Problem Solving > Getting the NBA to join MLB and NFL to a place of parity

[sturt]

 

“That almost is kind of disrespectful, because it’s not like it’s easy for us to get here. It wasn’t that at all. Us and Cleveland worked our butts off all year to put ourselves in a position to be playing for a championship. The league is as strong talent-wise across the board as it’s ever been. Every night we get challenged. Obviously, we had that one stat I guess, point differential, all year. We had a pretty solid showing in that respect. But, every night was hard. Every night was challenging. You can’t just sleepwalk through a season and sleep walk through the playoffs and expect to be here. You got to do something. You got to come out every night and prove yourself. Granted, anybody who was betting on who was gonna be in the Finals probably picked those two. It’s easy for them to say that and just wake up in June and see it happen. We had to put that work in all year long to make it happen.”

=============

"Disrespectful," Mr. Curry? That's you're word?

How about respecting our intelligence enough that (a) of course there is the theatre of a regular season and of course you have to win, but (b) to try to sway anyone to ignore the fact that we all know what we know about how we got here is....

I like the word "condescending."

How stupid do you think we all are? I mean, really?
 

Quote

 

"Obviously, we had that one stat I guess, point differential, all year."

 

 

 

hehe... yeah... just that little part that pretty much turns upside down most of your statement...

Well, and pre-dating that, that other stat that appeared in the transactions report last summer... you know the one where a certain player decided he'd pull a LeBron James, and bandwagon his way to attempt a ring?

Having said that, I at least can respect that until last off-season, GSW came by their championship runs honestly... good old fashioned drafting, trades, and above-board free agency pick-ups. And I even grant that it's not your fault nor anyone else's with the GSW organization that Durant made the decision he did.

But, then, having said that...

This isn't okay. It's not good for anyone outside of the GSW and CLE organizations and their fans. Including the league itself. Yes, I know to anticipate the TV promos will try to persuade us all that this is Lakers/Celtics revisited.

But of course it's not.

Those teams were built through-and-through in a legit way.

These teams are the nefarious result of LeBron James and Kevin Durant manipulating the system to get a ring... the former having helped trailblaze and having attempted to normalize such a fraud.

Won't buy it. And speaking for myself, I won't watch. Maybe I'll be the only one to feel that way.

[AHF]

13 hours ago, bleachkit said:

Get rid of the salary cap and max contracts. If LeBron is worth 100,000,000 a year then pony up the  cash.

I don't like getting rid of the cap but I'm 100% on board with getting rid of max contracts.

[sturt]

So... okay, having made the case as effectively as I know how that we could do something about this situation by the leveraged minutes solution...

Let's fast forward to 2023, the next time we're likely to hear about negotiations for a new NBA CBA getting cranked up... a long time from now, and too long imo to just twiddle thumbs and endure this Groundhog Day Association monstrosity...

I'm thinking the elimination of max contracts makes sense, but I would modify that to say each franchise gets the benefit of one uncapped contract in any given season... which, then, would seem to effectively offer an especially strong deterrent to the funny business ring-chasing crap.

[cavsfan]

if cleveland doesnt do it the way they did it,, they would NEVER win a title..    football and baseball are different, a great pitching staff in baseball can carry a team a long long ways. our Indians do not make the world series if we don't get Andrew Miller in a trade...    in football a great QB great defense can carry a football team a long ways..  basketball  you need that ONE guy, but you need help around him.     lets face it .. have you ever been to cleveland???   its not the glamour city of NY or LA or Chi.   not even close.   nobody would want to stay there,  unless,,, UNLESS,,  to win a championship ..   and what drew these guys to cleveland?  lebron, Kyrie , kevin..    

sure im looking at this with rose colored glasses, because before the cavs did what they did last year.. i had never in my life time seen cleveland win a title..and im 51 yrs old.....    

