The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

There's a lot of talk about how Durant stacked the odds by going to a championship-caliber team.  But even if you consider that Curry and Durant are locks for the Hall of Fame, and even if you grant that there are two more HOFers somewhere on the Warriors, that's the same number of HOFers that were on Bird's Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ)... and that's not including a late-career Bill Walton.

So why are players criticized for playing on a team that's no less stacked than some of the '80s teams?  Answer: because the players have figured out that they are better GMs than most of the GMs.

It wasn't Pat Riley that sold LBJ and Bosh on Miami, it was Wade.
It wasn't [whoever the hell is GM in Cleveland] that put together the Cavs, it was LeBron.  And it wasn't the GM who replaced Blatt with Lue, and it wasn't the GM who decided to keep Tristan Thompson, who was key in their title last year.  That was all LeBron.
And it wasn't Bob Myers (Warriors' GM) who brought KD to Oakland.  That was Draymond and Steph.

Unless you are the Spurs, it's the players who are building championship teams right now.  I don't think it's a coincidence that people raise all sorts of objections to these great teams when it's labor (instead of management) calling their own shots.

It's ruined the sport. Non-competitive games throughout the year and playoffs. It's less than 12 hours after this season ended and next year you can write in pen Golden St vs Cleveland again in next years finals. That's not good for business. There is no realistic offseason move or moves that can change that or stop that from happening. No team can add a piece or two (realistically with the salary cap in place) that will upset that apple-cart.

There is literally no reason to watch these games as everyone knows who is going to win. This will in time (it hasn't yet but it will) catch up with the league.

I don't think the current climate is good for the NBA but that is just a personal opinion. I don't fault Golden State for the team they have built, it is fair under the rules of the game. I personally just have no interest in what the NBA is offering right now. I watched less than the length of one game combined of the finals this year because I knew the outcome (barring injury) since Durant signed.

As for players taking the role of GM, which is the main topic, we have seen this development for a while. A top level NBA player has a lot more power than players in other sports based on simple math (the number of players in the game and the effect a single one can have). That is just the nature of the sport.

Aside from keeping an eye on what my Suns are doing (answer: not much), I really have no interest in the NBA these days. As far as building the super teams...that's part of it, I suppose, but mostly it's just that the game isn't appealing to me.

I just don't hear anyone saying how terrible the '80s were because the Lakers and Celtics were dominating.  In fact, rather the opposite: Magic and Bird are repeatedly referred to as the league's saviors.

Seems like the main difference is that the players are orchestrating it now instead of the GMs.

Being a Laker fan, you will never hear me complain about that era.  ;)

I think an extension of your player/GM thing is the advent of free agency, which isn't a bad thing. Previously players were stuck with teams and I don't think that is right (although I am nostalgic on the days of seeing stars stay in one place). The one downside, the NBA draft is basically useless. Small market teams lose their upcoming players as soon as contracts come up and big market teams just look for already established players.

Well, it isn't just free agency, or even the salary cap; the real key is max  player contracts. There's no way you would be able to get close to a superteam if players could be paid their actual market value, but management is dumb and has to be forcibly prevented from giving a 500 million dollar contact to players like DeMarcus Cousins.

Aw, come on...Boogie is worth every penny!!  ;D

So let me get this straight a superstar player can either (1) try to get max salary with no regard if his contract prevents the team from being able to build a supporting cast or (2) take less money so that the team can afford a few other superstar players that care more about winning than getting every possible nickel.  In MLB and NFL it is extremely rare for a player to choose option 2, although Brady does that to a limited extent.  IMHO I respect some one that cares more about being on a winning team than one who would prefer the extra cash.

Big difference is those teams had tough battles inside their conference to get to the finals. Boston was pushed by Philly, Detroit, Atlanta. LA was pushed by Houston among others in the west. They didn't have cakewalks to the Finals. Playoff games had meaning. The regular season games had meaning! The eastern conference is a joke to the point Cleveland didn't care if they had home court advantage and didn't try to get it. Golden St didn't lose 1 playoff game in playoffs till the finals. The outcomes are predictable, the games have zero juice, its boring and dull.

LA and Boston built their dynasty's through the draft and trades. Where the teams had to give something to land a player.  The "super-teams" we see today aren't that. They are players saying I don't want the pressure to have to win on my own or want to put in the time to have a team built up to be a contender. Let me take less money, have less responsibility and pressure, and join a team where its guaranteed I will win. To me that is the cowards way out and why guys from this generation will never be seen in the same light as the all time greats that came before. Plus it kills the sport.

