Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymax View Post
    To top if off, one must live with the fact that many pro sports teams have obscenely rich, often unethical owners that make slimy demands of their cities -- unsustainable I hope.
    The NBA is obscenely rich at all levels, including the players...they have 82 products a year to sell, and much smaller rosters than any other of the 4 major sports. This translates into MO MONEY for all involved.

    As for owners being obscenely rich, they are to own an NBA franchise, but when they pay 100 million on "luxury tax" in a season, they may not do all that well on the bottom line.

    As for pro sports franchises making demands - (the NFL is the worst for this due to the cost of an NFL stadium) - they only get those tax breaks when the voters of that city want them. You may or may not like it (and I"m not saying it's either good or bad) - but you shouldn't fret over it - because it's simply a deal between the voters of a city and the team, based on the idea that the team can do for that city what no other business can. It's not at all like being taxed by the IRS with no say in the matter.

    This of it like this: LeBron can do for an NBA team what no one else can...so he gets very special treatment. A pro sports franchise can do for a city, an area, maybe even a state, what no other business can...so yes, they get special treatment. (As can major companies like Amazon, etc). Some of these deals work out great for cities, and some don't...just like some deals with super star salaries work out, and some don't.
    Don't waste your time on House of Cards S6!
    -We found out Frank was critical to making anyone else in the show interesting...not a surprise...

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK View Post
    The NBA is obscenely rich at all levels, including the players...they have 82 products a year to sell, and much smaller rosters than any other of the 4 major sports. This translates into MO MONEY for all involved.

    As for owners being obscenely rich, they are to own an NBA franchise, but when they pay 100 million on "luxury tax" in a season, they may not do all that well on the bottom line.

    As for pro sports franchises making demands - (the NFL is the worst for this due to the cost of an NFL stadium) - they only get those tax breaks when the voters of that city want them. You may or may not like it (and I"m not saying it's either good or bad) - but you shouldn't fret over it - because it's simply a deal between the voters of a city and the team, based on the idea that the team can do for that city what no other business can. It's not at all like being taxed by the IRS with no say in the matter.

    This of it like this: LeBron can do for an NBA team what no one else can...so he gets very special treatment. A pro sports franchise can do for a city, an area, maybe even a state, what no other business can...so yes, they get special treatment. (As can major companies like Amazon, etc). Some of these deals work out great for cities, and some don't...just like some deals with super star salaries work out, and some don't.
    That is a definitive opinion.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Mary's Place
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    I don't have a duck in the fight but I think the Staples Centers battles next year are going to be a lot of fun!
    I'm guessing you don't have any dogs on the pond, either. (Not a bad way to beat the heat...)
    "Quality is not an option!"

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by Turk View Post
    I'm guessing you don't have any dogs on the pond, either. (Not a bad way to beat the heat...)
    Dogs in the pond also a great way to scare some Pelicans...
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    Dogs in the pond also a great way to scare some Pelicans...
    Depends, do you have those dogs in a row?

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Depends, do you have those dogs in a row?
    Y'know what they say, if you're not the lead pelican flying in formation, the view never changes.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Depends, do you have those dogs in a row?
    Also depends on what else is in the pond.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    I was listening to an NBA podcast - cant remember which one - and the guys were putting teams into tiers. Contenders, Playoff Teams, Borderline Teams, Tankers, etc.

    I was surprised they didnt have Denver or Utah in the contenders buckets. Both were playoff teams and upgraded their rosters slightly while everyone else shuffled the deck a lot. Does continuity matter? Denver won 54 games and added Grant. They ought to improve by a few games and have a decent shot at being the 1 seed.

    Utah added Conley, Bogdanovic, Jeff Green and Ed Davis to a team that won 50 games last season. They upgraded PG and their rotation.

    What am I missing here? Do pundits really think that the Lakers with little to no rotation are the odds-on favorites to win? Didnt Toronto just blow up that idea?