Edited May 27, 2017 by cavsfan

[Thomas]

10 minutes ago, cavsfan said:

sure im looking at this with rose colored glasses, because before the cavs did what they did last year.. i had never in my life time seen cleveland win a title..and im 51 yrs old.....  

Hey, you guys took out the not so mean Green and their never ending media bias, so congrats, seriously congrats. Not so easy to say because indeed we all are in the East but then again Phuk the Celtics and you cats helped end the media warm and fuzzy drivel. Probably will hear that crap from the Green for a while but they are out so OK. 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, cavsfan said:

if cleveland doesnt do it the way they did it,, they would NEVER win a title..

Maybe. Not really in the realm of the know-able.

What we do know is they did what they did (as you acknowledge, so kudos to you)... and for some of us anyway, there's this principle that says if you can't win/earn titles with the same integrity as every other team historically has (ie prior to LBJ era), then you only earn the label and the reputation for ends-justify-the-means thinking... you don't actually win the universal respect that other NBA championship teams rightfully own.

[cavsfan]

i wouldnt say that.  because chicago back in the day did this similar thing, as did detroit..  

i think how this cavalier team was built...

LBJ -free agent sign

kyrie drafted

thompson-drafted

love - trade for draftee wiggins

smith / shumpert - trade for waiters

frye - trade for andy v 

korver  trade for williams , dunleavy 

willams, williams claimed off waivers 

 

Ok are other fans pissed off about how this worked? or are NBA teams?

i see alot of cleveland steal deals here,  which means the other nba teams obviously werent too concerned with the Cavs stocking up...    

And its pretty obvious  ONE guy  makes it go....if that ONE guy isnt here,   boston is playing the warriors...

So where I'm going with this is...  there wasnt alot of free agent signings going on..   it was mostly trades...  

NBA teams slit their own throats...    Sure we are a zillion dollars over the cap,  but thats an option for every team, and cleveland is low market...

 

if the nba wants to close the game, then stop trading with cleveland..  

 

 

[sturt]

54 minutes ago, cavsfan said:

i wouldnt say that.  because chicago back in the day did this similar thing, as did detroit..  

 

(So much for those kudos... )

I think I'm failing to make clear what CLE... or more specifically, LBJ... did...

...which CHI nor DET nor any other team ever had happen...

...though I don't really understand why I even have to even recite this...  you know this, like we all know this...

 

(copy and pasted from previous page)

 

 

[cavsfan]

i believe if this same thing happened in atlanta,  there would not be a topic for apologizing to the rest of the nba.  

 

[sturt]

27 minutes ago, cavsfan said:

i believe if this same thing happened in atlanta,  there would not be a topic for apologizing to the rest of the nba.  

 

My focus is not on castigating you or CLE or GSW fans. I'm not surprised in the least that you aren't real thrilled about this line of discussion. But it's one that you yourself probably initiated or at least engaged back when LBJ pulled his first ring-chasing manipulation scheme and headed for MIA.

So, whether or not me or anyone else is man or woman enough to be able to discuss this if the shoe were on our own foot is a matter of personal integrity for each person to wrestle with him/herself about, but it's beside the point and a distraction here.

This is about the problem, contributing factors that gave root to the problem, and a reasoned response/solution to that problem based on an understanding of those contributing factors.

[cavsfan]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

My focus is not on castigating you or CLE or GSW fans. I'm not surprised in the least that you aren't real thrilled about this line of discussion. But it's one that you yourself probably initiated or at least engaged back when LBJ pulled his first ring-chasing manipulation scheme and headed for MIA.

So, whether or not me or anyone else is man or woman enough to be able to discuss this if the shoe were on our own foot is a matter of personal integrity for each person to wrestle with him/herself about, but it's beside the point and a distraction here.

This is about the problem, contributing factors that gave root to the problem, and a reasoned response/solution to that problem based on an understanding of those contributing factors.

