PDA

View Full Version : "It's a 2 team league" ... how do we fix it?



Scoots
02-24-2017, 01:47 PM
Copied the below from another thread. I'd be interested to hear what you all think can be done to improve the show, whether that is parity or not.




Its a 2 team league with teams more often selling off to miss the playoffs then fighting to get in it.

But that's not a result of the current rules. The Warriors drafted extremely well over a few years then got stupidly lucky with a cap rise. The Cavs tanked to add talent, traded potential to add other talent, and had the best player of the last 20 years decide to come back home. You shouldn't blame the rules for flukes.

Rules to add parity? Allow owners of teams who win fewer than 41 games to attend only half as many games as the team wins the previous year. Win 40 games and the owners box and seats must be empty for 21 home games. Win 14 games and they are empty for 34 games. The best owners make the best teams who make the best decisions and hire the best people to build the team and the players and win the most games. It's true in every sport, but in basketball where around 70% of the 240 minutes available are taken by a good team's starters a few players make a HUGE difference in results.

Setting a maximum number of minutes any player can play per game would add some parity. Set it to 20 minutes per game (240 minutes divided by 13 active players and round up) and the Celtics would probably be favored to win the title this year.

Vee-Rex
02-24-2017, 02:12 PM
I'd love to hear everyone's ideas on this too.

Mine: Front offices need to have more guts and make big trades, whether they are to stockpile assets or to load up on talent. It takes some luck with the draft and you can't control positioning unless you use the Hinkie blueprint but critical decisions DO matter.

I witnessed LeBron-led teams where LeBron had one of the best single season performances ever, fail to truly compete with Orlando because his teammates were terrible when it mattered, the coach refused to adjust, and the front office couldn't put together a more talented team, including passing on potential game-changing trades.

At this point, we can't blame front offices for not being able to put together a team on the level of Golden State because they truly are special, but they do have to receive some blame for not being close to or around Cleveland's level. Toronto, Boston, Washington, etc... all have their 1st and 2nd round picks through the year 100000000 while Boston has the most tradeable assets of every team in the league, yet have been unwilling to trade two first rounds, a young player, and vet to acquire additional all-star talent.

If your team is competing at a level close to being a contender - GUT YOUR TEAM of roleplayers for more top-end talent. Build that all-star structure and then worry about filling in the rest with shooters/defenders and so forth.

Kyben36
02-24-2017, 02:27 PM
Easy answer is expansion.

Add 2 new teams to the NBA. Those teams draft from existing teams rosters.

Each team can save 3 players from being eligible to be taken. Also any rok contracts are ineligible to be taken.

Each team can have a maximum of two players taken from their roster.

New teams are also given top odds in next year's draft.

Example of how this evens the field.

Warriors. Designate curry Durant and green to be saved.


Incoming team can take Thompson as a building block.

Toronto designates Lowry Derozan and Val. Likely loose ibaka

Loosing a key player or star would suck. But it would even out the playing field

mudvayne387
02-24-2017, 02:30 PM
You don't.

The NBA has always lacked parity.

The Celtics/Lakers/Bulls and Spurs have won a combined 44 titles. Superteams are annoying but man is it fun when they get beat. It is just something we will have to live with for now.

Scoots
02-24-2017, 02:30 PM
I'd love to hear everyone's ideas on this too.

Mine: Front offices need to have more guts and make big trades, whether they are to stockpile assets or to load up on talent. It takes some luck with the draft and you can't control positioning unless you use the Hinkie blueprint but critical decisions DO matter.

I witnessed LeBron-led teams where LeBron had one of the best single season performances ever, fail to truly compete with Orlando because his teammates were terrible when it mattered, the coach refused to adjust, and the front office couldn't put together a more talented team, including passing on potential game-changing trades.

At this point, we can't blame front offices for not being able to put together a team on the level of Golden State because they truly are special, but they do have to receive some blame for not being close to or around Cleveland's level. Toronto, Boston, Washington, etc... all have their 1st and 2nd round picks through the year 100000000 while Boston has the most tradeable assets of every team in the league, yet have been unwilling to trade two first rounds, a young player, and vet to acquire additional all-star talent.

If your team is competing at a level close to being a contender - GUT YOUR TEAM of roleplayers for more top-end talent. Build that all-star structure and then worry about filling in the rest with shooters/defenders and so forth.

How do you encourage front offices to have more guts? Maybe just give them more chances? 3 round draft? Give the team with the best year to year improvement a special pick between the lottery and the rest of the 1st round?

You could make GMs maybe more successful by adding size to the roster so more talent could get time to develop, or by increasing the minimum age in the NBA so there would be more data to decide from.

I'd like the NBA to increase the minimum age not just to improve the NBA but to improve college ball which is nearly unwatchable now.

LA4life24/8
02-24-2017, 02:41 PM
Idk that it can be fixed... even if they put a hard cap on or whatever, players could (not saying they would BUT) could literally just take huge, MASSIVE pay cuts to play together.
You could restrict it so that a team could only have so many all stars on one team, But even then still theres many good players who arent all stars who would go to help build super teams... im interested to see what some of the more creative ans knowledgeable posters can come up with

valade16
02-24-2017, 02:52 PM
Easy answer is expansion.

Add 2 new teams to the NBA. Those teams draft from existing teams rosters.

Each team can save 3 players from being eligible to be taken. Also any rok contracts are ineligible to be taken.

Each team can have a maximum of two players taken from their roster.

New teams are also given top odds in next year's draft.

Example of how this evens the field.

Warriors. Designate curry Durant and green to be saved.


Incoming team can take Thompson as a building block.

Toronto designates Lowry Derozan and Val. Likely loose ibaka

Loosing a key player or star would suck. But it would even out the playing field

From just your example Toronto would be furious since they literally just traded for Ibaka and definitely wouldn't have done the trade knowing they'd have to give up Ibaka almost immediately.

NFLNBA
02-24-2017, 03:04 PM
I put this on the new generation of players who are all friends and best buddies. The best playersw want to play together not beat each other. Lebron ALWAYS finds a way to have 2 other all-stars. Made sure of it with heat (Bosh, Wade, Allen) then when they got older moved on to (Kyrie and Love). Warriors now deserve the credit of building that mostly.......but then adding Durrant was just pathetic. NBA should have Veto'd that trade just like they did to prevent Kobe and CP3 from playing together. The new CBA was supposed to prevent this when that first veto took place "basketball reasons" competitve balance but then following year allow the 2 hr hype Heat join up. This is the most watered down American sport we have. No way of fixing it. Superstars even take paycuts to play toegther.

Vee-Rex
02-24-2017, 03:08 PM
How do you encourage front offices to have more guts? Maybe just give them more chances? 3 round draft? Give the team with the best year to year improvement a special pick between the lottery and the rest of the 1st round?

You could make GMs maybe more successful by adding size to the roster so more talent could get time to develop, or by increasing the minimum age in the NBA so there would be more data to decide from.

I'd like the NBA to increase the minimum age not just to improve the NBA but to improve college ball which is nearly unwatchable now.

It's weird because front offices won't hesitate to sign big contracts in free agency, but they curl up when it comes to trades. A lot of their priorities are just to be mediocre/above mediorcre. They want to win games and earn money but avoid the risk it takes to build a championship team. That's actually a well-documented take from several former players, executives, etc...

Maybe the system isn't perfect now, but it's still better than fans give credit for. I think a lot of teams are afraid to become the next Brooklyn Nets but they fail to understand why those particular trades were terrible (Garnett being 37 years old and Pierce being 36).

But if you look at the Boston Celtics (on the cusp of being a contender) and their 'tradeable' assets through the next 4 years:

-Avery Bradley
-Jae Crowder
-Marcus Smart
-Jaylen Brown
-2017 Nets 1st round pick
-2017 Cavs 2nd round pick
-2017 Clippers 2nd round pick
-2017 Timberwolves 2nd round pick
-2018 Celtics 1st round pick
-2018 Nets 1st round pick
-2019 Celtics 1st round pick
-2019 Grizzlies 1st round pick
-2019 Clippers 1st round pick
-2019 Pistons 2nd round pick
-2020 Celtics 1st round pick
-2020 Celtics 2nd round pick
-2020 Heat 2nd round pick
-2021 Celtics 1st round pick
-2021 Celtics 2nd round pick

The Cleveland Cavs have:

-2018 First round pick

THAT'S IT

You can see how it makes sense to give up a couple players and picks to get Butler who is signed through the next 3 years. Then they've still got tons and tons of assets to acquire a 3rd star or even sign a free agent, and still tons more to to build pieces. If it takes Crowder, so beat it, you'll replace him down the road.

There are countless opportunities that no one can account for that will open up and allow a top-heavy team to build. No one thought Deron Williams would be waived, but because the rookie Yogi Ferrell came out of nowhere ballin', D-Will was waived. Kyle Korver was achieved through a 1st round, so was Channing Frye. TPE's can be acquired by dumping off players with contracts and not taking back players, which provides flexibility in the future.

So while there may be minor things to fix here and there - teams have so many opportunities available to them.

I absolutely LOVE what the Raptors did in acquiring Ibaka + Tucker, but did they really take a huge risk? What the hell are they gonna do with their other 1st round pick? Draft a guy to send to the D-League? What if, instead of getting Tucker and Ibaka, they were able to package Sully + Ross + both first rounds + both 2nd rounds and pull in a Jimmy Butler and/or DeMarcus Cousins?

Then they'd STILL have their 2018 1st and 2nd round, 2019 1st and 2nd round, 2020 1st and 2nd round, etc... to BUILD OFF that core of Lowry, DeRozan, and Cousins/Butler.

