PDA

View Full Version : How did the players gain control of the league, and how will it effect the future?



hotpotato1092
02-10-2011, 05:27 PM
Over the past few years it has become pretty clear that the players control the league, I mean things like the summer of 2010 debacle (particularly LeBron, but the other guys weren't helpful either), the Carmelo situation, and the Dwill-Sloan feud never would have happened over a decade ago. For example, I remember hearing once that early in the decade that whenever Kobe or Shaq would complain about anything Jerry West would call them into his office and curse them out, and tell them to get their ***** back on the court and keep their mouths shut. If a GM did that now they'd be out on their *****. How did the players take over the league? And how will it effect the future, will the owners lock the players out in an attempt to gain control? Personally I actually sort of hope that there is a lockout, I want the owners to put the players back in their place, this is getting ridiculous. It's sort of ironic that I'm rooting for the billionaires to take more from the employees (albeit multimillionaires themselves), but I don't like where the league is going, players should be players, not GM's or coaches.

The Jokemaker
02-10-2011, 05:29 PM
Hopefully the new CBA can fix some of these issues and eliminate some of these "diva" attitudes.

RZZZA
02-10-2011, 05:30 PM
affect, btw.

ManRam
02-10-2011, 05:33 PM
Free agency allows this...but all sports have it. It isn't a flaw in the NBA front offices and league offices, it's just how the NBA works.

In the NBA, you really just need a great player and you're half way there. If you get two, you're going to be a contender. If you get three, you instantly become a top 4 team. No other sport is like this...therefore, every other sport is "buddy-system" proof.

Stars have more power in the NBA than any other sport (maybe besides a QB). If a team's best player says "pick me or the coach", you probably are going to pick the player because it's easier to find a satisfactory coach than a franchise player. If a franchise player says "trade me", you really have to pay attention to that, because his value to the team is just so high.

You talk about Kobe and Shaq...but they're no different than today's stars. Kobe refused to play in Charlotte, and got his wish. He proved to be bigger than that. Shaq ran off from his small market quicker than LeBron, Melo, Bosh etc. You can't cuss out today's star, they're probably more powerful and important to that team than whoever is doing the cussing.

And now that it is such a markable sport, and these stars are bigger then just the sport...they're becoming bigger than the game and even more powerful.


It's always going to be like this. The star NBA player has more power than any other player in sports (again, besides maybe a QB). I can't think of a way to get the power back honestly. It's just the era we live in now.

zB_#85
02-10-2011, 05:37 PM
The players gained control by leveraging themselves. Ultimately their talent is what makes the league right? The problem is, certain GM's have allowed it. Whether it be taking a risk on a troubled player, or giving in to your star player's demand: once you cave once you have set the precedent. Then it spreads, once players see certain teams giving that treatment to their players, they expect the same. If they don't get it, they'll leave and go to the team where they can throw their weight around and get away with it. Then, in efforts to be competitive and gain an edge, other GM's and coaches also start to allow these types of things to happen. At some point, small concessions on the part of the GM's and coaches have turned into a bigger deal. What it's really going to take is each and every coach and GM vowing to follow some type of code. Strength in numbers, if everyone is on the same page the players will have one choice. Follow the rules or forfeit a paycheck because there is nowhere that the grass is greener.

Problem is, this probably won't happen. There's always going to be that GM or coach out there looking for a competitive edge so they will give in to a star player's demands to land the player or keep the player. All that does is keep the cycle going, because as long as 1 guy does it, many others will so that they aren't at a negotiating disadvantage with the talent they seek.

Raph12
02-10-2011, 06:04 PM
Hopefully the new CBA can fix some of these issues and eliminate some of these "diva" attitudes.

So that the Heat remain the only stacked team left in the league?... Yes that'll do wonders for the league. :eyebrow:

SteveNash
02-10-2011, 06:22 PM
Over the past few years it has become pretty clear that the players control the league, I mean things like the summer of 2010 debacle (particularly LeBron, but the other guys weren't helpful either), the Carmelo situation, and the Dwill-Sloan feud never would have happened over a decade ago. For example, I remember hearing once that early in the decade that whenever Kobe or Shaq would complain about anything Jerry West would call them into his office and curse them out, and tell them to get their ***** back on the court and keep their mouths shut. If a GM did that now they'd be out on their *****. How did the players take over the league? And how will it effect the future, will the owners lock the players out in an attempt to gain control? Personally I actually sort of hope that there is a lockout, I want the owners to put the players back in their place, this is getting ridiculous. It's sort of ironic that I'm rooting for the billionaires to take more from the employees (albeit multimillionaires themselves), but I don't like where the league is going, players should be players, not GM's or coaches.

