Nets' Blake Griffin slams home point - quitters can win

https://www.bostonsportsjournal.com/2021/05/26/karalis_nets_blake_griffin_slams_home_point_-_quitters_can_win.html






NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MAY 22: Blake Griffin #2 of the Brooklyn Nets reacts against the Boston Celtics in Game One of the First Round of the 2021 NBA Playoffs at Barclays Center at Barclays Center on May 22, 2021 in New York City.



Nets' Blake Griffin slams home point - quitters can win




By JOHN KARALIS
May 25, 2021 • 10:17 PM



Blake Griffin made four baskets against the Boston Celtics. Three of them were dunks. Two of those dunks were pretty vicious and-1’s that helped end any fleeting comeback thoughts Boston might have had in the third quarter.

A lot had been made of Griffin’s lack of dunking in his time in Detroit. Prior to his buyout and signing with the Brooklyn Nets, he hadn’t dunked since 2019. To be fair, some of that was certainly injury-related. He hasn’t been entirely healthy since the trade from the Los Angeles Clippers, to put it mildly. But, also, he clearly hasn’t been entirely motivated, either.

Griffin had 18 regular season dunks in 26 games with Brooklyn. The Nets don’t have some magical training staff. What they have is a chance at a title, so Griffin suddenly has some extra bounce.

That sudden lift in Griffin’s legs isn’t going to be the difference between winning and losing for Brooklyn, but it is a not-so-subtle reminder for fans of an NBA tilting too far out of balance.

The Brooklyn Nets are a super team if there ever was one. Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving were well within their rights to decide to play together for a team with the cap space to pay them. Player movement and player empowerment is an important part of the checks and balances of the league. Free agents are free to make their choices. Congratulations to the teams in a position to make that happen.

And, just like when teams have decided it’s time to move on from a player, a player can decide mid-contract that he would like to move on from his team. Circumstances change all the time, and players have been demanding trades for decades when that happens.

But the Nets are, perhaps, the league’s most extreme example. With each Griffin dunk, non-Nets fans were reminded of just how this sausage was made.

Griffin was so done with Detroit that he coasted and was bought out. James Harden was so done with Houston that he actively quit, choosing instead to cavort around late-night establishments without a mask in brazen violation of league policy. He didn’t just ask for a trade, he tantrumed his way out of Houston into the situation he wanted even though this season was one of three years left on his deal.

And this is where the league has to figure itself out, because there has to be a balance between the normal business of basketball and the public perception of being able to be rewarded for quitting.

The perception is the heart of it, because nuance is always the first victim in any discussion. Brooklyn did what any team would do in their situation. Danny Ainge was hoping pairing Gordon Hayward with Kyrie Irving would be the tandem that got ring-chasers to Boston. Hell, he was originally trying to get Durant to Boston when KD was done with OKC. If a disgruntled star quits on his team next season and wants out, Ainge will be fighting his way to the front of the line for that player’s services.

The people running these teams have no time for this conversation. The league, on the other hand, has something to figure out.

What, exactly, that is is the real question to be answered. Because each city the Brooklyn Nets maraud through will start having these same reactions. Griffin isn’t a difference-maker, per se, but every time he gets a pass after the opposing defense has overreacted to Irving, Durant, and Harden, and then flushes it home, it’ll be another reminder that he collected a massive paycheck and couldn’t be bothered to earn it. Every Harden-to-Griffin connection is a quitter-to-quitter play where both guys were rewarded for it.

The league now has fan bases cheering on young stars wondering when it’s their turn to watch a guy quit and leave. Teams have veterans with various amounts of tread left on their tires that might be able to get traded, but might also fetch nothing from the teams that need them because they can quit and head there on minimum deals as their former teams foot the bills.

The Brooklyn Nets are an awesome, high-powered team that is going to be difficult to beat. The other elite teams in the NBA are going to have their hands full trying to figure out how to possibly contain all of their firepower.

Their front office did everything they had to do, and everything any front office would do, to make this team a reality. And that’s the entire problem. The NBA has worked every angle it could in an effort to achieve parity. The entire financial system is built for short-burst greatness and breaking teams up before their title runs get out of hand.

The unintended consequence to that has been the biggest test of player empowerment sports has seen. And players deserve to have more control over where they work and ply their craft. Again, free agents are free and any player who is subject to a team trading him should have the right to ask for a trade himself.

This is different, and it’s a difficult thing for the league to figure out.

