PDA

View Full Version : The age of the SuperMax: "5-year, $217M"



Mave1002
05-02-2017, 03:50 AM
SportsCenter‏Verified account @SportsCenter 4h4 hours ago
Russell Westbrook will be eligible for a 5-year, $217M "supermax," making him the highest-paid player in NBA history.


Questions:

1.) How can a small market team pay $43m+ to a single player if guys like Oladipo $21M and Adams $22.4M would still be onboard?

2.) Assuming that they do get him for that much, would this trio and a bunch of vets min players be enough to get em' past the West?

3.) Otherwise, how do you build around Westy?

4.) How do you find a taker for Enes Kanter without taking any salary in return?

5.) Can the Thunder even get RWB to sign an extension next year to begin with?

More-Than-Most
05-02-2017, 04:13 AM
Id trade him... Esp if I am small market and I love westy but I am not paying anyone not named Lebron/Durant that kind of money period. Its no offense to guys like curry etc but Nobody can do more with less than Lebron and Durant... You wont win a title ever paying one guy that much unless its those 2 guys and even then its just not beneficial... If you plan to give westy that much you better bring in 2 top players asap... Its just not worth the risk with how great the warriors are... There is 0 percent chance they win a title in those 5 years.

FOXHOUND
05-02-2017, 04:26 AM
Really, no team can survive paying one player that much outright in a vacuum. The only way you can survive a deal like that is if you already have all of your pieces in place and are willing to pay some serious luxury tax. Even LeBron, who is on his way to making crazy money obviously and already makes $30M+, it wouldn't work if they didn't already have Irving, Love and their hoard of good role players. After living in luxury thanks to fortunate contracts vs an exploding cap, GS is headed for the same road.

For everybody else, this is going to make it almost impossible to close the gap with those two teams. There is just no way to stack talent to that level anymore when guys are making that much. The CBA has caught up with the exploding salary cap and these new regulations will help spread out the top end talent to more teams. Hopefully, that will lead to mid-late 70's level parity but until then the Warriors and Cavs will be in their own league of talent. The Clippers can hang with them on paper but we've seen them fail on the results end.

da ThRONe
05-02-2017, 07:24 AM
The purpose of this is to add balance to the league. My only gripe is there's no hard cap that follows. For example GS has a serious dilemma as they can't afford to give a "super max" to both Durant and Curry. When you can a have situation where 3 top players can all get paid the "regular" max it makes super teams possible.

GoferKing_
05-02-2017, 08:00 AM
This is getting out of hand. FOs need to stop overpaying players and crippling their own teams.

warfelg
05-02-2017, 08:15 AM
Didn't they just sign him to an extension start of last season? Meaning he can't get that 5 year $217 supermax right now?

Tg11
05-02-2017, 09:27 AM
I would not sign him to a supermax contract however I would sign him to a $180 or $190 million dollar contract

da ThRONe
05-02-2017, 09:51 AM
Didn't they just sign him to an extension start of last season? Meaning he can't get that 5 year $217 supermax right now?

It was a 3 year extension with an option after the first year.

da ThRONe
05-02-2017, 09:55 AM
This is getting out of hand. FOs need to stop overpaying players and crippling their own teams.

This is what I don't understand. Just because it's an option doesn't mean teams should use it. Sell the players on contending and to do that requires cap space. If a player rather this super max over winning you let that player go if he's not on a true franchise changing level. Now whether Westbrook is that good is up for discussion. If you give out one these super max deals you have to be real careful how you build the team from there on.

warfelg
05-02-2017, 10:08 AM
This is what I don't understand. Just because it's an option doesn't mean teams should use it. Sell the players on contending and to do that requires cap space. If a player rather this super max over winning you let that player go if he's not on a true franchise changing level. Now whether Westbrook is that good is up for discussion. If you give out one these super max deals you have to be real careful how you build the team from there on.

The problem is the max. Somewhere along the line a team offered an average starter the max because they could. So then the next guy demanded that and it snowballed.