What LBJ did to cleveland,  was all ok up till the espn tv episode.   he knows that was a big mistake..  and he has admitted to it.   Cleveland wasn't building a team around him.  they left him on an island to do it himself.    San Antonio showed, that doesn't work!    as good as MJ was,  he needed help .  Chicago got it for him,  they rolled...    The problem is.. HOW they got it vs how cleveland got it...  I get that!        Now, the real problem will be next year... its 3 straight years,     Who stops it from being 4?    both teams have their top 7 players signed for next year already....  

[sturt]

We just disagree. I think when a player manipulates the system as he (and Bosh) did in the pursuit of a ring... and more specifically the much-enhanced status and the much-enhanced endorsements that a ring brings... he sets aside integrity.

If you can't win with integrity, why should anyone care? Your acclaim is marred. Your championship status is not the same as every one of those who came before you because you decided to finagle the system to force things to be what you wanted.

Setting that aside, though, we do agree (evidently) that the Groundhog Day Association thing is a problem, and that the only thing that will derail it for next season is an injury or two. The leveraged-minutes solution as proposed in this thread would be the only possible shot to potentially have some remedy before 2023, but the reality is it probably won't ever happen... and/but even imagining it did, it wouldn't be fast-tracked to be implemented that quickly. GMs need a full off-season, and thus, full calendar year to adjust before it would take effect.

All we can do where this and next season is concerned is heed the lesson to be taken from it all, and build the volume of the cry for Adam Silver to be at least as pro-active about this as he seems to be where it concerns his progressive political inclinations.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

7 hours ago, sturt said:

We just disagree. I think when a player manipulates the system as he (and Bosh) did in the pursuit of a ring... and more specifically the much-enhanced status and the much-enhanced endorsements that a ring brings... he sets aside integrity.

If you can't win with integrity, why should anyone care? Your acclaim is marred. Your championship status is not the same as every one of those who came before you because you decided to finagle the system to force things to be what you wanted.

Setting that aside, though, we do agree (evidently) that the Groundhog Day Association thing is a problem, and that the only thing that will derail it for next season is an injury or two. The leveraged-minutes solution as proposed in this thread would be the only possible shot to potentially have some remedy before 2023, but the reality is it probably won't ever happen... and/but even imagining it did, it wouldn't be fast-tracked to be implemented that quickly. GMs need a full off-season, and thus, full calendar year to adjust before it would take effect.

All we can do where this and next season is concerned is heed the lesson to be taken from it all, and build the volume of the cry for Adam Silver to be at least as pro-active about this as he seems to be where it concerns his progressive political inclinations.

It's really not though.

It wasn't a problem in the 1960s, when Boston dominated the league.   It wasn't a problem during the Magic - Bird era of the 1980s, when the Celtics went to the Finals 5 out of 7 years and the Lakers went to the Finals 8 out of 11 years.  It wasn't a problem in the 1990s, when Chicago went to the Finals 6 our of 8 years, and won 6 championships.   It wasn't a problem in the 2000s, when the Lakers went to the Finals 7 out of 11 years, winning 5 more championships.  Even throw San Antonio in there, with their 5 titles  and 9 WCF appearances in 16 years during the Tim Duncan era.

The league THRIVES when the top superstars in the league are playing for championships. 

And the casual NBA fan will ALWAYS choose to see a top 3 player in the league playing for championships, instead of of having a revolving door of teams play for one.  Because in reality, most of the fans around the league would NOT watch an Atlanta ( or most any other ) team without a recognizable or spectacular star player, even if it was a championship level team.

The last two Cleveland vs Golden State championship matchups have been the highest rated Finals since 2004 Detroit vs LA Lakers series.  And Game 7 last year, ( which posted a 15.8 rating and had over 31 million people in the US watch that game ), was the highest rated and most watched Finals game since the iconic Game 6 in 1998 of Chicago vs Utah.  The league knows this.  So despite the lackuster playoffs this year, the league, and most NBA fans, can't wait to see Cleveland - Golden State III.

