It’s official Donovan is the GOAT

[Bawse Dawg]

The lineup of Steph, Klay, KD, Igg, and Dray (their death lineup of great offense):
Played the 6th most minutes in the playoffs (which is a lot considering the injuries to several of those players), they played the 3rd most minutes together in the regular season (even with injuries). You overestimate the staggering. Curry, Durant, Green and Thompson all played in 4 of 5 most used GSW lineups...

Duh, having your best players on the court is always the best move. But Klay goes to the bench quickly so he can be available when Durant and or Curry takes a seat. One of them is always on the court, that's staggering the minutes.

in the regular season they had ortg of 125, 110, 119, 113, & 110... and they combined for an oRtg of 124 when all playing together, which is significantly above the league average oRtg of 108.

News flash, anyone playing in those lineups will have great offensive ratings. It's the greatest collection of offensive talent ever assembled. That does not mean Iggy and Draymond are great offensive players (Draymond actually is good, but not at putting the ball in the basket.)

they had a dRtg of 108, 111, 107, 109 & 105... and they combined to output a dRtg of 116 all together, which is significantly worse than the league average of 106

They are all above average offensively, and combine to be significantly worse than the league average defensively. Yet they lean on that lineup when they need it most.

I'll take your word for it, but the death lineup only being a +8 is a far cry from what it used to be. Gobert led plenty of Jazz lineups with a better net rating than that. So moot point.

Rudy has a good oRtg too, but the difference is that his oRtg is the product of his lack of usage, and dependence on put-backs or opportunistic dump offs.

BS. You can't whip out the Iggy and Draymond offensive ratings, and then put qualifiers on Rudy's. Those two play with three of the greatest shooters ever. Gobert plays with an average offense all around him. his offensive rating being good, is a way bigger deal than any other Golden State player having a good Ortg, so the point is buried right there.

If other guys are shut down, game planned for, injured, etc. Rudy becomes nothing, even possibly a negative offensively. The GSW have 4 or 5 guys on the floor who can create something, even green can dribble and find open players. Rudy is limited to holding the ball for handoffs outside the paint. Inside the paint he doesn't touch the ball unless he is open under the hoop.

Rudy has the most screen assists in the league, and always has to be respected around the rim. What more do you want? You want him to develop a mediocre handle and run a pick and roll or something? Why? When would that ever be a preferred option? He's not some stiff out there, it's just not what he's asked to do.

And that sums up the problem. The problem isn't so much that its Rudy, its that we have almost ALL of our players not being able to create ANY offense. You appear to think 4-5 great players offensively is a bad thing... so do you prefer we have 2 good offensive players and 3 bad? right now our starting five has only 3 players who rate above league average offensively, and none of them even come close to 20% usage. The guys taking our shots (Rubio, Mitchell, Hood, Exum, Burks, Crowder) are all well below league average oRtg. I think we see DMs efficiency rise, and it makes sense that it's low considering how much usg he had to bare. but the moral of the story is YOU NEED to spread shots out among good offensive players. That way one or two guys cant be isolated and game-planned for, and shut down the entire team.

He's our defensive anchor. And a huge part of our offensive plan. That plan does not involve him shooting mediocre percentages from mid range, it's a waste. Donovan is a high volume scorer, if he ups his efficiency by 5% suddenly our offense looks way better. Get us a stretch four to replace Favors and watch how much better we look on offense.

Our starting lineup leaves us with one guy who can create (and inefficiently -- partly because of the lack of help); therefor we run 2 players with bad oRtgs, and 3 passable offensive guys who rarely shoot (ingles, favors, and gobert)

Look, I'm not stupid. Obviously if Gobert could be 50% better on offense and the same player on defense that'd be great. But it would also be great if Curry could play defense like Kawhi Leonard. But I doubt any Golden State fans have to defend the fact that he doesn't to others.

Your original point was that Golden State runs 5 great offensive players at a time. And currently the player Rudy is doesn't allow us to do the same. One of those points is absolutely false. And I say both are. But let's just say that they do run 5 great offensive players in the
Curry
Klay
Iggy
KD
Draymond lineup.

