PDA

View Full Version : Competitive Balance



Pages : [1] 2

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 01:42 PM
The imbalance in the NBA is at an all time high right now. Especially in the EC. But more largely between the top 2 teams (GS and CLE) and the rest of the playoff teams. That divide is a Grand Canyon right now.

Let's discuss.

1. Should the NBA step in to fix this problem, or hope it sorts itself out over time?

2. Do you think it's a problem or that it's good for the NBA?

3. How do you fix the problem?

Chronz
05-10-2017, 01:51 PM
The league has already fixed it, we just gotta wait for the team that had the perfect window to finally start paying all their stars. Had KD had any balls, we would have had more contenders with relatively equal chances of winning.

Hell, had KD simply resigned the Thunder would have been the favorites to win this year in what would have been the closest race to call in awhile.

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 01:56 PM
I think the NBA should absolutely step in and fix this. Basketball will always be a league of stars, that we can't change, it's the nature of the game. But, I also think the talent should be spread out more to make more teams relevant and to make the playoffs more exciting.

Here's how I do it.

1. Hard cap and floor. Have to start here. This will make trades meaningful and not just about contracts. It keeps players from flocking to one team. It helps small market teams compete.

2. Do away with MAX contracts and let teams pay players whatever they want. If a team wants to give LBJ 50% of their hard cap space to lure him in, let them. Also no bird rights, hard cap is a hard cap. So if you know LBJ is going to be a free agent, you better plan ahead in your team building process.

3. Get rid of the draft lottery. Allow teams to tank, but with a caveat. You can only finish bottom 3 in the draft order twice in a 5 year span. If you finish record wise bottom 3 for a third time in 5 years your pick goes to #16 (last non playoff slot) and everyone else slides down one.

4. Add 2 more teams to the league. More teams, more money to go around which helps with the hard cap and the elimination of the MAX contract. The addition would have an "expansion draft" which would help spread the talent of the league around.

5. Change the playoff format. 8 seeds in each conference. But no set bracket. Seeding goes by round and record. So 1vs8 2vs7 3vs6 5vs4. However, if 7 upsets 2...every team would be re seeded the second round based on record, not their original bracket. (like the NFL)

6. Stash/D league (or G league as it now is) supplemental draft. All non playoff teams get 1 additional pick in a supplemental draft where they can pick off players who spent time in the D league or over seas from the playoff teams. They do not have to use their pick if they do not want to. If they do end up taking a player...They must send the playoff team a second round pick.

Vee-Rex
05-10-2017, 02:07 PM
The league has already fixed it, we just gotta wait for the team that had the perfect window to finally start paying all their stars. Had KD had any balls, we would have had more contenders with relatively equal chances of winning.

Hell, had KD simply resigned the Thunder would have been the favorites to win this year in what would have been the closest race to call in awhile.

Completely agree.

Cleveland isn't in some kind of class of their own. They're in the same group as the other contenders. They're just lucky to be in the East where it's not top-heavy.

Prior to the playoffs if we plucked KD from GS and onto OKC then we INSTANTLY have 5-7 contenders (GS, OKC, SAS, HOU, CLE - all five on the same tier with perhaps UTA, LAC with outside chances).

Instead, we have just GS alone. The parity has been killed by KD's decision.

FOXHOUND
05-10-2017, 02:09 PM
I agree with Chronz, the NBA has already fixed this but it just takes time for things like the repeater tax to come into play. With GS getting Durant, and the last few years in general, the exploding cap creating insane circumstances that you can't plan for.

DanG
05-10-2017, 02:13 PM
KD joins the Wizards.
Celtics trade for PG.

Rockets
Spurs
Warriors

Wizards
Celtics
Cavaliers

Would've been better.

mngopher35
05-10-2017, 02:16 PM
Ya there has pretty much always been some lacking of competitive balance. I think without gs/Durant we would be looking like most years with 4 competitors likely to win (gs, cle, okc, sa) and maybe even rockets with an outside shot. Last year had some great series with okc/sas, okc/gs and gs/cle.That isn't too different than other years in the past I feel, it's just now gs is far and away the best while cle was and still is the only top team in the east. So we get stuck with one real series to watch.

One thing they can do about the conferences is just a 1-16 rank for playoffs.

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 02:26 PM
Completely agree.

Cleveland isn't in some kind of class of their own. They're in the same group as the other contenders. They're just lucky to be in the East where it's not top-heavy.

Prior to the playoffs if we plucked KD from GS and onto OKC then we INSTANTLY have 5-7 contenders (GS, OKC, SAS, HOU, CLE - all five on the same tier with perhaps UTA, LAC with outside chances).

Instead, we have just GS alone. The parity has been killed by KD's decision.

I like Utah but they're nowhere near GS or CLE. In the East they're probably the #2 seed behind CLE who should have been the #1 had they tried. But they're not and never were true contender.

I don't consider LAC a contender, even when healthy. I just don't like the make up of that team. Blake is always hurt and has a limited game. Jordan is one dimensional. CP3 is the only certifiable franchise player on that team.

HOU is overrated. They're no different than the Dantoni Suns.

Tiers in the current NBA
1. CLE and GS are hands down the only contenders. They're worlds better than any other team in the league. One features the best player on the planet. A top 5 PG and a top 7 PF. The other has 4 of the top 10-12 players in the league (2 of them are MVP's).

2. SAS is the next tier down. Talent wise they're right with everyone else. But Pop and their championship experience pedigree bump them up over any other playoff team.

3. Then there's everyone else in the playoffs.

4. Then there's the lottery teams.

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 02:29 PM
KD joins the Wizards.
Celtics trade for PG.

Rockets
Spurs
Warriors

Wizards
Celtics
Cavaliers

Would've been better.

Agreed. But why is everyone settling for just that?

I've seen so many posts already where everyone is saying if KD didn't go to GS there would be 5-7 contenders. Ok great. There's 16 playoff teams...So more than half the playoff teams aren't even contenders. Why is this acceptable? In the NFL, MLB and NHL all playoff teams are considered to have a chance. In the NBA, it's the only major sport where that's not the case.

I want 10-12 teams that have a legit chance. Not half that number. Or a quarter as we have this year.

LOb0
05-10-2017, 02:52 PM
As long at its 7 game series which almost always favors the best team winning. Its going to be this way. I hate the NFL because flukes can happen and any team can win.

TheIlladelph16
05-10-2017, 02:53 PM
I don't really think competitive balance is at an all-time low. For example, from 1980 to 1989, we have the following teams making the finals:

Lakers - 8 times (5 Championships)
Celtics - 5 Times (3 Championships)
76ers - 3 Times (1 Championship)
Pistons - 2 Times (1 Championship)
Rockets - 2 Times

From 2007 to 2016, we have the following teams making the finals:

Heat - 4 Times (2 Championships)
Spurs - 3 Times (2 Championships)
Lakers - 3 Times (2 Championships)
Cavs - 3 Times (1 Championship)
Mavericks - 1 Time (1 Championship)
Thunder - 1 Time
Magic - 1 Time
Celtics 1 Time (1 Championship)

It really doesn't look much different. There's even more diversity when it comes to championship winners and appearances now compared to the 80s. It looks even worse in the 90's where the Bulls won 6 championships in one decade. Parity has and always will be a problem in the NBA for a variety of reasons. The luxury tax situation that's setup now is the best way to combat that issue without introducing unnecessary or bad changes.

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 03:10 PM
I don't really think competitive balance is at an all-time low. For example, from 1980 to 1989, we have the following teams making the finals:

Lakers - 8 times (5 Championships)
Celtics - 5 Times (3 Championships)
76ers - 3 Times (1 Championship)
Pistons - 2 Times (1 Championship)
Rockets - 2 Times

From 2007 to 2016, we have the following teams making the finals:

Heat - 4 Times (2 Championships)
Spurs - 3 Times (2 Championships)
Lakers - 3 Times (2 Championships)
Cavs - 3 Times (1 Championship)
Mavericks - 1 Time (1 Championship)
Thunder - 1 Time
Magic - 1 Time
Celtics 1 Time (1 Championship)

It really doesn't look much different. There's even more diversity when it comes to championship winners and appearances now compared to the 80s. It looks even worse in the 90's where the Bulls won 6 championships in one decade. Parity has and always will be a problem in the NBA for a variety of reasons. The luxury tax situation that's setup now is the best way to combat that issue without introducing unnecessary or bad changes.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Since the NBA instituted Free Agency in 1988, the NBA competitive balance is at an all time low. The 80's featured 2 dominant teams because there was essentially no player movement outside of trades.

I don't think the Luxury tax is going to change anything. It's just money. Money follows championships. As an owner, you're not going to let LeBron James walk out the door or Kyrie or Love because of a luxury tax. They make more money when they win, so paying the tax won't have much of an impact. It will change their strategy slightly, but it's not going to stop them if you're GS or CLE. It'll deter teams on the fringe, not the front runners.

PayDaPiper
05-10-2017, 03:11 PM
I'm a Warriors fan and I agree, a hard cap and floor would solve many of the issues. The Warriors would still be the best if this was implemented immediately though. They would lose KD and are around 10th in current payroll. The Cavs would be in trouble, would have to cut 30+ million in payroll.

Ever since Lebron left the Cavs the first time, he has had the most stacked team in the East year in and year out. I'd like to see Lebron with 1 other star and see if he can consistently get through the east.

hugepatsfan
05-10-2017, 03:20 PM
I don't think there's really much more the NBA can do. I think they actually did a really good job. The incredible drafting of GS, the huge cap spike and Durant not being very competitive was just a perfect storm that made GS such a monster team. Without Durant they'd be the best team in the NBA still but not by such a wide margin that it makes the league boring.

CLE is a beast team with LBJ. He's arguably the GOAT so any team he's on will be tough to beat. But I don't think it's so far that no one could get close to them. Having Lebron means they'd probably always be the favorite over any team except GS but a team could get close enough that it wouldn't be so bad.

MygirlhatesCod
05-10-2017, 03:21 PM
when was there a competitive balance?

Chronz
05-10-2017, 03:24 PM
Completely agree.

Cleveland isn't in some kind of class of their own. They're in the same group as the other contenders. They're just lucky to be in the East where it's not top-heavy.

Prior to the playoffs if we plucked KD from GS and onto OKC then we INSTANTLY have 5-7 contenders (GS, OKC, SAS, HOU, CLE - all five on the same tier with perhaps UTA, LAC with outside chances).

Instead, we have just GS alone. The parity has been killed by KD's decision.

Agreed, except I dont have Houston/SAS above a healthy Clips team. Tho I suppose being more durable is the talent that gives them the edge.

MygirlhatesCod
05-10-2017, 03:25 PM
The imbalance in the NBA is at an all time high right now. Especially in the EC. But more largely between the top 2 teams (GS and CLE) and the rest of the playoff teams. That divide is a Grand Canyon right now.

Let's discuss.

1. Should the NBA step in to fix this problem, or hope it sorts itself out over time?

2. Do you think it's a problem or that it's good for the NBA?

3. How do you fix the problem?

you say it like the cavs and dubs cheated their way to being at the top. the only problem I see is the other teams not being ran as well as both GSW and the Cavs.

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 03:26 PM
I'm a Warriors fan and I agree, a hard cap and floor would solve many of the issues. The Warriors would still be the best if this was implemented immediately though. They would lose KD and are around 10th in current payroll. The Cavs would be in trouble, would have to cut 30+ million in payroll.

Ever since Lebron left the Cavs the first time, he has had the most stacked team in the East year in and year out. I'd like to see Lebron with 1 other star and see if he can consistently get through the east.

Exactly. Let's look around the league and see how it affects everything.

Here's the teams over the cap. - Here's the teams $30+ mil over the cap (assuming cap holds) - Let's see what it would look like if they had to cut $20 mil to be under the cap
Atlanta - They let Millsap go to another team
Cleveland - They trade Love to get under the cap
Golden State - Durant can't be re-signed and goes to another team
Detroit - Drummond gets traded to another team
LAC - Blake and Reddick walk to another team (can't afford them)
Memphis - Parsons gets traded to another team
OKC - Kanter/Oladipo to another team
Portland - Turner and Crabbe traded for nothing to get under cap
Toronto - Lowry walks to another team
Washington - Beal gets traded to get under the cap

Now imagine these players go to teams that have $20+ in cap space
Brooklyn - Durant
Philadelphia - Lowry
Minnesota - Millsap
Miami - Love
LA Lakers - Blake
Dallas - Millsap

How much better would the league be if just that talent alone was redistributed?

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 03:28 PM
you say it like the cavs and dubs cheated their way to being at the top. the only problem I see is the other teams not being ran as well as both GSW and the Cavs.

Has nothing to do with how well the teams are ran. GS did a great job building through the draft, no denying that. But KD going there has nothing to do with how the team is ran. How is Milwaukee not run as well when KD doesn't even consider them...?

CLE was built entirely by LeBron having an attachment to that city and wanting to go there. It wasn't because of how well the team was ran. They were the worst team in the league when he went there. They probably still would be had he not left Miami.

I'm not saying they cheated at all. They worked within the rules. I'm saying the rules and how the league is set up structure wise in regards to the cap is just plain dumb.

Chronz
05-10-2017, 03:29 PM
Agreed. But why is everyone settling for just that?

I've seen so many posts already where everyone is saying if KD didn't go to GS there would be 5-7 contenders. Ok great. There's 16 playoff teams...So more than half the playoff teams aren't even contenders. Why is this acceptable? In the NFL, MLB and NHL all playoff teams are considered to have a chance. In the NBA, it's the only major sport where that's not the case.

I want 10-12 teams that have a legit chance. Not half that number. Or a quarter as we have this year.

Nah, nobody wants to see that level of parity because we still want to see high level basketball against high level competition. What you want is more akin to the 70's which were boring as ****. The trick is there shouldn't be one team with a historical level of talent above his league.

I dont give a **** about those other sports you mentioned, I like my basketball with powers battling powers, not a historically great player hopping onto the team that broke the record without you and is basically already a champion. Like I said in the past, GS only needed an inch to win a title, hell maybe a centimeter, but they added a 7footer . FML

PayDaPiper
05-10-2017, 03:29 PM
Sixers have the most space, imagine KD and Steph signing there, lol

immediate favorites?

Steph
Simmons
KD
Saric
Embiid

I know Simmons has yet to see the court and Embiid cant stay on it, but damn

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 03:30 PM
when was there a competitive balance?

Late 80's-90's. Don't just look at championships. But the teams in the playoffs. The talent pool was spread out much more than it currently is. Jordan faced solid competition every year in nearly every round of the playoffs. The same can't be said for LBJ

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 03:33 PM
I don't think there's really much more the NBA can do. I think they actually did a really good job. The incredible drafting of GS, the huge cap spike and Durant not being very competitive was just a perfect storm that made GS such a monster team. Without Durant they'd be the best team in the NBA still but not by such a wide margin that it makes the league boring.

CLE is a beast team with LBJ. He's arguably the GOAT so any team he's on will be tough to beat. But I don't think it's so far that no one could get close to them. Having Lebron means they'd probably always be the favorite over any team except GS but a team could get close enough that it wouldn't be so bad.

Put LBJ on Brooklyn, LAL, or SAC...Are they better? Certainly. But they can be beat by many teams. They can also beat many teams. It's closer to LeBrons early career before he went to Miami. Just because he's the GOAT doesn't mean you can put him on any team and they're the team to beat. But when you surround him with All Stars and MVP's...They're nearly unstoppable.

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 03:37 PM
Nah, nobody wants to see that level of parity because we still want to see high level basketball against high level competition. What you want is more akin to the 70's which were boring as ****. The trick is there shouldn't be one team with a historical level of talent above his league.

Having 3-4 more contenders doesn't make the quality of basketball go down. I'd much rather see 3 rounds of excellent basketball between great teams. Than 1 or 2 rounds of great basketball but still knowing who's going to win. It's not fun. This NBA is not fun.


I dont give a **** about those other sports you mentioned, I like my basketball with powers battling powers, not a historically great player hopping onto the team that broke the record without you and is basically already a champion. Like I said in the past, GS only needed an inch to win a title, hell maybe a centimeter, but they added a 7footer . FML

You can still have powers battling powers with 10-12 contenders...

MygirlhatesCod
05-10-2017, 03:42 PM
Has nothing to do with how well the teams are ran. GS did a great job building through the draft, no denying that. But KD going there has nothing to do with how the team is ran. How is Milwaukee not run as well when KD doesn't even consider them...?

CLE was built entirely by LeBron having an attachment to that city and wanting to go there. It wasn't because of how well the team was ran. They were the worst team in the league when he went there. They probably still would be had he not left Miami.

I'm not saying they cheated at all. They worked within the rules. I'm saying the rules and how the league is set up structure wise in regards to the cap is just plain dumb.

if its setup, structure wise, for anyone to do that then why hasn't anyone else? like the 90's bulls, 80's Celtics, or multiple era's for the lakers. it's always been this way, the only difference is there isn't a star that everyone loves unanimously. that's the real problem. I don't remember this much crying when other teams were dominating the entire league.

MygirlhatesCod
05-10-2017, 03:45 PM
Late 80's-90's. Don't just look at championships. But the teams in the playoffs. The talent pool was spread out much more than it currently is. Jordan faced solid competition every year in nearly every round of the playoffs. The same can't be said for LBJ

how would you not look at championships to gauge competition? doesn't matter how hard you play for ten years if you cant win it all.

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 03:55 PM
how would you not look at championships to gauge competition? doesn't matter how hard you play for ten years if you cant win it all.

Look at the teams the champion had to go through. Competition isn't about the winner... It's who they beat. Jordan beat better teams in the playoffs than LBJ. That's both more impressive and more entertaining. Looking at championships alone tells you nothing about competition.

Oakmont_4
05-10-2017, 03:56 PM
if its setup, structure wise, for anyone to do that then why hasn't anyone else? like the 90's bulls, 80's Celtics, or multiple era's for the lakers. it's always been this way, the only difference is there isn't a star that everyone loves unanimously. that's the real problem. I don't remember this much crying when other teams were dominating the entire league.

Can't compare the 80's Celtics because there was no Free Agency then.

The 90's Bulls were fantastic because they had 2 of the best players in the NBA. But they DRAFTED them. They didn't agree to join up and sign with the same team. It's completely different than CLE or GS now...

hugepatsfan
05-10-2017, 04:30 PM
I don't want full parity but I'd like better than we have. I'd like it to where at least the conference finals matchups had teams I could legit see winning it all. Right now GS is the prohibitive favorite with CLE having a punchers' chance at knocking them off because LBJ is GOAT.

Vee-Rex
05-10-2017, 04:31 PM
There's a weird pull/push thing going on with people regarding the situation of the NBA. I think everyone wants to complain about the Cavs and Warriors and blame the league, but don't want to put any blame whatsoever on their favorite franchises.

Even after signing LeBron and trading for Love in 2014, the Cavs had a crappy team.

Lou Amundson
Will Cherry
Joe Harris
Brendan Haywood
Alex Kirk
Shawn Marion
Mike Miller
James Jones
A.J. Price
Anderson Varejao
Tristan Thompson
Kendrick Perkins
Dion Waiters
Matthew Dellavedova

The players above were all absolute crap (except TT and perhaps Waiters). That's the initial supporting cast of the SUPERTEAM that people are all upset about right now. But the Cavs didn't care, they acquired top end talent FIRST, and over the next two years made a series of moves to acquire:

Iman Shumpert
J.R. Smith
Timofey Mozgov
Channing Frye
Kyle Korver
Deron Williams
Derrick Williams

That's the Cavs (after acquiring top tier talent in LeBron and Love), using their assets to put together your super team. Because if we still had any semblance of the initial roster we wouldn't even make it out of the East.

A lot of front offices (not all) SEE this year's Cavs team and this year's Warriors team and because they're afraid, they blatantly ignore and pass on opportunities to build that initial all-star core. Who's fault is that?

The league has everything in place right now. It's not flawless but it's a good setup. However, if only a handful of teams are gonna bother making enormous moves to bring in talent, whose fault is that?

Vee-Rex
05-10-2017, 04:36 PM
And I get it - some teams are not in a position to jump to contendership. Build your team as you see fit. Develop that young core and establish a great system for them. Bravo, I'm 100% on board with this.

But SOME teams are definitely in position to make that next leap, to jump from a treadmill to a contender, but are too afraid to take that risk.

MygirlhatesCod
05-10-2017, 04:38 PM
Can't compare the 80's Celtics because there was no Free Agency then.

The 90's Bulls were fantastic because they had 2 of the best players in the NBA. But they DRAFTED them. They didn't agree to join up and sign with the same team. It's completely different than CLE or GS now...

I get what you are saying but I cant respect the concept that things need to change due to two teams success. every team had a chance to make their situation better. that's the same as asking a billionaire to give me some of his money cause its not fair.

Portland had a chance to improve their frontcourt but instead wasted money on horrible contracts to retain a team that has 2nd round talent.

LAC cant stay healthy and ownership chooses to stick with rivers because they hate the thought of moving past the second round

Utah they are up and coming. they need a few years and to retain heyward. its hard for them because not everyone is going crazy to move to Utah of all places.

OKC they are in love/stuck with westy. they wont get anywhere with him dominating the ball the way he does. he is a great player but how can any other player on that team develop when he is in constant control. example would be KD's most efficient season without Russ.

Houston they are greatly improved but have a very limited rotation. I think they will be better next year after a full year of working their new system.

SAS they are beast every year no matter what, its an anomaly.

just a few examples out west. each team had an opportunity to make things better and failed. its an organizational problem plain and simple. Durant left to go to a better system. every team in the NBA had the same opportunity to make their situation and land KD but they just didn't measure up.

MygirlhatesCod
05-10-2017, 04:40 PM
There's a weird pull/push thing going on with people regarding the situation of the NBA. I think everyone wants to complain about the Cavs and Warriors and blame the league, but don't want to put any blame whatsoever on their favorite franchises.

Even after signing LeBron and trading for Love in 2014, the Cavs had a crappy team.

Lou Amundson
Will Cherry
Joe Harris
Brendan Haywood
Alex Kirk
Shawn Marion
Mike Miller
James Jones
A.J. Price
Anderson Varejao
Tristan Thompson
Kendrick Perkins
Dion Waiters
Matthew Dellavedova

The players above were all absolute crap (except TT and perhaps Waiters). That's the initial supporting cast of the SUPERTEAM that people are all upset about right now. But the Cavs didn't care, they acquired top end talent FIRST, and over the next two years made a series of moves to acquire:

Iman Shumpert
J.R. Smith
Timofey Mozgov
Channing Frye
Kyle Korver
Deron Williams
Derrick Williams

That's the Cavs (after acquiring top tier talent in LeBron and Love), using their assets to put together your super team. Because if we still had any semblance of the initial roster we wouldn't even make it out of the East.

A lot of front offices (not all) SEE this year's Cavs team and this year's Warriors team and because they're afraid, they blatantly ignore and pass on opportunities to build that initial all-star core. Who's fault is that?

The league has everything in place right now. It's not flawless but it's a good setup. However, if only a handful of teams are gonna bother making enormous moves to bring in talent, whose fault is that?

well said sir.

hugepatsfan
05-10-2017, 04:42 PM
There's a weird pull/push thing going on with people regarding the situation of the NBA. I think everyone wants to complain about the Cavs and Warriors and blame the league, but don't want to put any blame whatsoever on their favorite franchises.

Even after signing LeBron and trading for Love in 2014, the Cavs had a crappy team.

Lou Amundson
Will Cherry
Joe Harris
Brendan Haywood
Alex Kirk
Shawn Marion
Mike Miller
James Jones
A.J. Price
Anderson Varejao
Tristan Thompson
Kendrick Perkins
Dion Waiters
Matthew Dellavedova

The players above were all absolute crap (except TT and perhaps Waiters). That's the initial supporting cast of the SUPERTEAM that people are all upset about right now. But the Cavs didn't care, they acquired top end talent FIRST, and over the next two years made a series of moves to acquire:

Iman Shumpert
J.R. Smith
Timofey Mozgov
Channing Frye
Kyle Korver
Deron Williams
Derrick Williams

That's the Cavs (after acquiring top tier talent in LeBron and Love), using their assets to put together your super team. Because if we still had any semblance of the initial roster we wouldn't even make it out of the East.

A lot of front offices (not all) SEE this year's Cavs team and this year's Warriors team and because they're afraid, they blatantly ignore and pass on opportunities to build that initial all-star core. Who's fault is that?

The league has everything in place right now. It's not flawless but it's a good setup. However, if only a handful of teams are gonna bother making enormous moves to bring in talent, whose fault is that?

The top talent CLE added was arguably the absolute greatest player of all time. That's a lot different than adding a Demarcus Cousines, Jimmy Butler, even Paul George type. If that's the top talent you're adding then you need a lot better than the Iman Shumperts and JR Smiths of the world to get on CLE's level. That's the issue teams have. They don't have Lebron caliber talent or the means to acquire it so in order to compensate for getting weaker stars they need to get other all stars instead of Shumpert/Smith/Frye/Korver/etc. caliber players out there. And they just don't have the cap space or draft picks to get all that much all star caliber talent.

Scoots
05-10-2017, 05:04 PM
Basketball by it's very nature makes superstars more important than in any other sport. There are only 5 players on the floor at any time, and the stars can reasonably play nearly all of the minutes. That means if you have 1 LeBron you will be a contender every year ... if you have 2 you'll be a favorite. The greatest MLB, NFL, NHL player of all time has a FAR smaller impact on a single game let alone a series or the playoffs as a whole.

The NBA is constantly tweaking the rules, and they do it on a 5 year cycle for a reason ... they need to see how the changes play out.

The Warriors were built the old fashioned way then:
1. They were good enough for KD to want to join.
2. The players union paved the way by refusing to gradually increase the cap creating a huge window to sign a player.
3. The Warriors SF was a free agent who wanted a max deal so they were already looking for a replacement.
4. They hit big on 3 draft picks, none higher than 7 so they had a solid TEAM foundation.
5. The best of those picks had injury issues the year before his contract renewal came up which reduced the price of his 2nd contract.
6. They hired a coach who promoted movement and having fun.
7. That coach hired a coach KD respected and liked in Adams.
8. They built a culture that helped them use Jerry West and a full court press from the front office and players to sell KD that he'd be welcomed.
9. They lost in the finals.
10. KD agreed to come to play with the team.

I'm sure there are more reasons ... but you don't scheme to "fix" the odds of that happening again. There's no point.

HandsOnTheWheel
05-10-2017, 05:05 PM
I think the NBA should absolutely step in and fix this. Basketball will always be a league of stars, that we can't change, it's the nature of the game. But, I also think the talent should be spread out more to make more teams relevant and to make the playoffs more exciting.

Here's how I do it.

1. Hard cap and floor. Have to start here. This will make trades meaningful and not just about contracts. It keeps players from flocking to one team. It helps small market teams compete.

2. Do away with MAX contracts and let teams pay players whatever they want. If a team wants to give LBJ 50% of their hard cap space to lure him in, let them. Also no bird rights, hard cap is a hard cap. So if you know LBJ is going to be a free agent, you better plan ahead in your team building process.

3. Get rid of the draft lottery. Allow teams to tank, but with a caveat. You can only finish bottom 3 in the draft order twice in a 5 year span. If you finish record wise bottom 3 for a third time in 5 years your pick goes to #16 (last non playoff slot) and everyone else slides down one.

4. Add 2 more teams to the league. More teams, more money to go around which helps with the hard cap and the elimination of the MAX contract. The addition would have an "expansion draft" which would help spread the talent of the league around.

5. Change the playoff format. 8 seeds in each conference. But no set bracket. Seeding goes by round and record. So 1vs8 2vs7 3vs6 5vs4. However, if 7 upsets 2...every team would be re seeded the second round based on record, not their original bracket. (like the NFL)

6. Stash/D league (or G league as it now is) supplemental draft. All non playoff teams get 1 additional pick in a supplemental draft where they can pick off players who spent time in the D league or over seas from the playoff teams. They do not have to use their pick if they do not want to. If they do end up taking a player...They must send the playoff team a second round pick.

Great ideas! I'm all in favor of a more balanced league which has been due for quite some time now.

Saddletramp
05-10-2017, 05:08 PM
Basketball by it's very nature makes superstars more important than in any other sport. There are only 5 players on the floor at any time, and the stars can reasonably play nearly all of the minutes. That means if you have 1 LeBron you will be a contender every year ... if you have 2 you'll be a favorite. The greatest MLB, NFL, NHL player of all time has a FAR smaller impact on a single game let alone a series or the playoffs as a whole.

The NBA is constantly tweaking the rules, and they do it on a 5 year cycle for a reason ... they need to see how the changes play out.

The Warriors were built the old fashioned way then:
1. They were good enough for KD to want to join.
2. The players union paved the way by refusing to gradually increase the cap creating a huge window to sign a player.
3. The Warriors SF was a free agent who wanted a max deal so they were already looking for a replacement.
4. They hit big on 3 draft picks, none higher than 7 so they had a solid TEAM foundation.
5. The best of those picks had injury issues the year before his contract renewal came up which reduced the price of his 2nd contract.
6. They hired a coach who promoted movement and having fun.
7. That coach hired a coach KD respected and liked in Adams.
8. They built a culture that helped them use Jerry West and a full court press from the front office and players to sell KD that he'd be welcomed.
9. They lost in the finals.
10. KD agreed to come to play with the team.

I'm sure there are more reasons ... but you don't scheme to "fix" the odds of that happening again. There's no point.

You forgot 11. KD had no competitive will. 😗😗😗😗

Vee-Rex
05-10-2017, 05:25 PM
The top talent CLE added was arguably the absolute greatest player of all time. That's a lot different than adding a Demarcus Cousines, Jimmy Butler, even Paul George type. If that's the top talent you're adding then you need a lot better than the Iman Shumperts and JR Smiths of the world to get on CLE's level. That's the issue teams have. They don't have Lebron caliber talent or the means to acquire it so in order to compensate for getting weaker stars they need to get other all stars instead of Shumpert/Smith/Frye/Korver/etc. caliber players out there. And they just don't have the cap space or draft picks to get all that much all star caliber talent.

But you don't even have to be some super crazy 3-superstar team to beat the Cavs. Look at Houston - I'd give them a fair shot at beating Cleveland (especially with HCA) and they only have ONE superstar.

I'm not saying it's easy peasy to just build a team and smash LeBron. Obviously that's not the case... but his Heat teams were nearly eliminated in the East more than once (2012 BOS and 2013 Indiana).

It's not some kind of impossible task unless teams in the East are resigned to bending over (and that's exactly what they appear to be doing). We can't completely fault front offices for having to deal with a top 5 all time player, but I do think they do get SOME blame for spreading their cheeks and allowing it to happen.

I love the approach that teams in the West have. They're just battling and doing whatever it takes to improve (even the Pelicans are building something that could prove to be effective 2-3 years from now).

MILLERHIGHLIFE
05-10-2017, 05:27 PM
Every team should have a G-League stash team for farming. Also I think losing players to free agency especially All Stars or Super Stars should a compensation picks going to the team that lost said player. Possibly even a third round which would be unguaranteed contracts. Also i'd fix the stretch provision rule. If said player is stretched/bought out. If a new team wants said player they take over the stretch provision and old team gets the slate wiped clean.

MygirlhatesCod
05-10-2017, 05:49 PM
Basketball by it's very nature makes superstars more important than in any other sport. There are only 5 players on the floor at any time, and the stars can reasonably play nearly all of the minutes. That means if you have 1 LeBron you will be a contender every year ... if you have 2 you'll be a favorite. The greatest MLB, NFL, NHL player of all time has a FAR smaller impact on a single game let alone a series or the playoffs as a whole.

The NBA is constantly tweaking the rules, and they do it on a 5 year cycle for a reason ... they need to see how the changes play out.

The Warriors were built the old fashioned way then:
1. They were good enough for KD to want to join.
2. The players union paved the way by refusing to gradually increase the cap creating a huge window to sign a player.
3. The Warriors SF was a free agent who wanted a max deal so they were already looking for a replacement.
4. They hit big on 3 draft picks, none higher than 7 so they had a solid TEAM foundation.
5. The best of those picks had injury issues the year before his contract renewal came up which reduced the price of his 2nd contract.
6. They hired a coach who promoted movement and having fun.
7. That coach hired a coach KD respected and liked in Adams.
8. They built a culture that helped them use Jerry West and a full court press from the front office and players to sell KD that he'd be welcomed.
9. They lost in the finals.
10. KD agreed to come to play with the team.

I'm sure there are more reasons ... but you don't scheme to "fix" the odds of that happening again. There's no point.

I don't recall demanding changes to the league when the warriors were garbage for like, ever. all I ever wanted to see change was the FO.

da ThRONe
05-10-2017, 06:03 PM
The league doesn't want parity or competitive balance. It's content with pushing it's stars especially in the larger markets. The fact that there's term named "superstar call" tells you all you need to know how the league feels about parity.

Scoots
05-10-2017, 09:56 PM
Exactly. Let's look around the league and see how it affects everything.

Here's the teams over the cap. - Here's the teams $30+ mil over the cap (assuming cap holds) - Let's see what it would look like if they had to cut $20 mil to be under the cap
Atlanta - They let Millsap go to another team
Cleveland - They trade Love to get under the cap
Golden State - Durant can't be re-signed and goes to another team
Detroit - Drummond gets traded to another team
LAC - Blake and Reddick walk to another team (can't afford them)
Memphis - Parsons gets traded to another team
OKC - Kanter/Oladipo to another team
Portland - Turner and Crabbe traded for nothing to get under cap
Toronto - Lowry walks to another team
Washington - Beal gets traded to get under the cap

Now imagine these players go to teams that have $20+ in cap space
Brooklyn - Durant
Philadelphia - Lowry
Minnesota - Millsap
Miami - Love
LA Lakers - Blake
Dallas - Millsap

How much better would the league be if just that talent alone was redistributed?

But that doesn't solve the issue of Durant possibly choosing to stay with the Warriors for less, and Curry agreeing to a matching contract.

If a hard cap was put in place it would probably be considerably higher than the current soft cap and teams would probably get a number of years to get under the coming hard cap.

The hard cap also doesn't solve the problem of well run teams always rising toward the top regardless of the rules.

Scoots
05-10-2017, 10:03 PM
Has nothing to do with how well the teams are ran. GS did a great job building through the draft, no denying that. But KD going there has nothing to do with how the team is ran. How is Milwaukee not run as well when KD doesn't even consider them...?

CLE was built entirely by LeBron having an attachment to that city and wanting to go there. It wasn't because of how well the team was ran. They were the worst team in the league when he went there. They probably still would be had he not left Miami.

I'm not saying they cheated at all. They worked within the rules. I'm saying the rules and how the league is set up structure wise in regards to the cap is just plain dumb.

It does matter how the team operates. Jerry West, Bob Myers, Steve Kerr, Ron Adams, and all of the top players on the Warriors convinced KD to come because he can see and learn how they think about the game, how they treat their employees, how they practice, the systems they use on and off the floor. When teams give their stars a night off that is advertising to potential free agents that the team will take care of them. Every time a team keeps their word to their players potential free agents hear about it. When players are involved in how the team is run free agents hear about it. When teams have a history of drafting players who succeed at a higher rate than those drafted by other teams it shows that a team will be able to stay competitive. When a team convinces quality free agents to sign over and over it encourages other free agents to sign too.

The Warriors core was drafted, but KD, Zaza, Iguodala, Livingston, West, McGee, Clark, and McAdoo all CHOSE to play for them when they could have gone elsewhere for more money or more playing time.

Yeah, how the team is run matters a lot.

Scoots
05-10-2017, 10:21 PM
Can't compare the 80's Celtics because there was no Free Agency then.

The 90's Bulls were fantastic because they had 2 of the best players in the NBA. But they DRAFTED them. They didn't agree to join up and sign with the same team. It's completely different than CLE or GS now...

GS drafted 4 of their top 5 players for their first 2 title runs and this year lost a couple drafted players and replaced them with free agents.

Also keep in mind that that Bulls team started being assembled when the draft was 10 rounds long not 2 like it is today. I'm all for increasing the flexibility teams have in developing players which will improve teams ability to draft more of their core players, but agents and the players union wanted the players to be able to choose where to play rather than the owners.

Scoots
05-10-2017, 10:23 PM
There's a weird pull/push thing going on with people regarding the situation of the NBA. I think everyone wants to complain about the Cavs and Warriors and blame the league, but don't want to put any blame whatsoever on their favorite franchises.

Even after signing LeBron and trading for Love in 2014, the Cavs had a crappy team.

Lou Amundson
Will Cherry
Joe Harris
Brendan Haywood
Alex Kirk
Shawn Marion
Mike Miller
James Jones
A.J. Price
Anderson Varejao
Tristan Thompson
Kendrick Perkins
Dion Waiters
Matthew Dellavedova

The players above were all absolute crap (except TT and perhaps Waiters). That's the initial supporting cast of the SUPERTEAM that people are all upset about right now. But the Cavs didn't care, they acquired top end talent FIRST, and over the next two years made a series of moves to acquire:

Iman Shumpert
J.R. Smith
Timofey Mozgov
Channing Frye
Kyle Korver
Deron Williams
Derrick Williams

That's the Cavs (after acquiring top tier talent in LeBron and Love), using their assets to put together your super team. Because if we still had any semblance of the initial roster we wouldn't even make it out of the East.

A lot of front offices (not all) SEE this year's Cavs team and this year's Warriors team and because they're afraid, they blatantly ignore and pass on opportunities to build that initial all-star core. Who's fault is that?

The league has everything in place right now. It's not flawless but it's a good setup. However, if only a handful of teams are gonna bother making enormous moves to bring in talent, whose fault is that?

You left out Kyrie

Scoots
05-10-2017, 10:34 PM
You forgot 11. KD had no competitive will. 😗😗😗😗

LOL ... I don't think that was a factor because he doesn't KNOW he has no competitive will.

And of course LeBron has not competitive will either right? :)

Scoots
05-10-2017, 10:39 PM
Every team should have a G-League stash team for farming. Also I think losing players to free agency especially All Stars or Super Stars should a compensation picks going to the team that lost said player. Possibly even a third round which would be unguaranteed contracts. Also i'd fix the stretch provision rule. If said player is stretched/bought out. If a new team wants said player they take over the stretch provision and old team gets the slate wiped clean.

I agree ... and I'd like each team in the NBA to be able to protect 20 players but be required to have at least 5 in the G-league at all times.

Scoots
05-10-2017, 10:41 PM
The league doesn't want parity or competitive balance. It's content with pushing it's stars especially in the larger markets. The fact that there's term named "superstar call" tells you all you need to know how the league feels about parity.

The term is not an NBA term and it's a fiction at any rate. The NBA may have preferred certain teams in the past, but that time is past now.

Scoots
05-10-2017, 11:01 PM
I just realized how many consecutive replies I have in this thread. :)

Some stranger ideas of mine I've put out here before:

- Any team in the lottery the owner can only attend half as many games as his team won.

- Leave the lottery system as it is but a team in the top 3 cannot repeat in the top 3 2 years in a row. If they are top 3 they lose 3 spots in the lottery. Just a small change to keep teams from doing multi-season tanks.

- Reduce the schedule to 78 games and eliminate the pre-season games. That and the new starting/ending dates no team would have to play a road back to back and effectively eliminates the leading complaint in the "rest issue"

- Allow no player to play more than 72 regular season games. That would reduce the effect of a superstar and increase the value of depth, coach, and system and eliminates the "rest issue".

- Add a 4th floor ref and have each ref only have to run from 3pt line extended to baseline.

- Have a video ref and give him a whistle too.

- Have a flop cost 2 FTs to the team of the flopper ... these FTs can be given at any point in the game and can be ruled by the on-side video ref or the NY central office refs.

- Give coaches replay request whistles that they can use twice a game to get it right.

I'm sure I could come up with more crazy ideas if I think about it more.

da ThRONe
05-10-2017, 11:06 PM
The term is not an NBA term and it's a fiction at any rate. The NBA may have preferred certain teams in the past, but that time is past now.

What other sport do you hear the term "superstar call"? The league isn't as concerned with markets as much as players. The league loves having LeBron in the Finals every year. Why would they do anything to disrupt that? The impact of star players could be mitigated if the league wanted to they simply don't want that because the league doesn't see the merit in real parity.

BKLYNpigeon
05-10-2017, 11:29 PM
STUPID.

Nobody complained in the 80's when it was the Lakers and Celtics. It was great to have these super teams because it defined an era in the NBA.

Now we have Warriors and Cavs, 5-10 years ago were the saddest franchises in the history. Now they're relevant and we want competitive balance?

Saddletramp
05-10-2017, 11:45 PM
LOL ... I don't think that was a factor because he doesn't KNOW he has no competitive will.

And of course LeBron has not competitive will either right? :)

Oh, he knows. Trust me, that's where the "hardest road" quote comes from.

And Lebron didn't join an already made championship team that also just




You know.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 12:07 AM
Oh, he knows. Trust me, that's where the "hardest road" quote comes from.

And Lebron didn't join an already made championship team that also just




You know.

Yeah, I know. Of course LeBron set the standards of who he wanted on his team and what they should be paid before he signs his contract and complains to the press that he needs better players to play around him before, during, and after the season. If he had "competitive will" he'd want to play with bad teammates right?

I think the "competitive will" argument is a silly one to make. Tim Duncan took less money to have a better team around him and it's seen as him being a "team player", KD takes less money for the same reason and it's that he has no "competitive will"

I understand that KDs decision hurt OK people and that it unbalanced the NBA for a few years but the fact that the best place for him as a team and a person had the money and the roster spot and will to go after him ... any other decision on his part would make less logical sense ... and I say that as someone who was not in favor of the Warriors getting KD.

Anyhow, back more on topic ...

Another idea to improve parity ... mandatory collaborative scouting. Don't allow team's to keep private info on potential draft picks. Eliminate the advantage teams that are good at finding cheap talent have. The Spurs would be toward the top of the list of teams to lose out on that equation.

Firefistus
05-11-2017, 01:24 AM
STUPID.

Nobody complained in the 80's when it was the Lakers and Celtics. It was great to have these super teams because it defined an era in the NBA.

Now we have Warriors and Cavs, 5-10 years ago were the saddest franchises in the history. Now they're relevant and we want competitive balance?

This wasn't an issue until Kevin Garnett went to the Celtics honestly. Big time players just generally stayed on their teams until they retired, or the team wouldn't sign them again. When Kevin Garnett went to the C's it created a team that beat LeBron, which caused him to move to Miami, and that started the ball rolling on these "super teams"

The Warriors have nothing to do with people "suddenly wanting balance". Because you're a warriors fan you're getting butt-hurt because your team is OP to the rest of the league.

Let me break it down for you so your simple mind can comprehend why people are upset.

The Warriors signed Durant and now can re-sign him and put them around 30 million over the cap next year. Your owner can afford the luxury tax on that because he's mega rich.

Meanwhile, lets go to OKC where Durant left. They will sign Westbrook for Max money, putting them near the cap, they won't go over it because their owner can't afford to do so, as all the owners know that owning a team doesn't actually make money directly. They have to use the team more as publicity for their other businesses in order make money off it.

Small Market teams in the West are as follows.
Denver
SLC
Portland
Minnesota
Memphis
San Antonio
Pheonix
Sacramento
New Orleans


None of these teams will EVER go over the salary cap to get super stars because they will never be able to afford it. Which means, in order to win they have to have a very well put together franchise just to compete on a yearly basis.

Lets do a full circle now, to the NFL. They had super team era's for decades until they implemented the hard salary cap. After that, almost instantly you had teams come out of no where one year and be great, only to be terrible again the next because they didn't manage their teams well enough.

Gamblers know that NFL is a better win share when you win because the parity is there. Every year teams get upset in the playoffs, and almost never does the same team win twice in a row, let alone make the Super Bowl twice in a row. (it DOES happen, just not often.) THIS DID NOT HAPPEN WHEN THERE WAS NO HARD SALARY CAP IN THE NFL.

It's for this reason people want a hard cap in the NBA. Sign LeBron for as much as you want, but it's going to hurt your team because you won't be able to sign 3 other high dollar players. Therefore High Dollar players will be on multiple teams, balancing out the NBA.

As I stated before, this isn't something people are magically complaining about because they are hating on the Warriors. This has been happening long before that, and this EXACT topic came up a lot when the NBA was on strike. The players association will never allow a hard cap though, for some reason the players like the super teams stuff. Maybe the lesser players are in denial about being able to win a championship, I don't know. But the facts are this. 30% of the teams owners can afford super teams and the rest are left trying to do what the Spurs have done for so long.

IKnowHoops
05-11-2017, 02:55 AM
This is exactly what is supposed to happen when a GOAT is in the league. If he can sour round himself with as good of talent as other teams, then he will always win. A GOAT is a man among boys. A GOAT is just to much for any team to deal with. A GOAT makes the opposing teams defense have to change there philosophy to deal with him. The only way to beat him is to put together a super team that is a GOAT team. And GOAT teams dominate more than GOAT players. Bad time not to be a GOAT. That's the bottom line.

Quinnsanity
05-11-2017, 03:55 AM
Can we stop putting the Warriors and Cavs in the same class? It's laughable. Just because they're going to meet in the Finals doesn't make them even. The Warriors are miles ahead of them and it's going to show in the Finals. The Warriors are the problem here. If they didn't exist, we'd have a really interesting and diverse set of contenders. Could Houston ride basic math to the title? How would an older LeBron fare against Kawhi, who is now in his prime, in a potential Finals matchup? Where is Utah in all of this, if they are healthy, considering how underrated they were all year (better record and point differential in a harder conference than Cleveland despite losing the most value to injury in the NBA). Hell, could the Clippers have had a shot if they'd stayed healthy?

The Warriors are the problem. The Cavs just have arguably the best player ever. You can't govern against a player being that good, but you can try to reconfigure the salary cap rules to make it harder for teams like the Warriors to exist, or you can go the other way and make it easier so that more teams like that could exist, in as much as any team like that is possible. What we have now is the greatest collection of talent on one team, relative to the total talent available in the league at the time, that we will ever see. It's a once in a lifetime occurrence, one that should have been prevented with cap smoothing, and hopefully some teams find a way to make life difficult for them. Just don't expect that team to be the 2017 Cavs. If you try to play defense like they do against a team as good as the Warriors you will get swept embarrassingly. They are not in the same class.

Quinnsanity
05-11-2017, 04:12 AM
This wasn't an issue until Kevin Garnett went to the Celtics honestly. Big time players just generally stayed on their teams until they retired, or the team wouldn't sign them again. When Kevin Garnett went to the C's it created a team that beat LeBron, which caused him to move to Miami, and that started the ball rolling on these "super teams"

The Warriors have nothing to do with people "suddenly wanting balance". Because you're a warriors fan you're getting butt-hurt because your team is OP to the rest of the league.

Let me break it down for you so your simple mind can comprehend why people are upset.

The Warriors signed Durant and now can re-sign him and put them around 30 million over the cap next year. Your owner can afford the luxury tax on that because he's mega rich.

Meanwhile, lets go to OKC where Durant left. They will sign Westbrook for Max money, putting them near the cap, they won't go over it because their owner can't afford to do so, as all the owners know that owning a team doesn't actually make money directly. They have to use the team more as publicity for their other businesses in order make money off it.

Small Market teams in the West are as follows.
Denver
SLC
Portland
Minnesota
Memphis
San Antonio
Pheonix
Sacramento
New Orleans


None of these teams will EVER go over the salary cap to get super stars because they will never be able to afford it. Which means, in order to win they have to have a very well put together franchise just to compete on a yearly basis.

Lets do a full circle now, to the NFL. They had super team era's for decades until they implemented the hard salary cap. After that, almost instantly you had teams come out of no where one year and be great, only to be terrible again the next because they didn't manage their teams well enough.

Gamblers know that NFL is a better win share when you win because the parity is there. Every year teams get upset in the playoffs, and almost never does the same team win twice in a row, let alone make the Super Bowl twice in a row. (it DOES happen, just not often.) THIS DID NOT HAPPEN WHEN THERE WAS NO HARD SALARY CAP IN THE NFL.

It's for this reason people want a hard cap in the NBA. Sign LeBron for as much as you want, but it's going to hurt your team because you won't be able to sign 3 other high dollar players. Therefore High Dollar players will be on multiple teams, balancing out the NBA.

As I stated before, this isn't something people are magically complaining about because they are hating on the Warriors. This has been happening long before that, and this EXACT topic came up a lot when the NBA was on strike. The players association will never allow a hard cap though, for some reason the players like the super teams stuff. Maybe the lesser players are in denial about being able to win a championship, I don't know. But the facts are this. 30% of the teams owners can afford super teams and the rest are left trying to do what the Spurs have done for so long.

I don't necessarily disagree with your general point, but there are so many economic statements in here that are simply incorrect.

The Thunder are ALREADY over the cap for next year, and will go even further above it in all likelihood. They have even paid the tax in the past. No, they don't have the same financial freedoms that markets like New York and Los Angeles have, but trust me, they are doing fine.

Which dovetails nicely into my next point: it is virtually impossible for modern NBA teams to lose money. The current TV deal guarantees teams around $86 million per year. That is the national TV deal ALONE, and it covers most of a team's player costs. That excludes ticket sales, local TV deals, merchandising, food and beverage, league pass revenue, all things that net a ton of money for the league. In this climate almost every NBA team is going to turn a handsome profit. It would take a combination of really bad outcomes for a team to lose money. It would have to be a team over the tax in a bad market with other sports properties and an older local TV deal. Even then I'm not sure a team would actually lose money. Remember that player salaries are tied to revenue. They only get between 49-51% of BRI (Basketball Related Income). It's very hard for teams to lose money when labor costs are so fixed except when teams go out of their way to overpay for that labor (as teams who want to contend sometimes do). If you want to make money as an NBA owner, if that is your main goal, you universally will.

And your market rankings really ignore context. Portland and Denver aren't big markets, but Paul Allen owns the Blazers and Stan Kroenke owns the Nuggets. Those are two of maybe the four or five richest owners. Believe it or not, Sacramento freaking PRINTS money because unlike their basketball operations, their business side really is years ahead of the curve. Utah tends to make a very nice profit every year because they're the only pro team in the area. Memphis saves a bit of money on player costs because there's no state income tax in Tennessee. There are a ton of factors that go into how much money a team can spend. The physical size of a market is only one of them.

And finally, the Warriors have not paid the tax once during this era of contention. They very well might avoid it next year (it depends, ultimately on Kevin Durant. It's a long story but the short version is that if he agrees to take less than his max then the Warriors will be able to operate as an above the cap team and re-sign Iggy/Livingston and likely pay the tax. If he insists on his actual max, they have to use cap space and will lose those two, and therefore stay far below the tax).

The point is that it's never as simple as "this team is in a big market so they can pay this much for players." That's not how the league works. Each team has a number of factors that work both in their favor and against them when it comes to operating their franchise in a financially viable way.

SportsFanatic10
05-11-2017, 05:55 AM
Durant is such a weak *** *****. That is all that really needs to be said.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 06:24 AM
It does matter how the team operates. Jerry West, Bob Myers, Steve Kerr, Ron Adams, and all of the top players on the Warriors convinced KD to come because he can see and learn how they think about the game, how they treat their employees, how they practice, the systems they use on and off the floor. When teams give their stars a night off that is advertising to potential free agents that the team will take care of them. Every time a team keeps their word to their players potential free agents hear about it. When players are involved in how the team is run free agents hear about it. When teams have a history of drafting players who succeed at a higher rate than those drafted by other teams it shows that a team will be able to stay competitive. When a team convinces quality free agents to sign over and over it encourages other free agents to sign too.

The Warriors core was drafted, but KD, Zaza, Iguodala, Livingston, West, McGee, Clark, and McAdoo all CHOSE to play for them when they could have gone elsewhere for more money or more playing time.

Yeah, how the team is run matters a lot.

But without their foundation of Curry, Klay and Green...None of this happens. None of it matters. You could run that team the same in BRK, nobody would care because the talent isn't there.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 06:35 AM
STUPID.

Nobody complained in the 80's when it was the Lakers and Celtics. It was great to have these super teams because it defined an era in the NBA.

Now we have Warriors and Cavs, 5-10 years ago were the saddest franchises in the history. Now they're relevant and we want competitive balance?

Completely different. There was no Free Agency in the 80's, teams were built mainly through the draft. Not by hanging out on a yacht one summer and agreeing to join forces.

The C's and the Lakers were the major victors championship wise in the 80's, but there were 6-8 other legit teams that actually had a chance. Now we're down to 2.

I was so optimistic that the NBA was heading in the right direction after GS won their first championship. A team built mainly through great drafting and good coaching/front office. It was so refreshing. But then Durant did what he did and it went back to focusing on super teams.

Completely changed the league for the worse. Just as LeBron did in Miami.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 06:38 AM
I just realized how many consecutive replies I have in this thread. :)

Some stranger ideas of mine I've put out here before:

- Any team in the lottery the owner can only attend half as many games as his team won.

- Leave the lottery system as it is but a team in the top 3 cannot repeat in the top 3 2 years in a row. If they are top 3 they lose 3 spots in the lottery. Just a small change to keep teams from doing multi-season tanks.

- Reduce the schedule to 78 games and eliminate the pre-season games. That and the new starting/ending dates no team would have to play a road back to back and effectively eliminates the leading complaint in the "rest issue"

- Allow no player to play more than 72 regular season games. That would reduce the effect of a superstar and increase the value of depth, coach, and system and eliminates the "rest issue".

- Add a 4th floor ref and have each ref only have to run from 3pt line extended to baseline.

- Have a video ref and give him a whistle too.

- Have a flop cost 2 FTs to the team of the flopper ... these FTs can be given at any point in the game and can be ruled by the on-side video ref or the NY central office refs.

- Give coaches replay request whistles that they can use twice a game to get it right.

I'm sure I could come up with more crazy ideas if I think about it more.

Love that one.

I think the NBA also needs to do away with this jump into the defender chuck shot at the 3 pt line to draw a foul. Dumbest play in basketball.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 06:57 AM
There's a weird pull/push thing going on with people regarding the situation of the NBA. I think everyone wants to complain about the Cavs and Warriors and blame the league, but don't want to put any blame whatsoever on their favorite franchises.

Oh I'll admit Danny Ainge pretty much started this. I can't blame him because he had to do what he had to do to win. And it was all done within the league rules. Just as I don't hold anything against CLE, MIA or GS. It was all done fair and square. I'm just saying the NBA should structure itself so this can't happen. So that 7 of the 10 most talented players in the NBA aren't on 3 teams. I don't think it's good for the NBA.


Even after signing LeBron and trading for Love in 2014, the Cavs had a crappy team.

Lou Amundson
Will Cherry
Joe Harris
Brendan Haywood
Alex Kirk
Shawn Marion
Mike Miller
James Jones
A.J. Price
Anderson Varejao
Tristan Thompson
Kendrick Perkins
Dion Waiters
Matthew Dellavedova

I never had an issue with LBJ going back to CLE. He never should have left. But this is an outlier. LBJ is the best player in the game and it's not even close. He doesn't need the level of talent around him that other All Stars do. That team right there would still beat BOS the #1 seed right now. Obviously they'd lose to the top 3 in the West though.


The players above were all absolute crap (except TT and perhaps Waiters). That's the initial supporting cast of the SUPERTEAM that people are all upset about right now. But the Cavs didn't care, they acquired top end talent FIRST, and over the next two years made a series of moves to acquire:

Right, because structure wise that's what the league allowed and top end talent is harder to acquire depending on the contracts you have. Had the Cavs not gone after top end talent first, they in all likelihood wouldn't have been able to get it later on. I have no issue with the moves they made. My issue is the way the cap is that allowed them to go over the cap. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't have gotten Love and would still have Wiggins, which wouldn't be so bad either. If the Cavs were built around Kyrie-LBJ-Wiggins, I'd have no issues. That's more or less how the NBA should be run. If you can draft well, trade well, attract Free Agents...Great, that's what you should do. You just shouldn't be able to go over a cap in order to do it.


A lot of front offices (not all) SEE this year's Cavs team and this year's Warriors team and because they're afraid, they blatantly ignore and pass on opportunities to build that initial all-star core. Who's fault is that?

What players available would've put any other team over CLE or GS? Cousins to BOS? Nope. PG/Butler to WAS? Nope. These guys are good players, but they're not going to instantly make a team the favorites. So GM's are rightfully cautious in cashing in a TON of assets to still be second best. Doesn't make sense to do that.


The league has everything in place right now. It's not flawless but it's a good setup. However, if only a handful of teams are gonna bother making enormous moves to bring in talent, whose fault is that?

They're not doing it because they know they can't compete. That's called be smart. Sure Ainge could trade all his assets for Butler or PG. But he's still not going to win so why do it? Are they better than they are now with those guys? Absolutely. But they're still losing to CLE in the ECF so why make the move? That's all on the set up of the league. If CLE is built around LBJ-Kyrie-Wiggins and they're not $30 mil over the cap cause they signed and traded for the guys you mentioned...Then Ainge probably DOES make that trade because they could compete with CLE. They still may lose but it's a lot closer than it is now.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 07:39 AM
This wasn't an issue until Kevin Garnett went to the Celtics honestly. Big time players just generally stayed on their teams until they retired, or the team wouldn't sign them again. When Kevin Garnett went to the C's it created a team that beat LeBron, which caused him to move to Miami, and that started the ball rolling on these "super teams"

The Warriors have nothing to do with people "suddenly wanting balance". Because you're a warriors fan you're getting butt-hurt because your team is OP to the rest of the league.

Let me break it down for you so your simple mind can comprehend why people are upset.

The Warriors signed Durant and now can re-sign him and put them around 30 million over the cap next year. Your owner can afford the luxury tax on that because he's mega rich.

Meanwhile, lets go to OKC where Durant left. They will sign Westbrook for Max money, putting them near the cap, they won't go over it because their owner can't afford to do so, as all the owners know that owning a team doesn't actually make money directly. They have to use the team more as publicity for their other businesses in order make money off it.

Small Market teams in the West are as follows.
Denver
SLC
Portland
Minnesota
Memphis
San Antonio
Pheonix
Sacramento
New Orleans


None of these teams will EVER go over the salary cap to get super stars because they will never be able to afford it. Which means, in order to win they have to have a very well put together franchise just to compete on a yearly basis.

Lets do a full circle now, to the NFL. They had super team era's for decades until they implemented the hard salary cap. After that, almost instantly you had teams come out of no where one year and be great, only to be terrible again the next because they didn't manage their teams well enough.

Gamblers know that NFL is a better win share when you win because the parity is there. Every year teams get upset in the playoffs, and almost never does the same team win twice in a row, let alone make the Super Bowl twice in a row. (it DOES happen, just not often.) THIS DID NOT HAPPEN WHEN THERE WAS NO HARD SALARY CAP IN THE NFL.

It's for this reason people want a hard cap in the NBA. Sign LeBron for as much as you want, but it's going to hurt your team because you won't be able to sign 3 other high dollar players. Therefore High Dollar players will be on multiple teams, balancing out the NBA.

As I stated before, this isn't something people are magically complaining about because they are hating on the Warriors. This has been happening long before that, and this EXACT topic came up a lot when the NBA was on strike. The players association will never allow a hard cap though, for some reason the players like the super teams stuff. Maybe the lesser players are in denial about being able to win a championship, I don't know. But the facts are this. 30% of the teams owners can afford super teams and the rest are left trying to do what the Spurs have done for so long.

Why would someone being a Warriors fan make them butt-hurt over the Warriors being good?

Portland's owner is WAAAAAY more wealthy than the Warriors owner. The Warriors are not in the tax yet though they almost certainly will be next year.

A hard cap, by itself, solves nothing. If they set the hard cap at $150M does it change how the teams are currently composed? The better run teams will still make better decisions and get better players. Look at the Spurs ... they have been the best team in the NBA for the last 2 decades, all during a salary capped era even though they can't ever compete with the big market teams ... right?

Scoots
05-11-2017, 07:43 AM
Can we stop putting the Warriors and Cavs in the same class? It's laughable. Just because they're going to meet in the Finals doesn't make them even. The Warriors are miles ahead of them and it's going to show in the Finals. The Warriors are the problem here. If they didn't exist, we'd have a really interesting and diverse set of contenders. Could Houston ride basic math to the title? How would an older LeBron fare against Kawhi, who is now in his prime, in a potential Finals matchup? Where is Utah in all of this, if they are healthy, considering how underrated they were all year (better record and point differential in a harder conference than Cleveland despite losing the most value to injury in the NBA). Hell, could the Clippers have had a shot if they'd stayed healthy?

The Warriors are the problem. The Cavs just have arguably the best player ever. You can't govern against a player being that good, but you can try to reconfigure the salary cap rules to make it harder for teams like the Warriors to exist, or you can go the other way and make it easier so that more teams like that could exist, in as much as any team like that is possible. What we have now is the greatest collection of talent on one team, relative to the total talent available in the league at the time, that we will ever see. It's a once in a lifetime occurrence, one that should have been prevented with cap smoothing, and hopefully some teams find a way to make life difficult for them. Just don't expect that team to be the 2017 Cavs. If you try to play defense like they do against a team as good as the Warriors you will get swept embarrassingly. They are not in the same class.

Okay, but is there any point trying to change the rules to avoid a team like the Warriors happening? The Warriors were lucky so many times to even get to the point they could pitch KD to come ... what they did is never going to happen again.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 07:48 AM
Why would someone being a Warriors fan make them butt-hurt over the Warriors being good?

Portland's owner is WAAAAAY more wealthy than the Warriors owner. The Warriors are not in the tax yet though they almost certainly will be next year.

A hard cap, by itself, solves nothing. If they set the hard cap at $150M does it change how the teams are currently composed? The better run teams will still make better decisions and get better players. Look at the Spurs ... they have been the best team in the NBA for the last 2 decades, all during a salary capped era even though they can't ever compete with the big market teams ... right?

Well yeah, if you set it at $150 it's not going to do anything for a couple of years. After that it will.

But if you set it at $105-115 somewhere around there, it would certainly change the NBA landscape in a hurry. Especially if you put a floor in at $85-90

Scoots
05-11-2017, 07:48 AM
But without their foundation of Curry, Klay and Green...None of this happens. None of it matters. You could run that team the same in BRK, nobody would care because the talent isn't there.

But that talent was failing until Steve Kerr was hired and the front office brought in cheap free agents to fill out the roster ... so clearly it's not just the talent on the floor but how they are used and how they are assembled.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 07:51 AM
Love that one.

I think the NBA also needs to do away with this jump into the defender chuck shot at the 3 pt line to draw a foul. Dumbest play in basketball.

Agree. It's an example of a player taking advantage of a rule. A rule, I think the NBA tries to clarify this offseason.

The most amazing one to me this year was one where Gordon Hayward ran into a defender, hooked a defenders arm, the whistle blew, THEN HAYWARD DRIBBLED AGAIN, then heaved the ball toward the basket ... yep, continuation, 3 free throws. That was the low point.

D-Leethal
05-11-2017, 08:14 AM
Completely agree.

Cleveland isn't in some kind of class of their own. They're in the same group as the other contenders. They're just lucky to be in the East where it's not top-heavy.

Prior to the playoffs if we plucked KD from GS and onto OKC then we INSTANTLY have 5-7 contenders (GS, OKC, SAS, HOU, CLE - all five on the same tier with perhaps UTA, LAC with outside chances).

Instead, we have just GS alone. The parity has been killed by KD's decision.

HOU and SAS are not on the same tier as GS, we will find that out pretty soon. And why is there multiple posts talking hypo's about KD being on the Thunder when he's on the Warriors?

The playoffs are **** because of GS and CLE. The undercard series are somewhat exciting but the undercard is still the undercard and none of those guys have a chance next round.

I do agree with FOX that the exploding cap really created unique one-time circumstances so I'm not really blaming the league for this one.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 08:14 AM
I never had an issue with LBJ going back to CLE. He never should have left. But this is an outlier. LBJ is the best player in the game and it's not even close. He doesn't need the level of talent around him that other All Stars do.

LeBron leaving the Cavs allowed them to rack up top draft picks, then he agrees to go back and demands and gets a top 3 PF to come too. I doubt I'll ever quite understand people defending LeBron stacking his own deck in leaving his team as a free agent a 2nd time.

The team the Cavs could have drafted since LeBron left:

Lillard/Irving
Wiggins
Antetokounmpo/Crowder
Green/Thompson
Gobert/Jokic

If that was the Cavs team LeBron "went home" to would the same people be accepting of his move?

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 08:14 AM
But that talent was failing until Steve Kerr was hired and the front office brought in cheap free agents to fill out the roster ... so clearly it's not just the talent on the floor but how they are used and how they are assembled.

I wouldn't say failing. They were young and inexperienced. The same happened to LBJ early in his career. Curry's first 2 seasons they had a much weaker roster. When Draymond was drafted in 2012 they had their big 3 that they didn't even know they had at the time. They made the playoffs and haven't missed since. Let's also remember they had more standing in their way at the time. SAS were a better team. The Lakers were still relevant. Portland was better. Dallas wasn't a bottom feeder.

That's not to take anything away from Kerr and co. They've clearly done an outstanding job. But there job has been easier considering the talent they did inherit. They made some nice moves to compliment their core. But let's be real, without that core in place on rookie deals, they can't do what they did.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 08:19 AM
LeBron leaving the Cavs allowed them to rack up top draft picks, then he agrees to go back and demands and gets a top 3 PF to come too. I doubt I'll ever quite understand people defending LeBron stacking his own deck in leaving his team as a free agent a 2nd time.

The team the Cavs could have drafted since LeBron left:

Lillard/Irving
Wiggins
Antetokounmpo/Crowder
Green/Thompson
Gobert/Jokic

If that was the Cavs team LeBron "went home" to would the same people be accepting of his move?

A lot of teams "could have" drafted those players. This is way to out there to even think about. But if an NBA team was THAT good at identifying talent, I'd be ok with it. They wouldn't have the money to sign LBJ with a hard cap though. So as long as that was in place, I'm good.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 08:29 AM
I wouldn't say failing. They were young and inexperienced. The same happened to LBJ early in his career. Curry's first 2 seasons they had a much weaker roster. When Draymond was drafted in 2012 they had their big 3 that they didn't even know they had at the time. They made the playoffs and haven't missed since. Let's also remember they had more standing in their way at the time. SAS were a better team. The Lakers were still relevant. Portland was better. Dallas wasn't a bottom feeder.

That's not to take anything away from Kerr and co. They've clearly done an outstanding job. But there job has been easier considering the talent they did inherit. They made some nice moves to compliment their core. But let's be real, without that core in place on rookie deals, they can't do what they did.

Yes, but the current front office drafted Klay, Barnes, and Green, traded Ellis for Bogut, signed Iguodala, Livingston, Speights, and Barbosa, and until Kerr took over they were nowhere near good enough to compete for a title regardless of the state of the league. It wasn't until they stopped playing iso heavy offense and Green was made a starter that they really took off. It just all happened the same year.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 08:32 AM
A lot of teams "could have" drafted those players. This is way to out there to even think about. But if an NBA team was THAT good at identifying talent, I'd be ok with it. They wouldn't have the money to sign LBJ with a hard cap though. So as long as that was in place, I'm good.

But most of those players would have been on their rookie contracts so they would have had money. So, if you are good with LeBron going to that team you should be okay with KD going to the Warriors who didn't draft that well with lower and fewer picks.

BKLYNpigeon
05-11-2017, 09:40 AM
That's what there's a Luxury Tax!

Teams that go over the luxury tax threshold, pay into this pool of money. That money is divided up and given out to teams who are under the salary cap. Cheap oweners pocket that money instead of reinvesting it to the teams future needs.

At the end of the day, it's a business, and you can't tell these owners how to run it. Many of them are happy being average and making 50m a year off being the owner of the team.

warfelg
05-11-2017, 09:49 AM
That's what there's a Luxury Tax!

Teams that go over the luxury tax threshold, pay into this pool of money. That money is divided up and given out to teams who are under the salary cap. Cheap oweners pocket that money instead of reinvesting it to the teams future needs.

At the end of the day, it's a business, and you can't tell these owners how to run it. Many of them are happy being average and making 50m a year off being the owner of the team.

This is kinda why I like the idea of a hard cap.

No more paying into a pool to pay the teams not in the tax. So now those owners aren't making money off being average, and under the cap. It's why almost every team in the NFL is near the cap every year. There's not tax pool to pay into so teams aren't getting money.

FWIW too, a smart owner would sock away that money when they suck, and use it to help with the tax when they are better. But owners are greedy ****s.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 09:54 AM
But most of those players would have been on their rookie contracts so they would have had money. So, if you are good with LeBron going to that team you should be okay with KD going to the Warriors who didn't draft that well with lower and fewer picks.

Here's why I'm ok with that situation if there's a hard cap. I'm not ok with KD going to GS because there is no hard cap and they have the ability to keep him. With a hard cap they wouldn't be able to.

Bron came back in 2014-15 - cap was 63.1M

Irving $7M - Free Agent in offseason
Lillard $3.3M - Free Agent in 2016
Wiggins $5.5M
Gia $1.8M
Crowder $915k - Free Agent in offseason
Green $915K
Thompson $5.1M - Free Agent in offseason
Gobert $1.1M
Plus 4 roster holds @$4M

Jokic - stashed

29.6M

LeBron comes back @ $20.6M for 1 year - Free Agent in offseason

$50.2M They have just under $13M to bring in other players. BUT in this is really a 1 year roster and why the hard cap is great. The following offseason they have this roster on the books

Lillard $3.3M - Free Agent in 2016
Wiggins $5.5M
Gia $1.8M
Green $915K
Gobert
Jokic

Which is about $17M and still a very good roster. Add in about $6M in roster holds. In 15-16 the cap goes up to $70M. So they have about $47M to re-sign the following

LeBron James
Kyrie Irving
Jae Crowder
Tristan Thompson

They'd be lucky to re-sign 2 of these guys. Unless they all take serious pay cuts (doubtful). Still a very good roster, but in all likelihood Lillard leaves the following year when he's a Free Agent. And the year after that basically everyone else is gone.

The hard cap will allow some teams to be stacked for a year or two if they do an unheard of job drafting players like you laid out. In reality that's not going to happen. But even if a team can be stacked like this for a year or two...That's all it's going to last before everyone gets paid by other teams.

It's a better system

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 09:57 AM
That's what there's a Luxury Tax!

Teams that go over the luxury tax threshold, pay into this pool of money. That money is divided up and given out to teams who are under the salary cap. Cheap oweners pocket that money instead of reinvesting it to the teams future needs.

At the end of the day, it's a business, and you can't tell these owners how to run it. Many of them are happy being average and making 50m a year off being the owner of the team.

You just laid out exactly why the luxury tax is ineffective. It doesn't level the playing field. It just puts more money into the owners pockets for small market teams.

Contenders have no issue paying the tax because they're going to get that money back from other sources because there team is good.

BKLYNpigeon
05-11-2017, 09:58 AM
Hardcap won't help much.

There's ways of manipulating it. The banana boat crew all took less money to play with each other with the Heat.


Having a Hardcap would stress the need of cheap contracts, you would see a lot more tanking.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 09:58 AM
This is kinda why I like the idea of a hard cap.

No more paying into a pool to pay the teams not in the tax. So now those owners aren't making money off being average, and under the cap. It's why almost every team in the NFL is near the cap every year. There's not tax pool to pay into so teams aren't getting money.

FWIW too, a smart owner would sock away that money when they suck, and use it to help with the tax when they are better. But owners are greedy ****s.

Exactly.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 09:59 AM
Hardcap won't help much.

There's ways of manipulating it. The banana boat crew all took less money to play with each other with the Heat.


Having a Hardcap would stress the need of cheap contracts, you would see a lot more tanking.

They took slightly less. Not $5-10 million less per year like a hard cap would force.

In my layout, you can't tank because my system would only allow a top 3 pick 2 times in a 5 year span. There would also be a cap floor so it's harder to tank anyways. Unless you want to overpay crappy players for the sole purpose of intentionally sucking.

warfelg
05-11-2017, 10:01 AM
If there's no max and a hard cap I don't see how it gets manipulated.

No NFL team has figured it out. No NHL team has figured it out. And players won't sacrifice that much money.

BKLYNpigeon
05-11-2017, 10:01 AM
If you have a hard cap at 150m, you should have a salary floor at 120m.


But it's impossible to get owners to agree to this. It's s business and you can't tell them how they should make or spend their money.

warfelg
05-11-2017, 10:03 AM
I think the owners would easily agree. It's the players who will reject that.

BKLYNpigeon
05-11-2017, 10:09 AM
I think the owners would easily agree. It's the players who will reject that.

Of course not.

Let's say KD is a free agent and deserves a Max contract at 30m a year. All 30 teams managed their cap poorly and Sacramento has the most cap available at 20m. KD gets screwed?

Vee-Rex
05-11-2017, 10:11 AM
HOU and SAS are not on the same tier as GS, we will find that out pretty soon. And why is there multiple posts talking hypo's about KD being on the Thunder when he's on the Warriors?

The playoffs are **** because of GS and CLE. The undercard series are somewhat exciting but the undercard is still the undercard and none of those guys have a chance next round.

I do agree with FOX that the exploding cap really created unique one-time circumstances so I'm not really blaming the league for this one.

I think GS is closer to HOU/SAS level without KD, and that was my point. KD's decision catapulted GS into the stars compared to the other teams, while simultaneously eliminating OKC from contendership and making it literally impossible for teams like LAC to have a shot.

My post was aimed at people who blame the league for the parity issue, and I was just pointing out that the league has a good system in place now and was about as balanced as ever before at the top end before one decision screwed it all up.

I realize Cleveland is in their own world because they're in the East, but I think some of THAT blame should go to the owners and organizations of the East teams who refuse to build a roster to challenge LeBron and would rather wait it out.

da ThRONe
05-11-2017, 10:11 AM
If you have a hard cap at 150m, you should have a salary floor at 120m.


But it's impossible to get owners to agree to this. It's s business and you can't tell them how they should make or spend their money.

Owners already agree in two sports.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:14 AM
I think the owners would easily agree. It's the players who will reject that.

I think the players would be ok with it because of the floor. You're reducing the amount the top teams spend but increasing the amount the bottom feeders spend so in the end the same money is available, it's just spread out.

Top players like LeBron, CP3, etc can make a ton more because there's no max.

There will be more money available league wide so the mid tier players can still get paid.

Also the exceptions won't be available which means more money for vet players. Unless they want to take a vet min deal to play for a contender they'll take the multi million dollars available from teams with cap space.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:15 AM
I think GS is closer to HOU/SAS level without KD, and that was my point. KD's decision catapulted GS into the stars compared to the other teams, while simultaneously eliminating OKC from contendership and making it literally impossible for teams like LAC to have a shot.

My post was aimed at people who blame the league for the parity issue, and I was just pointing out that the league has a good system in place now and was about as balanced as ever before at the top end before one decision screwed it all up.

I realize Cleveland is in their own world because they're in the East, but I think some of THAT blame should go to the owners and organizations of the East teams who refuse to build a roster to challenge LeBron and would rather wait it out.

Ultimately yes it was KD's decision. But the league structure is what allowed it to happen, that's the point. If there's a hard cap, he doesn't have the option to make that choice. So in the end, yes it's due to the leagues structure.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:17 AM
Of course not.

Let's say KD is a free agent and deserves a Max contract at 30m a year. All 30 teams managed their cap poorly and Sacramento has the most cap available at 20m. KD gets screwed?

That won't happen. Players can be traded to create needed cap space.

Take the Celtics for example. Say this roster they have is up against the cap but they have a shot at KD and he wants $30 mil. The Celtics could easily trade Zeller and Amir for a 2nd round pick (some team would do that) and create the room needed to sign KD to what he wants.

BKLYNpigeon
05-11-2017, 10:17 AM
Owners already agree in two sports.

And MLB has no salary cap and it's one of the most competitively balanced leagues.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 10:18 AM
Here's why I'm ok with that situation if there's a hard cap. I'm not ok with KD going to GS because there is no hard cap and they have the ability to keep him. With a hard cap they wouldn't be able to.

...

It's a better system

But, you said you would be okay with LeBron going to that team full stop, not that you'd be okay with it only if there was a hard cap.

Also, if there was a hard cap it would likely be around where the tax level is now so all those numbers would be far higher. Also, if there was a hard cap players would be more likely to take smaller contracts to stay on a great team whereas right now there is no incentive to take less.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:20 AM
And MLB has no salary cap and it's one of the most competitively balanced leagues.

They don't but the way it's structured with their taxes it's very similar to the NBA. The most similar of any other sport. But the sports are so different that the results are completely different. So suggesting because it works in the MLB it's fine for the NBA is crazy. Proof is in the pudding. In the MLB it works. In the NBA it doesn't

BKLYNpigeon
05-11-2017, 10:23 AM
That won't happen. Players can be traded to create needed cap space.

Take the Celtics for example. Say this roster they have is up against the cap but they have a shot at KD and he wants $30 mil. The Celtics could easily trade Zeller and Amir for a 2nd round pick (some team would do that) and create the room needed to sign KD to what he wants.


lets say you're George Hill, #10 free agent that year. you get screwed because all the cap is used up on other players because you happened to be a free agent that year.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 10:24 AM
They took slightly less. Not $5-10 million less per year like a hard cap would force.

In my layout, you can't tank because my system would only allow a top 3 pick 2 times in a 5 year span. There would also be a cap floor so it's harder to tank anyways. Unless you want to overpay crappy players for the sole purpose of intentionally sucking.

So you define tanking not as losing intentionally to get a better draft pick, but only as losing intentionally 3 out of 5 years? Wow, allowing teams to lose intentionally 2 out of 5 years still sounds pretty bad.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:24 AM
But, you said you would be okay with LeBron going to that team full stop, not that you'd be okay with it only if there was a hard cap.

Actually I did.


They wouldn't have the money to sign LBJ with a hard cap though. So as long as that was in place, I'm good.


Also, if there was a hard cap it would likely be around where the tax level is now so all those numbers would be far higher. Also, if there was a hard cap players would be more likely to take smaller contracts to stay on a great team whereas right now there is no incentive to take less.

I don't think you can definitively say that's where it would be. Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't. I'm more inclined to think it would be set somewhere between the cap and the tax.

If a player wants to take THAT much less to make it work. Then that's the players choice. They do it now. But now they're taking a couple million less...Not $5-10 million less per year. I don't think they'd take that drastic of a cut just to be on a super team. The talent level would be spread out much more so I think they'd just take the money and go to a decent team that fits their style...Being that all teams are closer and 1 addition could take a team from not making the playoffs to being a contender.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:26 AM
So you define tanking not as losing intentionally to get a better draft pick, but only as losing intentionally 3 out of 5 years? Wow, allowing teams to lose intentionally 2 out of 5 years still sounds pretty bad.

It happens right now...With PHI. It's also going to be harder to tank when you have a cap floor. Owners aren't going to overpay crappy players just to hit the floor and tank. Because they'll get there top player in the draft but have a roster loaded with huge contracts and crappy players. It wouldn't make sense to tank like that

BKLYNpigeon
05-11-2017, 10:27 AM
if you want a competitive balance.

Hire a competent Front Office.

The Warriors were awful for 40 years until they hired the right people and drafted the right players.


if you have a Hard Cap and still draft poorly, you will still suck.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:27 AM
lets say you're George Hill, #10 free agent that year. you get screwed because all the cap is used up on other players because you happened to be a free agent that year.

All the cap space isn't going to be used up...Not with a high floor like that. Using you're numbers, if the floor is $120M teams will have cap space to sign George Hill.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 10:28 AM
If there's no max and a hard cap I don't see how it gets manipulated.

No NFL team has figured it out. No NHL team has figured it out. And players won't sacrifice that much money.

They do it all the time ... whenever a player signs a new deal for less than a "comparable" player makes on another team. The fact that the NBA has maximum contracts actually means more players sign for max deals. If there were no max deals then most players would be making less money and a few players would make a lot more.

Are you going to stop NBA contracts from being guaranteed? Because those guaranteed deals were the cause of the max deal being a thing.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:28 AM
if you want a competitive balance.

Hire a competent Front Office.

The Warriors were awful for 40 years until they hired the right people and drafted the right players.

It's not that simple. So you're implying every other FO in the league is incompetent because they can't compete with GS this year? Because no team can...

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:29 AM
They do it all the time ... whenever a player signs a new deal for less than a "comparable" player makes on another team. The fact that the NBA has maximum contracts actually means more players sign for max deals. If there were no max deals then most players would be making less money and a few players would make a lot more.

Are you going to stop NBA contracts from being guaranteed? Because those guaranteed deals were the cause of the max deal being a thing.

Contracts are guaranteed in the NHL and this doesn't happen...

Scoots
05-11-2017, 10:31 AM
I think GS is closer to HOU/SAS level without KD, and that was my point. KD's decision catapulted GS into the stars compared to the other teams, while simultaneously eliminating OKC from contendership and making it literally impossible for teams like LAC to have a shot.

My post was aimed at people who blame the league for the parity issue, and I was just pointing out that the league has a good system in place now and was about as balanced as ever before at the top end before one decision screwed it all up.

I realize Cleveland is in their own world because they're in the East, but I think some of THAT blame should go to the owners and organizations of the East teams who refuse to build a roster to challenge LeBron and would rather wait it out.

Not that they are at all comparable, but had KD not been able to go to the Warriors they'd still Have Harrison Barnes, and while Barnes is no KD, he's not nothing either. I think the Warriors would still be the clear best team.

BKLYNpigeon
05-11-2017, 10:31 AM
It's not that simple. So you're implying every other FO in the league is incompetent because they can't compete with GS this year? Because no team can...

but you can't fault the Warriors because they're light years ahead. :P

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 10:31 AM
It happens right now...With PHI. It's also going to be harder to tank when you have a cap floor. Owners aren't going to overpay crappy players just to hit the floor and tank. Because they'll get there top player in the draft but have a roster loaded with huge contracts and crappy players. It wouldn't make sense to tank like that

There is a cap floor and Philly has already done what you think owners wouldn't do. They are also the only team to truly tank, which is much different than going with a full youth rebuild where you try to grow and get better each year.

Ultimately, no matter what rules are in place, there will always be organizations that are run far better than others. I don't care what rules are in place, as long as the Knicks continue to operate as they have under James Dolan then it's going to be very hard to build a winning team. Basketball being dominated so much by individuals also means that the teams with the best 1-5 players or so will always have a large advantage over the rest.

It's been that way since the dawn of time. The list of NBA champions is a small one and every decade except the 70's has been dominated by one or two teams.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:32 AM
Not that they are at all comparable, but had KD not been able to go to the Warriors they'd still Have Harrison Barnes, and while Barnes is no KD, he's not nothing either. I think the Warriors would still be the clear best team.

They'd be a top team. They'd have the same team they had the prior year minus Bogut and Ezeli. A year when they lost the finals. They wouldn't be a clear cut favorite like they are now. No way.

BKLYNpigeon
05-11-2017, 10:34 AM
Contracts are guaranteed in the NHL and this doesn't happen...

Its the NHL and nobody cares!

If The Bachelor gets higher ratings the the Stanley Cup Finals. you got issues. lol

Scoots
05-11-2017, 10:34 AM
Owners already agree in two sports.

There are a lot of examples of evolution of a situation being "accepted" by people, but people who are starting from a completely different situation would never "accept" the new rules in bulk.

If you told NBA owners that they could make just as much money a year and only play 16 games they'd probably jump at it ... but that's not going to happen either :)

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:35 AM
There is a cap floor and Philly has already done what you think owners wouldn't do. They are also the only team to truly tank, which is much different than going with a full youth rebuild where you try to grow and get better each year.

Ultimately, no matter what rules are in place, there will always be organizations that are run far better than others. I don't care what rules are in place, as long as the Knicks continue to operate as they have under James Dolan then it's going to be very hard to build a winning team. Basketball being dominated so much by individuals also means that the teams with the best 1-5 players or so will always have a large advantage over the rest.

It's been that way since the dawn of time. The list of NBA champions is a small one and every decade except the 70's has been dominated by one or two teams.

Of course the FO is still going to matter. That's not the point of this. The point is getting the league so 7 of the top 10 players in the league aren't on 3-4 teams...

If you get the top 10 players spread across 8 teams. Or the top 20 players spread across 15 teams. It's a better more competitive league. The teams that will be successful will have FO that make wise cap decisions and draft well. That's just a better more competitive league with a more even playing field.

Of course there will still be bad teams. There are in every professional sport. That's not the point. The point is that instead of 2 teams towering over the league, you have 8-10 teams that are legit contenders. 10-12 teams that are on the cusp of being contenders and then you'll have you bottom feeders.

Just because in previous decades the NBA has been dominated by a handful of teams doesn't mean we should just accept it because that's how its always been. The NBA instituted Free Agency in the late 80's because competitive balance was so bad. It spawned the best era in NBA history in the 90's. The should keep advancing that ideology. Instead they settled for good enough.

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 10:40 AM
Let's be honest about the Warriors - the Warriors aren't what they are because of Kevin Durant. Or Andre Iguodala. The Warriors are what they are because they drafted Stephen Curry at #7, Klay Thompson at #11 and Draymond Green at #35. Just be happy that they selected Ekpe Udoh at #6 instead of Gordon Hayward or Paul George, who went #9 and #10. If they do that, they don't need Barnes at #7 in 2012, or maybe are a little lower and get Andre Drummond at #9.

Curry
Klay
Hayward/George
Green
Drummond

This could have been the Warriors lineup too. The Warriors are just greatly run, we're right to be jealous lol.

BKLYNpigeon
05-11-2017, 10:40 AM
all these super teams have a short lifespan. When the warriors die out in 2-3 years or when Lebron slows down, someone else steps up.

I bet if the Celtics Trade for Jimmy Butler, Gets Gordon Hayward, and Jalen Brown is an allstar, and you have to go into the Luxury tax to retain all of them. Your argument will change.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:43 AM
Let's be honest about the Warriors - the Warriors aren't what they are because of Kevin Durant. Or Andre Iguodala. The Warriors are what they are because they drafted Stephen Curry at #7, Klay Thompson at #11 and Draymond Green at #35. Just be happy that they selected Ekpe Udoh at #6 instead of Gordon Hayward or Paul George, who went #9 and #10. If they do that, they don't need Barnes at #7 in 2012, or maybe are a little lower and get Andre Drummond at #9.

Curry
Klay
Hayward/George
Green
Drummond

This could have been the Warriors lineup too. The Warriors are just greatly run, we're right to be jealous lol.

You can if this and if that all day. If the Celtics draft Giannis instead of Olynyk they probably have a chance to beat CLE this year. But that didn't happen.

GS lost the finals last year without KD. If he's not there they aren't sweeping the first 2 rounds (still win though) and SAS, OKC and HOU are right there with them. But add KD to the mix and they're worlds better than everyone else.

hugepatsfan
05-11-2017, 10:44 AM
I don't think we need to overreact to the special circumstances that exist now. Without the huge cap spike and Durant being a wimp, even with as AMAZING a job as GS has done building their team, they wouldn't have been able to put together such a juggernaut.

CLE towers above the rest of the East but they have Lebron F'ing James - probably the all time GOAT. But they aren't a team no one can compare too. Unfortunately, it just so happens that all of the rest of the game's elite (Curry, Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Leonard) are all in the West. The system isn't broken, it's just that unfortunately the top tier talent heavily favors the West. Wall and Giannis seem on their way to that tier of player though. Those teams just need to continue to develop their supporting cast and make some smart moves and they'd be able to push CLE. BOS doesn't have the ability to get that tier of star but they have enough assets where if they time their moves right they could land enough of the "lower tier stars" that they are great competition themselves.

I don't think there's anything wrong systematically with the league. I think the parity people would want would exist if the East landed some of the top heavy talent the West has and the one-time cap spike didn't happen like it did (or if Durant just had a pair). I think all of these solutions have bad consequences. I don't want the talent spread too thin. It's a star's league. You give every team a star player and still only the top few will really compete because there's a big difference between a top 5 player and a top 15 guy.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:45 AM
all these super teams have a short lifespan. When the warriors die out in 2-3 years or when Lebron slows down, someone else steps up.

I bet if the Celtics Trade for Jimmy Butler, Gets Gordon Hayward, and Jalen Brown is an allstar, and you have to go into the Luxury tax to retain all of them. Your argument will change.

It really wouldn't. I just want a better NBA. Regardless of my team. If they do that and the rules are what they are, of course I'm happy. If I had a choice between that team and a hard cap to create a better NBA, I would honestly choose a better NBA.

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 10:48 AM
Of course the FO is still going to matter. That's not the point of this. The point is getting the league so 7 of the top 10 players in the league aren't on 3-4 teams...

If you get the top 10 players spread across 8 teams. Or the top 20 players spread across 15 teams. It's a better more competitive league. The teams that will be successful will have FO that make wise cap decisions and draft well. That's just a better more competitive league with a more even playing field.

Of course there will still be bad teams. There are in every professional sport. That's not the point. The point is that instead of 2 teams towering over the league, you have 8-10 teams that are legit contenders. 10-12 teams that are on the cusp of being contenders and then you'll have you bottom feeders.

Just because in previous decades the NBA has been dominated by a handful of teams doesn't mean we should just accept it because that's how its always been. The NBA instituted Free Agency in the late 80's because competitive balance was so bad. It spawned the best era in NBA history in the 90's. The should keep advancing that ideology. Instead they settled for good enough.

Yeah but you can't fault teams for being great drafters. As a Celtics fan, you have had two super high picks thanks to Billy King's incompetence. Just because they have been Marcus Smart and Jaylen Brown, two good but not Steph Curry level players, isn't anyone's fault. They have another top 4 pick in this strong draft. They have another top 10 or so in 2018 coming. If the Celtics fail to build a dominant contender with assets like that on hand, then it's nobody's fault but their own.

The cap explosion created a unique situation. The NBA wanted to smooth the cap to avoid things like Durant to Golden State, but the players said no and wanted their money right away. Oh well, now you have Durant on Golden State. Cleveland had an odd situation where they won the lotto 3 times in 4 years. One of those picks was Kyrie, great, Bennett, a complete bust, and Wiggins, ammo for a Kevin Love trade. Ultimately, LeBron wanting to go there in the free agency you mention is why they are all-time stacked.

Unless you put in some sort of entitlement system like limiting how many All-NBA or All-Star players a team can have, which of course would be ridiculous, then there's nothing you can do about some teams just being run far better than others.

Dude, you're a Patriots fan. Come on lol.

hugepatsfan
05-11-2017, 10:48 AM
Let's be honest about the Warriors - the Warriors aren't what they are because of Kevin Durant. Or Andre Iguodala. The Warriors are what they are because they drafted Stephen Curry at #7, Klay Thompson at #11 and Draymond Green at #35. Just be happy that they selected Ekpe Udoh at #6 instead of Gordon Hayward or Paul George, who went #9 and #10. If they do that, they don't need Barnes at #7 in 2012, or maybe are a little lower and get Andre Drummond at #9.

Curry
Klay
Hayward/George
Green
Drummond

This could have been the Warriors lineup too. The Warriors are just greatly run, we're right to be jealous lol.

No one is saying that it isn't the product of their amazing team building. People aren't discrediting that. All people are saying is that their team is stacked to the point where they're losing interest in the sport because they don't view it as competitive anymore.

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 10:51 AM
You can if this and if that all day. If the Celtics draft Giannis instead of Olynyk they probably have a chance to beat CLE this year. But that didn't happen.

GS lost the finals last year without KD. If he's not there they aren't sweeping the first 2 rounds (still win though) and SAS, OKC and HOU are right there with them. But add KD to the mix and they're worlds better than everyone else.

Okay, but why did Kevin Durant want to go to Golden State in free agency to begin with? It's because Golden State had Curry, Klay and Green, three players they drafted and got insanely incredible value on when taking their selection spot into consideration. Some teams get a Curry, a Giannis, a Kawhi. Some teams get a Beasley, a Thabeet, a Bennett. Them be the breaks.

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 10:56 AM
No one is saying that it isn't the product of their amazing team building. People aren't discrediting that. All people are saying is that their team is stacked to the point where they're losing interest in the sport because they don't view it as competitive anymore.

I get that, but to say that there is something the league could have done to prevent it just isn't true. The league tried to smooth the cap, the NBAPA said no. The league has put in the repeater tax, they have now added extra incentive in this new CBA for star players to stay with their team. The league is doing what it realistically can, but you can't stop some teams being far better than others.

The Spurs front office is to the Knicks front office as LeBron James is to JaVale McGee or something lol.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:59 AM
Yeah but you can't fault teams for being great drafters. As a Celtics fan, you have had two super high picks thanks to Billy King's incompetence. Just because they have been Marcus Smart and Jaylen Brown, two good but not Steph Curry level players, isn't anyone's fault. They have another top 4 pick in this strong draft. They have another top 10 or so in 2018 coming. If the Celtics fail to build a dominant contender with assets like that on hand, then it's nobody's fault but their own.

I haven't once even suggested that. That's what I want. I want teams to be built through the draft and from making wise decisions. Not be great because a top 5 player wants to sign with you and you can go over the cap to get them. It's dumb.


The cap explosion created a unique situation. The NBA wanted to smooth the cap to avoid things like Durant to Golden State, but the players said no and wanted their money right away. Oh well, now you have Durant on Golden State. Cleveland had an odd situation where they won the lotto 3 times in 4 years. One of those picks was Kyrie, great, Bennett, a complete bust, and Wiggins, ammo for a Kevin Love trade. Ultimately, LeBron wanting to go there in the free agency you mention is why they are all-time stacked.

Agreed. But the cap explosion didn't stop the big 3 in Miami. That's more to my point. And it definitely aided in KD, whether its a one time deal or not, it negatively affected the league for the next 3-5 years.


Unless you put in some sort of entitlement system like limiting how many All-NBA or All-Star players a team can have, which of course would be ridiculous, then there's nothing you can do about some teams just being run far better than others.

Again, it's not about teams being run better than others. That's always going to exist in any sport. It's about structuring the league to help spread the talent away from 3-4 teams to 8-10 teams. That's all. It's never going to be 100% even. And it shouldn't be. You should be rewarded for doing a good job building your team. But you shouldn't have an unfair advantage by going over the cap.


Dude, you're a Patriots fan. Come on lol.

Perfect example of how a FO should run. With a hard cap.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 10:59 AM
i get that, but to say that there is something the league could have done to prevent it just isn't true. The league tried to smooth the cap, the nbapa said no. The league has put in the repeater tax, they have now added extra incentive in this new cba for star players to stay with their team. The league is doing what it realistically can, but you can't stop some teams being far better than others.

the spurs front office is to the knicks front office as lebron james is to javale mcgee or something lol.

nobody is saying that

Scoots
05-11-2017, 11:02 AM
I don't think you can definitively say that's where it would be. Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't. I'm more inclined to think it would be set somewhere between the cap and the tax.

I said it would be higher than the old cap, and I said it would be closer to the tax ... you are saying it would be between the cap and the tax ... I think we agree then that it would be more than the numbers you used.


If a player wants to take THAT much less to make it work. Then that's the players choice. They do it now. But now they're taking a couple million less...Not $5-10 million less per year. I don't think they'd take that drastic of a cut just to be on a super team. The talent level would be spread out much more so I think they'd just take the money and go to a decent team that fits their style...Being that all teams are closer and 1 addition could take a team from not making the playoffs to being a contender.

Tim Duncan took WAAAAAY less than the max ... in that $10M rainge you speak of.

At any rate ... the hard cap doesn't solve the balance issues it just moves things around because the money paid to the players is fixed by the CBA and every dollar over the cap now would have to be paid within the cap and the teams best at adding talent would still be best at adding talent.

I totally agree that the simplest solution is a hard cap with no max contracts with no minimum contracts with no guaranteed contracts with no minimum lengths and no maximum lengths ... it's just that there is no way it happens and that that system will not have other issues not forseen. All of this stuff is little pushes and pulls between owners and players (agents) and all of them fight very hard for every inch gained wherever it's been gained.

I'm not arguing that the hard cap is a problem ... I'm saying that assuming it "fixes" competitive balance has not been proven to me. You can't look at the league how it is today, slap a hard cap on it and say "see these things would have to change" because if there was a hard cap then tens of thousands of things would have changed before we got here. If a hard cap was instituted (and the NBA did have a hard cap in the past) it would have to be out in the future some ways to allow all the contracts to be worked out under the new rules. So if it was agreed on it probably wouldn't take effect until 10 years from now as it can't be implemented until the next CBA, and that's in 5 years, and in that CBA it would have to either be so high all of the current contracts could be honored (and contracts can be up to 5 years), or postponed until all new contracts were signed with the coming hard cap in mind.

All of which brings me back to my fundamental position that you don't change the rules to "fix" the Warriors situation because it's never going to happen again anyway and we have no idea how the current rules will affect balance in the long run. By the time the next CBA comes around chances are the Cavs and Warriors are no longer the top dogs and we'll be talking about the Wolves and Sixers ... or whatever.

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 11:03 AM
It's also worth noting that while, yes, Cleveland has done a good job adding pieces along the way, they aren't run on some great level. They really just got lucky with the lotto and with the fact that LeBron James is from Cleveland. As soon as LeBron goes, they're likely going right back to the cellar.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 11:05 AM
Of course the FO is still going to matter. That's not the point of this. The point is getting the league so 7 of the top 10 players in the league aren't on 3-4 teams...

If you get the top 10 players spread across 8 teams. Or the top 20 players spread across 15 teams. It's a better more competitive league. The teams that will be successful will have FO that make wise cap decisions and draft well. That's just a better more competitive league with a more even playing field.

Of course there will still be bad teams. There are in every professional sport. That's not the point. The point is that instead of 2 teams towering over the league, you have 8-10 teams that are legit contenders. 10-12 teams that are on the cusp of being contenders and then you'll have you bottom feeders.

Just because in previous decades the NBA has been dominated by a handful of teams doesn't mean we should just accept it because that's how its always been. The NBA instituted Free Agency in the late 80's because competitive balance was so bad. It spawned the best era in NBA history in the 90's. The should keep advancing that ideology. Instead they settled for good enough.

Just curious who are these 7 of the top 10 players you speak of that are a problem now?

I think it's possible that some of the "best" players look particularly good because their team is great, and there are players on other teams that are not seen as being as good simply by virtue of them being on bad teams.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 11:07 AM
You can if this and if that all day. If the Celtics draft Giannis instead of Olynyk they probably have a chance to beat CLE this year. But that didn't happen.

GS lost the finals last year without KD. If he's not there they aren't sweeping the first 2 rounds (still win though) and SAS, OKC and HOU are right there with them. But add KD to the mix and they're worlds better than everyone else.

You do realize you are doing "if this if that" too right? If there was a hard cap ...

hugepatsfan
05-11-2017, 11:10 AM
You do realize you are doing "if this if that" too right? If there was a hard cap ...

There's quite the difference between "if this if that" to defend a proposed change that he thinks would make the NBA better and explaining how it would have impacted the landscape of the league as reasoning for why he supports that change compared to just rattling off "if" a team drafted the absolute 100% best option at every draft pick for 5 years straight.

sep11ie
05-11-2017, 11:15 AM
Hard cap is the only way to go. Only problem with that is it all but kills small market team's ability to retain their drafted stars.

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 11:16 AM
I haven't once even suggested that. That's what I want. I want teams to be built through the draft and from making wise decisions. Not be great because a top 5 player wants to sign with you and you can go over the cap to get them. It's dumb.

You can't sign someone with it putting you over the cap, though. Well, other than the MLE, MMLE or min deals, but obviously that doesn't apply to Durant. They had the cap space to sign Durant outright and did so and that was thanks to years of strong drafting and from making wise decisions. The Warriors already are what you want, they just are that on the highest level and from a fortunate cap explosion circumstance.


Agreed. But the cap explosion didn't stop the big 3 in Miami. That's more to my point. And it definitely aided in KD, whether its a one time deal or not, it negatively affected the league for the next 3-5 years.

But doesn't that also mean that a hard cap wouldn't stop them either? If players want to take a pay cut, which those three actually did, how can you stop that? Same with guys like Duncan and Dirk doing it over the years.


Again, it's not about teams being run better than others. That's always going to exist in any sport. It's about structuring the league to help spread the talent away from 3-4 teams to 8-10 teams. That's all. It's never going to be 100% even. And it shouldn't be. You should be rewarded for doing a good job building your team. But you shouldn't have an unfair advantage by going over the cap.

I think that system is already in place. Bird's Rights are an interesting thing. Without that, you run into a situation where teams are penalized for being too good at drafting, and that already happens anyways. Remember OKC trading James Harden because they couldn't afford to go too over the cap as a small market? With a hard cap yeah, maybe it forces Durant, WB and Ibaka to take less for all four to fit. Or, maybe that just leads to them losing even more than Harden if some other team can pay them 2x or 3x as much?


Perfect example of how a FO should run. With a hard cap.

With a hard cap you can't have guaranteed contracts, just like the NFL. Trust me, as a Knicks fan, I wish that Noah could be cut at some point for much less of a cap penalty than his contract will be. But really, that doesn't change anything. All that leads to is a ton of more roster turnover and players shuffling around the league after they've been cut. It also can lead to things like late cuts being made after the draft/FA for teams to get under the cap, and sometimes that means a player gets to sign somewhere way under market value from that circumstance. You know, like the NFL.

The NBA system is actually more strict as a result and forces teams to be run better. The Knicks will be greatly penalized by the Noah contract in FA, where as an NFL team can make a signing like that with two years of guaranteed money and then clear it to get out earlier.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 11:18 AM
I haven't once even suggested that. That's what I want. I want teams to be built through the draft and from making wise decisions. Not be great because a top 5 player wants to sign with you and you can go over the cap to get them. It's dumb.

But you are okay with free agents, and you are okay with them deciding where they want to go and how much money they want. So you are okay with KD going to the Warriors since they signed him without going over the cap. We have no idea if they will keep him, or what it will cost them in roster to do so but probably they lose Livingston, Zaza, Clark, McAdoo, and maybe McGee.

warfelg
05-11-2017, 11:20 AM
I said it would be higher than the old cap, and I said it would be closer to the tax ... you are saying it would be between the cap and the tax ... I think we agree then that it would be more than the numbers you used.



Tim Duncan took WAAAAAY less than the max ... in that $10M rainge you speak of.

At any rate ... the hard cap doesn't solve the balance issues it just moves things around because the money paid to the players is fixed by the CBA and every dollar over the cap now would have to be paid within the cap and the teams best at adding talent would still be best at adding talent.

I totally agree that the simplest solution is a hard cap with no max contracts with no minimum contracts with no guaranteed contracts with no minimum lengths and no maximum lengths ... it's just that there is no way it happens and that that system will not have other issues not forseen. All of this stuff is little pushes and pulls between owners and players (agents) and all of them fight very hard for every inch gained wherever it's been gained.

I'm not arguing that the hard cap is a problem ... I'm saying that assuming it "fixes" competitive balance has not been proven to me. You can't look at the league how it is today, slap a hard cap on it and say "see these things would have to change" because if there was a hard cap then tens of thousands of things would have changed before we got here. If a hard cap was instituted (and the NBA did have a hard cap in the past) it would have to be out in the future some ways to allow all the contracts to be worked out under the new rules. So if it was agreed on it probably wouldn't take effect until 10 years from now as it can't be implemented until the next CBA, and that's in 5 years, and in that CBA it would have to either be so high all of the current contracts could be honored (and contracts can be up to 5 years), or postponed until all new contracts were signed with the coming hard cap in mind.

All of which brings me back to my fundamental position that you don't change the rules to "fix" the Warriors situation because it's never going to happen again anyway and we have no idea how the current rules will affect balance in the long run. By the time the next CBA comes around chances are the Cavs and Warriors are no longer the top dogs and we'll be talking about the Wolves and Sixers ... or whatever.

While I agree what there's no proof that a hard cap won't fix a competitive imbalance; I disagree about the length of time or anything like that.

Reasons I like a hard cap:
It forces teams to make tough decisions. It's too easy on them. Bird rights and a tax means they can just about retain anyone.

Free agency is more entertaining. Imagine a world where teams had to let a guy walk because they didn't have the cap. Then it isn't should the Raps keep Lowry and Ibaka, but which of Lowry and Ibaka should they keep. Far more interesting.

I think managing a hard cap, trading under a hard cap, and thinking long term with a hard cap, would really separate the good front offices from the bad ones. I think some of the "good" front offices were more lucky than good TBH.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 11:21 AM
nobody is saying that

Isn't "Competitive Balance" achieved by having more teams closer to equal to each other? And isn't that effectively "stop some teams being far better than others."?

Scoots
05-11-2017, 11:25 AM
There's quite the difference between "if this if that" to defend a proposed change that he thinks would make the NBA better and explaining how it would have impacted the landscape of the league as reasoning for why he supports that change compared to just rattling off "if" a team drafted the absolute 100% best option at every draft pick for 5 years straight.

Using a hyperbolic hypothetical can be an effective means to illustrate the unreasonableness of someones position. But arguing against hypotheticals while arguing with hypotheticals makes no sense. And in this case, the Warriors are only the Warriors because they drafted exceedingly well and if they are what we are discussing ways to control then applying that pattern to another team DOES make sense.

hugepatsfan
05-11-2017, 11:26 AM
Isn't "Competitive Balance" achieved by having more teams closer to equal to each other? And isn't that effectively "stop some teams being far better than others."?

It's only effectively saying that because you refuse to see it as anything other than black and white. Oak isn't saying that you still wouldn't have teams that are best in the NBA. He's saying the system changes he propose would make it harder to be better by such a gap that the outcome feels totally inevitable and not worth watching as a neutral fan.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 11:28 AM
Hard cap is the only way to go. Only problem with that is it all but kills small market team's ability to retain their drafted stars.

Debatable.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 11:31 AM
Isn't "Competitive Balance" achieved by having more teams closer to equal to each other? And isn't that effectively "stop some teams being far better than others."?

It makes them closer yes. But if you still look at the #1 team and #30 team under my changes, there will be a big gap. But there won't be as big of a gap between #1 and #4 like it is right now.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 11:32 AM
While I agree what there's no proof that a hard cap won't fix a competitive imbalance; I disagree about the length of time or anything like that.

Reasons I like a hard cap:
It forces teams to make tough decisions. It's too easy on them. Bird rights and a tax means they can just about retain anyone.

Free agency is more entertaining. Imagine a world where teams had to let a guy walk because they didn't have the cap. Then it isn't should the Raps keep Lowry and Ibaka, but which of Lowry and Ibaka should they keep. Far more interesting.

I think managing a hard cap, trading under a hard cap, and thinking long term with a hard cap, would really separate the good front offices from the bad ones. I think some of the "good" front offices were more lucky than good TBH.

Exactly

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 11:34 AM
But you are okay with free agents, and you are okay with them deciding where they want to go and how much money they want. So you are okay with KD going to the Warriors since they signed him without going over the cap. We have no idea if they will keep him, or what it will cost them in roster to do so but probably they lose Livingston, Zaza, Clark, McAdoo, and maybe McGee.

Yes. I'm fine if a team can work it for 1 year. But that's not the case now. They can keep bringing Durant back because they can work around a soft cap. In a hard capped scenario, KD is a goner after the season. And that would be good for the NBA

Scoots
05-11-2017, 11:35 AM
While I agree what there's no proof that a hard cap won't fix a competitive imbalance; I disagree about the length of time or anything like that.

Reasons I like a hard cap:
It forces teams to make tough decisions. It's too easy on them. Bird rights and a tax means they can just about retain anyone.

Free agency is more entertaining. Imagine a world where teams had to let a guy walk because they didn't have the cap. Then it isn't should the Raps keep Lowry and Ibaka, but which of Lowry and Ibaka should they keep. Far more interesting.

I think managing a hard cap, trading under a hard cap, and thinking long term with a hard cap, would really separate the good front offices from the bad ones. I think some of the "good" front offices were more lucky than good TBH.

Teams have to make tough decisions already. This off-season the Clippers have to make tough decisions about CP3, Griffin, and Reddick. They CAN pay them all, but if they do that is their team for the next 5 years. The Raptors have to make tough decisions. A lot of teams have to make tough decisions. The decisions are different, and the options are fewer with a hard cap.

The Bird rights only apply after a player has been on the roster for 3 years so teams can't just sign any significant free agents unless they are under the cap, hard or otherwise.

How about making trades easier? Right now because of salary matching requirements too many teams trade away future picks which hamstrings their future. Make it easier for teams to improve and teams will be more able to move up a tier.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 11:38 AM
It's only effectively saying that because you refuse to see it as anything other than black and white. Oak isn't saying that you still wouldn't have teams that are best in the NBA. He's saying the system changes he propose would make it harder to be better by such a gap that the outcome feels totally inevitable and not worth watching as a neutral fan.

It's not a matter of black and white it's a matter of the definition of language ... competitive balance does mean there will be more competitive teams ... which means the top team will not be as far away from the 2nd best team which will not be as far away from the 3rd best team etc. That to me is literally trying to "stop some teams being far better than others."

I have no issue with parity ... I just don't believe there is any reason to change rules to keep a team like the Warriors from happening again as it's never going to happen again.

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 11:38 AM
While I agree what there's no proof that a hard cap won't fix a competitive imbalance; I disagree about the length of time or anything like that.

Reasons I like a hard cap:
It forces teams to make tough decisions. It's too easy on them. Bird rights and a tax means they can just about retain anyone.

Free agency is more entertaining. Imagine a world where teams had to let a guy walk because they didn't have the cap. Then it isn't should the Raps keep Lowry and Ibaka, but which of Lowry and Ibaka should they keep. Far more interesting.

I think managing a hard cap, trading under a hard cap, and thinking long term with a hard cap, would really separate the good front offices from the bad ones. I think some of the "good" front offices were more lucky than good TBH.

But Bird's Rights require a player to be there for a certain amount of years, which credits teams for long term building. They get transferred through trades, which allows teams to get something when they know they are going to lose a player for nothing. Ibaka being traded netted OKC Oladipo and a 1st and then Orlando Ross and a 1st, which is much better than watching him leave for nothing.

Really, it would only widen the equality gap. The weaker front offices would still be making worse moves and they would end up losing talent empty handed far more often.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 11:39 AM
You can't sign someone with it putting you over the cap, though. Well, other than the MLE, MMLE or min deals, but obviously that doesn't apply to Durant. They had the cap space to sign Durant outright and did so and that was thanks to years of strong drafting and from making wise decisions. The Warriors already are what you want, they just are that on the highest level and from a fortunate cap explosion circumstance.

Correct, but in a hard capped league, they wouldn't be able to re-sign him this offseason.


But doesn't that also mean that a hard cap wouldn't stop them either? If players want to take a pay cut, which those three actually did, how can you stop that? Same with guys like Duncan and Dirk doing it over the years.

They could. But you're talking massive pay cuts. The big 3 took a mil or 2 less to make the numbers work. In a hard cap they're taking 10 times that less which I doubt they would do.



I think that system is already in place. Bird's Rights are an interesting thing. Without that, you run into a situation where teams are penalized for being too good at drafting, and that already happens anyways. Remember OKC trading James Harden because they couldn't afford to go too over the cap as a small market? With a hard cap yeah, maybe it forces Durant, WB and Ibaka to take less for all four to fit. Or, maybe that just leads to them losing even more than Harden if some other team can pay them 2x or 3x as much?

Yup. It spreads talent around the league. Which makes it a better league. Perfect example.


With a hard cap you can't have guaranteed contracts, just like the NFL. Trust me, as a Knicks fan, I wish that Noah could be cut at some point for much less of a cap penalty than his contract will be. But really, that doesn't change anything. All that leads to is a ton of more roster turnover and players shuffling around the league after they've been cut. It also can lead to things like late cuts being made after the draft/FA for teams to get under the cap, and sometimes that means a player gets to sign somewhere way under market value from that circumstance. You know, like the NFL.

The NHL has a hard cap and guaranteed contracts. Also not all NBA contracts are fully guaranteed now. Just means the FO needs to be smart with their contracts they hand out.

I would propose a provision that 1 bad contract can be cut each year from the cap figure. But you have to pay that money still off the books. And you would forfeit a first round pick (or something like that)

warfelg
05-11-2017, 11:42 AM
But Bird's Rights require a player to be there for a certain amount of years, which credits teams for long term building. They get transferred through trades, which allows teams to get something when they know they are going to lose a player for nothing. Ibaka being traded netted OKC Oladipo and a 1st and then Orlando Ross and a 1st, which is much better than watching him leave for nothing.

Really, it would only widen the equality gap. The weaker front offices would still be making worse moves and they would end up losing talent empty handed far more often.

How would a greater number of better players widen the equality gap.

Let's say when TT became a FA and Cleveland signed him there was a hard cap; now either they have to move on from the likes of JR, Shump and a bunch others OR he's a FA and can sign with a team like Washington.

How did that widen the equality gap?

Scoots
05-11-2017, 11:46 AM
Yes. I'm fine if a team can work it for 1 year. But that's not the case now. They can keep bringing Durant back because they can work around a soft cap. In a hard capped scenario, KD is a goner after the season. And that would be good for the NBA

Actually, if we project the hard cap to be directly between next year's cap and tax it would be around $107M. If we assume KD opts out then the Warriors have $37M under contract. The remaining $70M can be distributed to just Curry and KD and a bunch of rookies, or they could negotiate Curry and KD to lower numbers and keep Iguodala and still have enough to sign a few ring seeking veterans.

This is what I'm saying ... there is no rule being proposed that keeps this bizarre set of events from repeating it's already incredibly incredibly unlikely.

TheIlladelph16
05-11-2017, 11:56 AM
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Since the NBA instituted Free Agency in 1988, the NBA competitive balance is at an all time low. The 80's featured 2 dominant teams because there was essentially no player movement outside of trades.

I don't think the Luxury tax is going to change anything. It's just money. Money follows championships. As an owner, you're not going to let LeBron James walk out the door or Kyrie or Love because of a luxury tax. They make more money when they win, so paying the tax won't have much of an impact. It will change their strategy slightly, but it's not going to stop them if you're GS or CLE. It'll deter teams on the fringe, not the front runners.

I mean, that statement would make some sense if we completely ignore the fact that the Bulls and Rockets won 8 out of 10 championships in the following decade. Unfortunately, that would seem to completely derail your point. There was even LESS parity in the 90's than there was in the 80's or the last decade.

I'm not saying this is only you, but this always feels like a selective memory thing. A ton of people have this idea that the league used to have a ton of parity without any real justification for it.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 11:58 AM
Actually, if we project the hard cap to be directly between next year's cap and tax it would be around $107M. If we assume KD opts out then the Warriors have $37M under contract. The remaining $70M can be distributed to just Curry and KD and a bunch of rookies, or they could negotiate Curry and KD to lower numbers and keep Iguodala and still have enough to sign a few ring seeking veterans.

This is what I'm saying ... there is no rule being proposed that keeps this bizarre set of events from repeating it's already incredibly incredibly unlikely.

Lets say there's a hard cap at $107.

Warriors have the following on the books
Thompson $17.8
Green $16.4
McCaw $1.3
Looney $1.2
Jones $1.2

That's $37.9M

They have cap holds for everyone else but let's say they drop them all but Curry so they can re-sign Durant
Curry $18.1

So there up to $60M in contracts for 6 players. Have to cap hold 12 roster spots so add another $5M for those spots

$65M contracts/holds...They have $42M to spend

They could re-sign Durant, let's call it $30M

Leaves them $12M in space which they add to Curry to get him up to $30M

Roster
1. Durant $30M
2. Curry $30M
3. Thompson $17.8
4. Green $16.4
5. McCaw $1.3
6. Looney $1.2
7. Jones $1.2
Roster spots 8-15 are going to be total scrubs Making an average of $600k. Not even feasible. There bench would be awful. Nobody good is taking a salary that low to make a difference.

Even with signing Durant, they're significantly worse. This is better for the NBA, definitely.

In all likelihood they let Durant walk and spend that money on a supporting cast.

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 11:59 AM
Correct, but in a hard capped league, they wouldn't be able to re-sign him this offseason.

Well everything would be different, though. The hard cap wouldn't be $101M, it would be more like that luxury line of $121M. A hard cap would change contracts throughout years, so all of the numbers in place wouldn't be the same. Even as is, the Warriors current cap with KD's opt in of $27.7M is $65.7M. That would give them $55.3M to sign Curry, the difference between KD's $27.7M and whatever he makes and then anything else they want to do. In a hard cap world, those two probably take less to allow for GS to do more.

Really, all a hard cap does is hurt the players in salary. Personally, I much prefer the players making money to the owners. The NBAPA is much better run than the NFLPA is.




They could. But you're talking massive pay cuts. The big 3 took a mil or 2 less to make the numbers work. In a hard cap they're taking 10 times that less which I doubt they would do.

Again, that's if the hard cap line is the same as the soft cap line which it wouldn't be. Those three were getting together no matter what, so in the end you maybe hurt their wallets a bit. Now think of how many teams could have competed them with their own hard cap, as few stars that age willingly take pay cuts of that size. You realize that the 07-08 Celtics, who were $29M over the cap, also don't exist in this world.


Yup. It spreads talent around the league. Which makes it a better league. Perfect example.

Right, so what you want is player welfare. You're punishing teams for drafting great and allowing opportunities for teams who draft busts. Sorry, I would never want to see that league. The designated veteran player exception coming is probably already going to do enough of that on it's own.


The NHL has a hard cap and guaranteed contracts. Also not all NBA contracts are fully guaranteed now. Just means the FO needs to be smart with their contracts they hand out.

That's true, but ultimately the difference between the NHL and the NBA in parity is how much more impact an individual can have in the NBA. Well, goalies were definitely up there, but goalies can't score goals no matter how good they are. Sidney Crosby is only playing 20-25 minutes out of 60 and he can't make saves on shots. LeBron James can play 48 minutes out of 48 and can impact every play of the game.

Hockey as a sport is just far stronger for parity because of how the game is played, it's not because of the CBA. In a league where all of the secondary talent is spread out more, the teams that still have LeBron, Curry, etc. will still dominate because that's just how basketball works.


I would propose a provision that 1 bad contract can be cut each year from the cap figure. But you have to pay that money still off the books. And you would forfeit a first round pick (or something like that)

They've done the amnesty a couple of times, ultimately didn't change anything. Losing draft picks for nothing can be far more harmful for a franchise because clearing cap space can just lead to another bad contract.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 12:05 PM
I mean, that statement would make some sense if we completely ignore the fact that the Bulls and Rockets won 8 out of 10 championships in the following decade. Unfortunately, that would seem to completely derail your point. There was even LESS parity in the 90's than there was in the 80's or the last decade.

I'm not saying this is only you, but this always feels like a selective memory thing. A ton of people have this idea that the league used to have a ton of parity without any real justification for it.

Parity is not just about actual championships. It's about the contenders as well. There were far more contenders in the late 80's - 90's outside of the Bulls and Rockets. There were regular threats to both teams. The Lakers, Celtics, Timberwolves, Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Hawks, Magic etc that were in the mix regularly. Look at the East since 07...What teams have regularly challenged the LBJ team. Outside of the Hawks, no team was regularly in the playoffs. That's more to my point

Scoots
05-11-2017, 12:09 PM
Lets say there's a hard cap at $107.

Warriors have the following on the books
Thompson $17.8
Green $16.4
McCaw $1.3
Looney $1.2
Jones $1.2

That's $37.9M

They have cap holds for everyone else but let's say they drop them all but Curry so they can re-sign Durant
Curry $18.1

So there up to $60M in contracts for 6 players. Have to cap hold 12 roster spots so add another $5M for those spots

$65M contracts/holds...They have $42M to spend

They could re-sign Durant, let's call it $30M

Leaves them $12M in space which they add to Curry to get him up to $30M

Roster
1. Durant $30M
2. Curry $30M
3. Thompson $17.8
4. Green $16.4
5. McCaw $1.3
6. Looney $1.2
7. Jones $1.2
Roster spots 8-15 are going to be total scrubs Making an average of $600k. Not even feasible. There bench would be awful. Nobody good is taking a salary that low to make a difference.

Even with signing Durant, they're significantly worse. This is better for the NBA, definitely.

In all likelihood they let Durant walk and spend that money on a supporting cast.

You said if there was a hard cap they wouldn't be able to keep Durant. Than can.

With those 7 players they are 9.1 from the hard cap, West and McGee cost $3M this year ... so we have $6M for 5 players who are unlikely to play. Even if it's different ring chasing vets, I'm okay with that, and my guess is the Warriors front office is too. Actually, chances are something similar is what ends up happening, it's just they will be able to keep Iguodala and maybe spend more on limited minute player than that plan.

Once again, the issue came up because the Warriors were so good, but they are an outlier and there is no point making rules for this situation as it's never going to happen again.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 12:12 PM
Well everything would be different, though. The hard cap wouldn't be $101M, it would be more like that luxury line of $121M. A hard cap would change contracts throughout years, so all of the numbers in place wouldn't be the same. Even as is, the Warriors current cap with KD's opt in of $27.7M is $65.7M. That would give them $55.3M to sign Curry, the difference between KD's $27.7M and whatever he makes and then anything else they want to do. In a hard cap world, those two probably take less to allow for GS to do more.

Yes they could re-sign both, but they'd lose everyone else. See my above post for breakdown.


Really, all a hard cap does is hurt the players in salary. Personally, I much prefer the players making money to the owners. The NBAPA is much better run than the NFLPA is.

Nope, because of the higher floor, the same money is available. Up to the players to take it on another team, or take less to be on a good team. That's there call to make.





Again, that's if the hard cap line is the same as the soft cap line which it wouldn't be. Those three were getting together no matter what, so in the end you maybe hurt their wallets a bit. Now think of how many teams could have competed them with their own hard cap, as few stars that age willingly take pay cuts of that size. You realize that the 07-08 Celtics, who were $29M over the cap, also don't exist in this world.

I'm fine with it if it created a better NBA.


Right, so what you want is player welfare. You're punishing teams for drafting great and allowing opportunities for teams who draft busts. Sorry, I would never want to see that league. The designated veteran player exception coming is probably already going to do enough of that on it's own.

Not really, A smart FO would maximize their results while players are cost controlled. When they're coming up on Free Agency you trade them to a team that can afford them and get more assets that turn into younger players. Really good GM's will take advantage of this. Think of the Patriots and how they do business. They don't pay players, they maximize them and cash in. They pay only their top top teir players.


That's true, but ultimately the difference between the NHL and the NBA in parity is how much more impact an individual can have in the NBA. Well, goalies were definitely up there, but goalies can't score goals no matter how good they are. Sidney Crosby is only playing 20-25 minutes out of 60 and he can't make saves on shots. LeBron James can play 48 minutes out of 48 and can impact every play of the game.

Crosby can play defense... (not that he does)


Hockey as a sport is just far stronger for parity because of how the game is played, it's not because of the CBA. In a league where all of the secondary talent is spread out more, the teams that still have LeBron, Curry, etc. will still dominate because that's just how basketball works.

How did LeBron do before Miami? He was good...But he didn't dominate the NBA playoffs. Why? Because he didn't have All Star next to him like he does now.


They've done the amnesty a couple of times, ultimately didn't change anything. Losing draft picks for nothing can be far more harmful for a franchise because clearing cap space can just lead to another bad contract

Again, be a smart GM and you have nothing to worry about

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 12:14 PM
You said if there was a hard cap they wouldn't be able to keep Durant. Than can.

With those 7 players they are 9.1 from the hard cap, West and McGee cost $3M this year ... so we have $6M for 5 players who are unlikely to play. Even if it's different ring chasing vets, I'm okay with that, and my guess is the Warriors front office is too. Actually, chances are something similar is what ends up happening, it's just they will be able to keep Iguodala and maybe spend more on limited minute player than that plan.

Once again, the issue came up because the Warriors were so good, but they are an outlier and there is no point making rules for this situation as it's never going to happen again.

No ring chasing vet that's any good is taking $600k (below vet minimum).

It can certainly happen again. It's a long shot, but there is nothing preventing it from happening again. It could very well happen in PHI in the near future if Simmons and Embiid can stay healthy.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 12:23 PM
How did LeBron do before Miami? He was good...But he didn't dominate the NBA playoffs. Why? Because he didn't have All Star next to him like he does now.

Again, be a smart GM and you have nothing to worry about

You do realize that LeBron got some pretty weak teams deep in the playoffs essentially by himself before Miami right? Or is it all about winning titles to you contrary to your earlier statements? :)

And a smart GM/good owner combo trumps any rule set ... so why change them if the results will be similar (with the difference being that teams like the Cavs and Warriors likely will never happen again under the current rules)

Scoots
05-11-2017, 12:30 PM
No ring chasing vet that's any good is taking $600k (below vet minimum).

It can certainly happen again. It's a long shot, but there is nothing preventing it from happening again. It could very well happen in PHI in the near future if Simmons and Embiid can stay healthy.

I didn't say a ring chasing vet would take $600k. But $1.2 - $1.5 is completely reasonable.

I think the odds of a HUGE jump in the cap is INCREDIBLY unlikely. The NBA has already admitted the cap may go down in the future.

FlashBolt
05-11-2017, 12:30 PM
Oakmont is terrible.. LeBron didn't dominate in the playoffs because he was playing with a team that peed in their pants when he needed them. Every player needs a good team to get deep into the playoffs. LeBron was also physically unstoppable but mentally, he didn't have that mature game yet. That's not a slight against LeBron because if he had a few decent teammates, he would still have made the Finals and might have had a ring in CLE the first time around. But he didn't have that. He's dominating today because the league has changed so much and that has benefited LeBron's skillset - to which despite a decline in athleticism, his maturity has allowed him to outsmart every other player.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 12:34 PM
I didn't say a ring chasing vet would take $600k. But $1.2 - $1.5 is completely reasonable.

I think the odds of a HUGE jump in the cap is INCREDIBLY unlikely. The NBA has already admitted the cap may go down in the future.

1.2-1.5 wouldn't be available in my scenario with a hard cap. That's my point.

All depends on TV contracts. If they put a better product on the floor, it certainly could make a huge jump again. But resting players and the GS and CLE superteams are not making the TV networks very happy at the moment, nor the casual NBA fan. Which means both are willing to spend less because they don't like the product on the floor.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 12:36 PM
Oakmont is terrible.. LeBron didn't dominate in the playoffs because he was playing with a team that peed in their pants when he needed them. Every player needs a good team to get deep into the playoffs. LeBron was also physically unstoppable but mentally, he didn't have that mature game yet. That's not a slight against LeBron because if he had a few decent teammates, he would still have made the Finals and might have had a ring in CLE the first time around. But he didn't have that. He's dominating today because the league has changed so much and that has benefited LeBron's skillset - to which despite a decline in athleticism, his maturity has allowed him to outsmart every other player.

Get over it dude. I'm terrible because I said LeBron didn't do as well with a less talented team? No ****.

He's also dominating because he's playing next to Wade and Bosh and then Kyrie and Love...

FlashBolt
05-11-2017, 12:37 PM
Get over it dude. I'm terrible because I said LeBron didn't do as well with a less talented team? No ****.

He's also dominating because he's playing next to Wade and Bosh and then Kyrie and Love...

Didn't he dominate in 2015 NBA Finals without Kyrie+Love? You are lame at this. Please don't reply back to me.

warfelg
05-11-2017, 12:38 PM
I didn't say a ring chasing vet would take $600k. But $1.2 - $1.5 is completely reasonable.

I think the odds of a HUGE jump in the cap is INCREDIBLY unlikely. The NBA has already admitted the cap may go down in the future.

I'll agree that the huge jump was an anomaly that created this.

What sucks about it is the NBA and the owners rolled over too easily. The owners and the NBA all wanted this to prevent the Warriors situation from happening. Players threatened to strike and sue, so they got the cap spike.

Next thing you know players are making comments about Mike Connleys contract, Durant to the Warriors and the like.

The issue right now is the league is run by the players. Not the NBA and the Owners. It's going to take a NHL like year long strike for it to change. The rank and file of the NBA can't afford to miss a year (just like the rank and file of the NHL struggled). In the last CBA the stars of the league wanted more and got it. Now everyone else is suffering.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 12:38 PM
You do realize that LeBron got some pretty weak teams deep in the playoffs essentially by himself before Miami right? Or is it all about winning titles to you contrary to your earlier statements? :)

That's my point. I enjoyed watching LeBron carry a bunch of scrubs. And if every other team had a star carrying a bunch of average players the league would be better, more even. Literally my entire point. I don't want to see LeBron, Kyrie and Love sweep through the playoffs. It's boring. I want to see LBJ carry the load and drop 35ppg 15reb and 10ast and make names out of nobodies.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 12:39 PM
Didn't he dominate in 2015 NBA Finals without Kyrie+Love? You are lame at this. Please don't reply back to me.

He dominated the games, sure. He didn't sweep through every round. And they lost the championship. Weak point.

SteBO
05-11-2017, 12:40 PM
^LBJ wasn't very efficient that series even as he was putting up monster raw #s. But that's to be expected, given who wasn't present with him. Every great player needs help to win....

FlashBolt
05-11-2017, 12:41 PM
He dominated the games, sure. He didn't sweep through every round. And they lost the championship. Weak point.

So dominate = win championships? So you're telling me LeBron only dominated for three seasons? My God, you are too easy to counter every time. I won't reply back so go take your last shot.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 12:42 PM
Because of the current cap rules the Warriors certainly have more money to spend which gives them some more options for sure. They have the non-taxpayer full MLE and I think the bi-annual exception too, despite being over the cap.

The new CBA is already doing things to bring more "balance" ... rookie deals are taking a big jump up, max contracts have gone up considerably, super-max contracts, the veteran minimum salary is going up a lot, rookie contracts now start at $800k even for undrafted rookies.

The MLE is up to $8.5 and the bi-annual is up to $3.5 so that hurts your view of balance in that it allows teams over the cap to spend as much on free agents as a team $12M under the cap. And I'd be fine with getting rid of those rules allowing that.

I think teams should be able to keep their draft picks and the NBA and fans in general agree ... that is the main reason there is a soft cap.

Guaranteed contracts and salary matching in trades do more to harm teams than the soft cap I think.

FlashBolt
05-11-2017, 12:42 PM
^LBJ wasn't very efficient that series even as he was putting up monster raw #s. But that's to be expected, given who wasn't present with him. Every great player needs help to win....

He wasn't efficient for obvious reasons but even then, which player could handle all that pressure and load? The dude did it all for his team. Even last season, led the series in rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and points. If he had lost, according to Oak, it was not a dominating season.

SteBO
05-11-2017, 12:42 PM
That's my point. I enjoyed watching LeBron carry a bunch of scrubs. And if every other team had a star carrying a bunch of average players the league would be better, more even. Literally my entire point. I don't want to see LeBron, Kyrie and Love sweep through the playoffs. It's boring. I want to see LBJ carry the load and drop 35ppg 15reb and 10ast and make names out of nobodies.
This is the first playoffs during LeBrons second trek in CLE that his team has dominated and steamrolled through teams. It wasn't exactly a cakewalk for him during his MIA years either.

SteBO
05-11-2017, 12:45 PM
He wasn't efficient for obvious reasons but even then, which player could handle all that pressure and load? The dude did it all for his team. Even last season, led the series in rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and points. If he had lost, according to Oak, it was not a dominating season.
Wholeheartedly agree with you dude. There discussion about whether or not LBJ should Finals MVP that series regardless of a series win or loss.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 12:47 PM
So dominate = win championships? So you're telling me LeBron only dominated for three seasons? My God, you are too easy to counter every time. I won't reply back so go take your last shot.

Short term memory loss?

YOU SAID THIS


LeBron didn't dominate in the playoffs because he was playing with a team that peed in their pants when he needed them.

I said this


He's also dominating because he's playing next to Wade and Bosh and then Kyrie and Love...

I used the word dominating in reference to you saying "dominated the playoffs". Meaning all encompassing. Each round...

Scoots
05-11-2017, 12:53 PM
1.2-1.5 wouldn't be available in my scenario with a hard cap. That's my point.

All depends on TV contracts. If they put a better product on the floor, it certainly could make a huge jump again. But resting players and the GS and CLE superteams are not making the TV networks very happy at the moment, nor the casual NBA fan. Which means both are willing to spend less because they don't like the product on the floor.

$9.1M left after the top 7 players are signed. 2 players at $4M total and 5 more at $800k a piece for the next $4M. An NBA legal roster of 13 players. The Warriors have no draft picks so not draft pick holds, just roster spot holds and those holds are at that $800k level. (or something like that ... and yes I acknowledge that it's ugly, but it does prove the point, and if a hard cap was anticipated none of the contracts would be like they are)

The people paying on the new contracts are losing money already. With cord cutting and expanding options audiences in the US are shrinking and the willingness of people in other countries to pay big premiums to get the games is small. The NBA is looking to find ways of propping up revenue already.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 12:57 PM
That's my point. I enjoyed watching LeBron carry a bunch of scrubs. And if every other team had a star carrying a bunch of average players the league would be better, more even. Literally my entire point. I don't want to see LeBron, Kyrie and Love sweep through the playoffs. It's boring. I want to see LBJ carry the load and drop 35ppg 15reb and 10ast and make names out of nobodies.

But again. LeBron, like these Warriors, is the aberration. There is no point making rules from stopping what is incredibly unlikely to repeat.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 12:57 PM
He dominated the games, sure. He didn't sweep through every round. And they lost the championship. Weak point.

Didn't you say multiple times in this thread that it's not about winning titles? Or are you going back on that one?

Scoots
05-11-2017, 01:00 PM
He wasn't efficient for obvious reasons but even then, which player could handle all that pressure and load? The dude did it all for his team. Even last season, led the series in rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and points. If he had lost, according to Oak, it was not a dominating season.

As inefficient as he was it was an incredible performance, one I can't imagine any other player doing. Essentially single handedly grinding the best offense in the NBA to a halt.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 01:01 PM
Didn't you say multiple times in this thread that it's not about winning titles? Or are you going back on that one?

Not at all. It's my exact point. Competition is about the amount of teams that are true contenders. I don't want to see sweeps in the playoffs with regularity, that means competition is weak. Not really sure what's so confusing about this.

If there's 8-10 teams that are contenders. Series will be longer. No sweeps. Doesn't mean all 8-10 teams need to win championships.

But when LBJ goes to 6 straight finals and is rolling through the first 2 rounds that means competition is weak. He's the only contender in the east.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 01:09 PM
He wasn't efficient for obvious reasons but even then, which player could handle all that pressure and load? The dude did it all for his team. Even last season, led the series in rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and points. If he had lost, according to Oak, it was not a dominating season.

Literally never said this. But troll on...

IKnowHoops
05-11-2017, 01:11 PM
Not at all. It's my exact point. Competition is about the amount of teams that are true contenders. I don't want to see sweeps in the playoffs with regularity, that means competition is weak. Not really sure what's so confusing about this.

If there's 8-10 teams that are contenders. Series will be longer. No sweeps. Doesn't mean all 8-10 teams need to win championships.

But when LBJ goes to 6 straight finals and is rolling through the first 2 rounds that means competition is weak. He's the only contender in the east.

Russell won 11 straight.

Magic went to like 9 in 11 years

Jordan won 3, Dream won 2, Jordan won 3 more.

Always been like this bruh.

Spurs or lakers won like 8 rings in 10 years. Not really sure you like NBA basketball.

FlashBolt
05-11-2017, 01:30 PM
Literally never said this. But troll on...

You just said a page back that while james did dominate in the 2015 finals, he didn't win a ring. Did he dominate or not?

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 01:54 PM
You just said a page back that while james did dominate in the 2015 finals, he didn't win a ring. Did he dominate or not?

He personally dominated, yes. That's clearly obvious.

He dominated the playoffs until the Finals going 12-2 (AKA NO COMPETITION FOR HIM)

Then he met a juggernaut in the Finals and didn't have his 2 All Stars next to him and lost...Though he personally dominated statistically. What do you not understand?

FlashBolt
05-11-2017, 01:59 PM
He personally dominated, yes. That's clearly obvious.

He dominated the playoffs until the Finals going 12-2 (AKA NO COMPETITION FOR HIM)

Then he met a juggernaut in the Finals and didn't have his 2 All Stars next to him and lost...Though he personally dominated statistically. What do you not understand?

"He dominated the games, sure. He didn't sweep through every round. And they lost the championship. Weak point."

He dominated with or without the ring. You brought the ring up and tried to demean his performance. It doesn't matter if he won the ring or not. Did he dominate? Yes. Did he do it without Kyrie+Love? Yes. So therefore, he dominated. No ifs and buts about it - which you're trying to do right now.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 02:00 PM
Russell won 11 straight.

Magic went to like 9 in 11 years

Jordan won 3, Dream won 2, Jordan won 3 more.

Always been like this bruh.

Spurs or lakers won like 8 rings in 10 years. Not really sure you like NBA basketball.

I love it until it gets to the playoffs and we already know the 2 teams that are going to play for a title. I don't get the whole idea of "that's how its always been" ... So the sport should never try to better itself? They should just accept that 1 or 2 teams are going to dominate a decade and the other 28 teams should just hope to play a round or 2 in the playoffs? That's absurd.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 02:03 PM
"He dominated the games, sure. He didn't sweep through every round. And they lost the championship. Weak point."

He dominated with or without the ring. You brought the ring up and tried to demean his performance. It doesn't matter if he won the ring or not. Did he dominate? Yes. Did he do it without Kyrie+Love? Yes. So therefore, he dominated. No ifs and buts about it - which you're trying to do right now.

I never demeaned his performance. Not once. I simply said he didn't do as well until he got his All Star cast around him. Which is a fact. LBJ won less championships (0) without All Stars. It doesn't demean his performances. He's been the best player of this generation with and without them. That's blatantly obvious.

FlashBolt
05-11-2017, 02:06 PM
I never demeaned his performance. Not once. I simply said he didn't do as well until he got his All Star cast around him. Which is a fact. LBJ won less championships (0) without All Stars. It doesn't demean his performances. He's been the best player of this generation with and without them. That's blatantly obvious.

I gave you a scenario in which he didn't need those two and still dominated. You mentioned that he didn't win a ring, though. I don't get it. Which NBA star has won without an all-star? You're acting as if LeBron has to be the only guy to win with total scrubs - which has never happened before. You are demeaning his performance when you say he didn't win the ring. Dominate is dominate. They didn't lose because of LeBron - they lost because the Warriors were much better.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 02:12 PM
I gave you a scenario in which he didn't need those two and still dominated. You mentioned that he didn't win a ring, though. I don't get it. Which NBA star has won without an all-star? You're acting as if LeBron has to be the only guy to win with total scrubs - which has never happened before. You are demeaning his performance when you say he didn't win the ring. Dominate is dominate. They didn't lose because of LeBron - they lost because the Warriors were much better.

You're making inferences to claims I never made. They have all needed stars to win championships. Never denied that. All I said was I ENJOYED watching Lebron carry scrubs and make it to the finals more than watching him and All Stars dominate the playoffs. That's all I said. You're literally arguing my opinion for some reason.

I would rather see stars alone or maybe with one other star on a team...league wide. That's what I want to watch.

I never said Lebron was the reason they lost. I said the Warriors were a juggernaut. I don't even think you know what you're arguing at this point, other than just arguing to argue.

I thought you weren't going to respond anymore?

hugepatsfan
05-11-2017, 02:13 PM
I don't mind there being a clear cut top dawg in each conference but I'd like for the #2/3/4 teams to be a little closer. Unfortunately GS is so loaded that I can't see a team getting enough talent to match them. CLE I don't think is worlds better than anyone but the teams with the core in place to get near them are all int he West. No rule is going to fix that. I think the West did a good job of making themselves competitive but Durant's decision ruined it. In the East the GMs just haven't done a good job. All the elite players ended up in the West because their teams did a better job. I think WAS and MIL have made great strides. BOS is in great position too though it's a little tougher without a Wall/Giannis caliber team. They have to be careful for splurging on mid tier stars and ending up like TOR. They have to leave flexibility to make enough moves to not be stuck there.

I think the East is on the verge of correcting itself. Honestly, I do. The West I thought was already there until Durant made such a weak move. I don't think we need any rule changes.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 02:24 PM
I don't mind there being a clear cut top dawg in each conference but I'd like for the #2/3/4 teams to be a little closer. Unfortunately GS is so loaded that I can't see a team getting enough talent to match them. CLE I don't think is worlds better than anyone but the teams with the core in place to get near them are all int he West. No rule is going to fix that. I think the West did a good job of making themselves competitive but Durant's decision ruined it. In the East the GMs just haven't done a good job. All the elite players ended up in the West because their teams did a better job. I think WAS and MIL have made great strides. BOS is in great position too though it's a little tougher without a Wall/Giannis caliber team. They have to be careful for splurging on mid tier stars and ending up like TOR. They have to leave flexibility to make enough moves to not be stuck there.

I think the East is on the verge of correcting itself. Honestly, I do. The West I thought was already there until Durant made such a weak move. I don't think we need any rule changes.

I feel like the West has generally always been better than the East. (overall). I think it has more to do with location than anything. Players prefer to play in warm states. CA, AZ, TX. The west simply has more teams in these areas. Which helps but ISNT the only reason. There are many factors to it.

I think the West generally has better FO's which is the major reason for their depth in the conference.

Not so much this year, but I think in past years we've also seen the West have the better top end teams and as a result they have more bottom end teams in the lottery because they get destroyed by the tougher conference. Which generally results in better picks. So the West is kind of constantly restocking the talent pool as well.

I think most would agree the top 7 teams in the NBA are GS, CLE, SAS, HOU, LAC, UTA, WAS - 5 in the West 2 in the East

The 7 worst teams are BRK, PHO, PHI, ORL, MIN, NYK, SAC - 4 in the East, 3 in the West.

In past years its been even more dominated by the West on both sides. The east kind of owns the "middle" which in the NBA is no mans land. Not good enough to compete. Draft picks not good enough to keep building unless you get lucky or have an excellent FO that can identify talent.

warfelg
05-11-2017, 02:31 PM
I think competitive balance and parody is being used interchangeably when it shouldn't be.

Baseball has competitive balance. So does hockey. In any night, in any series, almost any team has a chance. But the best run teams still have a chance year in and year out.

Football has true parody, where any team can go from bad to good in a single year.

Basketball does not because it is too much of a star driven league, and has a lack of stars at the same time. So when it's a star driven league without a whole lot of stars, and they team up, you don't have competitive balance. Face it, 99% of the time we know the 1-6 seeds in the east and west. 75% of the time we know the 7&8 seed too. And at that we know the 1&2 seeds are most likely to be in the finals. So some variety there would really help them.

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 02:33 PM
The problem is you thinking that this would lead to LeBron playing with role players again when it wouldn't. Cleveland wouldn't give up Kyrie or Love, they would cut the fat elsewhere where Thompson makes $15M, JR makes $13M and Shumpert makes $10M. Even Channing Frye at $7.8M. And then you have the next level, and you see it on teams like GS, SA, etc., and you would have guys like Frye take a pat cut to play there anyways.

At the end of the day, basketball will always be dominated by star players. Without things like Bird's Rights or the luxury tax, no team in hell has any chance of competing with teams like GS or CLE who will always have star power at the top. For every Iguodala or Thompson that they lose another team will be losing theirs.

The strength of those currents rosters is an aberration. You make it sound like Durant has been on GS for 5 years already or that the east hasn't always been relative **** to the west since the day Jordan retired.

Edit: This was supposed to be quoted to Oakmont but it didn't :o

FlashBolt
05-11-2017, 02:44 PM
Cleveland gets rid of Love before they ever get rid of Thompson.. Thompson was easily the Cavs third best player in the Finals last season. I would say he would be the most untradeable piece. The dude rebounds and gets points off ORB. What more do you want? He can defend fairly well. If anything, trade Love for a pack of peanuts.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 02:45 PM
Not at all. It's my exact point. Competition is about the amount of teams that are true contenders. I don't want to see sweeps in the playoffs with regularity, that means competition is weak. Not really sure what's so confusing about this.

I pointed out that LeBron was winning a lot in the playoffs before he went to a "Super Team" ... and you said he didn't win a title. You were valuing the title over LeBron's ability to win without much help.

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 02:54 PM
I think competitive balance and parody is being used interchangeably when it shouldn't be.

Baseball has competitive balance. So does hockey. In any night, in any series, almost any team has a chance. But the best run teams still have a chance year in and year out.

Football has true parody, where any team can go from bad to good in a single year.

Basketball does not because it is too much of a star driven league, and has a lack of stars at the same time. So when it's a star driven league without a whole lot of stars, and they team up, you don't have competitive balance. Face it, 99% of the time we know the 1-6 seeds in the east and west. 75% of the time we know the 7&8 seed too. And at that we know the 1&2 seeds are most likely to be in the finals. So some variety there would really help them.

I don't think there's a lack of star power. I think there's more star power than there has been since at least the early-mid 90's.

The team ups since 2008 in the east, and now Durant with GS, has certainly hurt competitive balance in those conferences. The thing is that there's no way to actually prevent this from happening, if the players really want it. Even then, didn't Detroit live in the ECF before Boston ever teamed up? The east has been really weak for a long time.

Kevin Love makes $22.6M next year, JR Smith and Iman Shumpert make a combined $24M. If Cleveland had to cut money, do you think they lose Love or both of them? Do you think JR Smith or Iman Shumpert is ever going to be the difference between a team beating LeBron, Kyrie and Love and not? All a hard cap would do would be squeezing the pay checks of role players and sometimes leading to stars taking less money to get more help.

We're headed to an NBA where the top players will be able to make 35% of the cap way earlier than the previous 10-year mark. When OKC has to pay Westbrook 35% of their cap, what's going to happen? The idea of this creating parity is false, because all you're going to see is OKC paying Dipo, Adams and Kanter $60M next season and being almost capped out already when you add Westbrook. This is essentially what a hard cap would do, so it's on the way already. The difference is you're putting a teams willingness to keep their drafted talent at their discretion to pay a luxury tax instead of punishing teams for drafting great.

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 02:58 PM
I pointed out that LeBron was winning a lot in the playoffs before he went to a "Super Team" ... and you said he didn't win a title. You were valuing the title over LeBron's ability to win without much help.

I don't recall that being your point. But if it was. I misspoke.

As I stated. I'd rather watch LeBron and scrubs go to 6 and 7 game series and pull it out. Win or lose in the finals, that's more fun to watch than to see LBJ surrounded by All Stars roll through weak competition.

FOXHOUND
05-11-2017, 03:09 PM
Cleveland gets rid of Love before they ever get rid of Thompson.. Thompson was easily the Cavs third best player in the Finals last season. I would say he would be the most untradeable piece. The dude rebounds and gets points off ORB. What more do you want? He can defend fairly well. If anything, trade Love for a pack of peanuts.

I agree that they don't get rid of Thompson. I think they get rid of some combination of JR, Shump, Frye and Korver way before Love or Thompson. No team is going to give up the vital pieces and role players like the rest will always look far better when on a team like Cleveland.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 03:11 PM
I love it until it gets to the playoffs and we already know the 2 teams that are going to play for a title. I don't get the whole idea of "that's how its always been" ... So the sport should never try to better itself? They should just accept that 1 or 2 teams are going to dominate a decade and the other 28 teams should just hope to play a round or 2 in the playoffs? That's absurd.

If you look at history, most of those dominant teams were lead by transcendent stars. Players like that will always happen, and always be on a very few teams. LeBron is certainly one of them, there may not be another in the NBA right now.

hugepatsfan
05-11-2017, 03:13 PM
The problem is you thinking that this would lead to LeBron playing with role players again when it wouldn't. Cleveland wouldn't give up Kyrie or Love, they would cut the fat elsewhere where Thompson makes $15M, JR makes $13M and Shumpert makes $10M. Even Channing Frye at $7.8M. And then you have the next level, and you see it on teams like GS, SA, etc., and you would have guys like Frye take a pat cut to play there anyways.

At the end of the day, basketball will always be dominated by star players. Without things like Bird's Rights or the luxury tax, no team in hell has any chance of competing with teams like GS or CLE who will always have star power at the top. For every Iguodala or Thompson that they lose another team will be losing theirs.

The strength of those currents rosters is an aberration. You make it sound like Durant has been on GS for 5 years already or that the east hasn't always been relative **** to the west since the day Jordan retired.

Edit: This was supposed to be quoted to Oakmont but it didn't :o

I think you're just looking at current contracts though. i think what you'd eventually see is that Lebron would be getting a lot more than he is. And someone would pay Kyris as their #1. Let's just say there's a $130M hard cap. Lebron wouldn't be "maxed" at $30 something million like he is now. He'd be ably to command $50-60M because he's that good. And Kyrie when he's a FA would get #1 player offers. And Love would get bigger offers too. And the role players would too. So maybe with their current contracts it works but once you get past the initial phase where guys are still on old deals the impact Oak is talking about would really take effect.

Basically it would more clearly differentiate what a team can pay their #1 guy vs. their #2 and their #3. So if a star wanted to team up like they all do now, he'd be leaving real money on the table. I think the new designated player rule with the "supermax" accomplishes this though. If a guy wants to go somewhere else instead of re-signing with his own team now he has to leave real money on the table.

My concern is that if you go to far with it you have the top 30 guys spread across 30 teams and now you still have the same competitive balance issue because the team led by the #1 guy is going to dump all over the team led by #30, except now in addition to the lack of balance you have worse play at the top because the talent is less. (I don't think it would be that extreme of 30 spread over 30 but you get the point.)

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 03:14 PM
If you look at history, most of those dominant teams were lead by transcendent stars. Players like that will always happen, and always be on a very few teams. LeBron is certainly one of them, there may not be another in the NBA right now.

Yup I agree. I just don't think it HAS to always be like that.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 03:18 PM
I think competitive balance and parody is being used interchangeably when it shouldn't be.


I'd like to see a parody of the NBA.

Parity on the other hand is harder to make. :)

Scoots
05-11-2017, 03:33 PM
Yup I agree. I just don't think it HAS to always be like that.

So, if you took the top 60 guys in the NBA and arranged them in pairs on teams where the #1 and #60 ranked guys were on a team together and continue through the NBA, 2/59, 3/58, etc. I wonder if the 1/60, 2/59 guys would do better than the 20/40 pairing.

Using Ben Golliver's rankings from 2016 the Warriors 2/3/13/19 is formidable, the Cavs are at 1/25/30, Clippers are 4/10/20/59 ... but the Clippers have failed to achieve despite all that talent and the issue has been the for most of the time, the Clippers organization rather than the talent itself.

Hawkeye15
05-11-2017, 03:38 PM
The league has already fixed it, we just gotta wait for the team that had the perfect window to finally start paying all their stars. Had KD had any balls, we would have had more contenders with relatively equal chances of winning.

Hell, had KD simply resigned the Thunder would have been the favorites to win this year in what would have been the closest race to call in awhile.

yep. Right now we have GS, who absolutely lucked out on timing for their dominance, who has until after next season, before a breakup is coming. They have no choice. On the other side of the spectrum, we have a player who comes along once every 20-30 years, and when they do (Jordan, Gretzky, etc), many teams simply don't even get the chance.

By 2018-19' season, GS will have had to let 1 of their superstars go, and probably make an additional very tough decision on that roster. LeBron will be 35 that year, and he is bound to go south at some point.

Hawkeye15
05-11-2017, 03:47 PM
Agreed, except I dont have Houston/SAS above a healthy Clips team. Tho I suppose being more durable is the talent that gives them the edge.

better chance of you having a pet unicorn than seeing that dude..

Saddletramp
05-11-2017, 03:50 PM
Jesus, you guys have been busy. I tapped out a few pages back but I wanted to respond to Scootsy from last night where he responded to me.






Yeah, I know. Of course LeBron set the standards of who he wanted on his team and what they should be paid before he signs his contract and complains to the press that he needs better players to play around him before, during, and after the season. If he had "competitive will" he'd want to play with bad teammates right?

Wouldn't you? He kept signing these opt outs because of Bird Rights but also because he'd been promised and lied to by Gilbert before. He wasn't going to sign a long contract with Cle and then be stuck with a bunch of scrubs like before. The difference is, the Warriors team is set in stone for a few years. Gilbert was more about money before LBJ came back.



But with the other stuff, you're mostly right. The only reason we're in this situation is because of three things.
1) The Warriors have been run really well the past few years.
2) The cap had a one year explosion.
3) KD wanted an easy title because he couldn't do it in OKC.


Hard cap won't change any of that stuff.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 03:53 PM
Yup I agree. I just don't think it HAS to always be like that.

But if it's usually a transcendent star leading the dominant team ... and there is a very limited number of such players ... how are you going to get them to be on more teams? I suppose if we improve worldwide scouting and player development we might be able to find more better players to spread among the 30 teams.

Here's a different take on the disparity ... the Spurs hit upon a transitional point in their existence where they are slipping a little this year, the Grizzlies got old and injured, the Clippers got injured again, the Celtics are just on their way up from a ground up rebuild, the Hawks peaked and are slipping, the Bucks are still fresh on their climb, Toronto is injured again, Indiana has injury issues and probably peaked, the Bulls chose not to rebuild and reloaded with older and thus more likely to be injured players, Portland had injuries, Utah had injuries, OKC is built bad. There are literally no teams in the NBA at the peak of their talent/health/performance right now other than the Warriors and the Cavs. With all that in mind is it terribly surprising that the Cavs are rolling over their opponents? That the Warriors are?

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 03:54 PM
So, if you took the top 60 guys in the NBA and arranged them in pairs on teams where the #1 and #60 ranked guys were on a team together and continue through the NBA, 2/59, 3/58, etc. I wonder if the 1/60, 2/59 guys would do better than the 20/40 pairing.

Using Ben Golliver's rankings from 2016 the Warriors 2/3/13/19 is formidable, the Cavs are at 1/25/30, Clippers are 4/10/20/59 ... but the Clippers have failed to achieve despite all that talent and the issue has been the for most of the time, the Clippers organization rather than the talent itself.

That would be an interesting study.


Agreed that the Clippers organization is 100% to blame for their failures

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 03:56 PM
But if it's usually a transcendent star leading the dominant team ... and there is a very limited number of such players ... how are you going to get them to be on more teams? I suppose if we improve worldwide scouting and player development we might be able to find more better players to spread among the 30 teams.

Here's a different take on the disparity ... the Spurs hit upon a transitional point in their existence where they are slipping a little this year, the Grizzlies got old and injured, the Clippers got injured again, the Celtics are just on their way up from a ground up rebuild, the Hawks peaked and are slipping, the Bucks are still fresh on their climb, Toronto is injured again, Indiana has injury issues and probably peaked, the Bulls chose not to rebuild and reloaded with older and thus more likely to be injured players, Portland had injuries, Utah had injuries, OKC is built bad. There are literally no teams in the NBA at the peak of their talent/health/performance right now other than the Warriors and the Cavs. With all that in mind is it terribly surprising that the Cavs are rolling over their opponents? That the Warriors are?

It's not surprising at all. If I came off that way, I didn't mean to. It's predictable as can be.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 03:57 PM
yep. Right now we have GS, who absolutely lucked out on timing for their dominance, who has until after next season, before a breakup is coming. They have no choice. On the other side of the spectrum, we have a player who comes along once every 20-30 years, and when they do (Jordan, Gretzky, etc), many teams simply don't even get the chance.

By 2018-19' season, GS will have had to let 1 of their superstars go, and probably make an additional very tough decision on that roster. LeBron will be 35 that year, and he is bound to go south at some point.

How do you figure the Warriors will have "had to let 1 of their superstars go" after next year?

Oakmont_4
05-11-2017, 04:01 PM
How do you figure the Warriors will have "had to let 1 of their superstars go" after next year?

Yeah I don't get that comment. As it stands now, they could potentially keep the core of this group for the next 4-5 years. Obviously they all have to buy into that notion and make some sacrifices, but it can be done fairly easily. They're in no such position to "have to let one go" unless one forces the issue or doesn't want to be back (all indications point to Durant and Curry coming back)

Scoots
05-11-2017, 04:12 PM
It's not surprising at all. If I came off that way, I didn't mean to. It's predictable as can be.

