Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Is Paul Pierce washed up?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
55 replies to this topic

#1 Koufax

  • 1891 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:09 AM

To me, it looks as if he has suddenly grown old. Last year there was a serious falloff in his ability to make his own shot. Now, he not only can't make his own shot, he can't hit the wide open shots that Rondo created for him.

The big 3 seems to have been diminished to the big 1 1/2 (with KG the 1/2). With Paul Pierce having morphed into just another player, the Celtics are doomed unless Jeff Green can take over that role, which he does not seem able to do.

#2 drleather2001


  • given himself a skunk spot


  • 14127 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:10 AM

So Pierce is the 1 of the 1.5?

I'm confused. The Big Three (II) was KG, Pierce, and Allen.

Edited by drleather2001, 29 November 2012 - 09:11 AM.


#3 Koufax

  • 1891 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:12 AM

Rondo is the 1; KG is the 1/2.

#4 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8206 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:18 AM

He's looked good in spurts and old at times. Just like last year in my book.

But it's early and the injection of Bradley to this team will make them all look better.

Who's this "Allen" you speak of?

#5 CreightonGubanich

  • 966 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:22 AM

I don't think Pierce is a great Iso player anymore. I think, and Doc has said, that the days when you could give Pierce the ball with 10 seconds on the shot clock and expect him to score at will on his defender are pretty much gone. But on a team with a great pick-and-roll big like KG and a creative point guard like Rondo, there are plenty of other ways for Pierce to score. Use him as the pick-and-roll ball handler to free up some space for his stepback jumper. Run him off pindown screens. They've already started to do this, and I think it's smart. I'm not worried about his ability to knock down open shots.

He's still the Celtics' best offensive player scorer by a wide margin. I'm much more concerned about Pierce on the defensive end of the floor. I'm not sure he's a plus defender against wing players anymore, and their crunch time lineup relies on him to be one.

Edit: I think there's a fair amount of confirmation bias here. When Pierce isn't knocking down shots, he looks old, but that's been true since he was 25. He has an old player's game. He's never looked like he should be able to beat guys off the dribble or create space for his jumper, but he finds a way. He might be done as a primary offensive option, but I'd need to see a lot more before I'm convinced.

Edited by CreightonGubanich, 29 November 2012 - 09:25 AM.


#6 dhellers

  • 523 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:04 AM

I don't think Pierce is a great Iso player anymore. I think, and Doc has said, that the days when you could give Pierce the ball with 10 seconds on the shot clock and expect him to score at will on his defender are pretty much gone. But on a team with a great pick-and-roll big like KG and a creative point guard like Rondo, there are plenty of other ways for Pierce to score. Use him as the pick-and-roll ball handler to free up some space for his stepback jumper. Run him off pindown screens. They've already started to do this, and I think it's smart. I'm not worried about his ability to knock down open shots.

He's still the Celtics' best offensive player scorer by a wide margin. I'm much more concerned about Pierce on the defensive end of the floor. I'm not sure he's a plus defender against wing players anymore, and their crunch time lineup relies on him to be one.

Edit: I think there's a fair amount of confirmation bias here. When Pierce isn't knocking down shots, he looks old, but that's been true since he was 25. He has an old player's game. He's never looked like he should be able to beat guys off the dribble or create space for his jumper, but he finds a way. He might be done as a primary offensive option, but I'd need to see a lot more before I'm convinced.

In other words, he is just another can-score-at-times small forward. That may not be "done", but it certainly isn't "one of big 3".

#7 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22340 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:11 AM

Hey everyone! Remember last season? Do ya?

Here's Pierce's game by game scoring totals for the first 15 games, with this year's points for the 15 game to date next to them:

2011 2012

12 23
9 11
21 27
24 15
10 24
7 25
13 10
21 23
24 22
8 19
12 13
34 19
19 27
24 23
28 14


He's averaging 19.7 points/game this year, after averaging 17.8 last year through 15 games

So is he washed up?

I guess if he was washed up last year then he's still washed up.


Oh, and here are his averages through 15 games for the other stats:

Rebounds: 5.6 this year, 5.4 last
Assists: 2.9 this year, 5.3 last (that's a big drop)
Steals: 1.5 this, 1.0 last
TO: 2.3 this, 3.1 last

A bad game doesn't mean ya have to start a new thread.