It's a 'two team league' because those two teams built their teams - one through the draft, the other through a series of trades. And if I were to be honest, the Spurs are on the Cavs level, and the Rockets and Clippers aren't far behind. The rest of the league needs to make **** happen because there's plenty of talent out there.

Scoots
02-24-2017, 03:11 PM
Easy answer is expansion.

Add 2 new teams to the NBA. Those teams draft from existing teams rosters.

Each team can save 3 players from being eligible to be taken. Also any rok contracts are ineligible to be taken.

Each team can have a maximum of two players taken from their roster.

New teams are also given top odds in next year's draft.

Example of how this evens the field.

Warriors. Designate curry Durant and green to be saved.


Incoming team can take Thompson as a building block.

Toronto designates Lowry Derozan and Val. Likely loose ibaka

Loosing a key player or star would suck. But it would even out the playing field

2 teams taking the 4th best player on all the other teams would be an interesting thought experiment, but the only team it would really hurt is the Warriors since most teams don't have 4 top players. It also doesn't change the general structure of the league at all so the talent will still tend to come together but be a bit more watered down for the rest of the league with 2 more teams.

Giannis94
02-24-2017, 03:14 PM
Fire silver. Hire trump. Thank me later.

ewing
02-24-2017, 03:19 PM
^^^ power move

MygirlhatesCod
02-24-2017, 03:21 PM
The parity is only fixed with money! make contracts for everyone incentive based. Owners, GM's, coaches, and players get paid not just for individual accolades but for team play. If there is money on the line for how individuals defend or how their respective team defense ranking overall is, more would be done. A more complete player/coach/GM/owner will be the result if wins/loss's have money attached. it all starts with the players. when employee's are hungry they work harder. Certain players will get theirs anyway because they have an insatiable desire to win. That mindset is far and few in between. I do get why, its common nature to stray off course when you never had much. so when you come in to the NBA as a lottery pick and make 2 mill at minimum (picks 1-10) that incentive dives a bit for some. which effects how players develop, a big reason the draft is a crap shoot. Not every team is gonna have a Lebron or curry but those aren't necessary to have a competitive program. Just look at the spurs for an example. The players bought in to the system and it is booming. odds are that either the Warriors or Cavs will win it but it wouldn't be unheard of for the spurs. if players were paid off team rankings a lot of the parity would level itself in my opinion.

dhopisthename
02-24-2017, 04:08 PM
the problem is that the 5 best nba players are worth so much more then the rest of the players. you then combine the fact that warriors have 2 of those guys with two all stars it just makes it silly. then you have cavaliers with a generational talent and two all star level talents and a relatively easy path the finals.

PowerHouse
02-24-2017, 04:18 PM
Damn right its a two team league.

Rockets and Spurs are just mopping the floor with everybody.

HandsOnTheWheel
02-24-2017, 04:18 PM
Punish the teams who win championships/ go far in the playoffs with more cap restraints than teams who sucked/ didn't make the playoffs by year. Teams like the Warriors and Cavs have to make calculated signings based on how far they think they can go and trade contracts when getting to deep into luxury tax. At some point, every owner has a limit on how much they are willing to spend in luxury tax, therefore the league balances out when lesser teams are able to go all out and spend in the offseason. I know the CBA would never allow it but it's interesting to think about.

IKnowHoops
02-24-2017, 04:33 PM
Let teams sign players to 10 plus year contracts again.

Or

Lebron turns 39

mightybosstone
02-24-2017, 04:35 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The NBA is cyclical, and this will ultimately take care of itself. There's no way to ever truly fix this that wouldn't require a massive overall of the CBA and create total havoc across the league. So what do you do? Nothing.

Eventually the Cavs and even the mighty Warriors will fall. Lebron is probably 2-4 years from a significant dropoff in his game, while Thompson will be a free agent in a couple of years, and Green won't be far behind him. In five years, we'll probably have two brand new teams at the top. And posters in here will be complaining about how it's a two or three team league again. And then five years from then, it will be a new group of teams.

You know what Russell's Celtics, the Showtime Lakers, the Bird/McHale/Parish Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan's Spurs and the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat all have in common? They all dominated for a period of time, and they all eventually fell off again. This will be no different. Time destroys all great teams eventually.

SteBO
02-24-2017, 04:39 PM
Let teams sign players to 10 plus year contracts again.

Or

Lebron turns 39
I've always wondered how much different the league would be with no cap.

hugepatsfan
02-24-2017, 04:43 PM
Get rid of the max contract. Then guys would have to take less to team up and the top players would be more spread out.

Problem is, that's no good either. No one wants the 30 best players spread out over all 30 teams. Watered down product. Ideally we want most of the top talent concentrated on the top 10or so team with another 5 or so young up and comers behind them.

warfelg
02-24-2017, 04:55 PM
No max contract, hard cap.

Hawkeye15
02-24-2017, 05:03 PM
Vinylman brought up a solid point in another thread. With the fact that the league is always top heavy, it's now become either contender or bust, because you don't need to even come close to selling out games to make a profit (in fact, for many teams it makes more sense to totally avoid the LT), due to revenue sharing, we have entered this world where, if you don't contend, thy shall tank at all costs. It simply puts such a pathetic product on the floor.

So, here are 3 suggestions:

1- Kill revenue sharing. You put a protection bubble in that results in a net loss, but doesn't bankrupt a team in a matter of 2-3 years, instead making it VERY unappealing to own a franchise that never sells tickets. This will keep ****** owners away, or at least not around long.

2- Build further enticements for players to stay with the team that drafted them.

3- Change the lottery system to:
1-3 (each have the same chance, flip a coin for order)
4-10 (each have the same chance, flip a coin for order)
11-14 (stay where you are)

FOXHOUND
02-24-2017, 05:05 PM
There are no ways to create more parity, because some teams will always be run better than the rest. The Spurs have won 50+ games forever and still found a way to draft and develop someone with all-time great talent. Unless you have straight up welfare, you cannot stop this. Even then, some teams have great talent they don't know how to build around or talent they don't even realize is great.

Vee-Rex
02-24-2017, 05:37 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The NBA is cyclical, and this will ultimately take care of itself. There's no way to ever truly fix this that wouldn't require a massive overall of the CBA and create total havoc across the league. So what do you do? Nothing.

Eventually the Cavs and even the mighty Warriors will fall. Lebron is probably 2-4 years from a significant dropoff in his game, while Thompson will be a free agent in a couple of years, and Green won't be far behind him. In five years, we'll probably have two brand new teams at the top. And posters in here will be complaining about how it's a two or three team league again. And then five years from then, it will be a new group of teams.

You know what Russell's Celtics, the Showtime Lakers, the Bird/McHale/Parish Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan's Spurs and the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat all have in common? They all dominated for a period of time, and they all eventually fell off again. This will be no different. Time destroys all great teams eventually.

+1

It's absolutely cyclical and the fans who are complaining now will be happy when their team is on top.

Hawkeye15
02-24-2017, 05:40 PM
You know what Russell's Celtics, the Showtime Lakers, the Bird/McHale/Parish Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan's Spurs and the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat all have in common? They all dominated for a period of time, and they all eventually fell off again. This will be no different. Time destroys all great teams eventually.

very true, great teams get crappy picks, and need to use picks/youth to keep upgrading. Eventually the well runs dry as their team ages.

Scoots
02-24-2017, 06:25 PM
I put this on the new generation of players who are all friends and best buddies. The best playersw want to play together not beat each other. Lebron ALWAYS finds a way to have 2 other all-stars. Made sure of it with heat (Bosh, Wade, Allen) then when they got older moved on to (Kyrie and Love). Warriors now deserve the credit of building that mostly.......but then adding Durrant was just pathetic. NBA should have Veto'd that trade just like they did to prevent Kobe and CP3 from playing together. The new CBA was supposed to prevent this when that first veto took place "basketball reasons" competitve balance but then following year allow the 2 hr hype Heat join up. This is the most watered down American sport we have. No way of fixing it. Superstars even take paycuts to play toegther.

They are not all best friends and buddies, there is definitely some animosity between a lot of them. And the friends thing is definitely not new and not limited to the NBA.

Scoots
02-24-2017, 06:30 PM
The parity is only fixed with money! make contracts for everyone incentive based. Owners, GM's, coaches, and players get paid not just for individual accolades but for team play. If there is money on the line for how individuals defend or how their respective team defense ranking overall is, more would be done. A more complete player/coach/GM/owner will be the result if wins/loss's have money attached. it all starts with the players. when employee's are hungry they work harder. Certain players will get theirs anyway because they have an insatiable desire to win. That mindset is far and few in between. I do get why, its common nature to stray off course when you never had much. so when you come in to the NBA as a lottery pick and make 2 mill at minimum (picks 1-10) that incentive dives a bit for some. which effects how players develop, a big reason the draft is a crap shoot. Not every team is gonna have a Lebron or curry but those aren't necessary to have a competitive program. Just look at the spurs for an example. The players bought in to the system and it is booming. odds are that either the Warriors or Cavs will win it but it wouldn't be unheard of for the spurs. if players were paid off team rankings a lot of the parity would level itself in my opinion.

What if you leave all the money as it is now, but half of the playoff profits go to the winning team to be split based on current pay scale?

Scoots
02-24-2017, 06:42 PM
the problem is that the 5 best nba players are worth so much more then the rest of the players. you then combine the fact that warriors have 2 of those guys with two all stars it just makes it silly. then you have cavaliers with a generational talent and two all star level talents and a relatively easy path the finals.

