2016 NBA Offseason

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:09 am

The third most searched thing right now on Google, his article announcing the decision:

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/kevin- ... ouncement/

howard · Post by **howard** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:18 am

So, one factor is that KD, Curry and Iguodala bonded when playing internationally for USA a few years ago, including their shared Christian faith (sorry J-Lo). Another factor, Jerry West, who can have all the coffee he wants. The Logo also closed Shaquille to the Lakers a generation ago.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:20 am

Johnnie wrote:HaralaBOMB was right.

I don't know what his source of intel was on this, but he definitely makes a ton of money betting on NBA games. He was sitting courtside for Game 7 of the Finals last month and will often buy courtside seats for huge NBA games.

HaulCitgo wrote:
Joe K wrote:
Johnnie wrote:
You know things have gotten desperate, as the Mavs have now offered Harrison Barnes a four-year maximum deal. I'm honestly not convinced Barnes is much better than a replacement-level player as his only real unique skill is being able to play both the SF and PF positions. In my mind, he's the Kendrick Perkins of this Golden State team in that his reputation has been greatly enhanced by playing in a lineup filled with All-Star, if not Hall of Fame, caliber players. However, the assumption is that Golden State will match Dallas's offer (Barnes is a restricted FA) if they miss out on Durant, so this probably won't come back to bite Dallas.
Know a lot more about Barnes from college than pro but his unique skill is the diverse skill set. Maybe nothing particular that he does great but he does everything competently. That's a pretty great skill to have on your team so long as you have other guys to carry the load. Lots and lots of guys have a so called unique skill that isnt good enough to win consistently but is otherwise a detriment to the rest of the guys on the team. All said I'd much sooner Barnes than Howard or Horford.

We'll see how he does in Dallas. I'm very skeptical but this is his chance to prove that he wasn't just a product of his teammates.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 12:26 pm

Joe K wrote:
Johnnie wrote:HaralaBOMB was right.
I don't know what his source of intel was on this, but he definitely makes a ton of money betting on NBA games. He was sitting courtside for Game 7 of the Finals last month and will often buy courtside seats for huge NBA games.

To be honest, I only know of him from Simmons's podcast. But he's very informative and entertaining. Plus, he has an awesome name.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 12:29 pm

Ok, now is the time to panic, rest of the NBA...

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:10 pm

Johnnie wrote:
Joe K wrote:
Johnnie wrote:HaralaBOMB was right.
I don't know what his source of intel was on this, but he definitely makes a ton of money betting on NBA games. He was sitting courtside for Game 7 of the Finals last month and will often buy courtside seats for huge NBA games.
To be honest, I only know of him from Simmons's podcast. But he's very informative and entertaining. Plus, he has an awesome name.

He's a really good Twitter follow during the NBA season. He's particularly entertaining when his view of a particular player or coach is much more negative than the conventional wisdom. My favorite example of this is that he made a bunch of money a few years back by betting on the Knicks every time Melo missed a game, because the betting lines vastly overrated Melo and overcorrected for his absence.

I was pretty bullish on Cleveland going into this past year's Finals, but it's hard for me to see anyone beating Golden State the next couple of years unless they suffer major injury issues. In my opinion, they have 2 of the top 3, 3 of the top 10, and 4 of the top 15 players alive -- all under the age of 30. That's gotta be unprecedented, not just in modern NBA history, but perhaps in any sport. Durant for Barnes is a massive upgrade and I expect they'll be able to sign some cheap veteran big men to replace Bogut and Ezeli, both of whom are almost certainly gone. It would be pretty funny though if all the other GMs band together out of spite and refuse to trade for Bogut no matter what. That would create a really messy cap situation for the Warriors.

howard · Post by **howard** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:37 pm

Bogut collusion is a good thought, but the twitter just said Dallas is taking him along w/HB. I hope both of them play great.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:42 pm

Dallas needed salary to hit floor.

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:28 am

Reliable sources are saying Wade is in talks to join the Cavs. This should be interesting.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:33 am

Johnny Carwash wrote:Reliable sources are saying Wade is in talks to join the Cavs. This should be interesting.

Oh jesus. That's a terrible signing. He can't shoot.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:08 am

A_B wrote:
Johnny Carwash wrote:Reliable sources are saying Wade is in talks to join the Cavs. This should be interesting.
Oh jesus. That's a terrible signing. He can't shoot.