#8 Blacken


  • Paddy Tanniger the Caddy Manager


  • 8247 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:24 AM

The assists dropping off makes some sense, though. The gameplan has felt really forced through Rondo at the start of the season - Pierce seems to be pressing a little and taking shots he shouldn't at times, but it seems that he's intended to be more of an endpoint for finishing plays than it felt like he was last season (though I was watching less intently last year so this might just be my misreading of it).

#9 CreightonGubanich

  • 966 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:33 AM

Hey everyone! Remember last season? Do ya?

Here's Pierce's game by game scoring totals for the first 15 games, with this year's points for the 15 game to date next to them:

2011 2012

12 23
9 11
21 27
24 15
10 24
7 25
13 10
21 23
24 22
8 19
12 13
34 19
19 27
24 23
28 14


He's averaging 19.7 points/game this year, after averaging 17.8 last year through 15 games

So is he washed up?

I guess if he was washed up last year then he's still washed up.


Oh, and here are his averages through 15 games for the other stats:

Rebounds: 5.6 this year, 5.4 last
Assists: 2.9 this year, 5.3 last (that's a big drop)
Steals: 1.5 this, 1.0 last
TO: 2.3 this, 3.1 last

A bad game doesn't mean ya have to start a new thread.


That's not totally fair. There's something to discuss here. Pierce is shooting 42% from the floor, which could certainly just be a sample size issue. But he's struggled a bit to create separation, which is what you expect from 35-year-old NBA players, and the team is deploying him differently, which is readily apparent if you watch the games. He has the ball in his hands less, and he's coming off screens more. Combined with Doc's pretty frank comments about even Pierce realizing he'd lost a step, it's worth discussing whether Pierce can still carry a contending team offensively. I think, with the added depth and another shot-creator in Jason Terry, that he can. But it's a legitimate question that shouldn't be dismissed by snarkily citing per-game counting stats. And that's setting aside the defensive side of the ball.

#10 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22340 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:43 AM

We had the same conversation last year after 15 games. Yes he's old, yes he's lost a step. But last year he stepped it up after 20 or so games and there's no reason to expect otherwise this year.

#11 TroyOLeary

  • 116 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:53 AM

That's not totally fair. There's something to discuss here. Pierce is shooting 42% from the floor, which could certainly just be a sample size issue. But he's struggled a bit to create separation, which is what you expect from 35-year-old NBA players, and the team is deploying him differently, which is readily apparent if you watch the games. He has the ball in his hands less, and he's coming off screens more. Combined with Doc's pretty frank comments about even Pierce realizing he'd lost a step, it's worth discussing whether Pierce can still carry a contending team offensively. I think, with the added depth and another shot-creator in Jason Terry, that he can. But it's a legitimate question that shouldn't be dismissed by snarkily citing per-game counting stats. And that's setting aside the defensive side of the ball.


The similarity between this year and last year through fifteen games extends to his shooting percentages:

FG%: .421 this year, .414 last year
3P%: .412 this year, .422 last year
FT%: .835 this year, .835 last year
TS%: .559 this year, .553 last year
eFG%: .484 this year, .480 last year

#12 collings94

  • PipPip
  • 1182 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:02 PM

I hate this thread, I hate it a lot. The guy gets his ankles broken on one play and everyone starts wondering if he is washed up. We are talking about a 35 year old veteran in NOVEMBER. Last season was a perfect example that the Celtics are content to play .500 basketball during the first half of the season.

At times, Pierce has looked brilliant, I remember during the first game against Brooklyn, Pierce carried our lackluster team, and finished with 22-7-4 with two steals and shot 8-12 from the field. Basically, he did everything we expected of him to do, but nobody made a peep about it because that was what he normally did.

Simply, it's still early in the season and like Remerswaal said, the stats back him up.

#13 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8327 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:19 PM

We had the same conversation last year after 15 games. Yes he's old, yes he's lost a step. But last year he stepped it up after 20 or so games and there's no reason to expect otherwise this year.

I think there is because last year Pierce basically used the first half of the season as training camp. This year, no.

#14 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8327 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:22 PM

Other than that, we just have to wait till the playoffs start and hope for a magical Josh Smith trade in February. If Pierce is a problem, it's the least of the problems facing this team. The no #1 issue is the frontcourt other than Garnett not being on par defensively and not taking it to the hoop as much as you 'd want to.

#15 zenter


  • slumdog idol


  • 4741 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:57 PM

I think there is because last year Pierce basically used the first half of the season as training camp. This year, no.


