The NBA is a farce

[Frobby]

I have to say, while it is fun to watch top teams compete in the playoffs, the NBA is a farce. Any sport where fans have to pay money to see teams that win less than 30% of their games needs to look at itself in the mirror. There are six teams that can't meet that benchmark right now.

What makes me want to puke are these trades that are made where the team that is giving away talent then turns around and agrees on a buyout with the players they just acquired, like the Wizards did with Ilgauskas last year and Bibby this year. That is a joke, and shouldn't be permitted.

I have no earthly idea why anyone would pay to be a season ticket holder for these teams. Prices are sky high, and for what? It is a disgrace.

[BaltimoreTerp]

What's wrong with buyouts, particularly the Bibby example?

The Wizards wanted to trade Hinrich to the Hawks. Unfortunately, due to the salary cap they had to take some salary back, which came in the form of Bibby, along with the players they actually wanted. Since they didn't really want Bibby, he surely didn't want to be in Washington, and neither side wanted the headaches surrounding not playing him, they agreed to a buyout. It saves the Wizards money and allows them to play the younger players, and allows Bibby to go to a team where he can contribute.

There are plenty of things I feel are wrong with how the NBA works, but I don't think that is one of them.

[ccbird]

The only problem with the buyouts is what happened last year in the Ilguaskas trade where he immediatedly went back to Cleveland. It was pretty much a handshake deal that the Wizs would buy him out and he'd go back to Cleveland. That was complete BS. I think rules were put in to stop that though??


In recent years the NBA has really grown on me. I use to be a big NCAA over NBA guy but the game is much more exciting and played at such a higher level at the NBA. I really love the pure game of thr NBA. What still turns me off about the NBA is some of the other stuff. There are still issues with the officiating and the soft salary cap that is in place now is a joke. Way too much manipulation that gives a handfull of teams advantages.

[mweb]

The NFL typically has multiple teams that win less than 30% of their games or right around 30% since 5 wins is barely over that %.

Baseball only has higher %'s because of the way the sport is, there are teams that are similarly bad as we all know.

And of course the fans of those teams don't have to go to games.

The buyout thing isn't an issue since these are players that aren't good and aren't wanted by the teams that traded for them. They simply represeneted a salary figure that allowed a trade to go through to get them something else of value.

[ccbird]

The NFL typically has multiple teams that win less than 30% of their games or right around 30% since 5 wins is barely over that %.

Baseball only has higher %'s because of the way the sport is, there are teams that are similarly bad as we all know.

And of course the fans of those teams don't have to go to games.

The buyout thing isn't an issue since these are players that aren't good and aren't wanted by the teams that traded for them. They simply represented a salary figure that allowed a trade to go through to get them something else of value.

It is an issue, or at least was a bigger one as of last year. Are players that are traded still allowed to resign with the team that traded them after they are released??


No, these players that are bought out don't have value to the team where they were traded but they still have value around the league. There seems to be a handful of guys every year that are bought out and immediately have a number of contenders chasing them. You can't tell me there isn't back door negotiation and tampering going on. For example, it was pretty well known for months that Troy Murphy and his contract was going to be moved and he would be bought out and become a FA . Now, is Boston working the phones with Murphy's agent and do they have an under the table deal in place in the days or hours leading up to the trade deadline assuring his signature which allows them to move Perkins. I think it's very possible, probably likely. I don't think they move Perkins unless they know they will bring in another solid frontcourt player. Even if that wasn't the case with Boston, I'm sure it's happening around the league. There is just too much ability to bend and manipulate the rules and it hurts the integrity of the game. I don't buy into a lot of the conspiracy theories thrown out there about Stern but I've never felt things were on the complete up and up under his reign either. Donaghy's book only strengthened that belief.

[mweb]

It is an issue, or at least was a bigger one as of last year. Are players that are traded still allowed to resign with the team that traded them after they are released??


No, these players that are bought out don't have value to the team where they were traded but they still have value around the league. There seems to be a handful of guys every year that are bought out and immediately have a number of contenders chasing them. You can't tell me there isn't back door negotiation and tampering going on. For example, it was pretty well known for months that Troy Murphy and his contract was going to be moved and he would be bought out and become a FA . Now, is Boston working the phones with Murphy's agent and do they have an under the table deal in place in the days or hours leading up to the trade deadline assuring his signature which allows them to move Perkins. I think it's very possible, probably likely. I don't think they move Perkins unless they know they will bring in another solid frontcourt player. Even if that wasn't the case with Boston, I'm sure it's happening around the league. There is just too much ability to bend and manipulate the rules and it hurts the integrity of the game. I don't buy into a lot of the conspiracy theories thrown out there about Stern but I've never felt things were on the complete up and up under his reign either. Donaghy's book only strengthened that belief.

I don't buy that Boston knew they'd get Murphy, but they knew they'd have a decent shot at him. I don't think there trade was contingent on getting Murphy at all.

Yeah, these buyouts may not be a great situation, but I don't really see it as much of an issue, especially from the POV of a fan of a bad team like the Wizards.

[hoosiers]

What's wrong with buyouts, particularly the Bibby example?

I agree. The Wiz are just playing the game. The Bibby trade was quite clever, IMO - identifying a player who will refuse to come to DC and will accept a buyout to save $ for the salary cap next year.

My issue has been the most assured way to respectability is to clear cap space and get high draft picks - which means the team needs to stink for three years - as we see the Nets, Cleveland and Wizards going through right now.

It's the way the league is structured and it stinks, but those are the rules of the road and I think the Wizards are playing that game well right now.

Frobby, would you prefer to watch the Wiz with Bibby for the next 1+ years? I have zero interest in seeing that guy in a Wiz uniform.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't like the idea that the contracts the players have are more valuable to the teams then the players themselves.

