*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (4 Viewers)

[pollardsvision]

In the last 35 years, two "small-market" teams have won - Seattle in 1979, and San Antonio several times.

I reject the premise that "winning the title" is the only barometer of success. Of course that's the main goal. but there is only one Champion each year so implicitly saying that 29 teams "fail" each season is silly. Furthermore, pointing out that only two small market teams have won a title overlooks the fact that (1) San Antonio accounts for 14% of all titles won since 1979 and (2) a number of small market teams have made the Finals (Orlando x 2, OKC, Seattle, Utah, etc.)

FWIW, I only brought that up a while back in regards to the notion that teams that can't win it all should (or do) tank to try to get the #1 pick and whether or not it's a sound strategy.

I was also pointing out that that sort of strategy likely works about as often in the NFL as it does in the NBA (this was when we were dealing with tanking paranoia ruining the NBA and preaching poor American values to our children).

On the current topic, I think it's more difficult for small market teams, but by and large, they are fine and can compete.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Can someone explain why Detroit and Cramento would need a third team to move smith?

Detroit doesn't want what Sacramento has to send back

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

As for the cites without teams - not terribly relevant to the conversation, because the small-market teams were not represented - that era was dominated by big-market teams.

You realize the above phrase makes zero sense?

Sort of - not really - there were other small market teams in the NBA (as defined as the smallest 50% like above), but none of them were relevant.

Kicking off right where you started your "study", the Lakers had the #1 overall pick twice in four years. They went to the Finals nine times in 12 years. From 1983-1991 when they had #1 picks they drafted Magic Johnson and James Worthy on the roster, they only missed the Finals twice, and one of those early exits was at the hands of another team with two #1 overall picks they drafted in their starting five. Looks to me like having the top draft pick is a big help for going deep.

But the draft is supposed to help small-market teams be relevant.

No. The draft is supposed to help weak teams become competitive regardless of market size. Measures like salary caps and revenue sharing are intended to help small-market teams.

My proposal is to get rid of the draft, let teams sign whoever they can sign - and the argument is that small-market teams will have to fold up their tents and go home, unless the draft is around to help them get players...

Your proposal doesn't mean much without understanding what other long- term economic rules and boundaries are in place. Generally speaking, though, your proposal would lead to a large portion of the league salaries shifting to unproven players. That's similar to the league economic climate in the mid- late 1990s, and the owners hated it so much they eventually shut down the league for half a year to revamp the system, despite the league being insanely popular at the time.

 

[RUSF18]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

So, if he looks like a bust, trade him to Minnesota? Kahn still there?

That window on Andrew Wiggins is going to be open for a real long time.

 

[thecatch]

Can someone explain why Detroit and Cramento would need a third team to move smith?

I don't know, but if Cramento gives up anything other than a couple of bad contracts for Smith, I will have to immediately withdraw all of my lukewarm defenses of the Pete D'Allessandro era.

 

[Britney Spears]

I fully understand that a top pick in the NBA is more impactful, but that still doesn't answer the question...If giving bad teams the best picks makes sense for other leagues, why not the NBA?If there's a "better" way to do it, then other leagues should do that too, even if the impact might be less.The #1 overall pick (especially now in the NFL) is no doubt better than the #15 pick. It's still "rewarding teams for failure", which is apparently a terrible phenomenon.On a side note, we probably shouldn't also get carried away the notion that the #1 overall pick in the NFL isn't also a potential game changer. Suck for Luck should ring a bell.Being the worst team in the league in the right year is just as likely to bring home a title in the NFL as it is in the NBA.

Is there something that matches #1 picks with championships by sport?

 

[Gadzooks]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

 

[RUSF18]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

I fully understand that a top pick in the NBA is more impactful, but that still doesn't answer the question...If giving bad teams the best picks makes sense for other leagues, why not the NBA?If there's a "better" way to do it, then other leagues should do that too, even if the impact might be less.The #1 overall pick (especially now in the NFL) is no doubt better than the #15 pick. It's still "rewarding teams for failure", which is apparently a terrible phenomenon.On a side note, we probably shouldn't also get carried away the notion that the #1 overall pick in the NFL isn't also a potential game changer. Suck for Luck should ring a bell.Being the worst team in the league in the right year is just as likely to bring home a title in the NFL as it is in the NBA.

Is there something that matches #1 picks with championships by sport?

When searching for it, be sure to check if it's #1 picks who won titles anywhere, or #1 picks who won titles with the team who drafted them.For example, Shaquille O'Neal is a former #1 pick who won four titles, but none were with the team that drafted him. Does that count as four or zero?

