Yeah, those are perfectly neutral statements. If Gator didn't have something else in mind with Rivers and Ainge, it does seem like media-manufactured bullshit.
Tyson Chandler would be severely outmatched down low. If they played a hundred games Kobe would try to play hero ball and probably shoot them out of 10 of them because he would try to prove he's better than Jordan. Too much defense on the dream team that Lebron would be as contained as he could be, as well as Durant. And just in case anyone hasn't seen it in a while.
If the dream team could effectively get the ball down low, it's no contest. The 2012 is completely outmanned when it comes to its bigs. With that said, the two questions worth asking are: 1) how would the Dream Team adjust to the 2012 team's superior point guards (at that time, Magic was injured and nowhere near his peak)? and 2) could Pippen effectively neutralize Lebron and Durant? Perhaps the Dream Team could go big with their lineup like they did during the actual 92 Olympics and negate the point guard advantage. I think Pippen could limit James' and Durant's effectiveness, and Jordan could dominate Bryant, meaning James might be forced to switch to Jordan, allowing Pippen or whoever to them destroy Bryant. I don't think it would be close.
I think there was more than that 1 clip, but I will look. That is the only thing you say when a class guy leaves is "We are grateful for his time here and we wish him well". Especially when you tried to trade him to any shit team that called and asked. Not "he shoulda resigned" or "we expected him to resign". That's just bullshit. It's not like Allen was even a liftetime Celtic. Nash was more closely associated with Phoenix than Allen was with Boston. Ray was in Seattle and Milwaukee longer than he was in Boston. I think his team choice had a lot to do with spite. Once they signed Terry, who at his best is still not the player Allen is today, that pissed him off even more.
Dream Team debate, possibly one of the most fun debates to have? I just like to talk about it. Especially when you toss in the "all things equal" in regards to injuries, timeshifts, and all else.
I really don't understand Houston's plan re: Dwight Howard. Say they take all those bad contracts. Now they have the same team in a different city except without the pieces Orlando likes and no draft picks. All this in the hope that CP3 leaves $25 million on the table in a year.
They also lost a damn good role player is Luis Scola. And all this with absolutely no indication that Howard is willing to stay in Houston beyond this year. I honestly have been more confused by Houston than anyone else this year. Morey has been pretty much universally regarded as among the savviest GMs in the league, and he appears to be acting like a kid in a candy store this off season. I don't get it.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you guys are saying, but I think making the trade could be justified. Here's what we know about the league: You absolutely need a superstar to win. It's better to be at the bottom of the league than to be in the middle. Expiring contracts are valuable trade assets. Here's what we know about the Rockets: Daryl Morey has a good track record of putting mid-level talent together and making it work. They are perennial 8 or 9 seeds as constructed. They have good, not great, players and no superstars. Based on that information, I get why the Rockets would do this type of deal. They need to do something, which means a lot of their roster would need to be shipped out anyway. Not amnestying Scola prevents them from going up because of his contract. I will say the big if in this whole situation is can they convince Howard to sign an extension? By taking on the contracts of Tukoglu and Duhon, they could conceivably package them and some picks to another team for their star, giving the Rockets two genuine stars, which seems to be the minimum needed to contend. I was still not convinced that this was the right move until I read something on the bleacher report that I was unaware of. The Rockets would likely send their upcoming first round picks in a trade with Orlando. But they cannot send consecutive first rounders. So if Howard leaves after the 2012-2013 season, they could bottom out and get a nice lottery pick in 2014 and develop their own superstar. When you look at it this way, it's almost a no-lose situation. Trade for Howard, hope you can use your expiring contracts and other assets to bring in a second tier star and with the Rocket's talent at completing a roster with complimentary role players, it could be enough. If he signs an extension, you now how a superstar for the future to build around and ultimately contend, even if it isn't right now. If he leaves, you now have the ability to bottom out and draft quality young players. Not doing this trade makes it more difficult to get much better or much worse.
