market; it's another thing to understand that the basic conceptualization of the free market arose prior to this nation convening its first Congress. Things aren't the way they used to be.
@Ganymede said in The basketball thread:
and neither you nor I can prove that Ray Lewis received a lower punishment due to his fame alone.
Neither of us can prove it but anyone who thinks he did not is an utter and complete moron. (Edit to Add: technically I don't think it was fame alone that got him light punishment. I think his wealth had a lot to do with it as well)
So what if his employer spent millions on him, the employer profited from his labor, if the billionaire owner wanted reimbursement after they fact they should have put that into the contract, that is what contract negotiations are for. My first post college employer gave me invaluable on the job training, I do not deny this but he also covered himself with a no-compete clause in my employment agreement. the Thunder most definitely helped Durant build his personal brand but that also got to pay him far below market value due to the rookie pay scale so I have zero tears for them in this regard.
I am sorry, but I will never blame or think poorly of an athlete for switching work laundry, and will continue to find the logic of those that do utterly baffling.
@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
Neither of us can prove it but anyone who thinks he did not is an utter and complete moron. (Edit to Add: technically I don't think it was fame alone that got him light punishment. I think his wealth had a lot to do with it as well)
In this case, I'm the utter and complete moron with personal experience with how difficult it is to win a criminal case. You should try it some time.
I am sorry, but I will never blame or think poorly of an athlete for switching work laundry, and will continue to find the logic of those that do utterly baffling.
That's all right. I feel the same way about folks who attempt to talk intelligently to me about economics.
@Ganymede
To me it is less abut economics then basic freedom, barring a contract that limits options people are free to work where they please (minus those activities forbidden by the government), his contract had expired he picked his new employer.
I don't even like Durant, his personality seems utterly bland to me, but I feel that same way about him regardless of weather he is in a Thunder jersey, a Warriors jersey or one of the other 28 teams.
@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
To me it is less abut economics then basic freedom, barring a contract that limits options people are free to work where they please (minus those activities forbidden by the government), his contract had expired he picked his new employer.
I can get behind that, but this is not the case. KD would have, and could have, made more money in OKC, as @Arkandel pointed out.
Non-competes remain enforceable, but there is an initiative by states to bar their enforcement (perhaps taking a cue from California).
It is certainly within KD's rights to sign where he wants. But we can criticize him for his choice, right? In which case, his choice makes him look like a pansy douchebag.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede Let's turn this around a little bit.
How would this conversation have played out if KD had signed with Boston or the Knicks?
Pretty sure the Knicks is where stars go to die. Has Mellow done anything of real note since going there?
@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:
How would this conversation have played out if KD had signed with Boston or the Knicks?
Signing in Boston makes some sense. They have a core of young players that need a proven veteran to lead them. But then, you can say the same thing about OKC, but at least there you have Westbrook with you.
No one ever signs with the Knicks if they have talent and common sense.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede My point is though he's being criticised primarily for being a bitch (and signing with a proven winner) and not disloyalty. So it's not at all that he's leaving OKC, only that he's joining GSW.
I think the distinction is the crux of the matter here.
@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:
@Ganymede Let's turn this around a little bit.
How would this conversation have played out if KD had signed with Boston or the Knicks?
If he had signed with the Knicks his loved ones should have petitioned the courts to have him declared incompetent in an effort to keep him out of that dumpster fire.
@Ganymede
There is far more to employment decisions then money. Trust me I left a job where I was making double what I made at the job I took to gain less of a commute and a better work environment with greater job security even now ten years after the fact I make less then I did before with out even figuring in for inflation and could not be happier with the decision. As a general rule I don't criticize people for their career choices nor concern myself with them unless they are close friends, or family, or in cases like this where they become public conversation. I don't think anyone has said good for him for taking more money to go because he did not. But as with any member of labor making a decision they think will better their lives I say good for him
Of course you are allowed to criticize said decision , just as I am free to state i think that criticism is wrong headed that is the wonder of a country with free expression.