Durant was on a team that was almost in the Finals last year. His team was loaded the reason they didn't close out Golden State once up 3-1 on them is because of him and he choked. Instead of saying lets come back and get them next year(like a competitor would) he took the easy way out and joined a 73 win team and got a ring the easy way.  Wasn't like Durant was running away from a bad team, he was on a GREAT team that won 55 games and was up 3 games to 1 on Golden St in the western conference finals and then HE CHOKED! He took the easy way out. If Durant was on the Knicks a last place team and said I want a chance to win, it would be somewhat understandable what he did. But that wasn't his situation. It also wasn't Lebron's either when he bolted to Miami so he is no better in my book.

It kills the sport, its no fun. 3/4 of NBA cities have teams that know they have zero shot to even be competitive let alone good.  That will kill the fan base in cities slowly over time. The NBA is just predictable and that isn't good for long-term health.

Difference between now and basketball's hay day is now too many teams make the playoffs.  In NFL and MLB the regular season matters.  In NBA and NHL you just have to be average or better to make the playoffs.

There is no reason to watch either sport in the regular season. The NBA especially where now guys (the stars) taking random nights off is the norm because they are "tired". Wusses!

From 1984-1989, PHI won exactly two playoff series.  Both were in the first round.
During the entire '80s, ATL never made it past the second round.
HOU is the only Western Conference team you can cite, as LAL won the WC 8 times during the '80s.  They played a grand total of TWO Game 7s in the Western Conference over the entire decade (both in '88).  Meanwhile, they swept their opponent in eleven different series, and lost only 1 game an additional seven times.  The Western Conference was not competitive in the '80s.  At all.

Even if you are super generous and include the Rockets as a relevant team in the '80s, that means that five teams made the Finals during that decade.  At no point were more than 3 of them any good.  How is that any better than Warriors/Cavs/Spurs now?  Are we really supposed to believe that 'Nique's Hawks were a quality team, but the CP3/Blake/DJ Clippers or the Harden Rockets or the KD/Russ Thunder have not been?

The only difference between the '80/'90s and today is that people look back on teams back then that never won anything with one HOFer (e.g. ATL, POR, PHX, IND, NYK, SEA) and consider them Tough Competition.  But when it comes to today, any team that hasn't won a title (and even some that have!) is completely irrelevant and not worth mentioning.  It's an absurd double standard.

GS was down 3-1 last year against OKC (and won), then up 3-1 against CLE (and lost).  That is not boring and predictable.

The Sixers lost one game in the '83 playoffs.  Did that mean the entire league was boring and dull then, too?  One year is one year.

All of LA and Boston's "building" occurred prior to the salary cap era.
The salary cap is a far more significant restriction than anything they faced.

Yeah, I remember when Gary Payton and Karl Malone joined a team 1 year removed from a title to get a ring "the easy way."
I also remember when LeBron went to Miami with Bosh to join Wade and win a ring "the easy way."  And then when he went to Cleveland with Kyrie and Kevin Love to win "the easy way."
Sometimes "the easy way" isn't quite so easy. 

I just had a conversation with the guy at the gas station yesterday about how the Orlando City Soccer Club and its fans have overtaken the Orlando Magic and the reasons behind it.

But there is a big difference between the leagues in that it is not uncommon in the NHL for an 8 seed to knock off a 1 seed. Playoff hockey is the great equalizer and ranks up there as one of the great sporting events of the year.

All three of these teams went to the finals and two won it a year later. I think you need better examples of finding the hard way.

Do people really enjoy watching a postseason where seeds are totally irrelevant and the outcomes are virtually random?  I mean, if you want to talk about a meaningless regular season, watching a playoff where the second round is the 4-6-7-8 seeds makes the regular season (and home advantage) a complete joke.

The entire argument is not that these teams are really good (really good teams exist in almost every era), but that they are So Overwhelmingly Unbeatable that the entire season and postseason are a mere formality for their coronation.  But that can't be true if they lose.

So when people are complaining about how Everyone Knew the Warriors were going to win the title back in July... well, everyone also knew that the Lakers and Heat and Cavs were going to win when they formed their superteams.  And then they lost.  And everyone also knew that the Warriors were going to win last year.  And then they lost.

Hindsight is 20/20.

If you prefer what you see in the NBA more power to you but I've seen the majority of people here state they don't have any interest. I'm among them. Maybe there is a silent majority but most people I know personally also found the NBA boring and uninteresting this year.

That said, I will reiterate that I live in a city that has more support for its MLS team than its NBA team. Vamos Orlando!

Nice Cherry Pick on the dates.  Philly played the Lakers for the Championship in 1980, 1982, and 1983.  They swept the Lakers in '83 for the Championship win.