2010 was more of a perfect storm than "divas" taking over.

If the 2003 draft class was weaker, if there wasn't a CBA looming which led to the 2003 class signing shorting extensions and opting out, if Miami wasn't able to clear 45 mil in cap space, none of that would be an issue.

Players would never get their coaches fired over a decade ago?

The final decision still remains with the owners, so what exactly are you fighting for? They're the ones caving into the players.

Bruno
02-10-2011, 06:43 PM
Free agency allows this...but all sports have it. It isn't a flaw in the NBA front offices and league offices, it's just how the NBA works.

In the NBA, you really just need a great player and you're half way there. If you get two, you're going to be a contender. If you get three, you instantly become a top 4 team. No other sport is like this...therefore, every other sport is "buddy-system" proof.


Aman, ManRam. :clap:

heatking
02-10-2011, 06:47 PM
I would say a franchise tag should be a must in the new CBA.

aussiepiston
02-10-2011, 06:50 PM
The players have control because they can demand trades and earn the same wage wherever they go. The only ways to change this are to:
a) remove the ability for trades
b) increase financial incentives for retaining your own player

In scenario A, clubs could improve only based on free agency. This will not happen- the media and publicity surrounding trade RUMOURS alone is worth too much to the league.

In scenario B, perhaps 1 club players should not have their salary counted towards the luxury tax? provides an incentive to stay and allows owners to try and retain their own talent (whilst at the same time not restricting players freedoms).

Raph12
02-10-2011, 07:00 PM
I would say a franchise tag should be a must in the new CBA.

Well if that was implemented prior to the 2010 Free Agency period, your team would still suck ***... So thanks, but no thanks.

Smash
02-10-2011, 07:06 PM
It will effect the future everyone will end up teaming up.

heatking
02-10-2011, 07:09 PM
Well if that was implemented prior to the 2010 Free Agency period, your team would still suck ***... So thanks, but no thanks.

He Mad.

ManRam
02-10-2011, 07:20 PM
The NBAPA would never allow a franchise tag option. There's restricted FA already; that's what let Orlando keep Gortat's rights for a total of 8 years. That's a long time. All you have to do to keep a FA after their first contract is up is match whatever anyone else offers. The players wouldn't ever let teams hold onto a player for another year with a franchise tag.

I really don't see a fix that both sides would ever agree to.

Da Knicks
02-10-2011, 07:28 PM
I would say a franchise tag should be a must in the new CBA.

Isnt the nfl thinking about getting rid of the franchise tag? Some players have came out and say they feel like they are slaves to that team. Also you franchise a player and then he gets hurt causing other franchise players to take it easy intead of playing the game the right way. just my two cents.

Atticus Finch
02-10-2011, 07:29 PM
Whether people want to admit it or not the NBA is a business and has to be run as it. The players are employees and employees have rights. My boss right now can't force me to keep working here if I want to leave for greener pastures (assuming I don't have a contractual commitment). The owner should always do what's best for the team, and the player should always do what's best for themselves and their families.

thekmp211
02-10-2011, 07:35 PM
it's a combination of huge salaries and incredible individual value. there is no other sport where one guy can impact the game the game like a lebron or a dwight howard, at least not for sustained, multiple season periods.

the nfl and the mlb are much more system oriented, because they rely upon far more moving parts.

the problem now is the big stars get paid so much money, that making a mistake signing along the lines of rashard lewis/gilbert arenas can do much worse than just limit cap flexibility. couple those huge contracts with poor attendance/sponsorship, minimal national coverage and you can see how an nba team becomes a sink-hole.

the whole trick is identifying who is worth money and who isn't, something nba teams seem to get perpetually worse at. if you hit the jackpot, everything is great.

sign gilbert arenas to a 120 million dollar deal? thats a big problem. of course, fan pressure makes it difficult not to pony up.

ManRam
02-10-2011, 07:37 PM
Isnt the nfl thinking about getting rid of the franchise tag? Some players have came out and say they feel like they are slaves to that team. Also you franchise a player and then he gets hurt causing other franchise players to take it easy intead of playing the game the right way. just my two cents.