[NewMarketSean]

I don't like how one player can impact a team so much and basically determine if they will be good or terrible like Lebron did to the Cavs this year by leaving. Or see Michael Jordan with the Bulls in the 80's and 90's.

All in all I just feel it is too watered down and slow paced for me. There is no defense. I like college hoops much more. Plus it doesn't help that Baltimore doesn't have its own team. I might feel differently if that were the case.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I don't like the idea that the contracts the players have are more valuable to the teams then the players themselves.

Unfortunately, its a combination of the salary cap system in place, with the guaranteed contracts the league has, and the fact that the people who run the clubs are, in general, frickin' morons :p


I don't like how one player can impact a team so much and basically determine if they will be good or terrible like Lebron did to the Cavs this year by leaving. Or see Michael Jordan with the Bulls in the 80's and 90's.

That's just the nature of basketball. Its the only sport where a single player can have that kind of overall impact.


All in all I just feel it is too watered down and slow paced for me. There is no defense. I like college hoops much more. Plus it doesn't help that Baltimore doesn't have its own team. I might feel differently if that were the case.

I was reading something this week (I don't remember if it was here or elsewhere) and the author suggested that each NBA team should be assigned a secondary city where they would play four "home" games a year.

If Baltimore could get their new arena plans in order and build the damn thing, I could easily see the Wizards (re-renamed Bullets...;)) trying to get the Baltimore market completely to themselves by doing that. I would support that in lieu of a full-time franchise.

[Dr. FLK]

I don't like how one player can impact a team so much and basically determine if they will be good or terrible like Lebron did to the Cavs this year by leaving. Or see Michael Jordan with the Bulls in the 80's and 90's.

All in all I just feel it is too watered down and slow paced for me. There is no defense. I like college hoops much more. Plus it doesn't help that Baltimore doesn't have its own team. I might feel differently if that were the case.

You don't like the NBA because it's watered down, but you like college hoops? College hoops has roughly 17,000 teams, and all of the good talent leaves after 1-2 years. The quality of play in college ball is being hammered by players leaving early, and every where I look this year I see nothing but mediocrity.

As for one player making so much of a difference...when there are only 5 on the court, that's the way it goes. The same thing happens in college ball. It's not the NBA that is subjected to that, it's basketball.

[mweb]

I don't like how one player can impact a team so much and basically determine if they will be good or terrible like Lebron did to the Cavs this year by leaving. Or see Michael Jordan with the Bulls in the 80's and 90's.

All in all I just feel it is too watered down and slow paced for me. There is no defense. I like college hoops much more. Plus it doesn't help that Baltimore doesn't have its own team. I might feel differently if that were the case.

One player makes a huge difference in college as well. Football too, especially at QB. I actually like that the superstars make a huge impact.

The NBA generally has a quicker pace than does college. And saying there's no defense tells me you don't watch much NBA, or maybe you just watch a lot of Wizards games or something. There's plenty of defense, and there's actually more of it than the "glory days" of the 80's, while less of it than the awful style of play the Knicks and Heat played in the mid 90's.

But I guess it sometimes doesn't look like the defense is good when it's facing great offensive players. It's a lot easier to seem like your team is playing good defense when they are playing Maryland or Georgetown or whomever. It's also easier when you can pack the paint defensively due to the rules and few guys on the court who can hit outside jumpers.

[mweb]

Unfortunately, its a combination of the salary cap system in place, with the guaranteed contracts the league has, and the fact that the people who run the clubs are, in general, frickin' morons :p



That's just the nature of basketball. Its the only sport where a single player can have that kind of overall impact.



I was reading something this week (I don't remember if it was here or elsewhere) and the author suggested that each NBA team should be assigned a secondary city where they would play four "home" games a year.

If Baltimore could get their new arena plans in order and build the damn thing, I could easily see the Wizards (re-renamed Bullets...;)) trying to get the Baltimore market completely to themselves by doing that. I would support that in lieu of a full-time franchise.

I think that was Whitlock.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I think that was Whitlock.

You are correct, thank you.

[Frobby]

Frobby, would you prefer to watch the Wiz with Bibby for the next 1+ years? I have zero interest in seeing that guy in a Wiz uniform.

The chances of me watching the Wiz the rest of this year, with or without Bibby, are nil. But I feel very sorry for the season ticket holders who are paying exhorbitant amounts to watch minor league basketball.

[mweb]

The chances of me watching the Wiz the rest of this year, with or without Bibby, are nil. But I feel very sorry for the season ticket holders who are paying exhorbitant amounts to watch minor league basketball.

Why is this different than watching an awful NFL, MLB, or NHL team?

Plus, what have the Wizards done this year to really diminish their product? Trade a mediocre player in Heinrich? They were expected to be bad so I think the season ticket holders knew what they were getting themselves into, at least they should have.

[BaltimoreTerp]

The chances of me watching the Wiz the rest of this year, with or without Bibby, are nil. But I feel very sorry for the season ticket holders who are paying exhorbitant amounts to watch minor league basketball.

Like mweb said, is there any real difference between that and the Orioles' situation over the past few years?

They don't have to pay it. The Wizards franchise isn't going anywhere. They are trying to build their team, just like the Orioles have been.

[Frobby]

Like mweb said, is there any real difference between that and the Orioles' situation over the past few years?

There's a big difference between winning 40% of your games and winning 25%. There's a big difference in the price of a ticket. And I can't describe it, because it is subjective, but the atmospehere outside at a baseball game on a warm summer night is just better than being inside a building full of blase fans.

I am just speaking for myself. I've never once not been excited to go to a baseball game. When I go see the Wizards, I'm usually thinking, before the game starts, about how long I'll stay if the game starts to get out of hand.

[waroriole]

Yeah, the NBA is too star oriented and offense minded. I don't like the way some players get calls. I hate the traveling rule. I hate the 3 second defensive rule. I hate the 24 second shot clock. I hate the high number of isolation plays.

I want to see ball movement, defense and team basketball.

