2015-2016 NBA Season Discussion

[Alidar Jarok]

I think you could be better next season. The Lakers are a destination location. They're going to get a draft pick. They need to build a more coherent team, but they'll be playing the players who are currently playing the best in every game next year.

On the other hand, this year has a somewhat weak draft while who knows about next year?

ETA: Lakers pick is also protected next year, unless I'm mistaken. It's two years from now that it becomes unprotected.

 

[gblews]

I've hear is reported both ways, that the pick is unprotected next year and that it is once again top 3 protected next year and unprotected the following year, so I'm not sure what to believe. But I don't think it matters that much as I think the pick will transfer either this coming draft or next season.

And yes, most of the reports are that this year's draft class is pretty weak. As for the Lakers' chances next season, a lot will depend on the coaching situation. If Byron is retained, we don't stand to be that much better record-wise even though I expect our young guys to be better. As for L.A. being this great destination, that, I believe, has been blown out of proportion by the media. If the city alone were that great a draw, the Clippers would have reaped some of the benefit. In days past, the top free agents moved for money, now they move for a shot at a championship and the Lakers won't be able to offer that for a while.

 

[gblews]

Congrats to Steph Curry on his second consecutive MVP award, and this one was, for the first time in league history, was unanimous. Notice how there is no talk by the basketball media of how Steph "makes his teammates better" (same as last year and the year before). That's because the basketball writers only needed that meaningless platitude in order to justify voting for Steve Nash in '04 and '05 over the real MVP those 2 years, Kobe Bryant.

And like other multiple MVP winners, Steph has at least one Finals appearance and one championship. One more of either than Nash has. neither.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Making your teammates better is a criteria. It's harder to make that argument with Steph because his team is clearly quite good without him as well.

 

[gblews]

Making your teammates better is a criteria. It's harder to make that argument with Steph because his team is clearly quite good without him as well.

Then why wasn't "making your teammates better" ever mentioned as a major factor in selecting the MVP before Nash won his two awards? Before Nash, MVP awards were sometimes given to players whose teams didn't even make the playoffs. Before Nash, it was a given that the player who was having the greatest season of any player in the league made his teammates better.

Sportswriters saw a chance to use this as a crutch when they realized they could use it to justify voting for Nash over Kobe. No one player, be it Nash, Kobe, MJ, could have made those crappy Smush Parker, Kwame Brown mid 2000's Lakers teams "better".

And I agree with you about Steph, but the same can be said about Nash. His those Phoenix teams were loaded with talent, but Mr. "Makes his teammates better" couldn't 'make them better' enough to get them into the Finals, let alone win a championship.

But compare Steph's career with Nash's. Curry has won 2 MVP's also, but he has won a championship and set a record for regular season wins, and is on the precipice of a second straight Finals appearance. Curry has proven himself to be worthy of those 2 awards, Nash did not.

 

[gblews]

Once again the 'oh so perfect Spurs' prove that the all of the fawning over them by the nearly everyone is at least a bit misplaced. I wrote earlier in this thread after the Spurs signed LaMarcus and Daviid West that "super" teams have a habit of disappointing and I wasn't wrong. That was a first rate choke job that cannot be blamed on injuries.

The fact is that the Spurs' core has gotten old and will very soon be gone. It'll be interesting to see if LA and Kawhi are willing to stick around through a rebuild.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

^ Yeah, Spurs looked old. I don't think that takes away from their regular season, but they simply ran out of gas.

Then why wasn't "making your teammates better" ever mentioned as a major factor in selecting the MVP before Nash won his two awards? Before Nash, MVP awards were sometimes given to players whose teams didn't even make the playoffs. Before Nash, it was a given that the player who was having the greatest season of any player in the league made his teammates better.

I can think of several years where the justification was used and it wasn't recent either 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1964 where they gave the MVP Award to Bill Russell over Wilt Chamberlain. The only season it's debatable was 1964 where Russell at least had more rebounds, but 1960 Wilt led in points, rebounds, and FG percentage (but Celtics had a better record than the Philadelphia Warriors), 1961 (led in points and rebounds, but worse record), 1962 (points, rebounds, FG percentage (but the SF Warriors sucked). 1964 both the Sixers and the Warriors had a worse record, Wilt led in points and FG percentage.

I think it's exactly what you're complaining about.

