A rant about parity and superteams

[dsallupinyaarea]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

It is a different game... I think you just have to dig in for a while and get used to it. Though I prefer having a post presence and more balance, today's game is just different... not lesser (imo of course). Just like the players choosing to construct teams rather than leaving it to the front office is just different. I'm not a fan of it but it is what it is, and the dynamic of the league isn't changed much because of it despite how it looks.

This isn't really directed at you but how we view sports in general.

Why is it considered more noble when a powerhouse team is assembled via the suits (drafting, trades) than when the players assemble one (free agency)?

[jmarcguy]

So would the Cavs adding possibly adding Paul George make things more competitive? Lol. That's the thing that is different now. The willingness of young players to join with other elite players to win. Maybe the players years ago were more selfish. All the players I loved back in the day really dominated the ball. Surround Barkley with some shooters & he'd find you but the ball was going through him.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dsallupinyaarea]

It's funny because the league actually has quite a bit of parity right now.... outside of the top 2. Most of the stars are evenly dispersed across the league.


The last CBA overcorrected for random one off team building situations (The Cavs have been utterly incompetent outside of the greatest player I've ever seen being born in Akron* and the Warriors are what they are because of Curry's ankles and getting a DPOY at pick 35) and made it impossible for the rest of the league to catch up to the two teams grandfathered into the old ways. It's not reasonable to expect other teams to replicate the Cavs/Warriors model and acquiring superstars through more traditional methods has all but been eliminated.




*No, I don't want to argue. If you prefer MJ, that's fine. I don't care.

[Black Bruce Wayne]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmarcguy

So would the Cavs adding possibly adding Paul George make things more competitive? Lol. That's the thing that is different now. The willingness of young players to join with other elite players to win. Maybe the players years ago were more selfish. All the players I loved back in the day really dominated the ball. Surround Barkley with some shooters & he'd find you but the ball was going through him. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's sort of different but not really. Since the 60s this has been happening, where the best players end up on the best teams for the most part. We all just saw Celtics v Lakers on ESPN. There weren't a bunch of teams who had a chance then and the league is still here. Also , the Finals ratings were up from last year (20 million plus viewers) So if Superteams are bad , then I don't know why people can't look away

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by dsallupinyaarea

This isn't really directed at you but how we view sports in general. Why is it considered more noble when a powerhouse team is assembled via the suits (drafting, trades) than when the players assemble one (free agency)?

I'll answer for myself...

Spoiler for PPM and the tapatalk folk.

Spoiler

I feel like everyone has a job, and, for various reasons, prefer people to stick to what they're paid for. We all know the Jordans and Magics of the past leaned heavily on management to bring in assets and/or get rid of coaches. But that's them going to the proper group/person to put pressure on them to do their job better... just like GMs and coaches put pressure on players to do theirs better or get cut or traded.

I don't believe players know the best way to build a team. The ex-players that have succeeded had to learn, and get comfortable with a completely new job before getting to that point... and some great players (even the greatest of all time) have struggled in that role. I think it's a mistake to assume that a great player should have that power, assuming they will do what's best for the franchise or even themselves. For example, James appears to have no interest in potential up and coming players, or players that can fill a role while being easy on the bank account to allow for other development. It's a recipe for leaving any team in a wasteland with little hope of recovery whenever he leaves... adding the fact that he has a history of leaving makes him an even bigger nightmare for a team. It's great that he got a ring for Cleveland, but if that's the only one he gets for them, will the upcoming aftermath really make it worth it? Maybe, considering the issue that city has had with winning, but you get what I'm saying.

The league is also built with checks and balances to attempt some sort of competitive balance. GMs and owners may be pressured to make moves, but they are required to stay within the rules of the league. Players making back room deals with stars agreeing to take pay cuts to ban together, or limiting the ability of franchises to properly prepare for them leaving or forcing a trade because the GM/owners are in the dark... it further hamstrings teams from competing outside of whatever team the stars are building under cover. The effects can make teams decide to tank for a quick fix rather than trying to build naturally or "traditionally" because the road to success has been artificially made that much steeper.

[DieHardYankee26]

Quote: Originally Posted by dsallupinyaarea

This isn't really directed at you but how we view sports in general. Why is it considered more noble when a powerhouse team is assembled via the suits (drafting, trades) than when the players assemble one (free agency)?

I think it was you that said a while back the greatest trick ownership ever pulled was convincing the fans that our needs align with theirs instead of the players. I think sports fandom straight up deludes a lot of people and they lose grasp of reality, they think they are the ones who own the team.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Quote: Originally Posted by DieHardYankee26

I think it was you that said a while back the greatest trick ownership ever pulled was convincing the fans that our needs align with theirs instead of the players. I think sports fandom straight up deludes a lot of people and they lose grasp of reality, they think they are the ones who own the team.

You get older and you realize just how weird and, sometimes, problematic sports fandom can be.


Danny Ainge calling on his longtime friendship with Kevin McHale to close the Garnett deal = networking


LeBron and Wade aligning their salaries so that they can both fit under the cap and play together = the shadowy underworld

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by dsallupinyaarea

You get older and you realize just how weird and, sometimes, problematic sports fandom can be. Danny Ainge calling on his longtime friendship with Kevin McHale to close the Garnett deal = networking LeBron and Wade aligning their salaries so that they can both fit under the cap and play together = the shadowy underworld

I won't repeat the long post I just wrote, but I will refer to it to show how these two comparisons are not close at all.

And most people that have a problem with what happened in South Beach don't get on Wade. Part is because he was already there, but also because he didn't gut the team to make the move possible, the GM and Owner did. On the other side of the coin, the Cavs were blindsided and paid for it. Meanwhile the TWolves got assets in return for their aging vet.