While the Warriors have 4 players who are top 5 at their position they drafted 3 of them and none of them earlier than the 7th pick in the draft. Theoretically any team could do that so there is nothing to "fix" there. The Warriors 3 picks were the 7th, 11, and 35th picks in their drafts ... This Sixers have had 6 rookies drafted in the top 11 in the last 4 years and Saric was picked 12th ... teams have drafted a LOT of talent over the years but the team has to have the coaching talent and the front office stability to develop the players and NOT make the trades that hurt the team. Another thing I've seen a lot of in the NBA is teams drafting the best player available regardless of fit ... this is maybe the fault of the Blazers who passed on Jordan because they already had a SG ... GMs are afraid they will be criticized forever for passing on a player that doesn't fit ... now it's all about "assets".

But ... that's all philosophy and none of it is changeable by a rules change.

Kyben36
02-24-2017, 06:43 PM
From just your example Toronto would be furious since they literally just traded for Ibaka and definitely wouldn't have done the trade knowing they'd have to give up Ibaka almost immediately.

I know. Was just trying to find teams with that 4th decent player. If u want. How about Thompson from the Cavs. Bradley or Crowder in Boston clippers Reddick

Scoots
02-24-2017, 06:44 PM
Punish the teams who win championships/ go far in the playoffs with more cap restraints than teams who sucked/ didn't make the playoffs by year. Teams like the Warriors and Cavs have to make calculated signings based on how far they think they can go and trade contracts when getting to deep into luxury tax. At some point, every owner has a limit on how much they are willing to spend in luxury tax, therefore the league balances out when lesser teams are able to go all out and spend in the offseason. I know the CBA would never allow it but it's interesting to think about.

But the current CBA already does that. Players that win get big pay raises on new contracts. Each new contract pushes the team further up the pay scale. Every year in the tax and the further into the tax the money it costs the team gets absurdly higher and higher.

Scoots
02-24-2017, 06:49 PM
No max contract, hard cap.

That still results in bad owner/bad GM = bad team with bad results. Plenty of teams spent theirselves out of relevance with bad contracts for bad players ... the max contract was created to protect the bad owners/GMs, getting rid of it means more bad teams with one overpaid player for a LONG time.

warfelg
02-24-2017, 06:56 PM
That still results in bad owner/bad GM = bad team with bad results. Plenty of teams spent theirselves out of relevance with bad contracts for bad players ... the max contract was created to protect the bad owners/GMs, getting rid of it means more bad teams with one overpaid player for a LONG time.

Sure, there will always be bad owners and bad GM's.

But no max and hard cap means that you can't keep everyone and makes it harder to sign other players. Levels out the field.

Look at NFL. Despite bad owners and bad GM's, hard cap means talent is always available.

carlessyen
02-24-2017, 06:58 PM
Get so sick of hearing its a two team league, and something needs to change. Toronto, Boston , Houston, Clippers, Spurs, Hawks are all contenders, and could win a title this season. These teams make good moves tomake their teams what they are, but they aren't unbeatable. Lebron goes down Raptors, Celtics beat Cavs with ease. Green goes down or Warriors continue to play like they have Rockets and Spurs can get to the finals.

Kyben36
02-24-2017, 07:03 PM
2 teams taking the 4th best player on all the other teams would be an interesting thought experiment, but the only team it would really hurt is the Warriors since most teams don't have 4 top players. It also doesn't change the general structure of the league at all so the talent will still tend to come together but be a bit more watered down for the rest of the league with 2 more teams.

It's a quick move. Obviously it doesn't solve the issues of players coming together. But taking key players from the better teams would help others.

Another

Scoots
02-24-2017, 07:11 PM
Vinylman brought up a solid point in another thread. With the fact that the league is always top heavy, it's now become either contender or bust, because you don't need to even come close to selling out games to make a profit (in fact, for many teams it makes more sense to totally avoid the LT), due to revenue sharing, we have entered this world where, if you don't contend, thy shall tank at all costs. It simply puts such a pathetic product on the floor.

So, here are 3 suggestions:

1- Kill revenue sharing. You put a protection bubble in that results in a net loss, but doesn't bankrupt a team in a matter of 2-3 years, instead making it VERY unappealing to own a franchise that never sells tickets. This will keep ****** owners away, or at least not around long.

2- Build further enticements for players to stay with the team that drafted them.

3- Change the lottery system to:
1-3 (each have the same chance, flip a coin for order)
4-10 (each have the same chance, flip a coin for order)
11-14 (stay where you are)

Now we're talking ... I like anything that incentivizes owners to win. Maybe not do away with revenue sharing but distribute it based on wins with a minimum that allows small market teams to not lose money but makes losing teams not make any money.

I don't know that the lottery can be improved much. I've been following every version of the draft from no lottery to a all-equal lottery and everything up to now and what we have now is the best balance between "fair" and discouraging tanking.

Scoots
02-24-2017, 07:14 PM
There are no ways to create more parity, because some teams will always be run better than the rest. The Spurs have won 50+ games forever and still found a way to draft and develop someone with all-time great talent. Unless you have straight up welfare, you cannot stop this. Even then, some teams have great talent they don't know how to build around or talent they don't even realize is great.

True, however if we can improve ownership's incentive to be good, can make drafting safer, and can protect a team's best assets for longer it should make things better.

Scoots
02-24-2017, 07:21 PM
Sure, there will always be bad owners and bad GM's.

But no max and hard cap means that you can't keep everyone and makes it harder to sign other players. Levels out the field.

Look at NFL. Despite bad owners and bad GM's, hard cap means talent is always available.

There are nearly 4 times as many players in the NFL as the NBA and the NFL game is the most team oriented sport going which minimizes star players. That said even in the NFL the teams that win year after year tend to have a top QB in addition to other talents.

I don't believe the hard cap really changes anything as the best teams will still maximize it and bad teams will screw it up ... home teams keeping their home grown talent is why the cap is soft because the owners realize that continuity has a major impact on ticket sales.

warfelg
02-24-2017, 07:30 PM
There are nearly 4 times as many players in the NFL as the NBA and the NFL game is the most team oriented sport going which minimizes star players. That said even in the NFL the teams that win year after year tend to have a top QB in addition to other talents.

I don't believe the hard cap really changes anything as the best teams will still maximize it and bad teams will screw it up ... home teams keeping their home grown talent is why the cap is soft because the owners realize that continuity has a major impact on ticket sales.

If you want to argue Bad GM/Bad Owners......they are always going to exist. You can't do anything about that. All you can do is find ways to make it so that signing others talents is harder.

mngopher35
02-24-2017, 07:35 PM
Ya as others have said no max contracts would be big for this.

Currently we just have a crazy scenario where due to a spike in cap the best team signed a top player. Parity has obviously been killed even more due to this situation but this seems like an isolated incident due to that jump. Overall as people have mentioned it's not like it is usually 10 plus teams competing anyway we usually know 5ish contenders beforehand...

Once you are forced to pay top players what they are truly worth you force them to decide on major discounts or teaming up. Right now you don't have that at all, like non all stars get near max or max $ the same as a true superstar would.

warfelg
02-24-2017, 07:38 PM
Ya as others have said no max contracts would be big for this.

Currently we just have a crazy scenario where due to a spike in cap the best team signed a top player. Parity has obviously been killed even more due to this situation but this seems like an isolated incident due to that jump. Overall as people have mentioned it's not like it is usually 10 plus teams competing anyway we usually know 5ish contenders beforehand...

Once you are forced to pay top players what they are truly worth you force them to decide on major discounts or teaming up. Right now you don't have that at all, like non all stars get near max or max $ the same as a true superstar would.

I agree the cap spike really skewed things this year.

lol, please
02-24-2017, 07:39 PM
I disagree with the idea that it's a two team league, and if I ever conceded it so, I certainly wouldn't call the cavs one of those two teams, assuming that's the jist of it.

There are five teams in contention as far as i'm concerned, but since i'm not one of those sheeple who "need to see a team win it all or make x, y, z to be called legit/a contender", I won't be surprised if it's an unpopular opinion.


As I said in the beginning of the year, it will be a Warriors/Raptors finals, and I already have money where my mouth is on that one.

hugepatsfan
02-24-2017, 07:41 PM
I think the lottery encourages tanking by more teams. I'll use CHA as an example.

They're tied with POR for 10th worst record in the NBA right now. Right now they're 3.5 games out of a playoff spot in the East. They're also 3.5 games back from having the 5th worst record in the NBA.

Under a lottery system, they have HUGE incentive to try and go back those 5 games as opposed to forward into the playoffs. If you get rid of the lottery then picking 5th vs. 10th wouldn't be nearly as big a deal.

The lottery system somewhat discourages tanking at the very bottom of the league because there's a minimal difference from gaining a spot but it's a massive incentive for tanking further down in the lottery instead of trying to get better.

Scoots
02-24-2017, 07:48 PM
If you want to argue Bad GM/Bad Owners......they are always going to exist. You can't do anything about that. All you can do is find ways to make it so that signing others talents is harder.

But you CAN incentivize owners to try to win rather than to just tread water. Elgin Baylor was the Clippers GM for 23 years ... not because he was that good a GM but because he was cheap.

And you can reduce the difference between good GMs and lesser GMs by having things like max contracts and by increasing the size of the rosters and increasing the minimum age.

Toxeryll
02-24-2017, 08:14 PM
Harsher penalties for tax teams (losing picks, or even a hard cap) Also, shouldnt allow veterans to go to contenders for minimum especially those players who just got bought out midseason. They can get rid of conferences and have the top 16 get in the playoffs so theres no easy road to the Finals like the Cavs every single year.

canzano55
02-24-2017, 08:53 PM
I have a very simple answer for this but it will never happen.

GET RID OF 7 GAME SERIES!!