IndyRealist
05-02-2017, 10:19 AM
The problem is the max. Somewhere along the line a team offered an average starter the max because they could. So then the next guy demanded that and it snowballed.

I think the name you're looking for is Rashard Lewis.

Heediot
05-02-2017, 10:26 AM
I think it's more about the salary cap structure. There is room on every team for one super max and another max. That's 60 players in the L, with probably less then half of 60 truly deserving. Was Rashard Lewis a top 60 guy? Its arguable at one point.

When I think about it, if your a top 10 guy at your position, you might be able to demand the Max. Now were guys like Rashard Lewis ever a top 10 SF or Tweener PF? I think he has a case just based on counting stats.

FOXHOUND
05-02-2017, 10:40 AM
I think the name you're looking for is Rashard Lewis.

Nah, even further. In 1996, the NBA handed out it's first $100M contract - to Juwan Howard. That basically led to the 99 lockout. The NBA didn't properly fix it's mistake, so history repeated itself with contracts like Allan Houston and Rashard Lewis which eventually led to 2011 lockout. They finally added a hard cap, that's fixed the problem. Then the TV deal and cap boom happened and there was a whole new mess lol.

warfelg
05-02-2017, 11:00 AM
Nah, even further. In 1996, the NBA handed out it's first $100M contract - to Juwan Howard. That basically led to the 99 lockout. The NBA didn't properly fix it's mistake, so history repeated itself with contracts like Allan Houston and Rashard Lewis which eventually led to 2011 lockout. They finally added a hard cap, that's fixed the problem. Then the TV deal and cap boom happened and there was a whole new mess lol.

That's the one I was thinking about.

effen5
05-02-2017, 11:18 AM
No player is worth money. Only person I'd pay that money to is Michael Jordan and he didn't even get paid max until the back end of his career.

Heediot
05-02-2017, 11:29 AM
Juwan Howard contract was offered when there was no limit to the how much you can offer someone as long as you have the cap room. Yeah contracts given to him and other fringe allstars with career years and the outlandish rookie contracts were a key issue that led towards a lock out. Max contracts and rookie scale were then implemented.

The system the way it is now is better vs. the past IMO (90's). The newer system helps out the smaller market teams, which in theory should bring more parity. But it's always been a top heavy league, because it's the only sport where you need your top guy to dominate and win a ship. In football even if the qb is average but you have a killer defense you can win a ship. In hockey and baseball their is parity every year and new contenders are built a lot quicker.

FOXHOUND
05-02-2017, 11:41 AM
Juwan Howard contract was offered when there was no limit to the how much you can offer someone as long as you have the cap room. Yeah contracts given to him and other fringe allstars with career years and the outlandish rookie contracts were a key issue that led towards a lock out. Max contracts and rookie scale were then implemented.

The system the way it is now is better vs. the past IMO (90's). The newer system helps out the smaller market teams, which in theory should bring more parity. But it's always been a top heavy league, because it's the only sport where you need your top guy to dominate and win a ship. In football even if the qb is average but you have a killer defense you can win a ship. In hockey and baseball their is parity every year and new contenders are built a lot quicker.

You're right, I stand corrected. Jordan was making $30M when the salary cap was $30M. lol

I think this new CBA will help with NBA parity but it's going to take time for things to settle. You can't take away what GS and CLE fairly built. This new player designation, does anyone know the limitations? Is it 1 per team?

Heediot
05-02-2017, 12:20 PM
You're right, I stand corrected. Jordan was making $30M when the salary cap was $30M. lol

I think this new CBA will help with NBA parity but it's going to take time for things to settle. You can't take away what GS and CLE fairly built. This new player designation, does anyone know the limitations? Is it 1 per team?

It was ridiculous. If you had a guys bird rights you could re-sign him to an unlimited salary if you wanted to. This was advantageous to bigger market teams as it was more economically feasible. I'm sure the bulls were near or over the cap when they re-signed Jordan to a 30 million dollar deal. In the following lock-outs the owners agreed to a system that would bring more balance and stability for smaller markets. I remember Isiah Thomas on the knicks trading for guys and then re-signing dudes to big contracts left and right. To add - I think the first lockout in 99 or so, didn't slow down the knicks, but the following cba negotiations made paying the luxury tax more and more harsher, not 100 percent sure though.