Not surprising. Lots of cities like Orlando out there that know the day after the season ends they have no shot for next season. That is bad for the sport. Why would fans invest money in a sport like that? And Orlando is the perfect example as they don't have an NHL team, or a MLB team, or a NFL team. So the Magic are the cities biggest franchise. The NBA needs that franchise to be strong to keep their presence in the city strong.

If the Knicks, Lakers, or Bulls suck who cares those cities have multiple teams in other major sports. But the cities like Orlando, Sacramento, Portland, Memphis (just to name a few)...those teams are the big game in town and to kill off cities like that is really bad for the NBA. They can kill off a city/town and those towns may never recover to the point where the fans come back.  Cities that have multiple major league sports franchises the fans can float from sport to sport with their entertainment dollar and will jump on the bandwagon when the team is good. In cities where you have one big-time team in town and you piss those people off, they go away and never come back if you look at history.

Thank you! That was my point. Philly was a top flight franchise in the early 80's that pushed Boston all year in the eastern conference. What we don't see today in the NBA. Meaningful games

LA beat Boston for the title in 2010.
Dallas won the title in 2011.
Miami won in 2012 and 2013.
San Antonio played for the title in 2013, won in 2014, and has averaged over 60 wins per season for this decade.
But apparently none of those teams count because CLE and GS have made the Finals for three years in a row.

Don't talk to me about cherry picking.  The entire basis of the anti-today argument revolves around discarding the first half of this decade.  Apply that same logic to the '80s and Philly doesn't even exist.

How do fans in Jacksonville, Buffalo, or Cleveland feel about the NFL?
What about MLB fans in San Diego, Miami, Seattle, or Oakland?

It's hard to complain about how predetermined the NBA is when the same three QBs (Brady, Peyton, Big Ben) have represented the AFC in all but one of the last 14 Super Bowls.  But the Warriors have made the Finals 3 years in a row, so the NBA is broken.

Actually, that Miami run and team is what started this discussion about players jumping to super teams so you may want to rethink using that example as that should be the starting point rather than anything before it.

The NBA has been broken since Jordan, Malone, Barkley, Miller, etc. retired.  There are all of about 3 NBA players today that you might be able to put in their category when they retire, and they all played in the Finals this year.

Well first off, Boston was an example of a big three team-up before Miami, and Boston losing to LA in 2010 was the first example I cited to start off this decade.  But I suppose you can exclude that one if you wish?  Miami still lost to Dallas in 2011 so you are only removing one year from the record.

Even if we exclude 2010, the armchair historians are still pretending that the Celtics were never a contender because Miami beat them in 7, that the Spurs have been irrelevant in this decade even though they've won a title and averaged 60+ wins every year, that Dallas doesn't count because they only beat a superteam once, that OKC, HOU, and LAC all don't count as competitors even though they've all eliminated the Spurs.


Miller was the last of that group to retire, in 2005.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you aren't talking about anyone that played in the '90s (e.g. Shaq, Kobe, Duncan).  So I guess you're saying that Wade, Kawhi, CP3, Westbrook, Kyrie, Harden... none of them are on the level of Reggie Miller?

I find it amazing that people have all this reverence for '90s players who never won anything, yet treat players from today like garbage even if they have won a title.

It's called competitive balance. In the 90's you had multiple good teams who entered each season with a legit shot to win a championship. The Knicks pushed the Bulls every year to the limit and made them earn it. Before that Bulls pushed the Pistons to have them earn it. In that 90's decade other teams like the Pacers and Heat were good enough where if someone like Jordan was never born they could have maybe won rings in that time-frame as well. Out west you had teams like Utah with two hall of famers who was an elite team of that era but just came up short to maybe the greatest team to ever play. Houston won it all twice when Jordan left and was still a top team when he returned. Orlando was a powerhouse back in the 90's. Every great player in the 90's didn't run to one or two teams like they do now. Each conference was deep with talented teams that "could" win it all but they ran into a machine in Jordan. 

Today's game you have 2 teams, that's it 2 teams and every "star" or "big name" player tries to get on one of those two teams. Carmelo and Chris Paul have already been seen house shopping in Cleveland...lol. I mean its a joke.  And the last 3 years we have had the same finals and next year it will be Golden St vs Cleveland  again unless their team planes crash at some point and wipe out the team out. Joking of course but not really that is the only way one of those teams don't make the finals next year.  There isn't a team in the east that will come close to Cleveland next year. I don't care who Boston drafts and if they sign a big-time free agent to boot, they aren't anywhere near Cleveland's level. And out west forget it.....Golden St could lose Curry or Durant for the season and they still will have a cakewalk through the western conference.