Make it best of 3 and for the finals make it a superbowl final winner takes all.

Let's reintroduce randomness and suspense in to the NBA.

Scoots
02-25-2017, 12:08 AM
Harsher penalties for tax teams (losing picks, or even a hard cap) Also, shouldnt allow veterans to go to contenders for minimum especially those players who just got bought out midseason. They can get rid of conferences and have the top 16 get in the playoffs so theres no easy road to the Finals like the Cavs every single year.

These Warriors have been to the finals as many times as these Cavs and the Warriors are not over the tax. In fact the Warriors have saved their money so they can buy draft picks.

Scoots
02-25-2017, 12:13 AM
I have a very simple answer for this but it will never happen.

GET RID OF 7 GAME SERIES!!

Make it best of 3 and for the finals make it a superbowl final winner takes all.

Let's reintroduce randomness and suspense in to the NBA.

If the finals last year was 1 game the favored team would have won. Of course if the series before that was a 3 game series the Thunder would have been in the finals.

I like the strategy that plays out over a 7 game series. I don't think every series needs to be 7 games but I think the last 2 certainly should be.

Toxeryll
02-25-2017, 12:27 AM
These Warriors have been to the finals as many times as these Cavs and the Warriors are not over the tax. In fact the Warriors have saved their money so they can buy draft picks.

Recent superteams such as Cavs, Miami, Boston (2008) have all paid tax. The Warriors are kind of an exception but they are going to be a tax team too eventually if they want to keep all their stars.

europagnpilgrim
02-25-2017, 12:40 AM
I put this on the new generation of players who are all friends and best buddies. The best playersw want to play together not beat each other. Lebron ALWAYS finds a way to have 2 other all-stars. Made sure of it with heat (Bosh, Wade, Allen) then when they got older moved on to (Kyrie and Love). Warriors now deserve the credit of building that mostly.......but then adding Durrant was just pathetic. NBA should have Veto'd that trade just like they did to prevent Kobe and CP3 from playing together. The new CBA was supposed to prevent this when that first veto took place "basketball reasons" competitve balance but then following year allow the 2 hr hype Heat join up. This is the most watered down American sport we have. No way of fixing it. Superstars even take paycuts to play toegther.

Magic wanted to play with Kareem way back we he came out of college and Lakers won that coin toss, were they buddies? most people fail to realize its been a 2 way race way back in the 60's to current, sure you maybe had a couple of dark horse true contenders but it was always Celtics vs Dipper teams then Celtics vs Lakers then Lakers vs Knicks then a few other teams snuck in and got a title then it went back to Celtics vs Lakers to Lakers vs Pistons with Portland sneaking in on a couple then Bulls vs Jazz with a couple other teams sneaking in like a Phoenix/Sonics back to the Lakers/Spurs vs the top contender out East with Dallas sneaking in on a couple trips out West and now its the Golden state/Cavs turn after going through the Miami/Spurs saga with OKC sneaking in once and being a contender for a good 5 yr stretch

but if I were other teams who are sitting on a load of assets I would pull the trigger for a game changer without even blinking once if we were on the cusp of really challenging for a title

its always been a two way race if you really break it down so the cycle remains the same, nothing new under the sun

Teeboy1487
02-25-2017, 12:42 AM
I put this on the new generation of players who are all friends and best buddies. The best playersw want to play together not beat each other. Lebron ALWAYS finds a way to have 2 other all-stars. Made sure of it with heat (Bosh, Wade, Allen) then when they got older moved on to (Kyrie and Love). Warriors now deserve the credit of building that mostly.......but then adding Durrant was just pathetic. NBA should have Veto'd that trade just like they did to prevent Kobe and CP3 from playing together. The new CBA was supposed to prevent this when that first veto took place "basketball reasons" competitve balance but then following year allow the 2 hr hype Heat join up. This is the most watered down American sport we have. No way of fixing it. Superstars even take paycuts to play toegther.
I agree. ******* like Lebron and Durant have totally taken the spirit of competition out of the game. Unfortunately, I see the newer generation after them following suit as well.

Chicagofaithful
02-25-2017, 03:31 AM
Used to post a lot, now only lurk. Was listening to Mike & Mike the other day and the older mike spat out that since the beginning of the NBA becoming popular it's only ever been 2 teams every year, was the Lakers and the Celtics and that was what originally made the league interesting.

I understand his point, but at the end of the day the NFL/MLB/NHL are just more interesting come playoffs because its wide open.

PAOboston
02-25-2017, 08:48 AM
Make more super teams

Giannis94
02-25-2017, 10:49 AM
Make more super teams

Contract teams.

BKLYNpigeon
02-25-2017, 11:41 AM
This thready is stupid.

The league will self correct itself. These two teams will fade in the next few years and another team will come up. if you keep making new rules and amendments to the CBA you just end up creating more problems.

warfelg
02-25-2017, 12:10 PM
This thready is stupid.

The league will self correct itself. These two teams will fade in the next few years and another team will come up. if you keep making new rules and amendments to the CBA you just end up creating more problems.

Well I think what part of the problem is the fact that there is basically no penalty if you don't mind paying the tax.

Take the Cavs for example. They signed LeBron with available cap space, and extended Kyrie. Then they traded for Love. Then traded for Smith and Shump. By the time Thompson and Smith's contracts came up they were massively in the tax, and other than paying there is basically no penalty for retaining those guys when they already were spending $140+ in contracts.

Finding a way to make it harder to do so (meaning either let Smith or Thompson walk, or trade away one of the big 3) would help out.

KnicksorBust
02-25-2017, 01:49 PM
The NBA doesn't know how to encourage trade. You have great teams. So many. But they can't compete. Look at what is going on in Los Angeles. Tragic. I alone can fix it. Nobody knows trade better than me. The league needs get out of the way.

Scoots
02-25-2017, 02:37 PM
Well I think what part of the problem is the fact that there is basically no penalty if you don't mind paying the tax.

Take the Cavs for example. They signed LeBron with available cap space, and extended Kyrie. Then they traded for Love. Then traded for Smith and Shump. By the time Thompson and Smith's contracts came up they were massively in the tax, and other than paying there is basically no penalty for retaining those guys when they already were spending $140+ in contracts.

Finding a way to make it harder to do so (meaning either let Smith or Thompson walk, or trade away one of the big 3) would help out.

The tax itself is, by definition, a penalty ... you don't need a penalty for the penalty. The issue is not the teams that are good, the issue is that there is no penalty for owners/teams that are not trying to win.

KnicksorBust
02-25-2017, 02:38 PM
Harsher penalties for tax teams (losing picks, or even a hard cap) Also, shouldnt allow veterans to go to contenders for minimum especially those players who just got bought out midseason. They can get rid of conferences and have the top 16 get in the playoffs so theres no easy road to the Finals like the Cavs every single year.

This makes the most sense if you are serious about it. Tox is right. Hit em where it hurts. Their picks and their wallets. Superteams would get hit hard. Yes the Warriors are the exception but that has more to do with the fact that Curry has an incredible deal and the cap spiked at the perfect time. People forget that cap issues is what broke about Westbrook, Harden Durant in the first place before they could become a dynasty.

Vee-Rex
02-25-2017, 02:47 PM
The tax itself is, by definition, a penalty ... you don't need a penalty for the penalty. The issue is not the teams that are good, the issue is that there is no penalty for owners/teams that are not trying to win.

I agree.

Look at the 'turmoil' between LeBron and Gilbert/management because LeBron wanted improvements to compete with GS while Gilbert (worth 5 billion) is hesitant on getting even deeper in the luxury tax.

Maybe LeBron leaves Cleveland? Idk, but the luxury tax is no joke. It absolutely destroyed the Nets and had one of the richest people on the planet looking to sell the team. The entire league is fighting to avoid it, and you got owners who are content with being treadmill teams to earn money, and you got owners who would rather not compete for a championship to avoid spending money.

I wouldn't mind the idea of a conference-eliminating playoffs, though. That would be fun.

valade16
02-25-2017, 03:01 PM
It's important to understand that the last 2 Superteam's weren't a continuation of the league but were brought on by extremely unique circumstances (in GS' case, that the cap spiked a massive amount). The best way for the NBA to avoid abnormalities is to limit the amount of abnormalities in the league structure.

warfelg
02-25-2017, 03:12 PM
The tax itself is, by definition, a penalty ... you don't need a penalty for the penalty. The issue is not the teams that are good, the issue is that there is no penalty for owners/teams that are not trying to win.

Well its obviously not a strong enough penalty.

The Tax is $113.5 mil.

The Cavs cap number the next 3 years is $127mil, $130mil, $127mil.

The only way they can fill out that team is putting themselves more into the tax. So at this point to them the penalty is nothing. A stronger tax would force them to make tougher decisions.

Consider the Cavs top 5 combined salaries is higher than 15 NBA TEAMS!!!

Now try to convince me the issue isn't penalties for the bottom.

Scoots
02-25-2017, 07:48 PM
Well its obviously not a strong enough penalty.

The Tax is $113.5 mil.

The Cavs cap number the next 3 years is $127mil, $130mil, $127mil.

The only way they can fill out that team is putting themselves more into the tax. So at this point to them the penalty is nothing. A stronger tax would force them to make tougher decisions.

Consider the Cavs top 5 combined salaries is higher than 15 NBA TEAMS!!!

Now try to convince me the issue isn't penalties for the bottom.

What you are talking about is 1 team that is alone setting an all time record for spending money. It is a self regulating issue as you will see in a year or two when they are looking to dump salaries and a couple years after that when LeBron's game falls off and the Cavs disappear for 5 years. The Warriors are not over the tax and they are one of the "2 team" mentioned and these added penalties wouldn't apply to them this year.

