ZoomSlowik

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 01:21 PM) I'm following the non-fantasy land argument. The market sets the rate, and the market is going to go after these players. And the premise of the article was that there is a center bubble, that centers are getting more money than they already have. If there is a bidding war for centers, what do you think will happen in the NBA, with some owners that want to win now? Do you really think an owner that wants to win now won't pay big money to get the best center available, can you ever think of examples of owners paying more than players are worth? Gasol is by far the best option. No s*** that Tyson Chandler is a great defensive player, but he's also an injury prone defensive-only player. He can get alley-oops. He can get a put back. He cannot do anything else offensively. And he's getting paid a lot of money for one side of the court. Now you have a center with a legitimate all-around offensive game and good D that's 7'1", young and has stayed remarkably healthy for a center. And he's a free agent. And he's a center (x3). If all centers are getting a higher rate because of the rarity of their skills, then the best center in a market run by billionaire fans is going to get paid, and paid well. The premise of the article is predicting things that haven't happened yet, so its validity is highly questionable. This center with "a legitimate all-around offensive game" also scored a whopping 1.6 more points than Chandler last year in more minutes. He's only been in the league for three years so that's not much of a history of being "remarkably healthy". And "center" has become a highly flexible term when guys like Amare and Andrea Bargnani are playing there. You could also argue fairly convincingly that Nene is just as good as Gasol, so it's not a "Gasol or nothing" proposition. Let's also keep in mind that a max offer to Gasol is 4-73. Yeah, that's $18.575 million a year on average. I can also point to a handful of big men that are paid significantly less than the max that are superior to Gasol. Guys like Horford, Aldridge and Noah. Admittedly they signed extensions which removes the "market value" factor a bit. You're also missing the point on what I was ranting about. He may or may not get it depending on the whims of inept management. I'm arguing Simmons' "properly paid" comment at the end of the article. If he does get it he'll be highly overpaid, not properly paid.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 12:39 PM) In a smaller sample size with less minutes. You are just ignoring the point that we have a league where tyson chandler was given 6 for 64 when he was injury prone and has no real offensive game. Centers get paid a lot of money. Add to that teams looking to add size, an increased salary floor, and one of the few centers with an offensive game and knees and a back that haven't broken every season, and you will see a team pay him a lot. Remember ... rudy gay is making the maximum. You really seem to like the "this guy is overpaid so Gasol should be even more overpaid" argument, and for some reason you seem to like bringing up good perimeter players that can score a lot more in comparisons too. $11 million is a far cry from the $16 million+ average that you're giving Gasol. Tyson is also a much better rebounder and defender than Gasol as he proved this year. That $11 million is probably what Gasol is "worth". Paying a guy like him more than that is why we just had a lockout (not that it seems to have mattered). There are at least a dozen big men that can give you as much or more than Gasol does, probably more. Giving non-elite players a max contract is how you hurt you get stuck in NBA hell (not good enough to contend but too good to significantly improve through the draft). Also, 69 games is still a pretty damn big sample size, and he still played about 32 MPG. PER is also a rate stat, which wouldn't be affected.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) He's also a very good passer, is only 26, with a good injury history and has gotten better every year. Um, no he hasn't. Last year he put up 14-9 on a better field goal percentage and a much higher PER, which still isn't a max-deal type big man unless you're really desperate. People also still worry about his weight, which was a huge issue when he first came into the league. Expecting Gasol to give you elite production is a good way to win 30 games.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 11:56 AM) I disagree. There are so many more players that can get you Joe Johnson production than can get you Gasol production. I think you're overrating Gasol a fair amount. He averaged 12 points and 7 rebounds last year with solid but not spectacular defense. Since when is 12-7 worth a max contract? There aren't THAT few quality big men out there that his contributions are more rare than a player that can shoot, score 20 points a game, and distribute the ball with reasonable efficiency.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 11:10 AM) It's never been the right answer, but it goes to show the league isn't far from the one that just paid joe johnson a max. I'd put gasol at more worthy of a max than JJ. Meh, Joe Johnson is probably a #2 on a contender, though he's coming off a pretty bad year. The bigger problem with him is it was his second contract, so his "max" is more like $20 million a year than $15 million.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 10:27 AM) I think you guys are underestimating how much Marc Gasol will make. There just are not very many centers worth a s*** right now. There have never been enough centers to go around to make everyone in the league happy. That doesn't mean throwing a truckload of money at a guy that isn't better than a #3 on a contender (Strangely enough, Simmons says that in the same article while concluding that he's worth a max deal. huh?) is the right answer.