And recall that this year there are basically six guys using the first 20 or so games as extended training camp - Green, Barbosa, JET, Wilcox, Lee, Sully - and the team is trying to adjust around Lee's beyond-lackluster performance thus far, as well as the fact that they need to build slightly different offensive and defensive sets to adjust to all these new people's strengths. And that Doc has said that they're not playing to win every game, but to be in a strong position to win a championship come March - essentially, he might be signalling the old guys to take it easy in the early going as the team jells/gels. Despite all that, Pierce may be losing a step and may not be the elite SF he used to be, but he's still well above average in most respects.

#16 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8327 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:01 PM

Did those people you mention not participate in the training camp?


Obviously there is the issue of the team gelling. But that's different from being in shape and Pierce wasn't in playing shape last January.

#17 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16618 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:07 PM

It cna happen fast in this league so it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

That said, each of the last three years has essentially been sleepwalk until the playoffs, so it's hard to judge whether he still has something in the tank that he's just not using.

#18 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16130 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:32 PM

He sure didn't look washed up against Oklahoma City last week.

Calm the fuck down, people. He's older now so you aren't getting vintage performances night in and night out anymore. He's still a really good player.

#19 zenter


  • slumdog idol


  • 4741 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:35 PM

Did those people you mention not participate in the training camp?


Considering that virtually every player who has played in the Doc Rivers era says it takes a long time to adapt to the system and thrive, those six people participating in training camp doesn't negate what I said.

Obviously there is the issue of the team gelling. But that's different from being in shape and Pierce wasn't in playing shape last January.


Again, all true, and again this doesn't negate the idea that he's purposely taking it easy. Remember, Doc is working to severely limit minutes and keep the old guys well-rested/loose for the playoffs. That's been his strategy for the last two years and it is very evident this year when he frequently discusses limiting KG and PP during the regular season. It stands to reason Pierce is also working to make sure he's not exhausted by the time the playoffs start.

#20 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:16 PM

Pierce just throws up a hairball now and then, and sometimes at the worst possible moment. Case in point: game 7 of the 2004 first round playoff series against Indiana, in which Pierce was simply atrocious in front of a home crowd. He's going to have more of those bad moments as he ages, but he'll have his share of game-winning performances too.

#21 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4186 posts

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:55 AM

Other than that, we just have to wait till the playoffs start and hope for a magical Josh Smith trade in February. If Pierce is a problem, it's the least of the problems facing this team. The no #1 issue is the frontcourt other than Garnett not being on par defensively and not taking it to the hoop as much as you 'd want to.


The Bass and Green contracts match up nicely with Smith's.

#22 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:41 PM

The Bass and Green contracts match up nicely with Smith's.


I think I'd rather have Anderson Varejao.

#23 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4186 posts

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:59 PM

I think I'd rather have Anderson Varejao.


He's signed for Bass money for two more seasons. The Celtics don't have the assets required in order to get a cost controlled big who's been averaging 15/15 and will be traded based off of those averages.

They have zero incentive to trade Varejao and will have to be overwhelmed. Atlanta has incentive to trade him because he's a FA after this season. Not to mention, Smith is the superior player even if the early season stats say otherwise.

#24 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 02 December 2012 - 10:30 PM

Smith is a more talented and athletic player. Varejao is a more effective player.

Varejao is making 8.5M this year. Bass is making 6.5M. If the Cavs threw in Luke Walton (expiring), Bass, Green plus a million first round picks might fetch Varejao and Walton. Of course the Cavs could do better. No one wants Green.

Edited by Brickowski, 02 December 2012 - 10:30 PM.


#25 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3342 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:02 AM

Smith is a more talented and athletic player. Varejao is a more effective player.

Varejao is making 8.5M this year. Bass is making 6.5M. If the Cavs threw in Luke Walton (expiring), Bass, Green plus a million first round picks might fetch Varejao and Walton. Of course the Cavs could do better. No one wants Green.


Nobody particularly wants Bass, either. His contract isn't bad, but it's got three years to go and he plays the position they want Horford/Thompson to play.