A franchise tag will never happen. It's not something in the best interest in players. And again, it's the NBA - the players really have the power.

Atticus Finch
02-10-2011, 07:39 PM
The players have control because they can demand trades and earn the same wage wherever they go. The only ways to change this are to:
a) remove the ability for trades
b) increase financial incentives for retaining your own player

In scenario A, clubs could improve only based on free agency. This will not happen- the media and publicity surrounding trade RUMOURS alone is worth too much to the league.

In scenario B, perhaps 1 club players should not have their salary counted towards the luxury tax? provides an incentive to stay and allows owners to try and retain their own talent (whilst at the same time not restricting players freedoms).

1) Ultimately it's up to the owner to trade a player, not the player. Sure a player can "demand" a trade but they still can't force one. If the player decides he doesn't want to play after not getting traded he can stop collecting his pay check then wait to see how much $$ he can make as a FA with a reputation as a selfish quitter.

2) If that were to ever happen I could, within only a few years, construct an unbeatable team. Let's say its the Lakers for example, who just signed Kobe and Pau to extensions, which wouldn't count towards the salary cap. This past summer I'd offer Lebron a 1 year 30 million dollar contract before he signed with the Heat. The idea of that being after his 1 year contract is up I could resign him at a max contract without any of it counting towards the cap. At the end of it I would have a team with Kobe, Pau, Lebron, Wade, and Dwight Howard while only have rookie contracts and veteran minimum contracts to fill out the roster. Anyways, teams do have financial incentives already. Last year for example Cleveland could have offered Lebron more $$ and more years than any other team in the league because he was their former player. I think they could have offered 1 extra year and maybe $20-25 million more, but I'm not exactly sure so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

IndyRealist
02-10-2011, 08:50 PM
Garuanteed contracts, and NBA advertising. It's easier to get rid of a coach than to trade a player. The NBA promotes itself as a league of stars, where the players are headliners far more than the coaches ever are. Players drive ticket sales, coaches do not.

kswissdaf
02-10-2011, 09:10 PM
I dont understand why you guys are so pissed the players should be running the league, you know they are the only reason we watch the NBA whats wrong with a player having power in decisions about his career.

Geargo Wallace
02-10-2011, 09:13 PM
both teams played hard

kswissdaf
02-10-2011, 09:13 PM
So that the Heat remain the only stacked team left in the league?... Yes that'll do wonders for the league. :eyebrow:

Why should people be forced where they have to work. So some random people in Minnesota that they dont even know can say his basketball team is good?

Geargo Wallace
02-10-2011, 09:59 PM
Why should people be forced where they have to work. So some random people in Minnesota that they dont even know can say his basketball team is good?

Why should one of the greatest coaches ever be forced out of work because of a rift with a player?

kswissdaf
02-10-2011, 10:13 PM
Why should one of the greatest coaches ever be forced out of work because of a rift with a player?

You left out a key word "franchise" player. And the Jazz had to decide who's value to the team was greater, and they went will the franchise player dont see anything wrong with that

Wade>You
02-10-2011, 10:14 PM
Some people swear players are property and don't deserve free agency. Kinda reminds me of the struggles that black people had to go through to get to where they are today and the type of discrimination that still exists today.

kswissdaf
02-10-2011, 10:17 PM
This is kinda like a socialism debate . Do you believe the workers should have the power or the CEO's

AddiX
02-10-2011, 10:19 PM
NBA needs to allow the players to play defense again.

I can't possibly fathom how small market teams can contend in this league anymore now that all the superstars are going where to more desirable cities to play.

When you hear the list of teams these players are interested in going, its the same cities every time. Small market teams are doomed.

kswissdaf
02-10-2011, 10:21 PM
NBA needs to allow the players to play defense again.

I can't possibly fathom how small market teams can contend in this league anymore now that all the superstars are going where to more desirable cities to play.

When you hear the list of teams these players are interested in going, its the same cities every time. Small market teams are doomed.

Unfortunate for them but true, players have a right to play where they want to play.

Dade County
02-10-2011, 10:23 PM
There is nothing that can be done, seriously, what can the owners do.

Franchise tag is a terrible idea, (how the hell are you going to force players to stay with an organization)

Only outrageous thing I can think of is...

