Bill Simmons on Chris Paul

[TwentyONE]

Small market teams can compete in the NBA if they draft well, especially under the new CBA rules that kick in two years from now. It's not like some of these cities are outposts in the Yukon--they're urban enough if given a four-year chance by the draftee to settle in. Not for everyone, off course, but I think CP3 would've been happy to stay in Charlotte on a winner if he'd been drafted there, just like Duncan stuck with San Antonio. In the NBA, you can become relevant with as few as two special players, and I think a lot of this small market/big market angst leaves out the factor of whether or not the team is a winner.

The harder cap in two years is going to crush the super-team model, spreading out the big contracts (read: star players) simply because in the end, money trumps. Right now, you can get money, competitive edge, and the large market in one swoop. But with the new luxury tax rules on the horizon that likely changes considerably in two years.

re the new CBA crushing this current model, I'll believe it when I see it. You could be right, I just dont follow it enough to know for sure. Definitley seems like big-market teams are setting up for the long-haul though.

Most NBA teams shun the draft, if they are not in the top 3 picks, it doesnt even seem like they care. They throw away picks for vets all the time, draft guys on potential but not necessarily by need, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think LA, New York, Dallas, Boston, Miami drafted their way to competitiveness. Building through the draft is not like in the NFL, not by a long shot. Just seems like the days of the spurs are fading and we are looking at much more player-driven future which favors the big markets. That is the way it is trending.

 

[PhDeac]

Depends on your definition of competitiveness. Still the recent finals MVPs for those franchises came from the draft (with the obvious Kobe sidenote).

 

[Milhouse]

draft day trade doesn't count?

 

[bmoneydeac]

the last 7 finals MVP's have spent their whole career on the same team (kobe x 2, dirk, duncan, parker, pierce, wade).

 

[lefty]

I wonder if Chris Paul would take less money to end up on the Knicks next season?

I don't have a favorite NBA team, but I hate the Lakers. Strong Laker hate.

Nah, can't happen. The Knicks just signed Chandler to 4 years/$58m.

He'd have to take one hell of a pay cut.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

the last 7 finals MVP's have spent their whole career on the same team (kobe x 2, dirk, duncan, parker, pierce, wade).

i think you have to be on a team that can actually get to the finals to win that award

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

re the new CBA crushing this current model, I'll believe it when I see it. You could be right, I just dont follow it enough to know for sure. Definitley seems like big-market teams are setting up for the long-haul though.

Most NBA teams shun the draft, if they are not in the top 3 picks, it doesnt even seem like they care. They throw away picks for vets all the time, draft guys on potential but not necessarily by need, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think LA, New York, Dallas, Boston, Miami drafted their way to competitiveness. Building through the draft is not like in the NFL, not by a long shot. Just seems like the days of the spurs are fading and we are looking at much more player-driven future which favors the big markets. That is the way it is trending.

The new CBA provisions that kick in two years from now are going to kill this trend. It wasn't a complete win for competitive balance, but the harsh new luxury tax and dismemberment of sign-and-trade rules (two years out) will basically make stars looking to leave have to take less money, and teams looking to buy will be very, very hesitant to hit the luxury tax. Mark Cuban said as much when explaining why he let Chandler walk.

it will make a difference. Just not this season, which is why Paul and Howard can still choose somewhat their own adventure and still get paid top dollar.

 

[Pilchard]

Most NBA owners wanted an NFL type league where Green Bay and Pittsburgh compete on an equal basis with big market cities.

The problem is that in the NBA a group as small as 2/3 players can compete for a title with nothing else around them. Can't happen in the NFL, can't even happen in MLB... basketball is different. So, unless free agency is abolished, the new path in the NBA is to have 2 or 3 superstars align with one franchise, win (or at least compete for titles) and laugh at the second division teams that can't keep up.

The frustration here is that Owners and GMs no longer control the league. Their roles have been diminished; it's not about drafting well (look at the NBA finals last year; neither the Heat nor the Mavs had a significant contributor from the NBA draft in the their last 8 drafts; Dwayne Wade was taken by the Heat in 2003). It's about clearing cap room and being lucky enough to own a franchise where a group of stars will conspire to play together.

It's not fair. This is recess where the 3 biggest and best kids say we are playing together and then laugh as they humilate the remaining minions in the schoolyard. I get why the owners of the Cavs and T-wolves hate this trade, but Chris Paul will play in either NY or LA next year anyway. So, the veto only delays the inevitable and ensures that NO gets nothing when Chris can leave.