FOXHOUND
05-02-2017, 12:26 PM
It was ridiculous. If you had a guys bird rights you could re-sign him to an unlimited salary if you wanted to. This was advantageous to bigger market teams as it was more economically feasible. I'm sure the bulls were near or over the cap when they re-signed Jordan to a 30 million dollar deal. In the following lock-outs the owners agreed to a system that would bring more balance and stability for smaller markets. I remember Isiah Thomas on the knicks trading for guys and then re-signing dudes to big contracts left and right. To add - I think the first lockout in 99 or so, didn't slow down the knicks, but the following cba negotiations made paying the luxury tax more and more harsher, not 100 percent sure though.

Yup, the Knicks had the highest salary in the NBA and were winning 23 games. Lmao. :(

IndyRealist
05-02-2017, 01:19 PM
It was ridiculous. If you had a guys bird rights you could re-sign him to an unlimited salary if you wanted to. This was advantageous to bigger market teams as it was more economically feasible. I'm sure the bulls were near or over the cap when they re-signed Jordan to a 30 million dollar deal. In the following lock-outs the owners agreed to a system that would bring more balance and stability for smaller markets. I remember Isiah Thomas on the knicks trading for guys and then re-signing dudes to big contracts left and right. To add - I think the first lockout in 99 or so, didn't slow down the knicks, but the following cba negotiations made paying the luxury tax more and more harsher, not 100 percent sure though.

At the same time, if everyone can offer essentially the same money, why would players stay in small markets where they have less of a chance at a ring? That's why the supermax got put in, because the system still isn't stopping players from leaving.

warfelg
05-02-2017, 01:34 PM
The bird rights issue is a big one to me.

A team like Cleveland, already deep in the tax, shouldn't have been able to pay both JR and TT that much.

Cracka2HI!
05-02-2017, 02:17 PM
This is going to be a huge dilemma. These contracts are ridiculous. I think the effects of these contracts might lead to a lock out that can't be solved. I think the direction of the NBA is going to lead to revenues falling. The politics, the rest and the super teams is not something that's going to grow the sport.

Dade County
05-02-2017, 02:21 PM
They need to re-draft the entire league lol

What will be the point if OKC signs Russ to that ridiculous contract. GS will be heading to the finals for the next 3 to 5yrs.

How will OKC sign key free agents? The league needs a hard cap asap. & the teams that would be over this hard cap, will have to start trading players asap.

Hard Cap 150mil. Anything over then that will just help sustain a super team.

dhopisthename
05-02-2017, 03:06 PM
yeah the problem is that there should be a linear line with the best players make the most and the worst players get paid the least, but its more like a plateau where the best 50 guys are all making maxes and the next 50 are all making really close to a max which leads us to where we are in the current NBA format. so obviously removing the max fixes this because then Durant can't get his max and play with the warriors, but that creates issues because teams have proven to be terrible at giving out contracts.

warfelg
05-02-2017, 03:25 PM
They need to re-draft the entire league lol

What will be the point if OKC signs Russ to that ridiculous contract. GS will be heading to the finals for the next 3 to 5yrs.

How will OKC sign key free agents? The league needs a hard cap asap. & the teams that would be over this hard cap, will have to start trading players asap.

Hard Cap 150mil. Anything over then that will just help sustain a super team.

The issue with the hard cap is you got to give a team an out from the contract; which the PA won't allow.

The best option in that is "offset" language like the NFL went to in their rookie deals.

Let's say there was offset language and you signed a guy to a 5 year, $100 mil deal; $20 mil per year. If after 2 years ($40 mil payed out) you decide he isn't worth that and you cut him (clearing $20 mil a year for 3 years). Offset would say you owe him the difference between whatever he signed for and what you were going to pay him.

Now again, I can see where teams wouldn't like this. Now the owner is on the hook for paying a guy that doesn't play for him. And from a player prospective that means they can be cut when ever to make room for a new player.