Why would the objective be to tear down 2 absolutely unique situations in the Cavs and Warriors, but not find a solution to make it easier for teams to get better? Let me put it this way ... if all of the Sixers picks of the last 7 years had knocked it out of the park and the Sixers had done everything right and signed no free agents whatsoever and the team was a model of peace, harmony and winning and the franchise was held up as a model for what all teams should be doing ... you think they should lose draft picks for the future so they can't maintain their run of success, and you think they should lose players they drafted who don't want to leave? The current CBA puts a MAJOR emphasis on helping teams keep their home grown players and The Process put a MAJOR emphasis on the draft to get those players but you want to punish them on both ends for "doing it right"?

I think the punishment should be doled out to owners who don't want to spend and who don't care about winning. Owners who don't want to employ a training staff full time, owners who charge for drinking water, owners who don't want to pay big money to white players because they are no good ... those are all things that happened in the NBA in the last 10 years by the way ... they should be penalized by losing money, and as I said before, losing access to their own team.

adidas2307
02-25-2017, 08:50 PM
Relegation!

It's been brought up before but the idea of relegation in the NBA fascinates me. But that might just be because of my love of the Premier League.

Edit: I also realize this doesn't really do much for the top two teams in the league buuuut it would still be interesting.

FlashBolt
02-25-2017, 09:41 PM
You don't. Let the invisible hand work itself out. Teams will want to get better and they'll get better.

Scoots
02-26-2017, 12:33 AM
You don't. Let the invisible hand work itself out. Teams will want to get better and they'll get better.

Except for the teams that don't care or are incapable of getting critical things right ... Like the Warriors were for 20 years, and the Kings are stuck in now.

KnicksorBust
02-26-2017, 09:26 AM
If the Celtics and Clippers pushed their chips to the middle and added Butler and Melo then both conferences would be up in the air imo. As constructed the Spurs are the only threat.

nycericanguy
02-26-2017, 10:54 AM
I feel like in the 90's every team had their star marquee player and every team tried to win. Those guys didn't switch teams every year either.

Now half the league is tanking and all the stars move around looking for easy titles.

Giannis94
02-26-2017, 01:17 PM
I feel like in the 90's every team had their star marquee player and every team tried to win. Those guys didn't switch teams every year either.

Now half the league is tanking and all the stars move around looking for easy titles.

thanks lebron

Sactown
02-26-2017, 01:27 PM
Max contracts are 3 years
Hard cap
No rookie scale

Why?
Hard to keep elite players on cheap contracts (Steph)

Can't use bird rights to resign goes over the cap allowing you in inflate talent

Can't keep high end talent at a low cost

Would cause a ton of player movement, would make it nearly impossible to stockpile elite talent for more than a few years

nycericanguy
02-26-2017, 01:54 PM
Max contracts are 3 years
Hard cap
No rookie scale

Why?
Hard to keep elite players on cheap contracts (Steph)

Can't use bird rights to resign goes over the cap allowing you in inflate talent

Can't keep high end talent at a low cost

Would cause a ton of player movement, would make it nearly impossible to stockpile elite talent for more than a few years

that's not a good thing either IMO. and you shouldn't penalize teams and not allow them to keep their own players by removing bird rights. So a good team right at the cap drafts a stud in the 2nd round and loses him in 2 years because they can't resign him?

Removing the MAX contract is enough IMO. If Durant wants an easy title let him take a $30m per year paycut, because other teams could offer $50-60m per year to make him THE star and face of the franchise. Same for Lebron, Curry..etc... other teams would gladly make those guys their franchise player and pay them $60m per year.

valade16
02-26-2017, 02:23 PM
Relegation!

It's been brought up before but the idea of relegation in the NBA fascinates me. But that might just be because of my love of the Premier League.

Edit: I also realize this doesn't really do much for the top two teams in the league buuuut it would still be interesting.

It's an interesting idea. Many people complain the reason there are so few teams at the top is so many teams are trying to tank. Very doubtful teams choose to tank if the risk is getting relegated to a lower league and losing all that revenue. The 76ers would certainly not have operated the same the last 4 seasons.

Sactown
02-26-2017, 02:39 PM
that's not a good thing either IMO. and you shouldn't penalize teams and not allow them to keep their own players by removing bird rights. So a good team right at the cap drafts a stud in the 2nd round and loses him in 2 years because they can't resign him?

Removing the MAX contract is enough IMO. If Durant wants an easy title let him take a $30m per year paycut, because other teams could offer $50-60m per year to make him THE star and face of the franchise. Same for Lebron, Curry..etc... other teams would gladly make those guys their franchise player and pay them $60m per year.

Even if you remove the max teams could still shell out money to have a situation similar to golden state due to bird rights. Player movement is the best way to keep things competitive. Not allowing teams to stockpile elite talent is the only way.

Scoots
02-26-2017, 04:09 PM
I feel like in the 90's every team had their star marquee player and every team tried to win. Those guys didn't switch teams every year either.

Now half the league is tanking and all the stars move around looking for easy titles.

Considering that unrestricted free agency didn't exist until 1988 it's easy to see why it changed as those players got the freedom to move around. Barkley being one of the bigger names to move.

Scoots
02-26-2017, 04:14 PM
Max contracts are 3 years
Hard cap
No rookie scale

Why?
Hard to keep elite players on cheap contracts (Steph)

Can't use bird rights to resign goes over the cap allowing you in inflate talent

Can't keep high end talent at a low cost

Would cause a ton of player movement, would make it nearly impossible to stockpile elite talent for more than a few years

And history shows it would reduce fan interest in the game.

Scoots
02-26-2017, 04:17 PM
It's an interesting idea. Many people complain the reason there are so few teams at the top is so many teams are trying to tank. Very doubtful teams choose to tank if the risk is getting relegated to a lower league and losing all that revenue. The 76ers would certainly not have operated the same the last 4 seasons.

Agreed, and the added benefit to the D-League in interest. Can you imagine the crowds for Long Island Nets games if they had a chance to replace the Brooklyn Nets in the NBA?

nycericanguy
02-26-2017, 04:18 PM
Even if you remove the max teams could still shell out money to have a situation similar to golden state due to bird rights. Player movement is the best way to keep things competitive. Not allowing teams to stockpile elite talent is the only way.

bird rights only help resign players when you're over the cap, a team over the cap can sign their own but they certainly can't add another MAX player like Durant, esp if there are no max deals and Durant commands 40-60m per year.

So it would be nearly impossible for a team to use bird rights to sign 2-3 superstars, again, unless those superstars took MASSIVE paycuts.

Jamiecballer
02-26-2017, 04:20 PM
Relegation. Bottom 3 teams every year go to the wnba for a year. NBA lottery starts with the 4th worst record. No owner is going to risk spending a year in the wnba and the wnba gets a boost.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
02-26-2017, 04:28 PM
Damm I see someone already had a similar response

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

cmellofan15
02-26-2017, 04:39 PM
Players are too good. Hire players across the league to intentionally injure superstars. That'll teach em to be mediocre for the sake of competition!

warfelg
02-26-2017, 05:27 PM
Here's why relegation will never happen:

The NBA will not risk sending a team from LA or NY to a lower level and have them not making money for the highest levels.

Lets say it's the bottom 4:
So car this year you are talking about relegating LAL, Suns, Brooklyn, Orlando
2015-16 LAL, Suns, Nets, Sixers
2014-15 LAL, Sixers, Knicks, Wolves
2013-14 Jazz, Magic, Sixers, Bucks

Of 9 out of the 16 times a team would be from a top 5 media market. NBA would never let that happen.

nastynice
02-26-2017, 05:44 PM
Relegation. Bottom 3 teams every year go to the wnba for a year. NBA lottery starts with the 4th worst record. No owner is going to risk spending a year in the wnba and the wnba gets a boost.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

lol, poor wnba gets no respect!

Shammyguy3
02-26-2017, 05:52 PM
1. Hard-cap

2. Tax-paying teams lose the ability to sign vet min deals (discourages chasing for rings and makes it incredibly difficult for high-paying teams to finish a 12-man roster)

3. Allow teams with bird-rights to offer exceptionally larger deals (was just accomplished by the new CBA)

4. If a team pries a free agent away, they lose their 1st round pick to the team the free agent left (similar to baseball)

warfelg
02-26-2017, 06:01 PM
1. Hard-cap

2. Tax-paying teams lose the ability to sign vet min deals (discourages chasing for rings and makes it incredibly difficult for high-paying teams to finish a 12-man roster)

3. Allow teams with bird-rights to offer exceptionally larger deals (was just accomplished by the new CBA)

4. If a team pries a free agent away, they lose their 1st round pick to the team the free agent left (similar to baseball)

I like number 4 but you got to lottery protect that.

Scoots
02-26-2017, 06:08 PM
1. Hard-cap

2. Tax-paying teams lose the ability to sign vet min deals (discourages chasing for rings and makes it incredibly difficult for high-paying teams to finish a 12-man roster)

3. Allow teams with bird-rights to offer exceptionally larger deals (was just accomplished by the new CBA)

4. If a team pries a free agent away, they lose their 1st round pick to the team the free agent left (similar to baseball)

1. To get the hard cap you have to get the players to give up guaranteed contracts.

2. You are going to lose a lot of veterans from the league and the union wouldn't like that ... it would make for some interesting teams though ... the Warriors would have the same top 7 but McGee, West, Clark, and McAdoo would be somewhere else ... or out of the NBA and be replaced by undrafted players.