[mweb]

There's a big difference between winning 40% of your games and winning 25%. There's a big difference in the price of a ticket. And I can't describe it, because it is subjective, but the atmospehere outside at a baseball game on a warm summer night is just better than being inside a building full of blase fans.

I am just speaking for myself. I've never once not been excited to go to a baseball game. When I go see the Wizards, I'm usually thinking, before the game starts, about how long I'll stay if the game starts to get out of hand.

That isn't really an NBA thing though, it's a basketball thing. Football has the same issue as I mentioned as plenty of teams win 4-5 games or less a year.

Yes, bad MLB teams win more, but that's not really because they are more competitive than bad NBA or NFL teams, it's because it is the nature of baseball.

I'm also guessing that you like baseball more than basketball. True?

I get the atmosphere aspect of what you are talking about, but I'm not seeing the case for the rest of what you're saying.

And again, Wiz fans knew what they were getting themselves into when they bought season tickets so I'm not sure why we should feel sorry for them.

[mweb]

Yeah, the NBA is too star oriented and offense minded. I don't like the way some players get calls. I hate the traveling rule. I hate the 3 second defensive rule. I hate the 24 second shot clock. I hate the high number of isolation plays.

I want to see ball movement, defense and team basketball.

I really don't know what people are watching when they watch NBA games. Are you guys just watching Heat(lots of iso) and Wizard(just bad) games? Are you guys looking for instances of what you think you dislike about the NBA and then blowing it out of proportion when you notice it?

Sure, the NBA has some isolation and is star oriented, but the same can be said about college basketball for the most part. And the defense is not better in college imo. See one of my former posts for an explanation of that.

I really like the defensive 3 second rule btw, I hate the combination in college of being able to clog the paint and take charges right in front of the basket.

[waroriole]

I really don't know what people are watching when they watch NBA games. Are you guys just watching Heat(lots of iso) and Wizard(just bad) games? Are you guys looking for instances of what you think you dislike about the NBA and then blowing it out of proportion when you notice it?

Sure, the NBA has some isolation and is star oriented, but the same can be said about college basketball for the most part. And the defense is not better in college imo. See one of my former posts for an explanation of that.

I really like the defensive 3 second rule btw, I hate the combination in college of being able to clog the paint and take charges right in front of the basket.

I get that you're going to defend, to the death, the NBA. But, you can't tell me that the overall level of play doesn't suffer because of the preferential treatment given to some players. It takes the focus off of team basketball, and puts it on a handful of players.

The NBA has alot of isolation (and college is beginning to as well which is disturbing but another issue), which turns the game into 1 on 1 because of the defensive 3 second rule. It's not a team game at that point, it's just clear out and let me play this guy 1 on 1.

I hate the defensive 3 second rule for alot of reasons. One is that it inhibits medium range jump shots, which nobody takes anymore (except good teams). Why pull up and take a jumper when you can drive to the basket since nobody will be there. Second, the only reason it is there is to artificially increase offense.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'm a Wizards' season ticket holder and I pay $15/game. My seats are in the upper deck about 5 rows up right at center court.

[mweb]

I get that you're going to defend, to the death, the NBA. But, you can't tell me that the overall level of play doesn't suffer because of the preferential treatment given to some players. It takes the focus off of team basketball, and puts it on a handful of players.

The NBA has alot of isolation (and college is beginning to as well which is disturbing but another issue), which turns the game into 1 on 1 because of the defensive 3 second rule. It's not a team game at that point, it's just clear out and let me play this guy 1 on 1.

I hate the defensive 3 second rule for alot of reasons. One is that it inhibits medium range jump shots, which nobody takes anymore (except good teams). Why pull up and take a jumper when you can drive to the basket since nobody will be there. Second, the only reason it is there is to artificially increase offense.

I don't think the preferential treatment is that bad actually. Kobe for instance doesn't really get the benefit of the doubt on most occasions.

Define a lot of isolation. Because it doesn't meet what I consider to be a lot and often when there is iso it's fine by me since it involves incredible players like James, Wade, Rose, Kobe, etc.

There's a lot of pick and roll and drive and dish, but there really isn't that much clearing out imo.

On the defensive 3 second rule, I guess we just have a difference of opinion. I don't see that many drives to the basket where there is no one around to help, but ok. I also see plenty of mid-range shots taken.

[Frobby]

That isn't really an NBA thing though, it's a basketball thing. Football has the same issue as I mentioned as plenty of teams win 4-5 games or less a year.

Yes, bad MLB teams win more, but that's not really because they are more competitive than bad NBA or NFL teams, it's because it is the nature of baseball.

I'm also guessing that you like baseball more than basketball. True?

I get the atmosphere aspect of what you are talking about, but I'm not seeing the case for the rest of what you're saying.

And again, Wiz fans knew what they were getting themselves into when they bought season tickets so I'm not sure why we should feel sorry for them.

Football has a couple of really bad teams every years, but (1) it is easier to go from lousy to good in football compared to the other sports due to the salary cap and the way they do the scheduling, and (2) it's only 16 games.

You are right that baseball is my favorite sport, but college basketball is my second favorite. And, I do like to watch meaningful games between good NBA teams. I just think the lack of parity is a problem, and the things teams do to "get worse now in order to be better later" are so extreme that, to me, the fans really get cheated, moreso than in other sports.

I'll get off my soapbox now, I'm sure I'm not going to change the minds of those who love the NBA, nor do I really want to.

[DuffMan]

That's just the nature of basketball. Its the only sport where a single player can have that kind of overall impact.


Not true. A hot goalie can take your team pretty far in the NHL playoffs or the NCAA Lax tournament.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Football has a couple of really bad teams every years, but (1) it is easier to go from lousy to good in football compared to the other sports due to the salary cap and the way they do the scheduling, and (2) it's only 16 games.