Agreed. In a vacuum, Wade is better than JR Smith, but I think JR is the better fit for that team. Wade's strengths are duplicative of Irving and James, whereas JR is a more prolific outside shooter than either of those guys (and a far, far better shooter than Wade). Also, Wade tends to gamble and/or fall asleep on defense, so I would hate the prospect of him chasing around Curry or Thompson in the Finals. Say what you want about JR, but his defensive effort was strong in this year's Finals.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:57 pm

Joe K wrote:
Johnnie wrote:
Joe K wrote:
Johnnie wrote:HaralaBOMB was right.
I don't know what his source of intel was on this, but he definitely makes a ton of money betting on NBA games. He was sitting courtside for Game 7 of the Finals last month and will often buy courtside seats for huge NBA games.
To be honest, I only know of him from Simmons's podcast. But he's very informative and entertaining. Plus, he has an awesome name.
He's a really good Twitter follow during the NBA season. He's particularly entertaining when his view of a particular player or coach is much more negative than the conventional wisdom. My favorite example of this is that he made a bunch of money a few years back by betting on the Knicks every time Melo missed a game, because the betting lines vastly overrated Melo and overcorrected for his absence.

I was pretty bullish on Cleveland going into this past year's Finals, but it's hard for me to see anyone beating Golden State the next couple of years unless they suffer major injury issues. In my opinion, they have 2 of the top 3, 3 of the top 10, and 4 of the top 15 players alive -- all under the age of 30. That's gotta be unprecedented, not just in modern NBA history, but perhaps in any sport. Durant for Barnes is a massive upgrade and I expect they'll be able to sign some cheap veteran big men to replace Bogut and Ezeli, both of whom are almost certainly gone. It would be pretty funny though if all the other GMs band together out of spite and refuse to trade for Bogut no matter what. That would create a really messy cap situation for the Warriors.

Interesting characterization. I made a similar statement to friends, and I think it's definitely 2 of top 3. I'm willing to say 3 of top 6, and 4 of top 10.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:11 pm

Their best 5 player lineup will be hell to deal with at the end of games, so long as there is no regression (I think Iguodala will be a year older and slightly less reliable as a defensive stopper). The Thunder and cavs gave a bit of a blueprint to deal with them, but obviously upgrading Barnes to Durant mitigates a large portion of that. But they have zero bench as it stands. their best course of action isn't to chase 74 wins, that is for sure, but rather to cruise to the 1 seed and get ready for Cleveland, who better have a guy watching every one of the Warriors' games over and over all season.

So far in the East, only Boston has gotten better and I'm not sold on how much Horford moves their ceiling.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:15 pm

govmentchedda wrote:
Joe K wrote:
Johnnie wrote:
Joe K wrote:
Johnnie wrote:HaralaBOMB was right.
I don't know what his source of intel was on this, but he definitely makes a ton of money betting on NBA games. He was sitting courtside for Game 7 of the Finals last month and will often buy courtside seats for huge NBA games.
To be honest, I only know of him from Simmons's podcast. But he's very informative and entertaining. Plus, he has an awesome name.
He's a really good Twitter follow during the NBA season. He's particularly entertaining when his view of a particular player or coach is much more negative than the conventional wisdom. My favorite example of this is that he made a bunch of money a few years back by betting on the Knicks every time Melo missed a game, because the betting lines vastly overrated Melo and overcorrected for his absence.

I was pretty bullish on Cleveland going into this past year's Finals, but it's hard for me to see anyone beating Golden State the next couple of years unless they suffer major injury issues. In my opinion, they have 2 of the top 3, 3 of the top 10, and 4 of the top 15 players alive -- all under the age of 30. That's gotta be unprecedented, not just in modern NBA history, but perhaps in any sport. Durant for Barnes is a massive upgrade and I expect they'll be able to sign some cheap veteran big men to replace Bogut and Ezeli, both of whom are almost certainly gone. It would be pretty funny though if all the other GMs band together out of spite and refuse to trade for Bogut no matter what. That would create a really messy cap situation for the Warriors.
Interesting characterization. I made a similar statement to friends, and I think it's definitely 2 of top 3. I'm willing to say 3 of top 6, and 4 of top 10.

I definitely don't think Green or Thompson is better than Kawhi, Chris Paul or Westbrook, so I wouldn't say 3 of the top 6. But I think you could probably start making a case for Green around #7 (I'd personally take Paul George but could see the case for Green) and Thompson not too far beyond that.

Rams Fanny · Post by **Rams Fanny** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:19 pm

Joe K wrote: In my opinion, they have 2 of the top 3, 3 of the top 10, and 4 of the top 15 players alive

By "alive" I certainly hope you meant 'currently active and playing basketball for a living'.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:04 pm

Rams Fanny wrote:
Joe K wrote: In my opinion, they have 2 of the top 3, 3 of the top 10, and 4 of the top 15 players alive
By "alive" I certainly hope you meant 'currently active and playing basketball for a living'.

Your avatar makes me feel alive.