I really doubt The Celtics are turning Bass and Green into an All Star, whether it's Smith or Verajao (who should be an All Star this year). If the Cavs and Hawks choose to deal them, there are better deals for both than last summer's worst contract and Brandon Bass. The Hawks would prefer Pau Gasol to Bass/Green, and I think they'd prefer a deal centered around Gortat, too. The Cavs, meanwhile, need young front court scoring to pair with Thompson. Somebody like Tiago Splitter might make them think hard about parting with Verajao. But Green and Bass don't.

Edited by Grin&MartyBarret, 03 December 2012 - 08:49 AM.


#26 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 09:59 AM

I wonder if you could get (taking a deep breath to avoid losing my breakfast) Andris Biedrins for Green. One underachiever for another. And Biedrins expires next year.

#27 collings94

  • PipPip
  • 1182 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:55 AM

At least Bierdrins is interested in getting his ass in the paint to get rebounds. It sucks when your two best rebounders only want to shoot 15-20 footers.

#28 Koufax

  • 1891 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:51 AM

I was at Saturday's game against Philly. PP looked more energetic than I had seen him all year. He pulled his sneaky fast moves several times to get to the basket. If he can bring that game to the playoffs on a consistent basis, there may be hope for these geezers yet.

#29 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9515 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:37 PM

I wonder if you could get (taking a deep breath to avoid losing my breakfast) Andris Biedrins for Green. One underachiever for another. And Biedrins expires next year.

Not to pile on, but I've gotta think Jeff Green is the single worst contract in the league. He makes a bunch of money, is awful, and isn't expiring anytime soon.

#30 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10187 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:53 PM

I wonder if you could get (taking a deep breath to avoid losing my breakfast) Andris Biedrins for Green. One underachiever for another. And Biedrins expires next year.


But why would Golden State do that deal? Andrew Bogut, as it turns out, may not play in a while - if ever again. He had microfracture surgery last spring and hasn't been able to get on the court for any length of time since. While Biedrins isn't an integral part of their success, he is the only true seven footer on that team right now. I suspect it would take more than Green to pry him loose from the Warriors right now.

Edited by DeJesus Built My Hotrod, 10 December 2012 - 12:53 PM.


#31 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 01:20 PM

If Biedrins is so important as their only healthy 7 footer, why is he averaging only 6 minutes and 0.3 points per game over their last 6 games, and only 9.1 minutes and 0.6 ppg for the season? http://espn.go.com/n...andris-biedrins

Iv'e been one of Green's detractors, but given Green's last two games against Philly, it's Boston that should reject a Biedrins for Green deal, not GS.

Edited by Brickowski, 10 December 2012 - 01:21 PM.


#32 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41877 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:53 PM

Not to pile on, but I've gotta think Jeff Green is the single worst contract in the league. He makes a bunch of money, is awful, and isn't expiring anytime soon.


You really think he's been "awful" this season to date? He looks like a different guy to me.

#33 fairlee76

  • 1530 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:08 PM

You really think he's been "awful" this season to date? He looks like a different guy to me.

Not to mention that he would be replaced by a guy making close to the veteran minimum.

I have no issue with not liking Green's game as there are plenty of faults to critique. But it is not as though they made a choice between Green and a guy like Batum. Given the salary constraints, bringing Green back made the most sense. And while his start has been uneven, the last few games make me hopeful that he is finding his way.* The problem is, I think the Celtics need Green to play at the level of the last few games to have a legit chance against the HEAT.

* I realize this all but guarantees he'll look tentative and score 5 points on Wednesday.

#34 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9515 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:40 PM

You really think he's been "awful" this season to date? He looks like a different guy to me.

I don't understand this. How has he not been awful? He's been worse than before! He's still an inefficient shooter, he still doesn't rebound or play defense at all competently, plus as an added bonus, he's now turning the ball over at a huge rate too!

Not that it's the end all be all, but Jeff Green, who has a career win shares per 48 minutes of 0.070 (league average is .100), is at a stellar 0.038 so far this year.

I think Amar'e is maybe the only contract in the NBA less tradeable, and his deal at least expires one year sooner.

#35 Nomar813


  • SoSH Member


  • 6325 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 04:30 PM

He's played a hell of a lot better over the last couple of weeks, not just offensively (where he's gotten far more efficient), but on the defensive end as well. People like to scrutinize him over the contract, but I think after what he went through and how much time he missed, he can be forgiven for a slow start.

#36 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5524 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 04:42 PM

I dont know if this is medically logical, but on the radio Maxwell said that he was recently talking to a doctor knowledgeable in the surgery that Green had, and this doctor told him that Green wouldnt be 'right' until about Feb. Max didnt go into any details as to why, so take it for what its worth, I just found it interesting.