You are right that baseball is my favorite sport, but college basketball is my second favorite. And, I do like to watch meaningful games between good NBA teams. I just think the lack of parity is a problem, and the things teams do to "get worse now in order to be better later" are so extreme that, to me, the fans really get cheated, moreso than in other sports.

I'll get off my soapbox now, I'm sure I'm not going to change the minds of those who love the NBA, nor do I really want to.

If the fans understand the CBA and how the contracts work they'd understand. The NBA has a salary cap (it's a soft cap but for teams that aren't the Lakers and Knicks that doesn't really matter) and they also have guaranteed contracts.

All it takes is one bad contract to send a team into a downward spiral (the Wizards have/had two Lewis/Arenas and Blatche).

The best way to get around that it so try to move your bad contracts around for basically nothing in return (which is hard to do since no other team really wants those players) or, try to free up space elsewhere which is what the Wizards did, rather well I should add, when they dealt Hinrich and bought out Bibby. This saves the Wizards about $6MM against the cap next year, which, hopefully, they will spend a little more wisely. Grunfeld has to go, but I'm more confident with Ted owning the team now.

[TGO]

I don't feel bad for season ticket holders. It's expensive but it's not like the NFL where you're on a waiting list for a decade and then you have to buy a PSL just to have the privilege of paying even more for your seats. If you really hate what your team is doing, you can walk away from the NBA and come back later, at least in some place like Washington. I don't know if that's true for Lakers fans, for instance, but they haven't been bad for a while.

I guess if you have courtside seats or something it might be difficult to get them back after giving them up, but one of my rules in life is to never feel bad for someone who can pay for courtside seats.

Okay, that's not really one of my rules but it may as well be.

[mweb]

Football has a couple of really bad teams every years, but (1) it is easier to go from lousy to good in football compared to the other sports due to the salary cap and the way they do the scheduling, and (2) it's only 16 games.

You are right that baseball is my favorite sport, but college basketball is my second favorite. And, I do like to watch meaningful games between good NBA teams. I just think the lack of parity is a problem, and the things teams do to "get worse now in order to be better later" are so extreme that, to me, the fans really get cheated, moreso than in other sports.

I'll get off my soapbox now, I'm sure I'm not going to change the minds of those who love the NBA, nor do I really want to.

I get that its easier for NFL teams to turn themselves around then it is NBA teams, although the top of the draft in the NBA can help turn things around more quickly than in the NFL and obviously in MLB.

But you were talking about one season, and I don't see how the NBA is worse than the other sports in this regard.

College basketball doesn't have much parity, but obviously a totally different deal there. However, I'd imagine that if Wake Forest was your favorite team in college and a good NBA team was your favorite, you wouldn't start this thread.

And again, the spark that seemed to motivate this thread was the Wiz trade oh Heinrich for Bibby, which doesn't really make the Wiz any worse now and helps them long-term. I see your overall point, but I don't see why that case would be an example to set someone off to the point where they'd call the NBA a farce.

BTW, can't the same exact thing you said be pointed towards MLB? Towards the O's when they dealt Bedard and Tejada?

[waroriole]

College basketball doesn't have much parity, but obviously a totally different deal there. However, I'd imagine that if Wake Forest was your favorite team in college and a good NBA team was your favorite, you wouldn't start this thread.



Wake Forest and Auburn are my favorite college BB teams (they've combined to win 5 conference games this year), the Celtics are my favorite NBA team and I still agree with most of what Frobby said. The NBA has problems, which are apparent to a large group of people.

[mweb]

Wake Forest and Auburn are my favorite college BB teams (they've combined to win 5 conference games this year), the Celtics are my favorite NBA team and I still agree with most of what Frobby said. The NBA has problems, which are apparent to a large group of people.

Yet it's TV rating are up and it seems to be more popular than college ball.

I'm not saying they don't have any problems, but many of the points made in this thread and others on here:

- Can just as easily be applied to other leagues.
- Are just flat out wrong stereotypes said by people who don't watch much or are just looking for every instance of what they view as a problem so they can exaggerate it.
- Are being blown out of proportion.

I also have no doubt that race and the hip-hop image is an issue for the league.

Lastly, in terms of people on here, the combination of no home team along with the closest team being awful makes the league much less attractive.

[Frobby]

And again, the spark that seemed to motivate this thread was the Wiz trade oh Heinrich for Bibby, which doesn't really make the Wiz any worse now and helps them long-term. I see your overall point, but I don't see why that case would be an example to set someone off to the point where they'd call the NBA a farce.

BTW, can't the same exact thing you said be pointed towards MLB? Towards the O's when they dealt Bedard and Tejada?

It wasn't that they traded Heinrich for Bibby, it was that they did it and then let Bibby walk away. And I do understand that the move is in the long-run interests of the team. But when the team is playing .250 basketball, it just seems outrageous that a team can intentionally get worse.

There is some similarity with Bedard/Tejada, but it's not really that close. We got Jones and several other valuable pieces in the Bedard trade, and Scott and other potentially valuable pieces in the Tejada trade. We didn't turn around and release those guys.

Probably a better analogy would be when we traded Chad Bradford for, uh, $25,000. And if you'll recall, I hated that move.

Again, what it all boils down to is a matter of degree. It is a lot different watching a team that has a 2 out of 5 chance of winning, compared to a 1 out of 4. Basketball tickets are pretty expensive relatively speaking, and a high percentage of people at the games are season ticket holders. So, I just feel it goes too far. Add on topof this the blatant maneuevering some of the star players are now doing, years before their contracts are due to expire, and it just doesn't sit well with me.

But then, I gave up my share of Wizards seasons tickets at least 5 years ago, so it really isn't my problem.

[BaltimoreTerp]

It wasn't that they traded Heinrich for Bibby, it was that they did it and then let Bibby walk away. And I do understand that the move is in the long-run interests of the team. But when the team is playing .250 basketball, it just seems outrageous that a team can intentionally get worse.