I know Bill Simmons likes to repeat both these statements at least twice per basketball column, but they're both unclear, overly vague, and frequently wrong. Firstly, what the hell is a "superstar"? Is it a top 50 player? A top 30 player? A top 10 player? Is Pau Gasol presently a superstar? Was he one a few years ago? Is Joe Johnson a superstar? Obviously, you need good players to win championships, but simply saying "superstar" is completely meaningless. If anything, recent examples are way more specific; you need a player who is among the top 5 in the league (Dirk was top 5 a season ago, Kobe was a top 5 player 2 seasons before that, etc.) AND a slew of All-star caliber/very good players on top of that. In fact, OKC and Miami each had a player in the top 2 of the league, another player in the top 15, and a third one in the top 50. I don't see what it has to do with Houston, though; they aren't contending for the championship with just Dwight Howard, anyways. As for being at the bottom of the league being superior to the middle, that is also frequently wrong. Yes, being at the bottom gives you a better chance in the lottery. But that's not factoring in team morale and culture, the extremely slim chances of getting an instant superstar like Duncan or Durant, or the fact that being in the middle translates into more wins AND more money for a team. It's easy for a self-absorbed sports fans like Simmons, who roots for the winningest team in NBA history, the Boston Celtics, to only care about championships. Good for him. But for other teams, especially smaller market ones, having winning seasons and not losing money are also prime considerations. Unlike the Celtics, they can't afford to have horrible seasons and still expect their fans to show up. I guess this is true. But so are any number of other things, including draft picks, trade exceptions, and non-expiring contracts... You realize that if Howard leaves and the Rockets bottom out, that Morey is fired, right? A "no-lose situation"?! It's one of the riskiest gambles in recent NBA history! Morey is staking his entire career, every asset Houston has, and the team's future for the next 5 years on getting Howard, of all people, to re-sign a contract! That's Dwight Howard we're talking about, one of the most insanely selfish, unpredictable people in NBA history, with the mentality of a child, who changes his mind more often than a prostitute strung out on meth. And who wants to play in New York or LA. On a scale of 1 to 10, this is a 20 in terms of risk.
So you say that the notion that a team needs a superstar is frequently wrong, then contradict yourself by saying teams need a top 5 talent. Is the comment wrong because the wording is too vague or because you actually don't believe you need a "superstar", aka top 5 talent? Regarding the second factor: Ask any GM in the league if they would rather be a 8 or 9 seed or a lottery team. You're looking at this from the business side of basketball, and maybe an owner does come in a veto a trade where their team gets worse. But GMs usually don't act based on ticket sales. They usually try to build winning teams, and because you need top level talent to succeed in the league, if you don't already have it, you need to bottom out. That's my view and a view shared by most, if not all, GMs. And are you really suggesting that some teams simply want to be perennial .500 teams? That if you are small market, it's better to hover around the 8 seed and play to half empty arenas than to bottom out, then draft a strong core for the future, ala Oklahoma City? I'd have to imagine a GM as smart as Morey has had discussions with the owner about the strategy if they trade for Howard. So no, if Howard doesn't sign the extension, I do not believe Morey gets fired. As I've said, if Howard only stays one year, the Rockets can then bottom out and start from scratch with a great salary cap situation and would still have a nice stock of draft picks. If Howard stays, they have the nucleus for an eventual title contender. Additionally, don't count out the fact that Houston has the ability to bring in another second-tier talent that could convince Howard to sign an extension. Compare that to if Morey did nothing. He would consistently run out teams that can't get out of the first round. But you're right. GMs never get fired for that. And I said it's almost a no-lose situation. Obviously there is an inherent risk in making this trade. But I was simply making an argument for why this trade makes sense. There are just as many reasons why they shouldn't do this trade.
Kyrie Irving apparently broke his hand. As a Cavs fan, I was looking forward to Cleveland trotting out what would essentially be their regular-season lineup for summer league.
The Timberwolves haven't sniffed .500 since 2004-05, and have gone through 7 head coaches since then. They've been bottoming out for the better part of a decade, had 7 top-10 picks in that time, and have only Kevin Love and Ricky Rubio to show for it so far. If they end up as an 8-seed next year, I assure you the arena will be more than half-full. Suppose that Houston ends up with a top-5 pick in 2014, but the draft ends up looking a lot like 2006...what then? You wax poetic about what Oklahoma City has done as if building through the draft is some state secret, but you owe it to yourself to read this article which outlines how they did it, to appreciate how much more difficult it is in practice. Getting Durant-Westbrook-Ibaka-Harden in 3 consecutive years is a draft anomaly of the highest order. Do you mean all of those draft picks and recent draftees they'll have to ship out in order to bring Howard to Houston in the first place? Were you referring to that nice stock, or the one Morey has sewn inside of his jacket? Hinging all of your team's hopes, dreams, and assets on bringing in another team's high-profile player is one of the worst things any GM can do. As a Knicks fan, you can trust me on that one. Yes, GMs get fired far more often for producing struggling teams than for mortgaging their team's future on one player, but that's because they're not stupid enough to do the second option in the first place.