Can I interrupt by saying if they stay healthy, I really like the moves made by the Rockets. Gonna be a lot of 135-130 games. That said, a big part of the Rockets defensive issues last year was in transition d off missed baskets by the collection of awful shooters last year. If Anderson and Gordon can fill it up, then I think they will be better defensively than last year. Two seasons ago, Harden proved to be a somewhat competent defender and I think he can do it again. Losing Howard is addition by subtraction. And they have enough wings on crazy friendly contracts right now that hopefully one or two of them are packaged for more depth at 5. Capela is going to be very good next year, though.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:22 pm

Something I just remembered that I'm sure Twitter and the internet didn't forget. Klay Thompson's dad called this. Last May.

I also heard it on good authority from a team that plays in the Bay Area that they're going to go hard after Kevin Durant.

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:35 pm

I feel bad that Mychal Thompson, who had a pretty good NBA career of his own, has been reduced to just "Klay Thompson's dad" in news headlines.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 5:40 pm

I think he still has enough celebrity as a Lakers and sports talk radio guy, and an abundance of ego, so that he is just fine. And as a Rick Barry-esque successful athlete sire.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:53 pm

"I call him Michelle" - Every dad and uncle in New England around 1985

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:10 pm

LeBron is taking no pay cut, so....

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:59 am

So...as it stands, how many teams have legit shots to be champions/make the finals. I'm going to be generous and hang the possibility that an injury happens to a key player(s) on other teams for some of these to compete, but we are looking at a league where MAYBE 5-6 teams are hoping things can break their way:

Tier 1 - Will contend regardless of other injuries
Warriors
Cavs
Spurs

Tier 2 - Need something to happen to one of those teams
Clippers
Celtics
Raptors(?)

That's all I can see as the league stands now. Which leads me to thinking that at some point there's going to be a rule that you can only have X number of Max contracts on your team. It can't be good for the league when 24 teams are basically drawing dead before training camps open. It's become the Premier league circa 2008. I don't see any Leicesters running around out there. I think the Wolves can be frisky in 2 years. Suns might be able to but probably need one more guy. Lakers if they get Westbrook for nothing next summer. Knicks could be decent if Rose an stay on court and return to form I guess.

Post by **brian** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:10 am

If you concede that the idea of a salary cap is to constrain wages and promote parity then the NBA's salary cap scheme appears to do neither.

wlu_lax6 · Post by **wlu_lax6** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:21 am

Yeah the NBA has a problem with competition right now. Living in DC and realizing that players don't even want to listen to a pitch from the Wiz. I feel bad for John Wall and Beal. Guys will never play with enough talent around them. I am sure there are other teams in the same camp.

If you thought your fan base could handle it, I would almost consider going all in on young Euro talent (and maybe some Euro stars). It would be tough on ticket sales, but you have to do something different. Maybe figure out a different style of game to succeed. I don't think big signings of Ian Mahinmi, Andrew Nicholson, and Jason Smith are selling tickets. Beal, Porter, Kelly Oubre, Burke, Satoransky.....well at least I don't have to worry about hoping on the bandwagon this year.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:23 am

Memphis MIGHT be ok if Gasol comes back at Full strength, but they are still in the west.

duff · Post by **duff** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:59 am

The NBA has always been a league with only 5-6 contenders each year. Not sure anything has changed. Look at the 80's. List all the teams that had shots at a championship during that time frame. Lakers, Celtics, 76ers during the early 80's and Pistons during the late 80's. The decent teams like the Bucks and the Hawks were never really contenders for titles. The Knicks and Houston were not there until after 1990. Same with Chicago.

Nothing has changed except for the amount of money the players are making now. Look how stacked those good teams were that I listed. The big 3 of Boston in the late aughts were not the first.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:29 pm

Rockets won't compete, but I will make a wild guess and say they finish top 4 in west if they re-sign Motiejunas and don't have too many injuries. If they can convince Sergio Llull to finally come over, I'll feel more confident.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:39 pm

A_B wrote:So...as it stands, how many teams have legit shots to be champions/make the finals. I'm going to be generous and hang the possibility that an injury happens to a key player(s) on other teams for some of these to compete, but we are looking at a league where MAYBE 5-6 teams are hoping things can break their way:

Tier 1 - Will contend regardless of other injuries
Warriors
Cavs
Spurs

Tier 2 - Need something to happen to one of those teams
Clippers
Celtics
Raptors(?)

That's all I can see as the league stands now. Which leads me to thinking that at some point there's going to be a rule that you can only have X number of Max contracts on your team. It can't be good for the league when 24 teams are basically drawing dead before training camps open. It's become the Premier league circa 2008. I don't see any Leicesters running around out there. I think the Wolves can be frisky in 2 years. Suns might be able to but probably need one more guy. Lakers if they get Westbrook for nothing next summer. Knicks could be decent if Rose an stay on court and return to form I guess.

I agree with your rankings of the top 6 teams, but I think there's a really big gap between the Warriors and the Cavs/Spurs. Honestly, I think everyone else is screwed unless the Warriors suffer a significant injury or have major chemistry issues.