 

[gblews]

^ Writers voted for Russell those years because they genuinely thought he was a better player in those years than Wilt. Arguably, they at least may have been right. The writers could at least argue that stats aren't the be and end all. But no one said back then that they were voting for Russell simply because 'he made his teammates better' . That may be your modern day interpretation of the reasons writers voted for Russell over Wilt, but that wasn't a major part of the equation back then. BTW, Russell was the best defensive player in the league and was a better defensive player than Wilt was.

You could argue that Russell was the best player in the league back then, but there is no way anyone can argue that Nash was the best player in the league at any time. He was a great shooter and an assist specialist. That's it. So, in order to justify that ridiculous choice, they came up with the 'makes his teammates better',

 

[gblews]

Thanks, basketball gods, for another 2nd pick in the NBA draft. Personally, I prefer Ben Simmons, but either he or Brandon Ingram will make me happy.

And Celts get the #3 pick. Got to give it up for Ainge. They tanked only about 2 years (maybe 3) while unloading their aging stars to unwitting saps like the Brooklyn Nets. Sixers have tanked for about 4 years and in those four years they get the number 1 pick once, and I'm reading some Phily fans saying that this is proof that Hinkie's, "The Process" worked. It is only proof that if you lose enough games, you'll eventually win a lottery.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might start to wonder if the league is trying to engineer another future Lakers-Celts Finals rivalry. That would be great for the league as well as Lakers-Celts fans.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The Sixers were tanking three years (they simply just sucked the fourth year but it wasn't expected and the coach got fired because of it, they expected at the time for them to recreate their success that led them to the playoffs in the strike-shortened season).

Regarding getting the first overall pick - once again, it wasn't solely just having the worst record. The Kings trade (which will still be interesting in the next couple years*) increased the Sixers chances by almost 10 percentage points since they had the right to swap picks with the Kings.

* Next year, the Kings pick has to go to Chicago. The following year, the Kings have to have a pick under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (although I believe the Sixers still have the right to swap). Then Boogie Cousins becomes a free agent. That following year, the Sixers get the Kings pick.

I think who should be one vs. two is interesting. Frankly, neither is spectacular to me. I personally prefer Ingram, but I recognize the consensus that says Simmons's upside could make him a once in a generation player.

 

[gblews]

Yeah, those ring ceremony games can be a bitch. But what I meant was that you may not be able to see the "championship hangover" until the playoffs start.

It's looooong season.

I wrote the above back in November when the Warriors looked unbeatable, What appears to have happened is that they were likely playing the best ball this team could play during the regular season. The fact that the Thunder have shown that they "want" it more is an indication that GSW was unable to kick it up another notch in the playoffs, something ALL teams who aspire to the championship must do. It is especially tough to kick it up a notch the year after winning a championship. The Spurs will attest to this.

The Thunder have finally presented the Dubs with defenders who are long enough and athletic enough to really bother the Warriors free flowing offense. GSW, who have been a good defensive team but never great, have been unable to stop the Thunder from scoring.

In order to repeat, you got to want it as badly as the teams who have never tasted it want it. I expect the Dubs to win game 5 and the Thunder to wrap it up in 6 back at OKC.

 

[SPCTRE]

 

[gblews]

The Warriors have a lot more mental toughness than I gave them credit for. In particular, Klay Thompson, who is starting to establish himself as a future league and playoff MVP, and of course, Steph. But Draymond, the team's heart, and Iggy, the seasoned vet who is willing to sacrifice all to win, both have the souls of champions. Add to this a great coaching staff, which won't be quite as good next season (Luuuke!), and this team is going to be good for a long time. Though not the greatest individual playoff run ever, the Dubs have put together the greatest combination of regular season and playffs, ever.

Oh, and Spurs fans, here is yet another team showing you guys how to play a season after winning a championship..

And what of the erstwhile "King" James, who is soon to be 2-5 in the Finals? After all of his previous Finals losses the media and Bron apologists blamed his teammates. Last season these same folks, fans and media, blamed injuries to his teammates. It will be interesting to see who gets blamed this time because, well, they wouldn't actually put this one on the King, would they? Bron had a near triple double but what his team really needed was an effective scoring in the 4th quarter -- the kind MJ and Kobe used to provide their teams on a regular basis for their teams.