I have bolded my original question so there's no way you miss it. What is a superstar, precisely? If it's top 5 talent, then the Rockets acquiring Dwight Howard is meaningless, since I don't believe Howard is that good any longer, especially not after back surgery. Where are you getting this? Is it just something you're assuming? Because I would argue it's very natural to believe GMs strongly factor ticket sales into their decisions. In fact, a lot of trades and draft picks would make no sense otherwise. Also, think of how fucking stupid owners would have to be to hire GMs that don't care about the profitability of their business. No, this is a view shared by you, Bill Simmons, most of his readers, but few, if any GMs. I know Boston Billy loves pontificating about what a genius he is when it comes to the NBA and that arrogance seeps through to his readers, but actual GMs don't think this way. At least, their actions wouldn't lead us to believe they do. If you disagree, name me a single team besides the Charlotte Hornets and maybe New Orleans Hornets (weird case) this past season that "bottomed out". Even teams with poor records like the Golden State Warriors had loads of talent and were in playoff contention for parts of the year. No, I'm suggesting that some teams want to be perennial winners. And (surprise surprise) it's usually easier to make that jump from being decent than it is from "bottoming out". A perfect example is the Atlanta Hawks. Are they going to win a championship? Absolutely not. But with their present roster, they have been a consistently winning team for multiple seasons. And they started out precisely as a "mediocre" 8th seed (37-45) in 2007-2008. Luckily for them, they didn't follow the Bill Simmons strategy of "bottoming out" after this. Instead, they allowed their players to develop, made a few smart, inexpensive signings, and have been consistently winning (and significantly increasing ticket and merchandise sales) for the last 4 years. Again, there are two problems with this. 1. Yes, ticket sales for a small market 8th seed are WAY better than ticket sales for a small market 15th seed. Outside of the Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, Mavericks, Heat, Celtics, and a few others, most teams don't have the luxury of losing on the court and not losing their fanbase. 2. OKC basically hit the jackpot not once, but twice. How often do you find a future Hall-of-Famer and instant gamechanger like Durant at #2? How often do you find a Westbrook at #4? Everyone points to the Thunder as some model for small-market teams. I imagine that for these people, lottery ticket winners are probably the model for small businesses, too. Want to bet? It's a shame since you or I might not be around in a year, but I would be willing to put up a lot of money on this. You have this strange belief that a decent team becoming a horrible team is somehow a "no-lose situation". Again, while their chances in the lottery would be higher, that hardly means a thing. Some draft years suck. Other draft years don't have talent that can contribute right away. Other times, even for the teams that draft in the top 2, "sure things" don't pan out for whatever reason. (Emeka Okafor, Greg Oden) Edit- Rob4Broncos made a lot of the same points I did. In fact, his post is more concise and clear, and also points out that Houston would be killing themselves by trading their draft picks and significant assets by trading for the unpredictable Howard.
As far as the Thunder go, bottoming out is exactly what got them to where they are. After drafting Durant, they shipped out Ray Allen and let Rashard Lewis leave via free agency. Then they drafted Westbrook and made some shrewd moves to get where they are today. Did they get lucky in landing both Durant and Westbrook. Sure, but they were convinced that letting Allen and Lewis go would allow them to get better with a younger core that could make them contenders for years and years. The Hawks are actually a good example of why being a mediocre team is the kiss of death, at least insofar as eventually winning a title. I won't talk about the revenue aspect, I just want to focus on the basketball argument. They have consistently made the playoffs but have never been serious title contenders for many years. They have pricy vets clogging the cap space, which prevents them from signing a top 5 player, which would propel them to the finals, perhaps. Again, let me say it again: The Hawks have pricey talent that isn't good enough to be more than a 4 seed at best and prevents them from signing a top 5 player. So what did they do? Traded away Joe Johnson as a salary dump. Both you and Rob4Broncos seem to suggest the Hawks GM would want to continue to be in the current position. But this trade signifies a move away from that, no? I also have to laugh when you suggested the Hawks have made shrewd moves in the last few years to get where they are. In case you have forgotten, they plateaued in 2009 but erroneously thought maintaining the status quo would eventually get them over the hump. They gave Joe Jonson a 6 year, $119 million deal! Also, the last year, the Hawks were 23rd in the league in attendance. So I don't think the Hawks are the best team to make your case. By the way, the Rockets, as a mid-level team, were 22nd. Regarding Bill Simmons, I get that you dismiss a lot of what he says. It's an opinion he holds, and you differ, so that's fine. But I do think he is right, I believe he has a lot of knowledge of the game and regularly talks to those on the inside of the NBA. So I value his opinion and find myself in agreement much of the time. You know I will say this though. I looked at the proposed trade again and I realized that one of the draft picks the Rockets would give up would be Toronto's pick, which would likely be a lottery pick. That doesn't make sense to me when you combine it with giving up Houston's most recent three picks and taking on some bad contracts. Turns out it didn't work for the Rockets and that is no longer part of the deal. I ultimately agree with you and Rob4Broncos that the actual specifics of the trade proposed would not be good for the Rockets. I still disagree that it is better to be a perennial 8 seed than to bottom out. But we are in agreement that a team needs at least a top 10 player to win a championship, correct? You also asked me for examples of teams tanking this season to bottom out. Golden State, Washington Wizards, teams that already were pretty low. Usually teams that are battling for a playoff spot bottom out after the season, not during.