There is some similarity with Bedard/Tejada, but it's not really that close. We got Jones and several other valuable pieces in the Bedard trade, and Scott and other potentially valuable pieces in the Tejada trade. We didn't turn around and release those guys.

Probably a better analogy would be when we traded Chad Bradford for, uh, $25,000. And if you'll recall, I hated that move.

Again, what it all boils down to is a matter of degree. It is a lot different watching a team that has a 2 out of 5 chance of winning, compared to a 1 out of 4. Basketball tickets are pretty expensive relatively speaking, and a high percentage of people at the games are season ticket holders. So, I just feel it goes too far. Add on topof this the blatant maneuevering some of the star players are now doing, years before their contracts are due to expire, and it just doesn't sit well with me.

But then, I gave up my share of Wizards seasons tickets at least 5 years ago, so it really isn't my problem.

I think you're forgetting the fact that they also got Jordan Crawford (a rookie first-rounder), Maurice Evans and a first-round pick. This wasn't just Hinrich for cap relief.

[mweb]

It wasn't that they traded Heinrich for Bibby, it was that they did it and then let Bibby walk away. And I do understand that the move is in the long-run interests of the team. But when the team is playing .250 basketball, it just seems outrageous that a team can intentionally get worse.

There is some similarity with Bedard/Tejada, but it's not really that close. We got Jones and several other valuable pieces in the Bedard trade, and Scott and other potentially valuable pieces in the Tejada trade. We didn't turn around and release those guys.

Probably a better analogy would be when we traded Chad Bradford for, uh, $25,000. And if you'll recall, I hated that move.

Again, what it all boils down to is a matter of degree. It is a lot different watching a team that has a 2 out of 5 chance of winning, compared to a 1 out of 4. Basketball tickets are pretty expensive relatively speaking, and a high percentage of people at the games are season ticket holders. So, I just feel it goes too far. Add on topof this the blatant maneuevering some of the star players are now doing, years before their contracts are due to expire, and it just doesn't sit well with me.

But then, I gave up my share of Wizards seasons tickets at least 5 years ago, so it really isn't my problem.

See BTerps post of why you are not describing this accurately.

Plus, Kurt Heinrich is not any good, he's a role player who was taking up minutes that younger guys could have used on a rebuilding team. Which would have been like the O's trading a mediocre vet to allow a young guy some playing time and getting some nice young pieces.

So the Bedard trade was much worse in terms of the present than this trade. As are many baseball trades between rebuilding teams and contenders. Much worse.

You keep bring this winning % thing up but for some reason refuse to acknowledge the obvious point that it's just a matter of the nature of the sport itself, not the league. The worst MLB teams are approximately as bad as the worst NBA teams, but the sport of baseball simply allows for really bad teams to win more often.

Other than Melo, what stars have been blatantly maneuevering years before their contracts expire? And Melo's was only 1 year before.

[Pedro Cerrano]

It wasn't that they traded Heinrich for Bibby, it was that they did it and then let Bibby walk away. And I do understand that the move is in the long-run interests of the team. But when the team is playing .250 basketball, it just seems outrageous that a team can intentionally get worse.

There is some similarity with Bedard/Tejada, but it's not really that close. We got Jones and several other valuable pieces in the Bedard trade, and Scott and other potentially valuable pieces in the Tejada trade. We didn't turn around and release those guys.

Probably a better analogy would be when we traded Chad Bradford for, uh, $25,000. And if you'll recall, I hated that move.

Again, what it all boils down to is a matter of degree. It is a lot different watching a team that has a 2 out of 5 chance of winning, compared to a 1 out of 4. Basketball tickets are pretty expensive relatively speaking, and a high percentage of people at the games are season ticket holders. So, I just feel it goes too far. Add on topof this the blatant maneuevering some of the star players are now doing, years before their contracts are due to expire, and it just doesn't sit well with me.

But then, I gave up my share of Wizards seasons tickets at least 5 years ago, so it really isn't my problem.

There's a good chance that having Mike Bibby the rest of the year may have led to 1-2 more wins than the Wizards otherwise would have won.

The quicker they could get his money off the books the better. I know it seems counter-intuitive but that's the way it is.

[BaltimoreTerp]

See BTerps post of why you are not describing this accurately.

Plus, Kurt Heinrich is not any good, he's a role player who was taking up minutes that younger guys could have used on a rebuilding team. Which would have been like the O's trading a mediocre vet to allow a young guy some playing time and getting some nice young pieces.

So the Bedard trade was much worse in terms of the present than this trade. As are many baseball trades between rebuilding teams and contenders. Much worse.

You keep bring this winning % thing up but for some reason refuse to acknowledge the obvious point that it's just a matter of the nature of the sport itself, not the league. The worst MLB teams are approximately as bad as the worst NBA teams, but the sport of baseball simply allows for really bad teams to win more often.

Other than Melo, what stars have been blatantly maneuevering years before their contracts expire? And Melo's was only 1 year before.

An example I thought of (not perfect, but I feel it works) would be last season, the Orioles trading Miguel Tejada to the Rays for Pat Burrell and Reid Brignac, followed by Burrell being released.

Boiling it down to the Orioles getting nothing because they released Burrell would be completely wrong, because they got a very valuable prospect in Brignac.

I don't know exactly how valuable Crawford is, because I haven't been following closely enough, but a young guy eight months removed from the first round of the draft has to be a pretty good prospect.

[Frobby]

See BTerps post of why you are not describing this accurately.

Plus, Kurt Heinrich is not any good, he's a role player who was taking up minutes that younger guys could have used on a rebuilding team. Which would have been like the O's trading a mediocre vet to allow a young guy some playing time and getting some nice young pieces.

So the Bedard trade was much worse in terms of the present than this trade. As are many baseball trades between rebuilding teams and contenders. Much worse.

