Looking over the league..who has been really hurt by all this? All these mega teams.

[Kblaze8855]

Ive seen such anger by some over the way some of these teams are coming together. I just have to ask what do these people think is gonna happen? What has happened so far? Who is being hurt?


Im not asking which teams are worse. Clearly the Raptors, Cavs, Nuggets, Suns, and so on all lost key players. My question is...is the league full of more bad teams as a result? Teams that dont have a good future already mapped out? Who is left to just struggle and have their fans stay home and...ruin the league...the way some fans are making all this out?

Im gonna not even cover the teams that clearly are loaded or at least very talented. So im throwing out the Heat, Lakers, Celtics, Magic, Knicks, Spurs(3 all star level players and like...5 quality role players?), Hawks(not loaded...but too talented to have their ability to get talent discussed), Mavs(same as the Hawks).

Middling teams like the Jazz, Blazers(even with all their curses...on pace for like 50 wins), Memphis, and Hornets. Thunder somewhere between the first two levels. Have 2 young stars and their future is not in question though.

Bad teams.

We have Minny, GS, Charlotte, Philly, NJ, Toronto, Cleveland, the Wizards, Clippers, and I guess Rockets, Bucks, Pistons, Pacers and Kings.

The Nuggets arent bad going forward. They have a flat out stacked guard/swingman lineup and a quality bigman. The Nuggets arent a team to pity right now. With good coaching they could be solid next year.

So...the rest.

Minny? Them being bad has nothing to do with the mega teams stacking up all the talent. KG got older...they decided to rebuild. Cant blame drafting mistakes and an obvious 2-3 year plan on the lack of availiable stars. They had one. Got all they could and went from scratch with a younger bigman. Didnt work out. Starting again. Cant blame anyone though. Nobody outside Minny at least.

GS? They have sucked for all but like....2 seasons since Run TMC. Anyone really blaming them being bad on the stars wanting to team up? Besides they have 2 potential all stars in the backcourt, David Less, AB, and Wright. Not an untalented team.

The Cavs and Raptors...suck. sure. Lebron and Boshs doing. But lets be real. The Cavs have only won 50 games 3 times in the 34 non Lebron years. He didnt ruin some tradition of greatness. And neither did Bosh. The Raptors have not been a team to take serious ever. They got within a jumper of the ECF I know...but...cmon. You know that team wasnt gonna do anything. They peaked at 47 wins in 15-16 years. And in year one of a rebuild...everyone sucks. Always gonna be bottom dwellers.

Wizards, NJ, Clippers, and the Kings are all in rebuild mode and 3 of them already have potential franchise cornerstones(Clippers and Kings have potential superstar duos). And one that doesnt has 2 guys talked about as all stars.

Even with Yao out...the Rockets arent a bad team talent wise. Brooks, Martin, Scola, Battier, and Hayes would be taken on any team in the league and get their minutes. Sure cant blame Yao on anyone.


Really...you have the Bucks, Philly, Pistons, and Pacers as the eyebrow raising teams that might make you wonder "If things were more even...could they have the star to push them over the hump?". But then you look at it...

The Bucks have had their presumed leader hurt for like..3 years. And Jennings and Bogut hurt lately(Bogut last year). They still have 2 young guys to build around and aren no more than 1 piece away. Could one of these jumped up star teams spare a guy to make them a 50 win team if healthy? Sure. But not like they had one of them to begin with. The Bucks have not had a team star since Ray Allen and no true elite player since Moncrief if not Kareem. Cant blame that one anyone else.

The Pistons did themselves in. Won like 59 games they blew up the team as it was aging. Nobody made them do it. And then they spent all their cap money a season early. Again...who is there to blame outside their front office?

The Pacers? I'll just say this...watch them 2-3 times. They arent untalented. They arent good...but they arent without the talent needed to be decent.

Philly again...you have to blame them. Not like Philly has historically been a place that cant draw a star. They just had the #2 pick and took Turner. Looks liek a bad decision so far...but who knows? Whatever it is its nobody elses fault they arent great. And they have played pretty well lately anyway.

The suns are gonna be god awful when Nash is gone...but as I said you always have a few. Nobody forced them not to give Amare what he wanted. I keep reading that they could have signed him to a max deal a year or two ago. Didnt want to do it. Its Amares fault he then ends up on the Knicks who would giveh im all the money in the world? Blame Phoenix for the Knicks getting talented overnight. Besides...it really wasnt overnight. It was a multi year plan that worked out. Not gonna hate on foresight because teams are dumb enough to let a star walk for nothing.



For real...look over the league. Like 12 teams have serious talent. 8 or 9 that dont are poised for a solid future and have no reason to despair. We have at best...11 awful teams who arent set with one or a pair of future stars. And half of them are in the first year or two of a total rebuild.

The teams that seem to just be treading water with no shore in sight are like....the Pistons, Bobcats, and Bucks. Pacers perhaps. The Rockets. And none of those teams aside from probably the Pistons are on some "There is just...no hope" shit. The Bobcats dont even have fans. They just have people who go to games because they have an NBA team close by(I live in the Carolinas...never met anyone who repped the Bobcats...not one time and there used to be plenty of Hornet fans).

Who is really being hurt by all this?

Why are people on here begging for change, mad at players, acting like guys are "punks" and all that?

What has actually been lost?

Is someone gonna come in here and say the NBA lost its...spirit or something?

Is anyone gonna tell me they arent hyped by the idea of a loaded Bulls vs Loaded Knicks and 4 star Celtics+ Shaq vs the Heat matchup in the ECSF and the Lakers/Oklahoma and Spurs/Mavs in the West?

Depending on how it shakes out...there might be 7-9 guys who have been on an all star level in recent years playing in the finals.

And some people are upset? Because several teams that have always sucked suck again...and a few other teams waste lottery picks or have injury issues?

There are almost NO teams in the NBA that dont have talent or a future and almost all of them either brought it on themselves on purpose for a rebuild...or had an instant rebuild forced on them by not trading stars who were clearly headed out of town(Bosh...Amare...). The ones who didnt bring it on themselves are in the first stages of a rebuild.

I dont see that having 30 stars on the top 10-12 teams has actually hurt the league...or how it could going forward. The loss of fake fans? Anyone who would bail on his team when down...isnt a real fan to begin with. And would no doubt be replaced by a gang of bandwaggoners hopping on some other team(bey your life...the Knicks got new "fans" tonight).

Is the league even gonna lose fans at all? I find it unlikely.

There arent any more untalented teams than usual.

It seems to be the talent pool has caught up with expansion and there are more than enough good players for everyone to have 2-3 to build around.

Problem is like...12 teams are run by idiots, have stars who are hurt, are or in the process of building teams from stratch. All but 3 of the from scratch teams are by choice. And 2 of the 3 could have done with the Nuggets did...and chose not to.

What signs are there that in the future some small market or non attractive location wont be able to compete?

Most of the teams that suck now...always sucked anyway.

What has actually changed about the league going forward...that will hurt it...more than a gang of godly matchups will help it? I think its far more likely the league is headed for what will be looked back on as a golden age than anything that has happened will sink the league into...whatever the angry people think is going to happen that clearly wont.


Also...

Anyone searching for a "did not read" picture...at least make it a funny one. I like the ones with animals or babies..

[EleganceD]

Anyone searching for a "did not read" picture...at least make it a funny one. I like the ones with animals or babies..
Done.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y296/matt3989/20jjnycjpg.gif

[DuMa]

the nba has always been a top heavy league since the mid-70s. the sucky teams that kept getting added every 5-10 years will always suck, with the exception of miami, thats the way the NBA has always worked. frankly the NBA will never be a competitive all around, revenue sharing league like the NFL. it just doesnt work that way with the economics and the scheduling.

[bdreason]

How about the Nets who almost broke the record for worst record all-time last season, and the Cavs who broke the record for most consecutive losses this season...


It isn't a coincidence that the NBA is now producing some of the worst teams in the history of the league (statistically).


Is it bad for league revenues? I don't know.


From a competitive standpoint it certainly isn't helping the other 20+ teams in the league who enter the season with no chance of competing.

[ashbelly]

The return of the golden age With the east dominating :rockon: I really surprised at how poorly the bucks have performed. They looked good on paper but with the Knicks trade, even if redd is coming back, they are basically screwed for this season atleast.

[eliteballer]

The POINT is...that fans of smaller markets "less sexy" teams feel like they have way to compete and thus no reason to follow the NBA/basketball.

[RedBlackAttack]

As I posted in the Melo to NY thread...

Complete parity has never really existed in the NBA. But, parity is one thing... This massive concentration of franchise-level players all in their primes is something else. There will always be really great teams, mediocre teams and bad teams in every sports league.

The thing that leagues try to do is to find that balance between maintaining its great teams and still putting out a quality product in the other markets. This new trend is threatening that balance.

[MavsPoke]

http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/tldr_trollcat.JPG

[Jasper]

will the league go into contraction ... heII no.

The league has increased in quality players , and back in the 60's , 70's when I first started watching you had 1-2 players on a team that were stars and the rest role players.

My Bucks have a deep team , with only one star in Bogut , yet they have some very good players.

1/2 league will get fresh talent as well as current talent that is in the league world wide.
The teams with 3-4 stars like the Lakers will start to have issues with the new contract the NBA is going to put into place.

Melo , screwed Denver as a small market team as did Kareem with Milwaukee , but yet Milwaukee was very competitive in the 80's as will the Nuggets in a few years.

The real issue is that the league is not balanced with ALL-STARS and elite players , and as history shows us , championships are only won by a few team franchises , which really needs to change to give fans some real go to power.
----------------
I hate the Packers , but here in my home state of Wisc. it was huge, not only for the economy and spirit of the fans , but also for the league.
THAT IS WHAT needs to happen in the NBA.

[crisoner]

The Cavs.......

[bdreason]

And I wanted to add that these "superteams" kill the one great equalizer in the NBA; the NBA draft.

Now bad/small market teams can't even dream of getting lucky in the draft and building a contender. Even if you draft a LeBron James like player... so what? You need 2-3 LeBron like players to win a title. :oldlol:



Small market teams literally have nothing to look forward to. Landing a superstar in the draft does little but gaurantee a playoff spot. The NBA draft means nothing.

[ILLsmak]

I read most of it... lol.

The thing is, man, you are looking at it in the wrong way, too. Even though there is a ton of talent on those big teams, and there is... they are also stealing the quality role players, too. Any experienced role player wants to play on a contender, and they go to a top team.

If you look at teams like Sacramento and LAC... they have talent, but they need some quality role players. They need guys that can do it every night. They are never gonna get those guys unless they get insanely lucky and even then they might lose out to them because even though they could win there, they are better off for their legacy in a larger market.


Look at Miami and what they took in on that team. not only did they get 3 stars (2 greater than the other, but still) but they pulled in Eddie House and Mike Miller... two great role playing shooters. At least, that's what they were looked at as. Big Bodies... they picked up Z and Dampier.

Same with the Celtics team that won. They get Eddie House, they get James Posey, they get PJ Brown. That's something that really puts a team over the edge.

And look at the Bulls. They pull in Boozer, but they also got quality role players.

-Smak

[Gundress]

NBA = Hip-Hop

[DeronMillsap]

NBA = WWE
FIXED

[DuMa]

no offense to small market teams but the nba will be the most popular professional sport in the USA, if all the big market teams are contending for a title every year. its just the way the NBA model works.

[RedBlackAttack]

And I wanted to add that these "superteams" kill the one great equalizer in the NBA; the NBA draft.

Now bad/small market teams can't even dream of getting lucky in the draft and building a contender. Even if you draft a LeBron James like player... so what? You need 2-3 LeBron like players to win a title. :oldlol:



Small market teams literally have nothing to look forward to. Landing a superstar in the draft does little but gaurantee a playoff spot. The NBA draft means nothing.
Not only that, but even if you do draft an LBJ type player, with the attitude of the majority of these newfangled superstars, it is a complete shot in the dark as to whether they will be around any longer than their rookie contract. My biggest fear in this coming NBA draft isn't whether or not we get the No. 1 pick... It isn't even whether or not we select the right player.

It is whether or not that player will be a diva that wants to go play on a quasi-all-star team like the guys that he may look up to in the league.

[RedBlackAttack]

no offense to small market teams but the nba will be the most popular professional sport in the USA, if all the big market teams are contending for a title every year. its just the way the NBA model works.
The NBA has no chance of catching the NFL in popularity. Absolutely, positively no chance. It might want to catch the struggling MLB first. :oldlol:

Guess what else? The NFL institutes a hard salary cap, completely limiting player mobility and control. It has worked pretty well for that league.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I love the fact that we're seeing more stacked teams again. Look at the all-star game, 3 deserving all-stars from Miami and 4 deserving all-stars from Boston. Now we have a superstar duo in NY too. LA has their superstar, another legit all-star, a 6th man who has played like a borderline all-star this year and a 23 year old center with all-star potential. Chicago has a superstar, as well as an all-star caliber PF, a young center who is becoming one of the best players at his position, a very solid starting SF and a great defense. The Spurs had 2 all-stars this year and another all-star caliber point guard as well as good depth and the Thunder are a very young team with a legit superstar, another borderline superstar as well as Green, Ibaka and Harden and they're extremely young.

We haven't seen anything like this in a long time and it's great for the NBA.

[RedBlackAttack]

We haven't seen anything like this in a long time and it's great for the NBA.
Great for 3-4 teams and their fans and good for casual fans (who really don't care that much to begin with). Awful for fans of those other 26 franchises, awful for the competitiveness of the league and awful for the league's ability to put out at least a semi-quality product in all markets.

Be prepared for 3-4 New York Yankees and 26-27 Pittsburgh Pirates the way we are going. That makes for a league that I have no interest in. I'm speaking for myself, now... I realize that others like it.

There is a split, though, and a lot of hardcore fans like myself will leave it behind if it continues.

[biasedfan]

Completely agree... Now it is time to watch some awesome playoff basketball:cheers: :cheers:

[PleezeBelieve]

Outside the Jordan years, what have the Bulls done historically?

Nothing.

And the fact Jordan didnt quit on Chicago after losing season after season to the Pistons personifies how stars are supposed to act.

But when these new stars get celebrated for quiting and not being good enough THEMSELVES, they have now become the problem. Use small markets as a copout all you want, but James and Anthony weren't good enough to get the job done so they quit.

These guy's are the real losers here because real fans of basketball will always see the yellow streak down their back.

This is a FAIL.

[PleezeBelieve]

I love the fact that we're seeing more stacked teams again. Look at the all-star game, 3 deserving all-stars from Miami and 4 deserving all-stars from LA. Now we have a superstar duo in NY too. LA has their superstar, another legit all-star, a 6th man who has played like a borderline all-star this year and a 23 year old center with all-star potential. Chicago has a superstar, as well as an all-star caliber PF, a young center who is becoming one of the best players at his position, a very solid starting SF and a great defense. The Spurs had 2 all-stars this year and another all-star caliber point guard as well as good depth and the Thunder are a very young team with a legit superstar, another borderline superstar as well as Green, Ibaka and Harden and they're extremely young.

We haven't seen anything like this in a long time and it's great for the NBA.
You're a clown.

[lpublic_enemyl]

nba teams are gonna lose a lot of cash and the owners will not want to invest money into teams if they aren't turning a profit cause not many ppl will want to see their teams lose

[Iraqnback]

Done.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y296/matt3989/20jjnycjpg.gif

LMAO....:roll:

[Doranku]

How is concentrating all of the NBA's premier players into an upper echelon of just a few teams good for the league?

[Kblaze8855]

Guess what else? The NFL institutes a hard salary cap, completely limiting player mobility and control. It has worked pretty well for that league.

The NFl is strong because its football. Not because of a hard cap. The game being played and how has more to do with a league being a success than too many stars in big markets. The NBA didnt even allow free agency until the mid 70s. And the league was on the verge of death. Its finals tape delayed and interest in the NFL was huge. The NFL didnt even have a cap till 1994. What reason you gonna give for it being popular for the decades before that? The superbowl peaked ratings wise(by percentage...not total...less people existed) in 1978.

Cap or not the NFL has been ahead of the NBA for 60 years. Lets not act like the leagues were created in 2001. NBA players were powerless to move till 76with the NFL DESTROYING it in popularity the whole time.

The NFl comparisons have to end. They are just baseless. Football was drawing 80 thousand people in the 20s. It always has been a bigger and more popular pro sport(college ball will always be big just off school/area loyalty and tradition). And that goes back way before anyone was allowed to be a free agent.

[Kblaze8855]

There is a split, though, and a lot of hardcore fans like myself will leave it behind if it continues.


No they wont. Yes...im saying I know you better than you do.

No real fan is gonna wak out on the league. People who are only fans when winning will walk out. And be replaced by millions following the teams that are suddenly good out of nowhere(Heat...Knicks...Lakers a few years ago).

[PleezeBelieve]

Here is the NBA in 2011:

Small Market: build your own team team through the draft. You better hit on not only one star, but you'll need to draft an additional as well.

Big/Warm Market: try to build through draft but its no big deal if you fail because you can just steal various Small Market players. Then you make fun of Small Market team for not doing enough to keep the player(s) you stole.

[RedBlackAttack]

The NFl is strong because its football. Not because of a hard cap. The game being played and how has more to do with a league being a success than too many stars in big markets. The NBA didnt even allow free agency until the mid 70s. And the league was on the verge of death. Its finals tape delayed and interest in the NFL was huge. The NFL didnt even have a cap till 1994. What reason you gonna give for it being popular for the decades before that? The superbowl peaked ratings wise(by percentage...not total...less people existed) in 1978.

Cap or not the NFL has been ahead of the NBA for 60 years. Lets not act like the leagues were created in 2001. NBA players were powerless to move till 76with the NFL DESTROYING it in popularity the whole time.

I'm not saying that the hard cap is the only reason that the NFL is the most popular sports league, but I really, honestly do think that it helps. I can tell you, living in Cleveland, that there is real excitement about our prospects going into nearly every season. That is just the level of parity and competition that the NFL has created with its shared wealth and cap.

For instance, the Browns entered the 2007 season predicted to be the worst team in the league. We ended the year 10-6. The Arizona Cardinals went from being one of the worst in the league to a ridiculous catch by Santonio Holmes away from beating the Steelers in the SB in one season.

You just aren't going to see anything remotely close to that in the NBA or MLB. It literally cannot happen. That hope for the small market teams generates interest for the whole league.

If the small markets feel alienated and hopeless, I'm telling you right now, it will have an impact on the entire league. Interest will be lost by a lot of really good fans.

Also, the NFL's hard cap was instituted because of the way athletics were changing. Bringing up the NFL being at its most popular in 1978 based on SB ratings is moot, because the way contracts were structured then, there was virtually no player mobility anyway.

The small market Pittsburgh Steelers were the greatest dynasty in the sport. Players weren't fleeing to the Giants to from a Pro Bowl-esque team of all-pro players.

When the game and the players began to change, the hard cap was instituted to compensate for it and things have worked out quite well.

The same can't be said for Major League Baseball, who has seen declining interest and empty ballparks with the concentration of power squarely in the top 3-4 teams.

[lpublic_enemyl]

lol it's simple teams will lose money and so will the nba, a lot of fans will barely show up to games if their teams are losing that's the way it works

[RedBlackAttack]

No they wont. Yes...im saying I know you better than you do.

No real fan is gonna wak out on the league. People who are only fans when winning will walk out. And be replaced by millions following the teams that are suddenly good out of nowhere(Heat...Knicks...Lakers a few years ago).
It has nothing to do with my team winning or losing. It will be due to the massive gap in talent from the top teams to the rest.

And, yeah... I gave up baseball 15 years ago when things started to get out of control. I will do the same to basketball... Based on principle, if nothing else.

I do have faith that the next CBA will help alleviate some of the issues currently threatening the balance of the league.

[che guevara]

Kblaze, you really think the Knicks are a super/mega team?

[Sarcastic]

It has nothing to do with my team winning or losing. It will be due to the massive gap in talent from the top teams to the rest.

And, yeah... I gave up baseball 15 years ago when things started to get out of control. I will do the same to basketball... Based on principle, if nothing else.

I do have faith that the next CBA will help alleviate some of the issues currently threatening the balance of the league.

Baseball has more parity than football.

[iamgine]

Isn't the league designed to be like this though? Whoever is willing to pay will get the better chance to land better players. How about hard cap and profit sharing? Make the league fairer and teams committed just to winning and not profit.

[RedBlackAttack]

Baseball has more parity than football.
Really? How so?

[sundizz]

For the average casual fan maybe this sucks because their personal home team 'sucks'. However, as anything more than a casual fan this is pretty awesome. Instead of 2-3 teams that have a true legitimate title chance there are now 5-7: Lakers, Spurs, Celtics, Heat, Chicago and to a lesser extent the Mavs, Orlando and possibly now NY (Billups is being severely underrated as a playoff performer by people on this board)

Then there are second tier teams that are extremely good, and could be a title contending team with a minor personnel change. They have a very good core, but either due to injuries, bad luck, or just not there yet they are 'cusp' teams:

OKC: Durant, Westbrook is an unbelievably good core + good solid role players in Jeff Green, Ibaka, Harden etc. If they can manage to get one more great player and give up some role players via trade, draft etc they would be a contender.

Portland: Even without Brandon Roy they are a veryyy deep and solid defensive team. Aldridge is as good as any pf/player in the league right now, when considering his two way skills, and true big man low post game. Wes Mathews is a budding star, Batum, Fernandez, Miller, etc are all above average players and excellent defenders. They are the ultimate role players to have on a team. If Brandon Roy/Greg Oden/Camby any of these three can return to a semblance of semi stardom, Portland is one player away from being a dangerous team.

Atlanta: They are at this level, though personally I don't believe any team with Joe Johnson as it's All-Star has a shot in hell of doing anything ever.

Then there are the young, but still very exciting and fun to watch teams like the Warriors, Clippers, Bucks, Jazz and Wizards. Their records are abysmal but each team has given it's fans something to look forward to, and something to watch every night. Fans of these teams understand they are not in contention for anything but seeing development from players such as Wright, Wall, Jordan, Gordon, Griffin etc is an exciting prospect. The Warriors have an above .500 record when all three (Curry, Ellis, Lee) play together.

This is a great NBA regular season to watch. The games are exciting to me. I know at the end of the year there is not one clear cut better team. Some teams have more talent, some are younger, some are bigger...they are all very good in very different ways. This is the ultimate parity in a sport like the NBA. You can't ask for more. Yes this may suck for ultimate shitty teams like New Jersey, Minnesota and Cleveland...but as a true fan of the sport of basketball you can't really complain about this. The only complaint is that the bottom teams really have no chance of moving up to respectability. Sucks for them, but you have to sacrifice some teams for the overall enjoyment of the league.

[lpublic_enemyl]

Isn't the league designed to be like this though? Whoever is willing to pay will get the better chance to land better players. How about hard cap and profit sharing? Make the league fairer and teams committed just to winning and not profit.
u don't think that all those teams were not willing to pay? And it's always about profits

[RedBlackAttack]

For the average casual fan maybe this sucks because their personal home team 'sucks'.
How are fans that are fanatical about their 'home' team considered 'casual'? I believe it is the opposite. The fanatics about the 'home' teams are the hardcore fans and the people who only are interested in the NBA when all of the best players are playing on the same handful of teams are the 'casual' fans.

[Kblaze8855]

I'm not saying that the hard cap is the only reason that the NFL is the most popular sports league, but I really, honestly do think that it helps. I can tell you, living in Cleveland, that there is real excitement about our prospects going into nearly every season. That is just the level of parity and competition that the NFL has created with its shared wealth and cap.

Thats just it....shared wealth and cap didnt create it. The NFL was HUGE long before any of that. You are just acting like new things are the reasons its continued to be popular with 70 years of America being football crazy saying...its probably america being football crazy.


For instance, the Browns entered the 2007 season predicted to be the worst team in the league. We ended the year 10-6. The Arizona Cardinals went from being one of the worst in the league to a ridiculous catch by Santonio Holmes away from beating the Steelers in the SB in one season.

You just aren't going to see anything remotely close to that in the NBA or MLB. It literally cannot happen. That hope for the small market teams generates interest for the whole league.

And this...small market hope generating interest...why was interest so high before the things you claim generate interest existed?


If the small markets feel alienated and hopeless, I'm telling you right now, it will have an impact on the entire league. Interest will be lost by a lot of really good fans.

Really good fans arent fans because the team is good and dont lose hope because the Knicks just got good...for the first time in a decade. Bandwaggoners do. And I hope we lose plenty of them. But we wont. They will just jump to the next one.


Also, the NFL's hard cap was instituted because of the way athletics were changing. Bringing up the NFL being at its most popular in 1978 based on SB ratings is moot, because the way contracts were structured then, there was virtually no player mobility anyway.

Kinda like the NBA of about the same time. The NBA which was being crushed by the NFL.


The small market Pittsburgh Steelers were the greatest dynasty in the sport. Players weren't fleeing to the Giants to from a Pro Bowl-esque team of all-pro players.

For every Steelers dynasty there are the Spurs. Or Pistons. Or Minny winning 5 before they were in LA. Or the Celtics(somewhat large market...but Boston isnt like...some iconic american city). OR the Blazers making the playoffs for 22 years in a row.


When the game and the players began to change, the hard cap was instituted to compensate for it and things have worked out quite well.

Things have...continued as they have been for 70 years.


The same can't be said for Major League Baseball, who has seen declining interest and empty ballparks with the concentration of power squarely in the top 3-4 teams.