So in this way the NBA dug it's own hole.

Really what they can do now is more to limit bird rights, increase the tax even more. That's about it. Just get tougher and tougher on those two until being in the tax for even a single year could potentially end up financially crippling a franchise. Make it so teams can't afford to give a max to a mid level player.

KB24PG16
05-02-2017, 03:57 PM
small teams wanted this cba agreement, seems fit that they now suffer for it

Cracka2HI!
05-02-2017, 04:05 PM
yeah the problem is that there should be a linear line with the best players make the most and the worst players get paid the least, but its more like a plateau where the best 50 guys are all making maxes and the next 50 are all making really close to a max which leads us to where we are in the current NBA format. so obviously removing the max fixes this because then Durant can't get his max and play with the warriors, but that creates issues because teams have proven to be terrible at giving out contracts.

Good point about the pay structure. The Super-Max was put in place for guys like LeBron but almost everyone eligible seems to be getting max money right now. I mean Evan Turner? Mozgov and Deng? Crazy.

Dade County
05-02-2017, 04:30 PM
The issue with the hard cap is you got to give a team an out from the contract; which the PA won't allow.

The best option in that is "offset" language like the NFL went to in their rookie deals.

Let's say there was offset language and you signed a guy to a 5 year, $100 mil deal; $20 mil per year. If after 2 years ($40 mil payed out) you decide he isn't worth that and you cut him (clearing $20 mil a year for 3 years). Offset would say you owe him the difference between whatever he signed for and what you were going to pay him.

Now again, I can see where teams wouldn't like this. Now the owner is on the hook for paying a guy that doesn't play for him. And from a player prospective that means they can be cut when ever to make room for a new player.

So in this way the NBA dug it's own hole.

Really what they can do now is more to limit bird rights, increase the tax even more. That's about it. Just get tougher and tougher on those two until being in the tax for even a single year could potentially end up financially crippling a franchise. Make it so teams can't afford to give a max to a mid level player.

The NBA has the power to start over lol

Maybe if you are in the tax for more then two years, you get no draft pick lol

But seriously they couldn't Implement a hard cap & teams have a year to move players to get under? Or they will just have to pay the full contract. But when that happens teams usually underpaid that player because they have already been paid.

& what do you think a fair hard cap would be?

warfelg
05-02-2017, 05:31 PM
The NBA has the power to start over lol

Maybe if you are in the tax for more then two years, you get no draft pick lol

But seriously they couldn't Implement a hard cap & teams have a year to move players to get under? Or they will just have to pay the full contract. But when that happens teams usually underpaid that player because they have already been paid.

& what do you think a fair hard cap would be?

I wish I were at my computer to best type this but if you wanted to implement over time the best way would be a 5 year window(meaning having to have a close to 15 year CBA IMO). That's the bast way to doing it without a hard reset. IIRC that's the way the NHL did it, they gave a few years where the tax and soft cap came closer and closer and the tax became stiffer and stiffer until the hard cap was met inbetween.

The problem is a bulk of any Players Union is in the average player numbers. So when average players are getting $15-22 mil a year business is good. They aren't going to vote for anything that hurts them. So the hard cap will have to be higher than the current soft cap.

Next problem is you can't make the hard cap lower than the current highest salary team. That means not only do they need to be under the cap, but clear enough to fill out a roster too. You cut 2 guys to get under the cap, you have to somehow replace them. That's tough.

But then you can't make the cap so high that the bottom teams can never spend enough for the salary floor.

And you still have the contract issues (hard cap, money always counts, teams are screwed with any career ending or altering injury).

So going that way:
Hard cap at $126mil (what the Cavs are currently at). Min 13 players max 15 players. Max deals still in place.


Another option I've come up with is "max salary stipulations":
1) every team gets 1 super max of up to 40% of the current year cap; 1 from drafted within the franchise
2) every team gets 2 mini-max contract of 20% of the current cap
3) all other contracts must be under that 20% threshold of the current cap.