4. That seems fine, though it would mean a bad team would never be able to use free agency to get better and all it would cost the top teams is picks they are likely to trade away anyhow, or players who are unlikely to see the floor.

It would be VERY hard to sell 1 or 2 to the players union.

Shammyguy3
02-26-2017, 06:39 PM
I like number 4 but you got to lottery protect that.

if your reasoning for this is the same as Scoots below then that makes sense.


1. To get the hard cap you have to get the players to give up guaranteed contracts.

2. You are going to lose a lot of veterans from the league and the union wouldn't like that ... it would make for some interesting teams though ... the Warriors would have the same top 7 but McGee, West, Clark, and McAdoo would be somewhere else ... or out of the NBA and be replaced by undrafted players.

4. That seems fine, though it would mean a bad team would never be able to use free agency to get better and all it would cost the top teams is picks they are likely to trade away anyhow, or players who are unlikely to see the floor.

It would be VERY hard to sell 1 or 2 to the players union.

1. Why?

2. i don't see how veterans are lost from the league - they would simply sign with teams that weren't in the tax (

4. Didn't think about that - but if you use warfelg's lottery protection then it only hurts playoff teams and helps the bad teams. Seems to be a perfect trade off. As far as good teams only using later picks in a trade - not really true. Look at the Bulls' who used late picks to draft Taj Gibson and Jimmy Butler. Look at the Spurs who used 15th overall to draft Leonard, late 1st rounders to get Tony Parker and Manu George Hill Patty Mills etc


Number 1 would be tough to sell to the players union, but #2 would be relatively easy I think

warfelg
02-26-2017, 06:52 PM
if your reasoning for this is the same as Scoots below then that makes sense.



1. Why?

2. i don't see how veterans are lost from the league - they would simply sign with teams that weren't in the tax (

4. Didn't think about that - but if you use warfelg's lottery protection then it only hurts playoff teams and helps the bad teams. Seems to be a perfect trade off. As far as good teams only using later picks in a trade - not really true. Look at the Bulls' who used late picks to draft Taj Gibson and Jimmy Butler. Look at the Spurs who used 15th overall to draft Leonard, late 1st rounders to get Tony Parker and Manu George Hill Patty Mills etc


Number 1 would be tough to sell to the players union, but #2 would be relatively easy I think

Foo your earlier comment points on Hard Cap:
I've proposed an "offset" notion. A team can cut a player, however you still have to pay him, just wouldn't count against your cap. If someone signs him for less, you just owe the difference. If they sign him for the same or more, it's the same. So say Player X signs a 4 year $40mil deal. After year 2 they cut him. They would still owe him as a franchise $10mil for 2 years. If he goes from say the Nets to the Lakers, and the Lakers sign him to a 3 year $21mi deal ($7mil per year), the Nets would owe only $3mil for those two years.

As for the pick thing. Maybe Lottery is too much protection. Maybe top 10 would be more like it. And if you traded the pick, you're next available pick would get traded. So say a team has already traded their 2018 pick and they sign someone in the 2017 offseason, they would lose their 2019 1st. And IIRC the MLB does it as a sandwich pick. Meaning it's after the first, before the second, as opposed to just getting that pick.

nastynice
02-26-2017, 11:50 PM
At the end of the day, you're always going to have only a few handful of competitors. What we witnessed in the west the past 10-15 years is just unprecedented (some years the west had 8 not bonafide but legit contenders, that's just unheard of in any sport), but its starting to normalize back out.

Regardless of what rules you set, all teams are playing by the same rules, and yet we see super teams being made. At the end of the day, it comes down to how your team is run, the warriors have been hitting doubles and triples with all their moves for a good 4 years now. Its been good move after good move. It doesn't matter what rules are in place, when you do that, you will be above your competition.

Think of it, everyone thinks the warriors are so great, what about the clippers? you got cp3 (best pg in the league for a handful of years), blake griffin (legit argument for third best player in the league 3 years ago), and deandre jordan (one of the most dominant paint forces in the league). Jamal Crawford, probably the best 6th man of his generation. Look at the talent around the league, you got Kawhi and Lamarcus on one team, you got zach randolph, marc gasol, and mike conley on one team, you got lebron, kyrie, and love on one team.

Look at all that talent, and who were our guys 3 years ago? Curry was a good shooter, klay was capable of getting hot, dray was very versatile and solid. And we had depth. Nothing, we had nothing compared to the talent level on these squads, BUT our fo knew how to build, our guys grew together, they played off on another, and now they function as a team, and we're just a much better team than the sum of our parts. Exact opposite of Miami's big 3. Our fo got a lot of flak for the green and thompson signings, everyone saying they overpaid, and look where that got us. Enough room to sign Kevin Durant.

Everyone's so quick with the hate, no one actually sits there and appreciates the true genius of this warriors front office. We put together a 73 win team with NO established (potential) superstar cherry picked and handed to us with a top 3 pick (ala lebron, ala kyrie, ala AD, nope, our guys all grew into who they are while playing on our team), yet WE went into that offseason as one of 5-6 teams with enough space to sign KD. That's not our fault, that's 25 or so other gm's ****ing up. How could any team/gm possibly defend themself for not having anything ready and on deck in order to entice a top 3 player hitting free agency?

Its front office man, it doesn't matter what the rules are, if youre front office is hitting on every move over and over again, eventually you're just gonna be beyond your competition. Basically, what lebron is on the court compared to everyone else, is what our front office is compared to everyone else (for the time being). No rule change is gonna change that.

kdspurman
02-27-2017, 12:21 AM
At the end of the day, you're always going to have only a few handful of competitors. What we witnessed in the west the past 10-15 years is just unprecedented (some years the west had 8 not bonafide but legit contenders, that's just unheard of in any sport), but its starting to normalize back out.

Regardless of what rules you set, all teams are playing by the same rules, and yet we see super teams being made. At the end of the day, it comes down to how your team is run, the warriors have been hitting doubles and triples with all their moves for a good 4 years now. Its been good move after good move. It doesn't matter what rules are in place, when you do that, you will be above your competition.

Think of it, everyone thinks the warriors are so great, what about the clippers? you got cp3 (best pg in the league for a handful of years), blake griffin (legit argument for third best player in the league 3 years ago), and deandre jordan (one of the most dominant paint forces in the league). Jamal Crawford, probably the best 6th man of his generation. Look at the talent around the league, you got Kawhi and Lamarcus on one team, you got zach randolph, marc gasol, and mike conley on one team, you got lebron, kyrie, and love on one team.

Look at all that talent, and who were our guys 3 years ago? Curry was a good shooter, klay was capable of getting hot, dray was very versatile and solid. And we had depth. Nothing, we had nothing compared to the talent level on these squads, BUT our fo knew how to build, our guys grew together, they played off on another, and now they function as a team, and we're just a much better team than the sum of our parts. Exact opposite of Miami's big 3. Our fo got a lot of flak for the green and thompson signings, everyone saying they overpaid, and look where that got us. Enough room to sign Kevin Durant.

Everyone's so quick with the hate, no one actually sits there and appreciates the true genius of this warriors front office. We put together a 73 win team with NO established (potential) superstar cherry picked and handed to us with a top 3 pick (ala lebron, ala kyrie, ala AD, nope, our guys all grew into who they are while playing on our team), yet WE went into that offseason as one of 5-6 teams with enough space to sign KD. That's not our fault, that's 25 or so other gm's ****ing up. How could any team/gm possibly defend themself for not having anything ready and on deck in order to entice a top 3 player hitting free agency?

Its front office man, it doesn't matter what the rules are, if youre front office is hitting on every move over and over again, eventually you're just gonna be beyond your competition. Basically, what lebron is on the court compared to everyone else, is what our front office is compared to everyone else (for the time being). No rule change is gonna change that.

I know a FO that's been doing it better for much longer...

nastynice
02-27-2017, 02:03 AM
I know a FO that's been doing it better for much longer...

ok. We'll say ur the KD of front offices :)

Scoots
02-27-2017, 10:20 AM
if your reasoning for this is the same as Scoots below then that makes sense.

1. Why?

2. i don't see how veterans are lost from the league - they would simply sign with teams that weren't in the tax (

4. Didn't think about that - but if you use warfelg's lottery protection then it only hurts playoff teams and helps the bad teams. Seems to be a perfect trade off. As far as good teams only using later picks in a trade - not really true. Look at the Bulls' who used late picks to draft Taj Gibson and Jimmy Butler. Look at the Spurs who used 15th overall to draft Leonard, late 1st rounders to get Tony Parker and Manu George Hill Patty Mills etc

Number 1 would be tough to sell to the players union, but #2 would be relatively easy I think

1. Because guaranteed contracts mean you can't move on from bad decisions and guaranteed contracts were a major talking point in the Bird exceptions when the cap was created. There is no sports league I can think of with a hard cap and fully guaranteed contracts.

2. 450 players in the NBA, every team over the tax can only sign un-drafted free agent rookies to fill their roster so all of those roster spots are not available to veterans. Some can sign elsewhere but there are only 450 total roster spots and every rookie who comes in means a veteran losing their job.

4. I didn't say no top teams use their picks, I just said they were likely to be traded so losing them was not that big of a deal. In the last 5 years the Spurs have used 2 1st round picks to add players to their roster ... 40% use rate fits what I said that they were not likely to use them. The Warriors have been a "top team" for 4 years and in that time have used 2 first round picks to add players. The Cavs have been a "top team" for 2 years and have used 0 1st round picks. Taking first round picks from "top teams" is not that big a punishment but it is a MAJOR punishment for the other teams looking to go for free agents.