You keep bring this winning % thing up but for some reason refuse to acknowledge the obvious point that it's just a matter of the nature of the sport itself, not the league. The worst MLB teams are approximately as bad as the worst NBA teams, but the sport of baseball simply allows for really bad teams to win more often.

Other than Melo, what stars have been blatantly maneuevering years before their contracts expire? And Melo's was only 1 year before.

Teams under .300:
2002 - 3
2003 - 3
2004 - 2
2005 - 3
2006 - 2
2007 - 2
2008 - 6
2009 - 6
2010 - 2
2011 - 5 (New Jersey is now up to .306)

I don't see that it's inherent in basketball that 20% of the teams in the league have to be that awful. It wasn't nearly so bad in the first half of the last decade. I do accept your point that in basketball it is harder for the inferior team to win than it is in baseball, by the nature of the sport. But I think the NBA needs to come up with a way of creating more parity.

Let me ask it this way: when was the last time the NBA had a champion who you wouldn't have put in the top 5-6 teams before the year began? How many times has it happened in, say, the last 25 years?

Everyone sees what is beginning to happen now with the players deciding to combine on teams in cities in major markets. It started last summer with LeBron and Bosch; Carmelo's move is part of that trend; Chris Paul is toasting to playing with Melo in NY right in front of the team's owner.

I'm just venting now. I'm not trying to convince you not to like the NBA; if you like it, good for you.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Teams under .300:
2002 - 3
2003 - 3
2004 - 2
2005 - 3
2006 - 2
2007 - 2
2008 - 6
2009 - 6
2010 - 2
2011 - 5 (New Jersey is now up to .306)

I don't see that it's inherent in basketball that 20% of the teams in the league have to be that awful. It wasn't nearly so bad in the first half of the last decade. I do accept your point that in basketball it is harder for the inferior team to win than it is in baseball, by the nature of the sport. But I think the NBA needs to come up with a way of creating more parity.

Let me ask it this way: when was the last time the NBA had a champion who you wouldn't have put in the top 5-6 teams before the year began? How many times has it happened in, say, the last 25 years?

Everyone sees what is beginning to happen now with the players deciding to combine on teams in cities in major markets. It started last summer with LeBron and Bosch; Carmelo's move is part of that trend; Chris Paul is toasting to playing with Melo in NY right in front of the team's owner.

I'm just venting now. I'm not trying to convince you not to like the NBA; if you like it, good for you.

A lot of people believe the newest CBA will address that which is part of the reason why many analysts believe a lockout is pretty much a formality at this point.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Teams under .300:
2002 - 3
2003 - 3
2004 - 2
2005 - 3
2006 - 2
2007 - 2
2008 - 6
2009 - 6
2010 - 2
2011 - 5 (New Jersey is now up to .306)

I don't see that it's inherent in basketball that 20% of the teams in the league have to be that awful. It wasn't nearly so bad in the first half of the last decade. I do accept your point that in basketball it is harder for the inferior team to win than it is in baseball, by the nature of the sport. But I think the NBA needs to come up with a way of creating more parity.

Let me ask it this way: when was the last time the NBA had a champion who you wouldn't have put in the top 5-6 teams before the year began? How many times has it happened in, say, the last 25 years?

Everyone sees what is beginning to happen now with the players deciding to combine on teams in cities in major markets. It started last summer with LeBron and Bosch; Carmelo's move is part of that trend; Chris Paul is toasting to playing with Melo in NY right in front of the team's owner.

I'm just venting now. I'm not trying to convince you not to like the NBA; if you like it, good for you.

In all honesty, is seems like the national sources I hear on the subject, like Bill Simmons, support the concept of having several dominant teams a bunch in the middle and several more terrible ones.

Besides, if you really want to go down the road of stars steering themselves to teams, you have to start in the 1960s with Chamberlain and the 1970s with Abdul-Jabbar. And the league survived.

[mweb]

There's a good chance that having Mike Bibby the rest of the year may have led to 1-2 more wins than the Wizards otherwise would have won.The quicker they could get his money off the books the better. I know it seems counter-intuitive but that's the way it is.

I was thinking more like 0, maybe 1. Bibby isn't any good. He's only useful as a 3 pt shooter and his defense is awful.

[mweb]

Teams under .300:
2002 - 3
2003 - 3
2004 - 2
2005 - 3
2006 - 2
2007 - 2
2008 - 6
2009 - 6
2010 - 2
2011 - 5 (New Jersey is now up to .306)

I don't see that it's inherent in basketball that 20% of the teams in the league have to be that awful. It wasn't nearly so bad in the first half of the last decade. I do accept your point that in basketball it is harder for the inferior team to win than it is in baseball, by the nature of the sport. But I think the NBA needs to come up with a way of creating more parity.

Let me ask it this way: when was the last time the NBA had a champion who you wouldn't have put in the top 5-6 teams before the year began? How many times has it happened in, say, the last 25 years?

Everyone sees what is beginning to happen now with the players deciding to combine on teams in cities in major markets. It started last summer with LeBron and Bosch; Carmelo's move is part of that trend; Chris Paul is toasting to playing with Melo in NY right in front of the team's owner.

I'm just venting now. I'm not trying to convince you not to like the NBA; if you like it, good for you.

Ok, so there's more really bad teams then there used to be. Fair point.

As far as parity and surprise teams, well has the NBA ever been what you want in that regard? I'm not so sure. Plus, it's a lot easier to predict who will be great in the NBA than in the other sports. I'm not sure how to fix that and I'd bet that a lot of people don't want a ton of parity.

I know you're not trying to convince me not dislike the league and I'm not trying to convince you to like it, but it seems accurate that you are just venting since some of these points don't have much merit imo.

The Wiz trade being one.

Feeling bad for Wizards season tickets holders who knew the team would be awful is another.