Or Bill Walton, who won it all in Portland and Boston. Does he count as one title or two?

Or how about if LeBron wins a title during his second stint in Cleveland? It's technically the that drafted him, but he returned as a free agent.

 

[thecatch]

Generally speaking, though, your proposal would lead to a large portion of the league salaries shifting to unproven players. That's similar to the league economic climate in the mid- late 1990s, and the owners hated it so much they eventually shut down the league for half a year to revamp the system, despite the league being insanely popular at the time.

This is the one critique of the no cap/draft/salary max proposal that strikes me as having teeth, notwithstanding the fact that the parties involved would probably never approve of such a radical departure from the status quo for whatever reasons. But I don't believe that the ultra complicated existing CBA is the best and most efficient way to address the "too much too soon" problem. Maybe a cap on the length of rookie contracts or something to that effect would alleviate that particular issue.

 

[Gadzooks]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Since the Cap is supposed to really expand after 2016 with the new tv deal (hence LeBron doing a 2 year deal so he can get a bigger one in 2016) wouldn't it make sense for Love to play out his current deal to 2016 instead of opting out next year? I know he's trying to force a trade but he doesn't have the leverage to pick where he gets traded. I'm sure any trading partner will want him to commit to staying long term, but what if he just agrees to NOT opt out so whoever gets him will have him for this season and next. Am I wrong to think that is Love's plan? Why not wait an extra year for his new deal when he get more cash?

 

[Britney Spears]

How are those "small-market" teams faring under the current system?

Judging by the list of NBA champs going back to Seattle in 1979 - you are looking at two (2) smaller-market teams in the last 35 years - Seattle and San Antonio. And, I would argue that San Antonio is winning because they are a well-run organization who are good at identifying and coaching the right players.

So, stop with the whole "who-will-think-of-the-small-markets" crap - its not working for them now.

Detroit & Miami aren't really that big. What makes a "small market"?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Will be interesting to see if the Warriors break down at some point and offer Klay in the deal, does that trigger the Wiggins offer?

 

[Frostillicus]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

I'm Bill Simmons.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

I'm Bill Simmons.

Actually true.

 

[RUSF18]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Since the Cap is supposed to really expand after 2016 with the new tv deal (hence LeBron doing a 2 year deal so he can get a bigger one in 2016) wouldn't it make sense for Love to play out his current deal to 2016 instead of opting out next year? I know he's trying to force a trade but he doesn't have the leverage to pick where he gets traded. I'm sure any trading partner will want him to commit to staying long term, but what if he just agrees to NOT opt out so whoever gets him will have him for this season and next. Am I wrong to think that is Love's plan? Why not wait an extra year for his new deal when he get more cash?

Interesting idea but I think there is still a bit of a question from some teams if Love is truly a max player, and with that in mind, how much more money could he even get if that max increases? LeBron would get every dollar imaginable, as would Durant, but it becomes more of a question as we go down the line. And if you're Love, is the potential for getting that extra couple million a year worth holding off signing a $100+ million deal, especially when you're not a guy making 10s of millions off the court like LBJ/KD?

 

[thecatch]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Will be interesting to see if the Warriors break down at some point and offer Klay in the deal, does that trigger the Wiggins offer?

History suggests that pressuring Dan Gilbert into making a short sighted decision is a solid move.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Since the Cap is supposed to really expand after 2016 with the new tv deal (hence LeBron doing a 2 year deal so he can get a bigger one in 2016) wouldn't it make sense for Love to play out his current deal to 2016 instead of opting out next year? I know he's trying to force a trade but he doesn't have the leverage to pick where he gets traded. I'm sure any trading partner will want him to commit to staying long term, but what if he just agrees to NOT opt out so whoever gets him will have him for this season and next. Am I wrong to think that is Love's plan? Why not wait an extra year for his new deal when he get more cash?

Interesting idea but I think there is still a bit of a question from some teams if Love is truly a max player, and with that in mind, how much more money could he even get if that max increases? LeBron would get every dollar imaginable, as would Durant, but it becomes more of a question as we go down the line. And if you're Love, is the potential for getting that extra couple million a year worth holding off signing a $100+ million deal, especially when you're not a guy making 10s of millions off the court like LBJ/KD?

Jebus.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Will be interesting to see if the Warriors break down at some point and offer Klay in the deal, does that trigger the Wiggins offer?

History suggests that pressuring Dan Gilbert into making a short sighted decision is a solid move.

