Rich get richer and poor get poorer

Is it just me or are some team just packing more players and others are just dumping whatever players they can. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Spurs already have 3 all-star players and now has a 4th in R. Jefferson. That's not it, they even go and add McDyess. Lakers now added Artist, Mavs now has S. Marion, Cavs now has O'neal and continues to resign Varejao and adds A. Parker, Magic gets V. Carter, Celtics get R. Wallace. Then you got teams like Bucks who dumped R. Jefferson, then Memphis decides to waived Stackhouse as though they have tons of solid players on their team already, Detriot just trying to get rid of anyone as well too and then signs B. Gordan. I thought they wanted to get rid of Iverson becuase he wasn't a solid pg and was taking mins. away from Hamilton. Hows is B. Gorden any different from Iverson? Stupid! The only solid move I've seen is the Warriors trading J. Crawford to the Hawks and then drafting S. Curry. Identical players but saves about 7mil. Next session is going to be a horrible seasons in which some teams will just kill and others will struggle to get 20+ wins.

NBA is business. That's all.

the nba needs a hard cap

Do you want a bunch of mediocre 35-45 win teams that have one or two stars max like the 1970s and maybe one dominant team a season? Or do you want a series of juggernauts who have five to seven year reigns at the top of their conferences with an arms race each off season and slug it out in epic playoff confrontations like the 1980s or recent years?

The bad teams are either stocked with young talent (Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Memphis, etc.) or bad management (Clippers, Minnesota) and in many cases both. (Or also plagued by injuries like Golden State, Charlotte, Indiana, Milwaukee, etc.) A decade ago Seattle was a powerhouse, now that cycle is over and it's time to reconstruct themselves. Memphis was a 50 win team for a few years and now needs to rebuild. Minnesota racked up 50 wins for the first half of the decade with KG and are now rebuilding around Jefferson. Milwaukee came within a shot of the NBA Finals just eight years ago and had their string of dominance in the 1980s.

You whine about Detroit, did you forget they went to six straight Conference Finals and had seven straight 50 win seasons before last season?

The Lakers just successfully rebuilt after winning three titles and going to four Finals over five years, they had three down years stockpiling young talent (Bynum, Ariza, Farmar, etc.) then made one trade (Gasol) and BAM! There it is.

The players being signed and added this season aren't superstars. If Jefferson, Artest, McDyess, Rasheed, etc. go to some shitty lottery team, they're not going to make an impact. They go to a good team and maybe they're the extra piece that puts that team over the top.

the nba needs a hard cap

If that was the case, your precious Celtics wouldn't have gotten Garnett or Allen and would never have won that championship.

Sauru wants the hard cap to be equal to whatever the current salaries of the Boston Celtics are each year.

i agree with benji i want to see a bunch of really good teams go at each other every season.

The nba should be a competitive league. It's embarrasing to have a team like the Knicks, which ranks amoung the top in team sallary and struggle to rack in 30 wins. GM making stupid decisions like offering back-up players top sallaries. Milicic making 7.5 and plays less than 20 min. per game, B. Simmons making 10 mil. and will never average more than 10 pts./game, E. Curry making 10+ mil and sitting on the bench, D. Gadzuiric making 7 mil. and no one even knows who he is.

Well, the league has nothing to do with GM making bad desicions. Managers build a team the way they think it's going to be a succesful one. But sometimes they're wrong.

It's not competitive?

Outside of the Knicks, Grizzlies and Bobcats every single team in the league has been to the second round or farther this decade. A super majority of the league has been there in the last five years.

Since 2001, the East has seen the Bucks, 76ers, Nets, Celtics, Pistons, Pacers, Heat, Cavaliers, and Magic appear in the Conference Finals. The West has seen the Lakers, Spurs, Kings, Mavericks, Timberwolves, Suns, Jazz, and Nuggets appear. Half of each conference has been in the Conference Finals in the last decade. The East has seen nine different teams in nine years, the West has seen eight in nine years. Go back a year earlier and you can add the Knicks and Blazers. Why did the Lakers and Spurs win so many titles? Because outside of the Pacers in 2000, and The Perfect Team the East was in shambles for most of the decade until saved by the 2003 Draft and subsequent drafts. An entire conference could not be considered a contender. The Lakers and Spurs just had to win the West and then they'd win the title in crushing dominating fashion.

But you got to the key, bad management on some teams. What are you going to do? Require some kind of "fairness" committee to oversee all moves? Have the league strip owners of their teams and force better management into place? What about luck, like a contender gets derailed by injuries or just can't ever seem to get a favorable first round matchup? Do you regulate the superior climate and tax situations of some cities? Do you reallocate players until the teams are "even" and "fair"?

I will say to your examples the following, the Bucks dumped Jefferson because he's paid max money and played like an average player last year. They will not be worse this season because of losing Jefferson. Memphis dumped Stackhouse because he stinks and they'd have no reason to play him anyway, they also managed to get rid of Greg Buckner (also terrible, also overpaid) in that trade. And Ben Gordon is nothing like Allen Iverson. For one thing, his offensive possessions aren't a waste. They got rid of Iverson because he was the biggest cancer ever last season, quit on the team, refused to come back if he couldn't start, and so on. He had always been acquired for one reason: $25 million expiring contract.

Sauru wants the hard cap to be equal to whatever the current salaries of the Boston Celtics are each year.

so does Jao

Hows is B. Gorden any different from Iverson?

He's cheaper and more likely to accept a role off the bench.

Hows is B. Gorden any different from Iverson?

He's cheaper and more likely to accept a role off the bench.

He's not banned from every casino in Detroit either.

And he is better at basketball.

And he is better at team basketball.

corrected

And he is better at basketball.

LOL. I don't know any 5 ft player that won so many titles and awards as Allen Iverson but if you want to disrespect one of the most dominant players in history go ahead.
I'm not a fan of Iverson but i give this guy credit. He is one of maybe 5 players who kept the NBA interesting after the fantastic ninenties.

1. He's not that good anymore.
2. He's never won a ring so all other awards don't mean much.
3. He's 6,0'', FYI.

Iverson was hardly dominant, and the only real interesting thing about his career is his incredible ability to mask a traveling violation by "receiving a pass." (And the three years he was a positive assist.)

I bet he'll get into the Hall of Fame faster than Dantley does, which is just silly.

Minor Edit: Since dopeboy said he's "6-0" nobody really thinks he's that tall. Same with Garnett's silly 6-11 listing. (Among others...Adonal Foyle, we're loooking at you.)

And yes, right now, Gordon is a better prospect than Iverson.

1. He's not that good anymore.
2. He's never won a ring so all other awards don't mean much.
3. He's 6,0'', FYI.

1. True, but he deserves respect for the things he did in his carreer.
2. A lot of players never won a ring but were starplayers nevertheless.
3. He's 5 ft 10 no matter what the official NBA stats say.

i still say make a hard cap and have less teams, even if it means my celts would not have won last season

He's 5 ft 10 no matter what the official NBA stats say.

All these incorrect heights are just a matter of whether those players were wearing shoes when they got their height measured or not. It's a +/- 2-3 inches difference.

Where have you seen shoes that would make 3 inches big difference?

On KISS, or the Spice Girls.

I dont know, but reportedly Carl Landry was only 6'6 at the beginning of the season, but towards the end he's reported as 6'9. That's a 3 inches difference isn't it?

i still say make a hard cap and have less teams, even if it means my celts would not have won last season

Would you keep the Larry Bird Exception?