Baseball is dying because baseball is boring. And in 2010 people arent stuck with 4 things to do. That plus the explosion of basketball removed so much of the youth from the sport. When I was a kid I knew MANY other black people who played baseball. I dont remember the last black kid I saw play baseball. They were playing basketball on the court near my house on the way home though. And that has nothing to do with the Yankees buying all the best players.

I mean..its not like the Yankees sucked back in the day. They didnt win 27(28?) world series in the last 30 years. Out of 214 world series teams...6 franchises make up 118 of the appearances. I dont know if baseball ever had the parity you seem to be suggesting.

[Sarcastic]

Really? How so?

Check how many different teams have won the World Series in the past 30 years. More than football.

[joe]

Kblaze's post supports my hypothesis that the NBA has more talent now than it ever has. Even with all these super teams, the majority of teams STILL have good talent on them. Many of the worst teams have good building blocks, several of the middling teams have depth. The amount of talent in the league right now is staggering.

[lpublic_enemyl]

for what reason will the nba have for big market team supporting other teams, they might at as well contract, and u still lose alot of potential money

[iamgine]

Kblaze's post supports my hypothesis that the NBA has more talent now than it ever has. Even with all these super teams, the majority of teams STILL have good talent on them. Many of the worst teams have good building blocks, several of the middling teams have depth. The amount of talent in the league right now is staggering.
The amount of money involved is directly proportional to the talent pool.

[Harion]

anyone feel that the NBA just have too many teams?

[Kblaze8855]

I used to think it did have too many. But looking at it team by team? Even with 20-30 stars on the top 10 teams the only teams that dont have something great to work with are run by idiots or just started rebuilding this year. There is plenty of talent to go around.

[flipogb]

teams who are fringe playoff teams. Sixers/Pacers/Bobcats/Bucks

[joe]

Looking over the league..who has been really hurt by all this? All these mega teams.

Umm very simple - all the fans of the non-mega teams.

The NBA might get better ratings due to the megateams.. it might be more entertaining in the playoffs..

But if you're a Hawks fan.. what's the point?
If you're a Bucks fan... what's the point?
(This one hurts the most) If you're a Suns fan... what's the point?

You counter that "real fans don't abandon their teams during hard times." That's very true. But the problem is, when are these hard times supposed to end? When is this supposed light at the end of the tunnel going to appear?

The fact is, under this current system it WON'T. For these reasons..

1- Bigger market teams/ teams with richer basketball history are more likely to have owners willing to spend more. The Lakers payroll is over 90 million dollars. Celtics is up there as well. Why would that change under the current system?

2- Star players have no reason to stay in small market cities. Used to be some sense of "loyalty" would keep them there, but the young players don't seem to care about that anymore (not saying they SHOULD, just stating facts).

To counter this, the NBA allowed a players current team to offer him more money in free agency than other franchises. But in 2011, star players can easily recoup the lost funds through endorsements, tv deals, etc.. (The main reason that's been given for why Carmelo wants to be in New York? His wife plans to shoot a reality show there.) Other times, stars get to have their cake and eat it too; their team does a sign-and-trade so they don't end up like Toronto did when Bosh left... allowing the star to be paid in full while still going where he wants to go.

3- Drafting is a viable alternative, but rookie contracts don't last forever. Eventually your star will hit free agency. What happens next? See point #2.



The only hope small-market fans have at this point is to hope things change with the new CBA.

If they don't?

Give me one reason to believe any of the above factors will change.

[eliteballer]

Boston isnt an iconic american city? Come now...

[ShaqAttack3234]

Great for 3-4 teams and their fans and good for casual fans (who really don't care that much to begin with). Awful for fans of those other 26 franchises, awful for the competitiveness of the league and awful for the league's ability to put out at least a semi-quality product in all markets.

Be prepared for 3-4 New York Yankees and 26-27 Pittsburgh Pirates the way we are going. That makes for a league that I have no interest in. I'm speaking for myself, now... I realize that others like it.

There is a split, though, and a lot of hardcore fans like myself will leave it behind if it continues.

How many legit contenders are there ever anyway? They might as well have more talent. I mean look at the early 2000s, we had what? 3? Maybe 4 teams you could call stacked and only 2 of them had a superstar(Sacramento and Dallas). IMO, it's much more exciting to see teams with great 3rd options, or even 4th options as well as the league's best players leading them. I'm just happy one of them is in New York.


You're a clown.

:oldlol:

[asdf1990]

How is concentrating all of the NBA's premier players into an upper echelon of just a few teams good for the league?

Thank the lakers and celtics for starting the trend, there is no way in hell one superstar and great role players were gonna take out the celtics or the lakers. Think about how stacked the lakers and celtics are. A team with three of the top 15 players, 2 being top 3, aren't even the favorites against them. Ppl like to ***** an moan about the heat and the Knicks now but what good was the league when we had 2 super teams in the celtics and the lakers? Atleast there are teams now that can compete with them.

[eliteballer]

It's not just about WHO has won the titles. It's about who has had a CHANCE.

Take the 90's for example...Drexler's Blazers, Hakeem's Rockets, Kemp/Payton Sonics, Barkley's Suns, the Jazz.

Stars in different markets like Zo/LJ in Charlotte, Webber in Golden State, D-Rob in San Antonio.

Now you've got everyone wanting to play in 3 or 4 markets, and you're Bulls aren't immune. Ho many stars have turned them down in the last decade? McGrady, Wade, LeBron etc.

[joe]

The amount of money involved is directly proportional to the talent pool.

huh?

[Kblaze8855]

So you are a suns fan? Asking me what the point is? You just came off a 5 year run few fans get to see their team go on. Not long ago you had Nash, Amare, and Joe Johnson with Marion an all nba level player. You had 3 guys who would be franchise players plus a star. The Suns were in the WCF...LAST YEAR. But after half a season down you are in "Whats the point?" mode as if you have been suffering for decades?

This is exactly the kind of thing im talking about. Most bad teams are either poised to be good...or were just good and fell off. Or they are run by idiots. None of the stars teaming up really caused it. But people are so ready to complain about their team being bad they lose sight of the real problems.

Idiots in front offices.

If the Suns signed Amare when he wanted his money in the first place they wouldnt suck now. But they didnt. And now its "What can we do?".

The suns like most everyone...could have just not been idiots.

Its mistakes in the draft, being cheap, and general lack of front office performances that make most bad team bad. A good front office can get by with things as they are. As most teams are showing. The 5-6 teams without hope arent the rule .They are the exception.

[Bigsmoke]

i dont care about sucky teams that much right now.

teams with more talent usually more fun to watch unless u want 2001 all over again.

[Kblaze8855]

Boston isnt an iconic american city? Come now...

If we are gonna get into American history it is. But its not like some...big sports destination. People playing in Portland arent dying to get to the bright lights and jersey sales in Boston. Boston has won a lot in basketball and lately in football. But it has done it by being well run. Not by just...being a place stars flock to because its Boston. The Celtics didnt do shit until Red fleeced the Hawks for Russell playing on their love of scorers and not understanding the value of a guy like Bill, later he deafted Cowens and Jojo White, then was smart enough to draft Bird a year early, and fleece the Warriors to get Parish and Mchale...and in 07 they made some just great moves. All of them making sense for the other teams. Sonics needed youth(the pick) more than old Ray. Minny was ready to rebuild. Jefferson was a decent way to start. And Boston decided to keep Rondo over Telfair though he had proven little(I remember a story on NBA.com on their rivalry for minutes in 06/07).

It was smart decisions that made the Celtics winners. Not being in Boston.

Off the top of my head the only city that seems to just pull stars out of its ass all the time is LA. Baylor is moved there, West shows up just in time, Wilt decides to go, Kareem demands to go to LA or NY, Magic comes out just to play with Kareem, Shaq signs in LA, Kobe demands to be traded there and all that.

But it doesnt seem to work for the Clippers. because the Clippers are run by a cheap owner and bad basketball people for most of their history.

Which is what it comes down to. Ownership and basketball people.

[Bigsmoke]

How many legit contenders are there ever anyway? They might as well have more talent. I mean look at the early 2000s, we had what? 3? Maybe 4 teams you could call stacked and only 2 of them had a superstar(Sacramento and Dallas). IMO, it's much more exciting to see teams with great 3rd options, or even 4th options as well as the league's best players leading them. I'm just happy one of them is in New York.





i agree 100%

people always talking about bringing back the 80's Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Piston. Now there are teams with multiple All Stars like those teams from the 80's and now they're bitching.

[RedBlackAttack]

Thats just it....shared wealth and cap didnt create it. The NFL was HUGE long before any of that. You are just acting like new things are the reasons its continued to be popular with 70 years of America being football crazy saying...its probably america being football crazy.

Once again, I didn't say that a shared revenue and cap created the interest. In fact, I made it a point in the post you referenced to say that it didn't create the interest.

What it did do, however, was to adapt its salary structure to compensate for changing player attitudes, changing contract structures and player movement.

Gone were the days of a dynasty like the Steelers drafting Mean Joe Green, Terry Bradshaw, Mike Webster, Franco Harris, Lynn Swan, Jack Ham, Jack Lambert, LC Greenwood, etc. and those guys playing out their entire careers with the same franchise.

So, as player movement became more the norm, the NFL put into place a structure to prevent one team from loading up on all of the league's talent.

The issue with the NFL isn't whether or not the hard cap created its popularity. Clearly, it didn't... The popularity was already there. However, the gap between the population's interest in the NFL and its interest in the next major sport is seeing its largest gap right now.

There is nothing even remotely close to football. That wasn't true in the 70s and 80s when baseball was still very popular and arguably THE most popular sport.

Now, its football and everything else. Do I think that the hard cap has helped the NFL attain that kind of popularity? Yes, I do.


Really good fans arent fans because the team is good and dont lose hope because the Knicks just got good...for the first time in a decade. Bandwaggoners do. And I hope we lose plenty of them. But we wont. They will just jump to the next one.

Again, it isn't just a team losing. Supporting a loser of a team in a league which has a semblance of competitive balance is not such a bad thing. There is always next year, you can tell yourself.

A team being a perpetual loser in MLB (and the NBA, if things keeping going the way they are going with these current franchise players) means being in the cellar and literally never being able to get out. That creates apathy in even the best fans.

It has nothing to do with the Knicks getting good. I have no problem with the Knicks. I am actually rooting for them this year, for obvious reasons (even though they don't have much of a chance). The problem is 3-4 franchise having 9-12 franchise players and 6-10 teams not having a single franchise player.

That is an imbalance that is difficult to get around.

I've been a Cleveland sports fan all of my life. Trust me, a 'bandwagon' fan is the last thing that I am. I do want fairness, though. I do want to see at least a possible light at the end of a tunnel. I do want to have some hope that, if the team makes the right moves, in a couple of years we could be elite again.

Whether those things happen or not, it is nice to know that at least it is a possibility.

When there are teams in the league that have a monopoly on a good percentage of the best players, it simply can't happen.

And, I don't think it is all that interesting to watch an all-star team destroy 25 teams in a league and maybe once every few weeks have a competitive game against a team that can at least come close to matching its talent. That does not make for a great league, imo.

We are all entitled to our opinions, here.


For every Steelers dynasty there are the Spurs. Or Pistons. Or Minny winning 5 before they were in LA. Or the Celtics(somewhat large market...but Boston isnt like...some iconic american city). OR the Blazers making the playoffs for 22 years in a row.

I don't have a problem with the way the NBA has been structured the last couple of decades. Even when my team was horrible, I could accept it, because there was always the chance that the team could make some moves or get lucky and become competitive or elite (which ended up happening).

My problem is with the way the league has been going in the last six months. It isn't just the competitive nature of the league, either. I have a fundamental problem with all of these superstars who haven't won sh!t on their own deciding to team-up in the primes of their careers.

I don't like anything about it.


Baseball is dying because baseball is boring. And in 2010 people arent stuck with 4 things to do. That plus the explosion of basketball removed so much of the youth from the sport. When I was a kid I knew MANY other black people who played baseball. I dont remember the last black kid I saw play baseball. They were playing basketball on the court near my house on the way home though. And that has nothing to do with the Yankees buying all the best players.

I mean..its not like the Yankees sucked back in the day. They didnt win 27(28?) world series in the last 30 years. Out of 214 world series teams...6 franchises make up 118 of the appearances. I dont know if baseball ever had the parity you seem to be suggesting.

I am not a baseball stat geek by any stretch. However, looking at studies done about payroll disparity (the disparity is MUCH larger now than it was in the 50s, 60s and 70s) and competitive balance, there does seem to be a direct correlation.

There was a time when the Pirates and Indians were quality franchises. In the current MLB environment, they just can't compete.

The Yankees' payroll is $206,000,000 and the Pirates' is $36,000,000. That is staggering.


The issue between us isn't resolvable, I don't think. This is a matter of preference. I prefer a league that has great teams, but still maintains a competitive balance from top to bottom. I prefer a league in which even the worst teams have some hope of things turning around. I also despise these franchise player superstars teaming-up in the primes of their careers.

You have no problem with those kinds of players and you also seem to want the elite teams to be as stacked as possible.

We are just coming from two completely different places. There isn't a 'right' and 'wrong,' here. There is a fundamental difference in the kinds of leagues that we want to see.

[Kblaze8855]

It's not just about WHO has won the titles. It's about who has had a CHANCE.

Take the 90's for example...Drexler's Blazers, Hakeem's Rockets, Kemp/Payton Sonics, Barkley's Suns, the Jazz.

Stars in different markets like Zo/LJ in Charlotte, Webber in Golden State, D-Rob in San Antonio.

Now you've got everyone wanting to play in 3 or 4 markets, and you're Bulls aren't immune. Ho many stars have turned them down in the last decade? McGrady, Wade, LeBron etc.

I think they took a shot at Hill and Duncan too.

But you dont see me complaining about other teams signing them do you? The Bulls are good anyway. Good decision making>location.

Took years..but it worked out. And I didnt stop being a fan while I waited either.

[RedBlackAttack]

How many legit contenders are there ever anyway? They might as well have more talent. I mean look at the early 2000s, we had what? 3? Maybe 4 teams you could call stacked and only 2 of them had a superstar(Sacramento and Dallas). IMO, it's much more exciting to see teams with great 3rd options, or even 4th options as well as the league's best players leading them. I'm just happy one of them is in New York.


Again... Not the issue. The issue for me is the gap between the elites and the mediocre/bad teams. Like I said in my first post in this thread, there is always going to be a handful of really good teams, a lot of average teams and a handful of bad teams.

The thing is, when you are talking about one team with 3-4 franchise players on it and then there are other teams with no franchise players, the gap is extraordinarily large... And it creates a massive competitive imbalance and hurts the product being put forth with the average/bad NBA franchises.

[Bigsmoke]

lol it's simple teams will lose money and so will the nba, a lot of fans will barely show up to games if their teams are losing that's the way it works

when the Bulls sucked 10 years ago alot of us just go to the games to watch the other teams that are successful. We were cheering for Jerry Stackhouse when he had his career high here.

[lpublic_enemyl]

when the Bulls sucked 10 years ago alot of us just go to the games to watch the other teams that are successful. We were cheering for Jerry Stackhouse when he had his career high here.
yes chicago has really good fans but i feel like they are an exception to that. numerous teams will have that problem imo

[joe]

Idiots in front offices.

If the Suns signed Amare when he wanted his money in the first place they wouldnt suck now. But they didnt. And now its "What can we do?".

The suns like most everyone...could have just not been idiots.

Its mistakes in the draft, being cheap, and general lack of front office performances that make most bad team bad. A good front office can get by with things as they are. As most teams are showing. The 5-6 teams without hope arent the rule .They are the exception.

In my view, fans and teams need to be protected from the owner, not be at his mercy.

You argue that...


Its mistakes in the draft, being cheap, and general lack of front office performances that make most bad team bad.

So was the Lakers front office "performing well" when they decided to take on Kobe's contract, Gasol's, Odom's, Artest's, overpay Fisher, then add Barnes and Blake to their bench, while simultaneously having the most highly paid coach in the NBA?

Or were they just outspending everyone?

Was Robert Sarver "performing poorly" when he sold multiple draft picks, didn't re-sign Joe, didn't re-sign Amare, traded Marion for Shaq (a move that saved them money), and got rid of Kurt Thomas for cash?

Or was he just being cheap?

Teams should be PROTECTED from their owner, not at his mercy. Spending money is not a skill. That is why I support a hard cap.


A good front office can get by with things as they are. As most teams are showing

Most teams are showing that the system is flawed. Most of the great teams in the league benefit from these things: 1) An owner willing to spend more 2) Being a warm weather/big market city 3) Attracting stars who are disloyal to the teams that drafted them, which is a trend that all small market teams fear.

Lakers - Owner that spends more

Boston - Owner that spends more

Dallas - Owner that spends more

Orlando - Owner willing to spend more

Miami - Product of star players with less loyalty fleeing to warm weather/ bigger market cities

New York - Product of cheap owner (Sarver not paying Amare), owner willing to spend more, and star players with less loyalty (Carmelo)


Many teams that, as you say, are getting by how things are.. are mainly getting by on the very things that hurt the small market teams. There are of course exceptions.


Spurs - Well run franchise

Oklahoma City - Well run franchise

Portland - Well run franchise (injuries doomed them)

Chicago - well run franchise

New Orleans - well run franchise


But take a closer look at these teams and what do you see? OKC, New Orleans, Portland (if Roy was never injured), and San Antonio were all successful because they have a loyal star player. In the Lebron/Carmelo/Bosh era, that's something that can't be counted on as much. In fact, Chris Paul has already hinted that he might be out of Nawlins asap.

As for Chicago, we still have to see if Rose is loyal to them.

[Bigsmoke]

Again... Not the issue. The issue for me is the gap between the elites and the mediocre/bad teams. Like I said in my first post in this thread, there is always going to be a handful of really good teams, a lot of average teams and a handful of bad teams.

The thing is, when you are talking about one team with 3-4 franchise players on it and then there are other teams with no franchise players, the gap is extraordinarily large... And it creates a massive competitive imbalance and hurts the product being put forth with the average/bad NBA franchises.

that just means those GMs gotta step their games up :pimp:

[Kblaze8855]

Once again, I didn't say that a shared revenue and cap created the interest. In fact, I made it a point in the post you referenced to say that it didn't create the interest.

What it did do, however, was to adapt its salary structure to compensate for changing player attitudes, changing contract structures and player movement.

Gone were the days of a dynasty like the Steelers drafting Mean Joe Green, Terry Bradshaw, Mike Webster, Franco Harris, Lynn Swan, Jack Ham, Jack Lambert, LC Greenwood, etc. and those guys playing out their entire careers with the same franchise.

So, as player movement became more the norm, the NFL put into place a structure to prevent one team from loading up on all of the league's talent.

The issue with the NFL isn't whether or not the hard cap created its popularity. Clearly, it didn't... The popularity was already there. However, the gap between the population's interest in the NFL and its interest in the next major sport is seeing its largest gap right now.

There is nothing even remotely close to football. That wasn't true in the 70s and 80s when baseball was still very popular and arguably THE most popular sport.

Now, its football and everything else. Do I think that the hard cap has helped the NFL attain that kind of popularity? Yes, I do.

Thing is...it just...didnt. It was already there. It never went away. So how do I say it helped attain the popularity? Baseball falling off doesnt mean the NFL is more popular than it was. It means baseball fell off. THe NFL just stayed in place.



Again, it isn't just a team losing. Supporting a loser of a team in a league which has a semblance of competitive balance is not such a bad thing. There is always next year, you can tell yourself.

A team being a perpetual loser in MLB (and the NBA, if things keeping going the way they are going with these current franchise players) means being in the cellar and literally never being able to get out. That creates apathy in even the best fans.

It has nothing to do with the Knicks getting good. I have no problem with the Knicks. I am actually rooting for them this year, for obvious reasons (even though they don't have much of a chance). The problem is 3-4 franchise having 9-12 franchise players and 6-10 teams not having a single franchise player.

That is an imbalance that is difficult to get around.

I've been a Cleveland sports fan all of my life. Trust me, a 'bandwagon' fan is the last thing that I am. I do want fairness, though. I do want to see at least a possible light at the end of a tunnel. I do want to have some hope that, if the team makes the right moves, in a couple of years we could be elite again.

Whether those things happen or not, it is nice to know that at least it is a possibility.

When there are teams in the league that have a monopoly on a good percentage of the best players, it simply can't happen.

And, I don't think it is all that interesting to watch an all-star team destroy 25 teams in a league and maybe once every few weeks have a competitive game against a team that can at least come close to matching its talent. That does not make for a great league, imo.

We are all entitled to our opinions, here.

Never able t oget out you say?

Just making it more dramatic than it needs to be I think. Any team anywhere can be good. There are too many examples of it already. I dont think we need to look into a future that is never going to be where a gang of teams can literally do nothing to improve no matter how good their decision making, scouts, coaching, and owners are. Its just a fantasy world. Its Fox news scare tactic shit. Its treating a world that will never be as if it already is for the purpose of raising fears that are unjustified.



I don't have a problem with the way the NBA has been structured the last couple of decades. Even when my team was horrible, I could accept it, because there was always the chance that the team could make some moves or get lucky and become competitive or elite (which ended up happening).

My problem is with the way the league has been going in the last six months. It isn't just the competitive nature of the league, either. I have a fundamental problem with all of these superstars who haven't won sh!t on their own deciding to team-up in the primes of their careers.

I don't like anything about it.

Who are...all of them by the way?

You have been complaining about it non stop and until today it was only 1 team. With 2 real superstars(and...Vin Bakers 2010 version).

If someone read these things and didnt know better they might think Paul is in Orlando, Deron and Durant joined up with Kobe in LA, Rose forced a trade to the Clippers to join Blake and Dirk or something.



I am not a baseball stat geek by any stretch. However, looking at studies done about payroll disparity (the disparity is MUCH larger now than it was in the 50s, 60s and 70s) and competitive balance, there does seem to be a direct correlation.

There was a time when the Pirates and Indians were quality franchises. In the current MLB environment, they just can't compete.

The Yankees' payroll is $206,000,000 and the Pirates' is $36,000,000. That is staggering.

Um...the Pirates owner is worth 1.4 billion dollars. Please dont talk to me about what he cant afford. This is what I mean when I talk about ownership.

You tell me the yankees payroll is so high and point out to me that a guy who is himself...worth as much as the yankees...cant compete? The Nationals owner is worth over TWICE what the Yankees are. Hes got over 3 billion dollars. The Nationals payroll is less than a third of the yankees.

You arent talking about ability to compete as much as desire to spend. There is no such thing as a broke MLB owner. They may not pay like the yankees...doesnt mean they cant. Owners wont get caught up playing the yankees game and they allow them to buy the stars. These big market teams you mention often outbid people who have more money than they do....



The issue between us isn't resolvable, I don't think. This is a matter of preference. I prefer a league that has great teams, but still maintains a competitive balance from top to bottom. I prefer a league in which even the worst teams have some hope of things turning around. I also despise these franchise player superstars teaming-up in the primes of their careers.

You have no problem with those kinds of players and you also seem to want the elite teams to be as stacked as possible.

We are just coming from two completely different places. There isn't a 'right' and 'wrong,' here. There is a fundamental difference in the kinds of leagues that we want to see.

I just dont think the league you are so afraid of ever has or ever will exist and because of it that the "Sky is falling" kinda things ive been reading seem too much.

[Kblaze8855]

Pirates owner has 100 million to buy this ski resort:

http://www.dcski.com/images/misc_images/1092630943_night.jpg

But its not fair to ask him to compete with the yankees.....

[Da KO King]

I'm not saying that the hard cap is the only reason that the NFL is the most popular sports league, but I really, honestly do think that it helps. I can tell you, living in Cleveland, that there is real excitement about our prospects going into nearly every season. That is just the level of parity and competition that the NFL has created with its shared wealth and cap.
Football is more popular than basketball because of the traits and traditions of the game. Parity, salary caps, and player movements have nothing at all to do with it. Even with the Browns expected to be azz you will watch and support them. It's almost a Pavlovian conditioning case, people simple believe that when told it is Sunday that they must now watch football.

As for the true topic here....

I truly have no problem with the movement in the NBA. Didn't see the issue before Carmelo Anthony became a Knick and, obviously, I don't see it now.

Smaller market teams are not at a disadvantage because they should not be attempting to operate the same way a big market team does. Like I told someone the other day, just because there is a maximum salary does not mean that each team can afford to pay that max.

Stop focusing on building a team they way NY does and figure out a system that fits your situation.

[RedBlackAttack]

Thing is...it just...didnt. It was already there. It never went away. So how do I say it helped attain the popularity? Baseball falling off doesnt mean the NFL is more popular than it was. It means baseball fell off. THe NFL just stayed in place.

Obviously, the NFL thought that the hard cap was the way to go. You seem to be arguing that it wouldn't have mattered if they instituted a hard cap or had no salary regulations at all. I'm not sure how a discussion can progress with that kind of argument.

Here are the facts:

The NFL did think its best move was to share the wealth and institute a hard cap. The NFL is hugely popular.

Baseball was hugely popular when it faced a crossroads in the late-80s. It chose the other path of less salary regulation and it has completely fallen off.

We can debate external forces like inner-city American kids not playing baseball anymore, like you brought up earlier, but I will tell you right now that the reason I stopped following it was the disparity in payroll and the lack of competitiveness.


Never able t oget out you say?

Just making it more dramatic than it needs to be I think. Any team anywhere can be good. There are too many examples of it already. I dont think we need to look into a future that is never going to be where a gang of teams can literally do nothing to improve no matter how good their decision making, scouts, coaching, and owners are. Its just a fantasy world. Its Fox news scare tactic shit. Its treating a world that will never be as if it already is for the purpose of raising fears that are unjustified.