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    I was surprised they didnt have Denver or Utah in the contenders buckets. Both were playoff teams and upgraded their rosters slightly while everyone else shuffled the deck a lot. Does continuity matter?
    Continuity matters, but many championship teams have shown that having stars matters even more. Stars in basketball have an outsized influence as compared to other sports. Utah and Denver have great rosters and should be near the top of the West, but you can only play 5 players at a time, so you're at a disadvantage if you don't have a LeBron, Kawhi, Curry, etc. Now not every team with a star is a contender, but having a star can cover for many other flaws (see Zion's effect on last year's Duke team).

    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    Do pundits really think that the Lakers with little to no rotation are the odds-on favorites to win? Didnt Toronto just blow up that idea?
    Toronto showed that you can win a title with only 8 players. So that bodes well for teams with a few stars and a short rotation.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    MKE
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth&Justise View Post
    Continuity matters, but many championship teams have shown that having stars matters even more. Stars in basketball have an outsized influence as compared to other sports. Utah and Denver have great rosters and should be near the top of the West, but you can only play 5 players at a time, so you're at a disadvantage if you don't have a LeBron, Kawhi, Curry, etc. Now not every team with a star is a contender, but having a star can cover for many other flaws (see Zion's effect on last year's Duke team).



    Toronto showed that you can win a title with only 8 players. So that bodes well for teams with a few stars and a short rotation.
    Jokic was first team All-NBA and Gobert was third team.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    I was listening to an NBA podcast - cant remember which one - and the guys were putting teams into tiers. Contenders, Playoff Teams, Borderline Teams, Tankers, etc.

    I was surprised they didnt have Denver or Utah in the contenders buckets. Both were playoff teams and upgraded their rosters slightly while everyone else shuffled the deck a lot. Does continuity matter? Denver won 54 games and added Grant. They ought to improve by a few games and have a decent shot at being the 1 seed.

    Utah added Conley, Bogdanovic, Jeff Green and Ed Davis to a team that won 50 games last season. They upgraded PG and their rotation.

    What am I missing here? Do pundits really think that the Lakers with little to no rotation are the odds-on favorites to win? Didnt Toronto just blow up that idea?
    I would definitely take the Lakers in a hypothetical playoff series with either Denver or Utah. (I would put a pie on it now, too, and wait, uh, 10 months to collect). It does seem like teams almost always need that superstar player to win a championship, unfortunately. I like Denver and Utah and wish it weren't so but they are probably more like pre-Kawhi Toronto (very good regular season team) than true title contenders.

    And I would say the Lakers did okay building out their depth. They should have Caldwell-Pope, Dudley, and Cousins coming off the bench at the very least.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    I would definitely take the Lakers in a hypothetical playoff series with either Denver or Utah. (I would put a pie on it now, too, and wait, uh, 10 months to collect). It does seem like teams almost always need that superstar player to win a championship, unfortunately. I like Denver and Utah and wish it weren't so but they are probably more like pre-Kawhi Toronto (very good regular season team) than true title contenders.
    The last team I can recall winning a title without a "true superstar" was the 2004 Pistons. *Maybe* the 2011 Mavs though Novitski was right on the cusp on superstardom. It can be done, but it's really rare.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Matches View Post
    The last team I can recall winning a title without a "true superstar" was the 2004 Pistons. *Maybe* the 2011 Mavs though Novitski was right on the cusp on superstardom. It can be done, but it's really rare.
    I'd exclude 2011 Mavs. By that time, Nowitzki had won his MVP, been a 5-time 1st team all NBA and been an All Star for a decade. He was at the height (pun intended) of his powers.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    MKE
    Quote Originally Posted by Matches View Post
    The last team I can recall winning a title without a "true superstar" was the 2004 Pistons. *Maybe* the 2011 Mavs though Novitski was right on the cusp on superstardom. It can be done, but it's really rare.
    Jokic last season was superior to 33-year old Dirk in 2011, in my view.

    The 2014 Spurs relied on a not-yet-prime Kawhi Leonard (22 years old), and past-prime Tim Duncan (37), Tony Parker (31), and Manu Ginobili (36). Not to say that I think next year's Nuggets are more talented or better than those Spurs, but that Spurs team didn't exactly drip with superstar talent (at least not superstars-in-their-prime talent).