When it’s your team that does it, you get to celebrate for a few years. When it’s not, you just have to sit back and hope your turn comes up someday soon.

It’s hard to believe that’s how the NBA wants to operate.


Bob


.

They thought they had done it in LA, The Clips, that is. Last year they were convinced they had put it all together only to have them fail. Fast forward to this year, and they are now looking at a possible sweep since they lost both of their home games. Heads will roll, that guy did not spend all that money to fail.

The thing is, no matter how good a job you think you have done, once those players become free agents, all bets are off. Money is thrown at players, they jump, and some win and alot don't. Who is to blame? I guess no one. I have said all year, there is too much money thrown at young players too early in their career. They have nothing to really shoot for, they are already millionaires. They even get added bonuses to reach certain heights. Bill Russell's big contract was just that he made one dollar more than Wilt. Big deal back then, $101,000. Incentive, play well enough and make those around you better, and you will be successful. Even his very last ring shows that. They came in in 4th place that year, were down in each series and still, they all played so well, they won the title.

So, where are we here in Boston??? Two losses from being swept by this super team, One of our all stars on the bench, out for the season The player we feel could be our stud at center playing restricted minutes with turf toe. Our point guard overwhelmed by the big lights,our three point shooter hot and cold, and our stud, superstar with a scratched cornea. On top of this, a bench that has done little to nothing to help out when we needed them. Please God, one win in Boston to take this bitter taste out of our mouth and move into off season.

The Leprechaun is limping home, but, I will not turn my back on this team. It is easy to kick them when they are down, I just will pray for some good health next year, for everyone. We have seen what they can do, let's hope they find this again

RosalieTCeltics wrote:

The Leprechaun is limping home, but, I will not turn my back on this team. It is easy to kick them when they are down, I just will pray for some good health next year, for everyone.  We have seen what they can do, let's hope they find this again

I'm with Rosalie

I don’t think anyone on this board has turned their back on this team. We just may differ on how we need to fix our beloved but we all want to win.

This league has a problem. I’m all for the players getting paid and having the freedom to move about but there has to be some concessions on both sides or its only going to get worse.
Forming super teams ala Miami, Brooklyn and the crap that they pulled off in LA with the Lakers is ridiculous. I don’t count the Clippers in that category. Leonard asked for another specific type player to be added (George wasn’t the first choice) before he signed. He wanted to if not improve his situation, at least have a fighting chance. Same with KG. He saw Allen was coming and that changed his mind. There was no conspiring and conniving in those 2 scenarios.
The others, well not so much and like the author said, the league and the Players association need to figure this thing out.
I don’t think giving these players and a bunch of money is the problem either. Either you’re a competitor or you’re not. Teams need to vet their prospects and figure that out because there’s plenty of players not making big money and not playing up to their potential. Just because a kid is getting paid a boat load of millions doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to win and compete. The $ has very little to do with it because even at minimum its still a lot of money!
I loved it when players stayed on the same team their entire career but that ain’t happening no more but somehow there has to be a happy medium.

Forming super teams is the easiest way to becoming a champion.

Danny made it work before and had great success and tried it again and it failed.

Teams that have really good up and coming young stars are all on the clock.  They have x number of years to build around those players.  Most teams that I see that have lost their franchise guys did so because they were not able to build a winner around them.  

Teams make mistakes when they sign a guy for big money and he does not perform up to expectations due to fit or due to availability.

Griffin was part of the Clippers big 3 and was signed for huge $$$.  Same with Westbrook and Harden and Al Horford for example.  Chris Paul is in Phoenix now.

So building a super team does not guarantee absolute success.

The Nets have what I think is the ultimate super team.  Their star power can attract the best veteran free agents and buyout candidates.  But I do not see an extended run for them because of the  ages of their 3 top guys and the prospect for more injuries down the road.

I think the Celtics remain in good shape for the future.  Some thought that KW was that 3rd piece but he is not.  Danny will try to find that 3rd piece in a blockbuster trade.

dboss wrote:Forming super teams is the easiest way to becoming a champion.

Danny made it work before and had great success and tried it again and it failed.

Teams that have really good up and coming young stars are all on the clock.  They have x number of years to build around those players.  Most teams that I see that have lost their franchise guys did so because they were not able to build a winner around them.  

Teams make mistakes when they sign a guy for big money and he does not perform up to expectations due to fit or due to availability.