Oh please.

There are too many examples of what? This is a new phenomena... As in, brand new. No players the caliber of James/Wade/Bosh have EVER teamed up in the same free agency period in the primes of their careers. It has never happened and they just made the decision a few months ago.

Any examples you have are out-dated when attempting to resolve the current situation. We won't know the ramifications of this power consolidation until years down the road.

I'm telling you what I fear is happening. It isn't a conspiracy theory or scare tactics. It is looking at the reality of having James/Wade/Anthony/Stoudemire/Williams/Bosh spread out over two teams...

And it is the fear that other great players will look at those teams and see that their only chance to compete is to team-up with other superstars in their primes.

Sticking your head in the sand and acting as though this is business as usual for NBA players is just being naive. We are seeing something unprecedented, here.



Who are...all of them by the way?

You have been complaining about it non stop and until today it was only 1 team. With 2 real superstars(and...Vin Bakers 2010 version).

If someone read these things and didnt know better they might think Paul is in Orlando, Deron and Durant joined up with Kobe in LA, Rose forced a trade to the Clippers to join Blake and Dirk or something.

I was complaining about it when it was just one team. Now, it is apparently going to be two teams, with Anthony and Stoudemire joining forces... Possibly DWill down the road.

Let's just put it like this... That great 2003 draft that was supposed to be the best in NBA history? Its five best players are now spread over two teams. Show me another instance where something like this has happened.

These guys were supposed to step on the court and change the game... Well, they have changed things, just not in the way that most people expected.

It is the AAU-ification of the game and it should be scary to all fans of all small market teams.

Now, down the road we have DWill, who will almost certainly be playing elsewhere and maybe for one of the superteams, CP3 who has had rumblings around him for a while that he will not be back in NO and who knows about Dwight.

If those three further condense the league's talent, which is very possible... Well, I guess you will be happy.


Um...the Pirates owner is worth 1.4 billion dollars. Please dont talk to me about what he cant afford. This is what I mean when I talk about ownership.

You tell me the yankees payroll is so high and point out to me that a guy who is himself...worth as much as the yankees...cant compete? The Nationals owner is worth over TWICE what the Yankees are. Hes got over 3 billion dollars. The Nationals payroll is less than a third of the yankees.

You arent talking about ability to compete as much as desire to spend. There is no such thing as a broke MLB owner. They may not pay like the yankees...doesnt mean they cant. Owners wont get caught up playing the yankees game and they allow them to buy the stars. These big market teams you mention often outbid people who have more money than they do....

The hard cap would protect against owners who don't want to spend. That is one of the beauties of it.


I just dont think the league you are so afraid of ever has or ever will exist and because of it that the "Sky is falling" kinda things ive been reading seem too much.

I don't know... I was worried about it before tonight (as you can attest to) and now we have Melo in NYC. It isn't as though the momentum is moving away from my hypothesis.

I guess we will find out. I hope you are right and I am wrong.

[joe]

Stop focusing on building a team they way NY does and figure out a system that fits your situation.

That's a great option in the MLB.. star players don't dominate the league the same way. You get a few filthy pitchers, scrap together a bullpen of power arms.. next thing you know you're in the roulette-type game that is the MLB playoffs.. anything can happen.

NBA- How often do teams win without a star? Not just a star, but like THEEeee star. Best player in the game candidate?

Neverrrrrrrr.

Well, 2004.

Next thing you know, the league outlawed hand checking and made it even harder to win that way than it already was.

[SinJackal]

Any time when you look at a sport's history, and see that TWO teams have won over half of it's championships, and have combined to be in over 2/3rds of it's championship games, it is NOT a good thing.

In case some of you didn't know, that is exactly the case for the NBA.

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html


The NBA has existed as a major sport since 1946. From 1946-2010, that's 64 championships.

The Lakers have won 16 of them.

The Celtics have won 17 of them. That's 33 of 63. 52.4% of the total NBA championships since 1947 have been won by those two teams.

How about Finals appearances? The Lakers have been in 31 of the 64, the Celtics have been in 21 of them. One of them has appeared in 40 of the 63 total Finals. (63.5%)

That's not a good thing. It's extremely bad for everyone who isn't a fan of those teams. The Lakers and Celtics being in all the Finals is boring. I can't see how that can possibly be good for the NBA.

When you go into a season and people are saying, "The Celtics and Lakers will obviously be in the Finals again", that's precisely why people don't watch the sport as much as others. Only die hard NBA fans watch the whole season. Fairweather fans start watching late in the season and in the playoffs. Then you get the most fans in the Finals unless the "real finals" occurs in a conference Finals (like when the Spurs would play the Lakers in the WCF).

Fans don't watch as much before that because there's apparently no reason to. When there's a nearly 50% chance the Lakers will be in the Finals, and an over 50% chance that the Lakers or Celtics will win the championship every year, why the **** should people bother watching the regular season?

Large market teams being dominating every year sucks for the NBA. More viewers in those cities sure, and far less chance to increase overall viewing since so many teams have never even been in the Finals, much less won it. Which makes very little reason for fans in those cities who don't watch the NBA to start cashing in their money and free time to watch their annually bad team have no chance to win again.

[Da KO King]

NBA- How often do teams win without a star? Not just a star, but like THEEeee star. Best player in the game candidate?

Neverrrrrrrr.

Well, 2004.When do teams try it?

[joe]

When do teams try it?

Good question. I'll answer your question with a question.... why would they?

Seems like the Rockets are trying to do that though. Maybe if they finish the season undefeated they can get the 8 seed.

[Kblaze8855]

In my view, fans and teams need to be protected from the owner, not be at his mercy.

Your view is not a realistic one. Even in the NFL an owner who is more about profit than winning is death.



So was the Lakers front office "performing well" when they decided to take on Kobe's contract, Gasol's, Odom's, Artest's, overpay Fisher, then add Barnes and Blake to their bench, while simultaneously having the most highly paid coach in the NBA?

Yes.


Or were they just outspending everyone?

Spending the most doesnt ensure victory. But not wantint to spend at all almost ensures failure.


Was Robert Sarver "performing poorly" when he sold multiple draft picks, didn't re-sign Joe, didn't re-sign Amare, traded Marion for Shaq (a move that saved them money), and got rid of Kurt Thomas for cash?

Clearly he was.



Or was he just being cheap?

Sometimes...same thing.


Teams should be PROTECTED from their owner, not at his mercy. Spending money is not a skill. That is why I support a hard cap.

Spending money on the right things is a skill.



Most teams are showing that the system is flawed. Most of the great teams in the league benefit from these things: 1) An owner willing to spend more 2) Being a warm weather/big market city 3) Attracting stars who are disloyal to the teams that drafted them, which is a trend that all small market teams fear.

The biggest markets have all had teams that sucked lately. Knicks, Bulls, La, Philly, and Houston. Orlando, Miami, and the Warriors.....plenty of warm cities. All have had awful teams. None of the factos you mention matter when the front office isnt doing its job. You dont just...be warm and in a big city and be good without making the right decisions.


Lakers - Owner that spends more

Boston - Owner that spends more

Dallas - Owner that spends more

Orlando - Owner willing to spend more

Miami - Product of star players with less loyalty fleeing to warm weather/ bigger market cities

New York - Product of cheap owner (Sarver not paying Amare), owner willing to spend more, and star players with less loyalty (Carmelo)


Many teams that, as you say, are getting by how things are.. are mainly getting by on the very things that hurt the small market teams. There are of course exceptions.


Spurs - Well run franchise

Oklahoma City - Well run franchise

Portland - Well run franchise (injuries doomed them)

Chicago - well run franchise

New Orleans - well run franchise


But take a closer look at these teams and what do you see? OKC, New Orleans, Portland (if Roy was never injured), and San Antonio were all successful because they have a loyal star player. In the Lebron/Carmelo/Bosh era, that's something that can't be counted on as much. In fact, Chris Paul has already hinted that he might be out of Nawlins asap.

As for Chicago, we still have to see if Rose is loyal to them.

Notice how the exceptions tend to be...well run. You think thats by chance?

And Rose being loyal is...eh. Hes from chicago. I suspect he stays. But Cavs fans were talking the same way. I dont know what he does. Lottery balls coming out a certian way doesnt mean he has to live and play where he doesnt want to for 15-20 years. He goes it will suck. I'll live. And root for who we have. The yare all gonna be gone one day. And ive been here rooting for the Bulls all my life. I repped Jay Williams, Marcus Fizer, Tyrus, Jordan, Dailey, Oakley, Ben Gordon, and Kirk.

The players are always just stopping by. Real fans are eternal.

[eliteballer]

The Yankees can justify their spending with their revenue stream, a team like the Pirates cannot.

[RedBlackAttack]

Anyway, good conversation, guys. One of the better that I've had on the main forum in some time. I've got to crash, though. Almost 5 a.m. here.

:cheers:

[Sarcastic]

People keep bringing up baseball as if there wasn't parity in the sport. Since 1970 they have had more different champions than any other sport. The only dynasty teams in baseball were: the A's in the 1970s who won 3 in a row; the Reds in the 1970s who won 2 in a row; the Blue Jays in the 1990s who won 2 in a row, and the Yankees in the 1970s and 1990s who won 2 in row (70s) and 4 in 5 years (90s).

Other than those teams no one else has won back to back titles. Compare that to football who had the Steelers win 4 in the 1970s, the 49ers who won 4 in the 1980s, the Cowboys who won 3 in the 1990s, and the Patriots who won 3 in the 2000s and were extremly close to 4 after going 16-0 in 2007. On top of that, you had the Broncos winning back to back in the 1990s, and the Dolphins winning back to back in the 1970s. That's a lot less parity than baseball.

People always like to bring up the Pirates and the Royals as a sign of what's wrong with baseball, but when was the last time the Detroit Lions were competitive? How often are the Bills competitive? What about Cincinnati? What about the Texans who have been in the NFL since 2002 and still never made the playoffs.

[bdreason]

There is a big difference between having very little chance to win, and having no chance to win.



Also, nobody is talking about the product on the court. The more top heavy the league gets, the more lousy blowout games you get. I haven't seen a statistic, but I'm guessing the margin of victory across the league is up.

[Da KO King]

Good question. I'll answer your question with a question.... why would they?

Seems like the Rockets are trying to do that though. Maybe if they finish the season undefeated they can get the 8 seed.
They would do it because for their particular financial situation it would be best. Just because there is a "max salary" the league sets for its owners does not mean all owners can afford to pay that salary.

The true problem is that owners/front offices are victimized by themselves. Yet players get the blame because they stood too close to the scene of the crime while making such a great boogie man. Why should fans acknowledge it is the fault of the guy that they are permanently stuck with (owner) when they can believe it is the guy only here temporarily?!

No one forced Atlanta to pay Joe Johnson $120 million, yet in a few seasons they will talk about how his contract hamstrung the franchise. No one forced the Trailblazers to draft Greg Oden despite the NUMEROUS red flags that would suggest a guy who would miss lots of time, yet now the owners will look at ways to get out of those type of contracts in the next CBA.

While there are a few teams that truly are not in a survivable market situation, on average the problem is that teams are just not thinking with common sense.

[Kblaze8855]

Obviously, the NFL thought that the hard cap was the way to go. You seem to be arguing that it wouldn't have mattered if they instituted a hard cap or had no salary regulations at all. I'm not sure how a discussion can progress with that kind of argument.

Here are the facts:

The NFL did think its best move was to share the wealth and institute a hard cap. The NFL is hugely popular.

Baseball was hugely popular when it faced a crossroads in the late-80s. It chose the other path of less salary regulation and it has completely fallen off.

We can debate external forces like inner-city American kids not playing baseball anymore, like you brought up earlier, but I will tell you right now that the reason I stopped following it was the disparity in payroll and the lack of competitiveness.

Im not saying I know what the NFL would have done without the cap. Im saying the NFL was absurdly popular before it and there is no evidence it wouldnt be now if it were gone. And that acting like the cap is related to something that predates it by half a century just doesnt make sense to me. NFL being popular and the NBA not comparing has nothing to do wit ha cap. And the fact that they both operated the same way for decades....should show that. Hell the NBA is closer to the NFL now than it was before it allowed free agency. No NBA finals games coming on after the late night news hours after they were played...

If you are using success after a decision to justify a claim that it was the right one....I have a much stronger leg to stand on saying the NBA allowing freedom helped it get where it is than the NFL restricting it has a lot to do with where it is. Because the NBA pre player movement wasnt half as popular as it is now. And the NFL cap or no...has always been massive.



Oh please.

There are too many examples of what? This is a new phenomena... As in, brand new. No players the caliber of James/Wade/Bosh have EVER teamed up in the same free agency period in the primes of their careers. It has never happened and they just made the decision a few months ago.

Any examples you have are out-dated when attempting to resolve the current situation. We won't know the ramifications of this power consolidation until years down the road.

I'm telling you what I fear is happening. It isn't a conspiracy theory or scare tactics. It is looking at the reality of having James/Wade/Anthony/Stoudemire/Williams/Bosh spread out over two teams...

And it is the fear that other great players will look at those teams and see that their only chance to compete is to team-up with other superstars in their primes.

Sticking your head in the sand and acting as though this is business as usual for NBA players is just being naive. We are seeing something unprecedented, here.

I was complaining about it when it was just one team. Now, it is apparently going to be two teams, with Anthony and Stoudemire joining forces... Possibly DWill down the road.

Let's just put it like this... That great 2003 draft that was supposed to be the best in NBA history? Its five best players are now spread over two teams. Show me another instance where something like this has happened.

These guys were supposed to step on the court and change the game... Well, they have changed things, just not in the way that most people expected.

It is the AAU-ification of the game and it should be scary to all fans of all small market teams.

Um...point out for me any other times in history it could have happened.

I can only think of one. When Hill, Tmac, and Duncan were all thinking of going to Orlando but Duncan stayed.

Not like there were free agents in the 60s. Not good ones. A team didnt let you out of a contract. You were theres till traded. So half the games history this was impossible. Then...you have to add the cap and rookie scale. Because back in the day contracts had no set structure like now to let a bunch of guys from the same draft sign the same deal to make them free all together. Remember Larry Johnsons 10 year deal? Or Magic Johnson having a 25 year deal? We have to go past that point to the time when 3 stars come in together...

You are left with a short shot list of times it could have happened. So acting like its something nobody ever did is a little..hollow isnt it?

Not like Bill Russell had the option of leaving racist ass Boston to play with West and Baylor in LA. Or like there have been many drafts with so many stars...all of them working under the same pay scale.

It doesnt happened because its rare as hell it has a chance to happen.

Who among us can even name a single big free agent signing of the 1980s? I can name a few. But its just the kind of thing I keep up with. Point is...its all new. The system..is new. You asking me for a draft with a gang of stars who signed together is just being difficult. And the extra qualifiers? Stars from the same draft in their prime in one FA period?

Be for real. Like Moses signing with the 4 all star having 76ers(Doctor J being top 5 and just having made the finals as a 58 win team) is more noble...

It soundsl ike those ultra specific douchebag spouted stats like "___ is the ONLY player to average 24 oints and make 200 threes in each of his first 3 all star selected seasons".

Just demanding extra specific things to make it out to be a new concept. And it isnt.

Great players have been playing together for decades. Just because they didnt all come in with the same kind of deals by rule...that allowed them to all be FAs at the same time...with teams knowing about it 3 years early and all setting up to prepare...doesnt make them the destroyers of basketball.

It means the NBA made a system that breeds such situations. We all know for years this is exactly what half the league wanted to do. Get 2-3 of these young stars all at once. But it happens...and its "This has NEVER happened before!" as if it ever could have...

Thats why it was special. It was the first time it really could happen the way you asked(stars from one draft all sign together).

How many drafts even have that many franchise players? Since they changed the rookie contracts to make FA time predictable?

Cant be many.






Now, down the road we have DWill, who will almost certainly be playing elsewhere and maybe for one of the superteams, CP3 who has had rumblings around him for a while that he will not be back in NO and who knows about Dwight.

If those three further condense the league's talent, which is very possible... Well, I guess you will be happy.

If better basketball will be played...yes I will. You see...I like basketball. Especially when its played very well.

I suspect a game with Rondo, Ray, Pierce, KG, and Perkins vs Chris Paul, Melo, and Amare with Billups as a 6th man...will be very well played.

If a fan somewhere in NO thinks that NY being a draw these days means that the Hornets can never ever be good...and thats thats the reason they suck and not poor management....

He can boycott the league, enjoy being an idiot, and ill watch Paul and Amares pick and roll.

Everyones happy.



The hard cap would protect against owners who don't want to spend. That is one of the beauties of it.

The NFL and its godsend of a hard cap allowed Jerry Richardson to tank, not sign the coach letting him know he was just playing out his contract so he had no reason to care, and not try to get players locked up longterm because he set out to force a lockout and didnt want to pay signing bonus money to guysl ike...Peppers...then not get a year of play out of them.

An owner in any sport can make a bad team. I just watched one of the worst seasons of football of my lifetime partially due to an owner deciding the team didnt need to be good this year. Nothing protects you from an owner who wants money over Ws.



I don't know... I was worried about it before tonight (as you can attest to) and now we have Melo in NYC. It isn't as though the momentum is moving away from my hypothesis.

I guess we will find out. I hope you are right and I am wrong.

The momentum moved exactly where it was said to be going for years. People were asking Lebron, Wade, Melo, and Bosh about the Knicks 4-5 years ago. Its what happens when players are young and good and potentially free agents. Someone says you will go to the Knicks.

In this case with them clearing 30 something million in cap space and only signing one big free agent and having a gang of assets ot move...everyone has been saying they would get someone.

It isnt the league going the way you said. Its the Knicks completing a plan we all saw them start working on like 4 years ago.

[Kblaze8855]

The Yankees can justify their spending with their revenue stream, a team like the Pirates cannot.

You know the Yankees were bought for like...what TJ Ford made last year? Not really a question since im sure you did.

They arent the Yankees by sacred right. It was earned. Through years of ownership insisting on winning and not minding spending money to do it. They had not won in like 15 or 20 years when he bought them.

If they were run like the Clippers they never would have come back to the greatness to justify spending 200 million on them.

[ginobli2311]

As I posted in the Melo to NY thread...

Complete parity has never really existed in the NBA. But, parity is one thing... This massive concentration of franchise-level players all in their primes is something else. There will always be really great teams, mediocre teams and bad teams in every sports league.

The thing that leagues try to do is to find that balance between maintaining its great teams and still putting out a quality product in the other markets. This new trend is threatening that balance.

but it isn't. i've already shown you this.

mega teams have always been a huge part of the nba. hell, the mega teams of the lakers and celtics in the 80s saved the nba.

to all those who don't know the facts:

in then last 31 years the nba title has been won by only 8 teams. 4 teams have won 24 of those titles. 6 teams have won 29 of those titles.

how can the balance get worse than that? it simply can't. going forward for the next few years, you have the lakers/heat/bulls/knicks/thunder/magic/mavs all with enough to win titles. that is 6 teams and who knows what else will happen in the future with cp3/deron/howard. how would the league as a whole get worse if the thunder added bogut. the mavs added deron williams. the knicks added cp3. its worse because small market teams that can't win anything anyway get worse? give me a break. come back to reality people. this is nothing new. take off the blinders. you've been supporting a league that has been the biggest joke ever in terms of competitive balance for the last 30 years and throughout its history. wake up.

this is nothing new. small market teams have always been screwed. big market teams have always dominated. a handful of teams own pretty much every title of the last 31 years. so no, its complete fiction that this is somehow any different.

the only difference is simply how these teams are forming. in the past, it was shady draft dealings and behind closed doors trade demands by players. today, the media is on top of everything and these players are more open about it. but not much has really changed other than the fact that there are more franchise level players now. so if they all start to join up, we'll see an era of 6 plus teams each year with a legit chance to win a title...instead of the standard 2 to 3 each year.

but no, the balance of the nba is not being threatened now. its always been a complete joke and will continue to be one. its the nature of the league and the sport.

[ginobli2311]

to those saying we are entering a danger zone.

please respond to the following:

in the last 31 years:

4 teams have won 24 titles

6 teams have won 29 titles

8 teams have won 31 titles


do you people really think its going to get worse than that? please answer.

[ginobli2311]

Any time when you look at a sport's history, and see that TWO teams have won over half of it's championships, and have combined to be in over 2/3rds of it's championship games, it is NOT a good thing.

In case some of you didn't know, that is exactly the case for the NBA.

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html


The NBA has existed as a major sport since 1946. From 1946-2010, that's 64 championships.

The Lakers have won 16 of them.

The Celtics have won 17 of them. That's 33 of 64. 51.6% of the total NBA championships since 1947 have been won by those two teams.

How about Finals appearances? The Lakers have been in 31 of the 64, the Celtics have been in 21 of them. One of them has appeared in 40 of the 64 total Finals. (62.5%)

That's not a good thing. It's extremely bad for everyone who isn't a fan of those teams. The Lakers and Celtics being in all the Finals is boring. I can't see how that can possibly be good for the NBA.

When you go into a season and people are saying, "The Celtics and Lakers will obviously be in the Finals again", that's precisely why people don't watch the sport as much as others. Only die hard NBA fans watch the whole season. Fairweather fans start watching late in the season and in the playoffs. Then you get the most fans in the Finals unless the "real finals" occurs in a conference Finals (like when the Spurs would play the Lakers in the WCF).

Fans don't watch as much before that because there's apparently no reason to. When there's a nearly 50% chance the Lakers will be in the Finals, and an over 50% chance that the Lakers or Celtics will win the championship every year, why the **** should people bother watching the regular season?

Large market teams being dominating every year sucks for the NBA. More viewers in those cities sure, and far less chance to increase overall viewing since so many teams have never even been in the Finals, much less won it. Which makes very little reason for fans in those cities who don't watch the NBA to start cashing in their money and free time to watch their annually bad team have no chance to win again.


this.

in a perfect world we would have a hard cap and spread the talent around pretty evenly. it would make for a better on court product and a much better dispersion of titles and more importantly HOPE for small market teams.

i totally agree with sinjackal as usual.

but he points to my point. don't come on here and claim this is something new. in fact, its been far worse in the past than it is now. so don't claim the nba is now being threatened....its been this way forever.

if the nba really wanted to fix this:

1. they would contract 4 or 5 teams
2. they would move the hornets or another team to vegas
3. they would make a hard cap and shorten the length and dollar amounts of max contracts
4. they would create more incentives (money) for franchises that make the playoffs, win a playoff game, win a playoff series, win the conference, win the title
5. give the bad teams more 1st round picks

it wouldn't be hard to fix it at all, but does the league get better in terms of marketability and profitability? do we want to see a finals of raptors vs kings. or nets vs grizzlies? really? is a more watered down league with more balance better than watching the loaded heat and celtics and bulls got at it? or the loaded lakers beat the celtics in a legendary game 7?

i honestly don't know. hopefully we'll find out. but the fact remains that the nba has always been this way and currently there are about 4 or 5 too many teams in the league. contraction would fix a lot of these problems. as would changing the contracts and cap.

[Faberg]

Maybe it's because there's too many teams in the league. The Golden era had about 3-4 less teams then we currently have.

I'm not saying I support contraction though.

[chazzy]

Having the upper tier consist of stacked teams of multiple stars makes for a better product on the biggest stages of play. The 2nd round of this year's playoffs are shaping up to be one of the better matchups in recent time. But the potential negative effect of this continuing trend is the dilution of every non-contending team. The percentage of a random regular season game being unwatchable/irrelevant increases. Personally I find myself only watching contending teams play solid playoff teams now.. I don't even care as much for games between two playoff teams if they're on the lower tier.

A microcosm of this is the East parity of the past couple years. Boston, Orlando, Cleveland.. then what? I honestly did not care for any other team or any of their games. On a larger scale, this makes for a lot of games I don't care for. Sure, these teams may not have had much of a chance to win a title even with their lone star.. but the power of that star still made me want to watch. The Heat have been average for the past couple years, but a lot of people still watched them just because of Wade. Lakers post-Shaq pre-Gasol.. essentially irrelevant in the championship conversation, but still a team people watched because of Kobe's star power. Clippers now.. still irrelevant in the bigger picture and not even a playoff team. But Griffin has people tuning in, going out of there way to catch a random game just to see some highlights. The end result of that team compared to last season will be the same, but the means to reach that conclusion are completely different. Raptors games went from slightly watchable with Bosh to completely unwatchable now. The chances of these average/below average teams going all the way and winning it all would remain the same for the most part, but the starpower cannot be ignored

So I think a larger star disparity brings down quality of your average regular season game and first round playoff series, and boosts the quality of later round playoff series. How this affects the league as a whole remains to be seen, but it's undeniable that there are both pros and cons to this "AAU-ification" of the league as RBA calls it.

[joe]

to those saying we are entering a danger zone.

please respond to the following:

in the last 31 years:

4 teams have won 24 titles

6 teams have won 29 titles

8 teams have won 31 titles


do you people really think its going to get worse than that? please answer.


I agree with most of your points. You're totally right in the way you analyze the reality of the situation. Now and in the past.

But my biggest issue isn't with big market teams winning, or with certain franchises winning (it bugs me but if star players want to play there, what can you do?).

My biggest issue is that certain owners are willing to spend more money, creating a huge competitive advantage for their teams.

Even with a hard cap, which I support, star players will still go to the big market cities. However, teams like the Lakers couldn't stack their rosters to the point of UNREAL just because they have Jerry Buss on their side.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.. Spending money is NOT a skill. Spending money wisely is, but how wise do you need to be to add Artest, Blake, and Barnes to a core of Kobe/Gasol/Odom while simultaneously overpaying Fisher and Jackson?