More respect for a guy in the 90's who never won a title cause he didn't take the easy way out to try and get on the Bulls than I do for someone like Durant who was already on a good team, CHOKED in the 2016 palyoffs so he waived the white flag and joined a 73 win team to get an easy ring which he didn't have to do much to earn. So yeah...reverence for the guy who didn't take the short-cut to get a ring! Props to them!

If you would take Barkley off that list, I would have an easier time buying in... Barkley is the most overrated "NBA star" player in the last 50 years. His entire game was based on one thing...putting his fat ass on another player and backing them into the post.

You have to exclude them from this if you ask me. Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett were traded to Boston, the way the old teams were built, they did not run there as free agents. Maimi started the super team discussion.

In all fairness the guy was the MVP and had a terrific series. Don't let your feelings about how he got to Golden State cloud your judgement of what he did while there.

GS won a championship without him and they were up 3-1 last year and if Green doesn't get suspended they probably win last year as well. GS was winning it all this year with or without Durant let's just keep it real

I'll give you Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, but that's when things started to run down...to me, those three were the last of the greats...nice cherry picking on Miller though, because Wade, Kawhi, CP3, Westbrook, Kyrie, Harden couldn't sniff the others I mentioned jock strap.

Well, would you consider Shaq overrated, because his whole game was being way bigger and stronger than everyone else.  Not much skill really, everyone knows about his free throws.

The Knicks were a thoroughly mediocre team that would get crushed by the Clippers of today.  Who was the second best player on the Knicks... John Starks?  Mark Jackson?  Who was the second-best player on Reggie's Pacers teams?

The most damning indictment of any of the supposed "good teams" of the 90s is: what did they do during either of Jordan's retirements?  That's right, nothing.  The Knicks and Pacers were two mediocre teams that kept getting in each other's way.  The '90s Heat were even worse!  Stockton and Malone were teammates for over a decade before their first trip to the Finals!

The only other "good team" of the '90s was Hakeem's Rockets.  That's it.  Two good teams during the entire decade, and they were never good at the same time.  The fact that you describe a bunch of teams with 1 Finals appearance in the decade as "powerhouses" is silly.

If you think Wade and Kawhi can't "sniff the jockstrap" of Barkley and Malone, I have to question which sport you have been watching.

Yes, Orlando is a very long shot to win the NBA, but Dolphins have almost no shot at winning the Super Bowl.  All but the most unrealistic homers would consider winning a single playoff game to be the ceiling. and I dare say that has been their preseason expectations for over a decade,

In the NFL we have seen teams come out of nowhere to win it all, happens alot actually. Plus as we saw in 2008 if Brady goes down the Pats are no lock to win anything. Keep being that Pats troll to come here every day and tell us how much Miami sucks. Some life you must lead

In the NBA if GS lost their start they are still gonna be the best team in the league.

Report just came out  Lebron to sign with Clippers or Lakers according to sources.

So once that happens the NBA Finals truly do become worthless TV as the teams in the East have zero shot to win. But hey Boston can build up their resume and get another Finals appearance, a loss but they will be back.

He is saying that there isn't much difference between the Miami Dolphins' chances to win the Super Bowl and the Orlando Magic's chances to win the NBA Finals.  So why aren't the NFL fans in Miami just as indifferent about the next season as the NBA fans in Orlando?

The NFL has a track record of teams coming out of no place to win it all or make a deep playoff run where they almost win it all. Atlanta 2015 was 8-8, last year was in the Super Bowl and close to winning it all. Carolina same deal the year before. Want to go back further the 99 Rams another example. The Pats have lost in the playoffs before as well they are no lock to get to the SB every year.

The comparison is goofy and you guys are grasping at straws. Teams in the NFL go from last to first or being totally bad to making a run to a conference championship game all the time. 09 Jets. The examples are endless. In the NBA THESE DAYS that doesn't happen. You know what is going to happen and baring a plan crash it does

You mean like when the Cavaliers picked first in the draft and were in the next Finals all of three years ago?  Let me guess: doesn't count because they signed a great player in free agency.

Perhaps you mean when a Golden State team that hadn't been past the second round in 30 years wound up winning 73 games 2 years later without adding a single starter?

The Jets went from finishing 9-7 in '08 to... finishing 9-7 in '09 and losing the conference championship game, and you're citing them as a miracle Cinderella story?  If simply playing in your conference championship round counts as "competing" then there are FAR more teams with a shot in the NBA than the NFL!

Bingo! Correct it doesn't count

I don't have a problem with your general point of view on the topic, and actually agree with you generally.  BUT don't talk about the entire 80's decade in your post, then limit Philly to the half of the decade when Dr. J and the team were on the way out.  That's the definition of cherry picking stats to suit your argument, but you know that already.