He's not the GM.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Since the Cap is supposed to really expand after 2016 with the new tv deal (hence LeBron doing a 2 year deal so he can get a bigger one in 2016) wouldn't it make sense for Love to play out his current deal to 2016 instead of opting out next year? I know he's trying to force a trade but he doesn't have the leverage to pick where he gets traded. I'm sure any trading partner will want him to commit to staying long term, but what if he just agrees to NOT opt out so whoever gets him will have him for this season and next. Am I wrong to think that is Love's plan? Why not wait an extra year for his new deal when he get more cash?

Interesting idea but I think there is still a bit of a question from some teams if Love is truly a max player, and with that in mind, how much more money could he even get if that max increases? LeBron would get every dollar imaginable, as would Durant, but it becomes more of a question as we go down the line. And if you're Love, is the potential for getting that extra couple million a year worth holding off signing a $100+ million deal, especially when you're not a guy making 10s of millions off the court like LBJ/KD?

Jebus.

If Love isn't a max player, then the following players are the only ones who are:

LeBron

 

[thecatch]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Will be interesting to see if the Warriors break down at some point and offer Klay in the deal, does that trigger the Wiggins offer?

History suggests that pressuring Dan Gilbert into making a short sighted decision is a solid move.

He's not the GM.

Surely you aren't suggesting Gilbert is going to leave that decision to the GM's sole discretion.

 

[Abraham]

Kevin love is a doosh, but he's getting (and worth) as much money as is allowable for a player

 

[Captain Quinoa]

History suggests that pressuring Dan Gilbert into making a short sighted decision is a solid move.

He's not the GM.

Surely you aren't suggesting Gilbert is going to leave that decision to the GM's sole discretion.

Why wouldn't he?

 

[Instinctive]

Some questions that arose in my mind reading the last few pages:

1. Is tanking actually a bad thing for the league?

2. Is parity actually a good thing? E.g. Baseball doesn't really have a ton of parity...and yet the MLB seems to be doing fine and has for a looooooong time.

 

[Frostillicus]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Since the Cap is supposed to really expand after 2016 with the new tv deal (hence LeBron doing a 2 year deal so he can get a bigger one in 2016) wouldn't it make sense for Love to play out his current deal to 2016 instead of opting out next year? I know he's trying to force a trade but he doesn't have the leverage to pick where he gets traded. I'm sure any trading partner will want him to commit to staying long term, but what if he just agrees to NOT opt out so whoever gets him will have him for this season and next. Am I wrong to think that is Love's plan? Why not wait an extra year for his new deal when he get more cash?

Interesting idea but I think there is still a bit of a question from some teams if Love is truly a max player, and with that in mind, how much more money could he even get if that max increases? LeBron would get every dollar imaginable, as would Durant, but it becomes more of a question as we go down the line. And if you're Love, is the potential for getting that extra couple million a year worth holding off signing a $100+ million deal, especially when you're not a guy making 10s of millions off the court like LBJ/KD?

Jebus.

DELUSIONAL!

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Just did a little "research" and my study shows that in every single year from 1957-1966, the NBA championship was won by the 1st pick in the draft or the 2nd pick in the draft.

Draft stays.

I'm having trouble finding many title teams without at least one top-three pick on them.

Working backwards to the merger:

SAS: Duncan 1.01

MIA: LeBron 1.01

MIA: LeBron 1.01

DAL: Kidd and Chandler 1.02

LAL: Gasol 1.03

LAL: Gasol 1.03

BOS: Garnett and Allen 1.05

SAS: Duncan 1.01

MIA: Shaq 1.01

SAS: Duncan 1.01

DET: Billups 1.03

SAS: Duncan and Robinson 1.01

LAL: Shaq 1.01

LAL: Shaq 1.01

LAL: Shaq 1.01

SAS: Duncan and Robinson 1.01

CHI: Jordan 1.03

CHI: Jordan 1.03

CHI: Jordan 1.03

HOU: Hakeem 1.01

HOU: Hakeem 1.01

CHI: Jordan, Cartwright, and McCray 1.03

CHI: Jordan, Cartwright, and Hopson 1.03

CHI: Jordan, Cartwright, and Hopson 1.03

DET: Aguirre 1.01

DET: Aguirre 1.01

LAL: Kareem, Magic, Worthy, and Thompson 1.01

LAL: Kareem, Magic, Worthy, and Thompson 1.01

BOS: Walton 1.01

LAL: Kareem, Magic, and Worthy 1.01

BOS: McHale 1.03

PHI: technically Toney 1.08 (Erving and Malone's draft history, along with everyone else drafted by the ABA before the NBA, is a bit murky)