 

Instead of fundamentally changing the way the game is played, in order to supposedly bring the "superteams" back to the pack, how about these mid-level teams ( like the Hawks ) go all out to build a championship level team?  As much as I like Taurean Prince, don't let holding onto him be a deal breaker in obtaining a legit established star in this league. That's what these teams do though,  They hold onto young guys that they drafted, and act like established players like Carmelo Anthony or Demarcus Cousins are so cancerous, that they wouldn't help a team that's already at that mid-level.   At least New Orleans broke the mold here, trading away their lottery pick ( Heild ) and future 1st round picks, in order to get Cousins.

 

And a direct question to you.  If what you propose here were implemented, what specifically would you expect GMs to do different, in regards to roster building?

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by TheNorthCydeRises

[TheNorthCydeRises]

11 hours ago, cavsfan said:

i believe if this same thing happened in atlanta,  there would not be a topic for apologizing to the rest of the nba.  

 

It definitely would not be a topic.  We'd be basking in the glow of a championship and seeing how we can keep this thing going for a few more years.  And we'd want ownership to pay whatever was necessary to keep the core of the team intact.

Cleveland and Golden State, and specifically Lebron and Durant, owe no one an apology.  They took matters into their own hands and altered their NBA destiny.  Their respective teams couldn't build a winner around them, so they joined forces with others.  I personally am not mad at those guys at all.  Because had they decided to come to Atlanta, you wouldn't hear a peep out of anyone that is a Hawks fan as to the circumstances that led them here.

[Guest]

Who really gives a $hit about the Cavs...buncha bitchass babies led by their dummy ass leader LeHoe!

[sturt]

@TheNorthCydeRises couple of important things missing from that...

Preface, I'm never sure how old people are around here that they were around and following the game, so forgive me in advance if some of this sounds presumptuous...

So, first, while Bird and his team, and Magic and his were dominant, they were not so much so that it was natural presumption that the following year both of their teams would necessarily be in the finals again. There was still Dr. J's team. There was this Hawks team that sometimes seemed to be almost there. In fact and in actuality, we had what I'm asserting is our reasonable goal today--not just two, but 4-5 teams that are close enough to the top to be considered serious contenders, ie, close enough that you couldn't be nearly so confident as we are today in presuming who would be in the next season's finals.

Second, your description leaves out the critical point that I've just belabored to our friend cavsfan, and which everyone who follows the NBA recognizes... those teams you discuss were all legitimately put together through trades and draft picks... hell, not even any of this same free agency environment existed then... but these are two teams that are the product of two ring-chasing superstars' successful manipulation of the process.

MInd you, I'm not disagreeing that TV will hype this and that people will watch. I think they will. But in the bigger picture, this is not healthy for the NBA because 28 other teams' fans are so marginalized as a result of this manipulation business. We've talked in our forum here, as many others have (which was the impetus of the very first post of this thread months ago)... to have not just this finals, but next season's finals already this lock-certain of the two opponents is not beneficial. That's because the next regular season becomes an after-thought, and as has already been written in the AJC since our GM was hired, it is commonly opined that all of us should pretty much be prepping now for a time years from now when LBJ's team won't be as good because he will finally be showing some age.

Then, wrapping up, let's put both of those thoughts together... Boston acquired through normal means and then developed Ainge, DJ, Cornbread, McHale and Parrish (among others). But then, to have something equivalent to what has happened in today's game, there would have needed to be someone like an Isiah Thomas deciding his Pistons were never going to be good enough, so he'd take a salary hit for one contract, just so he could join a team he thought could legitimately win a championship.

Grotesque thought. And recognizing what Isiah did eventually accomplish with his team later, and the legitimate way they worked their way to a roster capable of getting to the promised land, it's especially a grotesque thought.

You are correct that fans want to see the best players in the biggest games. Sure. Absolutely.

But then you sidestep that they want to see that happen without the advantage of self-serving roster manipulation. They want them to get there the way, indeed, every other superstar and his team ever got there. 