Let's summarize here. goodlife23 thinks that a worthwhile strategy for a decent team is to "bottom out", aka purposely suck. In the process, he thinks they won't lose any revenue from being vastly worse, which is demonstrably wrong for small markets. He also believes it will be easier for a team to go from awful to title contenders than from decent to title contenders. His explanation is the roughly 0.1% chance of getting an instant game-changing future Hall-of-Famer like Durant in the draft followed by another instant game-changer like Westbrook a year later. Oh, and in this case, he thinks the Rockets should trade their good players and most of their draft picks for this privilege. Does that sound about right? Again, when you're Simmons, an entitled fan rooting for the Boston Celtics, who have won more championships than any team in NBA history, you only care about titles. When you're a GM or owner, you care about whether the team actually makes money. (You know...the reason owners bought their respective teams?) By the way, you never answered my question about where you got your belief that GMs don't care about profits. They traded Joe Johnson because he is old, past his prime, and his contract sucks. Except I never suggested this. Rather, I noted they weren't stupid enough to go the Boston Billy route, which only sounds good when you're writing a sports comedy column. I "dismiss" him because I use my brain instead of taking his printed word as Gospel. I carefully consider Boston Billy's arguments against the evidence, and find many of his claims lacking. One of your problems is that you take his columns too much to heart. You seriously think that NBA GMs are all a bunch of incompetent idiots while a dopey Boston sports writer is a genius. You genuinely think that it's about winning championships instead of turning a profit for a multi-billion dollar business. If you want to understand the NBA better, there are a hundred fantastic writers writing thousands of brilliant articles about the sport online. Everyone from Henry Abbott to the DraftExpress guys to any number of blogs. The Wizards "bottomed out"? The team that ended the season on a 6 game winning streak? The team that traded Javale McGee for Nene Hilario mid-season, vastly improving in the short-term, but hurting themselves long-term? The team that played their best guy, John Wall, all 66 games instead of shutting him down at some point? Those Wizards?! Where are you getting this notion from? As for the Warriors, they lost on purpose at the very end of the season since otherwise, they would have had to give up their lottery pick to the Utah Jazz. Before that, they were in playoff contention for most of the season and trying very much to win. A true example of bottoming out is trading away all your good players before the season to suck and lose the whole way through. Only the Bobcats and Hornets did this. By the way, you didn't answer my proposal for a bet;
Seriously this is why no one likes you on this board. You completely misrepresent what people say, you insult people who dare disagree with you, and you turn innocent debates into personal attacks. You make baseless assertions and flat out lie about things people have said. Let me give you some examples: You said you dismiss Simmons because you use your brain, thereby implying that by reading and agreeing with Simmons, I am not using my brain and therefore an idiot. You act condescending by suggesting " If you want to understand the NBA better, there are a hundred fantastic writers writing thousands of brilliant articles about the sport online." This implies I don't read anything other than Simmons, when in fact I regularly read countless blogs. In fact, I love TrueHoops and NBA Fanhouse. But of course, you are KIMaster, a genius on all things. anyone who has a different take on a subject is a moron. I get it now! Thank god you are gracious enough to post so regularly on this message board so as to enlighten us all. Just so you can't misrepresent what I say, let me definitively spell it out for you: I believe for a team to win a championship or at least contend, they need to obtain a top 10 player, ideally more than one. A top 5 player is even better. I believe that if a team is stagnant, ie, barely making the playoffs, does not have top 10 player, and doesn't appear to be building a strong foundation for the future, they would be justified in trading away expensive contracts to accrue draft picks and start over, or making trades to bring in top 10 players. I believe a GMs main responsibility is building a team that can contend for championships. If that means bottoming out to ultimately achieve that goal, it is worthwhile. GMs do consider financial implications, but they would be wiser to focus on winning, and the better GMs do. I believe that any fan of a team, if they were told their franchise's philosophy did not include contending for championships, would stop supporting that team. I am proud to say that I expect the teams I root for to be seeking championships, not .500 records. I'm fine if it takes them a few years to do so. Finally, I believe it is easier for a team to go from awful to