#37 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10187 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:04 PM

If Biedrins is so important as their only healthy 7 footer, why is he averaging only 6 minutes and 0.3 points per game over their last 6 games, and only 9.1 minutes and 0.6 ppg for the season? http://espn.go.com/n...andris-biedrins

Iv'e been one of Green's detractors, but given Green's last two games against Philly, it's Boston that should reject a Biedrins for Green deal, not GS.


Apologies, I should clarify.

First, I am not sure there is a fit for Green in Golden State. For the first time in a while, they have a wealth of options at forward with David Lee (as a side note, this guy is playing really well right now), Carl Landry (also playing well), Harrison Barnes and Draymond Green.

And while Biedrins is by no means important to the Warriors, I doubt they are going to surrender their only legitimate, experienced big-man unless they can get something back that they need - say a true bench scoring option.

#38 Brickowski

  • 3615 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:28 PM

Well, the Celtics view Green (maybe incorrectly) as a "true bench scoring option."

But you're right, it may well be a bad trade for both teams, and on reflection I shouldn't have suggested it.

Edited by Brickowski, 10 December 2012 - 06:29 PM.


#39 lexrageorge

  • 3043 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:54 AM

Green has scored 19, 18, 8, 19, 16, and 15 points in his last 6 games in about 22-24 minutes each game (and a couple of longer stints). That's not "awful", and his rebound totals have been creeping up a bit as well. If you define his role as scoring depth off the bench, then he's doing OK as of now.

I think Max's point is a good one. He missed a whole season, during most of which he was very limited in what he could do in terms of conditioning. There's still a chance of improvement in his game as he gets readjusted and reintegrated into the Celtics rotation. Maybe his win shares won't be the greatest, but there are so many flaws in those stats when it comes to evaluating NBA players that I really don't think we should put much stock into them.

Sure, he will always be an overpay, but the team had no better option available to them. The team is over the cap anyway until both Pierce and Garnett come off the books, by which time Green's $9.2M cap hit really shouldn't hinder them (plus his will be an expiring contract by then).

We'll know a lot more about this team come February; until then, it's too early to pass judgment.

#40 nighthob

  • 2840 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:31 AM

Also, re: Green it's worth noting that Taj Gibson, who's a single position backup, essentially got the same contract. Though I think that was crazy too. I understood why Boston felt forced to re-up Green (they had no other available options for swing forwards aside from vet min players), but for the life of me I don't get the Gibson contract.

#41 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5524 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:40 PM

The NBA FA market is just crazy, and it leads us to logic like this: 'this bad contract doesnt look that bad compared to this bad contract'.

I think the Bulls were similarly backed into a corner with Taj because it was justifiable to overspend a bit on him [considering he probably could get a similar contract elsewhere from a stupid team that cant attract any talent], because the easiest alternative is to dedicate the MLE resource to replace Taj. So now they can look at the Taj deal and say 'well, paying Taj ~8M a year is a slight overpay, but thats ok because while we might find a similar player for the MLE thats just slightly below the $8M for Taj, and now we have Taj and can use the MLE if we want'.

That line of thinking is absolutely crazy, but thats how the NBA system works, its where 2 wrongs really make a right. If the NBA could ever address this, and have a system where the end result is that 80% of the big money contracts actually make sense [like in the NFL] the league would be much better for it. But to do that we would need a commissioner who cares and has vision.

#42 lexrageorge

  • 3043 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:37 PM

The NBA FA market is just crazy, and it leads us to logic like this: 'this bad contract doesnt look that bad compared to this bad contract'.

I think the Bulls were similarly backed into a corner with Taj because it was justifiable to overspend a bit on him [considering he probably could get a similar contract elsewhere from a stupid team that cant attract any talent], because the easiest alternative is to dedicate the MLE resource to replace Taj. So now they can look at the Taj deal and say 'well, paying Taj ~8M a year is a slight overpay, but thats ok because while we might find a similar player for the MLE thats just slightly below the $8M for Taj, and now we have Taj and can use the MLE if we want'.

That line of thinking is absolutely crazy, but thats how the NBA system works, its where 2 wrongs really make a right. If the NBA could ever address this, and have a system where the end result is that 80% of the big money contracts actually make sense [like in the NFL] the league would be much better for it. But to do that we would need a commissioner who cares and has vision.