Much of your under .300 winning % as well, although I'll give you that there's more than the normal amount. But I'd say there were a similar amount of awful NFL and MLB teams in their most recent seasons. And at least the system in the NBA its more fair than in MLB imo. Not perfect though.

Blaming them for not having more surprise champions when I'm not sure that was ever the case in the NBA.

And while you have a point about players wanting to join forces or whatever, you exaggerated it with the years part of your line and this has plenty of precedence in the NBA as well.

[Frobby]

I know you're not trying to convince me not dislike the league and I'm not trying to convince you to like it, but it seems accurate that you are just venting since some of these points don't have much merit imo.

The Wiz trade being one.

Feeling bad for Wizards season tickets holders who knew the team would be awful is another.

Although I'm only a casual Wizards fan, I certainly didn't expect them to be this bad, with Wall coming in and Arenas healthy. For example, Chad Forde had the Wizards predicted for 9th in the Eastern Conference.

They are 1-6 since the Hinrich trade. They have 19 games left to play. Five of them are against teams who are in the sub-.300 category themsleves. I'd put their over/under for the final 19 games at 3.5 wins.

[Dr. FLK]

Teams under .300:
2002 - 3
2003 - 3
2004 - 2
2005 - 3
2006 - 2
2007 - 2
2008 - 6
2009 - 6
2010 - 2
2011 - 5 (New Jersey is now up to .306)

I don't see that it's inherent in basketball that 20% of the teams in the league have to be that awful.

The following conferences have at least 20% of their members with an in-conference winning percentage below 30%:

America East
A10
Atlantic Sun
Big East
Big Sky
Big 10
Colonial
C-USA
Great West
Horizon
Ivy
MAAC
Missouri Valley
Mountain West
Ohio Valley
Pac 10
Patriot
SWAC
Summit
WCC

If I raise the limit to 31.25%, you can add the ACC and Big 12 to that list.

[mweb]

Although I'm only a casual Wizards fan, I certainly didn't expect them to be this bad, with Wall coming in and Arenas healthy. For example, Chad Forde had the Wizards predicted for 9th in the Eastern Conference.

They are 1-6 since the Hinrich trade. They have 19 games left to play. Five of them are against teams who are in the sub-.300 category themsleves. I'd put their over/under for the final 19 games at 3.5 wins.

You are still ignoring that this trade is very different from how you described it and clearly many baseball trades areworse for the present.

Sure, they are worse than expected, but most people thought they would be bad and there was certainly the chance they'd be really bad. It would have been like buying O's season tickets for the last 2 years. Sure, there was a chance they'd be decent, but I wouldn't feel sorry for those who bought season tickets because the O's turned out to be really bad.

Buying season tickets for the Wiz this year was not to see a winning team, it was to watch John Wall and some other young guys while hoping Gilbert would be good and somehow gell with Wall. Plus you could have good seats for future seasons in case John Wall does what Rose did for the Bulls.

[Birds of B'more]

Teams under .300:
2002 - 3
2003 - 3
2004 - 2
2005 - 3
2006 - 2
2007 - 2
2008 - 6
2009 - 6
2010 - 2
2011 - 5 (New Jersey is now up to .306)

I don't see that it's inherent in basketball that 20% of the teams in the league have to be that awful. It wasn't nearly so bad in the first half of the last decade. I do accept your point that in basketball it is harder for the inferior team to win than it is in baseball, by the nature of the sport. But I think the NBA needs to come up with a way of creating more parity.

Part of that is a need for the NBA to change its business model. Too many teams are losing money, which is what leads to some of these trades you mention that don't make sense from a competitive standpoint. I would hope the new CBA addresses that, but we'll see.


Let me ask it this way: when was the last time the NBA had a champion who you wouldn't have put in the top 5-6 teams before the year began? How many times has it happened in, say, the last 25 years?

Honestly, it would probably only be the 2003-04 Detroit Pistons. They had a decent team the prior year, but they just weren't a team that had "champions" written on them. And they are probably the only team in decades to have won a championship without a true superstar on their roster. Another surprising champion was the 1994-95 Houston Rockets. Not so much before the season began (they were the defending champs), but the fact that they only went 47-35 during the regular season and were the #6 seed entering the playoffs. To this day they remain the lowest seed to ever win the NBA title.

[Dr. FLK]

Let me ask it this way: when was the last time the NBA had a champion who you wouldn't have put in the top 5-6 teams before the year began? How many times has it happened in, say, the last 25 years?

When was the last time the NBA had an overinflated, single-elimination tournament to decide the winner where one bad day eliminates a team with clearly superior talent to another? I think that the "problem" you're suggesting is more of a byproduct of a "Best of 7" playoff system compared to a single-elimination system. So, while we all love the excitement of March Madness, let's forget that it isn't a format that ensures the "best team" wins.

[Can_of_corn]

I think that the "problem" you're suggesting is more of a byproduct of a "Best of 7" playoff system compared to a single-elimination system.

Hockey and baseball have "Best of 7" playoff systems and you see teams that were not in the preseason top 5 win there.

[Dr. FLK]

Hockey and baseball have "Best of 7" playoff systems and you see teams that were not in the preseason top 5 win there.

Winner - Opponent (ESPN pre-season rankings)

2009-10: Lakers (1) over Celtics (2)
2008-09: Lakers (2) over Magic (14)
2007-08: Celtics (3) over Lakers (20)
2006-07: Spurs (3) over Cavs (8)
2005-06: Heat (5) over Mavs (7)

Not quite 1 vs. 2 like is being suggested.

[mweb]

Hockey and baseball have "Best of 7" playoff systems and you see teams that were not in the preseason top 5 win there.

Other than what FLK said, I'd like to point out the obvious that inferior baseball teams have a much better shot at winning a series than do inferior basketball teams.

Same with hockey to a lesser degree.

