So Kemba apparently had 4 kids in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program.
Jeremy Lamb had 20.
Jeremy Lamb had 20.
Hell no. My rep called me back yesterday and said they can't formally do anything until contracts become official on the 6th, but I told him there is no way I am financially supporting these moves if ownership cannot make decent financial decisions. They won't pay Kemba a supermax of $45 mi/year but they'll pay the Batum/Rozier combo a combined $45 mil/year? Fuck that shit, Kemba is worth three times what those two clowns bring together to the table.
Cant argue with that.
Makes you wonder if the current power structure ofthe league is sustainable. there are maybe 10 championship caliber teams next year (although it's really half that number). The other 20 teams are playing for meaningless playoff berths in the guise of "building towards a championship run" or simply existing as fodder for the good teams. It's only a matter of time before Jordan hasto ask for improvements to the Spectrum Center and he's going to show up having accomplished absolutely nothing in the current arena. And the NBA helps perpetuate the competitive imbalance, through mid-level exceptions, top players taking less so they can offer other players enough to build a roster, anda luxury tax that apparently isn't high enough to deter management from blowing through the cap. Is it good for the league as a whole that the Lakers can have three players on their team who are better than any single player on half the teams in the league ? Draw your own conclusions, but I kind of doubt it.
Meh. A good front office who can draft well and make good trades and manage the cap can compete. A bad front office will fall short. The Warriors built through the draft. Their core players are the third PG taken in his draft, the SG taken between Jimmer Fredette and Alec Burks, and a second rounder. The Raptors won without a lottery pick. The Bucks took a risk on a kid from Greece at #15.
The problem with the NBA isn’t the structure of the league. It’s the front office management. It’s always been the big problem. There are a few really good front offices and the rest are playing fantasy hoops, spreadsheet calculus, roll the ball out, or tanking for lottery picks.
Meh. A good front office who can draft well and make good trades and manage the cap can compete. A bad front office will fall short. The Warriors built through the draft. Their core players are the third PG taken in his draft, the SG taken between Jimmer Fredette and Alec Burks, and a second rounder. The Raptors won without a lottery pick. The Bucks took a risk on a kid from Greece at #15.
The problem with the NBA isn’t the structure of the league. It’s the front office management. It’s always been the big problem. There are a few really good front offices and the rest are playing fantasy hoops, spreadsheet calculus, roll the ball out, or tanking for lottery picks.
Meh. A good front office who can draft well and make good trades and manage the cap can compete. A bad front office will fall short. The Warriors built through the draft. Their core players are the third PG taken in his draft, the SG taken between Jimmer Fredette and Alec Burks, and a second rounder. The Raptors won without a lottery pick. The Bucks took a risk on a kid from Greece at #15.
The problem with the NBA isn’t the structure of the league. It’s the front office management. It’s always been the big problem. There are a few really good front offices and the rest are playing fantasy hoops, spreadsheet calculus, roll the ball out, or tanking for lottery picks.
But having three of the best players on the same team with players lining up to take less than market value for their services for a chance to get a ring, once they've made enough money elsewhere, is no problem ?
I don't disagree with this in regards to front office management.
On the other hand the NFL has a much healthier league in terms of contending teams. There are maybe 6 franchises that are perennially bad. The rest of the teams have some hope starting most years.
The contending teams in the NBA are fewer due to how difficult it is to get competitive as a small market team. It is possible but you have to be exceptional as a front office like the Spurs and Warriors or a bit lucky like the Thunder.
As an example LA could conceivably sign Kawhi, then sign a Boogie or Green (or both) with room exception and MLE. The NBA can’t stop players taking less money to win or play with friends, but if a team has no salary cap left, those players should have to choose vet min or elsewhere
The numbers are rankings of the media market of teams.
I started out saying draft luck was a necessary component, but the point remains that there is much more to it than being in a large market. Nobody denies that there is a large market advantage, but it's also not true that small markets are hopeless.
If your goal really is parity, then the formula isn't hard: hard cap, no max contract, no draft. There will still be some residual advantage to large market teams due to exposure and endorsement opportunities, but that's never really gonna go away.
I think a hard cap, no max, and doing away with the lottery are landing spots. I doubt Players Association goes for that though
and if you're not going to max out kemba after the best season of his career, then you would have had to have known that you weren't going to max him this time last year
why not trade him for some value????????