Clippers
Spurs
Good - Depending on how Spurs fill out roster and certain young players progress, there might be team capable of at least pushing Warriors . . . Spurs' big three would be way better than Cavs' defensively.
Bad - Another "super team" would be perception, whether they ended up at least pushing Warriors or not . . . barring injury, WCF match-up would probably be lock for next 2-3 years.
I'm going good. Sure, it wouldn't help with perception or reputation, but league needs someone to at least challenge Warriors or ratings and overall interest will inevitably eventually decline . . . people like watching dominant teams, but only when they're pushed. Only reasons it's not reflected this season is because it was new and many media and casuals foolishly thought Warriors-Cavaliers would be "epic" match-up.
I think at the end of the day, he re-signs with the Clips (would love to eat crow though). Don't see how it hurts the league though. Simply a case of Cause & Effect. The Warriors creating a superteam means other organizations will have to do the same if they want to compete.
Last edited by BatManu20; 06-08-2017 at 05:57 PM.
Can't believe OP didn't put show voters.
Still voted though.
what's "better for the NBA". Not voting.
Spurs.
It's sad to say the league needs like 2-3 more Super Teams to make things interesting...
Boston
SA
LAL
Those teams are prime candidates but also in HUGE markets and have great fanbases.
League just can't afford the same teams to face each other for what 4-5 straight years?!? Lmao
There's also good young talent and stars that'll give it even more appeal.
End of the day league needs 2 more super teams THIS offseason
Teams that are rebuilding, will do it slowly.
Teams that cannot compete won't commit to future salary and try win a playoff series just to cash in. Some will dump their stars for asset until the Dubs sun sets for good.
just for the sake of this conversation - the Dubs are one injury away to become good again
there are so many things that can happen
even teams that get a #1 draft pick sometimes are very unlucky
the NBA. I don't watch every game, just a few of the top teams and some specific matchup and developing players. I just want the Spurs to win rings.
In international relations theory, you have what you call a unipolar world and a bipolar world.
A unipolar world is one in which the world is led by one superpower and everyone else falls in line. That is the world we live in now, with the United States as the global hegemon.
A bipolar world is one in which there are two great powers competing for dominance over the other, in effect counterbalancing one another. This was the world we lived in during the Cold War era and it is the world we are increasingly set to enter with the rise of China.
Right now, the NBA is a unipolar world with the Warriors as the league hegemon. Chris Paul going to the Spurs could catapult the Spurs into the status of a great power and serve as a counterweight against the Warriors' unchecked dominance.
With the likelihood of having to gut the roster just to have cap room to sign CP3, it seems like a lateral move at best.
I'm not really keen on signing a 32 YO PG to a 4 year contract. Maybe 2 with a 3rd year option. I doubt he goes for that when he can get 5 from the Clips.
I don't know if Adam Silver likes the idea of the boring Spurs spoiling the darling Dubs Finals appearance.
Who are you really gutting at the end of the day? Either a washed up Gasol and past their prime Green and/or Parker? If it takes only two of those three for Paul, then I'd take that, personally.
Man this tle is so misleading when you see it a preview before entering the spurs sub forum
Would be funny if it was intentional
Keeping the Clippers compe ive in big market LA is imperative for the NBA while Lakers rebuild. Also for the Clippers it is imperative to keep him for marketing purposes. My guess is he doesn't move anywhere.
Green is only 29 and hasn't played that many minutes when compared to what one would expect from a starter on a playoff team for the past six seasons.
I believe their is a way to keep both Green, Parker, and sign CP3 to a deal starting at over $30 million (S&T Gasol, Forbes, and a 2018 first round pick).
Losing Gasol is a non issue to me, Green would be, simply because the Spurs would be better with him, with or without CP3
Green, Parker, Gasol, and Aldridge could all vanish without a trace and the team wouldn't skip a beat, tbh. You replace them with CP3 and the Spurs just got a lot better.
Green is essential to the Spurs beating GSW and Cleveland. He is one of the best perimeter defenders in the league and also one of the best active 3pt shooters. Finding a way to have CP3, Green, Leonard, & Aldridge on the Spurs next season could give the Spurs a legit shot at both teams.
Green is a very poor man's Klay Thompson. Not as good a shooter, not as good on D, and way worse at creating off the dribble. Green's best days are behind him. That said, of the four I listed, Green is the least of the problems. If he stuck around, it wouldn't be the worst thing provided he's surrounded by elite talent.
But Aldrige is straight trash, homie. He's a , straight up. The Spurs will never ring as long as his lazy ass is on the roster. He's a complete boat anchor. Fortunately, I think the FO is smart enough to realize he's a black hole and will be punting his ass soon enough. Or maybe he will pull a Bosh and his heart issue (literal, not metaphorical) will cause him to retire. That's the hope at least.
I didn't so much mean the business, but more so if you're a basketball fan (as opposed to just a Spurs fan) and are capable of taking your bias out of it, which would be better?
I not only believe there is a way to keep both Green and Parker, but I actually think it's more likely than not, if it happens (which I'd have to see to believe). I don't see how you got $30+M though . . .
- Gasol salary dumped, Forbes waived, all free agents renounced.
- Aldridge, Leonard, Parker, Green, Anderson, Murray, Bertans, is nearly $70M for 7 players.
- Duncan and Jean-Charles "dead" money is another roughly $3M.
- 29, if not stashed, starts at $1.17M and throw in 4 minimum roster charges, which comes to about $76M, with a projected $101M cap, leaving about $25M.
He could take a 1+1, opt out after year 1 and sign a 4 year max at that point. Obviously, he'd have to be assured that he'd get it no matter what happens next season though.
Green leaves plenty to be desired off the dribble, but don't act like Klay is good off the dribble. He gets lanes sometimes because of the shooting gravity around him, but generally is catch and shoot (look at his shot distribution).
Thompson's defense is good, but not sure you can slot him above Green definitively on that end.
Shooting, Klay can also be streaky like Green but is better on a higher degree of difficulty.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