It's the inevitable side effect of a soft cap. To make the cap "soft", they have to make it a fairly low value, one that's easily exceeded once you have 1 or 2 large contracts on your team. Then you need to include Bird rights (because you don't want teams to lose their own players solely due to cap reasons) and things like MLE's and bi-annual exceptions so teams over the cap can still at least add players.

I'm not sure it's such a big problem; Jeff Green at $10M/yr is the same player he would be at $3M. His large contract does not hinder the team any, so it really doesn't matter to me what these guys get paid.

#43 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5524 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:01 PM

I'm not sure it's such a big problem; Jeff Green at $10M/yr is the same player he would be at $3M. His large contract does not hinder the team any, so it really doesn't matter to me what these guys get paid.


The problem isnt individual player salaries but the system.

These overpay deals can be a double-whammy to small market teams. Lets take Jeff Green and Taj as examples, they both get overpay deals because they are on teams with above average revenue, so its to the teams advantage to overpay to retain them because of the player acquisition mechanisms [mainly MLE once you are over the cap] to replace them. This approach, justifying an overpay to keep the MLE, gives big market teams one advantage. This also creates comps for the rest of the league, so if a Taj or Green equivalent were to hit free agency to go to a crappy team with cap space they would want these contracts. It forces crappy teams to overpay probably even a little more to attract free agents who really arent interested in joining their teams, just so that team can get someone and add talent. The market gets artificially inflated by the big market teams, small market teams overpay to get 'good' and never have a chance because if they get really 'good' and need to spend a little more to get over the top its generally a couple of these overpay situations that hold them back because of their internal budget.

IMO, its bad for the league because small market teams are constantly at a disadvantage. Say the Thunder were in Dallas or LA instead of OKC, they probably wouldnt have traded Harden and would have had those core 3 guys together for a long time. Harden and Westbrook are probably both close to 'max' guys but this constant overpay thing makes them max guys in this inflated FA world. It just seems to turn the league into haves and have nots, and I think decreases interest in the league as a whole.

#44 lexrageorge

  • 3043 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:34 PM

Except in the new CBA, exceeding the luxury tax and the slightly higher apron have far more serious consequences. So the advantages of the big market teams will be less. We really won't fully see the affects of the new CBA until next year, but it may prevent teams from overloading on high-paid but marginal talent.

Also, there will always be big and small market teams, and the larger market clubs will have an advantage. There's really little that can be done, outside of an NFL/NHL hard cap (and even then people complain about the advantages of the large market clubs in those leagues). Of course, it doesn't help that Stern goes out of his way to punish small market clubs that succeed (think San Antonio, Sacramento, and even Boston in the Reggie Lewis cap fiasco). But that's a separate issue.

#45 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5524 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 12:47 PM

I am curious to see how the new luxury tax limitations on the MLE, Bi-Annual, trades and higher tax rate affect teams. I know it wouldnt completely compensate for the new restrictions, but I wonder if buying draft picks will become more popular for the higher revenue teams? Teams can still send $3M in cash to another team annually, and that cash isnt counted towards their team salary so it doesnt affect their luxury tax. Obviously thats not a huge advantage, but if annually the Lakers or Mavs bought a pick in the late teens in the draft that could make a big difference if they draft wisely.

As for the small and big market differences, Yes in this system they will still exist, the new CBA just limits the big market advantages. It still seems overly complex, considering the alternative of a hard cap levels the playing field so much more and makes the overall system of free agency, trades, cap calculations, etc so much simpler.

Personally I dont buy the advantages of small market team thing for the NFL [I am not knowledgeable enough in the NHL to solicit an opinion there], because all the small market teams that claim they are screwed because they are small market are run poorly. Teams like the Bills [who dont sell naming rights to the stadium], Bengals, Jags, Panthers, Arizona, etc are generally run poorly for many, many years and cant develop a fan base as a result. And considering how much they receive in revenue sharing from the national tv deals, its really not the financial advantages of the big market teams that are the cause for their plight, its that they are run poorly. Plus, with the NFL hard cap, yes the cap can kind of be circumvented to a degree by pushing cap problems to the future when considering present value and the fact that the cap does increase over time so there is a discount rate factor, but eventually those teams face the ramifications of their cap maneuverings even if they minimize them somewhat.