No more MID levels, a HARD cap, only one MAX contact can be on any given team, and the next biggest contract can not go over 10mil per year.

No MID level
HARD cap (only)
1 MAX contract
Only one player (not counting the Max contact guy) on the team can make 10mil per year.


Example:

Wade has max contract
LBJ would only earn 10mil per year
And Bosh would have to settle for 9mil per year

I don't think Bosh would go for that. I don't think Melo would go for that either, just to play in NY, because Stoudemire already has max contract.

And these new rules would take affect immediately, so players would have to restructure their contracts to stay with their current teams, or teams would have to trade players to stay with in the new guidelines.

sf-fanatic
02-10-2011, 10:24 PM
More important question:

When did the NBA allow so many plays to travel, double dribble, and carry the ball?

mapko
02-10-2011, 10:29 PM
How is this for an idea:
=A player (say John Smith) finished his 3 or 4 or 5 year rookie contract. He is a FA. 3 Options:
1. Resign with the current team for a max contract (say 15mil) with a 10% annual increase for 5 years. If he gets traded at anytime: a) 5th year is void & b) no more 10% annual increases but only 3%.
2. Sign with any team under the cap for same max 15mil, BUT: a) Only 3 years & b) Only 3% annual increase
3. Sign & trade. Player still gets 15 mil, but a) Only 4 years & b) Only 5% annual increase. Also IF he gets traded by his new team: 4th year is void & annual increase goes down to 3%.
What is the point of this?
1. There is an "Incentive" for great players to stay & play hard for their current teams (hopefully this leads to more competative NBA).
2. No financial incentive for a player to demand a trade (or it will cost you).
3. If you "can't stand" your current team, it is still in players interest to complete sign & trade.

=Also I would "fine tune" the cap system.
1. Set the soft cap @ say 60 mil. Between 60-90 mil -luxury tax is dolar for dolar. Between 90-120 mil luxury tax is $2 for dolar. The luxury tax to be shared by teams under the cap & if they choose to sign players, DOES NOT count towards the cap (Eg: If Memphis has a payroll of 55 mil & they get back 10 mil from luxury cap -they can sign a player for say 13 mil & stilll be under the cap. This would allow big market teams to "splurge" & exceed cap & still make money if they feel they can compete. At the same time it helps small market teams be more competative which is ultimately good for NBA

blastmasta26
02-10-2011, 10:31 PM
There is nothing that can be done, seriously, what can the owners do.

Franchise tag is a terrible idea, (how the hell are you going to force players to stay with an organization)

Only outrageous thing I can think of is...

No more MID levels, a HARD cap, only one MAX contact can be on any given team, and the next biggest contract can not go over 10mil per year.

No MID level
HARD cap (only)
1 MAX contract
Only one player (not counting the Max contact guy) on the team can make 10mil per year.


Example:

Wade has max contract
LBJ would only earn 10mil per year
And Bosh would have to settle for 9mil per year

I don't think Bosh would go for that. I don't think Melo would go for that either, just to play in NY, because Stoudemire already has max contract.

And these new rules would take affect immediately, so players would have to restructure their contracts to stay with their current teams, or teams would have to trade players to stay with in the new guidelines.
No MLE and a hard cap is interesting, but I think any further cap control is too much. There's a lot of talent in this league, so salaries would go down naturally with a hard cap IMO.

sf-fanatic
02-10-2011, 10:36 PM
There definitely should be no MLE. I don't even understand why it was implemented in the first place. To allow teams that already exceeded the salary cap to sign more players?

I also think that if they did remove the MLE, they should make the current MLE players count against the cap, and give all the NBA teams an offseason to adjust their contracts to get under the salary cap. Should make for an interesting offseason.

Geargo Wallace
02-10-2011, 10:38 PM
Some people swear players are property and don't deserve free agency. Kinda reminds me of the struggles that black people had to go through to get to where they are today and the type of discrimination that still exists today.

Easy there LeBron. Damn right a player deserves free agency. A player signs a contract to play somewhere. Deron knew where he was resigning. He knew what coach he'd be playing for. He knows what system he's playing in. Deron has been VERY privileged in his young career to be playing for such a great organization. This has nothing to do with the struggles that black ppl have faced, and this has nothing to do with players being thought of as property. Deron should have sucked it up and played out his contract to the best of his abilities. It's a shame that Sloan has to go because of this bull ****.

herniateddisc
02-10-2011, 11:31 PM
I would give the players FA every year. Called no guaranteed contracts. Only one year.

