It's hard to be a fan of a team on the outside looking in on all of the FA deals and trades going on. Yes, we've always thought that the Blazers were home-growing enough talent to compete in the West, if not for a title. That was before, obviously, the game changed in the NBA. Now it's about super-teams. It's about players finally realizing how to play the free-agent game in a collective manner, to "rig" the NBA into having all the success, and thereby the revenue, in the hands of a few teams with owners in large-market cities all too willing to go along for the ride. Teams in cities like Portland, like Salt Lake, like Sacramento, like Milwaukee, like Minneapolis.... they don't have a chance. Yes, they can draft high talent, but what do they surround them with? 3rd rate FA castoffs and "hidden" gems gleemed from overlooked draft picks. How could a team like that compete with the super-teams? They can't, and the budding superstars drafted into the small markets know that. So they play well, say all of the right things, create bonds and friendships with similar players from other teams, and wait... wait for their eventual trade of free agent signing to one of the super teams. The Have-Not teams of the NBA become unwitting developmental squads for the super-teams. And the cycle continues over and over. Because the money that they are paying these players has gone WAY past the level where the contract is the thing. Look at what happened in Miami. These three players took LESS because they know that if they did, they could easily sign quality role-playing players for peanuts in exchange for the privilage of playing and winning titles with them. And then everyone gets paid more, from merch sales, endoresments, etc. It's genius in a highly manipulative way. And make no mistake, the Miami strategy will be replicated in 3-4 more big-market teams. And that's what the NBA will become. A few perpetual New York Yankees/Boston Red Sox's, and a league full of Washington Generals to play them. Sounds like a lot of fun </sacrasm> The NBA: it's fantastic!
We don't have a GM right now. If we did, perhaps somebody could be banging the phones instead of interviewing one candidate per week?
Have you never watched the NBA before? How many franchises have won championships since 1979-80? The answer: 8. That's 31 seasons, with the rings distributed like this: Lakers: 10 Bulls: 6 Celtics: 4 Spurs: 4 Pistons: 3 Rockets: 2 Heat: 1 76ers: 1 The NBA has always been a league of Haves and Have-nots, and wringing our hands over a perfect storm in Miami doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Ed O.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what is so unfair about those three going to Miami. I trust the players on the Blazers aren't quitting and giving up hope like some fans seem to be.
Agreed. We still can have a very good team... or a very average one. None of that changes with the Heat becoming much better. Ed O.
Because it seems like the game, the way it's been played... owners and teams putting together high-powered high-money teams... is now obsolete. Now it's the players themselves cherry-picking a team due to it's location, tax advanatages, climate, whatever, and making pacts to join that team and succeed. What if a high 2nd-tier player like Brandon Roy saw that as attractive, and subtley built his image in his small market, all the while quitting on the team when it mattered most so that he could justify his leaving to join his friends at a super-team and enjoy the perks of winning? It's an entirely new game of manipulation at the expense of the little guys.
Your entire theory is shot by facts: Fact: LeBron gave Cleveland 7 fucking years to get their shit together. How is that allowing Cleveland to be a "farm team". What great young talent has Cleveland developed and lost? Fact: Kevin Durant, only just THE HOTTEST young player in the NBA, just signed an extension with a small market team. Fact: What great young talent did the largest markets poach from the smallest markets? What did the Knicks get? What did the Nets get? What did the Clippers get? What did the Bulls get? What did Philly get? What did Houston get? Fact: People read too much into shit and try to create overriding theories of "everything", when the real world is more complext than that. This whole superteam in Miami was due to a perfect storm of events, and the ground is already shifting. A huge looming battle between owners and players is likely to have large ramifications that no one can predicut at this early time.
Moreson, this whole super team thing was created by three players, who are friends, deciding to join forces. It's really a unique situation I think.
To be fair we could of had Jordan, and several teams could of had Kobe. Miami is a great example against this argument, how many rings? They are a "have" team? They only got D Wade because they sucked. The Spurs got VERY lucky to get Duncan, and made great moves for both Parker and Manu...hardly a "have" team. Great players win and tend to stick with their teams. LBJ stuck with the Cavs long enough, they couldn't get it done. Miami has been terrible more often than they have been good since joining the NBA. They have been in the NBA for 22 years and still have a losing record overall at 861-911 .486% Without MJ the Bulls would have ZERO rings, the Spurs without Duncan probably ZERO.
I have no idea what the point of your post is. Can you say whether you're agreeing with me or not? Ed O.