The fact remains that the new CBA did nothing to keep players in their prime from choosing their own destination, and with it as given that Chris Paul was headed to NY or LA in 8 months anyway, Simmons is right that Stern had no basis to veto the trade.

 

[PhDeac]

i think you have to be on a team that can actually get to the finals to win that award

The point is that the big market teams aren't just renting elite players and riding them to championships.

 

[TwentyONE]

The draft is important to teams only in that they may land a star. Otherwise it doesnt matter. You generally don't win in the NBA with a team full of nice roll players drafted in the 10-20 range. So teams don't stockpile picks, they go after free agents. Picks are simply not worth as much as in the NFL. Hence, the draft is not as important.

Regardless, the problem the NBA has is not necessarily that you can't stumble upon a star in the draft once in a while, or even get in to the playoffs. Its that you have a shitload of fan bases that are increasingly disinterested in their own teams. How's Minnesota doing since Garnett left? Cleveland? How's Orlando and New Orleans looking next year? Would you buy season tix if you were a fan of those teams?

Just because Dallas has a crazy rich owner and is able to get a championship, or the Spurs have a great run, doesnt mean the league is healthy. There is a ton of dead weight.

 

[TwentyONE]

Most NBA owners wanted an NFL type league where Green Bay and Pittsburgh compete on an equal basis with big market cities.

The problem is that in the NBA a group as small as 2/3 players can compete for a title with nothing else around them. Can't happen in the NFL, can't even happen in MLB... basketball is different. So, unless free agency is abolished, the new path in the NBA is to have 2 or 3 superstars align with one franchise, win (or at least compete for titles) and laugh at the second division teams that can't keep up.

The frustration here is that Owners and GMs no longer control the league. Their roles have been diminished; it's not about drafting well (look at the NBA finals last year; neither the Heat nor the Mavs had a significant contributor from the NBA draft in the their last 8 drafts; Dwayne Wade was taken by the Heat in 2003). It's about clearing cap room and being lucky enough to own a franchise where a group of stars will conspire to play together.

It's not fair. This is recess where the 3 biggest and best kids say we are playing together and then laugh as they humilate the remaining minions in the schoolyard. I get why the owners of the Cavs and T-wolves hate this trade, but Chris Paul will play in either NY or LA next year anyway. So, the veto only delays the inevitable and ensures that NO gets nothing when Chris can leave.

The fact remains that the new CBA did nothing to keep players in their prime from choosing their own destination, and with it as given that Chris Paul was headed to NY or LA in 8 months anyway, Simmons is right that Stern had no basis to veto the trade.

Exactly.

Arlington, you may be right, again I dont know. But like I said, I will believe it when I see it. You certainly have enough freaked out owners out there who genuinely believe they will not be able to A) make money, or B) compete. If they were so confident things will change in two years when the rest of the CBA kicks in, I dont think they would be taking such a harsh stand today. It seems there is a precedent trying to be set here and the league is at a crossroads to some degree.

 

[Deacfreak07]

The draft is important to teams only in that they may land a star. Otherwise it doesnt matter. You generally don't win in the NBA with a team full of nice roll players drafted in the 10-20 range. So teams don't stockpile picks, they go after free agents. Picks are simply not worth as much as in the NFL. Hence, the draft is not as important.

Regardless, the problem the NBA has is not necessarily that you can't stumble upon a star in the draft once in a while, or even get in to the playoffs. Its that you have a shitload of fan bases that are increasingly disinterested in their own teams. How's Minnesota doing since Garnett left? Cleveland? How's Orlando and New Orleans looking next year? Would you buy season tix if you were a fan of those teams?

Just because Dallas has a crazy rich owner and is able to get a championship, or the Spurs have a great run, doesnt mean the league is healthy. There is a ton of dead weight.

This is probably true. Contraction is probably inevitable. I have been solidly anti-super teams since Boston's moves, but I think there may be enough talent to make it work. There could reasonably be 8-10 teams with 2+ stars. That is probably more competitive than the league has been in a while.

 

[PhDeac]

The draft is important to teams only in that they may land a star. Otherwise it doesnt matter. You generally don't win in the NBA with a team full of nice roll players drafted in the 10-20 range. So teams don't stockpile picks, they go after free agents. Picks are simply not worth as much as in the NFL. Hence, the draft is not as important.