Spurs, they spent money wisely.

Lakers, they got great players because of the city they play in (Kobe, Lamar,) which is fine, but then they were able to overspend and become such a powerhouse that only another overspending powerhouse even stood a chance against them (Boston).

NBA needs a hard cap, period. More than any other league. Because in the NBA, talent overwhelms all, and there's no randomness to the playoffs (like NFL and MLB). Overspending is too big of an advantage in basketball.

[ginobli2311]

Having the upper tier consist of stacked teams of multiple stars makes for a better product on the biggest stages of play. The 2nd round of this year's playoffs are shaping up to be one of the better matchups in recent time. But the potential negative effect of this continuing trend is the dilution of every non-contending team. The percentage of a random regular season game being unwatchable/irrelevant increases. Personally I find myself only watching contending teams play solid playoff teams now.. I don't even care as much for games between two playoff teams if they're on the lower tier.

A microcosm of this is the East parity of the past couple years. Boston, Orlando, Cleveland.. then what? I honestly did not care for any other team or any of their games. On a larger scale, this makes for a lot of games I don't care for. Sure, these teams may not have had much of a chance to win a title even with their lone star.. but the power of that star still made me want to watch. The Heat have been average for the past couple years, but a lot of people still watched them just because of Wade. Lakers post-Shaq pre-Gasol.. essentially irrelevant in the championship conversation, but still a team people watched because of Kobe's star power. Clippers now.. still irrelevant in the bigger picture and not even a playoff team. But Griffin has people tuning in, going out of there way to catch a random game just to see some highlights. The end result of that team compared to last season will be the same, but the means to reach that conclusion are completely different. Raptors games went from slightly watchable with Bosh to completely unwatchable now. The chances of these average/below average teams going all the way and winning it all would remain the same for the most part, but the starpower cannot be ignored

So I think this brings down quality of your average regular season game and first round playoff series, and boosts the quality of later round playoff series. How this affects the league as a whole remains to be seen, but it's undeniable that there are both pros and cons to this "AAU-ification" of the league as RBA calls it.

yea. i'd love to see an analysis done on star power and mid level franchises in the 80s and 90s.

like were the cavs of the mid 90s more fun to watch than a team like the current 76ers or something. both teams would be one and done in the playoffs and didn't have a lot of star power.

i'm not denying that the cavs/raptors just got a lot worse to watch in the summer this year, but was anyone watching the bosh raptors as a casual fan anyway? what good is having a good player on a team that isn't even making the playoffs? were people tuning in to see melo in denver or gasol in memphis? or how about deron in utah? it really was probably only die hard fans of a team or player that cared much.

blake griffin and lebron james are a bit different. they are must see tv. most stars aren't in that category.

i can't give an accurate analysis without doing a lot of research, but my initial reacation would be that mediocre and bad teams of the past were not any more interesting than they are today.

i just looked up some of the cavs mid 90s teams. they were usually a few games over .500 and were led by price/wilkings/daugherty/hot rod....i mean...is that really so much better than the current sixers or hawks or bucks from last year?

there is more talent in the nba now. i don't think that means better teams or even better players, but there is more talent.

[ginobli2311]

I agree with most of your points. You're totally right in the way you analyze the reality of the situation. Now and in the past.

But my biggest issue isn't with big market teams winning, or with certain franchises winning (it bugs me but if star players want to play there, what can you do?).

My biggest issue is that certain owners are willing to spend more money, creating a huge competitive advantage for their teams.

Even with a hard cap, which I support, star players will still go to the big market cities. However, teams like the Lakers couldn't stack their rosters to the point of UNREAL just because they have Jerry Buss on their side.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.. Spending money is NOT a skill. Spending money wisely is, but how wise do you need to be to add Artest, Blake, and Barnes to a core of Kobe/Gasol/Odom while simultaneously overpaying Fisher and Jackson?

Spurs, they spent money wisely.

Lakers, they got great players because of the city they play in (Kobe, Lamar,) which is fine, but then they were able to overspend and become such a powerhouse that only another overspending powerhouse even stood a chance against them (Boston).

NBA needs a hard cap, period. More than any other league. Because in the NBA, talent overwhelms all, and there's no randomness to the playoffs (like NFL and MLB). Overspending is too big of an advantage in basketball.

i agree if you want a more balanced league. i honestly don't know what the answer is. i will say that (as a huge dallas fan) spending money can get you to be a good team, but it can't get you to be an elite teams. the mavs have spent poorly a lot of times, and the reality is that big time free agents don't lineup to live/play in dallas.

so your point is true. i just think in some form or another we will always see the big market teams that spend the most as the top teams. but yes, that gap will be smaller in terms of team talent and play and maybe that is a good thing.

like i said, i honestly don't know what is better for the future of the league. i know it would be better for die hard fans like us that don't care what the name on the front of the jersey is. but average fans and causual fans do.

and the reality is that that MJ himself could come back along with magic and bird and play in the finals on the raptors and grizzlies, and not nearly as many people would care about that as another lakers v. celtics finals.

hell, just look at the spurs vs cavs ratings in 07. you had lebron james (one of the most exciting players ever) and the spurs going for a 4th title and the ratings were abysmal. so its a tough problem. and i'm not smart enough to figure it out.

[2LeTTeRS]

For anybody who says that parity is what makes a sports league great please explain the popularity of college sports, where going into the season the same few powerhouses have the chance to win every year? I disagree on that point entirely, I think fans prefer the storylines that comes from great teams, whether they support them or hate them. For most fans the on-court action just isn't enough in itself.

[dak121]

i agree if you want a more balanced league. i honestly don't know what the answer is.

Find a way to clone 10 more LeBron's, 10 more Dwight Howard's and 10 more Kobe's.

[Jasi]

I think that the influence of the overall disparity in the League on its popularity is equal to 0.

The excitement for games evens out.

[ginobli2311]

Find a way to clone 10 more LeBron's, 10 more Dwight Howard's and 10 more Kobe's.

lol....right.

its never going to happen because the fact remains that elite players aren't equal. obviously lebron is better than melo. howard is better than melo....etc.

the problem is that its not fair to players that half of their careers or more is simply determined by a ping pong ball. i just don't like that idea in a league that is so title dependent like the nba. it sucks.

and i will never understand how people can be for a system that determines champions largely by luck. what if the bulls never got pippen? what if the celtics never got bird? what if shaq didn't come to the Lakers? what if kobe got drafted by the Nets?

you see. they'd all still be great players of course, but no way in hell those guys or franchises are winning as many titles. so i think its silly to promote a system that gives the players virtually no control on what team they are on....and then turn around and call lebron/melo/kg...etc failures for not winning titles.

like i said, i don't know the answer, but i'd rather have 5 or 6 stacked teams than just 2 or 3 stacked teams each year. and make no mistake, the history of the nba has been dominated by a handful of franchises.

so i'm all for players taking matters into their own hands. but yea....it sucks for some fan bases.

[dak121]

There is no perfect system.

Until someone figures out a way to not make one guy as impactful to a team as a LeBron its not going to change.

And the current ping-pong system is just about the best draft selection method they can go with. Having an NFL-style system where the worst team gets the first pick would have teams tanking like you have never seen before.

[ginobli2311]

There is no perfect system.

Until someone figures out a way to not make one guy as impactful to a team as a LeBron its not going to change.

And the current ping-pong system is just about the best draft selection method they can go with. Having an NFL-style system where the worst team gets the first pick would have teams tanking like you have never seen before.

oh i agree. my point is that we can't sit here and get mad at players or the nba for that matter when this happens.

kobe's entire career fortunes were changed because of the trade to the lakers. that had nothing to do with anything kobe did. it was pure luck. magic only came out to play with kareem. bird was lucky to win up on the celtics and play with a bunch of hall of famers. jordan was lucky the bulls got pippen.

so i don't like hearing this "old school" bs that assumes that these players now are ruining the league.

change the system if you don't want this to happen. change how we judge and rank players. change the money and advertising.....etc.

just look at pippen. lets say he was drafted by the kings. is anyone here going to say pippen would still have won 6 titles? LOL

the fact remains that in the nba, a players' circumstances dictate how many titles he wins and his playoff success far more than level of play and impact. so when these guys give up 6 or 7 or 8 years to a franchise and then want out....i don't blame them at all.

where was melo's pippen or gasol? where was lebron's mchale or kareem? where was wade's help?

[Da KO King]

the problem is that its not fair to players that half of their careers or more is simply determined by a ping pong ball. i just don't like that idea in a league that is so title dependent like the nba. it sucks.Exactly. The NBA has held onto this lottery system for FAR too long.

The lottery plus the NBA's illogical rules for expansion teams is why there is so little parity when it comes to championships won. The NBA has unintentionally(?) kept bad teams from becoming good.

Of course the owners don't think the commissioner they hired to look after their league is screwing up so instead they say "there aren't enough star players. You need stars to win a title."

No, you need good players and good coaches to win a title. A collection of good player and coaches that can function as a cohesive team. Blaming a lack of star power is just covering for a poorly designed system full of group-thinkers who can't see the forest from the trees.

[Da KO King]

And the current ping-pong system is just about the best draft selection method they can go with. Having an NFL-style system where the worst team gets the first pick would have teams tanking like you have never seen before.
Totally disagree. The lottery is a total hindrance to bad teams that actually want to be good.

Teams don't tank. It cost the organization money, cuts the coaches career length down (they are hired based on wins, losses, and post season success) and players aren't willing to do it out of pride and potential money lost.

Hell the lottery was not even created to even things out. It was created to add a degree of drama and suspense to a league where there was none. The lottery came about at a time when everyone knew the champs would be either the Celtics or Lakers and the same teams as always would be crappy.

[lilojmayo]

no offense to small market teams but the nba will be the most popular professional sport in the USA, if all the big market teams are contending for a title every year. its just the way the NBA model works.

Will never even come close to touching the NFL, not in many many years. Only Jordan made that a debate in the late 90's.

That being said, these Mega teams are great, who wants to watch all these scrub and bad NBA teams from a casual fan perspective. I don't watch much NBA games, like legitally watch them at least regular season, but I always try to tune in to the Mia/Bos La/Bos type games.

Knicks getting Melo , having Amare, with Spike Lee courtside is going to be entertaining.

[KKittles30]

Scottie Pippen was originally drafted by the Seattle Supersonics and traded to the Chicago Bulls for Olden Polynice.

[ginobli2311]

Scottie Pippen was originally drafted by the Seattle Supersonics and traded to the Chicago Bulls for Olden Polynice.

yep. now imagine what his career would have looked like if he was traded to a terrible team.

or how much different melo's would look like right now if dumars wasn't a complete moron and had drafted melo.

we'd be looking at a 2 or 3 time champion and one of the 25 to 35 best players ever probably. which is why circumstances determine too much for these players and why they should have a lot of power at certain times in their careers. its not melo's fault that dumars is a complete idiot.

[joe]

lol....right.

its never going to happen because the fact remains that elite players aren't equal. obviously lebron is better than melo. howard is better than melo....etc.

the problem is that its not fair to players that half of their careers or more is simply determined by a ping pong ball. i just don't like that idea in a league that is so title dependent like the nba. it sucks.

and i will never understand how people can be for a system that determines champions largely by luck. what if the bulls never got pippen? what if the celtics never got bird? what if shaq didn't come to the Lakers? what if kobe got drafted by the Nets?

you see. they'd all still be great players of course, but no way in hell those guys or franchises are winning as many titles. so i think its silly to promote a system that gives the players virtually no control on what team they are on....and then turn around and call lebron/melo/kg...etc failures for not winning titles.

like i said, i don't know the answer, but i'd rather have 5 or 6 stacked teams than just 2 or 3 stacked teams each year. and make no mistake, the history of the nba has been dominated by a handful of franchises.

so i'm all for players taking matters into their own hands. but yea....it sucks for some fan bases.


The draft lottery is one of the few things the NBA has done right. It's one of the few things that stops big market teams from getting all the best players. If rookies could just choose what team they wanted to join when entering the NBA... how many do you think would choose LA, New York, Miami, and Boston? Might as well just contract the whole league and let those 4 duke it out.

Now yes, it is unfair that players get judged for not winning championships when they were drafted to crumby franchises to begin with. But there's two ways a franchise is crumby. 1- They have a bad GM. 2- they don't spend enough money. A hard cap totally eliminates the second cause and makes it less likely that a player is drafted to a crap team.

You don't understand how people can be for a system that determines championships mainly by luck, but you support one that determines championships based on how much money some rich white guy is willing to spend on one of his many investments/pet projects.

Teams/fans should be protected from their owner, not at his mercy.

I say let teams draft, so rookie star players get evenly dispersed around the league. Have a hard cap to prevent overspending. Many stars will still leave their team for big markets.. but at least smaller market teams will have a chance to win while they HAVE that star. They won't be bullied out of the playoffs by 90 Million Dollar Payroll Lakers.

Look at a team like OKC. Well built team, built through the draft and smart trades. Last year they took the Lakers to 6. Imagine if the Lakers didn't have endless money in the bank, to keep adding players even when they're stacked? Perhaps with a hard cap they can't afford to sign Artest, and then who knows what happens with that series? Maybe Durant goes off instead of being smothered by Artest for 6 games.

Look at a team like Chicago this year. They got great rookies through the draft (Rose, Noah) and signed a stellar free agent, Carlos Boozer. In most years they'd be a potential finals team. But in the East this year? The Celtics starting line-up is probably worth more than Chicago's entire payroll. Rondo. Allen. Pierce. Garnett. And that's before you mention how they've added Nate Robinson, Jermaine Oneal, and Shaq to their bench. So what is a team like Chicago supposed to do? Their only option is to overspend and add ANOTHER big-time free-agent, and then they'll be on Boston's level. In Chicago's case, a big market, they very well may do that. But if Chicago was Milwaukee? They probably keep the payroll where it's at, lose to Boston and Miami in the playoffs for a few years.. and then DRose leaves for the Lakers when his rookie scale is up.

[PleezeBelieve]

The notion that players have the right to free agency in and of itself is a false, hence why the current system is broken. Franchises are dedicating years of resources trying to build around a certain player, then everything is lost because that player reaches unrestricted free agency.

Doesn't sound that bad until you realize certain teams have advantages attracting free agents over other teams and it has nothing to do with on court performance.

This is called a competitive imbalance. Small Markets have mo margin or error, while Big Markets have all the room in the world to make mistakes with little repercussions.

The system is broken. The owners need to fix it. Create Franchise Tags like the NFL does. Players are guaranteed top level pay but aren't allowed to test the market. Sounds reasonable.

[IGOTGAME]

You know the Yankees were bought for like...what TJ Ford made last year? Not really a question since im sure you did.

They arent the Yankees by sacred right. It was earned. Through years of ownership insisting on winning and not minding spending money to do it. They had not won in like 15 or 20 years when he bought them.

If they were run like the Clippers they never would have come back to the greatness to justify spending 200 million on them.

that is just a wholly inaccurate portrait of what happened when you dont adjust for inflation...

[Funnyfuka]

doesnt ruin anything, most games were boring to watch until now, and having only two stacked teams was lame. Most people only watch the big games anyway, the games where two or three good players are playign against each others. There s a big need for contraction, i d say at least half the teams are useless but are just kept functionnal cause the arenas make money for the league and owners...

we need less numerous, better teams. And we need to pay them a lot less. Maybe they ll show more heart.

The "mega teams" wont last long either...spurs are old, lakers are old, celtics are getting old... The teams of the future might be miami and chicago, and knicks.

[ginobli2311]

The draft lottery is one of the few things the NBA has done right. It's one of the few things that stops big market teams from getting all the best players. If rookies could just choose what team they wanted to join when entering the NBA... how many do you think would choose LA, New York, Miami, and Boston? Might as well just contract the whole league and let those 4 duke it out.

Now yes, it is unfair that players get judged for not winning championships when they were drafted to crumby franchises to begin with. But there's two ways a franchise is crumby. 1- They have a bad GM. 2- they don't spend enough money. A hard cap totally eliminates the second cause and makes it less likely that a player is drafted to a crap team.

You don't understand how people can be for a system that determines championships mainly by luck, but you support one that determines championships based on how much money some rich white guy is willing to spend on one of his many investments/pet projects.

Teams/fans should be protected from their owner, not at his mercy.

I say let teams draft, so rookie star players get evenly dispersed around the league. Have a hard cap to prevent overspending. Many stars will still leave their team for big markets.. but at least smaller market teams will have a chance to win while they HAVE that star. They won't be bullied out of the playoffs by 90 Million Dollar Payroll Lakers.

Look at a team like OKC. Well built team, built through the draft and smart trades. Last year they took the Lakers to 6. Imagine if the Lakers didn't have endless money in the bank, to keep adding players even when they're stacked? Perhaps with a hard cap they can't afford to sign Artest, and then who knows what happens with that series? Maybe Durant goes off instead of being smothered by Artest for 6 games.

Look at a team like Chicago this year. They got great rookies through the draft (Rose, Noah) and signed a stellar free agent, Carlos Boozer. In most years they'd be a potential finals team. But in the East this year? The Celtics starting line-up is probably worth more than Chicago's entire payroll. Rondo. Allen. Pierce. Garnett. And that's before you mention how they've added Nate Robinson, Jermaine Oneal, and Shaq to their bench. So what is a team like Chicago supposed to do? Their only option is to overspend and add ANOTHER big-time free-agent, and then they'll be on Boston's level. In Chicago's case, a big market, they very well may do that. But if Chicago was Milwaukee? They probably keep the payroll where it's at, lose to Boston and Miami in the playoffs for a few years.. and then DRose leaves for the Lakers when his rookie scale is up.

i totally agree with everything you say. those are exactly my points.

but you can't prevent some people/players just being better than others. the lakers have a great front office. the mavs don't. the mavs have spent similar amounts of money, but at the end of the day the mavs haven't done nearly as good of a job. and the other factor is a desirable market. la has this. dallas doesn't. you don't hear rumors about howard coming to dallas. why? because its not as lucrative as a huge market.

you can't change any of the above. which is why i'm for the players having the power a few times throughout their career. its not their fault they get drafted by crumby teams with crumby owners or crumby front offices.

a hard cap would help a lot to balance things out. i totally agree. my question is....do you want that? do you want to see memphis vs the nets in the finals? is that good for the nba?

its great for die hard fans that simply don't care what team is in the finals like us. but for casual fans, it matters.....and the ratings would be laughably bad if you had small market teams playing each other in the finals a lot more often. and that would happen if you gave teams a franchise tag and a hard cap like you speak of.

so again. i don't know the answer, but i'm all for players having choices.

[Scholar]

that is just a wholly inaccurate portrait of what happened when you dont adjust for inflation...

:oldlol: I was thinking the same thing. I guess inflation isn't a term in his vocabulary.


I think what people are forgetting here is that the whole banding together shit has been going on for the past few years. It didn't magically begin over the course of this past summer after LeBron took his talents to South Beach. In fact, Carmelo & Iverson played in Denver a few years back. The Nets had All-Star Vince Carter, triple-double threat Jason Kidd, and at the time young talent in Richard Jefferson. The only reason the Nets didn't do too well back when these fellas were playing for them was because they had Kristic at Center and aging Cliff Robinson at PF. Plus, the Miami Heat had Shaq and DWade dominating the Eastern Conference those years.
In short, guys wanting to team up to win a ring isn't a new thing in the NBA. Sure, back when these guys joined together, they didn't beg to be traded (though AI did), and they didn't intentionally play terribly in crucial playoff games (though LeBron James did, and you can possibly say VC did when he was in Toronto for the majority of his career there); however, they did somehow, some way join together in an attempt to win a title in a league that is letting smaller town teams go to shit.

[IGOTGAME]

Totally disagree. The lottery is a total hindrance to bad teams that actually want to be good.

Teams don't tank. It cost the organization money, cuts the coaches career length down (they are hired based on wins, losses, and post season success) and players aren't willing to do it out of pride and potential money lost.

Hell the lottery was not even created to even things out. It was created to add a degree of drama and suspense to a league where there was none. The lottery came about at a time when everyone knew the champs would be either the Celtics or Lakers and the same teams as always would be crappy.

What do you suggest?

The lottery as I was told came into play because teams were tanking when the NBA just did the draft on reverse wins and loss order.

I dont see a problem with the draft imo and do not see how it is unfair to anyone nor do I see a better system.

[ginobli2311]

What do you suggest?

The lottery as I was told came into play because teams were tanking when the NBA just did the draft on reverse wins and loss order.

I dont see a problem with the draft imo and do not see how it is unfair to anyone nor do I see a better system.

the problem with the draft is that you have to get the star player and then build around them well. most franchises in small markets fail at this. so they end up losing those star players partly because of their location, and partly because they have inept front offices.

so its just really hard on small market teams in general. there are exceptions, but that is really it. the facts remain that small market teams rarely win titles in the nba.

[redsoxballer]

Kblaze :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: Make a Tom Chambers mixtape plz

[niko]

EPL has five teams that have a legit chance to win a title. Everyone else has ZERO chance. most of the other 15 don't even have a chance for the FA Cup or a top four finish. Yet it's more popular than ever. Sucks if you are a fan of the other teams. For Casual fans and those in the big cities, it's great.

And i always wonder when people speak on this subject they do on the pretext things changed. Nothing changed. There was not parity before, there were good teams and lots of teams with no chance, just like now.

[ginobli2311]

EPL has five teams that have a legit chance to win a title. Everyone else has ZERO chance. most of the other 15 don't even have a chance for the FA Cup or a top four finish. Yet it's more popular than ever. Sucks if you are a fan of the other teams. For Casual fans and those in the big cities, it's great.

And i always wonder when people speak on this subject they do on the pretext things changed. Nothing changed. There was not parity before, there were good teams and lots of teams with no chance, just like now.

yep.

its funny how the "old school" bs starts coming out. just priceless.

[bih]

EPL has five teams that have a legit chance to win a title. Everyone else has ZERO chance. most of the other 15 don't even have a chance for the FA Cup or a top four finish. Yet it's more popular than ever. Sucks if you are a fan of the other teams. For Casual fans and those in the big cities, it's great.

And i always wonder when people speak on this subject they do on the pretext things changed. Nothing changed. There was not parity before, there were good teams and lots of teams with no chance, just like now.


more popular then ever you say? :facepalm

how can you compare team like wizards to portsmouth who's expenditure is not even 1/10th of wizards

[33teeth]

I read most of it... lol.

The thing is, man, you are looking at it in the wrong way, too. Even though there is a ton of talent on those big teams, and there is... they are also stealing the quality role players, too. Any experienced role player wants to play on a contender, and they go to a top team.

If you look at teams like Sacramento and LAC... they have talent, but they need some quality role players. They need guys that can do it every night. They are never gonna get those guys unless they get insanely lucky and even then they might lose out to them because even though they could win there, they are better off for their legacy in a larger market.


Look at Miami and what they took in on that team. not only did they get 3 stars (2 greater than the other, but still) but they pulled in Eddie House and Mike Miller... two great role playing shooters. At least, that's what they were looked at as. Big Bodies... they picked up Z and Dampier.

Same with the Celtics team that won. They get Eddie House, they get James Posey, they get PJ Brown. That's something that really puts a team over the edge.

And look at the Bulls. They pull in Boozer, but they also got quality role players.

-Smak

This. Also, because they can't ever really get it all the way together, the young talent likely leaves at their first opportunity. It seems like even just solid, average role players these days think that they deserve to play on a championship contender.

[Kblaze8855]

I was thinking the same thing. I guess inflation isn't a term in his vocabulary.

Inflation alone isnt the difference between 8 million and nearly 2 billion in 30 something years. The average MLB team went from being worth 10 million in 1970 to 286 in 2001. The yankees were bought for less than average value...and went from that to over a billion in the same time frame. I wasnt trying to say they made 8 million to a billion unaware of inflation. Im saying they took 8 million to a billion when so many others didnt. They didnt just start handing out ungodly money from a bottomless pit as they do now. They built themselves to a monster capable of it. They went from a little under average value(average was over 10...CBS sold it and some parking garages...the team itself was bought for 8.8) and went from that to among the biggest franchises in the world.

They didnt START with more money than anyone else had. They built themselves into the yankees as they are now...partly by outspending people. And with owners that are way richer tha George over that period of time I dont think its fair to say he was only able to do it because the yankees had so much money. They only got so big...because of him spending.


The notion that players have the right to free agency in and of itself is a false, hence why the current system is broken. Franchises are dedicating years of resources trying to build around a certain player, then everything is lost because that player reaches unrestricted free agency.



The system is broken. The owners need to fix it. Create Franchise Tags like the NFL does. Players are guaranteed top level pay but aren't allowed to test the market. Sounds reasonable.

Sounds reasonable to nobody with the power to make it happen. No major american league will ever fully remove free agency and not get sued.

All NFL like franchises tags in the NBA would have done is let everyone know that in 2011 Bron, Wade, and Bosh would have been unrestricted instead of in 2010. They could have done the same thing. Except if they were worried about getting old they would have signed 2 year deals instead of 3 knowing they would get tagged after 2 and be free to leave after 3.

You arent preventing free agency. Just isnt gonna happen in a world with antitrust laws and unions this packed with money with lockouts always seemingly 3-4 years away from making everyone lose money. Which is why the league gave in when Oscar sued and allowed players room to move. And its even harder on the leagues now. Imagine owners telling players "No more free agency...period...you stay where a lottery ball says". There would be a lockout till 2016 and billions would be lost on both sides.