Draymond is 11ppg with 51.6eFG%
Iggy is 6ppg on 51.4eFG%

Rudy is 13.5ppg on 62.2eFG%

So, no. Rudy is not what is holding us back from having a Golden State style "Five offensive threats" lineup.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

everyone gets the biannual but the MLE is different every based on being over the cap, over the tax and under the cap. They get 4 mill but can only sign for 2 years. They sill get the bi- annual.

Bi-annual has to be renounced per cbafaq. MLE turns into room exception for over cap teams IIRC.

This hard cap stuff has became too complicated for us non-NBA executives to keep track of, or decipher.

 

[stitches]

Bi-annual has to be renounced per cbafaq. MLE turns into room exception for over cap teams IIRC.

This hard cap stuff has became too complicated for us non-NBA executives to keep track of, or decipher.

THey should just bring in the hard cap and be done with it.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

THey should just bring in the hard cap and be done with it.

That wouldn't be good for small market teams trying to retain talent. The CBA is trying to create parody and promote competitiveness but the politics and dynamics are stonewalling it.

I disagree with teams under the cap not having a MLE, but large market teams love it. Work to be done... I almost want small markets to get extra exemptions prorated by market size.

Plus, where the hell is the new LT pool used for league purposes going? Black box.

 

[stitches]

That wouldn't be good for small market teams trying to retain talent. The CBA is trying to create parody and promote competitiveness but the politics and dynamics are stonewalling it.

I disagree with teams under the cap not having a MLE, but large market teams love it. Work to be done... I almost want small markets to get extra exemptions prorated by market size.

Plus, where the hell is the new LT pool used for league purposes going? Black box.

I don't think it will hurt small markets. Especially if it comes with no limit on max salaries. Let the teams decide what % of the cap to give to their star players. This IMO will benefit the teams that make the best decisions.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

THey should just bring in the hard cap and be done with it.

They never will. It makes too much money for the league and other teams to do the LT.

And how would the NBA start the hard cap era? Would they wipe out all existing contracts? And the big kicker, if a super-star ever took a big pay-cut, things would be even more unbalanced than they are now. At least now you can get another super-star laden team to join up and overpay (like the Rockets).

 

[LoPo]

That wouldn't be good for small market teams trying to retain talent. The CBA is trying to create parity and promote competitiveness but the politics and dynamics are stonewalling it.

I agree with you. There has to be some wiggle room since the NBA will always have guaranteed contracts and they act like they want to have parity. It would take a ton of negotiating to get to a hard cap.

I just wish there was some way to limit stuff like GS. They literally could have 4 super max players in two years and there would be no rule against it. They could have Curry, Durant, Klay and Draymond making $40 million a year and the salary cap could be $50+ less than what those 4 guys make. Crazy...

 

[Siro]

It's parity you assholes.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I don't think it will hurt small markets. Especially if it comes with no limit on max salaries. Let the teams decide what % of the cap to give to their star players. This IMO will benefit the teams that make the best decisions.

But that seems like it would still favor the bigger markets, especially when it comes time to sign role players under limited space. Stars will still potentially take less money to join a big market. Small markets will still have to overpay to keep stars, giving them less cap room to sign role players.

If the NBA went to a hard cap, it seems like they would have to adopt more NFL style contracts where money isnt full guaranteed (to avoid teams completely screwing themselves for long periods of time), even for the big time players. It seems like the NBPA would be completely against that.

 

[LoPo]

It's parity you assholes.

They want a parody of parity.

 

[stitches]

They never will. It makes too much money for the league and other teams to do the LT.

And how would the NBA start the hard cap era? Would they wipe out all existing contracts? And the big kicker, if a super-star ever took a big pay-cut, things would be even more unbalanced than they are now. At least now you can get another super-star laden team to join up and overpay (like the Rockets).

There probably would be a transition period. Like they will give 2 years for all teams to go under the hard cap for example... they might smooth it down even over several years. For example teams that are already over the cap would only be allowed to make moves that lower their salary total, etc. and they will be required to go from say... 150M salary sheet, to 135M in year 2, to 125 in year 3... to... lets say 115 would be the goal in year 4.

 

[LoPo]

I think it all comes down to guaranteed contracts. The NBAPA won't budge on that and the teams want the ability to keep who they need.

They just need to make the luxury tax repeater penalty harsher. For example, if you are in the luxury for a 3rd year in a row, you lose your 1st rounder that year or the next year if that year is already traded. Something like that. For a team like GS, it doesn't hurt them too much, but they also lose that asset. Everybody just goes up in the draft a spot.