That really makes star players take a big cut over what they could take in order to team up, unless of course two are drafted by the same team. Really forces teams to do better job of evaluating that supporting role players. This will also spread talent across the NBA.

And before people jump in and say that it bails out bad teams no it doesn't. It still means you have to do a good job, not hand out the super max and mini-max to players that don't deserve it, and to not saddle themselves with so many high priced role players that they can't afford one of these.

Dade County
05-02-2017, 06:04 PM
I wish I were at my computer to best type this but if you wanted to implement over time the best way would be a 5 year window(meaning having to have a close to 15 year CBA IMO). That's the bast way to doing it without a hard reset. IIRC that's the way the NHL did it, they gave a few years where the tax and soft cap came closer and closer and the tax became stiffer and stiffer until the hard cap was met inbetween.

The problem is a bulk of any Players Union is in the average player numbers. So when average players are getting $15-22 mil a year business is good. They aren't going to vote for anything that hurts them. So the hard cap will have to be higher than the current soft cap.

Next problem is you can't make the hard cap lower than the current highest salary team. That means not only do they need to be under the cap, but clear enough to fill out a roster too. You cut 2 guys to get under the cap, you have to somehow replace them. That's tough.

But then you can't make the cap so high that the bottom teams can never spend enough for the salary floor.

And you still have the contract issues (hard cap, money always counts, teams are screwed with any career ending or altering injury).

So going that way:
Hard cap at $126mil (what the Cavs are currently at). Min 13 players max 15 players. Max deals still in place.


Another option I've come up with is "max salary stipulations":
1) every team gets 1 super max of up to 40% of the current year cap; 1 from drafted within the franchise
2) every team gets 2 mini-max contract of 20% of the current cap
3) all other contracts must be under that 20% threshold of the current cap.

That really makes star players take a big cut over what they could take in order to team up, unless of course two are drafted by the same team. Really forces teams to do better job of evaluating that supporting role players. This will also spread talent across the NBA.

And before people jump in and say that it bails out bad teams no it doesn't. It still means you have to do a good job, not hand out the super max and mini-max to players that don't deserve it, and to not saddle themselves with so many high priced role players that they can't afford one of these.

Nice...

I really don't know what to do about players getting career injuries; they need to create a rule for that also.

Need to make it easier for teams to get out
underneath of contracts, just like the NFL. I know totally different but still.

warfelg
05-02-2017, 06:20 PM
Nice...

I really don't know what to do about players getting career injuries; they need to create a rule for that also.

Need to make it easier for teams to get out
underneath of contracts, just like the NFL. I know totally different but still.

That's the hard one. There's got to be built in protections for the team (and penalties if that player plays again).

I think a simple "offset-still pay" option is best. So like, under this system, Miami could Injury-waive Bosh, still pay his contract (since players are never going to go against fully guaranteed), but it doesn't count against the cap. But say they did this with Bosh, and he signed with oh....Houston this summer. Miami would be on the hook for the difference from what he was being payed and what he is payed now. Then a certain percent of what they are left to be owed should count against their cap, as a penalty of injury waiving a player that could still play.

Quinnsanity
05-02-2017, 09:18 PM
SportsCenter‏Verified account @SportsCenter 4h4 hours ago
Russell Westbrook will be eligible for a 5-year, $217M "supermax," making him the highest-paid player in NBA history.


Questions:

1.) How can a small market team pay $43m+ to a single player if guys like Oladipo $21M and Adams $22.4M would still be onboard?

2.) Assuming that they do get him for that much, would this trio and a bunch of vets min players be enough to get em' past the West?

3.) Otherwise, how do you build around Westy?

4.) How do you find a taker for Enes Kanter without taking any salary in return?

5.) Can the Thunder even get RWB to sign an extension next year to begin with?