Scoots
02-27-2017, 10:26 AM
Its front office man, it doesn't matter what the rules are, if youre front office is hitting on every move over and over again, eventually you're just gonna be beyond your competition. Basically, what lebron is on the court compared to everyone else, is what our front office is compared to everyone else (for the time being). No rule change is gonna change that.

Yes. But ... we can make changes to minimize the distance between the great GMs and the okay GMs. And we can encourage owners to demand more from their GMs.

nycericanguy
02-27-2017, 10:29 AM
its not even about only 4-5 teams having a chance, that's always been the case.. the bigger problem to me is that everyone else is tanking now. competition seems to be at an all time low and these tanking teams are just giving more players to the top teams.

warfelg
02-27-2017, 11:09 AM
its not even about only 4-5 teams having a chance, that's always been the case.. the bigger problem to me is that everyone else is tanking now. competition seems to be at an all time low and these tanking teams are just giving more players to the top teams.

I think the other part of that is teams have learned about the dreaded "Middle Zone" is about the worst thing to be. And it's easier to dig out of that by sucking than it is to improve unless you get very very lucky in drafting someone.

So reform that helps those middle teams be more competitive helps the bad teams be bad for a shorter period of time, and it helps the top teams be challenged more too.

Scoots
02-27-2017, 11:38 AM
I think the other part of that is teams have learned about the dreaded "Middle Zone" is about the worst thing to be. And it's easier to dig out of that by sucking than it is to improve unless you get very very lucky in drafting someone.

So reform that helps those middle teams be more competitive helps the bad teams be bad for a shorter period of time, and it helps the top teams be challenged more too.

I would say that the idea that the draft is luck is one of the reasons there is so much tank talk. Good teams seem to maximize their draft picks regardless where they are.

Shammyguy3
02-27-2017, 11:50 AM
1. Because guaranteed contracts mean you can't move on from bad decisions and guaranteed contracts were a major talking point in the Bird exceptions when the cap was created. There is no sports league I can think of with a hard cap and fully guaranteed contracts.

I don't see how they would be mutually exclusive. The soft-cap today is at $100,000,000 or so right? The hard-cap can be placed at $110,000,000 or some other number that doesn't make it impossible to field a competitive team.

And not being able to move on from bad decisions is kind of the point right?


2. 450 players in the NBA, every team over the tax can only sign un-drafted free agent rookies to fill their roster so all of those roster spots are not available to veterans. Some can sign elsewhere but there are only 450 total roster spots and every rookie who comes in means a veteran losing their job.

But the rest of the roster spots in the league are. You're assuming that teams not over the luxury cap wouldn't prefer to sign veterans over those undrafted free agents. Don't you think a team like, say Utah, would love to have the opportunity to sign some of these veterans that are chasing rings? They absolutely would


4. I didn't say no top teams use their picks, I just said they were likely to be traded so losing them was not that big of a deal. In the last 5 years the Spurs have used 2 1st round picks to add players to their roster ... 40% use rate fits what I said that they were not likely to use them. The Warriors have been a "top team" for 4 years and in that time have used 2 first round picks to add players. The Cavs have been a "top team" for 2 years and have used 0 1st round picks. Taking first round picks from "top teams" is not that big a punishment but it is a MAJOR punishment for the other teams looking to go for free agents.

"all it would cost the top teams is picks they are likely to trade away anyhow," to me means that they aren't really going to use them regularly. But, that actually doesn't fully matter because whether or not those teams use picks to draft a player, they end up using it to acquire a player anyway. Trade or drafting, those 1st round picks are still valuable.

For example the Raptors traded a 1st to get Ibaka right?

So, the team that signs a guy if not in the lottery or top-10 or whatever, will lose the next 1st round pick they have on their books. I think that is good.

nycericanguy
02-27-2017, 12:11 PM
I think the other part of that is teams have learned about the dreaded "Middle Zone" is about the worst thing to be. And it's easier to dig out of that by sucking than it is to improve unless you get very very lucky in drafting someone.

So reform that helps those middle teams be more competitive helps the bad teams be bad for a shorter period of time, and it helps the top teams be challenged more too.

and I wonder if that's even true.

Why are the same teams in the lottery year after year no matter what?

There have been teams like BOS, SA, IND prior... just off the top of my head that rebuilt on the fly without tanking for 3-4 years. ORL was rebuilding and tanking and looked like they were well on their way and now they seem to be back at square one. Their picks didn't quite pan out.

PHI has been tanking for years and while they have a ton of assets they are already having to sell low on those assets. Noel for two 2nd rounders, Okafor is lucky to fetch a late 1st at this point. Embiid is a stud but has played 30 games in 3 years and will be up for a contract soon. Simmons has yet to play. Will it all click for PHI in time?

It's very difficult to build a team from scratch, hit on picks, and be able to resign everyone by the time your'e done. Maybe it's easier to be a good solid team and hit on 1 mid-late 1st rounder to put you over the hump?

desertlakeshow
02-27-2017, 12:49 PM
Who the **ck wants parity anyway.

If you really want parity, do a complete redraft of every player every year.

Completely random, complete parity.

Complete crap.

ccugrad1
02-27-2017, 01:06 PM
As sad as this is to say, I think the NBA is the only sport where you could contract like 5 or 6 teams and they wouldn't be any real loss.

warfelg
02-27-2017, 02:01 PM
As sad as this is to say, I think the NBA is the only sport where you could contract like 5 or 6 teams and they wouldn't be any real loss.

My question with this is always who?

If your going at the worst teams right now you are talking about some The the NBAs biggest media markets. If you target smallest media markets you are talking about some really good teams.

Scoots
02-27-2017, 02:04 PM
I don't see how they would be mutually exclusive. The soft-cap today is at $100,000,000 or so right? The hard-cap can be placed at $110,000,000 or some other number that doesn't make it impossible to field a competitive team.

And not being able to move on from bad decisions is kind of the point right?



But the rest of the roster spots in the league are. You're assuming that teams not over the luxury cap wouldn't prefer to sign veterans over those undrafted free agents. Don't you think a team like, say Utah, would love to have the opportunity to sign some of these veterans that are chasing rings? They absolutely would



"all it would cost the top teams is picks they are likely to trade away anyhow," to me means that they aren't really going to use them regularly. But, that actually doesn't fully matter because whether or not those teams use picks to draft a player, they end up using it to acquire a player anyway. Trade or drafting, those 1st round picks are still valuable.

For example the Raptors traded a 1st to get Ibaka right?

So, the team that signs a guy if not in the lottery or top-10 or whatever, will lose the next 1st round pick they have on their books. I think that is good.

1. The hard cap with guaranteed contracts means bad decisions are punished much more because teams will get hamstrung by an injury or a player getting rich and loafing. The idea is to find proposals to help more teams get better not keep teams that make mistakes down.

2. If there are 450 roster spots in the NBA and every available spot on a team above the cap can only be filled by undrafted free agent rookies ... and let's say that is 30 total roster spots in the NBA (that describes 5 players on the Warriors right now) ... then those spots which are being filled by rule with players who would otherwise not be in the NBA displace players, veterans, who would normally be in the NBA. Add a rookie lose a vet ... it's not 1 to 1 but the result will be veterans being out of the NBA because of this rule.

4. I didn't say picks were not valuable, all I was saying was that a rule that says signing a big name free agent costs you a pick is not a big price to pay for a top team, while it is a HUGE price to pay for a bad team. The rule disproportionately punishes bad teams trying to get better.

Shammyguy3
02-27-2017, 02:35 PM
1. The hard cap with guaranteed contracts means bad decisions are punished much more because teams will get hamstrung by an injury or a player getting rich and loafing. The idea is to find proposals to help more teams get better not keep teams that make mistakes down.

That is already the case. The main difference a hard-cap would bring is it would prevent teams from retaining certain players. Examples are Cleveland being able to retain Tristan Thompson or JR Smith. Those guys would have been on different teams. That is the only difference.

Another example is the Golden State Warriors this summer would have to max Stephen Curry, and then Andre Iguodala, Shaun Livingston, Zaza Pachulia, McGee would all have to go to a different team.

The Spurs wouldn't be able to keep Patty Mills or sign David Lee. Heck, they wouldn't have been able to give Pau Gasol such a large deal.

The Clippers wouldn't have Jamal Crawford, Paul Pierce, Brandon Bass.

This would force a lot of these good players, not great, to go to other middling teams. That weakens the top teams and makes the lower playoff teams better.

After some time, the Warriors will not be able to keep Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Stephen Curry (let alone Kevin Durant) on max deals because they couldn't afford to alot their entire hard-cap to 3 guys.

Then Klay Thompson would sign with, idk Detroit or something. They immediately become much improved.


2. If there are 450 roster spots in the NBA and every available spot on a team above the cap can only be filled by undrafted free agent rookies ... and let's say that is 30 total roster spots in the NBA (that describes 5 players on the Warriors right now) ... then those spots which are being filled by rule with players who would otherwise not be in the NBA displace players, veterans, who would normally be in the NBA. Add a rookie lose a vet ... it's not 1 to 1 but the result will be veterans being out of the NBA because of this rule.

The veteran players wouldn't all be able to play on the same 6 or 7 teams. Instead they would sign with other teams, making those teams better. So instead those other teams that previously didn't acquire those veteran guys frequently would actually acquire them, and not sign undrafted rookies.

It's simply swapping those undrafted rookie players from non luxury tax teams and replacing them with veteran players on luxury tax teams.

It's a swap, not a replacement.



4. I didn't say picks were not valuable, all I was saying was that a rule that says signing a big name free agent costs you a pick is not a big price to pay for a top team, while it is a HUGE price to pay for a bad team. The rule disproportionately punishes bad teams trying to get better.