The best way to restore competitive balance would be to keep a salary cap but eliminate the cap on max salaries. Guys like LeBron and Durant would command so much in a truly free market that it would be virtually impossible to assemble 3 or 4 All-NBA caliber players on the same team.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:43 pm

Unless the cap is too low and winning + endorsements outstrips being the highest paid player on a mediocre team.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:18 pm

duff wrote:The NBA has always been a league with only 5-6 contenders each year. Not sure anything has changed. Look at the 80's. List all the teams that had shots at a championship during that time frame. Lakers, Celtics, 76ers during the early 80's and Pistons during the late 80's. The decent teams like the Bucks and the Hawks were never really contenders for titles. The Knicks and Houston were not there until after 1990. Same with Chicago.

Nothing has changed except for the amount of money the players are making now. Look how stacked those good teams were that I listed. The big 3 of Boston in the late aughts were not the first.

I think this is being overlooked. How many times has the NBA gone into a season with a bunch of teams thinking they can win it all? Basketball's nature means you have to have a superstar to win a title.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:21 pm

So the Knicks, with Anthony and Rose, are in great shape to win it all!

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:47 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:
duff wrote:The NBA has always been a league with only 5-6 contenders each year. Not sure anything has changed. Look at the 80's. List all the teams that had shots at a championship during that time frame. Lakers, Celtics, 76ers during the early 80's and Pistons during the late 80's. The decent teams like the Bucks and the Hawks were never really contenders for titles. The Knicks and Houston were not there until after 1990. Same with Chicago.

Nothing has changed except for the amount of money the players are making now. Look how stacked those good teams were that I listed. The big 3 of Boston in the late aughts were not the first.
I think this is being overlooked. How many times has the NBA gone into a season with a bunch of teams thinking they can win it all? Basketball's nature means you have to have a superstar to win a title.

That's probably fair. I might should have phrased it that there are going to be a LOT of games that no one is going to have interest in. Maybe that's just the nature of the regular season. Get to the playoffs and let the stars shine.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:49 pm

mister d wrote:So the Knicks, with Anthony and Rose, are in great shape to win it all!

I think they should definitely make the playoffs if rose can be 75-80% of what he is capable of being. And in the east that is probably good enough for a 3-4 seed.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:01 pm

If they can play the Nets 40 more times, I'm with you

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:05 pm

Welcome OKC to irrelevant-town, along with Sacramento, Milwaukee, Denver, and Minnesota. When Westbrook leaves, (and he will leave...I would guess the Lakers are already salivating over the prospect), there's no way OKC will be competitive. What good free agent is going to want to move to Oklahoma City?

And it couldn't happen to a nice guy than Clay Bennett.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:07 pm

Talking points!

DaveInSeattle wrote:Welcome OKC to irrelevant-town, along with Sacramento, Milwaukee, Denver, and Minnesota. When Westbrook leaves, (and he will leave...I would guess the Lakers are already salivating over the prospect), there's no way OKC will be competitive. What good free agent is going to want to move to Oklahoma City?

And it couldn't happen to a nice guy than Clay Bennett.

DaveInSeattle wrote: Hah...

As much as I like and respect Durant and Westbrook...fuck OKC, and especially fuck Clay Bennett with a chain saw...sideways.

Once Durant and Westbrook leave (and they will leave...Durant to somewhere in the Eastern Conference, and I'll lay money that Westbrook will be playing for the Lakers in 2 years), OKC will be just as relevant to the NBA as Sacramento, Milwaukee, Utah, and Minnesota. And it couldn't happen to a nicer owner.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:10 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote:Welcome OKC to irrelevant-town, along with Sacramento, Milwaukee, Denver, and Minnesota. When Westbrook leaves, (and he will leave...I would guess the Lakers are already salivating over the prospect), there's no way OKC will be competitive. What good free agent is going to want to move to Oklahoma City?

And it couldn't happen to a nice guy than Clay Bennett.

MInnesota is far from irrelevant town. That team is fun to watch and will be much better this year.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:20 pm

A_B wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote:Welcome OKC to irrelevant-town, along with Sacramento, Milwaukee, Denver, and Minnesota. When Westbrook leaves, (and he will leave...I would guess the Lakers are already salivating over the prospect), there's no way OKC will be competitive. What good free agent is going to want to move to Oklahoma City?

And it couldn't happen to a nice guy than Clay Bennett.

MInnesota is far from irrelevant town. That team is fun to watch and will be much better this year.

Milwaukee ain't gonna be terrible either. I kind of like that team.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:21 pm

And even Sacramento will be better than Seattle.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:30 pm

Giff wrote:Rockets won't compete, but I will make a wild guess and say they finish top 4 in west if they re-sign Motiejunas and don't have too many injuries. If they can convince Sergio Llull to finally come over, I'll feel more confident.

We just signed Nene. Sorry, Warriors.