1. The combination of Westbrook, Adams and Oladipo actually aren't as expensive, at least relative to the cap, as you'd think. Westbrook's contract would not kick in until the 2018-19 season (because OKC doesn't have the cap space for an immediate raise). That Year 1 salary of around $35 million (we're assuming a stable $101 million cap here) would combine with Adams and Oladipo for a total of around $78 million. That's a lot of money, but it's $23 million below the cap, $43 million below the luxury tax line (projected at $121 million), and $47 million below the apron (perpetually $4 million above the tax line). Each are relevant for different reasons. Obviously cap space is necessary to sign external free agents, the tax is something a small market-owner wouldn't want to pay unless a championship-caliber team was on the floor, and being above the apron excludes you from using the full MLE or engaging in sign-and-trades. But overall, if you have $43 million below the tax to spend on other talent besides your top 3 guys in Year 1, that's a decent amount of wiggle room. It's also important to note the length of several other deals here. Kanter expires, even if he picks up his 2018-19 player option, after only the first year of WB's deal. Adams and Oladipo expire after the third year. So when Westbrook's contract reaches its most expensive point, the other major contracts on this roster will have expired. None of this is to say OKC is in a GOOD position cap wise, but it's not as bad as you'd think.

2. Absolutely not. The current group will likely not make it past the first round. They only won the West once WITH KEVIN DURANT. They have a long way to go before we can take them seriously as a title contender.

3. A bunch of three-and-D guys. I have no idea how they get them. It seems like their most flexible point will be after the 2020-21 season, but it'd be irresponsible to predict what free agents will matter that summer this far away. Until then, just try to find good young players on cheap contracts you can develop into supporting pieces for Russ.

4. If the Thunder were really cap wary immediately, they could use the stretch provision to make Kanter's contract more palatable. He has around $37 million left on his deal since player options become guaranteed when a player is released. The stretch provision would allow OKC to pay out that money over twice the number of years left on his deal, plus one. That'd be something like $7.5 million per year over the next five. That gives them immediate flexibility, but remember, even if Kanter can't play in the playoffs, he has very real value in the regular season. His scoring off of the bench gives you more time to rest Westbrook and Adams and hopefully be a net-neutral team. He's an innings eater, essentially, and that means something. Would you rather lower his cap figure than have him on your team at all? Maybe if there was an immediate way for them to use that cap space, but I don't think there is. They'd still wouldn't have meaningful cap space.

5. I'm not convinced. I think he'll play the year out and take meetings next summer. Maybe that takes him elsewhere. Maybe it doesn't. I just think it would be dumb for him to sign the extension right now. Even if he tore his ACL on opening night the Thunder would offer him the full max. The security doesn't mean much to him. But flexibility might, if he really wants to win a title.

Mave1002
05-02-2017, 10:33 PM
Really, no team can survive paying one player that much outright in a vacuum. The only way you can survive a deal like that is if you already have all of your pieces in place and are willing to pay some serious luxury tax. Even LeBron, who is on his way to making crazy money obviously and already makes $30M+, it wouldn't work if they didn't already have Irving, Love and their hoard of good role players. After living in luxury thanks to fortunate contracts vs an exploding cap, GS is headed for the same road.

For everybody else, this is going to make it almost impossible to close the gap with those two teams. There is just no way to stack talent to that level anymore when guys are making that much. The CBA has caught up with the exploding salary cap and these new regulations will help spread out the top end talent to more teams. Hopefully, that will lead to mid-late 70's level parity but until then the Warriors and Cavs will be in their own league of talent. The Clippers can hang with them on paper but we've seen them fail on the results end.

+1

Mave1002
05-02-2017, 10:40 PM
Hopefully, superstars do not lose their passion for the game and end up playing for money instead. Giving someone $217M for the next five years, plus allowances and incentives... you're set for life.

The goal would just be five years, that's it. Nothing comes after that, nothing else would matter. Win or lose. Chip or no chip.

FOXHOUND
05-03-2017, 02:23 AM
The issue with the hard cap is you got to give a team an out from the contract; which the PA won't allow.

The best option in that is "offset" language like the NFL went to in their rookie deals.

Let's say there was offset language and you signed a guy to a 5 year, $100 mil deal; $20 mil per year. If after 2 years ($40 mil payed out) you decide he isn't worth that and you cut him (clearing $20 mil a year for 3 years). Offset would say you owe him the difference between whatever he signed for and what you were going to pay him.