One a basketball point of view we are pretty much in agreement, Durant is an upgrade over Barnes but doesn't address the weaknesses shown by the Finals loss and while I will not guarantee they won't win as you did, I will say I do not think Durant makes them a lock, I think they are the favorite going into the season but they were that this year and did not win and for the most part the consensus favorites going into the season do not win more often than they do.
Back to @Arkandel I think a huge part of the backlash is that he joined Golden State rather then left OKC, just like with LeBron after the decision most of the backlash was against him joining Wade and Bosh to form a "superteam" rather then him leaving Cleveland and I thought it was ridiculous then as I do with the anti-Durant furor now. Oh noes he selected a good place to work rather then a shitty one how dare he.
This thread reminds me of the famous YouTube video "Wresling Isn't Wrestling", about the meta-ness of professional wrestling.
@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:
My point is though he's being criticised primarily for being a bitch (and signing with a proven winner) and not disloyalty. So it's not at all that he's leaving OKC, only that he's joining GSW.
You already know my opinion on this, so I did not think it was necessary to repeat.
What makes this just awful and reprehensible is that KD jumped from OKC to the team that beat OKC after OKC got a 3-1 lead on them in a seven-game series. Using an awkward, non-sports-related analogy, that would be like General Pickett, after his loss at Gettysburg, suddenly defecting and joining the Union Army.
What elevates this to "o no he dint" status is the fact that KD was the cornerstone of a franchise. Without him, the entire team falls apart; the ownership is now forced to ship off Westbrook and plan for the future. The local market thusly is deprived of its only major sports team. So, yeah, there's going to be a lot of outrage.
But that's what I said before.
In what way was OKC a shitty place to work? The management had just put together a high-caliber team that drove OKC to 7 games in a series. How is that a shitty place to be?
LeBron left Cleveland because Cleveland was making bad personnel decisions. He was the only reason his team was a perennial contender. He left to go to Miami to win championships and solidify a champion's reputation, which he did. And then he returned with enough of clout, based on that reputation, to draw people to motherfucking Cleveland and bully the decision-makers into listening to him.
Did KD leave a great team to go to a better team? He sure did. But the collective sports world prefers to think of its heroes as people who conquer things, not people who bitch out. Maybe KD will return to OKC, but Westbrook won't be there when he does, and everyone will know that it wasn't KD that lifted GSW to a championship.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede said in The basketball thread:
In what way was OKC a shitty place to work? The management had just put together a high-caliber team that drove OKC to 7 games in a series. How is that a shitty place to be?
I meant the shitty place to work more in response to Arks question about him signing with a bad team such as the Knicks.
However I will gladly refer to Oklahoma as a whole as one of the very few places that would be able to make someone look forward to ending up in Texas on the other side of it.
Trust me having been to both I would consider Cleveland to be a wonderful promised land compared to OKC.
I will admit that while in general I am neural on free agent moves anything that screws over Oklahoma is perfectly fine with me.
Though part of the difference is you refer to a professional athlete as a hero, something I would never do unless that professional athlete also did sometime amazing having nothing to do with sport, such s Rocky Bleier, or various others that served the country, or Warrick Dunn who has worked extensively with Habitat for Humanity. I love watching me some sports but nothing done with a ball will get me to utter the word hero.
@Ganymede Actually btw, yes, OKC's ownership group is terrible. They are very expense-adverse in the way of certain owners (Toronto is among them as well); if their stadium is sold out and the ratings are high they stop giving a shit, and won't spend anything more than they have to.
The franchise has a lot of nerve talking about loyalty after they left Seattle in order to seek greener pastures - they literally dumped a major city! And yes, the Harden mess was really bad, instead of paying more luxury tax leaving one of their biggest players walk away; sure, the Beard isn't exactly a defensive jaggernaut but it's absurd that they were cheap enough to let him go.
If you are a superstar with aspirations of success you want an owner who's as determined to win chips as you are.
@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:
How would this conversation have played out if KD had signed with Boston or the Knicks?
Signing in Boston makes some sense. They have a core of young players that need a proven veteran to lead them. But then, you can say the same thing about OKC, but at least there you have Westbrook with you.
No one ever signs with the Knicks if they have talent and common sense.