You could pass one year franchise tags I suspect. And players who wanted out early would sign deals for a year less than they intended to give their team to shape up. Get franchised the last year...then walk.

Agents would work around it like always.

[Funnyfuka]

the league makes money and people watch big games on tv. Players getting paid millions, even the worst ones. How is anything going "wrong" for these people?

everything is going just right for anyone in the industry lol. Things are only going "bad" for..fans who work a 9 bucks an hour job and need something to talk about lmao.

[nycelt84]

For a country where so many people are anti-socialist, Americans sure do love socialism in sports. Their can never be a level playing field in sports or any business because such things do not exist. Certain markets will always have an advantage over other markets and preventing players or owners from exploiting their markets or wanting access to those markets is wrong and foolish. If there is a problem where players say don't want to play in New Orleans for example, and the New Orleans market is constantly losing money the answer isn't to force players to stay there or take money from those who have to help out the failing market, it's either relocate or contract.

[Kblaze8855]

And look at bad owner situations. Sterling is sued for racist actions in his real estate, taunts his own players from the stands, and was reported to bring women into the lockerroom saying shit like "Look at those big black bodies". And he runs the team to profit not win. If a lottery ball says you play for him...id do it for the years the rookie deal required then bounce. As anyone has the right to.

[ginobli2311]

For a country where so many people are anti-socialist, Americans sure do love socialism in sports. Their can never be a level playing field in sports or any business because such things do not exist. Certain markets will always have an advantage over other markets and preventing players or owners from exploiting their markets or wanting access to those markets is wrong and foolish. If there is a problem where players say don't want to play in New Orleans for example, and the New Orleans market is constantly losing money the answer isn't to force players to stay there or take money from those who have to help out the failing market, it's either relocate or contract.

bingo.

i don't get this whole communist approach to sports now. its never going to be a level playing field....and to be honest...if it was...it would be terrible for the nba. like you said. if a team is failing and you are the owners....contract it or move it or sell it. end of story. the nba would be much better with only 25 teams anyway. and any team in vegas would make a killing and would be obviously a desirable spot for players. if you don't have enough markets so support the 30 teams, then cut the teams down or find new markets. its not as if the nba isn't viable. the right markets make a shit ton of money and have a huge amount of interest. that is how the world works. if you make a crappy product and it fails.....you don't ***** and moan and try to create regulations to force people to buy it. consumers will come when the market and product is right. i speak from a mavs fan point of view. cuban came in and built a new arena and gave us a completely different product. and the mavs, a team that the city laughed at for a long time, quickly embraced the new look mavs and now they sell out every single game. so these owners need to get better or move the teams or sell them to another person willing to try harder or just contract it altogether.

like i keep asking. who here wants to see a watered down league with all the stars spread around the league and watch the grizzlies vs nets in the finals.....with rudy gay winning finals mvp or something. that just sounds awful.

what is cool about this new movement is that no longer are the celtics and lakers going to win over half the nba finals and make 60% or more of them. those days are long gone. and i love that. there will always be terrible teams and bad teams and average teams and good teams. now there are going to be 6 plus legit contenders moving forward if this trend continues. and that is a huge positive going forward.

i'll bet anyone here any amount of money that the nba titles are more even distributed over the next 31 years than the last 31. no way in hell are only 4 franchises going to win 24 titles in the next 31. no way in hell only 6 will win 29 titles.

[ginobli2311]

And look at bad owner situations. Sterling is sued for racist actions in his real estate, taunts his own players from the stands, and was reported to bring women into the lockerroom saying shit like "Look at those big black bodies". And he runs the team to profit not win. If a lottery ball says you play for him...id do it for the years the rookie deal required then bounce. As anyone has the right to.

exactly. i still don't understand the idea that teams should own players. it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Funnyfuka]

fact is there are only a few teams (hosted by the most popular, sexiest cities and you cant change that) with appeal and chances to win a chip, and everything else is garbage.

Basically all the other teams exist so people go in the arena to watch... the big teams coming in town destroying their own shitty team.

They cannot erase too many teams cause the arenas are what make money.

[ginobli2311]

fact is there are only a few teams (hosted by the most popular, sexiest cities and you cant change that) with appeal and chances to win a chip, and everything else is garbage.

Basically all the other teams exist so people go in the arena to watch... the big teams coming in town destroying their own shitty team.

They cannot erase too many teams cause the arenas are what make money.

but a lot of teams are losing money. if you cut down the league to 25 teams and put a team in vegas the nba would be a far more enjoyable league to watch and it would make a lot more money.

the on the court product would get amazing. the nba especially is becoming a tv sport anyway. the games are too frequent to expect people to dish out the kind of money it takes to go to 41 home games a year. there are just too many games and the cost of attending is too high. now, if the product got better, more people would want to go.

i really think the nba would be so much better if you did the following:

1. 25 total teams
2. add a team in vegas
3. cut the regular season down to 72 games
4. double the penalty for going over the cap
5. make the max length of a contract 5 years

[gilalizard]

It's always been top heavy, so let's make it worse!


Screw it. Just take the best 60 players, put them 15 each on 4 teams, scrap the other 26 teams since everyone knows they're not going to win shit anyway, and have your "league" of 4 legit contenders play a regular season, playoffs, conf finals, and championship series.

The level of basketball amongst these four teams will always be sky-high, and great players will never have to "waste" their careers.

[ginobli2311]

It's always been top heavy, so let's make it worse!


Screw it. Just take the best 60 players, put them 15 each on 4 teams, scrap the other 26 teams since everyone knows they're not going to win shit anyway, and have your "league" of 4 legit contenders play a regular season, playoffs, conf finals, and championship series.

The level of basketball amongst these four teams will always be sky-high, and great players will never have to "waste" their careers.

how can it get worse than 6 teams winning 29 of the last 31 titles. we still have the draft and we still have a salary cap.

this isn't making it worse. its actually making it better.

[gilalizard]

how can it get worse than 6 teams winning 29 of the last 31 titles. we still have the draft and we still have a salary cap.

this isn't making it worse. its actually making it better.

I'm not against contraction necessarily. But contraction doesn't solve the problem of a few teams being the only legit contenders. So you end up with 4-6 teams dominating instead of just 4. Games outside of this elite are Globetrotters vs Generals shows. And it's still nonsense and not any type of competitive league.

With the pretend cap of the NBA, the best players are still going to stack teams to beat each other. You may expand the "legit" contenders for a short time. But don't be surprised to see during the next few rounds of free agencies elite players stacking up even more than before.

I wouldn't be surprised at all in 20 years to see the same teams still dominating that do today, with little change. The odd outsider slipping in to win 1 ring here or there, just as history is up to this point. Well except for one key difference. Instead of big 3's on these rosters, we'll be seeing rosters of big 5's and 6's.

[Artillery]

We've had 18 different teams make the Finals in the past twenty years. Of course, only seven different teams won the championship but it's not like the rest of the league didn't have a chance.

[gts]

I'm not against contraction necessarily. But contraction doesn't solve the problem of a few teams being the only legit contenders. So you end up with 4-6 teams dominating instead of just 4. Games outside of this elite are Globetrotters vs Generals shows. And it's still nonsense and not any type of competitive league.

With the pretend cap of the NBA, the best players are still going to stack teams to beat each other. You may expand the "legit" contenders for a short time. But don't be surprised to see during the next few rounds of free agencies elite players stacking up even more than before.

I wouldn't be surprised at all in 20 years to see the same teams still dominating that do today, with little change. The odd outsider slipping in to win 1 ring here or there, just as history is up to this point. Well except for one key difference. Instead of big 3's on these rosters, we'll be seeing rosters of big 5's and 6's.good post..

contraction doesn't fix a thing long term.. the elite teams will always find a way to be elite...

you contract a couple teams and first you're only putting maybe 3 players on the market that are difference makers and secondly they'll find a way out of the small market ASAP, or the team they end up going to will do what they always do and trade the expensive players off because they can't afford to keep them in the long run...

you contract the hornets say and does anyone really belive CP3 is going to finish his career in minnesota (just an example) no he's going to push for a trade or the team will deal him because they can use that huge contract to pay 3 players instead of just one... contraction is not going to change how donald sterling runs his team... all it does is load up the elite teams after a couple years and make the gap between the elite and the others wider

[ginobli2311]

I'm not against contraction necessarily. But contraction doesn't solve the problem of a few teams being the only legit contenders. So you end up with 4-6 teams dominating instead of just 4. Games outside of this elite are Globetrotters vs Generals shows. And it's still nonsense and not any type of competitive league.

With the pretend cap of the NBA, the best players are still going to stack teams to beat each other. You may expand the "legit" contenders for a short time. But don't be surprised to see during the next few rounds of free agencies elite players stacking up even more than before.

I wouldn't be surprised at all in 20 years to see the same teams still dominating that do today, with little change. The odd outsider slipping in to win 1 ring here or there, just as history is up to this point. Well except for one key difference. Instead of big 3's on these rosters, we'll be seeing rosters of big 5's and 6's.

nah. what you say is not realistic for starters. and just in terms of cost...its the law of diminishing returns. that is the point. you wouldn't put durant/kobe/lebron on the same team for a number of reason. one would be that they wouldn't be that great.

you'll never see a big 5 of superstars on the same teams. its not going to happen.

you act like the current sytem allows for that. it really doesn't...and the new cba is going to make it even harder.

contracting teams would not give you more contenders per say. but it would vastly improve the quality of the average and good teams. there are a ton of good players on some teams that would get contracted.

just look at the grizzlies and hornets.

mayo/gay/gasol/conley/young/arthur/allen/henry/randolph/vasquez
paul/west/ariza/belinelli/green/jack/okafor/thornton/andersen

that is just 2 teams. imagine how much better some of the bottom feeders would get if you dispersed those players throughout the league.

those guys above are all legit players that could really help a lot of teams.

and that gets to the heart of the matter. the reason there are so many average to bad teams is because the nba has too many teams. its not because all the talent is on only a few teams.

there is enough nba level star power and talent to field a league of 25 teams. that doesn't mean all of those team would be good, but you would see the gap between good and average teams narrow. you'd see the gap between great and good teams narrow. you'd see the gap between elite and great teams narrow.

hell, its not even that terrible right now. the bobcats just killed the lakers. the cavs just beat the lakers. the pacers played the heat really close.

there is a lot of talent right now. just not enough to field 30 teams. get rid of a few and you'd see a huge change. hell, put cp3 on the grizzlies and they might win 55 plus games and be a legit contender. put okafor on the thunder....etc.

you'll never change the simple fact that some markets and owners can't consistently compete for titles or even the playoffs without a lot of luck in the current league. but if the league shrunk and the talent pool continues to grow or just maintains, it becomes far easier.

why? because the quality of player you can get for 5 million a year would go up. and the reason this matters is because the top teams are already maxed out pretty much. its not like the if the league contracted right now the lakers could just go out and sign chris paul or something.

so like i said before. i'm all for contracting 5 teams and then doubling the penalty of the luxury tax. that way if teams really do want to load up....they have to really pay for it.

contraction isn't realistic either i guess....but damn the league would be so much better.

[ginobli2311]

good post..

contraction doesn't fix a thing long term.. the elite teams will always find a way to be elite...

you contract a couple teams and first you're only putting maybe 3 players on the market that are difference makers and secondly they'll find a way out of the small market ASAP, or the team they end up going to will do what they always do and trade the expensive players off because they can't afford to keep them in the long run...

you contract the hornets say and does anyone really belive CP3 is going to finish his career in minnesota (just an example) no he's going to push for a trade or the team will deal him because they can use that huge contract to pay 3 players instead of just one... contraction is not going to change how donald sterling runs his team... all it does is load up the elite teams after a couple years and make the gap between the elite and the others wider

but what is different now? contraction won't impact the top heavy nature of the league. but it will impact the middle of the pack and bad teams. those teams will get better on average.

the nba is already top heavy like you said. how can it get worse? it really can't.

the reason contraction would be so good is because it would be a lot easier to build around elite players picked in the draft. if there were only 25 teams in the league, i guarantee you that the cavs would have been able to get lebron a legit 2nd guy. but because there really isn't enough to go around, some players and franchises get caught in really tough situations.

also, there are a lot of stars right now. at some point the elite teams won't be able to add any more. if you contracted teams....who would the lakers and celtics go out and get? why would they spend more money then and not do it now. the lakers really need an upgraded small forward. if money doesn't matter or the elite teams always find a way, why arent the lakers just taking a huge hit financially and finding a way to get gerald wallace or prince?

of course there will always be a tiered system in any league. but the less teams you have to field means a better product on the floor. the fact remains that there are probably close to 50 players currently playing in the NBA that simply aren't good enough. cutting down 60 or so roster spots would weed those players out. that is the benefit.

[bih]

I'm not against contraction necessarily. But contraction doesn't solve the problem of a few teams being the only legit contenders. So you end up with 4-6 teams dominating instead of just 4. Games outside of this elite are Globetrotters vs Generals shows. And it's still nonsense and not any type of competitive league.

With the pretend cap of the NBA, the best players are still going to stack teams to beat each other. You may expand the "legit" contenders for a short time. But don't be surprised to see during the next few rounds of free agencies elite players stacking up even more than before.

I wouldn't be surprised at all in 20 years to see the same teams still dominating that do today, with little change. The odd outsider slipping in to win 1 ring here or there, just as history is up to this point. Well except for one key difference. Instead of big 3's on these rosters, we'll be seeing rosters of big 5's and 6's.


agreed league is heading towards super teams

what will the nba do when the bottom teams start losing attendance and you start having empty seats pretty much what is happening to nets selling games for few dollars

[Darius]

You are right.

IMO the answer is contraction more than anything.

If your team can't make money you shouldn't have one.

As a fan I'd much rather have 24 very good teams duke it out then 36 mediocre/bad ones.

[niko]

more popular then ever you say? :facepalm

how can you compare team like wizards to portsmouth who's expenditure is not even 1/10th of wizards
The league is more popular. Some individual teams are not. THere is no solution for the NBA where all teams will be popular. If that's what you want you will be out of luck. THere are only so many stars, not every team can get one, and a league with no superteams has historically been less popular.

[ginobli2311]

The league is more popular. Some individual teams are not. THere is no solution for the NBA where all teams will be popular. If that's what you want you will be out of luck. THere are only so many stars, not every team can get one, and a league with no superteams has historically been less popular.

this. the nba was almost dead before the magic vs bird decade. the nba was by far its most popular at this point.

[tpols]

The league is more popular. Some individual teams are not. THere is no solution for the NBA where all teams will be popular. If that's what you want you will be out of luck. THere are only so many stars, not every team can get one, and a league with no superteams has historically been less popular.
I don't know what having a bunch of superteams duking it out will necessarily do for the league in the end but I find it funny that you're now on this bandwagon harder than ever since YOUR team is becoming one of the said superteams.:oldlol:

I don't really have a problem with these superteams forming(although the knicks with amare and melo aren't even close to being a superteam yet) as much as I do with how they are forming. These guys all have that mentality to run and jump ship at the slightest hint that making one of these teams is possible. No other legend in the game did this shit back in the day.

Jordan stuck around and BUILT his team to take out previous legendary teams(lakers/pistons).. Russell won 11 with the same club.. Kareem won one with Milwaukee and then went to a laker team with no other superstars(when he joined magic wasn't even there so don't play that card) and won a bunch more.. Magic was drafted to the lakers and kept them competitive for rings until he left even with kareem getting worse as the 80s went on.. Bird was drafted to the Celtics and dominated there his whole career.. Duncan stayed in SA and dominated for a whole decade their even when he didn't have the best teams.. Shaq went to LA but he didn't really join any other stars(kobe was nothing when shaq got there).. Kobe dominated for a whole decade on the lakers and has won a bunch of rings with totally different teams and didn't leave even in the most pressure filled time in his career(when he had a horrible team and hadn't proved he could win as the man yet and everyone said he couldn't.. he stuck through it and ended up winning rings again).. Hakeem stayed on the rockets the whole time despite having teams around him that weren't extremely strong but he ended up winning..

Literally every top ten player in the history of the game is there because they fought through the adversity, stuck it out with their teammates, and won. Some had to work harder than others but that is accounted for as hakeem's 2 rings are valued as much as shaq's 4 or kobe's 5 or duncan's 4 because of the manner in which he got them. These superteams are destroying this philosophy.. theyre killing what should be extreme competition. Looking back at the bad boy pistons and celtics and bulls and knicks of the past, theyre were some brutal rivalries. These guys literally wanted to kill each other when they saw each other. It was tough. These guys nowadays are such ******* though. They have no old school blood in them anymore. They don't give a shit about loyalty or going after other teams and scrapping or having your teammates backs.. They just want to get rings for their own legacies. Teams winning are now no longer the focus. It's about players winning.

[RedBlackAttack]

The league is more popular. Some individual teams are not. THere is no solution for the NBA where all teams will be popular. If that's what you want you will be out of luck. THere are only so many stars, not every team can get one, and a league with no superteams has historically been less popular.
All teams being popular? That likely will never happen. There will always be a hierarchy of popularity in the NBA. However, the goal for any sports league is to maintain a balance between its really good teams and still being able to put out a quality, watchable product in other markets.

Obviously, not every team is going to be competing for a title every year. Also, it is obvious to everyone that the NBA has been dominated by the same handful of teams since its inception.

Those things aren't likely to change. What we should be trying to avoid, though, is a situation like what we have in the MLB. At least, that is what I want to avoid, because I think it is an atrocious way to set up a league.

That is, a handful of teams absolutely loaded with superstars (and an individual superstar in basketball is far, far more important than an individual superstar in baseball). Then, the other teams in the league serve as nothing more than a feeder for those elite teams at the top.

When a player reaches his prime and has had adequate practice in one of the meaningless, hopeless markets, he goes to the Yankees or Red Sox and joins an entire team of players like him.

Sure, there has always been a balance of power in the NBA that has favored a handful of teams. But, there are degrees of an imbalance. You saw the Cavaliers break the consecutive loss streak this year. Last year, you saw the Nets come very close to setting the all-time record for losses.

The Cavaliers may have broken that mark had it not been for a 7-9 start.

Teams that were once simply dominant are becoming more dominant and teams that were once simply bad are becoming worse.

What we've seen in the last six months is a scary sight for fans of small market teams. So many teams in this league are looking for one guy to help rejuvenate their fans and give them hope for the future. Now, the Heat have three of those kinds of players and are looking for more.

The Knicks have two and will almost assuredly acquire more down the road. The four best players out of that incredible 2003 draft that was billed as THE draft that would lift the NBA from obscurity back to the main stage are now spread over two teams. They are joined by another absolute superstar in Stat.

Only one of those four players is still with the team that drafted him and he has been joined by two others. In fact, you could say the five best players from the 2002-2003 drafts have all chosen to devote their careers to superteams and they are spread over two squads.

The next 'savior draft picks' -- CP3 and DWill -- have already hinted that they will be in different uniforms when their time comes and it has been rumored that they may join one of those two superteams. Dwight Howard will face a similar decision and he will have to ask himself whether or not he wants to compete for a title by joining a superteam or try to do it the conventional way... Be THE franchise player and have a team build around him. You have to wonder if there is any chance that he would choose the latter.

This is just a different era of players with different values and a different outlook than those that came before them. The ushers of this new era were those guys from the '03 draft and they have made their statement loud and clear with these superteams. Will the great players in the ensuing drafts follow suit when it is their turns to pick whether to stay where they are or join the superteams?

If they do and this truly becomes a trend, you might as well contract 20 teams and be done with it. I would rather my franchise not exist than to turn into the Pittsburgh Pirates and simply serve as a feeder franchise for the elites. You may think that this is an overreaction, but what has happened in the last six months has been quite jarring and it calls for a strong reaction and a close look at how the NBA landscape is changing.

[ginobli2311]

All teams being popular? That likely will never happen. There will always be a hierarchy of popularity in the NBA. However, the goal for any sports league is to maintain a balance between its really good teams and still being able to put out a quality, watchable product in other markets.

Obviously, not every team is going to be competing for a title every year. Also, it is obvious to everyone that the NBA has been dominated by the same handful of teams since its inception.

Those things aren't likely to change. What we should be trying to avoid, though, is a situation like what we have in the MLB. At least, that is what I want to avoid, because I think it is an atrocious way to set up a league.

That is, a handful of teams absolutely loaded with superstars (and an individual superstar in basketball are far, far more important than an individual superstar in baseball). Then, the other teams in the league serve as nothing more than a feeder for those elite teams at the top.

When a player reaches his prime and has had adequate practice in one of the meaningless, hopeless markets, he goes to the Yankees or Red Sox and joins an entire team of players like him.

Sure, there has always been a balance of power in the NBA that has favored a handful of teams. But, there are degrees of an imbalance. You saw the Cavaliers break the consecutive loss streak this year. Last year, you saw the Nets come very close to setting the all-time record for losses.

The Cavaliers may have broken that mark had it not been for a 7-9 start.

Teams that were once simply dominant are becoming more dominant and teams that were once simply bad are becoming worse.

What we've seen in the last six months is a scary sight for fans of small market teams. So many teams in this league are looking for one guy to help rejuvenate their fans and give them hope for the future. Now, the Heat have three of those kinds of players and are looking for more.

The Knicks have two and will almost assuredly acquire more down the road. The five best players out of that incredible 2003 draft that was billed as THE draft that would lift the NBA from obscurity back to the main stage are now spread over two teams.

Only one of those five players is still with the team that drafted him and he has been joined by two others.

The next 'savior draft picks' -- CP3 and DWill -- have already hinted that they will be in different uniforms when their time comes and it has been rumored that they may join one of those two superteams. Dwight Howard will face a similar decision and he will have to ask himself whether or not he wants to compete for a title by joining a superteam or try to do it the conventional way... Be THE franchise player and have a team build around him.

This is just a different era of players with different values and a different outlook than those that came before them. The ushers of this new era were those guys from the '03 draft and they have made their statement loud and clear with these superteams. Will the great players in the ensuing drafts follow suit when it is their turns to pick whether to stay where they are or join the superteams?

If they do and this truly becomes a trend, you might as well contract 20 teams and be done with it. I would rather my franchise not exist than to turn into the Pittsburgh Pirates and simply serve as a feeder franchise for the elites. You may think that this is an overreaction, but what has happened in the last six months has been quite jarring and it calls for a strong reaction and a close look at how the NBA landscape is changing.

you are obviously over-stating the problem a bit, but i do think contracting 5 teams would make for a much better product on the court.

[RedBlackAttack]

Literally every top ten player in the history of the game is there because they fought through the adversity, stuck it out with their teammates, and won. Some had to work harder than others but that is accounted for as hakeem's 2 rings are valued as much as shaq's 4 or kobe's 5 or duncan's 4 because of the manner in which he got them.
...and some fought like hell and never got to the promised land. Guys like Stockton, Malone, Payton, Barkley, Ewing, Drexler, 'Nique, Kevin Johnson, David Robinson (didn't win in his prime and stuck it out through some dismal years)...

I have more respect for those guys now than I ever did before. They could have chosen to jump ship and make some pact with three other superstars, but that isn't what it was about.

These guys today are made of different stuff.

[RedBlackAttack]

you are obviously over-stating the problem a bit, but i do think contracting 5 teams would make for a much better product on the court.
So, the answer for you is really massive contraction and not trying to get this thing under control?

[kaiiu]

All teams being popular? That likely will never happen. There will always be a hierarchy of popularity in the NBA. However, the goal for any sports league is to maintain a balance between its really good teams and still being able to put out a quality, watchable product in other markets.

Obviously, not every team is going to be competing for a title every year. Also, it is obvious to everyone that the NBA has been dominated by the same handful of teams since its inception.

Those things aren't likely to change. What we should be trying to avoid, though, is a situation like what we have in the MLB. At least, that is what I want to avoid, because I think it is an atrocious way to set up a league.

That is, a handful of teams absolutely loaded with superstars (and an individual superstar in basketball is far, far more important than an individual superstar in baseball). Then, the other teams in the league serve as nothing more than a feeder for those elite teams at the top.

When a player reaches his prime and has had adequate practice in one of the meaningless, hopeless markets, he goes to the Yankees or Red Sox and joins an entire team of players like him.

Sure, there has always been a balance of power in the NBA that has favored a handful of teams. But, there are degrees of an imbalance. You saw the Cavaliers break the consecutive loss streak this year. Last year, you saw the Nets come very close to setting the all-time record for losses.

The Cavaliers may have broken that mark had it not been for a 7-9 start.

Teams that were once simply dominant are becoming more dominant and teams that were once simply bad are becoming worse.

What we've seen in the last six months is a scary sight for fans of small market teams. So many teams in this league are looking for one guy to help rejuvenate their fans and give them hope for the future. Now, the Heat have three of those kinds of players and are looking for more.

The Knicks have two and will almost assuredly acquire more down the road. The four best players out of that incredible 2003 draft that was billed as THE draft that would lift the NBA from obscurity back to the main stage are now spread over two teams. They are joined by another absolute superstar in Stat.

Only one of those four players is still with the team that drafted him and he has been joined by two others. In fact, you could say the five best players from the 2002-2003 drafts have all chosen to devote their careers to superteams and they are spread over two teams.

The next 'savior draft picks' -- CP3 and DWill -- have already hinted that they will be in different uniforms when their time comes and it has been rumored that they may join one of those two superteams. Dwight Howard will face a similar decision and he will have to ask himself whether or not he wants to compete for a title by joining a superteam or try to do it the conventional way... Be THE franchise player and have a team build around him. You have to wonder if there is any chance that he would choose the latter.

This is just a different era of players with different values and a different outlook than those that came before them. The ushers of this new era were those guys from the '03 draft and they have made their statement loud and clear with these superteams. Will the great players in the ensuing drafts follow suit when it is their turns to pick whether to stay where they are or join the superteams?