Every single person who is saying "the NBA is only two teams" is throwing out the first half of this decade, so I am merely using the same standard.
If we include the entire 80s, then we add exactly 1 team (PHI) to the number of NBA Finalists during the 80s.  Meanwhile, if we include the entire 2010s (which isn't finished yet), we go from 2 NBA Finalists to 8.

The first half of this decade was ok. The current status of the league (only 2 teams that have a shot to win and have a cakewalk to the Finals) is awful and moving forward looks like it will only get worse with the way things are going and the stockpiling of talent onto just 1 or 2 teams will kill the league.

Sure if you live in Oakland/Bay Area or Cleveland (replace Cleveland with LA soon if Lebron jumps) of course you will see nothing wrong with the current status of the league. You are one of the 2 cities gifted with an NBA team who has a shot and your opinion/judgment on this topic is clouded by that. For the rest of the country that has a city with an NBA team the NBA is hurting and will continue to hurt and get worse as because you have franchises with zero shot to win and be competitive. 

At any given point during the '80s, there were at most three teams with a serious chance to win the title.
One team won 6 titles in the '90s.
The '80s and '90s are considered the most successful and important era in NBA history.

A top-heavy NBA is not a problem.

Perhaps the quest for determining the truth should hold itself to a higher standard?

Just sayin'...

I don't think the current two or three year dominance of the Dubs and Cleveland are that big of a deal, it's mostly just media hype.  As stated the Bulls were dominate for a period with Jordan, The Celtics were dominant in the 60's & 80's.  Things could change very quickly at Golden State if all the players want to get paid and they can't fit it under the cap (Curry is grossly underpaid).  The Celtics are poised for another resurgence in the next couple years if things go right.  There's already talk of Lebron leaving for L.A. in two years.  I think the current criticism of the players is just because it's all new to the way things have been done.  My only question is are any rules being broken or flouted by players "colluding" to play for a certain team??  For example in the NFL a team is breaking major rules by speaking with another team's players while they are under contract.  Is there a similar rule in the NBA that would apply to team GM's, but not players, and they are thereby circumventing the rules??

I could be mistaken but I believe that the rule does also apply to players.

It does not in the NFL.  It really would be an impossible rule that no player union would accept.  Rule that Adam Gase can't talk to Tom Brady sure.  Rule that Tanehill can't talk to Tom Brady problematic.  Rule that Eric Winston can't take to John Denny illegal.

Well apparently the NBA player's union did.

I think you're mistaken.  Players have no ability to offer other players a job, so I'm unsure how they could possibly tamper with another player's contract.

It's tampering when management does it because management has the ability to execute that plan.

The only way they could is if they were acting as the agent of management, which really wouldn't be too far fetched.

...and nearly impossible to prove. ;)

Just google it rather than question. FYI, I already did.

It is not worded so that any management duties are involved. The discussion itself is against the rules. Enticement is the key to the NBA while the NFL looks specifically at contract talks.

Basically you just have to look at twitter feeds, press statements, etc. It is easy to find the cases of it but the NBA doesn't go too heavy on enforcement.

If done via twitter and press statements.  If done as a one on one phone call....very difficult.

Sure they couldn't officially hire them, but the whole point of your OP is "players as GM's" - so are you now refuting your own original post that the players acted as GM's????

I was referring primarily to players coordinating to choose where they themselves go.  Obviously it's impossible to tamper with yourself.

I don't have a problem with that in the least.  Most of the time players go where they will get the most money.  But players sometimes have other motivation such as better chance to win, a system/coach that better fits them, play for the team grew up rooting for, being close to family, weather in home city, etc.  Adam V left NE for the Colts because he liked kicking indoors rather than NE winters.

That is a good try but evidence suggests otherwise.

Two different discussions are being conflated.  One is whether players are successfully coordinating their landing spots with other players they want to play with; the second is whether players are "tampering" with contracts.  Unless you're saying that a Bob Myers-driven KD signing would have been "tampering" by the Warriors' GM, KD is not a good example to cite in a tampering discussion.

But if it helps, I'll clarify: I am referring to players coordinating to choose who they are playing with.  That includes both what team you sign with and who signs on your team.

You are wrong here. As I already pointed out, the NBA anti-tampering rules have nothing to do with contracts and is all about the discussion itself. Green's statement about calling Durant from the parking lot after game 7 was before Durant was allowed to speak with teams or even other players about moving there. That by the rules is tampering and likely why Durant came out so emphatically saying Green did not call him on that day.