That would solve all problems in the NBA and MLB.

Geargo Wallace
02-10-2011, 11:38 PM
I would give the players FA every year. Called no guaranteed contracts. Only one year.

That would solve all problems in the NBA and MLB.

So what happens when nobody wants to sign with the Cavaliers?

Dade County
02-11-2011, 12:25 AM
So what happens when nobody wants to sign with the Cavaliers?

The owner has to go!

Raph12
02-11-2011, 12:38 AM
He Mad.

Naw he just thinks it's hypocritical of a Heat fan to want to impose franchise tags, when if that were to happen a year ago, his team would still suck and he'd never be for it... It's called "hypocracy"

Hellcrooner
02-11-2011, 12:43 AM
This is nothing new.

Guess you never heard bout Mj running teamates and coaches out of chicago?

Lo Porto
02-11-2011, 12:52 AM
The new CBA has to fix it. Put a hard cap, no more exceptions so great teams can keep adding and adding, and a franchise tag so stars can't hold teams hostage, more parody would exist. Players would have their role and not rule the league.

Dade County
02-11-2011, 01:00 AM
The new CBA has to fix it. Put a hard cap, no more exceptions so great teams can keep adding and adding, and a franchise tag so stars can't hold teams hostage, more parody would exist. Players would have their role and not rule the league.

So you rather the owners hold the players hostage? Then owners can spend no real money, keep their one star HOSTAGE!!! And just keep adding small pieces to fool the fans/public that they are trying (********)

Franchise tag is a very bad idea :facepalm:



Naw he just thinks it's hypocritical of a Heat fan to want to impose franchise tags, when if that were to happen a year ago, his team would still suck and he'd never be for it... It's called "hypocracy"

lol :D

GO HEAT !!!

But Franchise tag is a very bad idea.

Hellcrooner
02-11-2011, 01:01 AM
And the answer you are all looking for.
No matter how closed you are to the idea basically because american sports have been the way they have been for decades.

Its called


FREE MARKET.

No more cap, no more draft, no more trade player for player no mor maximum salarys.

You want my player? buy it!! show me the money, then ill use that money to buy those other players that i like.

hgtiger32
02-11-2011, 01:06 AM
even though im a LeBron James fan...he's my answer to this question

hotpotato1092
02-11-2011, 01:20 AM
For those of you siding with the players, saying a franchise tag essentially makes them slaves, I ask you, did slaves ever make 20 million dollars per year?

For those you siding with the owners (admittedly I lean more towards this side), I ask you, are the players not simply employees deserving of rights?

So my question is this: how can a fair balance be struck, so that we will never have another situation like LeBron, Wade and Bosh attempting to hijack the league, or Deron Williams getting a hall of fame coach fired, but prevents owners from holding players hostage in a situation where they want to move. So here is my idea for compromise:

1. A hard cap that eliminates the midlevel exception. There will be no "get the stars now and fill out with draft picks and midlevel guys later". This is essentially what makes the Heat so dangerous, there is no drawback to them using their cap space on three players because the midlevel exception will allow them to get quality role players. A hard cap without a midlevel exception negates that advantage, and it prevents big market teams from out spending small market teams.

2. A one year only franchise tag. I'm ok with a franchise tag so long as it doesn't turn out to be permanent, so only allow teams to use it on a player once. The team would then have the right to trade the player if they felt he wouldn't come back, whether it would be to a contender looking to make a title push or a team he'd actually sign an extension with.

3. New max contracts that actually give players incentive to stay put. Did anyone actually think the difference between 100 and 120 million would keep LeBron home? Of course not, especially when they could still get that money in a sign and trade. So here's my solution, give players actual incentive to stay home. Max contracts with new teams could be no longer than 4 years, while contracts with your original team could be 6 years, and the max salary would be 15% greater with your original team (so for example, if you'd get a 4 year 80 million dollar contract from a new team, you'd be getting a 6 year 138 million dollar contract from your original team). Oh, and if a player is signed and traded, they are bound to the new team guidelines, same goes for franchise tagged players signing extensions with their new team, only guys choosing to legitimately stay on their teams get the salary benefits. This actually gives players incentive to stay with their teams.