 

[stitches]

But that seems like it would still favor the bigger markets, especially when it comes time to sign role players under limited space. Stars will still potentially take less money to join a big market. Small markets will still have to overpay to keep stars, giving them less cap room to sign role players.

If the NBA went to a hard cap, it seems like they would have to adopt more NFL style contracts where money isnt full guaranteed (to avoid teams completely screwing themselves for long periods of time), even for the big time players. It seems like the NBPA would be completely against that.

Big markets will still have advantages, but some of the advantages they have now will be eliminated(like most of the big market teams can actually afford to be in the tax multiple years, while most small market teams have no way to cover the losses so they are forced to dance around it and do it once in blue moon, or... when they have a LeBron on the team).

It's interesting to think about how much would you offer for say... 27 year old LeBron lets say... would you offer 70% of your cap to him? or 50%? Would someone offer 85% and just fill the rest of the roster with minimum contracts? What about a Curry type? It would be a real exploration of different strategies for roster construction. I bet there will be teams that would make offers that are significantly different that the market-size would play much smaller role. Right now the max players get the max everywhere... so it only makes sense when all things are equal to search the bigger market. I think it will serve against super teams. I think the stars will be spread around the league more, simply because the money will be significant enough difference in incentives...

You are right that the NBPA won't be thrilled with this one though... and that's probably the main reason it won't happen, even though Silver actually threw it out several times last week as an option in order to combat super teams and introducing more competitive balance.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

I heard an idea that I love from another forum.

A player resigning with their own team to a max contract gets all the money that entails. (35% or whatever of the cap). But for the team it only counts against the cap as much as a max free agent from another team (25% or whatever). That way the players get the money. But resigning your own star players doesn’t immediately put you in cap hell.

Obviously this still helps a team like the Warriors, which isn’t great. But at least a team like the Pelicans with Davis (or us later with Mitchell) aren’t completely hamstrung by his contract

 

[Bawse Dawg]

Or even easier: Just let every team pick one contract each year and that contract will only count against the cap for 50% of its value.

Easy, helps every team. Who would complain? How does it hurt anyone?

 

[jope]

Duh, having your best players on the court is always the best move. But Klay goes to the bench quickly so he can be available when Durant and or Curry takes a seat. One of them is always on the court, that's staggering the minutes.


News flash, anyone playing in those lineups will have great offensive ratings. It's the greatest collection of offensive talent ever assembled. That does not mean Iggy and Draymond are great offensive players (Draymond actually is good, but not at putting the ball in the basket.)


I'll take your word for it, but the death lineup only being a +8 is a far cry from what it used to be. Gobert led plenty of Jazz lineups with a better net rating than that. So moot point.


BS. You can't whip out the Iggy and Draymond offensive ratings, and then put qualifiers on Rudy's. Those two play with three of the greatest shooters ever. Gobert plays with an average offense all around him. his offensive rating being good, is a way bigger deal than any other Golden State player having a good Ortg, so the point is buried right there.


Rudy has the most screen assists in the league, and always has to be respected around the rim. What more do you want? You want him to develop a mediocre handle and run a pick and roll or something? Why? When would that ever be a preferred option? He's not some stiff out there, it's just not what he's asked to do.

He's our defensive anchor. And a huge part of our offensive plan. That plan does not involve him shooting mediocre percentages from mid range, it's a waste. Donovan is a high volume scorer, if he ups his efficiency by 5% suddenly our offense looks way better. Get us a stretch four to replace Favors and watch how much better we look on offense.


Look, I'm not stupid. Obviously if Gobert could be 50% better on offense and the same player on defense that'd be great. But it would also be great if Curry could play defense like Kawhi Leonard. But I doubt any Golden State fans have to defend the fact that he doesn't to others.

Your original point was that Golden State runs 5 great offensive players at a time. And currently the player Rudy is doesn't allow us to do the same. One of those points is absolutely false. And I say both are. But let's just say that they do run 5 great offensive players in the
Curry
Klay
Iggy
KD
Draymond lineup.

Draymond is 11ppg with 51.6eFG%
Iggy is 6ppg on 51.4eFG%

Rudy is 13.5ppg on 62.2eFG%

So, no. Rudy is not what is holding us back from having a Golden State style "Five offensive threats" lineup.