I already acknowledged that you would have a cap on the rule - say only playoff teams would lose their first round pick. Say the top-10 teams in the league. Doing that only punishes the big dogs, while helping lesser teams sign those free agents AND allowing them to keep their picks.

Vinylman
02-27-2017, 03:32 PM
The issues are structural and very easy to fix...

1. Hard Cap - doesn't matter where you set it at... its all relative
2. No Max contract amount or length... forces players to TRULY SACRIFICE to pair up
3. No Salary Cap exceptions (see #1)
4. Eliminate a significant portion of Revenue Sharing... How does a championship team lose $40 million when a perennial cellar dweller can make money.
5. Compensate team who loses top tier FA (defined by new contract size) with acquiring teams picks... not compensatory

certain teams will always have a managerial advantage... that advantage doesn't need to be compounded by unfair structural advantages also.

smith&wesson
02-27-2017, 04:00 PM
In actuality the nba has always been a 3-4 team race. Max 4 teams. Usually it's about 2 and a dark horse.

I can't recall a time when anything lower than a 2nd seed had a chance to win the whole thing.

There was the Bird, Magic, Isiah era

Then there was the Jordan, Hakeem, Malone & Stockton era. (Even though Utah never won) honorable mention..

Then it was the Shaq, Kobe, Duncan era

Then it was Kobe and Duncan era again as they both pretty much played for dynasties again. Revamped

The big 3 in Boston and then Miami big 3 era.

Now you got the Cavs and Warriors era.

I can't really remember a time when more then 2-3 teams were odds on favourite to win and didn't.

I forgot to mention the Pistons in there somewhere to with Billups RIP and the Wallaces..

You have a couple contenders .. then you have treadmill meddling playoff teams.. and then you have the rebuilding teams. There's really nothing in between but the league has been that way for so long I beleive it's by design.

smith&wesson
02-27-2017, 04:08 PM
I actually think expansion is not the answer. If anything take a couple of teams out the league. We really don't need so many teams in California and New York.

I would def take the Nets and Kings out of the league all together.

Limit rosters to 12 spots. It's a 5 on 5 game why do we need 10 reserves ?

28 teams.. 12 roster spots and you'll have better talent distributed across the league.

Continue to put rules in place for players to have more incentive to stay with he team that drafted them. That way you don't get superstars switching teams every 3 years.

smith&wesson
02-27-2017, 04:11 PM
I mean do the Nets and Kings still deserve to have teams ? Two of the worst ran organizations in sports.

I'm sure the Celtics would love for the Nets to remain so they can fleece some more picks from them lol

Shammyguy3
02-27-2017, 04:16 PM
I mean do the Nets and Kings still deserve to have teams ? Two of the worst ran organizations in sports.

I'm sure the Celtics would love for the Nets to remain so they can fleece some more picks from them lol

you mean Brooklyn and Sacramento

But sure they do. ****** ownership isn't in the control of the fans. You can have ****** ownership in New York (Hey that's true!) and Chicago (Hey also true!) and Los Angeles (was true forever with the Clippers, and Hey! was true for the Lakers the last 5 seasons or so).

Scoots
02-27-2017, 04:32 PM
That is already the case. The main difference a hard-cap would bring is it would prevent teams from retaining certain players. Examples are Cleveland being able to retain Tristan Thompson or JR Smith. Those guys would have been on different teams. That is the only difference.

Another example is the Golden State Warriors this summer would have to max Stephen Curry, and then Andre Iguodala, Shaun Livingston, Zaza Pachulia, McGee would all have to go to a different team.

The Spurs wouldn't be able to keep Patty Mills or sign David Lee. Heck, they wouldn't have been able to give Pau Gasol such a large deal.

The Clippers wouldn't have Jamal Crawford, Paul Pierce, Brandon Bass.

This would force a lot of these good players, not great, to go to other middling teams. That weakens the top teams and makes the lower playoff teams better.

After some time, the Warriors will not be able to keep Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Stephen Curry (let alone Kevin Durant) on max deals because they couldn't afford to alot their entire hard-cap to 3 guys.

Then Klay Thompson would sign with, idk Detroit or something. They immediately become much improved.



The veteran players wouldn't all be able to play on the same 6 or 7 teams. Instead they would sign with other teams, making those teams better. So instead those other teams that previously didn't acquire those veteran guys frequently would actually acquire them, and not sign undrafted rookies.

It's simply swapping those undrafted rookie players from non luxury tax teams and replacing them with veteran players on luxury tax teams.

It's a swap, not a replacement.




I already acknowledged that you would have a cap on the rule - say only playoff teams would lose their first round pick. Say the top-10 teams in the league. Doing that only punishes the big dogs, while helping lesser teams sign those free agents AND allowing them to keep their picks.

1. Yes, a hard cap would mean teams over the cap wouldn't be allowed to be over the cap ... and the players would make considerably less money as a group (unless you take the current spending and just portion it out equally among all the teams (which would make the hard cap MUCH higher than the tax limit is now). It would mean teams will get screwed by bad luck more often and more thoroughly (and worse teams tend to have more bad luck), and teams would be far less able to maintain their home grown talent.

2. There are 450 players in the NBA. If you say a certain number of positions are ONLY for un-drafted rookie free agents, then those are positions not available to veterans. I'm not talking about this team or that team, I'm talking about the league as a whole. Every position you require go to a rookie by definition means a veteran is more likely to lose their job. That's all I'm saying, and the players union doesn't like that so much they supported the rookie wage scale and championed the rules that allow teams over the cap to sign vet min players. It's not like there are a lot of the un-drafted rookies in the NBA now and the ones there usually earn it and part of why they are there is because they are really cheap ... You are assuming that every position on capped teams that would have to be filled by an un-drafted rookie free agent then when those veterans look for jobs on other teams they will find them and that they will only be replacing other un-drafted rookie free agents ... some won't find jobs and some will replace other veterans. Bad teams don't always want a bunch of old angry vets who were ring hunting but failed to be taking roster spots on their young teams where they are trying to find and develop talent either. I'm sure the Sixers have had enough money to lure better free agents to their team if they wanted to ... but they didn't want to. My only point was that not allowing vet-minimum signings on capped teams would cost some veterans their jobs and the union wouldn't like that. I didn't say it would cost all of them their jobs.

warfelg
02-27-2017, 04:46 PM
(unless you take the current spending and just portion it out equally among all the teams (which would make the hard cap MUCH higher than the tax limit is now).

.

Actually that's wrong:

If you added every teams cap and evenly divided it by 30 to come up with a theoretical hard cap, every teams contracts would total $98 million. The NBA on the whole spends roughly $2,939,000,000 in contracts. Even if you rounded that up to $3 Billion it's still comes out to under the tax by over $10 million.

The tax is currently set at $113 million.

So the fact that 13 teams are under the cap number, and evenly dividing every contract still fails to hit the tax shows the disproportionate amount of spending.

Heck there is a $46,156,594 different between the highest payroll (Cavs) and lowest (Jazz). So in the salary difference between those two teams you could field half another team.

Shammyguy3
02-27-2017, 04:51 PM
1. Yes, a hard cap would mean teams over the cap wouldn't be allowed to be over the cap ... and the players would make considerably less money as a group (unless you take the current spending and just portion it out equally among all the teams (which would make the hard cap MUCH higher than the tax limit is now). It would mean teams will get screwed by bad luck more often and more thoroughly (and worse teams tend to have more bad luck), and teams would be far less able to maintain their home grown talent.

The correlation that a hard-cap hurts worse teams more than good teams isn't a good one. Typically, the league would get rid of annual maxes on contracts which accommodates for actual market value.




2. There are 450 players in the NBA. If you say a certain number of positions are ONLY for un-drafted rookie free agents, then those are positions not available to veterans. I'm not talking about this team or that team, I'm talking about the league as a whole. Every position you require go to a rookie by definition means a veteran is more likely to lose their job. That's all I'm saying, and the players union doesn't like that so much they supported the rookie wage scale and championed the rules that allow teams over the cap to sign vet min players. It's not like there are a lot of the un-drafted rookies in the NBA now and the ones there usually earn it and part of why they are there is because they are really cheap ... You are assuming that every position on capped teams that would have to be filled by an un-drafted rookie free agent then when those veterans look for jobs on other teams they will find them and that they will only be replacing other un-drafted rookie free agents ... some won't find jobs and some will replace other veterans. Bad teams don't always want a bunch of old angry vets who were ring hunting but failed to be taking roster spots on their young teams where they are trying to find and develop talent either. I'm sure the Sixers have had enough money to lure better free agents to their team if they wanted to ... but they didn't want to. My only point was that not allowing vet-minimum signings on capped teams would cost some veterans their jobs and the union wouldn't like that. I didn't say it would cost all of them their jobs.

The bolded just isn't true. Because veterans are better than those second round draft picks which are on non-guaranteed deals & the undrafted rooks. The market would set itself. Veterans wouldn't be at a risk of losing any roster spots on the whole, league-wide like you're saying. They wouldn't be able to get on championship teams. But they would be able to get on other teams.

Team A is a championship, luxury tax team. They normally sign multiple vet min deals.
Team B is a 7th seed. They normally have two or so second round draft picks on their roster, and may have an undrafted rookie as well.

Under the CBA i'm arguing for

Team A cannot sign veterans (making their team worse). They fill their roster with second round draft picks or undrafted rookies.
Team B is now much more able to sign veterans (making their team better). They no longer have a roster filled with second round draft picks and undrafted rookies.


All in all this makes the product on the floor better. Shane Battier instead of signing cheap deals in Miami would have signed those same cheap deals on a team like Atlanta. Miami is worse. Atlanta is better.