NBA 2016-2017 Season

[Pooker]

I can't stand Doc Rivers (overrated), Blake Griffin (injury prone, no work effort, crybaby), or Jordan (dirty asshole). I don't mind Chris Paul when he's not whining. Would love to see him on the Jazz actually. So yea, I'm pretty happy to see them going back to the bottom like they always have been.

[Meacon Keaton]

Yeah, this means the Clippers will revert back to the Clippers they always were. Clock struck midnight, but Clipperella never even got to go to the ball. 

[Tyrone]

Never been a fan of the Clippers, but I rooted for them after they beat my Spurs in 7. They went on to choke against Houston. Honestly hoping they blow it all up and CP3 and Blake go to new teams and the Clips move out of LA and get their own identity.

[Maxx]

The Clippers sold for an ungodly amount of money because they were in LA, so that won't be happening.

[JasonM]

36 minutes ago, Maxx said:

The Clippers sold for an ungodly amount of money because they were in LA, so that won't be happening.

Didn't Ballmer pitch up the idea of moving the franchise to Seattle to reform the Supersonics when he was in the process of buying the franchise? And the league shot it down because fuck Seattle?

Or was that Sacramento, I'm probably getting my Cal teams mixed up.

Either way, with them plopping down a new arena in Inglewood I doubt they're gonna move any time soon.

EDIT: Ballmer tried to move the Kings to Seattle when they tried to buy them, but that got shot down by the league. Then when he opted to sign the Clippers there was the added clause of the team staying in the LA area.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Jasonmufc

[Meacon Keaton]

Yeah, when the Clippers were sold a couple years ago the big story was that a few of the potential buyers wanted to move them, but the league put the nix on that. 

I don't have an issue with the Clippers staying in Los Angeles. But I'm also pretty much always against franchises moving anyway, so that doesn't mean too much.

[JasonM]

2 minutes ago, Meacon said:

I don't have an issue with the Clippers staying in Los Angeles. But I'm also pretty much always against franchises moving anyway, so that doesn't mean too much.

I agree with you on the point that moving franchises is a load of bollocks, but honestly I don't feel that in a franchise based competition any city should be able to have two teams. Even though LA and NY are the two biggest cities, it's stupid that it leaves other possible regions or cities teamless.

I'd love to see the Nets and Clips move base to Seattle, a second Canadian city, or Kentucky.

[gunnar hendershow]

Clippers will never move, the league loves having 2 NY teams and 2 LA teams. I mean, Clippers will move to their own arena probably in Inglewood but they're never leaving LA county. I honestly find it silly since Anaheim would be a perfect home for them to stay in the same TV market while creating their own actual identity.

Sacramento was the big contender to move to Seattle, but they were able to rob Sacramento taxpayers and stayed home. At this point I expect Seattle to get a hockey team before a basketball team. I don't even know who in the NBA is at risk of relocation anymore. Just about everyone has state-of-the-art arenas or are getting them in the near future.

[Meacon Keaton]

Yeah, NBA is probably more likely to expand than to see a current team move, at this point anyway. 

[gunnar hendershow]

The talent pool keeps getting deeper in basketball and the sport's popularity keeps growing, I wager expansion will be on the radar pretty soon.

[Pooker]

I wouldn't mind seeing the NBA add two more teams. Yea, they say the talent is already spread too thin, but I think there is also plenty of players out there with talent not getting a chance.

[gunnar hendershow]

The big problem with talent in the NBA is that there are a ton of great players but only so many superstars. That's generally the case in any sport, but basketball is a sport where a superstar can actually carry a team to victory. More teams won't fix that because there's only so many superstars around at one time, but the talent is still there where you're not gonna take away from the rest of the league.

[Maxx]

Oh cool, two more teams that will have no realistic shot at ever winning a championship unless they manage to assemble a team of superstars.  That's what we need.

[Pooker]

So by that logic, should we just get rid of all the teams but like six?

If Draymond Green wins DPOY tonight over Rudy Gobert, I'm rioting.

[Maxx]

39 minutes ago, Pooker said:

So by that logic, should we just get rid of all the teams but like six?

If Draymond Green wins DPOY tonight over Rudy Gobert, I'm rioting.

"Wow talent is pretty thin already and there are barely any teams you can consider serious title contenders so adding more to teams to the mix won't fix that problem"

"CONTRACT ALL THE TEAMS THEN~!!1!!"

Let me know if you feel like talking about the massive amount of middle ground those two ideas.

[Red Devil-Taker316]

Expansion is always bad for talent levels in sports. Teams on average get weaker. Honestly, the NBA is too spread thin. 24-26 teams is ideal.

[gunnar hendershow]

Basketball is a sport where no matter what there will only ever be 5 or 6 teams with a shot at winning a title because of the nature of the sport. You can pile as many teams into the NFL, NHL, or MLB as you want and a lot will have a shot. But as long as the NBA keeps the max salary there will be superstars concentrated on just a few teams and a ton of really great players spread everywhere else who all have no shot at winning a title or making it even to the conference finals. Getting rid of the max would fundamentally change the way teams operate and think about their construction. Instead of 2 or 3 superstars and an ensemble of rotating pieces you're going to see 1 superstar with an ensemble of rotating pieces or 5 really great players. It's such an easy solution for parity, really the only one basketball can ever implement.

[Pooker]

5 hours ago, Maxx said:

"Wow talent is pretty thin already and there are barely any teams you can consider serious title contenders so adding more to teams to the mix won't fix that problem"

"CONTRACT ALL THE TEAMS THEN~!!1!!"

Let me know if you feel like talking about the massive amount of middle ground those two ideas.

I was more referring to your "two more teams with no realistic chance to win a title" comment. If you want every team to be a title contender, the contracting to six or so teams is the way to do it. Personally, I agree with @Red Devil-Taker316. I think 24-26 teams would be perfect for the talent level and to have the best basketball played every night. But, since the NBA is a money-driven business, they will never again contract a team. So, why not add more? Rivalries will mean more as some teams won't play each other four times a year, teams that want to rest their best players will have more chances to against the crappier teams, and the two cities with the added teams will have a few more dedicated fans.

Is it perfect? Hell no. Will the level of basketball played drop? Maybe a little. Are there pros and cons to staying put, contracting, or expanding that we could sit here and debate all day? Definitely. 

[Benjamin]

Playing the same team 4 times a year, then potentially facing that same team in a playoff series for another minimum of 4 times, is ridiculous. They should really just drop the regular season to 2 meet ups between teams and maybe reduce the playoffs to best of 5 up until the final four as well. It would definitely make every game mean way more, make every decision count more and would definitely reduce the tanking shit that teams love to do. 

Every off season consists of this debate. I honestly love the dynasty aspect of the NBA, it makes it so much more special when a team makes a deep playoff run that isn't supposed to and even more special when something like the 2011 Mavs happen.

[Benjamin]

Bill Russell just stole the show.