I wasn't rooting for any team to "win" this playoffs, and won't until my team gets back in, but I was pulling for certain teams to lose, like Houston, Clips, Spurs, and Cleveland. Wasn't rooting against Cle because of LeBron, though. Not a Bron hater (just a doubter). I have a serious dislike for Dan Gilbert, the guy who went whining like a bitch to David Stern about the Chris Paul trade a few years ago. So happy for him.

 

[gblews]

Biggest choke in NBA Finals history. Dubs had the best regular season record of all time, they were up 3-1, and had game 7 at home -- and lost. They are right up there with the Patriot's team that went undefeated in the regular season and the playoffs an lost the Super Bowl, that year. Guess my post above does apply after all, albeit to the Finals and not the Conf Finals.

Congrats to LeBron, who finally realized that this Cavs' team needed a Kobe Bryant , not a Magic Johnson.

Wondering if GSW's epic fall might also put the brakes on the very popular notion (among some) that the only way to win in the league is by playing "small ball". This series (and the west conf finals) prove that good defense and rebounding can still be the major difference in a championship series. Hard to believe the Cavs held GSW to 89 points at home -- in a game 7. They also won 2 at Oracle. I never saw that coming and didn't think it was possible.

I'm happy for ex-Laker Tyronn Lue, who took some heat from know nothing fans when the Cavs went down 3-1. Not happy, though, that a-hole owner, Dan Gilbert, gets a ring.

Spurs fans should be happy because the Dubs were right on the cusp of making them look even worse.

Congrats to the Cavs, they have made a believer of me. As for the Warriors, you guys have a lot to be sad about.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

It's the most important day of the year for Sixers fans.

Ben Simmons
Brandon Ingram
Jaylen Brown
Dragan Bender

Big mystery is whether there are any trades - particularly with the Celtics (who have a lot of picks) or the Sixers (who have made no secret they want to move up and have too many big men).

 

[gblews]

i found the draft quite fascinating this year. The Sixers, who I think everyone assumed, wanted Boston's number 3 pick in order to take Chris Dunn, found that no one thought Oakafor was worth a lottery pick, even though he was drafted with one just last year. This was the problem with drafting him in the first place. Regardless of his playing ability, drafting him created a glut in the front court and the whole league knows it. That alone will keep teams from making a fair offer at least until someone maybe gets desperate due to injury or whatever..

Chris Dunn ends up going to the T-Wolves. These guys are a rising power in the west. They are putting together a team that it appears, will have the persnnel to dispatch the Dubs AND San Antonio. And they got Dunn, who looks like he is going to be a monster. Anyone looking for a fancy passing, light shooting guard who doesn't play defense, Ricky Rubio is on the block.

I still say that the Ibacka trade was largely about money, just as the disastrous Harden trade was, a few years ago. Although the Thunder got better players back this time, you really had better know what you;re doing when you mess with the core players on a winning team. Even though Serge may have been showing signs of decline, sometimes it is a matter of chemistry, and you can mess that up sometimes, even when you bring in arguably "better" players.

Needless to say, I am ecstatic about drafting Brandon Ingram, as I'm sure are the Sixers drafting Simmons.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

T-Wolves are going to be good in a couple years.

The Celtics, I think, thought they could get an advantage in the deal (believing the Sixers would be desperate to trade since they have too many big men). Ultimately, I think both teams made a mistake. The Celtics just had too many draft picks and had to use them on foreign players.

On Ibaka, there's an argument they're better without him. Of course, they do need to keep Durant (which I expect they will).

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Lakers fans must be getting pissed about Durant going to Warriors. Way more unbalancing then the Paul trade would have been and yet no sign NBA is going to stop it.

Turns out NBA doesn't care about balance, they were just spiting LA.

NBA will be boring next year now. I'll follow how the Celts do with Horford and that's it. Besides my home team I can't see myself giving a crap about the most dominated season in history.

 

[tomalak301]

I'm a warriors fan and I'm finding myself uncomfortable with the KD signing. How is it beneficial to the league as a whole when you have 3 good teams and no one has a chance. I was kinda hoping KD would go to Boston and maybe give Cleveland a challenge. The NBA might be hard to watch next year.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I would have loved for Celts to get Durant but didn't expect it. But any other team but Warriors would have left the league watchable next year.

I don't understand any argument to block the Paul trade that doesn't apply double to this crap. NBA owes an explanation for why they are allowing this.