This, instead, is ugly. This is a shame. And this needs to stop because all of us want to see a regular season that matters, and thus, a post season that is never so lacking in drama.

Of the options so far put on the table, leveraging minutes is the only one that is feasible to occur before 2023.

 

 

[sturt]

3 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

It definitely would not be a topic.  We'd be basking in the glow of a championship and seeing how we can keep this thing going for a few more years.  And we'd want ownership to pay whatever was necessary to keep the core of the team intact.

Cleveland and Golden State, and specifically Lebron and Durant, owe no one an apology.  They took matters into their own hands and altered their NBA destiny.  Their respective teams couldn't build a winner around them, so they joined forces with others.  I personally am not mad at those guys at all.  Because had they decided to come to Atlanta, you wouldn't hear a peep out of anyone that is a Hawks fan as to the circumstances that led them here.

 

 

We just disagree on pretty much that whole thing.

Speaking of presumptuousness.. I'm not a Hawks fan if I would have peeped in that hypothetical??? C'mon, man. And for the record, I don't believe every single Cavs fan is so apathetic... too many of them recall too well what they said when that shoe was on the other foot.

You're clearly an ends-justifies-the-means kinda-guy. If that's the way your ethical/moral code works, that's your personal call, not mine. But the world just can't work very well if that's the philosophy by which decisions get made. Thankfully, this is just sports--no one will die or be otherwise harmed. But in those domains beyond sports where more weighty things are at-stake, principles and integrity have to matter or bad things happen. I feel it's just more consistent if I take that same approach to all things in life in general.

But now  you've got this part right: LBJ nor Durant owe anyone an apology... nor would it be taken as sincere if they did, so no need to go there... but neither do I owe either of them an apology because I regard them both as desperate frauds for taking the shortcuts they did in order to obtain the endorsements and status that a ring provides. It's a kind of me-first thinking that really makes them look small in the eyes of many of us who follow the NBA.

[sturt]

4 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Instead of fundamentally changing the way the game is played, in order to supposedly bring the "superteams" back to the pack, how about these mid-level teams ( like the Hawks ) go all out to build a championship level team?  ...

And a direct question to you.  If what you propose here were implemented, what specifically would you expect GMs to do different, in regards to roster building?

So, you're suggesting they're just not motivated to go all out. And, if they all went all-out, then they'd all be able to build a championship level team. All of them.

And so, tell me, in your calculus, what is this motivation to not go all out to build a championship level team? Laziness? Apathy?

To your direct question, I recognize that no one should expect others to have necessarily read every word of every post of a thread, but just for the record, I've spent some time talking about that already. Here's the essential:

Quote

 

So, here we are. Where we thought we'd be.

And it's where we think we'll be next year, too.

Welcome to the GDA... the Groundhog Day Association.

Not satisfied here, and continue to advocate that a re-format would lead to a greater emphasis on deeper rosters, and though you're never going to get to a place of "perfect parity," nor am I persuaded that that's the real goal, over time (within 2-3 years, imo), this predicts us getting to a place of 4-6 legitimate contenders year-in-year-out, as opposed to the current state of play.

32 minutes per game for any given player is no small number, but by implementing a format that compels a head coach to define which 4 of the 6 periods a given player will play--and, just as salient, which 2 of the 6 he won't--it provides some moderation and encourages GMs to think beyond just those first 3 players in developing their rosters, since those kinds of players eat up so much of the salary cap so as to force sacrifice at the middle and lower parts of the roster, which in turn makes it more plausible that the system now rewards you for having 4-5 high quality players over having one elite plus 2 high quality players.

Star players will always matter. But when you force teams to choose how they'll strategically deploy those star players in assigning them to periods, you automatically mitigate their likelihood of having such a dominating effect like we have in the current structure. As emphasized in the OP, because only 5 players are on the floor at any given time, that dictates a mathematical concentrated effect in basketball in comparison to baseball or football when you have a "big 3" on the floor for much of the game, with few occasions of having 2 of those 3 on the floor, and rare occasions of having 1 of those 3.