If they do and this truly becomes a trend, you might as well contract 20 teams and be done with it. I would rather my franchise not exist than to turn into the Pittsburgh Pirates and simply serve as a feeder franchise for the elites. You may think that this is an overreaction, but what has happened in the last six months has been quite jarring and it calls for a strong reaction and a close look at how the NBA landscape is changing.
:applause: great post. TRUTH

[ginobli2311]

So, the answer for you is really massive contraction and not trying to get this thing under control?

the answer to what? this is nothing new. the top players have always been pooled on a select few teams.

the only difference now is that the players are choosing to band together and create these teams. in the past, it was just the elite franchises creating them.

either way, you got many stars playing on the same teams.

if it hurt the nba, i'd be for getting it under control. but the 80s were the most popular period of nba history. then followed up by another hugely popular era in which the bulls dominated the decade.

if franchises can't be competitive or profitable they need to be contracted. every team operates under the same rules. nothing is going to change the fact that elite players will want to play in big markets and leave small markets.

[ginobli2311]

So, the answer for you is really massive contraction and not trying to get this thing under control?

in 1981 there were 13 teams under .500

in 2010 there were 13 teams under .500

again. how is this different? oh wait, there were only 23 teams in 1981. so over half the league was completely irrelevant back then. more than half is relevant now.

your points just don't make sense. if you have a problem now, you should have had a problem with the last 30 years.

[RedBlackAttack]

the answer to what? this is nothing new. the top players have always been pooled on a select few teams.

the only difference now is that the players are choosing to band together and create these teams. in the past, it was just the elite franchises creating them.

either way, you got many stars playing on the same teams.

if it hurt the nba, i'd be for getting it under control. but the 80s were the most popular period of nba history. then followed up by another hugely popular era in which the bulls dominated the decade.

if franchises can't be competitive or profitable they need to be contracted. every team operates under the same rules. nothing is going to change the fact that elite players will want to play in big markets and leave small markets.
It is new. Franchises that were made great by excellent drafting or luring in veterans at the right time are one thing.

Free agents colluding -- all in their primes before any has won anything on their own -- to come together on the same team at the same time....

We haven't seen this before. This isn't the Celtics drafting Bird and McHale and picking up Parish and DJ. This isn't the Lakers signing a veteran KAJ and then, years later, drafting Magic... And then more years later, drafting Worthy.

This isn't the Bulls drafting Jordan and then, several years later, getting a rookie Scottie Pippen in a draft-day trade. This isn't the Lakers signing Shaq with no other superstars on the team and then taking a chance on a kid in the middle of the first round coming right out of high school.

This isn't the Spurs drafting Duncan... Years later drafting Parker/Ginobili.


No, this is a completely different structure to what will become a completely different league if it continues. These are guys who are the best in the game leaving teams in the primes of their careers to play together.

And, yeah... It is pretty much exactly what happens in Major League Baseball. Personally, I despise that kind of league and would like to see a hard cap enforced to help prevent against it.

[RedBlackAttack]

in 1981 there were 13 teams under .500

in 2010 there were 13 teams under .500

again. how is this different? oh wait, there were only 23 teams in 1981. so over half the league was completely irrelevant back then. more than half is relevant now.

your points just don't make sense. if you have a problem now, you should have had a problem with the last 30 years.
Your figures are meaningless because we won't see the actual impact of all of these moves until a couple of years down the road when more guys join these superteams and these franchises also have the MLE and other exceptions to add to their multiple franchise player rosters.

Right now, we are seeing the moves. In a year or two, we will start seeing the results. Just wait until these teams have a legitimate all-star at all five positions and the best role players coming off of the bench.

This has just begun.

[kaiiu]

It is new. Franchises that were made great by excellent drafting or luring in veterans at the right time are one thing.

Free agents colluding -- all in their primes before any has won anything on their own -- to come together on the same team at the same time....

We haven't seen this before. This isn't the Celtics drafting Bird and McHale and picking up Parish and DJ. This isn't the Lakers signing a veteran KAJ and then, years later, drafting Magic... And then more years later, drafting Worthy.

This isn't the Bulls drafting Jordan and then, several years later, getting a rookie Scottie Pippen in a draft-day trade. This isn't the Lakers signing Shaq with no other superstars on the team and then taking a chance on a kid in the middle of the first round coming right out of high school.

This isn't the Spurs drafting Duncan... Years later drafting Parker/Ginobili.


No, this is a completely different structure to what will become a completely different league if it continues. These are guys who are the best in the game leaving teams in the primes of their careers to play together.

And, yeah... It is pretty much exactly what happens in Major League Baseball. Personally, I despise that kind of league and would like to see a hard cap enforced to help prevent against it.
:applause: another great post

[ginobli2311]

Your figures are meaningless because we won't see the actual impact of all of these moves until a couple of years down the road when more guys join these superteams and these franchises also have the MLE and other exceptions to add to their multiple franchise player rosters.

Right now, we are seeing the moves. In a year or two, we will start seeing the results. Just wait until these teams have a legitimate all-star at all five positions and the best role players coming off of the bench.

This has just begun.

this is a response to both of your posts:

1. you described how the elite teams were formed. if lebron or carmelo played on the lakers or bulls or celtics, there would have been no need to leave. you keep failing to understand that these players left situations that weren't even remotely close to the ones you describe above. where was melo's mchale or pippen? where was lebron's 2nd guy? you act like these guys left after 2 years. they gave their franchises 7 years. that is more than half of most careers dude. its just not the same. the reason these players are "colluding" to use your word, is because the franchises that drafted them did a poor job of building around them.

do you really think lebron would have left if the cavs had gotten gasol from memphis in 08? or had actually used wally's expiring deal in 09 which almost would have for sure resulted in a title? sorry, but the cavs not dealing wally's contract in 09 remains one of the worst decisions i've seen in the last 30 years of the nba.

2. there might not be a MLE in the CBA. and sorry, no team will have 5 all-star players in their primes and the best role players. its not going to happen.

3. your definition of star or superstar is too broad. is chris bosh a superstar? i mean....what is your definition? if you listen to espn or this board, there are like 35 players in the top ten. it makes no sense. we are over-rating the shit out of guys like bosh.

4. the figures aren't meaningless because the nba was totally top heavy back in its most popular era with all the great players on a handful of teams. only 7 teams won over 50 games in 81. only 5 teams had a shot at the title in 81 if i'm being generous. like i keep saying.....its always been this way. the only difference is how the teams are forming. thats it. and even then, a lot more forcing and colluding went on in the past than we are talking about.

[RedBlackAttack]

this is a response to both of your posts:

1. you described how the elite teams were formed. if lebron or carmelo played on the lakers or bulls or celtics, there would have been no need to leave. you keep failing to understand that these players left situations that weren't even remotely close to the ones you describe above. where was melo's mchale or pippen? where was lebron's 2nd guy? you act like these guys left after 2 years. they gave their franchises 7 years. that is more than half of most careers dude. its just not the same. the reason these players are "colluding" to use your word, is because the franchises that drafted them did a poor job of building around them.

do you really think lebron would have left if the cavs had gotten gasol from memphis in 08? or had actually used wally's expiring deal in 09 which almost would have for sure resulted in a title? sorry, but the cavs not dealing wally's contract in 09 remains one of the worst decisions i've seen in the last 30 years of the nba.

There are couple of things that you need to understand. First of all, there is nothing that you can tell me that I 'fail to understand.' I comprehend every single thing that you post on absolutely any topic. There is literally nothing that you can say that I 'don't get.'

Not agreeing with you is not the same as 'not getting it,' so please stop being so damned condescending with your little jabs. It isn't a good way to have an intelligent back-and-forth and it is honestly the reason I have avoided you on this board recently. You seem to think that there needs to be a definitive 'winner' and 'loser' in all discussions on this message board. I see it as a discussion between two adults about what has happened in the NBA.

You can be one abrasive mofo.

Secondly, this isn't about just James, so I don't know why you insist on discussing Cleveland's FO moves when we are convesating about a league-wide phenomena with these FAs or soon-to-be FAs. Just because a guy leaves a franchise, for whatever reason, does not mean that he has to team up with his peers for one massive superstar circle-jerk.

No one is saying that guys can't leave. The discussion is about the way in which they are leaving, the concentration of talent based on the FA market and how it will impact the future of the league.

This is not about Mo Williams... It really isn't.


2. there might not be a MLE in the CBA. and sorry, no team will have 5 all-star players in their primes and the best role players. its not going to happen.

Hopefully, it won't happen. That is what I'm trying to avoid. And, I hope there isn't an MLE in the new CBA. Changing the structure of the current financial setup in the NBA is the whole point of this discussion.

That and pointing out how different the players today are compared to previous generations.


3. your definition of star or superstar is too broad. is chris bosh a superstar? i mean....what is your definition? if you listen to espn or this board, there are like 35 players in the top ten. it makes no sense. we are over-rating the shit out of guys like bosh.

My definition of a superstar is a guy who is a regular in All-Star lineups and members or former members of the US Olympic team. Basically, a Top 15 player in the league, which Melo, Stoudemire, Wade, Bosh and James probably all are.

But, that is just arguing semantics, is it not? Who cares what we call them? They are some of the best players in the league in their primes choosing to play on the same teams through the FA market. Call it what you want to call it.

[Jasper]

I read the majority of posts and this is a great thread :applause:
Kblaze and Redblacka had some worthy points about the NFL as well as MLB.
At the 4-5 year old mark I was watching the Braves , then the Brewers ... these players lived in our neighborhoods !!!!!!!!!
Once the big money came in , they lived out of town, and eventually became literally impossible to meet (think autograghs)
Any case MLB with all the steroid issues and mega contracts with no cap , just made my stomach turn , and I turned the game off.
We are talking about America's sport ... I turned it off.
THE NFL as so many have suggested and analyized ,, is not ownly a metro sport , but a rural sport .. THAT is why Green Bay Packers are the face of Wisconsin as well as the super bowl champs.
-----------------
The commish has his hands full , and I believe his vision of going global with the NBA was to possibly dilute the Elite players into a world wide league. :no:
Can't happen now.
Players have taken over the league and have used their contracts to move into large media markets to pull extra revenue into their pockets.

How does the NBA equalize the league to allow small markets enough leverage to be competitive as well as controling mega franchises from literally controling the league ? :confusedshrug:

One answer would be to look at the Olympic's and how they had to have one college player on the team to make it legit.
** My point is if the league maintains the same size current roster , force ALL teams to have to start players that are rook's (ex : 2 in the starting lineup)...
Or set a player league agreement that all teams must carry on their roster 3 soph's and 3 rook's...
This would mean the elite players would be forced to play more minutes and possibly shorten their careers OR make the player roster smaller and force teams to carry a certain amount of rook's and soph's.
-------------
I hate to admit it , but the NBA has shot themselves in the foot in regards to fresh talent being viable. A previous poster stated the college game and draft have basically become a flapping towel to cool off the players during a time out.. because any of the elite college players will work a contract like Lebron , Bosh or Wade to make themselves available for elite teams to win the golden ring.
I have to admire Bogut for re'up'ing with the Bucks , but his patience can only be for so long , before he wants a title as well and will look for greener pastures..

[RedBlackAttack]

4. the figures aren't meaningless because the nba was totally top heavy back in its most popular era with all the great players on a handful of teams. only 7 teams won over 50 games in 81. only 5 teams had a shot at the title in 81 if i'm being generous. like i keep saying.....its always been this way. the only difference is how the teams are forming. thats it. and even then, a lot more forcing and colluding went on in the past than we are talking about.

The Lakers drafted Magic/Worthy. The Celtics drafted Bird/McHale. The Pistons drafted Zeke/Dumars. The Bulls drafted Jordan/Pippen. The Spurs drafted Robinson/Duncan/Manu/Parker.

When the league is dominated by a handful of franchises based on great drafting or making great moves on veterans at the right time, that is just the best franchises showing that they know what they are doing.

What we are seeing right now really has everything to do with guys wanting to team-up and nothing to do with the franchises being great, unless clearing cap-space and being located in a big market and/or warm weather is a skill.

The league would probably be best if every franchise had a period in which it was dominant and won championships. Best case scenario, parity helps maintain interest for all 30 teams. However, we all know that this will never be the reality.

I don't want the problem that already exists to be exacerbated by elite players all teaming up in their primes, though. Then, it just becomes a pointless all-star game.

What is happening now is not the same as the Lakers drafting Magic and Worthy and those guys growing together on the same team and failing together on the same team to eventually create a dynasty.

This is the EZ-Bake version of NBA dynasties and the other 26 teams will suffer incredibly a couple of years down the line if it continues.

[ginobli2311]

There are couple of things that you need to understand. First of all, there is nothing that you can tell me that I 'fail to understand.' I comprehend every single thing that you post on absolutely any topic. There is literally nothing that you can say that I 'don't get.'

Not agreeing with you is not the same as 'not getting it,' so please stop being so damned condescending with your little jabs. It isn't a good way to have an intelligent back-and-forth and it is honestly the reason I have avoided you on this board recently. You seem to think that there needs to be a definitive 'winner' and 'loser' in all discussions on this message board. I see it as a discussion between two adults about what has happened in the NBA.

You can be one abrasive mofo.

Secondly, this isn't about just James, so I don't know why you insist on discussing Cleveland's FO moves when we are convesating about a league-wide phenomena with these FAs or soon-to-be FAs. Just because a guy leaves a franchise, for whatever reason, does not mean that he has to team up with his peers for one massive superstar circle-jerk.

No one is saying that guys can't leave. The discussion is about the way in which they are leaving, the concentration of talent based on the FA market and how it will impact the future of the league.

This is not about Mo Williams... It really isn't.



Hopefully, it won't happen. That is what I'm trying to avoid. And, I hope there isn't an MLE in the new CBA. Changing the structure of the current financial setup in the NBA is the whole point of this discussion.

That and pointing out how different the players today are compared to previous generations.



My definition of a superstar is a guy who is a regular in All-Star lineups and members or former members of the US Olympic team. Basically, a Top 15 player in the league, which Melo, Stoudemire, Wade, Bosh and James probably all are.

But, that is just arguing semantics, is it not? Who cares what we call them? They are the some of the best players in the league in their primes choosing to play on the same teams through the FA market. Call it what you want to call it.

the reason i keep pointing things out to you and saying things things like that is because you fail to acknowledge that while the process is different, the end result is that same as it always has been.

i keep agreeing with you that in a perfect world i don't like how these teams are formed, but they are forming for a variety of reasons.

so i'll go by exactly what you want to talk about.

1. how these players are leaving:

lebron and bosh left as free agents. they did nothing wrong. they had no obligation at all to inform their old teams of their plans. melo forced his hand, but it also left the the nuggets in a much better situation going forward than him doing what lebron and bosh did.

shaq did the exact same thing that lebron did. shaq, in fact, had a much more promising team than lebron did. the difference, obviously, is that lebron went and joined a better team than shaq did. i understand that, but in order to compete with the lakers and celtics of the league, lebron and other stars need to join together. i guess this is the part i don't understand from you. why should only the lakers and celtics currently have uber stacked teams with great coaches? why should wade or lebron or melo be forced to fight and uphill battle? its not like amare and melo = title...same with the heat. until i see a completely unfair team....i can't pretend that the end result is new. its not.

2. The concentration of talent:

again. nothing new.

bird/mchale/parrish/archibald/dj
jordan/pippen/grant/rodman
magic/kareem/worthy
shaq/kobe
moses/dr. j
wade/shaq
kobe/gasol
kg/pierce/allen

did you see my post earlier about how only duncan (4 times), hakeem (once), and jordan (once) have won titles in the last 31 years without an all-nba player next to them. so you've had at least two top 15 players in the league on the same team very often. so strictly in terms of concentration of talent, this is not groundbreaking at all.

3. How it will impact the future of the league:

it could go different ways. if we get to the point that there are 5 legit all stars on only 4 teams, then i totally agree with you that its gone too far. i don't think that is realistic at all, but i completely agree that would be awful.

but i don't see how its possible with the new CBA coming up or even with the current rules today.

the nba was at its peak during the 80s. each title team of the 80s other than the pistons in 89 fits your description of a superteam. you had the load celtics and lakers dominating. you had the loaded sixers as well. i'd say on average during the 80s, 4 or 5 teams each year had a chance to win titles while over half the league was totally irrelevant. that is why i brought up those records before. it wasn't really to show so much that nothing has changed, it was to show that over half the league was completely irrelevant with only 5 teams competing for a title and the nba was more popular than it ever has been.

so are far as the future of the league. there is a legit change that this could be the best thing for the league by far....and i don't feel that you have taken a step back and considered that.

[Jasper]

This is the EZ-Bake version of NBA dynasties and the other 26 teams will suffer incredibly a couple of years down the line if it continues.

This is America in a nut shell.
We hired Obama to fix all of what the republicans did to screw us .. after one year everyone throws their arms up in the air and says Obama had his chance lets put more new policys and ideas in because our pocket books are hurting ... See Madison Wi and protests , arrests, and a failing republican goverment doing it again.
-------------------
LA started it with Gasol... We need a title , our fans are bored , Kobe can't do it alone.
LA has 4 star power .... what does BOSTON do ... Mchale calls up ol' buddy Ainge and lands Garnett and Ray ray for a 3 star power , and do they get lucky or what - they land a point guard with cred in Rondo.
Most titles in the league , so now teams say we can't build , we need to build on the fly and win quick and rebuild the year after the title = LITERALLY.
It spun out of control , and now 5-6 teams have done the Bizz Quick Bake

[niko]

The league has always been like this. ALWAYS. If you make the cap low, put restrictions on movement, etc. you will have the same problems, just based on random bounces of the ping pong balls giving players to teams, and trapping them there. Why people are looking at this super team concept and thinking it's killing the league is beyond me. Growing up, there were LESS teams than even now with a chance to win a title.

I don't get Cav fans, you wanted more time with Lebron? Seven years was not enough? THere is no system the league can implement to make Cleveland (or Utah, etc.) an attractive destination. Cleveland is not attractive to live in.

[ginobli2311]

The Lakers drafted Magic/Worthy. The Celtics drafted Bird/McHale. The Pistons drafted Zeke/Dumars. The Bulls drafted Jordan/Pippen. The Spurs drafted Robinson/Duncan/Manu/Parker.

When the league is dominated by a handful of franchises based on great drafting or making great moves on veterans at the right time, that is just the best franchises showing that they know what they are doing.

What we are seeing right now really has everything to do with guys wanting to team-up and nothing to do with the franchises being great, unless clearing cap-space and being located in a big market and/or warm weather is a skill.

The league would probably be best if every franchise had a period in which it was dominant and won championships. Best case scenario, parity helps maintain interest for all 30 teams. However, we all know that this will never be the reality.

I don't want the problem that already exists to be exacerbated by elite players all teaming up in their primes, though. Then, it just becomes a pointless all-star game.

What is happening now is not the same as the Lakers drafting Magic and Worthy and those guys growing together on the same team and failing together on the same team to eventually create a dynasty.

This is the EZ-Bake version of NBA dynasties and the other 26 teams will suffer incredibly a couple of years down the line if it continues.

and we all agree with you here. i guess my point is that sometimes it doesn't work out. you keep listing all these great players and teams that were built through the draft and grew together. i love that as well. like everyone does, but its not realistic at times. what does deron/melo/lebron/cp3 sticking it out prove? they dont' have the dumars/pippen/worthy/gasol type guys with them. if they did, i think you'd see them stick around and want to do exactly what you are saying. just like durant on OKC. they have done a great job building around him. in a perfect world that is how its done, but what happens when a team doesn't do a good job? what happens when a great player like KG wastes almost his entire career? what happens when the cavs let boozer go and then don't get another legit guy in there to grow with lebron? where is the guy in orlando to grow with howard?

so i see your point. and i actually prefer the league that you envision as your perfect scenario. i just don't think you are seeing the reality of what some of these players are dealing with if you keep listing future hall of famers and then are saying that melo/lebron/bosh/deron/cp3/howard are the problem for wanting out. where are these future hall of famers for them?

and please answer. knowing what you know now...would you advise kg to stay in minny more than 5 years?

[gts]

RedBlackAttack with some of the most intelligent posts on this site in a long time...

[Gundress]

RBA nailed it......:cheers:

[Jasper]

so are far as the future of the league. there is a legit change that this could be the best thing for the league by far....and i don't feel that you have taken a step back and considered that.

Do realize how demorlizing it is to fans that watch the other 25 teams in the league to see your team lose year after year because the elite teams have 3 or more elite players on their roster :confusedshrug:

Do you also realize that teams function on revenue , and if fans after the first 1/3 of the season see their teams failing as 'USUAL' that those tickets aren't bought and the fan base erodes...

Some how the league needs to stabilize , otherwise your new age league you so much admire will become a 5 team league or once again an NBA and ABA system.

And you know what maybe we should put those 5 elite teams in the NBA and have everyone else play in the ABA.
How much revenue would you think the ABA would make compared to the NBA ??
I'd say in this new age league comparison the ABA would out perform the NBA :bowdown:

[Jasper]

The league has always been like this. ALWAYS. If you make the cap low, put restrictions on movement, etc. you will have the same problems, just based on random bounces of the ping pong balls giving players to teams, and trapping them there. Why people are looking at this super team concept and thinking it's killing the league is beyond me. Growing up, there were LESS teams than even now with a chance to win a title.

I don't get Cav fans, you wanted more time with Lebron? Seven years was not enough? THere is no system the league can implement to make Cleveland (or Utah, etc.) an attractive destination. Cleveland is not attractive to live in.

Sounds like you would like to see contraction then.
How many teams 5 , 10 ,15 ???
What would happen wit hthe rest of the talent ?
Bigger rosters or just send them over seas and allow the Russian's and Euro's make some money ?

This thread is about answers to the league problems , and if you don't think there is a problem , you are in denial.

[ginobli2311]

Do realize how demorlizing it is to fans that watch the other 25 teams in the league to see your team lose year after year because the elite teams have 3 or more elite players on their roster :confusedshrug:

Do you also realize that teams function on revenue , and if fans after the first 1/3 of the season see their teams failing as 'USUAL' that those tickets aren't bought and the fan base erodes...

Some how the league needs to stabilize , otherwise your new age league you so much admire will become a 5 team league or once again an NBA and ABA system.

And you know what maybe we should put those 5 elite teams in the NBA and have everyone else play in the ABA.
How much revenue would you think the ABA would make compared to the NBA ??
I'd say in this new age league comparison the ABA would out perform the NBA :bowdown:


uhhhhh. this it how its always been. why can't you people grasp this? i'm sick of hearing this bs now. go back and look at the 80s. all the best players were pooled on like 4 or 5 teams. over half the league was completely irrelevant.

and i'm also sick of hearing about building through the draft or making smart moves.

what teams have won titles over the last 31 years? or thats right...big markets:

lakers (10)
celtics (4)
bulls (6)
pistsons (3)
heat (1)
76ers (1)
rockets (2)

the exception? the spurs with 4. and tim duncans combined with the great front office of the spurs come around maybe once every 50 years. so please don't give me the spurs example. its just too rare of a happening to hold weight.

[ShaqAttack3234]

i agree 100%

people always talking about bringing back the 80's Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Piston. Now there are teams with multiple All Stars like those teams from the 80's and now they're bitching.

Yeah, people call the 80's the golden age yet here's how it breaks down

1980 (22 team league)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 6
Teams with no all-stars- 8

Notes: Atlanta had 3 all-stars and Seattle had 2 all-stars and another all-nba player who didn't make the all-star team.

1981 (23 teams)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 7
Teams with no all-stars- 10

Notes- Boston had 3 all-stars

1982 (23 team league)

Teams with multiple all-stars- 6
Teams with no all-stars- 8

Notes- The Lakers, Celtics and Sonics all had 3 all-stars

1983 (23 team league)

Teams with multiple all-stars- 8
Teams with no all-stars- 11

Notes: The Sixers had 4 all-stars while the Sonics and Lakers both had 3.

1984 (23 team league)

Teams with multiple all-stars- 6
teams with no all-stars- 7

Notes: Boston, Detroit and Philadelphia all had 3 all-stars

1985 (23 team league)
teams with multiple all-stars- 7
teams with no all-stars- 7

Notes: Boston had 3 all-stars

1986 (23 team league)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 5
Teams with no all-stars- 8

Notes: Boston, Philly and LA all had 3 all-stars

1987 (23 team league)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 7
Teams with no all-stars- 9

Notes: LA, Boston and Philly all had 3 all-stars

1988 (23 team league)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 6
Teams with no all-stars- 7

Notes: Boston and LA had 3 all-stars

1989 (25 team league)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 6
Teams with no all-stars- 9

Notes: LA, Utah and Cleveland all had 3 all-stars

[ginobli2311]

Yeah, people call the 80's the golden age yet here's how it breaks down

1980 (22 team league)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 6
Teams with no all-stars- 8

Notes: Atlanta had 3 all-stars and Seattle had 2 all-stars and another all-nba player who didn't make the all-star team.

1981 (23 teams)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 7
Teams with no all-stars- 10

Notes- Boston had 3 all-stars

1982 (23 team league)

Teams with multiple all-stars- 6
Teams with no all-stars- 8

Notes- The Lakers, Celtics and Sonics all had 3 all-stars

1983 (23 team league)

Teams with multiple all-stars- 8
Teams with no all-stars- 11

Notes: The Sixers had 4 all-stars while the Sonics and Lakers both had 3.