[Bosibus]

I made this thread in '09: Why the NBA has turned me away... (http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77209&highlight=Bosibus)

Recently, I think the NBA has become more watchable. I have been watching a lot more games the past two years and have been getting more into it. A hometown team would probably bring on a fan effect but I do enjoy watching the games. I guess I have learned to just kind of deal with the bad parts of the NBA which I see in my eyes and watch the games for what they are.

And I agree with mweb here, some NBA teams play great defense and the playoffs are going to be absolutely awesome this year.

[flashjordnk]

I mean complaining about what the Wizards and saying the NBA is bad is like complaining about the Pirates and saying baseball is foresaken.

This has much more to do with the fact that the Arenas contract was silly. They lost a lot more talent exporting Jameson and Butler than buying out Bibby.

McGee and Blatche don't have very good chemistry on the floor. Booker looks great when he plays, but they don't have many really good energy guys and Wall still can't shoot a three.

He runs in and tries to do what he did in the NCAA's and as a result the Wizards won't be good until Wall adjusts. If Bibby could teach Wall some lessons that might be worthwhile, but beyond that, I don't think this is a terrible decision.

With less and less talent coming out next year, the Wizards need to ensure they are terrible this year.

[Frobby]

Today's article in the Post by Tracee Hamilton pretty much agrees with my feelings on the subject. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/at-wizards-games-seats-are-available-but-you-cant-call-them-good-/2011/03/16/ABCNy0e_story.html Here is an excerpt, describing a recent game she attended with some relatives:


The Wizards were bad that night — historically, amazingly, revoltingly bad — in a 116-89 loss. The game was all but unwatchable. The crowd — announced at an incredibly generous 17,921 — was nearly silent. I expected at least some cheers for hometown star Kevin Durant, but even those were sparse. There was more noise made in my basement Saturday night during the Big 12 final.

* * *

My guests — my mom, dad and nephew — were taken aback by the quality of play, or lack thereof. Of course, they are used to a steady diet of Celtics, Heat, Spurs and Lakers on cable; they hadn’t seen a team quite like the Wizards.

* * *

I was feeling sorry, too, for the fans. I’ve seen the Wizards struggle plenty this season, but I was reminded of the difference between seeing them struggle from the La-Z-Boy in the living room or from a folding chat at the press table at Verizon — those seats are free — compared to paying for the privilege of sitting through a wretched performance for two-plus hours.

I would swear Verizon wasn’t more than half-full, but frankly, getting anyone to purchase a ticket to that game — never mind buying season tickets, or suites — is a feat worthy of an epic poem, or at least a power ballad. The fall of the Wizards has been well-documented; I have new respect and empathy for both the loyalty and despair of their fans.

* * *

Between the nights they quit and the nights they’re cold and the nights they focus on personal stats, a lot of Wizards games are out of hand early these days. And the fact that anyone is willing to pay money to see that is a tribute to the Verizon Center marketing department and the fans who still pony up the money to sit through this white hot mess. I’ve walked a mile in your corridors, sat two hours in your seats and paid $8 for your beer. My press hat’s off to you.

[mweb]

Yeah, so the Wizards are a farce. Not the NBA. Just like the Pirates, Lions, etc along with plenty of college football and basketball teams have been really bad in recent history, but the leagues themselves are fine. And of course our Orioles have had less success than any NBA team over the past 13 years. Maybe not by winning %, I'm not sure on that, but every NBA team has had at least 1 good year in that span I believe.

[MRLeavey]

Yeah, so the Wizards are a farce. Not the NBA. Just like the Pirates, Lions, etc along with plenty of college football and basketball teams have been really bad in recent history, but the leagues themselves are fine. And of course our Orioles have had less success than any NBA team over the past 13 years. Maybe not by winning %, I'm not sure on that, but every NBA team has had at least 1 good year in that span I believe.

Exactly.

If you focus on the absolute bottom rung of any sports league, you'll come away with a pretty bleak outlook. But the top 1/3 of the NBA is absolutely incredible right now, so if you like basketball and aren't watching, I think you're definitely missing out. Games like Wednesday night's OKC-MIA game had a playoff feel for an otherwise relatively meaningless game for two playoff locks.

I count seven legitimate title contenders:

Los Angeles
Chicago
San Antonio
Oklahoma City
Boston
Dallas
Miami

[OFFNY]

Yeah, so the Wizards are a farce. Not the NBA. Just like the Pirates, Lions, etc along with plenty of college football and basketball teams have been really bad in recent history, but the leagues themselves are fine. And of course our Orioles have had less success than any NBA team over the past 13 years. Maybe not by winning %, I'm not sure on that, but every NBA team has had at least 1 good year in that span I believe.

They can start rectifying that situation by changing the name back to The Bullets. :angryfire:

[Frobby]

Although I'm only a casual Wizards fan, I certainly didn't expect them to be this bad, with Wall coming in and Arenas healthy. For example, Chad Forde had the Wizards predicted for 9th in the Eastern Conference.

They are 1-6 since the Hinrich trade. They have 19 games left to play. Five of them are against teams who are in the sub-.300 category themsleves. I'd put their over/under for the final 19 games at 3.5 wins.

I have to own up to being wrong here. The Wizards are 8-17 (.320) since the Heinrich trade, with one game left. They were 15-41 (.268) before the trade. They played horribly for the first 16 games after the trade (2-14), but have gone 6-3 since then. So I will admit it, the Heinrich trade did not make the Wizards any worse than they already were, and maybe they were a little better.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I have to own up to being wrong here. The Wizards are 8-17 (.320) since the Heinrich trade, with one game left. They were 15-41 (.268) before the trade. They played horribly for the first 16 games after the trade (2-14), but have gone 6-3 since then. So I will admit it, the Heinrich trade did not make the Wizards any worse than they already were, and maybe they were a little better.

What, did they hire Buck Showalter or something? :laughlol:

[Birds of B'more]

What, did they hire Buck Showalter or something? :laughlol:

Heinrich isn't a nugget.