A tipping point premise here is that salaries are roughly equivalent to the capacity that players have to contribute to wins, and that in having a governor (salary cap) on salaries, it forces teams to make decisions about the distribution of talent up and down their rosters. Currently, you can focus with practically full abandon on that top, and fill-in with more minimum salary types.

By confining in-game participation to four 8-minute blocks, it certainly doesn't eliminate the natural desire to have the best 1-3 you can have, but it does make you think more seriously about what sacrifices you're willing to make with 1-3, recognizing the newly-enhanced value of roster slots 4-6 (or so).

I know this is tough sledding making this case, and I wouldn't have it any other way--this forum is a great sounding board for identifying potential weaknesses in a concept/argument. I think that's been well done, but I also contend that there have been substantive counterpoints raised to those counterpoints.

Just to rehearse... the point is not to re-format in a way that supposedly brings the #4 and/or #5 teams in a conference into more legit contention, but one that has potential to bring the #2 and #3 teams into more legit contention. And to the protest that this would produce ugly unwatchable basketball, the popularity of NCAA basketball stands as testimony that more diluted talent, ie with fewer elite-talent players, does not on its own constitute ugly, unwatchable basketball.

To the contrary, I envision a more interesting strategic angle inserted into games--ie, which players coaches choose to play in the various periods--making games just that much more interesting as a result... and most importantly, a decidedly-more interesting post-season year-in-year-out.

 

At the risk of offending... please indulge me... what's also a little curious to me, though, is that you'd ask the question... if you've digested the concept and given it a fair hearing in your mind at all... again, no offense... it would seem that much would have already become obvious.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

So, you're suggesting they're just not motivated to go all out. And, if they all went all-out, then they'd all be able to build a championship level team. All of them.

And so, tell me, in your calculus, what is this motivation to not go all out to build a championship level team? Laziness? Apathy?

To your direct question, I recognize that no one should expect others to have necessarily read every word of every post of a thread, but just for the record, I've spent some time talking about that already. Here's the essential:

At the risk of offending... please indulge me... what's also a little curious to me, though, is that you'd ask the question... if you've digested the concept and given it a fair hearing in your mind at all... again, no offense... it would seem that much would have already become obvious.

Oh no . . I read the response.  I was trying to lead you to elaborate more on a specific answer that you gave in the quote.  Namely, GMs focusing on obtaining  4 - 5 high quality players, instead of relying on the 2 - 3 top level players to carry the entire team.

My follow-up question was going to be . . . what is stopping most of the GMs around the league from doing that right now?  Why are they wasting draft picks on young project type players, and not trying to add more established players to their teams, that can help them immediately?   I mean, nothing is stopping them from doing this.   This is essentially what the Rockets did, and they got better . . . immediately.   The Hawks did it too, and we caught fire for a 2 month stretch during our 60 win season.

These teams obviously aren't trying to win at all costs.  Some aren't doing it for financial reasons.  Some simply want to build through the draft, no matter how slow of a process that is.  But going all out to win a title is not on the radar for about 80% of these GMs.

[sturt]

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Oh no . . I read the response.  I was trying to lead you to elaborate more on a specific answer that you gave in the quote.  Namely, GMs focusing on obtaining  4 - 5 high quality players, instead of relying on the 2 - 3 top level players to carry the entire team.

That's reasonable, except that had your question actually acknowledged that much and then went on to the follow-up you suggest below (instead of compelling me to answer the "specific"... your word... question), you would have made the exercise a heckuvalot more efficient. Right?

 

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

My follow-up question was going to be . . . what is stopping most of the GMs around the league from doing that right now?  Why are they wasting draft picks on young project type players, and not trying to add more established players to their teams, that can help them immediately?   I mean, nothing is stopping them from doing this.   This is essentially what the Rockets did, and they got better . . . immediately.   The Hawks did it too, and we caught fire for a 2 month stretch during our 60 win season.