1984 (23 team league)

Teams with multiple all-stars- 6
teams with no all-stars- 7

Notes: Boston, Detroit and Philadelphia all had 3 all-stars

1985 (23 team league)
teams with multiple all-stars- 7
teams with no all-stars- 7

Notes: Boston had 3 all-stars

1986 (23 team league)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 5
Teams with no all-stars- 8

Notes: Boston, Philly and LA all had 3 all-stars

1987 (23 team league)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 7
Teams with no all-stars- 9

Notes: LA, Boston and Philly all had 3 all-stars

1988 (23 team league)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 6
Teams with no all-stars- 7

Notes: Boston and LA had 3 all-stars

1989 (25 team league)
Teams with multiple all-stars- 6
Teams with no all-stars- 9

Notes: LA, Utah and Cleveland all had 3 all-stars

Thank You. Repped times 1 million. Will rep when I can.

If this doesn't show them that the end result is nothing new i don't know what possibly can.

[mlh1981]

Just sell me hope. That's what's not happening right now. It's nothing more than a glorified cardio workout at the moment for many of these teams. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. The moment a top draft pick gets drafted, said small market team has to live in fear that he will leave first chance he gets. Tough to build a franchise like that.

[Jasper]

uhhhhh. this it how its always been. why can't you people grasp this? i'm sick of hearing this bs now. go back and look at the 80s. all the best players were pooled on like 4 or 5 teams. over half the league was completely irrelevant.

.
Why can't guys like you realize this is old and out dated , and needs to be changed.

After my last few posts , I have decided that the league should split into two.
I'd like to see the ABA again.
I wonder how that would work , having 18-20 teams break away from the NBA and fire up the ABA again ??

[ginobli2311]

Why can't guys like you realize this is old and out dated , and needs to be changed.

After my last few posts , I have decided that the league should split into two.
I'd like to see the ABA again.
I wonder how that would work , having 18-20 teams break away from the NBA and fire up the ABA again ??

because i'm not sure it does need to be changed. would it be better for small market teams? yes. would it be better for the league? i honestly don't know.

what i do know is that the 80s was the pinnacle of popularity for the nba and it was the exact opposite of what you are describing.

as a fan of an individual team? i'd rather see the league more balanced. as a casual fan for just a fan of the nba? i'd rather see the best players on the best teams fighting it out in the playoffs.

so its not an easy answer either way.

[ginobli2311]

I guess shaqattack kind of destroyed the thread. well, i enjoyed the debates, but its pretty damn hard to refute that info. and that is just all-stars....most of the top teams in the 80s had a ton of depth of great players as ell.
:cheers:

[RedBlackAttack]

I don't get Cav fans, you wanted more time with Lebron? Seven years was not enough? THere is no system the league can implement to make Cleveland (or Utah, etc.) an attractive destination. Cleveland is not attractive to live in.
I think that some people are getting caught up in the fact that I'm a Cavaliers fan and James recently left the franchise, so that explains why I am so anti what is happening right now. Me wanting LeBron James to continue as a Cavalier literally has nothing to do with what I am posting about in this thread.

In fact, you may or may not believe this and since it is a hypothetical, there is no way to prove it.... But, if James came out tomorrow and said that he was returning to the Cavaliers, I would absolutely not want him. I have grown to really dislike the guy on a level much deeper than which team he plays for. I want nothing to do with him... I want him to fail massively, which would conflict with my love for Cleveland. He embodies everything I despise about today's NBA.

This has nothing to do with that. If you want to focus on my being a Cavaliers fan, the biggest issue that I see looming down the road is us getting the No. 1 pick, landing a good and possible franchise player and him bolting immediately after his rookie contract expires. That is of much greater concern to me than whatever James is doing down south... And that is the landscape that small market teams are facing post-James/Wade/Bosh/Melo/Stat.

Once again, this isn't about whether or not the league has always had its haves and have nots. Of course anyone that has followed the NBA longer than a couple of years understands that there are franchises that will seemingly always be in contention and some that likely won't be in contention.

My issue is with how these teams are being formed and what it means for the rest of the league.... The Cavaliers included, but not limited to them.

[RedBlackAttack]

I guess shaqattack kind of destroyed the thread.
:oldlol:

You are a funny guy. On your personal ISH scoreboard, who leads the league in 'destroys' and 'wins' in these conversations? I'm really curious.

He 'destroyed' the thread by showing that a handful of teams have historically dominated the league and that they have been able to acquire multiple all-stars mainly through the draft, even though I said that on about Page 2 of this thread? Interesting.

This is a discussion of how these teams are being formed, not whether great teams ever existed.

[ginobli2311]

:oldlol:

You are a funny guy. On your personal ISH scoreboard, who leads the league in 'destroys' and 'wins' in these conversations? I'm really curious.

He 'destroyed' the thread by showing that a handful of teams have historically dominated the league and that they have been able to acquire multiple all-stars mainly through the draft, even though I said that on about Page 2 of this thread? Interesting.

This is a discussion of how these teams are being formed, not whether great teams ever existed.

yet you continue to ignore how these players were drafted. its not the same my friend. not even close.

yet you continue to ignore that these new teams are being formed this way because they couldn't be built in the draft the same way.

yet you say its only about "how" yet you wrote a whole post on the future of the nba concerning teams with too many all stars. while in the 80s ( the golden age of the nba) teams routinely had 3 plus all-stars while between a third and half the league had none.

again. the reason these teams are forming in a new way now is because its very hard to build through the draft the way you used to. you can't draft a magic when you already have kareem. its very rare for this to happen. you can't draft mchale when you already have bird. or pippen with jordan. its hard. it takes too much luck.

but even if you want to credit those franchises, you can't ignore that the nuggets/cavs/hornets/magic have done pretty shitty jobs of finding future hall of famers to surround their superstar.

so i don't get you man. you're a funny guy. you claim to understand that the end result is nothing new, but yet you don't even take a second to look at why the process to get to the end result has changed. i don't get it.

[RedBlackAttack]

yet you continue to ignore how these players were drafted. its not the same my friend. not even close.

Ignore? It hasn't been ignored. It wasn't ignored by the league, either... Which is why the rules were changed.

When the balance starts to tilt too far one way, rules are changed to compensate. That is what I'm asking for in the next CBA. That is the whole point, here.

It's very simple, actually.

If you don't agree and you see nothing wrong with all of these great players getting together in the primes of their careers on the same handful of teams, then just say so.

If you think that the NBA would be better off if all of the best players played for a few teams and the rest served as feeders, then just say so.

Bringing up how things were done in the past and multiple all-stars playing together is absolutely pointless in this current conversation, because the landscape has changed.

The reason that the draft lottery was imposed was because the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer. I'm looking for a similar balance in this current league with what has happened in free agency in the last six months.

If you don't agree, fine. Just say it. No need to keep repeating the same sh!t over and over.

State your position and be done with it.

[KenneBell]

T
LA started it with Gasol... We need a title , our fans are bored , Kobe can't do it alone.
LA has 4 star power .... what does BOSTON do ... Mchale calls up ol' buddy Ainge and lands Garnett and Ray ray for a 3 star power , and do they get lucky or what - they land a point guard with cred in Rondo.
Most titles in the league , so now teams say we can't build , we need to build on the fly and win quick and rebuild the year after the title = LITERALLY.
It spun out of control , and now 5-6 teams have done the Bizz Quick Bake
Your timeline is screwed up.

Boston fired the first shot. That was a legit "we need to win now" operation. And it worked. They also drafted Rondo when they were bad.

The Lakers built a team over about a 3 year period. Lamar, Bynum, and Gasol were acquired in different seasons.

[ImmortalD24]

I love the fact that we're seeing more stacked teams again. Look at the all-star game, 3 deserving all-stars from Miami and 4 deserving all-stars from LA.
http://i53.tinypic.com/2vmssno.jpg

[ShaqAttack3234]

http://i53.tinypic.com/2vmssno.jpg

I meant 4 deserving all-stars from Boston.

[ginobli2311]

Ignore? It hasn't been ignored. It wasn't ignored by the league, either... Which is why the rules were changed.

When the balance starts to tilt too far one way, rules are changed to compensate. That is what I'm asking for in the next CBA. That is the whole point, here.

It's very simple, actually.

If you don't agree and you see nothing wrong with all of these great players getting together in the primes of their careers on the same handful of teams, then just say so.

If you think that the NBA would be better off if all of the best players played for a few teams and the rest served as feeders, then just say so.

Bringing up how things were done in the past and multiple all-stars playing together is absolutely pointless in this current conversation, because the landscape has changed.

The reason that the draft lottery was imposed was because the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer. I'm looking for a similar balance in this current league with what has happened in free agency in the last six months.

If you don't agree, fine. Just say it. No need to keep repeating the same sh!t over and over.

State your position and be done with it.

you are the one that keeps shifting focus. you claim its ok that magic/kareem/worthy played together because magic and worthy were had in the draft....then you admit that clearly its not the same because the rules were a joke back then. then you ignore that the only reason kareem was a laker was because he wanted out of milwaukee and wanted to live in a desirable location.

you act like it was fair and pure back then. it wasn't....and you know this.

you want my position? i think players should be able to go to any team they want to as long as its within the rules set forth by the league.

i think that its stupid to just have the lakers and celtics dominate the entire history of the league and then "go nuts" when other teams start to get into the business of accumulating a bunch of talent.

my position is that the 80s were the best and most interesting decade of basketball of the last 30 years and that decade consisted of everything you are bitching and moaning about on here.

your position is that you want a hard cap and you want small market teams to win titles. and from a purist standpoint thats great. but in reality that is awful for the league. die hard fans will always be there. what the nba has to do is capture the average person and the casual sports fan. you keep talking about the nfl.....the reason the nfl is more popular now than ever is simply fantasy football. thats it. fantasy football has captured everyone.....its that simple. that is why interest is so high with the nfl. its not about balance or small markets doing well.

and if you think for a second that it would be good for the nba for teams like the grizzlies or twolves to be winning titles you are sorely mistaken.

and stop acting like this will end the league please. it won't. there is still a draft....and that is where the majority of great players come through. lets look at two examples in recent history:

1. lebron. the cavs got lebron and he completely transformed the franchise. going from worst to the finals in just 4 years. lebron played great from day 1 and was a legit all time great franchise player. the cavs then lost boozer unfortunately and while they put some decent players around lebron, they failed to give him a legit 2nd option or a true championship caliber squad or a team that could grow together and become a championship caliber squad. so lebron's hand was forced and he knew deep down that if he wanted to win a handful of titles, cleveland was not the place.

2. durant. the thunder got durant and he completely transformed the franchise. the difference is that the thunder found a way to build through the draft. they got westbrook and harden and ibaka and maynor. they are young and clearly have the pieces in place to win titles in the future. so durant signed an extension with them.

you see the difference? durant won't leave the small market because they did a great job building around him. compare that to melo/lebron/cp3/deron/howard. they are completely different.

so this point that we might as well contract all but 8 teams is just a joke. the clippers just got blake griffin. what team gets the next durant/lebron/kobe/duncan/shaq???? it won't be an elite team. it will be a bad team. and whether or not that player stays or leaves will be dependent on how well the franchise builds around them.

you act like these guys left great situations. they didn't. in fact, it was shaq leaving a great situation in orlando...that fits your arguments a lot better. duncan and durant show you that small market teams can win if they are smart and get a little lucky. so its not all gloom and doom.

[LastChanceToWin]

If the Knicks could deal with being bad for 10 years, then so can any other team.

[Carbine]

It's not like the smaller markets/non ideal locations can't compete going forward. If they draft well and land their own superstar and build around him during his contract length, and they have the foundation of championship caliber players, there wold be no real good reason for that superstar to leave since everything is already in place. His friendships are with that current team and the coachin staff is in place.

It's why LeBron left. I am 99 percent sure of that. If Cleveland had drafted better and just flat out built a better team around LeBron during his seven years there, he wouldn't have left.

Basketball at it's core is still a team game. How well you mesh and compliment one another, how you step up in big moments, coaching, team defense, etc....all play more of a role in the overall scheme of winning than how many all-stars you have on a team. A well contructed team is a well contructed team. There comes a point when you can't really play basketball at a higher level. If you have guys that play a role, and obviously one of the very best players in the world leading you, it's possible you can beat anyone, no matter how many all-stars the other team has.

It's why USA doesn't just kill the competition now in the Olympics. They clearly have the most individual talent in the world....but the other teams make up for it by having a great player, and great team work and guys who play a role effectively.

Bottom line is this "allstar" team movement of whatever you want to call it.... doesn't make it impossible for other teams not involved in this movement to win championships. Go draft well. Get yourself the next Shaq. Surround him with proper players by drafting well, spending your money well, hiring well etc...it can and will be done.

[RedBlackAttack]

you are the one that keeps shifting focus. you claim its ok that magic/kareem/worthy played together because magic and worthy were had in the draft....then you admit that clearly its not the same because the rules were a joke back then. then you ignore that the only reason kareem was a laker was because he wanted out of milwaukee and wanted to live in a desirable location.

you act like it was fair and pure back then. it wasn't....and you know this.

you want my position? i think players should be able to go to any team they want to as long as its within the rules set forth by the league.

i think that its stupid to just have the lakers and celtics dominate the entire history of the league and then "go nuts" when other teams start to get into the business of accumulating a bunch of talent.

my position is that the 80s were the best and most interesting decade of basketball of the last 30 years and that decade consisted of everything you are bitching and moaning about on here.

your position is that you want a hard cap and you want small market teams to win titles. and from a purist standpoint thats great. but in reality that is awful for the league. die hard fans will always be there. what the nba has to do is capture the average person and the casual sports fan. you keep talking about the nfl.....the reason the nfl is more popular now than ever is simply fantasy football. thats it. fantasy football has captured everyone.....its that simple. that is why interest is so high with the nfl. its not about balance or small markets doing well.

and if you think for a second that it would be good for the nba for teams like the grizzlies or twolves to be winning titles you are sorely mistaken.

and stop acting like this will end the league please. it won't. there is still a draft....and that is where the majority of great players come through. lets look at two examples in recent history:

1. lebron. the cavs got lebron and he completely transformed the franchise. going from worst to the finals in just 4 years. lebron played great from day 1 and was a legit all time great franchise player. the cavs then lost boozer unfortunately and while they put some decent players around lebron, they failed to give him a legit 2nd option or a true championship caliber squad or a team that could grow together and become a championship caliber squad. so lebron's hand was forced and he knew deep down that if he wanted to win a handful of titles, cleveland was not the place.

2. durant. the thunder got durant and he completely transformed the franchise. the difference is that the thunder found a way to build through the draft. they got westbrook and harden and ibaka and maynor. they are young and clearly have the pieces in place to win titles in the future. so durant signed an extension with them.

you see the difference? durant won't leave the small market because they did a great job building around him. compare that to melo/lebron/cp3/deron/howard. they are completely different.

so this point that we might as well contract all but 8 teams is just a joke. the clippers just got blake griffin. what team gets the next durant/lebron/kobe/duncan/shaq???? it won't be an elite team. it will be a bad team. and whether or not that player stays or leaves will be dependent on how well the franchise builds around them.

you act like these guys left great situations. they didn't. in fact, it was shaq leaving a great situation in orlando...that fits your arguments a lot better. duncan and durant show you that small market teams can win if they are smart and get a little lucky. so its not all gloom and doom.

:facepalm

We have been debating this for a couple of days now. I refuse to believe that this wall of text is completely necessary, at this point.

Anyone have the cliffs?

Actually, nevermind. I'm sick of this whole f#cking thing. I'm sure it discusses how the league was never fair and how nothing has changed... And how I don't get it.

I'm going to bed.

[SavageMode]

Thank the lakers and celtics for starting the trend, there is no way in hell one superstar and great role players were gonna take out the celtics or the lakers. Think about how stacked the lakers and celtics are. A team with three of the top 15 players, 2 being top 3, aren't even the favorites against them. Ppl like to ***** an moan about the heat and the Knicks now but what good was the league when we had 2 super teams in the celtics and the lakers? Atleast there are teams now that can compete with them.
This.

/Thread.

[PowerGlove]

I kind of tired of this...the western conference in the 80s was basura. Please dont even try me with this "superstars teaming up is bad for the league" and then say that players being drafted and traded to a team is different....but all of sudden, b!tch about Melo going to the Knicks.

[Da KO King]

The problem is that small market owners don't understand that they just can not operate the way NY, Bos, Chi, or LA do. Hell the only reason Miami will be able to get away with what they are doing is that LeBron James is a cash cow.

Small market teams need to play (develop?) the NBA version of "moneyball" in order to stay afloat and compete. What Denver did is EXACTLY what Cleveland and Toronto should have done last season and Utah and New Orleans (the NBA?) should do next season. Use your "star" to bring in more pieces before losing them for nothing.

[Kblaze8855]

Toronto no doubt...no argument otherwise...should have traded Bosh. The Cavs? they had to play it out. They had to. You cant trade him coming off a 66 win season when expected to compete. Plus it would be like Melo. They couldnt tradeh im anywhere he wouldnt agree to resign. Who trades what would be needed to get Lebron without him putting his name on paper? Really Bosh was the same way.

If they wanted to be unrestricted nobody could stop them because no team would trade the needed assets to watch them walk.

[Dbrog]

Why the hell are people saying "what's the point for all the small market teams now?" "They have nothing to look forward to." I'm not sure how long these people have been following basketball, but this age = WAY more teams have shots at championships. Look at the 90s. It was basically, if you didn't have MJ/Pippen combo, "what's the point?" Look at the 80s. It was basically if you didn't have Bird/McHale/Parish or Magic/Kareem, "what's the point. I could keep going back to further this point.

Also, you really think fans will just disappear if there are "mega teams?" Look at Golden State, Kings (for a long time), and Cleveland fans. These teams arenas have been PACKED and their teams sucked horribly. I just don't see the basis in stating that fans will leave.

Finally, for the first time in a long time, there are a legit 3 or 4 teams that could win the championship. On top of that, there are another legit 3 or 4 who are extremely borderline. In fact they could probably win a chip this year too (it would just be a bit of a long shot). Not to mention, these teams are scattered in different regions across the US. This sort of thing is AMAZING for the league and WILL draw immense numbers of fans to the NBA for the same reason that MJ's Bulls, Bird's Celtics, and Magic's Lakers brought in new people; People want to see what everyone is talking about. What you call "super teams," I call "great competition," and great competition is what makes this league's popularity grow.

BTW: It's not like these "super" players are taking MLE's and the such to create a team of superstars (which they could do if they really wanted to "take the easy way to a chip"). Instead, they are taking near-max contracts and putting their team's finances in a straight jacket.

[Kblaze8855]

This sort of thing is AMAZING for the league and WILL draw immense numbers of fans to the NBA for the same reason that MJ's Bulls, Bird's Celtics, and Magic's Lakers brought in new people

No doubt. The kinds of fans who claim they will stop watching(none of them I believe by the way) will be outnumbered by the millions of fans who will be drawn in.

[magnax1]

I think in reality a league with equal talent across the board is the only way the NBA ever really rises in popularity by a large amount. Of Course I think that this is good in the short term, but not in the long run.

[PowerGlove]

I dont think, I know that it isn't ****ing fair to say that the raptors will always be shit. we've only been around what, 16 years? shit.

[Kblaze8855]

The only evidence we have suggests otherwise. Total domination by 1 or two teams creates massive fanbases as we saw with the Lakers/Celtics in the 80s and Bulls in the 90s. If the Heat, Lakers, and Knicks split up the next 10 titles(they wont...) I suspect the NBA comes out more popular than a string of 2004 like seasons. Not for a good reason...but I suspect its true.

[Da KO King]

Toronto no doubt...no argument otherwise...should have traded Bosh. The Cavs? they had to play it out. They had to. You cant trade him coming off a 66 win season when expected to compete
My question to you is did you honestly ever believe LeBron James would remain in Cleveland?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Small market teams will be at a disadvantage no matter what you do short of eliminating free agency. It doesn't mean they can't be successful though. It's just rare.

Some small market teams like the Spurs can be good every year for over 20 years(1990-present with the exception of '97 when Robinson was injured) and win multiple titles.

Or they can suck for a decade like the Knicks. Hell, even a team with a great history in a sports city like the Celtics wasn't particularly relevant for 15-20 years. The Bulls are in a big market and they're looking like a contender for the first time since the late 90's and in between they'e had a mix of solid lower tier playoff teams and some really bad teams.

Many players want to win championships, play in a big market or both. That won't change and really, we have no right to tell these players where they can play when they're free agents. Even if the cap is lowered, we may just start seeing guys take less money. They'll be ridiculously wealthy no matter what, but we have to remember that a lot of players really do want to win whether it's for unselfish reasons or because they know their careers will be judged on winning.

Look at the Cavs, they got their superstar in the draft, a guy who eventually turned into the best player in the game, but after that? What could change with a lower salary cap? Lebron didn't take the most money available and they pretty much had to be lucky and get good draft picks. If players don't want to come to Cleveland, that won't change. There were several opportunities, but Boozer left, Michael Redd turned them down and Chris Bosh didn't want to play there either. The other problem was(and you can't really change this unless you tank) is that getting Lebron made them good enough right away so that they didn't have the best chance in the lottery right away and almost made the playoffs their first 2 years, but of course not good enough to win right away. Then after that, they were in the playoffs which will make it almost impossible to get one of the better rookies in the draft without a trade or a steal(which you can't really predict).

This leads me back to the Spurs. They ended up getting the rare superstars who are elite right away twice in Robinson and Duncan, who also happened to be the rare loyal superstars and because they're such a great organization, they found the steals in the draft like Manu and Parker.

[Kblaze8855]

Depends on the day. At times...yes I did. The night of the decision I was still like 70% sure he would say he was staying and it all would have been for nothing. But the Cavs? Even if 90% sure he would go you cant trade him. You just cant do it.

[Dbrog]

My question to you is did you honestly ever believe LeBron James would remain in Cleveland?

I know you're asking KBlaze, but honestly, I think Cleveland's management knew exactly what they were doing. They knew that if they won a chip last year, Bron would stay and if they didn't, he would possibly leave. You can see evidence of this by them attempting to get Amare for JJ Hickson and eventually getting Jamison to go with old Shaq. They were making one final push based on their high-risk high-reward choice. I mean, look at it this way...we would have been praising their management if they won a chip and kept Bron. Hell, they might have gone on to get Amare in the summer or be active in the Melodrama this season. That sounds much better than exploding the team and trading Bron for youth+picks. It was a tougher call than you think when you see the possibilities.

[PleezeBelieve]

The popularity of the NBA in the 80's has far more due with the lack of internet and cable TV than the the fact superteams spawned unbelievable interest in the sport.

Different era's. Let's stop bringing that time up to validate the complete p*ssy-nature of the current best players of this league.

And unlike others, I absolutely question the premise of unrestricted free agency for players if the players will only use that right to sign with big/warm market teams.

The Franchise Tag or something of that sorts is needed in the NBA ASAP. The players have a right to pay scales comparable to their production level, not that + choice of venue.

It's the NBA, not the Players NBA. The owners need to revise the market that the players have shifted the power balance.

[bdreason]

There is a difference between winning 10 games and winning 30 games. Sure, both teams suck... but nobody wants to buy tickets to watch a team that almost NEVER wins.

So please, stop talking about "winning it all". We know that small market teams aren't going to "win it all". That doesn't mean we wouldn't rather win 30 games with some close wins/losses, rather than win only 10 games and get blown out night after night.


It isn't a coincidence that last season the Nets almost set the record for worst team of all-time, and the Cavs this season did set the record for most consecutive losses of all-time.


If you think it's a good thing that half the teams in the league get blown out on a nightly basis, then you aren't a fan of the sport. I enjoy watching competitive games, not All-Stars vs. Washington Generals.

[Da KO King]

@Dbrog and KBlaze, I see you guys point but I just knew that he wasn't returning. Of course, I also knew the Cavs would get bumped in the second round (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3613541&postcount=620) :oldlol: (shameless self aggrandizing)

Maybe I'm not taking the fan backlash aspect into account enough but I just felt like once he established he would NOT sign an extension during the year it was time to trade him. It is incredibly easy to turn public sentiment against a player so the fan support would come back. James would be one of the biggest trade acquisitions in history. They could have taken someone's entire franchise.

[tpols]

There is a difference between winning 10 games and winning 30 games. Sure, both teams suck... but nobody wants to buy tickets to watch a team that almost NEVER wins.

So please, stop talking about "winning it all". We know that small market teams aren't going to "win it all". That doesn't mean we wouldn't rather win 30 games with some close wins/losses, rather than win only 10 games and get blown out night after night.


It isn't a coincidence that last season the Nets almost set the record for worst team of all-time, and the Cavs this season did set the record for most consecutive losses of all-time.


If you think it's a good thing that half the teams in the league get blown out on a nightly basis, then you aren't a fan of the sport. I enjoy watching competitive games, not All-Stars vs. Washington Generals.
Exactly, and all of the 'who has won rings in the past 40 years' and other bs evidence being posted doesn't tell you that.. No one wants to EVER go see a team that is losing 60+ games a year, but if they're winning 25-35 that's bearable. That means there's roughly a half and half chance they win at the home game you attend where as the former almost guarantees a loss.. so why ever attend a game in that case?

[Kblaze8855]

There was no cable or internet in the 70s...yet the league was a total afterthought. The Lakers and Celtics brought it up out of the nothingness.

And you questioning the rights of players to ever be free agents is...cute. Just totally removed from reality.

As if franchise tags in the NFL keep anyone who wants to be a FA from being one...

