The new NBA era: players as GMs

[Baba Booey]

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

[Tenshot13]

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.

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.

[Tenshot13]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Not surprising. Lots of cities like Orlando out there that know the day after the season ends they have no shot for next season.

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,

[Baba Booey]

Yes, Orlando is a very long shot to win the NBA, but Dolphins have almost no shot at winning the Super Bowl.  

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.

[Baba Booey]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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?

[Baba Booey]

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

[Spider-Dan]

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!

[Baba Booey]

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.

Bingo! Correct it doesn't count

[masterfins]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Baba Booey]

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.