4. Teams can have no more than two "maximum" players on their team UNLESS they already have two and the third was originally drafted by the team and is coming off of a rookie contract. Now obviously you'd have to define maximum as a certain salary level (otherwise you'd just have guys taking one dollar less), so let's say under today's standards the maximum would be no more than two players making about 12 mil per year. This allows teams to have solid third players, but prevents them from having three legit all stars. The one exception being if a team drafts someone. So let's say your the '08 Celtics (and of course under this scenario they'd only be able to trade for either KG or Ray Allen, and let's say they pick KG(don't doubt the reality of this scenario, it's just an example, I know he wouldn't have gone without Ray)), they wouldn't have been able to stock their team with three in their prime all stars, but when Rajon Rondo's contract extension comes up, they can resign him to a potentially max deal because they drafted him. It also rewards teams that draft well, which I'm always in favor of.

Is this system perfect? Absolutely not, but I think it serves its' main purpose. It allows players who really want to leave to leave, but gives them more incentive to stay, it rewards teams that draft well, it prevents super teams, and it at least to some degree protects teams from getting burned by free agents. Again it's not perfect, just a couple of things that I think could work.

Arch Stanton
02-11-2011, 03:00 AM
Whether people want to admit it or not the NBA is a business and has to be run as it. The players are employees and employees have rights. My boss right now can't force me to keep working here if I want to leave for greener pastures (assuming I don't have a contractual commitment). The owner should always do what's best for the team, and the player should always do what's best for themselves and their families.

I hate it when players say I gotta do what's best for my family. You make millions. It's all good for your family.

barreleffact
02-11-2011, 06:51 AM
I hate it when players say I gotta do what's best for my family. You make millions. It's all good for your family.

thats not the best logic. sure you make millions, but they would mak emillions anywhere they went. just because of the jobe they would have to hold their families hostage in a ******** city? the only alternative is for their families to live elsewhere which wouldnt work. so yes...the family cliche can be viable.

how many people that dont even make millions leave a job because they hate where they work? it happens everyday. why force players to stay in a city and organization that they arent comfortable playing for? its good for th league but terrible for the person ESPECIALLY because true stars would get paid the same or similarly any team they chose

rabzouz 96
02-11-2011, 07:13 AM
well, i like it since it might put more pressure on gms to assemble good teams and not those misconstructed stuck in the middle-of-the-pack teams that have a star but still get nowhere.

barreleffact
02-11-2011, 07:37 AM
There is nothing that can be done, seriously, what can the owners do.

Franchise tag is a terrible idea, (how the hell are you going to force players to stay with an organization)

Only outrageous thing I can think of is...

No more MID levels, a HARD cap, only one MAX contact can be on any given team, and the next biggest contract can not go over 10mil per year.

No MID level
HARD cap (only)
1 MAX contract
Only one player (not counting the Max contact guy) on the team can make 10mil per year.


Example:

Wade has max contract
LBJ would only earn 10mil per year
And Bosh would have to settle for 9mil per year

I don't think Bosh would go for that. I don't think Melo would go for that either, just to play in NY, because Stoudemire already has max contract.

And these new rules would take affect immediately, so players would have to restructure their contracts to stay with their current teams, or teams would have to trade players to stay with in the new guidelines.

im pretty sure that would be a violation of their contracts AND it would defeat the purpose of a contract anyway

aussiepiston
02-11-2011, 08:20 AM
2) If that were to ever happen I could, within only a few years, construct an unbeatable team. Let's say its the Lakers for example, who just signed Kobe and Pau to extensions, which wouldn't count towards the salary cap. This past summer I'd offer Lebron a 1 year 30 million dollar contract before he signed with the Heat. The idea of that being after his 1 year contract is up I could resign him at a max contract without any of it counting towards the cap. At the end of it I would have a team with Kobe, Pau, Lebron, Wade, and Dwight Howard while only have rookie contracts and veteran minimum contracts to fill out the roster.

The way it works in sport here in Aust is the player has to have served 8+ years with one club, and then 20odd% of their salary is excluded from our hard-cap.

I guess it would help clubs keep loyal role players but not stars.