LAL: Kareem and Magic 1.01

BOS: McHale and Robey 1.03

LAL: Kareem and Magic 1.01

SEA: Walker 1.05

WSB: Hayes 1.01

POR: Walton 1.01

 

[RUSF18]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Since the Cap is supposed to really expand after 2016 with the new tv deal (hence LeBron doing a 2 year deal so he can get a bigger one in 2016) wouldn't it make sense for Love to play out his current deal to 2016 instead of opting out next year? I know he's trying to force a trade but he doesn't have the leverage to pick where he gets traded. I'm sure any trading partner will want him to commit to staying long term, but what if he just agrees to NOT opt out so whoever gets him will have him for this season and next. Am I wrong to think that is Love's plan? Why not wait an extra year for his new deal when he get more cash?

Interesting idea but I think there is still a bit of a question from some teams if Love is truly a max player, and with that in mind, how much more money could he even get if that max increases? LeBron would get every dollar imaginable, as would Durant, but it becomes more of a question as we go down the line. And if you're Love, is the potential for getting that extra couple million a year worth holding off signing a $100+ million deal, especially when you're not a guy making 10s of millions off the court like LBJ/KD?

Jebus.

DELUSIONAL!

I could have sworn I read a lot of talk of that when the trade speculation was ramping up. I'm a big fan of Love so I stand corrected if that's not the case.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Will be interesting to see if the Warriors break down at some point and offer Klay in the deal, does that trigger the Wiggins offer?

History suggests that pressuring Dan Gilbert into making a short sighted decision is a solid move.

He's not the GM.

Surely you aren't suggesting Gilbert is going to leave that decision to the GM's sole discretion.

Some reliable folks in the press say David Griffin wanted to take Parker, but acquiesced when Gilbert told him he wanted Wiggins.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Will be interesting to see if the Warriors break down at some point and offer Klay in the deal, does that trigger the Wiggins offer?

History suggests that pressuring Dan Gilbert into making a short sighted decision is a solid move.

He's not the GM.

Surely you aren't suggesting Gilbert is going to leave that decision to the GM's sole discretion.

Some reliable folks in the press say David Griffin wanted to take Parker, but acquiesced when Gilbert told him he wanted Wiggins.

Stop

 

[No. 16]

Can someone send me a PM when the tanking talk is over? Thanks.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Some questions that arose in my mind reading the last few pages:

1. Is tanking actually a bad thing for the league?

2. Is parity actually a good thing? E.g. Baseball doesn't really have a ton of parity...and yet the MLB seems to be doing fine and has for a looooooong time.

1. Tanking hurts the on-court product and reduces the value consumers feel they get viewing the on-court product, especially those who bought a ticket to attend the game in person. Tanking probably helps year-round interest in the league, increasing interest in the draft and other offseason acquisitions, keeping the NBA in the sports news cycle when the league isn't staging games.

2. A lack of competitive balance hurts long-run broad interest in the product. What the NFL calls parity is IMO as much a function of the small sample size of a 16-game season compared to 80+ in NBA/NHL and 162 in MLB as measures to keep teams even.

 

[thecatch]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Will be interesting to see if the Warriors break down at some point and offer Klay in the deal, does that trigger the Wiggins offer?

History suggests that pressuring Dan Gilbert into making a short sighted decision is a solid move.

He's not the GM.

Surely you aren't suggesting Gilbert is going to leave that decision to the GM's sole discretion.

Some reliable folks in the press say David Griffin wanted to take Parker, but acquiesced when Gilbert told him he wanted Wiggins.

Stop

You're right, Gilbert would never issue an absurd and emotional win now directive to his management team.

 

[GOB]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

He wrote it from the Cavs perspective, but he outlined why Minnesota should wait and not deal now. I almost think Frosty wrote this article.

Agree with that. Unless Love becomes a locker room concern, which I doubt, both sides should be sticking to their guns.

Since the Cap is supposed to really expand after 2016 with the new tv deal (hence LeBron doing a 2 year deal so he can get a bigger one in 2016) wouldn't it make sense for Love to play out his current deal to 2016 instead of opting out next year? I know he's trying to force a trade but he doesn't have the leverage to pick where he gets traded. I'm sure any trading partner will want him to commit to staying long term, but what if he just agrees to NOT opt out so whoever gets him will have him for this season and next. Am I wrong to think that is Love's plan? Why not wait an extra year for his new deal when he get more cash?