The original original point you made was that running 5 offensive players wont work. As you've now admitted, it does in fact work. Warriors... Rockets... all of their key guys are above average offensively. The league today is built around offense. Defenses are basically at the offense's/ref's mercy 90% of the time because of the rules and systems in place. So, IMO, its better to have elite offense than elite defense. The warriors main lineup being above average offensively, and below average defensively, supports that idea. Besides that, good offense can make for good defense... if the other team is pulling the ball out of the net all game, you get to set up your defense and dig in.

The rockets/refs made it very clear in our series, that their offense was better than our defense. We are a great defensive team, one of the best in the league in the past several seasons, and still could not stop them. They averaged 109 ppg in our series. In fact, they game-planned Rudy right out of the series on both ends through their versatility and their understanding of what his weaknesses are (he finished the series at a cumulative -62)



(I can post cute little snippets to support my narrative too)

They had 4 to 5 legit threats to score on the floor at almost all times, made Rudy play to his weaknesses most possessions, and got what they wanted. Conversely, we usually ran 1 or 2 offensive threats because that's all we have, and unless you are talking about LBJ, that's much easier to stop.

We're not going to go all the way in today's NBA without at least 4 good/great offensive players on the floor. Either Rudy needs offensive improvement, or we need to surround him with better offensive talent. I'm fine with either (both!). But asking Rudy to improve offensively isn't asking for the moon. He has touch, and a very low starting point from a usage and shot chart perspective.. only up from here.

I also mentioned earlier that its not just Rudy's fault. its that we have almost no one besides DM that can create anything. Take DM out and who's realistically going to try to feed rudy down low?... Who causes a double team? Who shifts or gets taken advantage of when the defense switches? No one can create for themselves or stretch the defense sufficiently because they just aren't enough of a threat to warrant it. No one except DM (and burks) could do anything against the Rockets' switching defense. And because of the defensive success it brought, it will likely be most teams' game-plan against the Jazz moving forward.

 

[Chargers Jazz Angels]

Bi-annual has to be renounced per cbafaq. MLE turns into room exception for over cap teams IIRC.

This hard cap stuff has became too complicated for us non-NBA executives to keep track of, or decipher.

here is what i found

Mid-level exception[edit]
Once a year, teams can use a mid-level exception (MLE) to sign a player to a contract for a specified maximum amount. The amount of the MLE and its duration depend on the team's cap status. In the 2017 CBA, the MLE was initially set at $8.406 million in the 2017–18 season for teams that are over the cap either before or after the signing, but under the luxury tax apron, set at $6 million above the tax line. Teams can use this exception to offer contracts of up to four years. Teams above the apron have an MLE initially set at $5.192 million, allowing contracts of up to three years. Teams with cap room, which were ineligible for the MLE before the 2011 CBA, have an MLE initially set at $4.328 million that allows two-year contracts. In subsequent seasons, all MLE amounts will be determined by applying the percentage change of the salary cap to the previous exception amount.[37]

Before the 2011 CBA, the MLE was equal to the average NBA salary for all teams over the cap; teams with cap room were then ineligible for the MLE.[6] The Mid-Level Exception for the 2008–09 NBA season was $5.585 million.[38] The MLE was $5.854 million for the 2009–10 NBA regular season.[39]

Under the 2017 CBA, the apron was initially set at $6 million above the tax line for the 2017–18 season. In a new feature, the apron will change from season to season, with the percentage change (up or down) set at half of the rate of change of the cap for that season.[9]

Bi-annual exception[edit]
The bi-annual exception can currently be used by teams below the apron to sign a free agent to a contract starting at $3.29 million.[37] Like the mid-level exception, the bi-annual exception can also be split among more than one player, and can be used to sign players for up to two years; raises were originally limited to 8% per year, but in the 2017 CBA are limited to 5%. This exception was referred to as the "$1 million exception" in the 1999 CBA, although it was valued at $1 million for only the first year of the agreement.

An example of the bi-annual exception was the Los Angeles Lakers' signing of Karl Malone to a contract before the 2003–04 season.