Now again, I can see where teams wouldn't like this. Now the owner is on the hook for paying a guy that doesn't play for him. And from a player prospective that means they can be cut when ever to make room for a new player.

So in this way the NBA dug it's own hole.

Really what they can do now is more to limit bird rights, increase the tax even more. That's about it. Just get tougher and tougher on those two until being in the tax for even a single year could potentially end up financially crippling a franchise. Make it so teams can't afford to give a max to a mid level player.

True, but you gotta let the CBA enforce it's laws with time before making any more changes. The "repeater tax" is already in place to dismantle super teams, it just takes time. The Warriors have been in a unique position thanks to Curry's great contract and the cap boom coinciding together. Nothing can account for that and it isn't fair to penalize a team for such circumstances.

Scoots
05-03-2017, 03:37 PM
Bird rights were created to help small market teams keep their own players. Now small market teams/fans complain about Bird rights.

The max contract was created to protect stupid owner/front offices from themselves, and to protect small market teams from losing players who signed absurd offers elsewhere. Now small market teams/fans complain about max contracts.

The super-max was created to protect small market teams from losing their home grown players. Now the small market teams/fans are complaining that it's too much money.

It's funny, having watched the NBA from before the cap, and before Bird rights, and before the max, and before the lottery, and before the massively shrunk draft, all these complaints about parity and the game being broken, etc. Essentially nothing here is new, and the idea that dominant teams are bad for the NBA isn't supported by the numbers.

Some more:

The Lottery was created to improve parity and now people complain that it's hurting parity.

People complained about the game being boring and that it had devolved to one player backing down an opposing player for 18 seconds followed by a shot, and defense was just a wrestling match. So the rules were changed to make fans happy to allow zone defenses and stop the wrestling. Now the fans are complaining about what it's done to the game.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
05-04-2017, 04:51 PM
That's to much money.

Dade County
05-04-2017, 09:54 PM
Bird rights were created to help small market teams keep their own players. Now small market teams/fans complain about Bird rights.

The max contract was created to protect stupid owner/front offices from themselves, and to protect small market teams from losing players who signed absurd offers elsewhere. Now small market teams/fans complain about max contracts.

The super-max was created to protect small market teams from losing their home grown players. Now the small market teams/fans are complaining that it's too much money.

It's funny, having watched the NBA from before the cap, and before Bird rights, and before the max, and before the lottery, and before the massively shrunk draft, all these complaints about parity and the game being broken, etc. Essentially nothing here is new, and the idea that dominant teams are bad for the NBA isn't supported by the numbers.

Some more:

The Lottery was created to improve parity and now people complain that it's hurting parity.

People complained about the game being boring and that it had devolved to one player backing down an opposing player for 18 seconds followed by a shot, and defense was just a wrestling match. So the rules were changed to make fans happy to allow zone defenses and stop the wrestling. Now the fans are complaining about what it's done to the game.

Lmao... Great Post

It is what it is, the only way I can see it changing is if a new team wins the championship every year; for 7 straight years.

Other then that, fans will feel hopeless.

da ThRONe
05-04-2017, 11:13 PM
The lottery wasn't created for parity it was created to prevent tanking. If anything the lottery hurts parity by putting the drafting order out of wack. The Cavs aren't this good without winning the lotto for Irving even though it was a longshot.

The problem is the league attempts for parity don't address the actual issue, because the league love super teams. They pretend to want parity but they love the ability to sell you the Lakers brand or LeBron James because it's easy. The max contracts were terrible for parity because it meant players like LeBron, Curry, Durant etc can never earn with they are worth. So it makes more sense to get near max and leave enough room for 2 more near max players, some lesser stars, solid role players and/or veteran ring chasers. When the best way to achieve parity is a simpla hard cap and unlimited deals. But both owners and players don't want that type league. Get rid of the lotto and let the bad teams choose in order of their records. Create a playoff structure that doesn't almost always see the "better" team win. Reduce the season so injuries happen less and coaching matters more.

warfelg
05-05-2017, 10:39 AM
The lottery wasn't created for parity it was created to prevent tanking. If anything the lottery hurts parity by putting the drafting order out of wack. The Cavs aren't this good without winning the lotto for Irving even though it was a longshot.