Griffin was part of the Clippers big 3 and was signed for huge $$$.  Same with Westbrook and Harden and Al Horford for example.  Chris Paul is in Phoenix now.

So building a super team does not guarantee absolute success.

The Nets have what I think is the ultimate super team.  Their star power can attract the best veteran free agents and buyout candidates.  But I do not see an extended run for them because of the  ages of their 3 top guys and the prospect for more injuries down the road.

I think the Celtics remain in good shape for the future.  Some thought that KW was that 3rd piece but he is not.  Danny will try to find that 3rd piece in a blockbuster trade.

Is KG, Pierce and Allen the super team that you’re referring to that Danny built?
Quite a bit different scenario than those others. No?

Ktron wrote:

dboss wrote:Forming super teams is the easiest way to becoming a champion.

Danny made it work before and had great success and tried it again and it failed.

Teams that have really good up and coming young stars are all on the clock.  They have x number of years to build around those players.  Most teams that I see that have lost their franchise guys did so because they were not able to build a winner around them.  

Teams make mistakes when they sign a guy for big money and he does not perform up to expectations due to fit or due to availability.

Griffin was part of the Clippers big 3 and was signed for huge $$$.  Same with Westbrook and Harden and Al Horford for example.  Chris Paul is in Phoenix now.

So building a super team does not guarantee absolute success.

The Nets have what I think is the ultimate super team.  Their star power can attract the best veteran free agents and buyout candidates.  But I do not see an extended run for them because of the  ages of their 3 top guys and the prospect for more injuries down the road.

I think the Celtics remain in good shape for the future.  Some thought that KW was that 3rd piece but he is not.  Danny will try to find that 3rd piece in a blockbuster trade.

Is KG, Pierce and Allen the super team that you’re referring to that Danny built?
Quite a bit different scenario than those others. No?

ktron

Correct me if I am wrong but I think some of the other super teams were driven by player's interest in joining forces. In some respect that also happened with KG coming here. He originally said no and then Danny made the trade to add Ray. The players themselves did not initiate the coming together. That is the difference in how several super teams have come into being.

I was talking about super teams in a more general way and not so much as the joining of forces between one or more players who were on other teams.

I do not see a big difference given the ultimate team goals. Even if guys want to join forces the teams themselves must be able to make it happen.

LA got lebron and that is what got them AD along with the mutual representation. The Nets had the cap space to sign two high quality FA. One could have stayed in Boston and the other could have joined AH in Boston. Freedom of choice!

There is nothing that happened that is ridiculous to me.

dboss wrote:

Ktron wrote:

dboss wrote:Forming super teams is the easiest way to becoming a champion.

Danny made it work before and had great success and tried it again and it failed.

Teams that have really good up and coming young stars are all on the clock.  They have x number of years to build around those players.  Most teams that I see that have lost their franchise guys did so because they were not able to build a winner around them.  

Teams make mistakes when they sign a guy for big money and he does not perform up to expectations due to fit or due to availability.

Griffin was part of the Clippers big 3 and was signed for huge $$$.  Same with Westbrook and Harden and Al Horford for example.  Chris Paul is in Phoenix now.

So building a super team does not guarantee absolute success.

The Nets have what I think is the ultimate super team.  Their star power can attract the best veteran free agents and buyout candidates.  But I do not see an extended run for them because of the  ages of their 3 top guys and the prospect for more injuries down the road.

I think the Celtics remain in good shape for the future.  Some thought that KW was that 3rd piece but he is not.  Danny will try to find that 3rd piece in a blockbuster trade.

Is KG, Pierce and Allen the super team that you’re referring to that Danny built?
Quite a bit different scenario than those others. No?

ktron

Correct me if I am wrong but I think some of the other super teams were  driven by player's interest in joining forces.  In some respect that also happened with KG coming here.  He originally said no and then Danny made the trade to add Ray.  The players themselves did not initiate the coming together.  That is the difference in how several super teams have come into being.  

I was talking about super teams in a more general way and not so much as the joining of forces between one or more players who were on other teams.

I do not see a big difference given the ultimate team goals.  Even if guys want to join forces the teams themselves must be able to make it happen.  

LA got lebron and that is what got them AD along with the mutual representation.  The Nets had the cap space to sign two high quality FA.  One could have stayed in Boston and the other could have joined AH in Boston.  Freedom of choice!

There is nothing that happened that is ridiculous to me.  