Couple of thoughts here, but just a second while I grab this phone call....

That was Stephen Curry. He just called and asked why you would ask that question.

Not telling you anything you don't already know, but for whatever reason, you seem to ignore it. That is, exhibit A Stephen Curry of today was not Stephen Curry coming out of Davidson. He was thought to be an exceptional shooter like his dad, but if anyone had a clue he would be this good, he wouldn't have lasted as long as he did (7th as I recall?). And in fact, how many years was he on that team before he evolved into the elite player he is today? 

The kid in Milwaukee whose name I still haven't memorized how to spell it... hehe... was the epitome of "young project type player"... and today, he's the envy of us and most other teams who drafted in the top half of that year's draft. But he's evolved and is now considered to be a cornerstone player who is on the cusp of being elite and someone that franchise will be able to build around.

Then, on the other hand... you have us drafting the senior out of Michigan State who was supposedly at least going to be a contributor, someone who would help us immediately. Oops.

Sometimes it works out, often it doesn't.

Every team's situation is different, and draftees are all different, and while it'd be nice if it were all so easily diagnosed and easily predicted, it's just not. A precious few GMs have an elite track record that so esteems them that they're beyond the "maybe just been lucky" category. And that shouldn't surprise because when you have 30 businesses all in competition to be #1, it is not natural to think that all of them have it within their grasp to achieve that in any given short-term. It's just not. So some are indeed smarter to take a longer view than others.

 

Second, to your follow-up question, what's stopping them from doing it (philosophically pursuing a deeper roster 1-6-ish as opposed to pursuing the "big 3") right now... which presumes they all are pursuing that big 3, and so let's address it under that presumption first...

The current environment lends itself to that philosophy. I could go into detail, but I think the contributing reasons (e.g., salary cap and max salaries structure, timing of games, number of players on the floor at any given time, etc) are self-evident.

Having said that, I’m not persuaded that everyone is/has been doing that. Truth is, Golden State had not originally gone that direction. Rather, they built their team legitimately, and then just happened to be in the right place at the right time sufficient to attract one more elite player pending their ability to find a way to dump a couple of “decent” players making considerable salaries. Then, they further lucked out to find a still-serviceable Zaza prepared to, in effect, give up salary in exchange for pursuit of a ring.

So, they stand as a testimony to how building a deeper roster can get you to the top, and yet, when push came to shove (by virtue of CLE beating them last year), they thought they would be better suited for success if they gave up Barnes and Bogut, gained Durant, and accepted the consequence of smaller salaried/lesser talented players on their bench.

And again, echoing your question… why wouldn’t they do that? There’s only 240 minutes in any given game to be divvy-ed up among only 5 players who can be on the floor at any given time. Just logically, the higher the quality of the players you have at the very top of your roster, it makes sense to pursue that.

It also only makes sense, then, that one way you impact that if you want to impact it is… change the way that the minutes get distributed.

Leverage the minutes.

Having a framework that requires teams to leverage minutes naturally pushes a GM to give greater value to the 4^th and 5^th and perhaps 6^th or even 7^th players on the roster than having a framework that doesn’t.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

These teams obviously aren't trying to win at all costs.  Some aren't doing it for financial reasons.  Some simply want to build through the draft, no matter how slow of a process that is.  But going all out to win a title is not on the radar for about 80% of these GMs.

Yeah. I hear you, but we're just on two different planets here.

I'm not sure about your planet. I can only tell you that on my planet, every person wants to succeed because the ultimate self-interest is served when one succeeds... and in the professional basketball industry, nothing says "succeeded" like winning a championship. In fact, that's why players like LBJ will actually take pay cuts to get one... and it's why, when a team like ours goes GM or coach shopping, we tend to look at those employed with franchises where they won one as the primary pool of candidates.