Interesting idea but I think there is still a bit of a question from some teams if Love is truly a max player, and with that in mind, how much more money could he even get if that max increases? LeBron would get every dollar imaginable, as would Durant, but it becomes more of a question as we go down the line. And if you're Love, is the potential for getting that extra couple million a year worth holding off signing a $100+ million deal, especially when you're not a guy making 10s of millions off the court like LBJ/KD?

Jebus.

And they call us the delusional ones.

 

[Frostillicus]

Bob Finnan ‏@BobCavsinsider 9m

More


Cleveland Cavaliers now willing to include Wiggins in Kevin Love trade offer http://bit.ly/1jCywgN

 

[Frostillicus]

The latest offer could include Wiggins, power forward Anthony Bennett and a first-round pick. Center Brendan Haywood might be included in the deal to make it work contractually.

 

[Bobcat10]

Bob Finnan ‏@BobCavsinsider 9m More
Cleveland Cavaliers now willing to include Wiggins in Kevin Love trade offer http://bit.ly/1jCywgN

Cavs blinked.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

You're right, Gilbert would never issue an absurd and emotional win now directive to his management team.

huh?

 

[Frostillicus]

I can't breathe.

 

[biggamer3]

The latest offer could include Wiggins, power forward Anthony Bennett and a first-round pick. Center Brendan Haywood might be included in the deal to make it work contractually.

Frosty man, I would like nothing more than the T Wolves getting Wiggins AND other assets. But if those idiots really give you guys more than just Wiggins they do not understand what leverage actually means.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I can't breathe.

De

Spoiler

lusional

 

[Spartans Rule]

Some questions that arose in my mind reading the last few pages:

1. Is tanking actually a bad thing for the league?

2. Is parity actually a good thing? E.g. Baseball doesn't really have a ton of parity...and yet the MLB seems to be doing fine and has for a looooooong time.

1. Yes.

2. Baseball has way more parity than the NBA. In the past 30 NBA seasons, 8 different franchises have won a title, compared with 18 unique World Series winners in the last 30 MLB seasons.

In the last 5 years of MLB, 28 of the 30 teams have had at least one winning season. The two that haven't are the New York Mets and Houston Astros - not exactly small markets.

 

[RUSF18]

Appreciate news coming out that changes the subject away from my dumb comment!

 

[Frostillicus]

Here's what I'm now picturing:

Flip calls whoever is in charge over at Golden State:

Flip: "Cleveland said they'll include Wiggins in a deal for Love."

Golden State guy: "Ok fine. We'll give you Klay, Barnes, and Lee."

Flip: "Deal."

 

[Bobcat10]

Lebron gets what he wants. No doubt this is a factor here.

The Cavs will be chucking up a million 3's this year....and they are still hot after Ray Ray.

 

[Daywalker]

Here's what I'm now picturing:

Flip calls whoever is in charge over at Golden State:

Flip: "Cleveland said they'll include Wiggins in a deal for Love."

Golden State guy: "Ok fine. We'll give you Klay, Barnes, and Lee."

Flip: "Deal."

And then Love just says no I'd like to play with Lebron.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Lebron gets what he wants. No doubt this is a factor here.

The Cavs will be chucking up a million 3's this year....and they are still hot after Ray Ray.

An Irving, Allen, Miller, LeBron and Love lineup would be pretty awesome to watch.

 

[Frostillicus]

Here's what I'm now picturing:

Flip calls whoever is in charge over at Golden State:

Flip: "Cleveland said they'll include Wiggins in a deal for Love."

Golden State guy: "Ok fine. We'll give you Klay, Barnes, and Lee."

Flip: "Deal."

And then Love just says no I'd like to play with Lebron.

I meant that Flip is going to #### this up because he's got a hard on for Klay. Wiggins needs to be the trade if it's actually offered.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Bob Finnan ‏@BobCavsinsider 9m More
Cleveland Cavaliers now willing to include Wiggins in Kevin Love trade offer http://bit.ly/1jCywgN

Cavs blinked.

A month ago if I asked 'Would you be happy going into next season with Lebron, Love, and Kyrie?' what would your answer have been?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Here's what I'm now picturing:

Flip calls whoever is in charge over at Golden State:

Flip: "Cleveland said they'll include Wiggins in a deal for Love."

Golden State guy: "Ok fine. We'll give you Klay, Barnes, and Lee."

Flip: "Deal."

And then Love just says no I'd like to play with Lebron.

And Flip says well then you can sign there next year, but for now you are being traded to the Warriors

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Ray Richardson @twolvesnow 4 minutes ago
LeBron James wants to play with #Twolves Kevin Love, and therefore, Andrew Wiggins is now available, according to @Bob Finnan's source.
Shocker