The NFLs big advantage as a league is their national TV deals, they get huge money because so many people want to watch which is a function of fantasy football [which doesnt help the NBA] but also because most teams have a chance every single year. The later is just not the case in the NBA, and I think their system is to blame because it doesnt promote parity and the advantages of big market teams are greater than the advantages of big market teams in the NFL. As a result, the NBA cant sniff a TV deal close to what the NFL gets, and if they got more money they could do some amazing things like devote a lot of resources to officiating which would improve the product, devote resources to developmental leagues which would improve the product, etc. Basically I think the NBAs poor system exacerbates their financial problems and big/small market differences [because they cant get a great national TV deal], and its one of the big reasons I hate David Stern

Edited by wutang112878, 14 December 2012 - 12:49 PM.


#46 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3342 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:52 AM

Also, re: Green it's worth noting that Taj Gibson, who's a single position backup, essentially got the same contract. Though I think that was crazy too. I understood why Boston felt forced to re-up Green (they had no other available options for swing forwards aside from vet min players), but for the life of me I don't get the Gibson contract.


It's worth noting, though, that Taj Gibson is one of the best defensive players in the NBA. He's a limited player otherwise, but at least he offers a truly elite skill. Jeff Green doesn't do that. Likewise, Chicago knows that any championship aspirations they have involve beating Miami, and there's not a player in the league who is better suited to guard LeBron than Gibson.

#47 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7689 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 12:26 PM

It's worth noting, though, that Taj Gibson is one of the best defensive players in the NBA. He's a limited player otherwise, but at least he offers a truly elite skill. Jeff Green doesn't do that. Likewise, Chicago knows that any championship aspirations they have involve beating Miami, and there's not a player in the league who is better suited to guard LeBron than Gibson.


Does Taj Gibson consistently guard Lebron James when the Bulls play the Heat? You may be right, I honestly don't remember. My recollection is that he may switch out on him, sort of how KG can guard anyone on the floor. But I would be somewhat surprised if Gibson is in any way the "Lebron-stopper".

Taj Gibson is a back-up post player, solid rebounder, and very good defender. But I don't remember him consistently guarding wing players. I know Lebron is now playing inside more often, and is often at the 4 position. But I still don't see it.

I think the Jeff Green comparison is more about paying that amount of money for a role player.... not that they actually play the same role.

Edited by radsoxfan, 19 December 2012 - 12:27 PM.


#48 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3342 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:02 PM

Does Taj Gibson consistently guard Lebron James when the Bulls play the Heat? You may be right, I honestly don't remember. My recollection is that he may switch out on him, sort of how KG can guard anyone on the floor. But I would be somewhat surprised if Gibson is in any way the "Lebron-stopper".

Taj Gibson is a back-up post player, solid rebounder, and very good defender. But I don't remember him consistently guarding wing players. I know Lebron is now playing inside more often, and is often at the 4 position. But I still don't see it.

I think the Jeff Green comparison is more about paying that amount of money for a role player.... not that they actually play the same role.


They do use Gibson on LeBron a lot. Noah switches onto him on pick and rolls, but Gibson is one of the few guys in the league who is quick enough to defend LeBron on the perimeter and defend him down low. Gibson isn't a "LeBron stopper" in the sense that nobody is, but he defends him better than anybody in the league.

#49 nighthob

  • 2840 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 04:07 PM

It's worth noting, though, that Taj Gibson is one of the best defensive players in the NBA. He's a limited player otherwise, but at least he offers a truly elite skill. Jeff Green doesn't do that. Likewise, Chicago knows that any championship aspirations they have involve beating Miami, and there's not a player in the league who is better suited to guard LeBron than Gibson.


This isn't really true. He's certainly a nice defensive roleplayer, but Josh Smith he ain't.

#50 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3342 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 04:18 PM

This isn't really true. He's certainly a nice defensive roleplayer, but Josh Smith he ain't.


Agree to disagree. Not to say Smith isn't a good defensive player, but Gibson's defensive impact is as good as anybody's in the league. From Hollinger's profile:

Meanwhile, Gibson ranked second among power forwards in blocks per minute, and his defensive stats are otherworldly. Chicago gave up a whopping 10.5 points per 100 possessions fewer with Gibson on the court, and this was already a dominant defensive team. Opposing power forwards mustered only a 12.6 PER against him, according to 82games.com, but it was his help defense that really stood out -- Gibson can comfortably switch on guards and lock them up.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users