Then again how often are you gonna get a draft class like that where everybody has grown up buddy-buddy and turns out to have 3 of the leagues best players in it? The Heat situation probably won't reoccur.

kdspurman
02-11-2011, 11:24 AM
I think at the end of the day, it's up to the coaches and management to handle these situations. Some of these coaches allow their players to do what they want, and that's obviously a problem. Jerry Sloan imo was not pushed out by Deron Williams, I think he's been coaching for 23 years, he's probably just frustrated and made an emotional decision. Sure he probably had an argument with Williams but that's not the sole reason. Had this happened 5-10 yrs ago he wouldn't have left. The man's probably just tired.

That said, if the coaching/management staff doesn't control their team, then those teams deserve to be run by the players. Simple as that. You would not see this happen with Popavich, or Rivers, or even George Karl for that matter (to name a few) cause these guys set the tone for their teams. And I guarantee if a PG from these teams decided to call their own play when the coach gave a play already theyd be benched the rest of that game maybe even the next. Especially in boston or san antonio where it's more of a system than it is going out and calling a play. (like it was in Utah as well) these guys dont' want to buy into a system, and go out and freestyle their own stuff, then coaches need to make an example of them. Frustrating to see at times but what can you do? If a teacher lets you get away with stuff in school or your parents do at home youre going to continue doing it.

thunderforce
02-11-2011, 12:19 PM
Well if we cant stop all the franchise players from going to the same 5 or 6 teams then they need to fully compensate the small market teams when they loose a franchise player by say making a fair trade for that player that both teams agree to OR the team loosing the franchise player should get 4 or 5 first round picks not 1 or 2 . Maybe that would give the large market team doing the stealing something to think about . You have to make it so it can be done but it is not easy to do .

zB_#85
02-11-2011, 12:26 PM
There is nothing that can be done, seriously, what can the owners do.

Franchise tag is a terrible idea, (how the hell are you going to force players to stay with an organization)

Only outrageous thing I can think of is...

No more MID levels, a HARD cap, only one MAX contact can be on any given team, and the next biggest contract can not go over 10mil per year.

No MID level
HARD cap (only)
1 MAX contract
Only one player (not counting the Max contact guy) on the team can make 10mil per year.


Example:

Wade has max contract
LBJ would only earn 10mil per year
And Bosh would have to settle for 9mil per year

I don't think Bosh would go for that. I don't think Melo would go for that either, just to play in NY, because Stoudemire already has max contract.

And these new rules would take affect immediately, so players would have to restructure their contracts to stay with their current teams, or teams would have to trade players to stay with in the new guidelines.

this is interesting. The reason I like it is mainly because MAX contracts wouldn't be handed out so freely. Guarantee if that rule was in place last year there is no way in hell Amare or Joe Johnson would have been given a MAX. Don't see why to take the MLE away, and really don't think it would be practical to implement immediately and make teams conform, but an intriguing idea moving forward...

barreleffact
02-11-2011, 02:13 PM
Well if we cant stop all the franchise players from going to the same 5 or 6 teams then they need to fully compensate the small market teams when they loose a franchise player by say making a fair trade for that player that both teams agree to OR the team loosing the franchise player should get 4 or 5 first round picks not 1 or 2 . Maybe that would give the large market team doing the stealing something to think about . You have to make it so it can be done but it is not easy to do .

I disagree about the first part especially because there would nvr be a trade both side sagree to and it would defeat the purpose of adding to a team via free agency. it would totally be trades. It's FREE agency not a price. leaving players nor the receiving teams owe anything to the losing organization.

However, labeling a player as a franchise player and upon him leavin forcing the gaining team to relinquish a pick or two does sound interesting.

stlbest5in2013
02-11-2011, 02:46 PM
affect, btw.

seriously man? your worried about typo's on an open internet public forum, where nobody gets paid for their posts?

Ty Fast
02-11-2011, 09:54 PM
I would say a franchise tag should be a must in the new CBA.

not gonna happen. the player uninon would vote 100000000000000% no.

Ty Fast
02-11-2011, 09:55 PM
seriously man? your worried about typo's on an open internet public forum, where nobody gets paid for their posts?

if you spell one word wrong on this site you get your head bit off.

Dade County
02-11-2011, 10:55 PM
this is interesting. The reason I like it is mainly because MAX contracts wouldn't be handed out so freely. Guarantee if that rule was in place last year there is no way in hell Amare or Joe Johnson would have been given a MAX.

Yes sir... You got that right!



Don't see why to take the MLE away,


I think teams need to build teams, that can fit in the cap. You just give a team a free pass, to play over the cap, and still get a quality player... Not fare!