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    MKE
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    I'd exclude 2011 Mavs. By that time, Nowitzki had won his MVP, been a 5-time 1st team all NBA and been an All Star for a decade. He was at the height (pun intended) of his powers.
    Dirk had indeed accomplished a lot by 2011 (and he was still all of seven feet tall), but he had declined a bit from his best years. He won his MVP award five seasons earlier (at age 28) and in 2010-2011 probably had his least productive season statistically since his second year, though it was still very good.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by phaedrus View Post
    Dirk had indeed accomplished a lot by 2011 (and he was still all of seven feet tall), but he had declined a bit from his best years. He won his MVP award five seasons earlier (at age 28) and in 2010-2011 probably had his least productive season statistically since his second year, though it was still very good.
    Fair enough. I'd agree more with your characterization that he had declined a bit than by Matches' characterization that he was on the cusp of superstardom in 2011. My point was that he was an established super star by 2011. On the cusp would have been his 2005/6 seasons and first finals appearance and MVP award.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Not saying it will happen, but if the Nuggets win the title then it will likely be because Jokic made the leap from really, really good to one of the league's great players... and some would say he might already be there.

    I think the Nuggets and Jazz are both very strong title contenders... perhaps not quite alongside the Lakers, Clippers, Bucks, and Sixers... but right there in the next tier with the Rockets, Warriors, and Celtics. Any of those 9 teams winning the title would not be a total shocker to me. The other 31 teams are considerably less likely.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    Fair enough. I'd agree more with your characterization that he had declined a bit than by Matches' characterization that he was on the cusp of superstardom in 2011. My point was that he was an established super star by 2011. On the cusp would have been his 2005/6 seasons and first finals appearance and MVP award.
    Perhaps I used the word "cusp" incorrectly. What I meant was that Dirk was borderline as a superstar at that time. You could make an argument either way. I wasn't intending to comment on his career arc, of which your description is certainly accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by phaedrus View Post
    Jokic last season was superior to 33-year old Dirk in 2011, in my view.

    The 2014 Spurs relied on a not-yet-prime Kawhi Leonard (22 years old), and past-prime Tim Duncan (37), Tony Parker (31), and Manu Ginobili (36). Not to say that I think next year's Nuggets are more talented or better than those Spurs, but that Spurs team didn't exactly drip with superstar talent (at least not superstars-in-their-prime talent).
    I would have ranked Kawhi as a top-10 player at that time. Agreed he wasn't yet in his prime but he was really really good - much better than anyone on the 2004 Pistons, for example. But yea, the Spurs had a great mix of continuity and star power, which is the best of both worlds.

  19. #59
    Not sure about the regular season, but Dirk was dominant and the best player in the 2011 playoffs, imo.

    I mean, that's what the "superstar requirement" is really about. Does the team in question have a player who can be the best player in the playoffs (or perhaps at least top-3)?

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by phaedrus View Post
    Jokic last season was superior to 33-year old Dirk in 2011, in my view.

    The 2014 Spurs relied on a not-yet-prime Kawhi Leonard (22 years old), and past-prime Tim Duncan (37), Tony Parker (31), and Manu Ginobili (36). Not to say that I think next year's Nuggets are more talented or better than those Spurs, but that Spurs team didn't exactly drip with superstar talent (at least not superstars-in-their-prime talent).
    Kawhi Leonard may have been only 22, but he was already one of the very best two-way players in the league. Good enough to beat Lebron and earn Finals MVP honors doing so.

Similar Threads

  1. Football season prediction thread
    By OZZIE4DUKE in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 12-02-2018, 11:03 AM
  2. A Bold Prediction
    By Volunteer Duke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-23-2016, 04:48 PM
  3. Early Prediction
    By greybeard in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-22-2009, 07:36 AM
  4. ACC Prediction
    By gw67 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-26-2007, 09:11 AM
  5. Prediction: Duke over MD
    By TwoDukeTattoos in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-28-2007, 09:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •