PDA

View Full Version : Owners not happy with conference balance



warfelg
07-07-2018, 04:07 PM
1015684303370350592

Makes sense. But as I suggested this is something they really need to talk with the players about face to face then.

TrueFan420
07-07-2018, 04:19 PM
1015684303370350592

Makes sense. But as I suggested this is something they really need to talk with the players about face to face then.

Not really. Just do away with the conferences and make it one league. Top 16 go to the playoffs. Problem solved.

Rivera
07-07-2018, 04:26 PM
1015684303370350592

Makes sense. But as I suggested this is something they really need to talk with the players about face to face then.

Not a player issue. This is incompetient front office members inside the eastern conference compared to the west. GM/Scouting is superior out west and why the west has been dominant, they have had better FO hires.

The only thing they need to meet with the players about is playoff format for the CBA, make it that the top 16 teams make the players. If the players say no thats their right but this is an owner/FO problem not hiring the right people vs a player problem

SiteWolf
07-07-2018, 04:28 PM
Not really. Just do away with the conferences and make it one league. Top 16 go to the playoffs. Problem solved.

People keep saying this, but never really speak to how you then come up with a balanced schedule.
Everybody plays (almost) everybody 3 times, alternating who gets 2 home games? Come up with some sort of rotation semi-similar to what the NFL does only with groups of teams rather than divisions?

Bottom line is- if owners are annoyed about balance, there's certain owners of eastern teams they should push to do more.

warfelg
07-07-2018, 04:35 PM
People keep saying this, but never really speak to how you then come up with a balanced schedule.
Everybody plays (almost) everybody 3 times, alternating who gets 2 home games? Come up with some sort of rotation semi-similar to what the NFL does only with groups of teams rather than divisions?

Bottom line is- if owners are annoyed about balance, there's certain owners of eastern teams they should push to do more.

This. So many people want to try to make this a black and white easy answer thing and it isnít.

SiteWolf
07-07-2018, 04:44 PM
While they're at it, if they want to create more balance, they create a harder salary cap. It'd be more difficult to create/continue 'super teams' if they didn't allow teams to circumvent the cap by stomaching millions in luxury tax, allowing owners willing to spend big to do so while other owners can't afford to or at least choose not to...similar to issues in baseball with NO cap.

DODGERS&LAKERS
07-07-2018, 04:53 PM
This. So many people want to try to make this a black and white easy answer thing and it isnít.

It kind of is. All that would have to happen is a team would have to play 23 teams three times during the year and the other five teams just twice. You can separate it by divisions if you want. So the Pacific Division can play the Southwest Division twice for a couple years and then they would rotate.

Obviously you'll have to have two home games for one team and one for the other. So the schedule will have to remain the same for two years in a row. So say the Lakers get two home games and the Celtics get one home game one year, the following year the Celtics will have two home games and the Lakers will only have one. You can cut down on the yearly travel by having a two-game home stand. So the year that the Lakers have to go out to Boston, they only go out once and play back-to-back games versus the Celtics. That would cut down on tons of travel by having to only visit a city once out of the year. Right now the Lakers would fly to Denver two separate times, and Denver would fly to La two separate times.

That's as close as you can get to a balanced schedule. You then take best 16 records and send them accordingly. There might be some extra travel during the playoffs, but throughout the year they would have cut down so much travel, they would probably still end up traveling less miles and time than the current version they are running right now.

Ultimately it would help the east teams as well. Denver should not be getting lottery picks, the Clippers should not be getting lottery picks when they are above 500 facing a tougher schedule. Teams in the east or west that don't make the playoffs deserve to have higher seedings during the draft. Technicalities of not making the playoffs because you faced a tougher schedule should not allow you to grab better players than a team that is less talented than you

TakeYourL
07-07-2018, 05:12 PM
It's a lack of talent issue, in a league dominated by top level talent.

Getting rid of 4-5 teams is the only fix.

1/3 of the league is in tank mode before the season even starts, which means they aren't trying to sign anyone and it allows the competitive teams to continue to eat up the talent, also means the teams that are tanking will sell their quality veterans off wholesale to the competitive teams.

The only way to fix this is cut 4-5 teams to more evenly distribute the talent.

TrueFan420
07-07-2018, 05:25 PM
People keep saying this, but never really speak to how you then come up with a balanced schedule.
Everybody plays (almost) everybody 3 times, alternating who gets 2 home games? Come up with some sort of rotation semi-similar to what the NFL does only with groups of teams rather than divisions?

Bottom line is- if owners are annoyed about balance, there's certain owners of eastern teams they should push to do more.
redoing the schedule is semantics if this fixes the massive imbalance of power from west to east. Travel isn't as hard as it once was.

beasted86
07-07-2018, 06:29 PM
As long as there are time zones there will be an East and a West conference with more inter conference games as a result.

Regular start times of 10 PM and later will ensure I miss a ton of games just like I'm sure 4 PM start times out West will make them miss a bunch of games on TV.

I can't imagine what damage earlier or later starts would do for in person attendance where West Coast cities are stuck in 5-6PM rush hour or East fans are stuck in highway traffic when the game is ending at midnight as they try and accommodate both coasts.

Just this very year West fans were complaining about super duper early start times during the playoffs.

There is no easy fix other than actually smart management to have the cap space to steal stars and balance the league over time. East teams have to stop giving Batum, and Otto Porter $100M+. Those guys cap strap the team and those guys sell zero jerseys. Those guys fill zero highlight reels whatsoever. Nobody is buying a ticket to see them play and they don't move the needle on wins that much. Miami gave Whiteside $100M which he at least he has a little more flare and fandom, but nonetheless filled the cap sheet with no names up and down the roster. Overall smart cap management will balance the league on its own.

arnchise
07-07-2018, 06:34 PM
The only way to fix this is move Houston to the Eastern conference.

SiteWolf
07-07-2018, 07:12 PM
These things are cyclical. You can't make massive changes to the league's layout based on the current makeup of teams, because teams that are powerhouses today won't necessarily be powerhouses tomorrow. Golden State is a perfect example- prior to these past 6 years they only made the playoffs ONCE after 1994 and hadn't sniffed the Finals since 1974. Meanwhile the Knicks haven't made it out of the 1st rd but once this century, but were a playoff fixture for years before that. Why? The Warriors drafted and built a team around Curry to start their run, Patrick Ewing retired ending the last Knicks run.

You don't reset the entire league based on short term balance of power between teams.....that is, unless you're going to use that balance of power between teams TO reset the league...on a regular basis (i.e. this year's schedule is based on last year's results)

nastynice
07-07-2018, 07:17 PM
These things are cyclical. You can't make massive changes to the league's layout based on the current makeup of teams, because teams that are powerhouses today won't necessarily be powerhouses tomorrow. Golden State is a perfect example- prior to these past 6 years they only made the playoffs ONCE after 1994 and hadn't sniffed the Finals since 1974. Meanwhile the Knicks haven't made it out of the 1st rd but once this century, but were a playoff fixture for years before that. Why? The Warriors drafted and built a team around Curry to start their run, Patrick Ewing retired ending the last Knicks run.

You don't reset the entire league based on short term balance of power between teams.....that is, unless you're going to use that balance of power between teams TO reset the league...on a regular basis (i.e. this year's schedule is based on last year's results)

Since Jordans bulls, the champion pistons, j O'Neal Pacers, big 3 celtics, big 3 heat, d rose bulls, d Howard magic, that's 6 teams in a span of about 20 years that were legit teams in the east. Every other team we would expect to get spanked in the finals. That's horrible and it's been a while, doesn't seem cyclical to me

*oh also lebron kyrie cavs, that's 7 teams

Joemoes
07-07-2018, 07:22 PM
Not a player issue. This is incompetient front office members inside the eastern conference compared to the west. GM/Scouting is superior out west and why the west has been dominant, they have had better FO hires.

The only thing they need to meet with the players about is playoff format for the CBA, make it that the top 16 teams make the players. If the players say no thats their right but this is an owner/FO problem not hiring the right people vs a player problem

Is it why the west is dominant ? I think the west is just a more attractive place to live partly. Who wants to live in Detroit ? Cleveland? Memphis Utah?

SiteWolf
07-07-2018, 07:39 PM
Since Jordans bulls, the champion pistons, j O'Neal Pacers, big 3 celtics, big 3 heat, d rose bulls, d Howard magic, that's 6 teams in a span of about 20 years that were legit teams in the east. Every other team we would expect to get spanked in the finals. That's horrible and it's been a while, doesn't seem cyclical to me

*oh also lebron kyrie cavs, that's 7 teams

You just solidified that it IS cyclical...it's just that the top end players tended to be on eastern teams for those years. When Jordan was in the East, people felt the West was the weaker conference...and for many of those years, they were. The balance of power isn't based on team location as much as it is on which had the top end players. In every other team sport, it takes more than a couple players to create long term success....not basketball. Sure, a basketball team still needs other solid players, but if they hit on and keep a superstar or two, they can have years of success.

BKLYNpigeon
07-07-2018, 07:45 PM
Should just move warriors to the East.

FlashBolt
07-07-2018, 07:58 PM
Owners don't give a damn. NBA teams are skyrocketing in value. Many of them are just waiting for the price to hit just enough and they'll pull the trigger.

Leftcoast_yg
07-07-2018, 08:02 PM
Not really. Just do away with the conferences and make it one league. Top 16 go to the playoffs. Problem solved.

Exactly what needs to happen

FlashBolt
07-07-2018, 08:07 PM
Adam Silver is the commissioner. He doesn't make the rules. Something like removing the conferences will affect tv contracts, revenue for a team, etc., it's far more complicated than just doing away with it altogether. But I agree. How many WC teams will be snubbed? These things matter a lot because a seeding can change how the playoffs progress.

Scoots
07-07-2018, 08:07 PM
People keep saying this, but never really speak to how you then come up with a balanced schedule.
Everybody plays (almost) everybody 3 times, alternating who gets 2 home games? Come up with some sort of rotation semi-similar to what the NFL does only with groups of teams rather than divisions?

Bottom line is- if owners are annoyed about balance, there's certain owners of eastern teams they should push to do more.I did that schedule somewhere. It was 4 games against every team in your division to maintain rivalries, 3 against every other team and the remainder of the games based on previous year ending seeding. The 1 seed in a division played extra games against the 1s, the 2s get extra games against the 2s etc.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

warfelg
07-07-2018, 08:11 PM
I did that schedule somewhere. It was 4 games against every team in your division to maintain rivalries, 3 against every other team and the remainder of the games based on previous year ending seeding. The 1 seed in a division played extra games against the 1s, the 2s get extra games against the 2s etc.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

What about travel, recovery time, arena availability, time zones, etc?

SiteWolf
07-07-2018, 10:33 PM
Exactly what needs to happen

Why? Why is it what needs to happen?
There's a reason every team sport has divisions and conferences....or rather, there's a reason they moved away from NOT having them.

Leftcoast_yg
07-07-2018, 10:36 PM
Adam Silver is the commissioner. He doesn't make the rules. Something like removing the conferences will affect tv contracts, revenue for a team, etc., it's far more complicated than just doing away with it altogether. But I agree. How many WC teams will be snubbed? These things matter a lot because a seeding can change how the playoffs progress.

Your right about the agreements they have and the terminology in those contracts being associated with the nba. Do away with the rules for qualifications and make it the 16 best teams. If there aware 10 teams from the west than its 5 rounds for west 3 for east just for the sake of contracts and legal stuff.

It is unfair for mediocre east teams to be top 5. Boston Cleveland and Toronto were the better teams everyone else was by default shoot the Cavs were not a top 5 team in the west.

goingfor28
07-07-2018, 10:36 PM
Not really. Just do away with the conferences and make it one league. Top 16 go to the playoffs. Problem solved.This

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

LA_Raiders
07-07-2018, 11:35 PM
Lol, this is ironic; they allow this to happen, and their appointed comish supports it.

nastynice
07-08-2018, 01:43 AM
You just solidified that it IS cyclical...it's just that the top end players tended to be on eastern teams for those years. When Jordan was in the East, people felt the West was the weaker conference...and for many of those years, they were. The balance of power isn't based on team location as much as it is on which had the top end players. In every other team sport, it takes more than a couple players to create long term success....not basketball. Sure, a basketball team still needs other solid players, but if they hit on and keep a superstar or two, they can have years of success.

Doesn't seem cyclical to me, 20 years and that little contenders, geez the west arguably had 8 contenders in a given year, I remember one year the 1-8 matchup Dallas San Antonio went seven games, Dallas was a nasty *** 8 seed.

It's been lopsided for a long time, doesn't seem to be getting any better. I remember one year golden state missed the playoffs w 48 wins, woulda had homecourt in the east. It's been bad man

GREATNESS ONE
07-08-2018, 02:32 AM
The only way to fix this is move Houston to the Eastern conference.

that would only fix it for like a 1-2, then what?

arnchise
07-08-2018, 06:35 AM
that would only fix it for like a 1-2, then what?
Move Boston to the west? Maybe the 76ers too?

Heediot
07-08-2018, 06:59 AM
West teams are better run and have more stars for guys to buddy and team with. Expect Melo to stay out west. It's not about running away from anybody, it's about joining a team making moves and doing **** to promote winning.

Heediot
07-08-2018, 07:03 AM
You just solidified that it IS cyclical...it's just that the top end players tended to be on eastern teams for those years. When Jordan was in the East, people felt the West was the weaker conference...and for many of those years, they were. The balance of power isn't based on team location as much as it is on which had the top end players. In every other team sport, it takes more than a couple players to create long term success....not basketball. Sure, a basketball team still needs other solid players, but if they hit on and keep a superstar or two, they can have years of success.

Dream, DRob, Stockton, Mailman, Sir Charles, Payton were all out west. Shaq for the Bulls 2nd 3 peat.

I think the west had more stars during the 6 rings run.

nastynice
07-08-2018, 11:16 PM
Dream, DRob, Stockton, Mailman, Sir Charles, Payton were all out west. Shaq for the Bulls 2nd 3 peat.

I think the west had more stars during the 6 rings run.

I actually think so too, but at least it was close then.

GREATNESS ONE
07-08-2018, 11:54 PM
Move Boston to the west? Maybe the 76ers too?

you guys will still find a way to choke ;)

effen5
07-09-2018, 12:13 AM
Dream, DRob, Stockton, Mailman, Sir Charles, Payton were all out west. Shaq for the Bulls 2nd 3 peat.

I think the west had more stars during the 6 rings run.

It was pretty balanced in the 90s in both conferences

steamroller
07-09-2018, 04:23 AM
None of the EC cities are very appealing, with the exceptions of NYC and Toronto. Then again, Dolan nearly completely destroyed the Knicks, despite being in one of the two richest and largest markets in the US. Toronto's a bit of an outlier since it's a great city but outside of the US.

Milwaukee, Cleveland, Philly, Boston, etc. don't really move the needle as destination spots. The lakers are run by a bunch of clowns, but the magic/lebron bromance has them back on the map, and the ridiculous dot com money in Silicon Valley makes all improbable dreams of free agent signings come true.

Hawkeye15
07-09-2018, 11:40 AM
These things are cyclical. You can't make massive changes to the league's layout based on the current makeup of teams, because teams that are powerhouses today won't necessarily be powerhouses tomorrow. Golden State is a perfect example- prior to these past 6 years they only made the playoffs ONCE after 1994 and hadn't sniffed the Finals since 1974. Meanwhile the Knicks haven't made it out of the 1st rd but once this century, but were a playoff fixture for years before that. Why? The Warriors drafted and built a team around Curry to start their run, Patrick Ewing retired ending the last Knicks run.

You don't reset the entire league based on short term balance of power between teams.....that is, unless you're going to use that balance of power between teams TO reset the league...on a regular basis (i.e. this year's schedule is based on last year's results)

I agree in theory, but when was the east worth a damn last? If it weren't for them having the 2 greatest players ever within a 30 year span, would they have even won more than 1-2 chips in reality?

Re-alignment should be an option. If not, they need to start doing away with conferences and just make it 1-16.

RCarlson85
07-09-2018, 12:45 PM
None of the EC cities are very appealing, with the exceptions of NYC and Toronto. Then again, Dolan nearly completely destroyed the Knicks, despite being in one of the two richest and largest markets in the US. Toronto's a bit of an outlier since it's a great city but outside of the US.

Milwaukee, Cleveland, Philly, Boston, etc. don't really move the needle as destination spots. The lakers are run by a bunch of clowns, but the magic/lebron bromance has them back on the map, and the ridiculous dot com money in Silicon Valley makes all improbable dreams of free agent signings come true.

You missed Miami. As far as places to live Miami has to be near the top of the EC if not the top.

Hawkeye15
07-09-2018, 01:39 PM
You missed Miami. As far as places to live Miami has to be near the top of the EC if not the top.

eh, why? I don't even agree with the post you are quoting, Toronto, Chicago, New York, Brooklyn, Boston, Philly, and even Milwaukee are really cool cities.

BKLYNpigeon
07-09-2018, 02:33 PM
Get Better.

BKLYNpigeon
07-09-2018, 02:35 PM
Just Shorten the Season, get rid of Conferences and make the best 16 teams in the playoffs

ChI_ShIzzLe
07-09-2018, 03:31 PM
eh, why? I don't even agree with the post you are quoting, Toronto, Chicago, New York, Brooklyn, Boston, Philly, and even Milwaukee are really cool cities.

Please donít mention ďcoolĒ and ďMilwaukeeĒ in the same sentence again Hawkeye :)

ChI_ShIzzLe
07-09-2018, 03:33 PM
None of the EC cities are very appealing, with the exceptions of NYC and Toronto. Then again, Dolan nearly completely destroyed the Knicks, despite being in one of the two richest and largest markets in the US. Toronto's a bit of an outlier since it's a great city but outside of the US.

Milwaukee, Cleveland, Philly, Boston, etc. don't really move the needle as destination spots. The lakers are run by a bunch of clowns, but the magic/lebron bromance has them back on the map, and the ridiculous dot com money in Silicon Valley makes all improbable dreams of free agent signings come true.

You should visit Chicago in the summer :)

Hawkeye15
07-09-2018, 03:36 PM
Please donít mention ďcoolĒ and ďMilwaukeeĒ in the same sentence again Hawkeye :)

Milwaukee is actually really cool.

ChI_ShIzzLe
07-09-2018, 03:41 PM
Milwaukee is actually really cool.

Only thing remotely ďcoolĒ is the area by the lakefront in downtown, other than that most of the city is trash. I prefer Madison way more.

IndyRealist
07-09-2018, 04:18 PM
I agree in theory, but when was the east worth a damn last? If it weren't for them having the 2 greatest players ever within a 30 year span, would they have even won more than 1-2 chips in reality?

Re-alignment should be an option. If not, they need to start doing away with conferences and just make it 1-16.

How much of that is because players have been actively avoiding being in conference with the two greatest players of all time? And that teams gave up trying to compete with them? Prior to this summer it had been suggested that the East was just treading water until Lebron retired, which is reasonable to keep costs down for less financially stable teams if you have no chance of getting out of the 2nd round. Throw in some mismanagement from what should be powerhouse teams in BRK and NYK, and you've got a pretty reasonable explanation for the state of the East. Lebron changes landscapes. Since 2011 we've just been waiting him out.

WestCoastSportz
07-09-2018, 06:36 PM
The only way to try and level the playing field is to invoke a hard cap like the NFL, as well as fixing the structure of salaries. So a guy like Kevin Durant can't sign a two year deal, opt out of his second year, create some money for the team to spend, then re-sign with the same team. If a player does that, his salary shouldn't be able to increase. So if KD opts out of a $28M deal, then the most his team can re-sign him for is $28M. He would then be eligible for a increase if he plays out his contract. The way the current cap is set up is more of an option than a cap.

The problem with this current system is not every team is able to spend $135M on salaries while paying huge luxury taxes. Small market teams get worse while large market teams get better. A hard cap could remedy it a little.

steamroller
07-09-2018, 11:25 PM
You missed Miami. As far as places to live Miami has to be near the top of the EC if not the top.

Yeah but Pat Riley expects his players to practice hard. There are so many other teams that coddle players for no conceivable reason that the heat have no significant edge in that regard.

One Nut Kruk
07-10-2018, 12:48 PM
Milwaukee is actually really cool.

I liked Milwaukee when I visited.

crewfan13
07-10-2018, 08:41 PM
How much of that is because players have been actively avoiding being in conference with the two greatest players of all time? And that teams gave up trying to compete with them? Prior to this summer it had been suggested that the East was just treading water until Lebron retired, which is reasonable to keep costs down for less financially stable teams if you have no chance of getting out of the 2nd round. Throw in some mismanagement from what should be powerhouse teams in BRK and NYK, and you've got a pretty reasonable explanation for the state of the East. Lebron changes landscapes. Since 2011 we've just been waiting him out.

I think I the West has sort of turned into a studs and duds type of conference too. When you get so top heavy with more great teams, they beat the crap out of the bad teams. Compare that to the east that has the bad teams that sneak out more wins against each other. And you have a perfect storm like what happened this year. The west had probably 7 or so of the top 10 teams, but they also got 4 of the top 5 picks in the draft.

hugepatsfan
07-10-2018, 10:36 PM
The West in general has done a better job drafting stars. And then in a league where guys team up and the West has more desirable markets that

The East has also had some injury problems too. KG hurt his knee in year 2 with Boston and was never the same. BOS would have been much better for those early Heat years if his decline was accelerated like that. We also saw injuries to Rose and PG13 chop down the Bulls/Pacers during their prime run years. Even this last year Boston likely ends Lebronís run if Kyrie or Hayward weíre healthy.

It also hurt that two of the true carry-a-franchise stars drafted to the East in Lebron and Wade chose to team up rather than gonat things separate. Both of them with legit help made a team great and instead of two we got one.

And lastly, I think we somewhat overstate how good the West really is. Duncanís Spurs and Kobeís Lakers went to like all the finals with a couple of Dirks Mavs and one of Durantís thunder sneaking in. In the East we had Lebron go ever hear with the Celtics sneaking two in and ORL getting one. The only difference is that while Duncan/Kobe split it, Lebron had them all in the East so it looked more dominant. Realistically, there really havenít been much more true contenders in the West. Most of those teams are just Torontoís that we glorify more.

WaDe03
07-10-2018, 10:41 PM
Top 16 wonít happen, 2/3 of the league has to vote for it and thereís no reason any EC team would. Iím on the NBa board of directors.

Cracka2HI!
07-10-2018, 10:57 PM
They need to do the rule change before the season. It needs to be the 16 best teams this season. This will probably be the worst balance of power between conferences the league will ever see. This isn't the type of thing to put on an agenda for a few years down the line. I'm sure this will fix itself over time but this year is going to be ridiculous. I think there is only 1 team in the East that would be a sure-fire playoff team in the West in Boston. Philly would probably get in but are they honestly hands down better than; Golden State, Houston, OKC, Lakers, Spurs, Portland, Minny and Utah? Honestly I think they fit in battling for that 8th spot. Not to mention imagine what the Eastern Conference teams records could be if they played Western Conference schedules.

Raps08-09 Champ
07-10-2018, 10:58 PM
Just put in a hardcap and call it a day.

nastynice
07-11-2018, 01:09 AM
They need to do the rule change before the season. It needs to be the 16 best teams this season. This will probably be the worst balance of power between conferences the league will ever see. This isn't the type of thing to put on an agenda for a few years down the line. I'm sure this will fix itself over time but this year is going to be ridiculous. I think there is only 1 team in the East that would be a sure-fire playoff team in the West in Boston. Philly would probably get in but are they honestly hands down better than; Golden State, Houston, OKC, Lakers, Spurs, Portland, Minny and Utah? Honestly I think they fit in battling for that 8th spot. Not to mention imagine what the Eastern Conference teams records could be if they played Western Conference schedules.

Yup, take out spurs and Portland and the other 6 teams could legitimately end the season looking better than the top seed in the east, which will probably be Boston.

I'm happy with Boston and Philly, they would be legit playoff contenders in the west, but also the disappointing bucks and wizards might take that step, that would be nice

nastynice
07-11-2018, 01:13 AM
Just put in a hardcap and call it a day.

In theory I like the east west split. A lot

Why there's been such a clear diff in talent for so long, I don't know. It's such a weird phenomenon and I don't see any possible explanation for it, lol. In none of the other 3 sports do we make the excuses that we make in basketball for the lopsided conferences

JOSKOMANG4
07-11-2018, 12:57 PM
Alignment:

Eastern conference:

Northeast: Bkn, philly, nyk, boston, toronto
mideast: Cavs, hornets, pacers,, grizzles,Wizards
southeast: Hawks, heat, magic, pelicans, rockets


western conference:

Northwest: Thunder, t-wolves, bucks, pistons, bulls
midwest: Warriors, kings, jazz, nuggets, blazers
southwest: Lakers, clippers, suns, spurs, mavericks

IndyRealist
07-11-2018, 01:04 PM
Alignment:

Eastern conference:

Northeast: Bkn, philly, nyk, boston, toronto
mideast: Cavs, hornets, pacers, hornets, grizzles
southeast: Hawks, heat, magic, pelicans, rockets


western conference:

Northwest: Thunder, t-wolves, bucks, pistons, bulls
midwest: Warriors, kings, jazz, nuggets, blazers
southwest: Lakers, clippers, suns, spurs, mavericks

Indianapolis is 3 hours from Chicago if you drive -really- slow, and they end up in different conferences? Most of northern Indiana are Bulls/Cubs/Sox fans.

numba1CHANGsta
07-11-2018, 01:07 PM
Go 1-16 when playoff seeding begins, that should take care of the problem

Hawkeye15
07-11-2018, 01:51 PM
Indianapolis is 3 hours from Chicago if you drive -really- slow, and they end up in different conferences? Most of northern Indiana are Bulls/Cubs/Sox fans.

the midwest has 6 teams, so I get one is left out. Just sucks its my Wolves, who have to travel to the Pacific NW for half their division road games.

One Nut Kruk
07-11-2018, 05:16 PM
Indianapolis is 3 hours from Chicago if you drive -really- slow, and they end up in different conferences? Most of northern Indiana are Bulls/Cubs/Sox fans.

Pistons in the West makes so much sense too....and Rockets in the East lmao

SiteWolf
07-11-2018, 07:11 PM
They need to do the rule change before the season. It needs to be the 16 best teams this season. This will probably be the worst balance of power between conferences the league will ever see. This isn't the type of thing to put on an agenda for a few years down the line. I'm sure this will fix itself over time but this year is going to be ridiculous. I think there is only 1 team in the East that would be a sure-fire playoff team in the West in Boston. Philly would probably get in but are they honestly hands down better than; Golden State, Houston, OKC, Lakers, Spurs, Portland, Minny and Utah? Honestly I think they fit in battling for that 8th spot. Not to mention imagine what the Eastern Conference teams records could be if they played Western Conference schedules.

No, it IS the type of thing you put on the agenda.....you can't just snap your fingers and say 'done'.
The schedule is already out and the balance of the current schedule is by no means fair for a no-divisions league.
Not to mention the increased cost of more traveling (as in airfare, not the game rule that's never called)

It'd make more sense to change to North and South conferences than no conferences, but even that has increased costs involved.

But the better fix to me has always been a harder cap to limit these super teams in the first place. I don't get the mindset that's any kind of fun or any kind of good for the league.

KG2TB
07-11-2018, 10:29 PM
1-16 makes the most sense as far as quality of play and putting the best product together when it matters....the playoffs. Thereís no way around it. The best teams should be competing in the playoffs itís a no brainer. The eastern conference playoffs are a joke...nobody cares. Putting the top 16 teams in would actually make the playoffs interesting (which theyíre not) and make the nba not a complete joke.

hugepatsfan
07-11-2018, 11:04 PM
if you went just top 16 last year DEN would maybe make it over the 8 seed in the East but other than that the bracket would be the same IMO. It wouldnít really make a different in the team that gets in.

The problem to me is that the West is just better across the board if you compare seed by seed. Weíre past the days of the 10 seed in the West being better than the 6 seed in the East. Is MIN really that much better than WAS? Once you get over the respect for Pop factor are the Kawhi-less Spurs really much better than the Bucks?

Just go seed by seed and the West is a little stronger at each spot. So all-in itís a big difference but in terms of who gets in it wouldnt really be much different if you go top 16 in terms of who gets in.

FlashBolt
07-12-2018, 12:06 AM
if you went just top 16 last year DEN would maybe make it over the 8 seed in the East but other than that the bracket would be the same IMO. It wouldnít really make a different in the team that gets in.

The problem to me is that the West is just better across the board if you compare seed by seed. Weíre past the days of the 10 seed in the West being better than the 6 seed in the East. Is MIN really that much better than WAS? Once you get over the respect for Pop factor are the Kawhi-less Spurs really much better than the Bucks?

Just go seed by seed and the West is a little stronger at each spot. So all-in itís a big difference but in terms of who gets in it wouldnt really be much different if you go top 16 in terms of who gets in.

Strangely enough, the East vs West regular seasons for all teams was 390-390. Kinda debunks the narrative that West has been significantly better. It's still better but people act like these Eastern Conference teams are going to show up to the game looking scared of their Western Conference opponents. These are NBA players at the end of the day.

warfelg
07-12-2018, 08:05 AM
Strangely enough, the East vs West regular seasons for all teams was 390-390. Kinda debunks the narrative that West has been significantly better. It's still better but people act like these Eastern Conference teams are going to show up to the game looking scared of their Western Conference opponents. These are NBA players at the end of the day.

Yea.

I've sat at for awhile that the mid-range of the east is bigger. A larger range of teams in that .500 range. On the flip the west has a better top, and going towards to bottom wheres a few more.

I think that there's a few things that could be done:
~ Contract values all pre-tax, so that there's no saving in certain states.
~ Trading over the soft cap harder, trading over the luxury tax even harder unless you straight up cut cap.
~ Over the tax at the previous year can't buy draft picks.

Obviously the super-max and the 5th year aren't really helping in keeping players put, so there needs to be a bird rights and non-bird rights max.

I'd like to see:
~Rookie Max: 20%
~4-8 years of service non-bird max: 20%
~4-8 years of service bird max: 25%
~4-8 years of service bird supermax: 30%
~8+ years of service non-bird max: 25%
~8+ years of service bird max: 30%
~8+ years of service bird supermax: 35%

Players really gonna give up ~$5-10mil in year 1 without counting the increases?

cheetos185
07-12-2018, 08:28 AM
They should raise luxury tax but get rid of cap space so teams like LA NY and Chicago can stop tanking and pay talent at the same time all super team have to pay steep price to keep their roster intact. Once the Big Markets get back to competing there will be less teams tanking allowing small markets to collect cheap young talents.

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 09:25 AM
Yea.

I've sat at for awhile that the mid-range of the east is bigger. A larger range of teams in that .500 range. On the flip the west has a better top, and going towards to bottom wheres a few more.

I think that there's a few things that could be done:
~ Contract values all pre-tax, so that there's no saving in certain states.
~ Trading over the soft cap harder, trading over the luxury tax even harder unless you straight up cut cap.
~ Over the tax at the previous year can't buy draft picks.

Obviously the super-max and the 5th year aren't really helping in keeping players put, so there needs to be a bird rights and non-bird rights max.

I'd like to see:
~Rookie Max: 20%
~4-8 years of service non-bird max: 20%
~4-8 years of service bird max: 25%
~4-8 years of service bird supermax: 30%
~8+ years of service non-bird max: 25%
~8+ years of service bird max: 30%
~8+ years of service bird supermax: 35%

Players really gonna give up ~$5-10mil in year 1 without counting the increases?

Yeah, the east has always had a ton of mediocre teams, and end up sending 1-2 of them to the playoffs every year. Where the west, if you aren't going to win 45 games or more, you are better of tanking, so you have had 3-4 just terrible teams out west every year. My Wolves, Sac, and the Suns have been regulars, with some other teams taking turns in/out. So weird too, my Wolves were 34-18 against the west this year, and 13-17 against the east, so you get those odd years that make no sense..

The contenders are out west, minus a LeBron team in the east the last 10 years. None of this will change much, except LeBron is out west now. Boston/Philly maybe, but its still GS/Houston ahead of everyone.

The west is way stronger seeds 1-8, has been for nearly 25 years, will be for at least another 5-6. Re-alingment may help, but seeding 1-16 is the easiest way.

I would also like to see them get rid of max deals, and then set a hard cap. Average out where teams are right now with the cap, and set that number as a hard cap you can't go over, then re-adjust the cap depending on revenue each year. Like the NFL. Teams will really have to make decisions on who to keep, and who to let go, and it will create more parity.

warfelg
07-12-2018, 09:43 AM
Yeah, the east has always had a ton of mediocre teams, and end up sending 1-2 of them to the playoffs every year. Where the west, if you aren't going to win 45 games or more, you are better of tanking, so you have had 3-4 just terrible teams out west every year. My Wolves, Sac, and the Suns have been regulars, with some other teams taking turns in/out. So weird too, my Wolves were 34-18 against the west this year, and 13-17 against the east, so you get those odd years that make no sense..

The contenders are out west, minus a LeBron team in the east the last 10 years. None of this will change much, except LeBron is out west now. Boston/Philly maybe, but its still GS/Houston ahead of everyone.

The west is way stronger seeds 1-8, has been for nearly 25 years, will be for at least another 5-6. Re-alingment may help, but seeding 1-16 is the easiest way.

I don't disagree with anything you just said TBH. Which is why I've stood by that. East has more teams around .500; so it skews that E v W numbers some.

I've gone through the year by year playoffs for 30 years, and really on average it's .81 teams that switch per year. When you look over a prolonged time not enough changes happen in terms of in/out to really effect much. The actual seeding is effected sure.


I would also like to see them get rid of max deals, and then set a hard cap. Average out where teams are right now with the cap, and set that number as a hard cap you can't go over, then re-adjust the cap depending on revenue each year. Like the NFL. Teams will really have to make decisions on who to keep, and who to let go, and it will create more parity.

Hard cap is so so hard to implement because of the guaranteed contracts.

The best things you are going to be able to do is continually tilt the playing field with contracts. Make the price for leaving even steeper like I went with. Keep making the tax harder and harder to operate within. Make the money you could take by changing teams even steeper. Introduce multiple max contract taxes (like more than 2 maxes make you lose an exemption). Reduce the number of exemptions.

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 09:47 AM
I don't disagree with anything you just said TBH. Which is why I've stood by that. East has more teams around .500; so it skews that E v W numbers some.

I've gone through the year by year playoffs for 30 years, and really on average it's .81 teams that switch per year. When you look over a prolonged time not enough changes happen in terms of in/out to really effect much. The actual seeding is effected sure.



Hard cap is so so hard to implement because of the guaranteed contracts.

The best things you are going to be able to do is continually tilt the playing field with contracts. Make the price for leaving even steeper like I went with. Keep making the tax harder and harder to operate within. Make the money you could take by changing teams even steeper. Introduce multiple max contract taxes (like more than 2 maxes make you lose an exemption). Reduce the number of exemptions.

great point. I guess there is just SO much money now, that while it might be more enticing to stay for an extra $50 million, when the "lesser" deal is still worth $20-30 million per year, what motivation is there? That is enough money for 5 lifetimes in a single year.

I like your penalties suggestions though. It would restrict adding more talent after you hit certain milestones or contracts..

cheetos185
07-12-2018, 09:58 AM
great point. I guess there is just SO much money now, that while it might be more enticing to stay for an extra $50 million, when the "lesser" deal is still worth $20-30 million per year, what motivation is there? That is enough money for 5 lifetimes in a single year.

I like your penalties suggestions though. It would restrict adding more talent after you hit certain milestones or contracts..

If you restricted teams from spending there will be more tanking which is bad for the league.

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

warfelg
07-12-2018, 09:59 AM
great point. I guess there is just SO much money now, that while it might be more enticing to stay for an extra $50 million, when the "lesser" deal is still worth $20-30 million per year, what motivation is there? That is enough money for 5 lifetimes in a single year.

I like your penalties suggestions though. It would restrict adding more talent after you hit certain milestones or contracts..

Yea that's my basic idea. I've been slow evolving this.

So step one is huge changes to max structures. Can't just put more money on the supermax thing and a 5% difference. On a $100mil contract you're talking about $5mil. It's got to widen to 10%-15%. How many players would leave $10-15mil A SEASON on the table. Put in a partial for traded players. But leacing your current team for another team should really hurt.

My tax idea is to level the playing field. Some states have much higher tax rates than others. Taking away that advantage can really change it.

Much more taxing luxury tax. Making it so difficult to stay there multiple years.

No more exemptions for being in the tax other than bird rights level exemptions.

Cannot take on salary at all in the tax.

I've recently came up with this multiple max penalty. I dunno what exactly you could do, but either lose an exemption or you could do something like a 3rd or 4th max gets treated as a luxury tax contract.

warfelg
07-12-2018, 10:04 AM
If you restricted teams from spending there will be more tanking which is bad for the league.

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

Or when teams can't spend as much it means there are more players to move to teams with the space.

crewfan13
07-12-2018, 10:12 AM
I donít get the obsession with state tax rates. The two best players in the league have left their respective teams in the past 5 years, and both went to the state with the worst tax laws for someone in their income bracket.

There really doesnít seem to be mich evidence that players actually go to places with more favorable tax laws. If anything, it actually seems to be the opposite.

crewfan13
07-12-2018, 10:29 AM
Iím all for changing the playoffs to 1-16. Doesnít really change a ton in who gets in, but should make for more compelling late series. This year we got 2 pretty good conference finals, but an awful finals. 1-16 should almost guarantee a decent finals at least, and most likely some decent conference finals. And it may make teams jockeying for position late in the season a little more interesting as well. Instead of fighting for 1 or 2 spots, you theoretically could see teams with potential to jump 4 or more spots late in the season.

And I hate the NBAs financial system. But at the end of the day, is the best solution just to wait out golden state? I mean, they hit the lottery on two specific things that partially allowed them to be great. I donít mean to disparage them as a team. They did draft incredibly well.

But they ended up being fortunate that Curry was a late bloomer due to injuries. If curry stays healthy and breaks out early in his career, his 2nd contract wouldnít have been as much of a bargain, meaning less money for Durant. And they got Durant in an offseason where a crazy cap jump freed up a bunch of cash. It was the perfect storm for them to create a super team. The likelihood of that situation happening again is pretty slim. If you were to take GS completely out of the equation, you are looking at a little more balanced league.

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 10:33 AM
If you restricted teams from spending there will be more tanking which is bad for the league.

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

I don't agree with that. If you restrict spending, it evens the playing field more. The NFL is a perfect model imo. Though I understand the worth of a single player is far greater in the NBA, but its also 12-15 players, not 53.

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 10:34 AM
Or when teams can't spend as much it means there are more players to move to teams with the space.

bingo

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 10:36 AM
I donít get the obsession with state tax rates. The two best players in the league have left their respective teams in the past 5 years, and both went to the state with the worst tax laws for someone in their income bracket.

There really doesnít seem to be mich evidence that players actually go to places with more favorable tax laws. If anything, it actually seems to be the opposite.

agreed. There are a lot of ex-players in Texas and Florida for example, because your money goes way further, but in their playing days, I don't think it matters much. Plus, NBA players make so much money now its insane. Taxes barely factor. I know a dollar is a dollar, but if you ONLY get to keep $15 million per year of your $26 million per year salary in California, boo ****ing hoo.

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 10:38 AM
Iím all for changing the playoffs to 1-16. Doesnít really change a ton in who gets in, but should make for more compelling late series. This year we got 2 pretty good conference finals, but an awful finals. 1-16 should almost guarantee a decent finals at least, and most likely some decent conference finals. And it may make teams jockeying for position late in the season a little more interesting as well. Instead of fighting for 1 or 2 spots, you theoretically could see teams with potential to jump 4 or more spots late in the season.

And I hate the NBAs financial system. But at the end of the day, is the best solution just to wait out golden state? I mean, they hit the lottery on two specific things that partially allowed them to be great. I donít mean to disparage them as a team. They did draft incredibly well.

But they ended up being fortunate that Curry was a late bloomer due to injuries. If curry stays healthy and breaks out early in his career, his 2nd contract wouldnít have been as much of a bargain, meaning less money for Durant. And they got Durant in an offseason where a crazy cap jump freed up a bunch of cash. It was the perfect storm for them to create a super team. The likelihood of that situation happening again is pretty slim. If you were to take GS completely out of the equation, you are looking at a little more balanced league.

GS is the ultimate outlier. I hate them because of it. That is just it, why even bother unless you already have stars in place? Nobody is catching them right now, may as well wait it out.

cheetos185
07-12-2018, 01:16 PM
Or when teams can't spend as much it means there are more players to move to teams with the space.Top players will always figure out a way to team up in one location what your suggesting won't even out the field with elite talents yes it might spread out mid to low tier players like Lavine but those guys don't move the needle much.

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 01:51 PM
Top players will always figure out a way to team up in one location what your suggesting won't even out the field with elite talents yes it might spread out mid to low tier players like Lavine but those guys don't move the needle much.

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

unless top players are willing to sacrifice a lot of money, no, they wouldn't be able to load up on one team if there is a hard cap. With the way warfelg is building it, they would have to leave a lot of money on the table regardless.

Will you avoid oddities, like a team that drafts perfect and randomly has cap space pop up before they pay their 2-3 guys? maybe. But it would curtail the superteams pretty well overall.

FlashBolt
07-12-2018, 01:55 PM
agreed. There are a lot of ex-players in Texas and Florida for example, because your money goes way further, but in their playing days, I don't think it matters much. Plus, NBA players make so much money now its insane. Taxes barely factor. I know a dollar is a dollar, but if you ONLY get to keep $15 million per year of your $26 million per year salary in California, boo ****ing hoo.

It might not matter to the higher tier players who have different priorities but to someone who makes around $10 million and knows they won't be able to win a championship, it likely makes a big difference for them. 450+ players in the NBA. Not everyone wants to win and some are likely just trying to make as much money before they retire.

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 02:38 PM
It might not matter to the higher tier players who have different priorities but to someone who makes around $10 million and knows they won't be able to win a championship, it likely makes a big difference for them. 450+ players in the NBA. Not everyone wants to win and some are likely just trying to make as much money before they retire.

sure, and they would slide in just fine. It forces management to be more fiscally responsible, and not allow teams to build superteams as easily is all. There are always ways around a system that doesn't have a hard cap.

cheetos185
07-12-2018, 04:07 PM
unless top players are willing to sacrifice a lot of money, no, they wouldn't be able to load up on one team if there is a hard cap. With the way warfelg is building it, they would have to leave a lot of money on the table regardless.

Will you avoid oddities, like a team that drafts perfect and randomly has cap space pop up before they pay their 2-3 guys? maybe. But it would curtail the superteams pretty well overall.You don't think the team losing their top player will trade him where he wants to go like Cavs did with LeBron first time? Also how are teams going to compete with the warriors if you have hard cap?

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 04:30 PM
You don't think the team losing their top player will trade him where he wants to go like Cavs did with LeBron first time? Also how are teams going to compete with the warriors if you have hard cap?

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

teams can't compete with the Warriors now....

a Hard Cap would be difficult, because of contracts already in place. So it would take very creative work on the NBA's part, and they would need to get the players association to agree. Good luck...

a system that takes away the ability to add various contracts entirely if you are in the tax tiers would help, as would giving teams and players major financial advantages to keeping players. But at the end of the day, if a player is willing to play for $15 million versus $30 million just so he can team up with his buddies or go to a certain city, there isn't anything you can do about it. All of this is just about leveling the playing field more. That is all.

KG2TB
07-12-2018, 05:17 PM
GS is the ultimate outlier. I hate them because of it. That is just it, why even bother unless you already have stars in place? Nobody is catching them right now, may as well wait it out.

Houston was a healthy CP away from catching them last season so I wouldnít say no one is catching them. GS didnít look great in the playoffs. Odds are, yes, they will win it but itís not like they look unbeatable.

SiteWolf
07-12-2018, 06:37 PM
You don't think the team losing their top player will trade him where he wants to go like Cavs did with LeBron first time? Also how are teams going to compete with the warriors if you have hard cap?

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

Because the same cap would apply to the Warriors
They're 40mil over the current cap- 2nd only to the about to drop lower Thunder (once Melo is gone)

IndyRealist
07-12-2018, 08:23 PM
teams can't compete with the Warriors now....

a Hard Cap would be difficult, because of contracts already in place. So it would take very creative work on the NBA's part, and they would need to get the players association to agree. Good luck...

a system that takes away the ability to add various contracts entirely if you are in the tax tiers would help, as would giving teams and players major financial advantages to keeping players. But at the end of the day, if a player is willing to play for $15 million versus $30 million just so he can team up with his buddies or go to a certain city, there isn't anything you can do about it. All of this is just about leveling the playing field more. That is all.

Any implementation of a hard cap would likely take 5 years, to let all current contracts run out. In 5 years your team must be under the cap or you forfeit games until you are.

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 08:57 PM
Houston was a healthy CP away from catching them last season so I wouldnít say no one is catching them. GS didnít look great in the playoffs. Odds are, yes, they will win it but itís not like they look unbeatable.

any team CP3 plays for is a healthy CP3 away from winning though. GS didn't even play well, they still won. Then smashed Cleveland. GS got better. Houston didn't. Years from now, we will all understand how truly great this GS team really is. Like they didn't even try and still beat Houston.

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 08:58 PM
Any implementation of a hard cap would likely take 5 years, to let all current contracts run out. In 5 years your team must be under the cap or you forfeit games until you are.

I know it. With how much money the league is making right now, they aren't about to go into a standoff over a hard cap with the players, which is likely what would happen anyways. A hard cap is a pipe dream, but this brother wants to hit that pipe.

Hawkeye15
07-12-2018, 08:59 PM
Because the same cap would apply to the Warriors
They're 40mil over the current cap- 2nd only to the about to drop lower Thunder (once Melo is gone)

yep. A team that wanted LeBron could give him half their cap. Superstars would only be 1-2 at most per team. It would just create so much more parity, unless a star or more took massively less to play with a stacked roster.

TakeYourL
07-12-2018, 10:31 PM
yep. A team that wanted LeBron could give him half their cap. Superstars would only be 1-2 at most per team. It would just create so much more parity, unless a star or more took massively less to play with a stacked roster.

Super teams are far more entertaining than parity. No one wants to watch teams with one star anymore, I certainly don't, and I hated heats big 3, and hate GS, b watching teams become super teams and playing no other super teams is far more exciting than watching Chris Bosh on the Toronto Raptors with no other stars on his team.

You think teams Losing half their cap on one star is a good thing ? Teams blow 30 % of their cap on the wrong guy or an injured player and it destroys their team, imagine waiting 5 years for a bad contract that is eating up half your cap space.

No thanks...

crewfan13
07-12-2018, 10:57 PM
It might not matter to the higher tier players who have different priorities but to someone who makes around $10 million and knows they won't be able to win a championship, it likely makes a big difference for them. 450+ players in the NBA. Not everyone wants to win and some are likely just trying to make as much money before they retire.

And how often do you really hear stories of guys choosing a team over another mostly due to state income tax laws? Itís fairly uncommon and if the mid tier guys were choosing low tax states, wouldnít you think those teams would glob into the middle of the pack?

I guess I donít really see it as an issue. Players are usually just as concerned about the reported total money than the take home money because itís a status symbol. If there was evidence of large swathes of players going to low tax locations and the high tax states were struggling then maybe itís a consideration. But that doesnít seem to be the case at all.

And if youíre going to start factoring that in, then why not start factoring in local advertising opportunities? Local car dealership adds probably pay more in LA than say Indy. And the opportunity go local advertising in New York is much higher than Milwaukee, so letís factor that in too. And while weíre at it, letís make all the players live in the middle of Kansas. Thatís the center of the continental us, so itís the best place to travel to all the games. And if they all live in the same spot, weather and nightlife no longer impact decisions.

At the end of the day, state tax laws are part of a huge equation players factor in when selecting a team to play for. Thereís virtually no evidence that players as a whole factor this more heavily than other outside of basketball factors. To start considering it and giving teams more ďcapĒ so their players make more post tax seems like youíre trying to fix a problem that doesnít exist, and may create a problem that you donít expect.


any team CP3 plays for is a healthy CP3 away from winning though. GS didn't even play well, they still won. Then smashed Cleveland. GS got better. Houston didn't. Years from now, we will all understand how truly great this GS team really is. Like they didn't even try and still beat Houston.

Agree. Houston did almost beat golden state and if CP3 was healthy, they very well might have. But I thought it was pretty clear that as a whole, golden state was the better team. They too were banged up and never looked completely engaged. If they get hungry again, their talent and play style makes it basically impossible for anyone to really rival them at the moment. But the likelihood of that exact situation happening again is slim.

Iím all for changing some of the nba cap rules. In general, I think the nba has the worst rules. It takes the worst part of both the nfl and mlb and doesnít really take the good parts of their systems. A truly open system with better team control over young assets would be better. Or a hard cap would be better. The nba landed in the middle of those two systems and seems to have adopted all of the shortcomings of both systems without gaining he benefits. But if youíre changing the system just to ďcombatĒ and golden state from happening, then itís probably a waste. That type of team is so rare, you need to look at the system and how itís working for everyone else to determine its effectiveness.

FlashBolt
07-12-2018, 11:30 PM
And how often do you really hear stories of guys choosing a team over another mostly due to state income tax laws? Itís fairly uncommon and if the mid tier guys were choosing low tax states, wouldnít you think those teams would glob into the middle of the pack?

I guess I donít really see it as an issue. Players are usually just as concerned about the reported total money than the take home money because itís a status symbol. If there was evidence of large swathes of players going to low tax locations and the high tax states were struggling then maybe itís a consideration. But that doesnít seem to be the case at all.

And if youíre going to start factoring that in, then why not start factoring in local advertising opportunities? Local car dealership adds probably pay more in LA than say Indy. And the opportunity go local advertising in New York is much higher than Milwaukee, so letís factor that in too. And while weíre at it, letís make all the players live in the middle of Kansas. Thatís the center of the continental us, so itís the best place to travel to all the games. And if they all live in the same spot, weather and nightlife no longer impact decisions.

At the end of the day, state tax laws are part of a huge equation players factor in when selecting a team to play for. Thereís virtually no evidence that players as a whole factor this more heavily than other outside of basketball factors. To start considering it and giving teams more ďcapĒ so their players make more post tax seems like youíre trying to fix a problem that doesnít exist, and may create a problem that you donít expect.



Agree. Houston did almost beat golden state and if CP3 was healthy, they very well might have. But I thought it was pretty clear that as a whole, golden state was the better team. They too were banged up and never looked completely engaged. If they get hungry again, their talent and play style makes it basically impossible for anyone to really rival them at the moment. But the likelihood of that exact situation happening again is slim.

Iím all for changing some of the nba cap rules. In general, I think the nba has the worst rules. It takes the worst part of both the nfl and mlb and doesnít really take the good parts of their systems. A truly open system with better team control over young assets would be better. Or a hard cap would be better. The nba landed in the middle of those two systems and seems to have adopted all of the shortcomings of both systems without gaining he benefits. But if youíre changing the system just to ďcombatĒ and golden state from happening, then itís probably a waste. That type of team is so rare, you need to look at the system and how itís working for everyone else to determine its effectiveness.

I just told you. Players who aren't as publicized in the media may highly consider state income taxes. To them, winning is not a necessity whereas superstars might have earned enough money to come to a point where money is no longer as high of a necessity or maybe the trade-off between earning a higher salary does not outweigh potential career advantages in winning a ring such as more endorsements, greater societal recognition, etc., You have to consider that many NBA players won't win a ring and they come to the realization that if they can just make as much money in their limited duration of playing NBA, they will take advantage of that. If I am making $10 million a year knowing I won't be able to win regardless, would I rather stay in Los Angeles or Texas? Give me Texas for the sole purpose of lower expenses. If I am a superstar and bigger cities attract better free agents and winning is a higher reward, I'd probably go with the larger city. I'm not advocating that it is a general rule but to say players don't think about state taxes is simply wrong because as agents, it is their responsibility to bring it up when negotiating with their client.

warfelg
07-13-2018, 09:42 AM
I just told you. Players who aren't as publicized in the media may highly consider state income taxes. To them, winning is not a necessity whereas superstars might have earned enough money to come to a point where money is no longer as high of a necessity or maybe the trade-off between earning a higher salary does not outweigh potential career advantages in winning a ring such as more endorsements, greater societal recognition, etc., You have to consider that many NBA players won't win a ring and they come to the realization that if they can just make as much money in their limited duration of playing NBA, they will take advantage of that. If I am making $10 million a year knowing I won't be able to win regardless, would I rather stay in Los Angeles or Texas? Give me Texas for the sole purpose of lower expenses. If I am a superstar and bigger cities attract better free agents and winning is a higher reward, I'd probably go with the larger city. I'm not advocating that it is a general rule but to say players don't think about state taxes is simply wrong because as agents, it is their responsibility to bring it up when negotiating with their client.

Really to me the idea of making these contracts all pre-tax is the slight leveling of the playing field. Yea it doesn't effect all teams the same or all players the same. IMO the reality of balancing out the playing field means leveling out as much as possible.

A simple tax calculator shows that if in California you made $10,000,000 in one season (in that state), you would have $4,792,491 post taxes. In Texas, same thing and you would have $6,097,590 post taxes. That's a $1,305,099.

Now if you leveled the tax advantage between the two states, and that player was paid $10,000,000 no matter which state he played in, that makes one less reason to pick one team over another.

Hawkeye15
07-13-2018, 09:46 AM
Super teams are far more entertaining than parity. No one wants to watch teams with one star anymore, I certainly don't, and I hated heats big 3, and hate GS, b watching teams become super teams and playing no other super teams is far more exciting than watching Chris Bosh on the Toronto Raptors with no other stars on his team.

You think teams Losing half their cap on one star is a good thing ? Teams blow 30 % of their cap on the wrong guy or an injured player and it destroys their team, imagine waiting 5 years for a bad contract that is eating up half your cap space.

No thanks...

I am just trying to find a way to avoid seeing the same few teams every year win it all. Basketball is so influenced by a single player, that no matter how hard you try, there will always be dominant teams and bad teams.

Bosh sucked, but I get what you are saying. But to me, I would prefer to watch a league where the games best player has enough impact to at least stick with a team instead of getting killed. Or to watch a league where 1 injury actually does cripple a team. You know, actually not have the season determined before it starts....like it is now.

Hawkeye15
07-13-2018, 09:48 AM
And how often do you really hear stories of guys choosing a team over another mostly due to state income tax laws? Itís fairly uncommon and if the mid tier guys were choosing low tax states, wouldnít you think those teams would glob into the middle of the pack?

I guess I donít really see it as an issue. Players are usually just as concerned about the reported total money than the take home money because itís a status symbol. If there was evidence of large swathes of players going to low tax locations and the high tax states were struggling then maybe itís a consideration. But that doesnít seem to be the case at all.

And if youíre going to start factoring that in, then why not start factoring in local advertising opportunities? Local car dealership adds probably pay more in LA than say Indy. And the opportunity go local advertising in New York is much higher than Milwaukee, so letís factor that in too. And while weíre at it, letís make all the players live in the middle of Kansas. Thatís the center of the continental us, so itís the best place to travel to all the games. And if they all live in the same spot, weather and nightlife no longer impact decisions.

At the end of the day, state tax laws are part of a huge equation players factor in when selecting a team to play for. Thereís virtually no evidence that players as a whole factor this more heavily than other outside of basketball factors. To start considering it and giving teams more ďcapĒ so their players make more post tax seems like youíre trying to fix a problem that doesnít exist, and may create a problem that you donít expect.



Agree. Houston did almost beat golden state and if CP3 was healthy, they very well might have. But I thought it was pretty clear that as a whole, golden state was the better team. They too were banged up and never looked completely engaged. If they get hungry again, their talent and play style makes it basically impossible for anyone to really rival them at the moment. But the likelihood of that exact situation happening again is slim.

Iím all for changing some of the nba cap rules. In general, I think the nba has the worst rules. It takes the worst part of both the nfl and mlb and doesnít really take the good parts of their systems. A truly open system with better team control over young assets would be better. Or a hard cap would be better. The nba landed in the middle of those two systems and seems to have adopted all of the shortcomings of both systems without gaining he benefits. But if youíre changing the system just to ďcombatĒ and golden state from happening, then itís probably a waste. That type of team is so rare, you need to look at the system and how itís working for everyone else to determine its effectiveness.

absolutely man. And I am not worried about GS, they will fade. But the system itself isn't the best. I want a hard cap personally, it forces parity. But an open system would create more competition too. If a team like the Wolves landed a LeBron talent, well they would have motivation to spend a ton to contend. If they suck, they can not spend. Simple as it gets.

Hawkeye15
07-13-2018, 09:50 AM
Really to me the idea of making these contracts all pre-tax is the slight leveling of the playing field. Yea it doesn't effect all teams the same or all players the same. IMO the reality of balancing out the playing field means leveling out as much as possible.

A simple tax calculator shows that if in California you made $10,000,000 in one season (in that state), you would have $4,792,491 post taxes. In Texas, same thing and you would have $6,097,590 post taxes. That's a $1,305,099.

Now if you leveled the tax advantage between the two states, and that player was paid $10,000,000 no matter which state he played in, that makes one less reason to pick one team over another.

I am NOT for that. Guess what, the state you want to live in should impact your bottom line. it does for everyone else, we can't make athletes special. They make enough ****ing money. I left Texas knowing I would pay more for less. It was my choice. Athletes can do the same. hell Derek Jeter has been a FL resident for 15 years. He figured it out...

warfelg
07-13-2018, 10:03 AM
I am NOT for that. Guess what, the state you want to live in should impact your bottom line. it does for everyone else, we can't make athletes special. They make enough ****ing money. I left Texas knowing I would pay more for less. It was my choice. Athletes can do the same. hell Derek Jeter has been a FL resident for 15 years. He figured it out...

Most employers have cost of living adjustments within their pay scales that cover for that.

Like where I work, in VA I get $16/hr. The guys that work in the LA locations get $25/hour. The NYC location gets $32/hr. The middle of no where Minnesota location gets $11/hour.

It's all dependent on where you love.

Hawkeye15
07-13-2018, 10:39 AM
Most employers have cost of living adjustments within their pay scales that cover for that.

Like where I work, in VA I get $16/hr. The guys that work in the LA locations get $25/hour. The NYC location gets $32/hr. The middle of no where Minnesota location gets $11/hour.

It's all dependent on where you love.

I live in Minnesota...

The cost of living calculators aren't accurate. My sister is about to find that out, but she thinks she knows everything. My point is, when an occupation makes a certain amount, you need to suck it up and make a sacrifice. They don't pay a CEO in NY 3 times what they pay a CEO in Wisconsin for example. There is a certain threshold of earnings where the cost of living index doesn't apply. Playing a childs game for $20,000,000 a year for sure meets this threshold..

crewfan13
07-13-2018, 12:38 PM
Really to me the idea of making these contracts all pre-tax is the slight leveling of the playing field. Yea it doesn't effect all teams the same or all players the same. IMO the reality of balancing out the playing field means leveling out as much as possible.

A simple tax calculator shows that if in California you made $10,000,000 in one season (in that state), you would have $4,792,491 post taxes. In Texas, same thing and you would have $6,097,590 post taxes. That's a $1,305,099.

Now if you leveled the tax advantage between the two states, and that player was paid $10,000,000 no matter which state he played in, that makes one less reason to pick one team over another.

But again, thereís very little evidence that players are picking tax friendly states over non tax friendly states. Seems like youíre making a mountain out of a molehill.

Thereís advantages and disadvantages of every location you play in. I donít see why you take away one advantage (that historically itís hard to verify is even a high priority advantage) but donít worry about every other advantage. I mean, marketing and advertising opportunity is a huge impact, even for the mid tier free agents. Weather, proximity to home, and proximity to certain attractions (nightlife, business opportunity ext) are all as big, if not bigger impacts on a free agents decision. I guess I donít understand leveling the playing field in this instance, but not some of the rest.

If anything, players taking less money to play fo a winning team is a bigger issue than players take home money. So why not focus on fixing that issue?

Plus, not to be the ďwell actuallyĒ guy, but players pay state income tax for each game in the state the game takes place. Not sure if you factored that in at all. So the difference between say Houston and golden state in tax is actually based more closely on the 41 home games, not all 82 since those teams play similar road schedules. Not sure if you factored that in to your calcultion or not. Apologies if you did. In a sport like the nfl, where signing bonuses and workout bonuses are a huge part of contracts, itís not a huge deal. But I believe a lot of nba deals are structured more heavily on a true yearly salary, which is typically divided up amongst the games played. So the blow of playing in a higher income tax state is lessened to an extent.

crewfan13
07-13-2018, 12:51 PM
And the more I think about it, it would probably actually benefit the low tax states even more than it does now. Imagine being Sacramento and having to pay salaries that are significantly higher than say Orlando. Both are smaller markets who arenít really historical basketball powerhouses. Now Sacramento has to pay a fairly significantly higher amount of money to maintain the same salary cap hit.

And it would be much easier for a team like Houston or Miami to spend deep into the luxury tax because their pocketbook hit would be lower than it would be for golden state or the lakers. So by shifting the money around, you arenít as much taking away an advantage, youíre actually just shifting the same advantage. There wouldnít be a benefit to players to go to lower tax states, but the owners of lower tax states would be more likely to spend more money, since thereís less of a pocketbook hit.

FlashBolt
07-13-2018, 03:25 PM
But again, thereís very little evidence that players are picking tax friendly states over non tax friendly states. Seems like youíre making a mountain out of a molehill.

Thereís advantages and disadvantages of every location you play in. I donít see why you take away one advantage (that historically itís hard to verify is even a high priority advantage) but donít worry about every other advantage. I mean, marketing and advertising opportunity is a huge impact, even for the mid tier free agents. Weather, proximity to home, and proximity to certain attractions (nightlife, business opportunity ext) are all as big, if not bigger impacts on a free agents decision. I guess I donít understand leveling the playing field in this instance, but not some of the rest.

If anything, players taking less money to play fo a winning team is a bigger issue than players take home money. So why not focus on fixing that issue?

Plus, not to be the ďwell actuallyĒ guy, but players pay state income tax for each game in the state the game takes place. Not sure if you factored that in at all. So the difference between say Houston and golden state in tax is actually based more closely on the 41 home games, not all 82 since those teams play similar road schedules. Not sure if you factored that in to your calcultion or not. Apologies if you did. In a sport like the nfl, where signing bonuses and workout bonuses are a huge part of contracts, itís not a huge deal. But I believe a lot of nba deals are structured more heavily on a true yearly salary, which is typically divided up amongst the games played. So the blow of playing in a higher income tax state is lessened to an extent.

You wouldn't know about the evidence but it's inherent in people, not just athletes, about which situation makes them the most money. Not everyone can be a LeBron James or Stephen Curry. For guys who are in it for the money, yes, that is always in their mind. You assume that because it is not being reported, it doesn't happen. What is there to report? "The 80th best player in the NBA chooses to play in a no state income tax because he doesn't care about winning and wants more money"? There is nothing to report. You can't possibly tell me that out of 4,000 NBA players in the history of the sport, a bunch of them have never considered the higher amount of $ they could get playing for a team where there is no state income taxes.

Scoots
07-17-2018, 12:38 PM
Hardcap doesn't solve the issue. Players control super-team formation and money issues can be worked out if they want to.

1-16 playoff seeding can't be done without a change to CBA and the owners want NOTHING to do with it.

The draft order being based on making the playoffs has been helping the West teams for decades and continues to do so. Western teams with much better records against better opponents get higher picks than Eastern teams with worse records against softer opponents so the issue continues. Draft order isn't based on record nor does finishing position effect draft order (The Warriors won the title and drafted ahead of Toronto and Houston's picks).

Travel distance as an issue is silly. It's NEVER been fair. The Cavs travel about half as much as the Warriors in the current system. If the Eastern teams have to travel a lot more so be it.

If you want parity have a re-draft every year worst to first and each team is only allowed to protect 3 players.

Of course, like most of this stuff, there is almost no chance anything changes despite what Silver says.