I guess what I'm trying to say there is that we've hit a rough spot. Not only did a generational talent go to a team that had 3 #1 picks in recent years and other very high picks, and not only did a team draft particularly well, then make great trades, then sign the top FA who happened to fit what they needed perfectly, that we are also looking at the young talented teams being too young in their development and the old teams being past their peak to the point where the flawed teams were all that was left ... all that conspires to make it look worse than it really is.

Hawkeye15
05-11-2017, 04:13 PM
How do you figure the Warriors will have "had to let 1 of their superstars go" after next year?

I guess they could hold on and pay the repeat tax an additional year. But it's coming. Soon. They can't keep all 4 of those guys

hugepatsfan
05-11-2017, 04:14 PM
But if it's usually a transcendent star leading the dominant team ... and there is a very limited number of such players ... how are you going to get them to be on more teams? I suppose if we improve worldwide scouting and player development we might be able to find more better players to spread among the 30 teams.

Those guys would have weaker teams though because they'd inevitably get paid more. Those generational talents wouldn't have a max salary that limits them to what others can make. Some team would be able to pay them as the generational talent they are. And then some other team would line up to pay Kryie as a franchise guy.

There's still be room for super teams but you'd have to do it by drafting/low level FAs. But then eventually those guys would have to turn down extra money to continue to play together.

Hawkeye15
05-11-2017, 04:14 PM
Yeah I don't get that comment. As it stands now, they could potentially keep the core of this group for the next 4-5 years. Obviously they all have to buy into that notion and make some sacrifices, but it can be done fairly easily. They're in no such position to "have to let one go" unless one forces the issue or doesn't want to be back (all indications point to Durant and Curry coming back)

good luck with that. all 4 are max level players.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 04:23 PM
I guess they could hold on and pay the repeat tax an additional year. But it's coming. Soon. They can't keep all 4 of those guys

I suppose ... Klay's contract ends first in 2019 ... but he didn't sign a max contract last time and neither did Green. It's entirely possible Curry and KD don't go to the max for their contracts either.

Bowman53
05-11-2017, 04:40 PM
I guess they could hold on and pay the repeat tax an additional year. But it's coming. Soon. They can't keep all 4 of those guys

You have no idea what you're talking about here. Three of those guys they already have their full bird rights and KD isn't leaving anytime soon.

They can keep those four those guys. The issue will be filling out roster around those four guys in the future. They will have to draft well and rely on ring chasers in free agency for the most part.

Once the Warriors move into that new SF arena in 2 years the revenue is really going to start flying in which will help with paying the luxury tax.

Quinnsanity
05-11-2017, 04:54 PM
I suppose ... Klay's contract ends first in 2019 ... but he didn't sign a max contract last time and neither did Green. It's entirely possible Curry and KD don't go to the max for their contracts either.

This is by far the most important development of the offseason. What KD decides to do could change the course of the next five years of league history.

KD signed a one-year contract. He therefore has non-Bird rights, meaning that GSW can only go above the cap to re-sign him if he plays for 120% of his 2017 salary in year 1 of the new deal. That's like $31.8 million (off the top of my head, I have a more detailed explanation going up online tomorrow I can post then). If he does that, GSW operates as an above-the-cap team and brings Livingston and Iguodala back, almost definitely going into the tax to do so.

KD's max is $35.4 million. If he says "I demand the max, I will accept nothing less," the Warriors have to re-sign him with actual cap space. That means renouncing their rights to Iguodala and Livingston and almost definitely losing them.

There are two other little wrinkles here. The first is internal jealousy. Curry can take the max with no repercussions. How would Durant feel watching Curry take the max if he didn't? Would Curry be willing to sacrifice some money to put his salary on even footing with KD's? Or if they both get the max, might there be some resentment on Curry's part if it costs them Iguodala and Livingston since he played for so much less than the max in the past but Durant didn't?

The other is union implications. The union has always strongly pushed for superstars to take their full max to set a precedent that other teams would have to follow (basically, so teams can't say, "well Player X isn't taking the max so you shouldn't either.") The most notable occurrence of this was in 2014, when LeBron said from the outset that he would only accept a max contract, which threw a monkey wrench into some of Miami's plans to improve the team around him and try to persuade him to stay (though we don't know the full extent). Here's the best part: the union president is Chris Paul and LeBron is on the executive committee. Both of them probably want to win championships in the near future. I imagine they will use their union positions to try to push Durant towards the max even if the result is much more beneficial to them than the union as a whole. It wouldn't even be the first time they've done it. LeBron and Chris Paul successfully lobbied for the over-36 rule to change to the over-38 rule specifically so that they could get full five-year max contracts. But on the other end, both Stephen Curry and Andre Iguodala are ALSO on the union's executive committee. They have a vested interest in keeping Durant on their team, but they also have a responsibility to the union. Plus, Iguodala's next contract is largely dependent on what Durant does. If Durant takes the max, he probably has to leave the Warriors if he wants to make real money. If Durant takes less, he can stay on a contract with no actual cap repercussions, which likely means he'd be paid above market value. Would either compromise their integrity as union leaders to benefit their own team and contracts?

Hell, I wouldn't even be surprised if the league approached the union as a whole and offered them some incentive to try to convince Durant to take that max. It makes the Warriors a weaker team, which improves competitive balance, which likely drives ratings in the playoffs. That means more revenue (through both direct and indirect means, the league's revenue is not actually tied to ratings but the better the ratings are, the bigger their next media contract will likely be, plus better playoffs means more merchandising sales and other auxiliary revenue). More revenue means a higher salary cap. So what Durant does this summer not only has a major on-court impact over the next several years, but it might directly impact the amount of money available to other players in the league as a whole.

It's by far the most interesting subplot of the offseason and nobody is talking about it.


Okay, but is there any point trying to change the rules to avoid a team like the Warriors happening? The Warriors were lucky so many times to even get to the point they could pitch KD to come ... what they did is never going to happen again.

No, there really isn't. I'm just saying that theoretically you could if demand was high enough. But the circumstances that led to Durant becoming a Warrior are not replicable. It was a black swan event.


Completely different. There was no Free Agency in the 80's, teams were built mainly through the draft. Not by hanging out on a yacht one summer and agreeing to join forces.

The C's and the Lakers were the major victors championship wise in the 80's, but there were 6-8 other legit teams that actually had a chance. Now we're down to 2.

I was so optimistic that the NBA was heading in the right direction after GS won their first championship. A team built mainly through great drafting and good coaching/front office. It was so refreshing. But then Durant did what he did and it went back to focusing on super teams.

Completely changed the league for the worse. Just as LeBron did in Miami.

Can I ask why it's somehow more noble for a team to be formed through the draft than through free agency? It's an opinion I see way too often and I think it's ****ing stupid.

Players are not property. They do not inherently belong to the team that selects them (in a process, by the way, that only circumvents anti-trust laws because of collective bargaining, the draft depresses wages significantly and restricts commerce). It's not like players are demanding to be released from contracts midway through them. They serve their obligation to a team and then are free to do as they please.

If anything, I think it's good that players have this sort of agency. It holds teams accountable. Look at every occurrence of a superstar leaving a team and I'll show you the dozen managerial missteps that led to that point. If Oklahoma City doesn't trade James Harden they'd have won two or three titles and Durant doesn't go anywhere. If Cleveland had put a remotely decent team around LeBron the first time he probably wins a title and stays. Bosh was on terrible Toronto teams. The list goes on and on. There's a reason Tim Duncan never felt compelled to leave San Antonio. It's because they did a good ****ing job in surrounding him with the right talent and not being stingy about it. Their organizational philosophy is to put the best possible basketball product on the floor and let everything else work itself out from there. What happened to Tim Duncan should be the norm. That it isn't shows how stupid most NBA teams are, or at least were at the time of their lost star free agent, and frankly, we shouldn't be rewarding stupidity.

Why do we want to watch legendary talents waste away on bad teams? Who actually enjoyed the KG era in Minnesota? Who is enjoying what is happening to Anthony Davis right now? We should want these great players to be in a situation where they can succeed so that we can see the best possible version of them. I don't care if their original cities are sad about losing them. It's better for everyone else to have these guys in position to win. I would love it if that came with their original team. But it shouldn't have to.

Hawkeye15
05-11-2017, 05:19 PM
You have no idea what you're talking about here. Three of those guys they already have their full bird rights and KD isn't leaving anytime soon.

They can keep those four those guys. The issue will be filling out roster around those four guys in the future. They will have to draft well and rely on ring chasers in free agency for the most part.

Once the Warriors move into that new SF arena in 2 years the revenue is really going to start flying in which will help with paying the luxury tax.

if you want to pay the repeater tax year after year, and fill out the roster with minimum deals, it can be done. The tax will only grow. Money talks. I can't see an owner getting destroyed year after year with an escalating tax at some point.

Or, you can hope they are all just a bunch of givers, and take a way lower deal than they could get for their market value. Like I said, good luck with that.

Hopper15
05-11-2017, 05:39 PM
if you want to pay the repeater tax year after year, and fill out the roster with minimum deals, it can be done. The tax will only grow. Money talks. I can't see an owner getting destroyed year after year with an escalating tax at some point.

Or, you can hope they are all just a bunch of givers, and take a way lower deal than they could get for their market value. Like I said, good luck with that.

Lacob will pay the repeaters tax if the Warriors are competing for titles every season. Besides it's kind of silly to privately finance a one billion dollar San Francisco Arena and then become frugal over the luxury tax.

Quinnsanity
05-11-2017, 05:51 PM
if you want to pay the repeater tax year after year, and fill out the roster with minimum deals, it can be done. The tax will only grow. Money talks. I can't see an owner getting destroyed year after year with an escalating tax at some point.

Or, you can hope they are all just a bunch of givers, and take a way lower deal than they could get for their market value. Like I said, good luck with that.

I'm really curious to see how far Cleveland goes with this. Next year will be the first year of this era they pay the repeater tax barring some pretty big cutbacks, and I'd imagine that to continue for at least another year afterwards. But the minority owners supposedly hate how much Gilbert spends and have fought him on it repeatedly. They can't stop him, but it creates a bad precedent for the league to have minority owners so boxed out of major decisions like that. Less people would want to buy in for non-majority stakes if that is how they expect to be treated, and I think that's something the league would bring up with Gilbert in a way that is direct but ultimately non-binding.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 05:55 PM
This is by far the most important development of the offseason. What KD decides to do could change the course of the next five years of league history.

KD signed a one-year contract. He therefore has non-Bird rights, meaning that GSW can only go above the cap to re-sign him if he plays for 120% of his 2017 salary in year 1 of the new deal. That's like $31.8 million (off the top of my head, I have a more detailed explanation going up online tomorrow I can post then). If he does that, GSW operates as an above-the-cap team and brings Livingston and Iguodala back, almost definitely going into the tax to do so.

KD's max is $35.4 million. If he says "I demand the max, I will accept nothing less," the Warriors have to re-sign him with actual cap space. That means renouncing their rights to Iguodala and Livingston and almost definitely losing them.

There are two other little wrinkles here. The first is internal jealousy. Curry can take the max with no repercussions. How would Durant feel watching Curry take the max if he didn't? Would Curry be willing to sacrifice some money to put his salary on even footing with KD's? Or if they both get the max, might there be some resentment on Curry's part if it costs them Iguodala and Livingston since he played for so much less than the max in the past but Durant didn't?

The other is union implications. The union has always strongly pushed for superstars to take their full max to set a precedent that other teams would have to follow (basically, so teams can't say, "well Player X isn't taking the max so you shouldn't either.") The most notable occurrence of this was in 2014, when LeBron said from the outset that he would only accept a max contract, which threw a monkey wrench into some of Miami's plans to improve the team around him and try to persuade him to stay (though we don't know the full extent). Here's the best part: the union president is Chris Paul and LeBron is on the executive committee. Both of them probably want to win championships in the near future. I imagine they will use their union positions to try to push Durant towards the max even if the result is much more beneficial to them than the union as a whole. It wouldn't even be the first time they've done it. LeBron and Chris Paul successfully lobbied for the over-36 rule to change to the over-38 rule specifically so that they could get full five-year max contracts. But on the other end, both Stephen Curry and Andre Iguodala are ALSO on the union's executive committee. They have a vested interest in keeping Durant on their team, but they also have a responsibility to the union. Plus, Iguodala's next contract is largely dependent on what Durant does. If Durant takes the max, he probably has to leave the Warriors if he wants to make real money. If Durant takes less, he can stay on a contract with no actual cap repercussions, which likely means he'd be paid above market value. Would either compromise their integrity as union leaders to benefit their own team and contracts?

Hell, I wouldn't even be surprised if the league approached the union as a whole and offered them some incentive to try to convince Durant to take that max. It makes the Warriors a weaker team, which improves competitive balance, which likely drives ratings in the playoffs. That means more revenue (through both direct and indirect means, the league's revenue is not actually tied to ratings but the better the ratings are, the bigger their next media contract will likely be, plus better playoffs means more merchandising sales and other auxiliary revenue). More revenue means a higher salary cap. So what Durant does this summer not only has a major on-court impact over the next several years, but it might directly impact the amount of money available to other players in the league as a whole.

It's by far the most interesting subplot of the offseason and nobody is talking about it.



No, there really isn't. I'm just saying that theoretically you could if demand was high enough. But the circumstances that led to Durant becoming a Warrior are not replicable. It was a black swan event.



Can I ask why it's somehow more noble for a team to be formed through the draft than through free agency? It's an opinion I see way too often and I think it's ****ing stupid.

Players are not property. They do not inherently belong to the team that selects them (in a process, by the way, that only circumvents anti-trust laws because of collective bargaining, the draft depresses wages significantly and restricts commerce). It's not like players are demanding to be released from contracts midway through them. They serve their obligation to a team and then are free to do as they please.

If anything, I think it's good that players have this sort of agency. It holds teams accountable. Look at every occurrence of a superstar leaving a team and I'll show you the dozen managerial missteps that led to that point. If Oklahoma City doesn't trade James Harden they'd have won two or three titles and Durant doesn't go anywhere. If Cleveland had put a remotely decent team around LeBron the first time he probably wins a title and stays. Bosh was on terrible Toronto teams. The list goes on and on. There's a reason Tim Duncan never felt compelled to leave San Antonio. It's because they did a good ****ing job in surrounding him with the right talent and not being stingy about it. Their organizational philosophy is to put the best possible basketball product on the floor and let everything else work itself out from there. What happened to Tim Duncan should be the norm. That it isn't shows how stupid most NBA teams are, or at least were at the time of their lost star free agent, and frankly, we shouldn't be rewarding stupidity.

Why do we want to watch legendary talents waste away on bad teams? Who actually enjoyed the KG era in Minnesota? Who is enjoying what is happening to Anthony Davis right now? We should want these great players to be in a situation where they can succeed so that we can see the best possible version of them. I don't care if their original cities are sad about losing them. It's better for everyone else to have these guys in position to win. I would love it if that came with their original team. But it shouldn't have to.

Iguodala sort of let slip that essentially they had already worked it out and that he was coming back. How factual that is I don't know ... but the next day KD said he had no intention of going anywhere else and 2 days later Curry said the same thing.

I think eliminating the draft entirely makes sense but very few people (other than the players union) like that idea.

Jamiecballer
05-11-2017, 05:57 PM
Put golden state on timeout for 5 years. Problem solved.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Scoots
05-11-2017, 06:00 PM
if you want to pay the repeater tax year after year, and fill out the roster with minimum deals, it can be done. The tax will only grow. Money talks. I can't see an owner getting destroyed year after year with an escalating tax at some point.

Or, you can hope they are all just a bunch of givers, and take a way lower deal than they could get for their market value. Like I said, good luck with that.

The Spurs managed. The team MUST continue to draft well. Winning a LOT easily pays the tax.

Jamiecballer
05-11-2017, 06:01 PM
One realistic suggestion I have is to put in waivers so the annual parade of vets to championship contenders is put to an end. That's the part that genuinely irks me.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Scoots
05-11-2017, 06:14 PM
One realistic suggestion I have is to put in waivers so the annual parade of vets to championship contenders is put to an end. That's the part that genuinely irks me.

The players union would put a stop to that. They value the free agency of vets more than others.

Dade County
05-11-2017, 06:16 PM
The NBA needs to re-draft the entire league.

First pick goes to...?

FlashBolt
05-11-2017, 06:55 PM
The value of the Warriors has probably gone up 10000000x since about five years ago. The owner can afford it and learned from OKC just what might happen if you don't. With all those playoffs appearances and attendance, he's making too much to care.

Quinnsanity
05-11-2017, 08:41 PM
Iguodala sort of let slip that essentially they had already worked it out and that he was coming back. How factual that is I don't know ... but the next day KD said he had no intention of going anywhere else and 2 days later Curry said the same thing.

I think eliminating the draft entirely makes sense but very few people (other than the players union) like that idea.

I don't doubt that KD and Curry are staying. I think that's a near certainty. I just doubt that they've actually figured out the cap logistics at this point. But we'll see. As a fan I do sort of hope KD does demand the max. It makes the league as a whole more competitive without sacrificing the spectacle of the 4-star team.

And yea, eliminating the draft would be great, it just won't ever happen. It's a crutch for stupid teams. I would love nothing more than setting a hard cap and removing any restrictions on how much any player can be paid and where they can play. If you want to sign three star rookies to huge deals, go for it. It makes the league a total meritocracy. But oh well, that won't ever happen.

Quinnsanity
05-11-2017, 08:44 PM
One realistic suggestion I have is to put in waivers so the annual parade of vets to championship contenders is put to an end. That's the part that genuinely irks me.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

There are waivers. The problem is that if you claim someone off of waivers you have to pay their full salary. Most of these guys who get waived are in the last year of contracts they signed when they were younger, and are therefore overpaid. If you want to claim Joe Johnson at $22 million then go for it, any team can do it if they have the space, it's just not worth it.

What they could do is institute some sort of bidding system like they had with the amnesty clause. That way it isn't all or nothing.

warfelg
05-11-2017, 08:57 PM
There are waivers. The problem is that if you claim someone off of waivers you have to pay their full salary. Most of these guys who get waived are in the last year of contracts they signed when they were younger, and are therefore overpaid. If you want to claim Joe Johnson at $22 million then go for it, any team can do it if they have the space, it's just not worth it.

What they could do is institute some sort of bidding system like they had with the amnesty clause. That way it isn't all or nothing.

I don't think there's anything you can do about that without making the tax lower and the minimum salary higher.

Scoots
05-11-2017, 10:38 PM
The NBA needs to re-draft the entire league.

First pick goes to...?

Title winner

jmartin80
05-11-2017, 10:57 PM
The NBA needs to re-draft the entire league.

First pick goes to...?

Whoever is on Lebron's team and whoever he wants. heh

One of the main problems is the fact that the NBA let one team get 3 first overall picks in 4 years. And then let them sign back the best player in the World on a team that starts 5 players.

Cleveland got more 1st overall picks in 4 years than most teams get in 50.

This has to be considered if we are talking about a competitive balance.

flea
05-11-2017, 11:25 PM
Whoever is on Lebron's team and whoever he wants. heh

One of the main problems is the fact that the NBA let one team get 3 first overall picks in 4 years. And then let them sign back the best player in the World on a team that starts 5 players.

Cleveland got more 1st overall picks in 4 years than most teams get in 50.

This has to be considered if we are talking about a competitive balance.

Pretty sure that was part of the backroom deal to get Lebron back in Cleveland. The hilarious odds of some of those drafts though still confounds reason - like the year the Cavs "won" the lottery with the Clips pick (less than 10% chance IIRC) so they could keep their own pick that "happened" to fall outside of the lottery at #4. I think twice in 4 seasons they got the #1 overall and still had a #4 pick that "lost" the lottery.

What a crock - anything to get Queen leBae back to his beehive though.

LA_Raiders
05-11-2017, 11:34 PM
They have to fix it quick. I heard from a lot of folks that they don't watch regular season games anymore, because they know GS and Clev will make it to the final anyway. The Easy is just trash nobody can't compete with Clev. The west is a lil more competitive between GD and SA, but that's about it.

Oakmont_4
05-12-2017, 06:13 AM
Can I ask why it's somehow more noble for a team to be formed through the draft than through free agency? It's an opinion I see way too often and I think it's ****ing stupid.

Players are not property. They do not inherently belong to the team that selects them (in a process, by the way, that only circumvents anti-trust laws because of collective bargaining, the draft depresses wages significantly and restricts commerce). It's not like players are demanding to be released from contracts midway through them. They serve their obligation to a team and then are free to do as they please.

If anything, I think it's good that players have this sort of agency. It holds teams accountable. Look at every occurrence of a superstar leaving a team and I'll show you the dozen managerial missteps that led to that point. If Oklahoma City doesn't trade James Harden they'd have won two or three titles and Durant doesn't go anywhere. If Cleveland had put a remotely decent team around LeBron the first time he probably wins a title and stays. Bosh was on terrible Toronto teams. The list goes on and on. There's a reason Tim Duncan never felt compelled to leave San Antonio. It's because they did a good ****ing job in surrounding him with the right talent and not being stingy about it. Their organizational philosophy is to put the best possible basketball product on the floor and let everything else work itself out from there. What happened to Tim Duncan should be the norm. That it isn't shows how stupid most NBA teams are, or at least were at the time of their lost star free agent, and frankly, we shouldn't be rewarding stupidity.

Why do we want to watch legendary talents waste away on bad teams? Who actually enjoyed the KG era in Minnesota? Who is enjoying what is happening to Anthony Davis right now? We should want these great players to be in a situation where they can succeed so that we can see the best possible version of them. I don't care if their original cities are sad about losing them. It's better for everyone else to have these guys in position to win. I would love it if that came with their original team. But it shouldn't have to.

I have nothing against Free Agency. Nothing at all. Free Agency is good for sports for many of the reasons you listed and more. What I don't like are superstars in their primes teaming up together on 4 teams of 30. It's not good for the league. It's not good for the fans. It's not good for TV. It's just all around bad (except for those handful of players on the top 4 teams).

The SAS have definitely been the best run organization and they do it right. Generally they have built through the draft and added Free Agents, which outside of Aldridge, weren't huge names, just good, solid basketball players. Complimentary pieces if you will. That's how, IMO, Free Agency should mainly work. Yes, if you have a Bosh situation and the team refused to add talent around you (I don't think that's the case) or you disagree with management/ownership then obviously you should be able to leave. No issue with that either.

But when 3 players in the offseason decide to join forces and make a Super Team, that's different. When the second best player in the NBA decides to join the team that just lost the NBA finals and lost none of their core, that's different.

I have no issues with vets nearing the end of their careers taking less money trying to chase a ring. It's a good, smart move on their part. I would never fault them for it.

I have no issues with Free Agency. I never said as much. I do favor teams built by the draft, because it shows they have a competent FO. Honestly I think if you put Prime LBJ/Wade/Bosh or this current core in GS of Durant/Curry/Thompson/Green...They'd be successful in nearly every city/franchise with nearly any of the current NBA head coaches. To me it's not indicative of a well run organization ... You just simply have far more talent than anyone else. You're going to win. Now I understand it takes some set up contract wise to be able to do something like Miami did or even GS to an extent, it's a huge gamble and I get that. it paid off for Riley when it certainly could have flopped. But it's like walking into a casino and putting $10k on black in roulette. If you win that's great, but it's a stupid bet that didn't require much skill just a set of balls to take that gamble. I'd much rather watch someone build something from the ground up. To play black jack for 5 hours and come away with $100k at the end of the day.

Now with GS they absolutely did a tremendous job getting Curry/Thompson/Green in the draft...Again, I favor teams like that. But you add a Durant...Now it's taking away from the great job you did. Because now you were really just lucky timing wise to be able to add a player of that caliber to your current group. Not impressive to me.

Oakmont_4
05-12-2017, 06:39 AM
I don't doubt that KD and Curry are staying. I think that's a near certainty. I just doubt that they've actually figured out the cap logistics at this point. But we'll see. As a fan I do sort of hope KD does demand the max. It makes the league as a whole more competitive without sacrificing the spectacle of the 4-star team.

And yea, eliminating the draft would be great, it just won't ever happen. It's a crutch for stupid teams. I would love nothing more than setting a hard cap and removing any restrictions on how much any player can be paid and where they can play. If you want to sign three star rookies to huge deals, go for it. It makes the league a total meritocracy. But oh well, that won't ever happen.

Yup. I don't understand how so many people are against it. It would work. The only argument I've seen against it are from teams that are already loaded or that "there's too many unforeseen issues but I don't know what they are"

Oakmont_4
05-12-2017, 07:12 AM
So, if you took the top 60 guys in the NBA and arranged them in pairs on teams where the #1 and #60 ranked guys were on a team together and continue through the NBA, 2/59, 3/58, etc. I wonder if the 1/60, 2/59 guys would do better than the 20/40 pairing.

Using Ben Golliver's rankings from 2016 the Warriors 2/3/13/19 is formidable, the Cavs are at 1/25/30, Clippers are 4/10/20/59 ... but the Clippers have failed to achieve despite all that talent and the issue has been the for most of the time, the Clippers organization rather than the talent itself.