QUOTE (kev211 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 09:24 PM) I briefly skimmed both but I am pretty sure Bill was trying to say that NBA GM's and owners specifically are idiots for having a lock-out and then throwing this kind of money around after the lockout trying to prevent that. He doesn't think they should earn that and is laughing at the owners for doing it. Then again I just skimmed them so I could be totally off. That's partially it, but he also made numerous comments when he thought someone would be ridiculously overpaid and didn't on those guys. In fact, at the end of the article he had "properly paid" for Gasol.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 07:43 PM) In a 12 or 16 team playoff, are you people using the bowl system? Are you using home games? Neutral site games? I imagine tickets would be tough to sell if you didn't do home games. People don't have the time and cash to travel across the country every weekend, especially if they think their team can advance and make it further. They'd save up for the NC game. If you're an LSU fan, are you traveling somewhere to watch a 1-16 game? Are you traveling for a 1-8 game? Just food for thought. Good point. I would imagine first round home games for the higher seed as a reward for a good regular season, but under a 12-team format the bye AND home could be a little too big an edge. Definitely a logistical issue.

I used to think that Bill Simmons knew what he was talking about, then I read the last two articles in his "12 Days of NBA Christmas" series. Marc Gasol is a max player? Tyson Chandler is going to get $15 mil a year? Aaron Afflalo is worth $12.5 million a year? Either NBA GM's are brain-dead zombies and the lockout was pointless, or Bill is high. Both seem possible.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 01:58 PM) I said several posts back that I favored giving 8 auto bids to conference champions. In most years that's the BCS conferences plus the MWC and either WAC or CUSA, but an undefeated MAC or SBC team would probably crack the Top 8, and I'm not really interested in seeing any MAC or SBC team in a playoff if they aren't undefeated. Of course, TCU is headed to the Big 12 and it looks like Boise St, San Diego St, and Houston among others to the Big East is almost final, so there may not be any worthwhile teams outside the BCS conferences anymore anyway. Yeah, that's why I didn't propose a number for conferences I'd give auto-bids, you just don't know what they're all going to look like. I'm not even a fan of auto-bids period because the worst auto-bid is probably going to be worse than several of the "wildcards", but I realize that's the only way you're going to get the major conferences to buy in to the system. In a theoretical system, I'd like to see the 5/6 conferences that merit AQ status still getting them, the top-2 non-AQ teams getting in and the rest be wildcards. Just nothing that guarantees one or more current non-AQ conference members with 2 or more losses getting in.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) If the minor conference teams are just going to be counted out before the season starts, then they shouldn't be considered Division I to begin with. There's a difference between totally eliminating them from consideration and giving them an auto-bid to the playoffs. This isn't like the NCAA tournament when pretty much every major conference team that had a remotely decent year gets in as well, you'd be taking their champion over a lot of quality teams every single year. If one of them runs the table, fine, give them a chance to get stomped by Alabama. But there has to be some kind of minimum qualifier for getting into this thing. It doesn't just apply to the non-BCS teams either, we've seen some teams from the Big East and ACC make the BCS in recent years that probably wouldn't have deserved a shot to win it all.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 02:13 AM) The playoff system would be easy: 11 conference champions and 5 wild card teams. Shorten the regular season to 10 or 11 games if you have to, and do that. Very similar to what 1-AA did before expanding their playoffs last season. The system would make such an incredible amount of money, and in that sense, I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet. I can tell you this much, if NIU were getting ready to play at Alabama in the 1st round of the tournament right now, I'd be incredibly excited. Even with the knowledge that we had absolutely no shot at winning the game. In the meantime though, I'll just hope for a plus 1. Baby steps. 11 conference champs would mean that you're taking the Sun Belt and WAC winners too, not just decent leagues like the Mountain West and MAC. Could you imagine the s***-storm that would result from an 8-4 Louisiana Tech team making the playoffs instead of a 10-2 South Carolina team just because they "won their conference"? It's already bad enough with teams like Clemson and West Virginia get in ahead of them, it just gets a lot worse when the kind of team that the big boys schedule as a gift win gets in before them.