If all the top players pick who they want to play with and are somehow because of the way the league and CBA is structured are able to do this, The LA’s, Miami’s, NY’s will eventually end up with most of the best players. What happens to the Memphis’, Charlottes, New Orleans and other smaller undesirable markets? They draft good players only to lose them eventually to the bigger markets so the chances of any of those markets having a snowballs chance is zero. Is that the kind of league you want to see? Is that healthy for the sport? You don’t think LeBron going to LA, forming his own agency, signing AD and then having the Lakers eventually sign him less than a year later is ridiculous? Its beyond ridiculous, It’s unethical. Is this the kind of league you want to see?
Super teams formed through trades, drafts and a free agent or 2 is not the problem. Golden State did just that. Built through the draft, made a few trades and won a title. Even if they had not signed KD, that team was going to be in the finals with a good chance of winning it. What’s wrong with building teams in that fashion? As you said, The C’s became a super team through the trade for KG and Allen and then Danny picked up some very important role players (some he should have kept, like Posey) to round it out. Injuries kept is from winning more than 1.
As a waning fan of the game, the way that Miami and Brooklyn’s teams were formed via player conspiracies is not something I desire to see. This ain’t the playground where we buck up and choose teams and players. It’s a business, a league dependent on TV $ and a fan base. EVERYONE doesn’t love Lebron, LA or Brooklyn and KD. Most people outside of their own markets hate them and want to see them lose just like people hated Miami. I don’t recall much hatred for teams like the Spurs, the Bulls or even Golden State until they signed KD and most people hated KD for it more.
So to me it’s ridiculous and bad for sports and those are my reasons. I love basketball but that stuff has soured my taste which is why I really only watch the C’s now where in the past I watched everybody on league pass. It doesn’t effect you the same way and i get it, I just don’t see how this kind of stuff is good for the sport.

Ktron 

The Cap and tax penalties keep that from happening.

Some teams cannot attract high end FA.  That is just the way it is.  There is only so much money a team can spend.

You clearly have an issue with players coming together on their own.  What is the solution.

As you formulate please keep in mind that teams just like the Celtics will rip your heart out by trading a player or not resigning him.  Keep in mind that owners are the rich guys.

dboss wrote:Ktron 

The Cap and tax penalties keep that from happening.

Some teams cannot attract high end FA.  That is just the way it is.  There is only so much money a team can spend.

You clearly have an issue with players coming together on their own.  What is the solution.

As you formulate please keep in mind that teams just like the Celtics will rip your heart out by trading a player or not resigning him.  Keep in mind that owners are the rich guys.

My issue with the players coming together on their own has nothing to do with money. Where in my post did you see where i mentioned that? Some teams cannot attract high end FA. That’s part of the problem that needs to be resolved. Again, i ask, what’s eventually going to happen to the smaller market teams? Where’s the answer?
I’m aware that the owners are the Billionaires and the players are the millionaires. I’m also aware of cap and penalties. I’m also aware that other billionaire owners have found a way. Warriors owner Joe Lacob went well into the luxury tax this year for example.
Between you and I, you are the one that appears to be more concerned about the (rich guys) owners purse. Your belief that these billionaires are handcuffed and cant figure it out is astounding.

Dboss
I think we are of the same accord as far as how we feel bout one of our favorite players getting traded or not resigned.
I can think of several going as far back as 08 and even further. More recently IT, and Theis. I think its cruel the way some of the players are treated so I’m not for the C’s or any other team FO having all the power just as I am not for the players having all the power. Something needs to be done so that there’s more of an even playing field thats all.

Ktron wrote:

dboss wrote:Ktron 

The Cap and tax penalties keep that from happening.

Some teams cannot attract high end FA.  That is just the way it is.  There is only so much money a team can spend.

You clearly have an issue with players coming together on their own.  What is the solution.

As you formulate please keep in mind that teams just like the Celtics will rip your heart out by trading a player or not resigning him.  Keep in mind that owners are the rich guys.

My issue with the players coming together on their own has nothing to do with money. Where in my post did you see where i mentioned that? Some teams cannot attract high end FA. That’s part of the problem that needs to be resolved. Again, i ask, what’s eventually going to happen to the smaller market teams? Where’s the answer?
I’m aware that the owners are the Billionaires and the players are the millionaires. I’m also aware of cap and penalties. I’m also aware that other billionaire owners have found a way. Warriors owner Joe Lacob went well into the luxury tax this year for example.
Between you and I, you are the one that appears to be more concerned about the (rich guys) owners purse. Your belief that these billionaires are handcuffed and cant figure it out is astounding.

ktron

I am not saying that your feeling about this is right or wrong.  I just do not see it the same way that you do.  That is why I inquired about your solution to what you perceive to be a problem.