Regardless, the problem the NBA has is not necessarily that you can't stumble upon a star in the draft once in a while, or even get in to the playoffs. Its that you have a shitload of fan bases that are increasingly disinterested in their own teams. How's Minnesota doing since Garnett left? Cleveland? How's Orlando and New Orleans looking next year? Would you buy season tix if you were a fan of those teams?

Just because Dallas has a crazy rich owner and is able to get a championship, or the Spurs have a great run, doesnt mean the league is healthy. There is a ton of dead weight.

That's true. I just think the dead weight is a product of a diluted talent pool and poor management, not some inevitable large-market bias. Again, look at the Knicks. I'd be for contraction in every major sport except the NFL. One thing people don't talk about when they discuss the NFL's success is that it keeps the talent pool strong by using very small rosters.

 

[TwentyONE]

I agree. The league would actually be healthy if you had somethinig like 10 teams. But it doesn't.

I have no idea why anyone would own a small/mid-market team in the NBA in this day and age.

 

[Tin Cup]

Exactly.

Arlington, you may be right, again I dont know. But like I said, I will believe it when I see it. You certainly have enough freaked out owners out there who genuinely believe they will not be able to A) make money, or B) compete. If they were so confident things will change in two years when the rest of the CBA kicks in, I dont think they would be taking such a harsh stand today. It seems there is a precedent trying to be set here and the league is at a crossroads to some degree.

But really, what precedent are they going for? The "you cant be traded in a contract year, you can only play out the year and then leave on your own accord" precedent? It makes no sense.

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

The last CBA was a 300 million dollar give back to the owners and added revenue sharing. They will make money now. They are just big babies who are used to getting their way. A lot of them were pissed at Stern he didn't torch the season to get the players down to 47% of BRI. Stern had to BEG them for 50/50.

 

[PhDeac]

So how realistic is contraction? That's one thing I liked that Simmons mentioned. The league could easily get rid of the Hornets. If these owners are so poor, they should be begging to get bought out. Obviously, the NBAPA is the big stumbling block for this. Would they allow contraction for higher caps, higher pensions and/or less time to pension, higher D-league salaries, and 2 additional roster spots? Just starting a discussion.

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

Contraction is not realistic. The NBA has to give up the revenue the team brought in. You have to buy out the owners for $300+ million. You have to do something about the team's debts. It's a viable option only under specific circumstances, and it's a distant alternative to relocation.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Exactly.

Arlington, you may be right, again I dont know. But like I said, I will believe it when I see it. You certainly have enough freaked out owners out there who genuinely believe they will not be able to A) make money, or B) compete. If they were so confident things will change in two years when the rest of the CBA kicks in, I dont think they would be taking such a harsh stand today. It seems there is a precedent trying to be set here and the league is at a crossroads to some degree.

It's already happening to a certain extent. If it's affecting Cuban, it's going to affect any big spender. Here he explains why Dallas didn't sign Chandler:

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/mave...ins?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The reality is that in the new system, cap room will have far more value than it had in the past. I realize that everyone is all freaked out about how and where free agents and future free agents are going, but it’s not just about getting one guy.

We are not saving cap room in hope of that one super special free agent being there. It’s about being in the position to improve every year and possibly add some significant, younger players next year and in future years.

What I don’t think people understand is that once a team hits the tax level the ability to improve our team is reduced dramatically. In addition, your ability to make trades is reduced. So basically, if we made the move to keep everyone together with five-year deals, the team we have today is going to be the team we have for the next five years. If we were a young team it would be one thing. But we are not a young team.

In the past, it was different. If we had a problem, I could fix any mistake by having Donnie find a trade and just taking on more money. That is how we got Jet, the Matrix, JKidd, Tyson. It was always about taking on more money. That trick doesn’t work any more for teams over the tax. So we have to change our approach. By getting back under the cap, we have a ton of flexibility not only for free agent signings but also trades. If we can get the right guy(s) via free agency, great. if we do it via trade, great. We have that much more flexibility to make moves.

 

[lefty]

I agree. The league would actually be healthy if you had somethinig like 10 teams. But it doesn't.

I have no idea why anyone would own a small/mid-market team in the NBA in this day and age.

I have no idea why NO wasn't contracted in the summer. Why would the NBA keep a team that it was forced to buy, because there were no other suitors?

And now Stern thinks he can save the franchise by letting Paul go next year with absolutely nothing in return?