I have a feeling the Bulls are going to blow it by not agreeing to the Deng/Turkoglu part of the trade that would likely be required.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Dec 4, 2011 -> 04:10 PM) I think Luka Mirkovic is a double agent working against Northwestern. Man he sucks. Pretty much everyone sucked today. Baylor is just exponentially more athletic and the Cats weren't hitting the handful of open shots they did get. On the plus side, they're not going to see a team that's nearly that long and athletic again this year.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Dec 3, 2011 -> 07:14 PM) Best offer I've seen mooted so far is the Clippers offering Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman + MIN's unprotected 2012 1st rounder. Don't think the Bulls could beat that, even with including Noah. EDIT: And I've also seen the names of DeAndre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe mooted. I'd be very surprised if Gordon is included, though some of those other pieces are nice (especially that Minny pick in what should be a loaded draft).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2011 -> 03:40 PM) Clearly the teams out there know that, which is why the phrase "Sign and trade" is involved. Okay, so then you have to give up an actual asset in order to convince Denver to give up a guy that they supposedly like.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 3, 2011 -> 01:57 PM) I must be the only Bulls fan who doesn't want to gut the roster for Dwight Howard. Much rather get Arron Afflalo without having to lose Noah, Deng and Gibson while being forced to absorb Hedo Turkoglu. You're not terribly likely to get Afflalo for the MLE since Denver can match any offer and has a ton of cap space.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 3, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) I like TT quite a bit. But the bold is ridiculous. It will be even more ridiculous if the Heat can land one of Prince/Battier as has been rumored. I'd be more worried if they got an upgrade at PG or a center that doesn't do things like this: The wing is the one place they're fairly set with Lebron/Wade playing 40 minutes a game and Miller around as well (at least in theory).

I guess I'll post it before someone else does: Noah, Charlotte's pick, another first rounder and whatever salary filler is needed. I think they'd probably demand adding a Deng/Turkoglu swap until they get desperate unfortunately.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 09:28 PM) The Big East/SEC one would have been entertaining if they set up the right matchups. Yes, Cuse/Florida and Louisville/Vandy are nice games, but instead of adding an epic Kentucky/UConn game and another solid one with Pitt/Alabama we get those last four teams playing games they should win by double digits. Guess I underestimated Georgetown a bit.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 03:54 PM) The Knicks have literally nothing to trade for CP. Even if he somehow ends up in NY, his health is on the decline. He hasn't missed as many games as I thought but that Big 3 isn't nearly as intimidating as Lebron and Wade. You're right on both counts. They gave up pretty much every asset to get Carmelo and because they paid Melo and Amare a full max, they can't offer Paul one as well even if they gut their roster. The Knicks also aren't nearly as scary, in part because the Heat probably have the two best players, in part because their D is a lot weaker and in part because they would have even less around their stars than the Heat have. The only way you could REALLY put a scare in the current top teams IMO is if you could pair Dwight with an elite perimeter player or two.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 03:45 PM) The Spurs also had Robinson then Duncan. Robinson played a huge role in 99, but that's not in the last decade. He was far from a star for their first title of the 2000's and gone after.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) You could argue the Mavs last season only had Dirk as a true superstar. Kidd, Marion and Peja all could be considered former superstars, but they were really just there for the Dirk show last season. You could add Butler to that list too, and Jason Terry has been consistently solid. But yes, they had Dirk and a lot of solid role players. That team is pretty much impossible to build for most franchises though. Just look at the size of all of those contracts, and they don't win that ring without still adding Tyson Chandler on top of those guys.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 03:30 PM) The last 10 years has there been a single team with only 1 superstar, or at least...star? Basically we only have the pistons with Billups, but Wallace was far and away the best d center at the time. I wouldn't go that far about Wallace, but the Pistons were at least somewhat of an exception. They had four fringe All-Star types at the time that gained more noteriety after that title and a very good defense. The Spurs were also an exception depending on how you define "star". They grabbed Parker and Ginobili late in the draft and they both developed while winning. I wouldn't call Parker or Ginobili superstars, though Manu has been one of the better SG's for a while and Parker has always been pretty solid. That type of team might actually be harder to build because you have to find a few really solid players without splurging too much financially. Detroit pretty much picked Billups, Hamilton and Big Ben off the scrap heap and got Wallace in trade largely because he's a head case and as I mentioned, the Spurs drafted Parker and Manu pretty late from the foreign ranks.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) I got the impression that what they agreed to wont really eliminate the creation of "big 3s". A hard cap might have done that. I dont think the new CBA will really fix the competitive balance issue the NBA is having, and it will only get worse. You can't really have true competitive balance in the NBA. Either you have a superstar player that can carry you deep into the playoffs or you don't.