I know that you never mentioned $$$ but I did  because of its' impact on teams and also to just point out that ultimately they are the ones who control who they sign.  

You have not put forth any solution.

ktron part of your response is a straw man argument

"Between you and I, you are the one that appears to be more concerned about the (rich guys) owners purse. Your belief that these billionaires are handcuffed and cant figure it out is astounding"

I only mentioned facts.  There is a CAP that limits teams and their is a Tax penalty in place and that the owners are rich guys.

I never intended to indicates that the rich guys are handcuffed.  You made that up.  To the contrary my point was that the owners are the rich guys.  In other words even the small market teams are owned by people with wealth.  Those owners can choose to make a deal or not make a deal.  The players do not pay themselves.  Therefore I am not going to discredit a player who leaves a team be it small market or large market to join a with other stars.  If he was influenced by other players to team up with them or if the team themselves pursue him I am ok with it.

I am not concerned about the ability of small market teams to compete for the best FA.  They can still make trades and they can still make wise draft choices.  And if necessary they can move to Seattle, lol

dboss wrote:

Ktron wrote:

dboss wrote:Ktron 

The Cap and tax penalties keep that from happening.

Some teams cannot attract high end FA.  That is just the way it is.  There is only so much money a team can spend.

You clearly have an issue with players coming together on their own.  What is the solution.

As you formulate please keep in mind that teams just like the Celtics will rip your heart out by trading a player or not resigning him.  Keep in mind that owners are the rich guys.

My issue with the players coming together on their own has nothing to do with money. Where in my post did you see where i mentioned that? Some teams cannot attract high end FA. That’s part of the problem that needs to be resolved. Again, i ask, what’s eventually going to happen to the smaller market teams? Where’s the answer?
I’m aware that the owners are the Billionaires and the players are the millionaires. I’m also aware of cap and penalties. I’m also aware that other billionaire owners have found a way. Warriors owner Joe Lacob went well into the luxury tax this year for example.
Between you and I, you are the one that appears to be more concerned about the (rich guys) owners purse. Your belief that these billionaires are handcuffed and cant figure it out is astounding.

ktron

I am not saying that your feeling about this is right or wrong.  I just do not see it the same way that you do.  That is why I inquired about your solution to what you perceive to be a problem.

I know that you never mentioned $$$ but I did  because of its' impact on teams and also to just point out that ultimately they are the ones who control who they sign.  

You have not put forth any solution.

ktron part of your response is a straw man argument

"Between you and I, you are the one that appears to be more concerned about the (rich guys) owners purse. Your belief that these billionaires are handcuffed and cant figure it out is astounding"

I only mentioned facts.  There is a CAP that limits teams and their is a Tax penalty in place and that the owners are rich guys.

I never intended to indicates that the rich guys are handcuffed.  You made that up.  To the contrary my point was that the owners are the rich guys.  In other words even the small market teams are owned by people with wealth.  Those owners can choose to make a deal or not make a deal.  The players do not pay themselves.  Therefore I am not going to discredit a player who leaves a team be it small market or large market to join a with other stars.  If he was influenced by other players to team up with them or if the team themselves pursue him I am ok with it.

I am not concerned about the ability of small market teams to compete for the best FA.  They can still make trades and they can still make wise draft choices.  And if necessary they can move to Seattle, lol

Small market owners may have the money but if players have control of where they play and who they get to play with ala Miami, La (Lebronish) than eventually the small market teams will be non existence. The grands and the great grands will be watching AAU at Morehouse and Morris Brown because thats where it will end up. It’s a contradiction to point out cap restraints and tax penalty’s and then say these small markets can make good trades and draft well because eventually they’ll lose those players to the bigger more glamorous markets. If you’re ok with that than so be it. I probably wont be around to see it but if this is allowed to continue the NBA will either be smaller in size than in the 60’s or non existence as we know it. I’m hoping you morph into Rumplestiltskin so you’ll be around to witness it and that noise in your head won’t be tinnitus, it’ll be Ktron saying “dboss, i told u so”. lol