title contenders than from decent to title contenders if the decent team has bad contracts and an inability to bring in top level talent as they are currently constructed. Bringing this back to the Rockets, you say that most GMs do not think like I do. But doesn't the fact that Morey, one of the most respected GMs in the league, was willing to overhaul his roster to get Howard, illustrate that my point of view isn't that out there? Also, bottoming out can be done at any point of the season, but usually is not about the players actually losing games. It's about the front office making moves that makes the team worse in the short term for the hope of making them better in the long term. Golden State fits this model. They trade away Ellis and Udoh for an injured Bogut and Stephen Jackson, who they promptly traded away. They decided the team as constructed was not good enough to contend for titles down the road, and they are starting over. Now they could very well be wrong, but here is another example of front offices buying into the bottoming out theory. Sam Presti did the same thing when the Sonics/ Thunder traded away Allen and let Lewis walk, and they got lucky, but the bottoming out strategy worked for them. Whether or not you agree that bottoming out is a good strategy, it is clear that many GMs do execute this strategy. Regarding your bet, it's a moot point since the trade as proposed isn't happening. It's also ironic you put it that way since many are suggesting that Morey's job is already on the line unless he does something big. The team has missed the playoffs the last three seasons. So clearly the status quo isn't working. Getting Howard for one year may also be a mistake, but doing nothing could be an even bigger one. This whole argument has been completely ridiculous. All I was doing when we first began was making a case for the trade, not outright for it. We both agree that teams need top level talent to vie for titles. I thought we only really disagreed about the bottoming out strategy, but the argument has devolved way past that. We're not going to agree on this so let's just let it be.
Awww, don't get butthurt just because I disagreed with your savior Billy Simmons Christ. Here I was calmly discussing basketball with you, bringing up various teams and examples, and your first response is "no one like you on this board". What does this have to with the basketball discussion? Then, you follow up by accusing me of making "personal attacks". The irony is clearly lost on you. If you feel stupid because of what myself or Rob4Broncos wrote, don't instantly project some sinister plot on our part. No one actually called you that. On the flip side, it's a nice way of continuing to avoid answering my questions, like where your statement "most NBA GMs don't care about profits" comes from, or what the hell a "superstar" means. If you just want to write stuff to sound smart without any discussion, and then get defensive when someone disagrees, why even bother posting on a message board? A shame you declined my bet, though.
The thing about top-5 players is that at most five teams get to have them. I admit that I skimmed most of the conversation, but who was the top-5 guy for the Pistons, Spurs, or Celtics when they won?
For the record, I don't believe you need a top-5 player to win a championship. I was just trying to understand the nature of the elusive "superstar" every contender needs. (Answer: It's more stupid bullshit Boston Billy wrote to fill a column, and his fans repeat without thinking) Obviously, more championship teams have top-5 players than those that don't, but there are exceptions. The Pistons are clearly the biggest exception in recent memory. Their best guy was either Chauncey Billups or Ben Wallace. I doubt either was a top 10 player that year. They managed to destroy a Lakers team 4-1 in the Finals that had Shaq and Kobe in their primes, and a still serviceable version of Gary Payton. (Malone was injured for the entire series) With the Celtics, you could make a decent case for Kevin Garnett that year, and Paul Pierce was exceptional, too. As for the Spurs, that's easy; Tim Duncan was a top 5 guy. Even in 2007. By the way, I'm sure Simmons has "Billups Theory #34.1" or some shit to account for this, the same way his "Gambling Laws" have a million loopholes or exceptions to explain away his inevitable losses. Or his "Ewing Theory" which isn't a theory at all, and is frequently wrong. (As Nom is fond of pointing out)
I'm just going to toss in that Simmon's has specifically stated on podcasts and in some articles that (MVP articles and trade value articles) Superstar is top 10, all star is top 20, then it falls off from there. Its not a super vague term. Also, Detroit is the most recent exception to the rule, everyone contributed, but if you go back and look at every team since its pretty obvious who the Superstar was. LeBron/Wade, Dirk, Kobe, Kobe, Pierce, Tony Parker/Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, Tim Duncan/Tony Parker. And you can go on the way down. The Superstar is usually the finals MVP, with the exception of Chauncey, so yeah. We can move on from that point now.