I was bored so I did this. I used these rankings (don't agree with them all but that's besides the point)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/sports/nba-top-100-players-2016/

I also went top 90 players instead of 60 so you give each team their own "big 3" (debatable term here)

Here's what we ended up with...Just for fun I assigned a team
East
Cleveland - 1 James /60 Randolph /61 Gay
Miami - 3 Durant /58 Gasol /63 Bradley
Indiana - 10 George / 51 Jackson / 70 Vucevic
Chicago - 11 Butler / 50 Whiteside / 71 Holiday
Toronto - 14 Lowry / 47 Parsons / 74 Jokic
Atlanta - 17 Millsap / 44 Gasol / 77 Schroder
New York - 18 Anthony / 43 Porzingas / 78 Smith
Washington - 22 Wall / 39 Valanciunas / 82 Fournier
Milwaukee - 25 Giannis / 36 Batum / 85 Bogut
Detroit - 24 Drummond / 37 Ibaka / 84 Parker
Boston - 27 Horford / 34 Iguadala / 87 Hood
Charlotte - 9 Thompson / 52 Walker / 69 Faried
Orlando - 15 Green / 46 Reddick / 75 KCP
Philadelphia - 19 Irving / 42 Dirk / 79 Carroll
Brooklyn - 20 Lillard / 41 Crowder / 80 Thompson

West
Golden State - 2 Curry /59 Barnes /62 Turner
San Antonio - 4 Leonard /57 Dragic /64 Hill
Oklahoma City - 5 Westbrook / 56 Oladipo /65 Teague
Los Angeles C - 6 Paul / 55 Harris / 66 Galinari
Minnesota - 7 KAT / 54 Bledsoe / 67 Knight
New Orleans - 8 Davis / 53 Wade / 68 MKG
Sacramento - 12 Cousins / 49 Wiggins / 72 Deng
Houston - 13 Harden / 48 Beal / 73 Rubio
Portland - 16 Aldridge / 45 DeRozen / 76 Young
Denver - 21 Griffin / 40 Thomas / 81 Parker
Dallas - 23 Jordan / 38 Adams / 83 Aminu
Utah - 26 Hayward / 35 Gobert / 86 Green
Los Angeles L - 28 Howard / 33 McCollum / 88 Gordon
Phoenix - 29 Favors / 32 Lopez / 89 Williams
Memphis - 30 Conley / 31 Love / 90 Bazemore

I think we could all agree it would be a better league. I really don't see any team that's heads over heals dominant. I highlighted what I thought would be the best teams. Coincidently, your example of 1/60, 2/59 vs the 21/40 and 20/41 teams are among the better ones I saw.

Also funny to note some of the guys that ended up back on the same team Gobert/Hayward and Melo/Porz.

warfelg
05-12-2017, 08:11 AM
I was bored so I did this. I used these rankings (don't agree with them all but that's besides the point)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/sports/nba-top-100-players-2016/

I also went top 90 players instead of 60 so you give each team their own "big 3" (debatable term here)

Here's what we ended up with...Just for fun I assigned a team
East
Cleveland - 1 James /60 Randolph /61 Gay
Miami - 3 Durant /58 Gasol /63 Bradley
Indiana - 10 George / 51 Jackson / 70 Vucevic
Chicago - 11 Butler / 50 Whiteside / 71 Holiday
Toronto - 14 Lowry / 47 Parsons / 74 Jokic
Atlanta - 17 Millsap / 44 Gasol / 77 Schroder
New York - 18 Anthony / 43 Porzingas / 78 Smith
Washington - 22 Wall / 39 Valanciunas / 82 Fournier
Milwaukee - 25 Giannis / 36 Batum / 85 Bogut
Detroit - 24 Drummond / 37 Ibaka / 84 Parker
Boston - 27 Horford / 34 Iguadala / 87 Hood
Charlotte - 9 Thompson / 52 Walker / 69 Faried
Orlando - 15 Green / 46 Reddick / 75 KCP
Philadelphia - 19 Irving / 42 Dirk / 79 Carroll
Brooklyn - 20 Lillard / 41 Crowder / 80 Thompson

West
Golden State - 2 Curry /59 Barnes /62 Turner
San Antonio - 4 Leonard /57 Dragic /64 Hill
Oklahoma City - 5 Westbrook / 56 Oladipo /65 Teague
Los Angeles C - 6 Paul / 55 Harris / 66 Galinari
Minnesota - 7 KAT / 54 Bledsoe / 67 Knight
New Orleans - 8 Davis / 53 Wade / 68 MKG
Sacramento - 12 Cousins / 49 Wiggins / 72 Deng
Houston - 13 Harden / 48 Beal / 73 Rubio
Portland - 16 Aldridge / 45 DeRozen / 76 Young
Denver - 21 Griffin / 40 Thomas / 81 Parker
Dallas - 23 Jordan / 38 Adams / 83 Aminu
Utah - 26 Hayward / 35 Gobert / 86 Green
Los Angeles L - 28 Howard / 33 McCollum / 88 Gordon
Phoenix - 29 Favors / 32 Lopez / 89 Williams
Memphis - 30 Conley / 31 Love / 90 Bazemore

I think we could all agree it would be a better league. I really don't see any team that's heads over heals dominant. I highlighted what I thought would be the best teams. Coincidently, your example of 1/60, 2/59 vs the 21/40 and 20/41 teams are among the better ones I saw.

Also funny to note some of the guys that ended up back on the same team Gobert/Hayward and Melo/Porz.

You know what's awesome about that too?

It's up to having a good GM to separate those teams too. Because it's all about how you put other players around those players.

I'm a Sixers fan so I'll take this:

Philadelphia - 19 Irving / 42 Dirk / 79 Carroll

This team needs to find a rebounding and dirty work big, along with a 3-and-D 2 guy. Then the bench needs a pure PG to complement Irving a bit. So having a good front office that could assess that, find it, then sign them to good deals is a tough job.

Let's take another one

Boston - 27 Horford / 34 Iguadala / 87 Hood

This team could use a 3-and-D point guard like Patrick Beverly since Iggy could handle the ball for the most part. They also need a "dirty guy" big like Nerlens Noel to make up for Horford not being a great rebounder. Then they need a on ball PG on the bench that could let them slide Hood to the 3, Beverly to the 2, and have the PG at the 1.

Again that comes down to having a good GM.

Some of these "big 3" needs tweaking. I think going +/- 5 spots to smooth out teams with 2 SF or 2 PG would be a little better.

Like:

Cleveland - 1 James /60 Randolph /61 Gay

Oklahoma City - 5 Westbrook / 56 Oladipo /65 Teague

If you flipped Gay and Teague both of those "big 3's" look so much better. So then you got James/Randolph/Teague and Westbrook/Oladipo/Gay.

Scoots
05-12-2017, 08:28 AM
I have nothing against Free Agency. Nothing at all. Free Agency is good for sports for many of the reasons you listed and more. What I don't like are superstars in their primes teaming up together on 4 teams of 30.

What confuses me about this is there are not 30 superstars there are fewer than 10, and 9 of those 10 players are not on LeBron's level. There are a lot more stars ... but they have not achieved the in-game success or the outside the NBA recognition to be called "superstar". By the very nature of the scarcity of talent we are not going to find parity by distributing a superstar to every, or even most, team(s).

Oakmont_4
05-12-2017, 08:45 AM
You know what's awesome about that too?

It's up to having a good GM to separate those teams too. Because it's all about how you put other players around those players.

I'm a Sixers fan so I'll take this:


This team needs to find a rebounding and dirty work big, along with a 3-and-D 2 guy. Then the bench needs a pure PG to complement Irving a bit. So having a good front office that could assess that, find it, then sign them to good deals is a tough job.

Let's take another one


This team could use a 3-and-D point guard like Patrick Beverly since Iggy could handle the ball for the most part. They also need a "dirty guy" big like Nerlens Noel to make up for Horford not being a great rebounder. Then they need a on ball PG on the bench that could let them slide Hood to the 3, Beverly to the 2, and have the PG at the 1.

Again that comes down to having a good GM.

Some of these "big 3" needs tweaking. I think going +/- 5 spots to smooth out teams with 2 SF or 2 PG would be a little better.

Like:



If you flipped Gay and Teague both of those "big 3's" look so much better. So then you got James/Randolph/Teague and Westbrook/Oladipo/Gay.

Yup exactly. You draft well and sign the right players to compliment what you have, you'll be a top team. There's no team that's too top heavy that couldn't be beaten. I'd love. It's nice to fantasize, but it'll never happen like this. This is video game stuff but it's still fun to look at. There's quite a few teams there that I would absolutely love to have. I'd take my chances with that Boston lineup if the right players were added.

I had to resist the urge to make changes like you suggested so the positions lined up better haha but I just went by the rankings.

Oakmont_4
05-12-2017, 08:48 AM
What confuses me about this is there are not 30 superstars there are fewer than 10, and 9 of those 10 players are not on LeBron's level. There are a lot more stars ... but they have not achieved the in-game success or the outside the NBA recognition to be called "superstar". By the very nature of the scarcity of talent we are not going to find parity by distributing a superstar to every, or even most, team(s).

I'm not saying every team will have a super star. IMO the NBA would be better if no team had more than 2 of the top 30 players in the NBA. If you make it impossible to afford them, it can be done. That's really more to my point. So Miami with LBJ/Bosh/Wade, BOS with Pierce/Garnett/Allen, CLE with LBJ/Kyrie/Love and GS with their big 4 should never exist. I'm not saying every team needs to be equal or have at least 1 star. It just shouldn't be so bunched up at the top with 4-5 teams with a good percentage (30-40%) of the top 30 players and then 25-26 teams that have 60-70% of the rest between them.

warfelg
05-12-2017, 09:00 AM
What confuses me about this is there are not 30 superstars there are fewer than 10, and 9 of those 10 players are not on LeBron's level. There are a lot more stars ... but they have not achieved the in-game success or the outside the NBA recognition to be called "superstar". By the very nature of the scarcity of talent we are not going to find parity by distributing a superstar to every, or even most, team(s).

I would agree with most of this. Except the "not going to find parity"; at least from my point of view. I'm not looking to find parity. I'm looking to find some sort of competitive balance. One where the separation between the 1 seed and 8 seed in a conference isn't 26 (26!) games in the win column. One where there isn't a 47 game difference in the win column.

I feel like tightening that part of the NBA would make things better. Take away the fact that most people feel that the NBA season is a reason to get to the playoffs.

And to pull another issue going around the NBA to this:
If we find a way to bring in more competitive balance, then you are lessening the "bad teams" out there that players could get away with a rest game against (and yes I know there's some rest against good teams going on).

I would also (and I doubt that it would happen) reduce the length of the NBA season.

Right now they go with:
4 games against other 4 division opponents (16 games)
4 games against 6 conference opponents (24 games)
3 games against 4 remaining conference opponents (12 games)
2 games against opposing conference (30 games)

I would propose:
5 games against other 4 division opponents (20 games) (main tie breaker in division is head to head now)
2 games against 10 conference opponents (20 games)
2 games against 1 division in opposing conference (10 games) (ex Atlantic division plays Pacific Division)
1 game against other 2 divisions in opposing conference (10 games)

That's a total of 60 games. Now you keep similar length of the schedule and open up more down days and limit the resting of games. That's taking 22 games our of the schedule.

The alternate to keep a few games in there and not go that low:
5 games against other 4 division opponents (20 games) (main tie breaker in division is head to head now)
3 games against 1 other division in conference (15 games)
2 games against last other division in conference (10 games)
2 games against 2 division in opposing conference (20 games) (ex Atlantic division plays Pacific Division)
1 game against other division in opposing conference (5 games)

That one is 70 games. And the years where you are playing the less games against cross conference would rotate, with you getting the extra home game to be every other year, same with the 3 game in conference and 5 game in division.

Example:
In 2017 Boston would get 3 home games against NYK and Toronto, 2 against Philly and Brooklyn. Then in 2018 they get 3 home games against Philly and Brooklyn and only 2 games against NYK and Toronto.

da ThRONe
05-12-2017, 09:25 AM
I for one find it far more compelling to have the talent more spread out facing each other all season and through out the post season as opposed to a handful of super teams playing each other only a few times during the regular season and then in the conference finals and finals. Feeling like the outcome is sit then having the season play out basically how you anticipated it is starting to lose at of my interest.

Scoots
05-12-2017, 09:31 AM
I would agree with most of this. Except the "not going to find parity"; at least from my point of view. I'm not looking to find parity. I'm looking to find some sort of competitive balance. One where the separation between the 1 seed and 8 seed in a conference isn't 26 (26!) games in the win column. One where there isn't a 47 game difference in the win column.

I feel like tightening that part of the NBA would make things better. Take away the fact that most people feel that the NBA season is a reason to get to the playoffs.

And to pull another issue going around the NBA to this:
If we find a way to bring in more competitive balance, then you are lessening the "bad teams" out there that players could get away with a rest game against (and yes I know there's some rest against good teams going on).

I would also (and I doubt that it would happen) reduce the length of the NBA season.

Right now they go with:
4 games against other 4 division opponents (16 games)
4 games against 6 conference opponents (24 games)
3 games against 4 remaining conference opponents (12 games)
2 games against opposing conference (30 games)

I would propose:
5 games against other 4 division opponents (20 games) (main tie breaker in division is head to head now)
2 games against 10 conference opponents (20 games)
2 games against 1 division in opposing conference (10 games) (ex Atlantic division plays Pacific Division)
1 game against other 2 divisions in opposing conference (10 games)

That's a total of 60 games. Now you keep similar length of the schedule and open up more down days and limit the resting of games. That's taking 22 games our of the schedule.

The alternate to keep a few games in there and not go that low:
5 games against other 4 division opponents (20 games) (main tie breaker in division is head to head now)
3 games against 1 other division in conference (15 games)
2 games against last other division in conference (10 games)
2 games against 2 division in opposing conference (20 games) (ex Atlantic division plays Pacific Division)
1 game against other division in opposing conference (5 games)

That one is 70 games. And the years where you are playing the less games against cross conference would rotate, with you getting the extra home game to be every other year, same with the 3 game in conference and 5 game in division.

Example:
In 2017 Boston would get 3 home games against NYK and Toronto, 2 against Philly and Brooklyn. Then in 2018 they get 3 home games against Philly and Brooklyn and only 2 games against NYK and Toronto.

How about:

4 games against other 4 division opponents (16 games)
3 games against 10 remaining conference opponents (30 games)
2 games against opposing conference (30 games)

That's what I've been suggesting. That coupled with the already agreed upon earlier start and later end to the season and eliminating the pre-season and there are no more road back to backs and no 4 games in 5 nights for any team in the NBA.

On the parity issue ... to me there are no rules that make parity happen. The better owners will get better GMs and better coaches and thus end up with better talent that is better utilized. So with that in mind the idea should be to get rid of the worst owners.

Scoots
05-12-2017, 09:32 AM
I for one find it far more compelling to have the talent more spread out facing each other all season and through out the post season as opposed to a handful of super teams playing each other only a few times during the regular season and then in the conference finals and finals. Feeling like the outcome is sit then having the season play out basically how you anticipated it is starting to lose at of my interest.

Sure ... but how do you manufacture that where the draft and free agency exist and where teams build over decades and where bad owners drag down a third of the league?

What about stars having their careers wasted by playing for owners who tank into the first overall pick then ride that pick to paydays for years and years while never really trying to win (Anthony Davis comes to mind)?

warfelg
05-12-2017, 09:43 AM
How about:

4 games against other 4 division opponents (16 games)
3 games against 10 remaining conference opponents (30 games)
2 games against opposing conference (30 games)

That's what I've been suggesting. That coupled with the already agreed upon earlier start and later end to the season and eliminating the pre-season and there are no more road back to backs and no 4 games in 5 nights for any team in the NBA.

On the parity issue ... to me there are no rules that make parity happen. The better owners will get better GMs and better coaches and thus end up with better talent that is better utilized. So with that in mind the idea should be to get rid of the worst owners.

I'm not sure eliminating 6 games goes far enough TBH.

Why do you keep talking about parity when I'm not? I'm talking about balance. Smaller disparity between the top and the bottom. Parity is a different winner every year. Balance is more teams with the ability to compete.

warfelg
05-12-2017, 09:46 AM
Sure ... but how do you manufacture that where the draft and free agency exist and where teams build over decades and where bad owners drag down a third of the league?

What about stars having their careers wasted by playing for owners who tank into the first overall pick then ride that pick to paydays for years and years while never really trying to win (Anthony Davis comes to mind)?

I think I finally came up with a way to change this:

Right now the money from tax teams is distributed to the teams (owners) who are under the cap.

What if, instead of it going to them, the tax money was redistributed to players in some way. Divided by performance to players on teams under the cap.

hugepatsfan
05-12-2017, 09:57 AM
Sure ... but how do you manufacture that where the draft and free agency exist and where teams build over decades and where bad owners drag down a third of the league?

What about stars having their careers wasted by playing for owners who tank into the first overall pick then ride that pick to paydays for years and years while never really trying to win (Anthony Davis comes to mind)?

A hard cap with no max would force those dominant teams to "reset" more often. You'd still have dominant teams from the front offices who draft well and use FA well. But they wouldn't be able to keep going further and further over the cap to keep guys because they'd all be able to pursue more money. And then those teams would continue to draft well and be good again, but with different players.

My concern would be too much parity. I don't want perfectly evenly distributed talent because I do want great teams. But I don't want the league so top heavy as it is now. Because teams will be better ran and smarter no matter what I think you'd still have that though. It'd just be with revolving players at the top.

A hard cap doesn't stop dominant teams from happened but it shortens the window so the league is more interesting year over year.

Oakmont_4
05-12-2017, 10:06 AM
Sure ... but how do you manufacture that where the draft and free agency exist and where teams build over decades and where bad owners drag down a third of the league?

What about stars having their careers wasted by playing for owners who tank into the first overall pick then ride that pick to paydays for years and years while never really trying to win (Anthony Davis comes to mind)?

See here's where I disagree. I don't view NO as "not trying to win" they just haven't been good at building a team. They've given out awful contracts to meh players over the years. The trade for Cousins this year (didn't work). They've made moves to attempt to win, they just haven't worked out. We also have to consider only so much talent is available every year. If the good players weren't flocking to the power house teams for less money it would be easier for teams like NO to attract good players, I'm not even talking about the top market Free Agents. But guys like David West, Shaun Livingston, Mike Miller, Deron Williams etc. These guys could make an impact on a team like NO if they signed a couple and they fit their team. But instead (because teams can go over the cap/offer exceptions) they take slightly less to increase their chances of winning. I don't blame the player. But the league helps facilitate this because of their structure.

Teams that are actively not trying to win...PHI, PHO, BRK, NYK. These teams you can have a legit gripe about.

But teams like NO, DEN, MIN, CHA these teams are small market. They have decent to good players. They make an effort to win. They're just not attractive to Free Agents and there's only so much talent out there. Even if they can offer more money, these players go to the top teams who can still pay them a decent buck but offer them a legit shot.

Oakmont_4
05-12-2017, 10:15 AM
A hard cap with no max would force those dominant teams to "reset" more often. You'd still have dominant teams from the front offices who draft well and use FA well. But they wouldn't be able to keep going further and further over the cap to keep guys because they'd all be able to pursue more money. And then those teams would continue to draft well and be good again, but with different players.

My concern would be too much parity. I don't want perfectly evenly distributed talent because I do want great teams. But I don't want the league so top heavy as it is now. Because teams will be better ran and smarter no matter what I think you'd still have that though. It'd just be with revolving players at the top.

A hard cap doesn't stop dominant teams from happened but it shortens the window so the league is more interesting year over year.

I don't think talent would ever be evenly distributed even with a hard cap. Like you mentioned yesterday, the top 1-2 players are far better than #9 and 10. So you'll still have dominant players and teams. And the top run teams will still rise to the top. There will be more turnover roster wise on the good teams, but the top 2 players on the team will likely remain and they're always going to be the face of the team anyways, that's really no different than now.

Take CLE for example and say the institute a hard cap. They're still going to find ways to keep LBJ and Kyrie. If the ship Love out, are they really going to be much worse if the rest of the league is hard capped as well? I don't think so. If they ditch love, they can still keep most of their role players as well.

Take GS. Say Durant is forced out by a hard cap. Curry/Green/Thompson aren't going anywhere and they can still afford to keep most of their role players. They're still going to be a top team in the league. Maybe in 4-5 years they lose one of Green/Thompson. They're still going to have say Curry/Green and replace Thompson with a younger version of a sharp shooter type.

Even with that kind of roster turnover, the teams identities will stay and I think will still be fun to watch. And obviously those top teams are still going to be near or atop the league

Hawkeye15
05-12-2017, 10:17 AM
The Spurs managed. The team MUST continue to draft well. Winning a LOT easily pays the tax.

they started a culture way before the newer generation hit, and while salaries were much more under control. They also are San Antonio, where you can buy a 5+ bedroom, 4000+ sq foot home for 500k, and pay no state income tax. An automatic 55 wins, playoff runs, Pops, and cheap living in warm weather go a long way...

Renting/buying a home, and living in the Bay Area, is rivaled only by a few cities as far as cost/taxes. So a player in GS making $10 million, gets the same as a player making half that in San Antonio.

Just throwing it out there, that $$$ does indeed play a huge factor sometimes, especially when it comes to taking discounts. Lot easier to take a discount in the middle of Texas than on the water in California.

Oakmont_4
05-12-2017, 10:18 AM
I understand why MAX contracts were introduced, but they're also part of the problem.

Setting a MAX a player can get hurts how the team can be built. Because essentially you're saying LBJ is = to Hayward. Clearly they're not even close. But for the team they have to set aside the same amount of money for 2 players who aren't really close to each other talent wise. While they can both go over the cap, it's still not equal, it affects the other contracts that can be handed out to build the rest of the team. LBJ doesn't need the supporting cast that Hayward will.

Hawkeye15
05-12-2017, 10:21 AM
I understand why MAX contracts were introduced, but they're also part of the problem.

Setting a MAX a player can get hurts how the team can be built. Because essentially you're saying LBJ is = to Hayward. Clearly they're not even close. But for the team they have to set aside the same amount of money for 2 players who aren't really close to each other talent wise. While they can both go over the cap, it's still not equal, it affects the other contracts that can be handed out to build the rest of the team. LBJ doesn't need the supporting cast that Hayward will.

Even as a fan of a small market team, I hate the loose cap. Either make it a hard cap like the NFL, or don't have one at all.

Vinylman
05-12-2017, 10:23 AM
Hardcap won't help much.

There's ways of manipulating it. The banana boat crew all took less money to play with each other with the Heat.


Having a Hardcap would stress the need of cheap contracts, you would see a lot more tanking.

myth... the discounts taken were meaningless for bosh and LBJ ... only around $1 million in the first year of the deals...

guys like david west signing for the vets min on GS this year has more impact than what those guys did

Scoots
05-12-2017, 10:26 AM
I'm not sure eliminating 6 games goes far enough TBH.

Why do you keep talking about parity when I'm not? I'm talking about balance. Smaller disparity between the top and the bottom. Parity is a different winner every year. Balance is more teams with the ability to compete.

Interesting choice of words "smaller disparity" literally means more parity. I think most people use "parity" in sports to mean better balance.

warfelg
05-12-2017, 10:27 AM
I hate the max deal as well. I think it's what lead to this problem.

Between that and the ease of how you can get into the tax and how to keep the players once you are in the tax it makes it far too easy on good teams to just keep everyone.

I'm all about forcing teams to make hard decisions. It shouldn't be easy for a team to say "**** it I'll pay the tax" just to keep a guy. They should have to prioritize what is important to them.

That will set apart the good from the bad GM's.

warfelg
05-12-2017, 10:28 AM
Interesting choice of words "smaller disparity" literally means more parity. I think most people use "parity" in sports to mean better balance.

Parity would mean more variety in champions. Smaller disparity between top and bottom would mean a league where you actually have to fight to get your championship.

hugepatsfan
05-12-2017, 10:30 AM
A lot of people are thinking about the max contract/hard cap stuff in terms of contracts players currently have. You need to really start from scratch to understand the concept.

Let's say you have a $120M hard cap. No max contract. Imagine that all of GS's players were FAs. All fo their stars would get PAID. GS wouldn't be able to pay all of them their market value. let's say Curry and Durant could get $35M each. Green gets $30M. Klay gets $25M. That's a total of $125M. They'd have to let one go to be under the cap or those guys take significantly less to play together and give them enough room to fill out the roster, and even then it would be with scrubs.

Lebron would make $50M let's say because he's that good. Kyrie probably gets $30M. Love gets $20M. Th same situation applies with CLE. They could manage keeping those guys but now they $20M to fill out the whole rest of the roster.

People are looking at GS and saying well they could pay Durant/Curry that because Green/Klay are making $15m each. Yes, that's the case right now but that will only be for a few years until the current deals artificially held down by the max contract take shape.

There will still be teams that draft a lot better and still be teams that do a better job of identifying hidden gems. But now you disincentive players to "team up" because it's a lot less money to take to be a second/third option because removing the max contract allows for actual tiers in salary and not just every FA gets the same amount because a max is a max.

Scoots
05-12-2017, 10:32 AM
See here's where I disagree. I don't view NO as "not trying to win" they just haven't been good at building a team. They've given out awful contracts to meh players over the years. The trade for Cousins this year (didn't work). They've made moves to attempt to win, they just haven't worked out. We also have to consider only so much talent is available every year. If the good players weren't flocking to the power house teams for less money it would be easier for teams like NO to attract good players, I'm not even talking about the top market Free Agents. But guys like David West, Shaun Livingston, Mike Miller, Deron Williams etc. These guys could make an impact on a team like NO if they signed a couple and they fit their team. But instead (because teams can go over the cap/offer exceptions) they take slightly less to increase their chances of winning. I don't blame the player. But the league helps facilitate this because of their structure.

Teams that are actively not trying to win...PHI, PHO, BRK, NYK. These teams you can have a legit gripe about.

But teams like NO, DEN, MIN, CHA these teams are small market. They have decent to good players. They make an effort to win. They're just not attractive to Free Agents and there's only so much talent out there. Even if they can offer more money, these players go to the top teams who can still pay them a decent buck but offer them a legit shot.

Tom Benson is widely known to be a terrible owner. One of the reasons they've had such terrible health history was speculated because Benson required the Pelicans to use the Saints training staff and weight room ... because he's cheap.

The small market argument is really overdone. Most bad teams have made bad decisions, they are not there because free agents didn't choose them. Most years top free agents don't change teams.

Scoots
05-12-2017, 10:36 AM
they started a culture way before the newer generation hit, and while salaries were much more under control. They also are San Antonio, where you can buy a 5+ bedroom, 4000+ sq foot home for 500k, and pay no state income tax. An automatic 55 wins, playoff runs, Pops, and cheap living in warm weather go a long way...

Renting/buying a home, and living in the Bay Area, is rivaled only by a few cities as far as cost/taxes. So a player in GS making $10 million, gets the same as a player making half that in San Antonio.

Just throwing it out there, that $$$ does indeed play a huge factor sometimes, especially when it comes to taking discounts. Lot easier to take a discount in the middle of Texas than on the water in California.

Having owned a house in the Bay Area and now living 90 miles north of San Antonio I can't disagree ... though the difference isn't close to 50%, if for no other reason than the players have to pay taxes for the state where the game is played so Texas players only get the state income tax discount on 50% of their games.