This is perfect. People that think the Lotto was created for parity are fooling themselves.

Dade County
05-05-2017, 01:45 PM
When the Create a playoff structure that doesn't almost always see the "better" team win.

?

Are you saying the best teams shouldn't win?

da ThRONe
05-05-2017, 04:40 PM
?

Are you saying the best teams shouldn't win?

If the goal is parity yes. If the best team wins essentially all the time then it's all or nothing. However if a very good team can get hot and win a best of 3 series than most teams are never too far away from getting where they want to be. As of now if you aren't 1 of 3 at the most 5 teams you have no chance even though 16 teams make the post season.

Dade County
05-05-2017, 04:56 PM
If the goal is parity yes. If the best team wins essentially all the time then it's all or nothing. However if a very good team can get hot and win a best of 3 series than most teams are never too far away from getting where they want to be. As of now if you aren't 1 of 3 at the most 5 teams you have no chance even though 16 teams make the post season.

Come on man...

It's when the best team doesn't win in a playoff series, that really concerns me. It shows that the public is being manipulated and deceived.

But to get back to your point, the only way to have parity; is if the league controls where everyone goes & have the authority to even out teams as the seasons go along.

Other then that it's up to the GM's & players.

I would love if all the teams was even... But at some point a GM or a couple of players will manage to construct a team that will be better then most.

da ThRONe
05-05-2017, 06:52 PM
Come on man...

It's when the best team doesn't win in a playoff series, that really concerns me. It shows that the public is being manipulated and deceived.

But to get back to your point, the only way to have parity; is if the league controls where everyone goes & have the authority to even out teams as the seasons go along.

Other then that it's up to the GM's & players.

I would love if all the teams was even... But at some point a GM or a couple of players will manage to construct a team that will be better then most.

You asked the question I just answered. You don't feel a need for parity that fine. How people want to enjoy sports is their own thing. How to achieve parity is less of an art and more a science.

Actually the league needs less control for better parity. Of course better talented front offices will continue to have greater success, but sustaining success would be more difficult with better parity.

warfelg
05-05-2017, 07:06 PM
Come on man...

It's when the best team doesn't win in a playoff series, that really concerns me. It shows that the public is being manipulated and deceived.

But to get back to your point, the only way to have parity; is if the league controls where everyone goes & have the authority to even out teams as the seasons go along.

Other then that it's up to the GM's & players.

I would love if all the teams was even... But at some point a GM or a couple of players will manage to construct a team that will be better then most.

They could change the playoffs.

I would love for the NBA to adopt a new playoff structure. What I would love to see would never actually happen.

ROUND 1:
1 & 2 Seeds get a bye
3 v 6
4 v 5

5 game series; Games 1 & 2 on Monday and Wednesday. Games 3 & 4 on Friday and Saturday. Game 5 on Monday.

Round 2:
1 v 4/5/6
2 v 3/4/5

7 Game series; Games 1 & 2 on Wednesday and Friday. Games 3, 4, & 5 Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday. Games 6 & 7 on Thursday and Saturday

Conference Finals:
Games 1 & 2 on Monday and Wednesday. Games 3 & 4 on Friday and Sunday. Game 5 on Tuesday. Game 6 on Thursday. Game 7 on Saturday.

Finals:
Games follow the Conference Finals schedule.

Plenty of breaks. Offers better matchups by eliminating 2 eh teams that get trounced in round 1 every year. So now 1 and 2 seeds mean something more than just home court advantage.

Then again I know this would never happen as money is too good right now for the NBA to ever cut playoffs.

Maybe:
5 v 8
6 v 7

3 game series. All neutral sites Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, with the winners filling into the 5/6 slots above. Can make it a traveling circus too. Play in round in NY and LA one year, Philly and Houston the next, ect ect. Make it move around to up excitement.