The exception was eliminated for teams above the tax apron following the 2011 NBA lockout as many high spending teams were using this as a tool to gain top paid players.[6]

A team cannot use this exception in consecutive years; a team that used it in 2016–17 (under the 2011 CBA) cannot use it in 2017–18 (under the 2017 CBA). It also cannot be used by a team that has already used an MLE in the same season. Additionally, once a team uses the bi-annual exception, the tax apron becomes a hard salary cap for the remainder of that season.[37]

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I agree with you. There has to be some wiggle room since the NBA will always have guaranteed contracts and they act like they want to have parity. It would take a ton of negotiating to get to a hard cap.

I just wish there was some way to limit stuff like GS. They literally could have 4 super max players in two years and there would be no rule against it. They could have Curry, Durant, Klay and Draymond making $40 million a year and the salary cap could be $50+ less than what those 4 guys make. Crazy...

I have no answer to the NBA problem. It's a league driven by a select few transcendent talents. Both other major US sports have found a way to deal with dominance because their players aren't in the field all time, or quite as meaningful impacting the game. NFL quarterbacks are the rare exception, and maybe some recievers like Randy Moss or Jerry Rice, some runningbacks... but that dynamic is much different to the unique NBA dynamic. You don't build a two-way team in other sports the same way you do in NBA. (Goes without saying). The problem is the NBA hasn't found a solution to promoting competition and fans are getting tired of it.

 

[Knowledgeofmine]

I have no answer to the NBA problem. It's a league driven by a select few transcendent talents. Both other major US sports have found a way to deal with dominance because their players aren't in the field all time, or quite as meaningful impacting the game. NFL quarterbacks are the rare exception, and maybe some recievers like Randy Moss or Jerry Rice, some runningbacks... but that dynamic is much different to the unique NBA dynamic. You don't build a two-way team in other sports the same way you do in NBA. (Goes without saying). The problem is the NBA hasn't found a solution to promoting competition and fans are getting tired of it.

every time I go to a game,no matter what NBA city the places is normally packed

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

here is what i found

Mid-level exception[edit]
Once a year, teams can use a mid-level exception (MLE) to sign a player to a contract for a specified maximum amount. The amount of the MLE and its duration depend on the team's cap status. In the 2017 CBA, the MLE was initially set at $8.406 million in the 2017–18 season for teams that are over the cap either before or after the signing, but under the luxury tax apron, set at $6 million above the tax line. Teams can use this exception to offer contracts of up to four years. Teams above the apron have an MLE initially set at $5.192 million, allowing contracts of up to three years. Teams with cap room, which were ineligible for the MLE before the 2011 CBA, have an MLE initially set at $4.328 million that allows two-year contracts. In subsequent seasons, all MLE amounts will be determined by applying the percentage change of the salary cap to the previous exception amount.[37]

Before the 2011 CBA, the MLE was equal to the average NBA salary for all teams over the cap; teams with cap room were then ineligible for the MLE.[6] The Mid-Level Exception for the 2008–09 NBA season was $5.585 million.[38] The MLE was $5.854 million for the 2009–10 NBA regular season.[39]

Under the 2017 CBA, the apron was initially set at $6 million above the tax line for the 2017–18 season. In a new feature, the apron will change from season to season, with the percentage change (up or down) set at half of the rate of change of the cap for that season.[9]

Bi-annual exception[edit]
The bi-annual exception can currently be used by teams below the apron to sign a free agent to a contract starting at $3.29 million.[37] Like the mid-level exception, the bi-annual exception can also be split among more than one player, and can be used to sign players for up to two years; raises were originally limited to 8% per year, but in the 2017 CBA are limited to 5%. This exception was referred to as the "$1 million exception" in the 1999 CBA, although it was valued at $1 million for only the first year of the agreement.

An example of the bi-annual exception was the Los Angeles Lakers' signing of Karl Malone to a contract before the 2003–04 season.

The exception was eliminated for teams above the tax apron following the 2011 NBA lockout as many high spending teams were using this as a tool to gain top paid players.[6]

A team cannot use this exception in consecutive years; a team that used it in 2016–17 (under the 2011 CBA) cannot use it in 2017–18 (under the 2017 CBA). It also cannot be used by a team that has already used an MLE in the same season. Additionally, once a team uses the bi-annual exception, the tax apron becomes a hard salary cap for the remainder of that season.[37]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make in quoting select portions of cbafaq but ignoring other sections there.

I found and read the NBA's official CBA as well, all 200 somithing pages, but it didn't really seem to state the actual nuances. Other rules are available too.