And even if you allowed eternal franchise tags if a guy just decides he wants to go...and goes public...hes gonna go. Eventually its a PR nightmare, fan support would drop, any off games he has would be seen as him trying to play his way out of town like VC, and on and on. He could simply hold out. Wait to be cut. These vets with 90 million to begin with like Lebron Wade and Bosh could afford a month or two of being suspended without pay. Hell they could afford to lose some of their previous money.

Lebron had a hundred million dollar shoe deal before he played in the NBA. They would have nothng at all to threaten him with. What...sell the fanbase on tagging him yearly letting him sit out without pay and the team sucks while they could just trade him....and rebuild overnight with the returns?

Players forced trades before free agency was even allowed. Look into how Wilt got to LA. He wasp issed at philly because the old owner made a deal with him the new owners wouldnt live up to. They didnt just want to trade him. He made them.

In the real world just forcing a guy to be where he doesnt want to be just wont work. Ever. Not in the media age. Fans would turn on the player for wanting out and the team for not letting him go so they could move on.

[Kblaze8855]

It isn't a coincidence that last season the Nets almost set the record for worst team of all-time, and the Cavs this season did set the record for most consecutive losses of all-time.

They almost...set a record set in the 70s. And the Cavs broke the record they set...in the 80s. Back then you had the Lakers moonwalking to the finals year after year. One season they made the finals by playing a 42 win team, a 41 win team, and 39 win team in the playoffs. If thats the WCF imagine who was out of the playoffs. Those guys were out there handing out 27-0 runs to start games vs the Kings back then. I think the highest average margin of victory over a season is still the 71 Bucks. The Bulls made the playoffs with 30 wins in 86. The Suns dropped 107 on the 20 win Nuggets...by HALFTIME in 1990. It was garbage time in the first quarter.

Its just perception shaping reality to some people it seems.

Half the league has always been garbage. And I bet you the major league teams blew out the bottom feeders more in the 80s than they do now. Even throwing out young teams(like the Heat losing by 68 to the Cavs once).

The Lakers were running over everything in the west for damn near 10 years. And the east was just Boston and Philly raping everyone for years then the Pistons and Bucks making some noise.

The NBA is no more top heavy now. We are seeing nothing like the 80s west. At all.

[bdreason]

And the solution is easy, if it's legal. You just create a contract % restriction on teams signing players. This is just a very rough example, because I haven't given it much thought;

Highest paid player can get 100% MAX.
2nd highest paid player can get 100% MAX.
3rd highest paid player can only recieve 75% MAX.
Every other player can only recieve 50% MAX.


This means teams would be limited to TWO max contract players, and all the other players on the team could only recieve a % of MAX based on the highest paid player.

This would make teams like Miami impossible, unless Bosh was willing to sign for 75% of what Wade and LeBron were making.

[bdreason]

They almost...set a record set in the 70s. And the Cavs broke the record they set...in the 80s. Back then you had the Lakers moonwalking to the finals year after year. One season they made the finals by playing a 42 win team, a 41 win team, and 39 win team in the playoffs. Those guys were out there handing out 27-0 runs to start games vs the Kings back then. I think the highest average margin of victory over a season is still the 71 Bucks.

Its just perception shaping reality to some people it seems.

Half the league has always been garbage.


Who cares if it "used to be that way". Black people used to be slaves too, does that make it okay now? The NBA should be looking to improve the competitive nature of the NBA. Not just say "oh well, teams in the 70's got spanked too".

[PleezeBelieve]

There was no cable or internet in the 70s...yet the league was a total afterthought. The Lakers and Celtics brought it up out of the nothingness.

And you questioning the rights of players to ever be free agents is...cute. Just totally removed from reality.

As if franchise tags in the NFL keep anyone who wants to be a FA from being one...

And even if you allowed eternal franchise tags if a guy just decides he wants to go...and goes public...hes gonna go. Eventually its a PR nightmare, fan support would drop, any off games he has would be seen as him trying to play his way out of town like VC, and on and on. He could simply hold out. Wait to be cut. These vets with 90 million to begin with like Lebron Wade and Bosh could afford a month or two of being suspended without pay. Hell they could afford to lose some of their previous money.

Lebron had a hundred million dollar shoe deal before he played in the NBA. They would have nothng at all to threaten him with. What...sell the fanbase on tagging him yearly letting him sit out without pay and the team sucks while they could just trade him....and rebuild overnight with the returns?

Players forced trades before free agency was even allowed. Look into how Wilt got to LA. He wasp issed at philly because the old owner made a deal with him the new owners wouldnt live up to. They didnt just want to trade him. He made them.

In the real world just forcing a guy to be where he doesnt want to be just wont work. Ever. Not in the media age. Fans would turn on the player for wanting out and the team for not letting him go so they could move on.
I think players organizing secret pacts to play with each other two or three calendar years down the road is far less 'cute' than stripping their right to make the pact in the first place.

And I never said take away free agency rights, just unrestricted rights for players an organization deems too important to let go, hence the Franchise Tag suggestion.

Under my scenario, players still get paid while the competitive balance is equalized league-wide. More onus would be for teams to draft correctly rather than big/warm market clubs hoarding other team's best players masked as unrestricted free agency.

You know, like the NFL???

Don't really see how any person can argue against this.

[Kblaze8855]

If its always been that way(And it has...) then there is nothing new to complain about. And things like this:


It isn't a coincidence that last season the Nets almost set the record for worst team of all-time, and the Cavs this season did set the record for most consecutive losses of all-time.

That imply the way things are are responsible for things that far outdate the way things are.....just dont make sense.

Its like saying "We have let it get too bad...its almost to the point of...where its been forever".

[Kblaze8855]

I think players organizing secret pacts to play with each other two or three calendar years down the road is far less 'cute' than stripping their right to make the pact in the first place.
And I never said taking away free agency rights, just unrestricted rights for the players an organization deems as too important to let go, hence the Franchise Tag suggestion.

Under my scenario, players still get paid while the competitive balance is equalized league-wide. More onus would be for teams to draft correctly rather than big/warm market clubs hoarding other team's best players masked as unrestricted free agency.

You know, like the NFL???

Don't really see how any person can argue against this.

And...like the NFL...the players would just go into an offseason expecting to be franchise tagged and plan accordingly so they become unrestricted anyway. Like Peppers in carolina.

No union is ever going to allow unlimited year after year franchise tags and no league would even push for it.

As I said...even if you got it...a guy wants out...hes getting out. and hes going exactly where he wants to go because the other teams arent risking having the same drama.

Even before free agency...when player had LESS power than if we had franchise tags...

Kareem says "Trade me to La or NY" he goes to La. Wilt says "Trade me to LA" hes gone to LA. Because nobody trades for a guy who is just gonna ask out again and not go all in with the team. And nobody benches a guy for refusing to play then keeps a massive asset like that to gain nothing when they could trade him and get something.

The problem with your plan is simple...

You think free will can be crushed a lot easier than reality shows us.

You could hold down Damon Jones with such a plan.

You couldnt do shit to keep a Lebron level guy where he doesnt want to be.

[bdreason]

If its always been that way(And it has...) then there is nothing new to complain about. And things like this:



That imply the way things are are responsible for things that far outdate the way things are.....just dont make sense.

Its like saying "We have let it get too bad...its almost to the point of...where its been forever".


It hasn't always been this way. In fact, it's been 30+ years since teams were losing as badly as they are now. I don't know why you keep referencing the 70's like it was yesterday.

And once again, we aren't talking about winning championships. We are talking about small market teams being able to field a team that doesn't get blown off the court on a nightly basis.

[dj ys]

http://i50.tinypic.com/11k87mh.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/11vh738.gif

[PleezeBelieve]

If competitive imbalance exists in a sport, then that's a bad thing...

Period.

All this bringing up the 70's.. 80's.. 90's.. blah, blah, blah -- who cares?

Competitive imbalance is competitive imbalance. Team A shouldn't have to work twice as hard to prevent Team B from hoarding its players based on off the court desires.

People talk how Small Market teams would have a better chance to keep superstar players "if they had just draft correctly".

Yadda... yadda... yadda. Same everyday dribble to validate a flawed premise because they never account for the fact Big/Warm Market teams have just as much opportunity to create winning cultures through the draft as Small Market teams. But the only difference is if they fail, they are rewarded for their failure by flexing desirable living climate or endorsement prowess to draw stars from Small Market teams.

Hence competitive imbalance.

[Kblaze8855]

It hasn't always been this way. In fact, it's been 30+ years since teams were losing as badly as they are now. I don't know why you keep referencing the 70's like it was yesterday.

And once again, we aren't talking about winning championships. We are talking about small market teams being able to field a team that doesn't get blown off the court on a nightly basis.

Show me any evidence they do.

Im not saying it doesnt exist. Im saying...its all sounding like the type of thing people might say based on perception when reality wouldnt back it up.

I remember a couple years ago people showing the Celtics having the widest margin of victory in the league..might have been 9-10 points...and then others coming in showing the Bulls were beating teams by way more in the 90s. And that they themselves did not hold the record. I remember a gang of teams from the 80s listed in the same range or more.

This just feel like one of those things a guy would think is true...because he thinks its true. Might look into this tomorrow....


Checked one. The Cavs....

Bad as they are...they lose by less per game than the worst team did in 2000. And I checked 90..same case..but it was expansion teams. So I went to 88 to get around the expansion issue...also..lost by more per game than the Cavs do now.

Really thinking this may be perception.

[PleezeBelieve]

And...like the NFL...the players would just go into an offseason expecting to be franchise tagged and plan accordingly so they become unrestricted anyway. Like Peppers in carolina.

No union is ever going to allow unlimited year after year franchise tags and no league would even push for it.

As I said...even if you got it...a guy wants out...hes getting out. and hes going exactly where he wants to go because the other teams arent risking having the same drama.

Even before free agency...when player had LESS power than if we had franchise tags...

Kareem says "Trade me to La or NY" he goes to La. Wilt says "Trade me to LA" hes gone to LA. Because nobody trades for a guy who is just gonna ask out again and not go all in with the team. And nobody benches a guy for refusing to play then keeps a massive asset like that to gain nothing when they could trade him and get something.

The problem with your plan is simple...

You think free will can be crushed a lot easier than reality shows us.

You could hold down Damon Jones with such a plan.

You couldnt do shit to keep a Lebron level guy where he doesnt want to be.
Did LeBron ever say he didn't want to be in Cleveland?? Not that I disgaree with that, but he never said that.

And there several ways to formulate a plan where owners could re-shift the nature of how the NBA currently works. They could start but playing hardball during the next CBA negotiates. Small Market teams may lose out in an open market but they are all equal during CBA negotiations with the opportunity to become stronger if they band together in the process.

Breh, you talking hogwash. Listing evidence as to why the league has always been imbalanced does nothing but validate the argument that the system needs fixed. Teams are worth 275 million on the average. If you think owners of Small Market teams pay that kind of jack to watch players jump to Miami/LA/NY anytime they get, please. Please, dude. :oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

Did LeBron ever say he didn't want to be in Cleveland?? Not that I disgaree with that, but he never said that.

Lebron says a lot of things I woudlnt take to be his true feelings.



And there several ways to formulate a plan where owners could re-shift the nature of how the NBA currently works. They could start but playing hardball during the next CBA negotiates. Small Market teams may lose out in an open market but they are all equal during CBA negotiations with the opportunity to become stronger if they band together in the process.

Breh, you talking hogwash. Listing evidence as to why the league has always been imbalanced does nothing but validate the argument that the system needs fixed.

Classic "What aint broke" situation. There is no evidence the NBA is getting anything but more popular. Its popularity is only down...in comparison to times where super teams were even more dominant than they are now. A system not being perfect doesnt mean it needs a total overhaul. You are talking about things that would take the destruction and rebuild of the league to implement. And it isnt going to...and shouldnt happen...because the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Magic, Suns, Knicks, Mavs, and Spurs manage to somehow have 3-4 all stars on their rosters at the same time some years.

If the NBA does nothing at all to address this "problem" it till still be here in 20 years. More popular than it is now I suspect if a couple superteams really take hold and polarize america like the Lakers and Celtics did or one becomes the "Everyone is a fan..." team like the Bulls who just won every year and people did nothing but praise it. Not demand the league find a way for more teams to win. Praise it.

And the same would happen now. They have nothing to fix that will cost the league more than godly playoffs and great teams in the few places that will ever get real coverage anyway will help it.

The Pacers have never had a real star. Ever. Had Reggie...a 5 time all star in 18 years. Big on name. Didnt actually do much with the team. Yet here they are. Existing. The Bucks have not had a top 3 guy since Kareem. Yet here they are. Warriors have not had an elite player since Rick Barry. Yet...here they are. Bullets/Wizards best players ever...35 years ago. And they were not like....Lebron/Kobe level in their league either. Cavs didnt have a Lebron level guy...till Lebron. Lost him. Still here. Not going anywhere. Kings have had 2 real superstars since OscaR robertson. Tiny and Webber. Managed to keep on trucking. Moved. But that happens.

The NBA will last. It will be here long after these "Something HAS to be done" talks end with very little getting done.



Teams are worth 275 million on the average. If you think owners of Small Market teams pay that kind of jack to watch players jump to Miami/LA/NY anytime they get, please. Please, dude.

Owners who bought teams are seeing the values rise year after year often beating out the rate of inflation. Buying a sports team is one of the surest ways to double up over time. Owners might complain about money...but im only taking a billionaires tears so serious. Anyone who buys a small market team knew in advance the situation. If they didnt...they are idiots. And none of my concern.

[bdreason]

Kblaze you seem to be focusing on the NBA / Team profits as the only thing that defines a "healthy" league. I really couldn't give a fukc how much the owners or league makes. They aren't going to fold if LeBron doesn't go to Miami, or Melo doesn't go to NY. You asked, "who has really been hurt by this", and I'm telling you that the fans of small market teams who are losing these superstar/all-star players are the ones that are hurt. Forget about who is profiting, or who is winning championships, and look at it from a fans perspective. There is a big difference between your team winning 30-40 games, and your team winning 10-20 games. Neither teams are championsips contenders, or even playoff teams... but a team that wins 30-40 games gets some respect (and self respect).


Now, I realize this isn't a new phenomena. I've been a Warriors fan for 20 years. We've made the playoffs twice and had plenty of seasons with less than 20 wins. However, the point of this topic is that with the formation of more "superteams", the problem is getting worse. This is clearly evident with the Nets and Cavs breaking (or almost breaking) 30 year old "loss" records. From a fan perspective, I want to see a competitive product, and the NBA should try and provide that service (even to fans in small markets!). Without the fans, the NBA aint shit.


What happens when Howard goes to the Lakers, CP3 goes to NY, and DWill goes to Dallas over the next 2 years? What about the Basketball fans in Utah, New Orleans, and Orlando? What happens to those teams? I guess they should just except that's how it is and be prepared for years of mediocrity and failure? Why? Because the NBA fails to provide enough incentives/rules to maintain a competitive league?

That's BS if you ask me. I'm fine with only a few teams being real contenders... but don't give me a league full of fillers. And just for the record, the only reason I'm addressing this so seriously now is because this next CBA could really change the entire complexion of the league for a long time. These issues need to be addressed, and that makes me glad that LeBron and Melo's moves are getting so much attention.

[nashisbest]

mega teams are good for business. it greatly enhances the reputation of the NBA. the wider audience of non-NBA fans will not remember the Pistons or Spurs. the masses remember the showtime lakers, the shaq-kobe duo, the MJ dynasty...

stacking up teams will help the NBA and in time, we will pay lower subscription to get the league pass :)

[Kblaze8855]

Kblaze you seem to be focusing on the NBA / Team profits as the only thing that defines a "healthy" league. I really couldn't give a fukc how much the owners or league makes. They aren't going to fold if LeBron doesn't go to Miami, or Melo doesn't go to NY. You asked, "who has really been hurt by this", and I'm telling you that the fans of small market teams who are losing these superstar/all-star players are the ones that are hurt. Forget about who is profiting, or who is winning championships, and look at it from a fans perspective. There is a big difference between your team winning 30-40 games, and your team winning 10-20 games. Neither teams are championsips contenders, or even playoff teams... but a team that wins 30-40 games gets some respect (and self respect).

So where do you think all these extra wins are gonna go? We are gonna have 5 65 win teams and a gang of 10 win teams?


Now, I realize this isn't a new phenomena. I've been a Warriors fan for 20 years. We've made the playoffs twice and had plenty of seasons with less than 20 wins. However, the point of this topic is that with the formation of more "superteams", the problem is getting worse. This is clearly evident with the Nets and Cavs breaking (or almost breaking) 30 year old "loss" records. From a fan perspective, I want to see a competitive product, and the NBA should try and provide that service (even to fans in small markets!). Without the fans, the NBA aint shit.

You dont see the problem with claiming an issue is getting worse by talking about approaching one record and breaking another...from a time its being suggesting the problem was so much lesser during? We have 6 teams on pace to finish in the 25 or less wins area. In 2000 it was 5, 95 it was 4, in 90 it was 6, in 88 pre expansion it was 4 with less teams. 4 in 83 1 at 28. And thats with a number of teams clearly not even in seasons where winning has been a realistic goal due to a forced rebuild. A year one without a star. When 2 guys bolt to one team its gonna make 2 more bad teams till the teams deal with it. No evidence we just have to live with 2 extra bad teams till the league folds.

It sounds like more perception issues to me. There are always 4-5 teams that just dont win shit. You might have a point if it were 10-12 and we had 5 teams winning 68 games. Its just business as usual though.



What happens when Howard goes to the Lakers, CP3 goes to NY, and DWill goes to Dallas over the next 2 years? What about the Basketball fans in Utah, New Orleans, and Orlando? What happens to those teams? I guess they should just except that's how it is and be prepared for years of mediocrity and failure? Why? Because the NBA fails to provide enough incentives/rules to maintain a competitive league?

Um...fans in Utah have been watching good or great teams for like 25 years. Fans in Orlando saw their team make the finals and contend for at least 3 years in a row. And NO might not even be there if not for a last minute rally to get fans to show up and not trigger an exception that would allow the previous owners(before trhe NBA bought them) to move the team. So...

To two if them id say "Shut the **** up and deal with the down times after years of up" and to the Hornets fans id say "You show that you care about your team then ask me how I feel about it".

If Orlando loses Dwight...so what? They lost Shaq and handed the team to Penny. Lost Penny to injury..he was gone to Phoenix...bam...Tmac like a year later. Hes gone...Dwight the next year. Thats how it works. Got 8 years out of Dwight(come 2012) and if he leaves im supposed to be weeping for them because they only made the finals and contended for 5 years?

If Utah loses deron?

And? They lost Stockton and Malone were decent for a year without them rebuilt through the draft and signing not terribly highly thought of FAs in 2 years and were in the WCF shortly. I'll say...if they handle it with good basketball decisions it wont matter. Just like last time.

Hornets? They took an emergency fan gathering just to still be there. They can support the Saints to death and LSU...but the Hornets get no love when down...and they are still a pretty good team. If they dont support them why would they be looking to me to tell them something to raise their spirits?

But if they had to know...

Id probably say your front office built a 50 something win team through the draft. And after 7 years with Paul he wanted to be elsewhere. Suck it up and dont act like the sky is falling because you only got a 7 year run.

Good drafting fixes virtually everything. And if it only fixes it for a rookie deal and that first extension everyone signs...dont cry to me. 7 years is over a 10th of the time the NBA has even existed. Its a long time for a team to have a franchise player. Enjoy it while it lasts then move on. Thats sports. If they would rather quit watching the game...**** em.

Real fans wouldnt.

[PleezeBelieve]

bdreason, don't let your argument become era specific because these dudes will simply pull arbitrary numbers to dispute them like they did with RBA.

The bottomline is that all teams should have equal opportunity to draft, build, and maintain talent thresholds regardless of market size/climate. Like RBA stated, the NBA is a private league that is comprised of 30 owners who should be playing by the same rules. Once players start dictating terms to owners for whatever reason, that's not a good business model because player's will always put their self interests first, particularly if they don't have to sacrifice significant income in the process.

[Pacquiao]

If Paul, Deron and Howard leave their team and joined like what Lebron and Carmelo is did is bad for the league.
If you have 10 teams with 2-3 superstars joining each other, what will happen to the other 20 teams? Its a long season and who THE F U C K wants to see these mega teams fighting scrubs every night because all their superstars left and join each other.

You have to feel sorry for this small market teams. They can get a draft pick but once that player become a superstar, he will just leave his team for the big market.

[bdreason]

I'm not saying we are there yet. I'm just saying this new trend of superstar players making pacts to team up could bring us to a point where a handful of teams dominate, and the rest of league feels like filler.





And yes, I'm talking about 5+ teams having 60+ wins, and 10+ teams with less than 25 wins.

Mavs w/ DWill
Lakers w/ Howard
Heat
Knicks w/ CP3
Bulls
Celtics

That's 6 teams in the next couple years that could get 60+ wins in the same season. Especially considering the Magic, Hornets, and Jazz would become more filler teams once their star player leaves. And who knows how many other star players are going to jump on the bandwagon and join these same teams... or maybe just form a 7th "superteam".

[PleezeBelieve]

I'm not understanding how some of you feel a player has a right to unrestricted free agency where they're free to liberally go from team to team. If a team wants to keep a certain player, they should have that right if they're willing to pay market value for his services.

Where a player wants to play shouldn't be in the equation unless they want to play for another league. That should be the trade off for having guaranteed contracts, IMO.

If players are free to leave after the completion of a contract where they were guaranteed a certain income regardless of production, owners should be allowed to prematurely sever ties with a player before the completion of a contract, like the NFL does.

[chains5000]

I'm not understanding how some of you feel a player has a right to unrestricted free agency where they're free to liberally free to go from team to team. If a team wants to keep a certain player, they should have that right if they're willing to pay for his services.

Where a player wants to play shouldn't be in the equation unless they want to play for another league. That should be the trade off for guaranteed contracts, IMO.

If players are free to leave after the completion of a contract where they were guaranteed a certain income regardless of production, owners should be allowed to prematurely sever ties with a player before the completion of a contract, like the NFL does.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kwpq92KDdG1qzerqlo1_250.gif

[Harison]

TL; DR

I dont mind stacked teams, I enjoy watching teams with incredible talent. The way to fix all those remaining lottery teams? Decrease teams quantity! I would much rather see 16 super teams going at each other than 30 teams with diluted talent.

[bdreason]

I have no problem with free agency. All I'm saying is the league should provide significant incentives for players to stay where they are drafted. Otherwise, the draft is just a joke, and small market teams drafting "superstars" are really just minor league teams training young "superstars" so they can eventually join a "superteam".


As I stated earlier, I think the best way to do it, outside of just further increasing the contracts for staying home, is placing a limit on how many 'max' contracts a team can sign. This would make "superstar" players take a significant paycut to play on a team that already has 2 'max' contract players. That combined with reduced contracts across the board could reduce the likelyhood of all the best players in the league joining the same teams.



Will CP3 take a 30% paycut to play in New York?

[chains5000]

As I stated earlier, I think the best way to do it, outside of just further increasing the contracts for staying home, is placing a limit on how many 'max' contracts a team can sign. This would make "superstar" players take a significant paycut to play on a team that already has 2 'max' contract players. That combined with reduced contracts across the board could reduce the likelyhood of all the best players in the league joining the same teams.
Good idea

[Sarcastic]

Why should a player have to stay in the place he was drafted? Are you forced to work in a place you don't want to? Once a player has fulfilled his contract, he should not be bound by any separate rules forcing him to stay somewhere he doesn't want to be.

[PleezeBelieve]

Why should a player have to stay in the place he was drafted? Are you forced to work in a place you don't want to? Once a player has fulfilled his contract, he should not be bound by any separate rules forcing him to stay somewhere he doesn't want to be.
Is isn't about just where a player was drafted. Other dynamics could be involved as well.

And to play in the NBA is not about rights, its a business. And the current business model is broken if superstar players go to big markets every chance they get.

Just as you say players shouldn't be bound to a given team, owners shouldn't be bound to guaranteed contracts then.

[chains5000]

And to play in the NBA is not about rights, its a business. And the current business model is broken if superstar players go to big markets every chance they get.
You realize that, in any normal business, you can leave when you want, right?

[Da KO King]

The thing that is also silly about these complaints is people act like "stars" can not be replaced. Granted the NBA's ridiculous lottery process is a hinderance, but with good scouting a team can build just fine.

Say the rumors and allegations are true and Deron Williams will leave Utah and join another team in 2012 free agency. If Utah is aggressive and trade him for a pick and lands Austin Rivers, then what? Do they just pout and pretend that replacing Williams with one of the best scoring prospects since Carmelo Anthony is no big deal?

Chris Paul joins Anthony, and Amar'e Stoudemire in Gotham. Hornets fans would be sad sure. However, they end up drafting Kyrie Irving and the sentiment becomes "Chris Paul, who?"

[PleezeBelieve]

Look, the NBA Union is about to be busted. 2/3 of the NBA owners wont stand being farm teams to bigger markets when those big markets have just as much ability to draft and cultivate their own talent.

Knicks traded practically every draft pick they had in the 00's.

Miami tanked and had the #2 pick two years before Free Agency 2010.

If geese teams succeeded building their own teams, they wouldn't have been in a position to use the allure of off court matters to steal smaller market star players.

But since they failed, they stole, and yet in finality. smaller market owners are blamed for not doing enough to keep their stars from leaving to begin with.

The entire situation is a joke.

[Sarcastic]

Is isn't about just where a player was drafted. Other dynamics could be involved as well.

And to play in the NBA is not about rights, its a business. And the current business model is broken if superstar players go to big markets every chance they get.

Just as you say players shouldn't be bound to a given team, owners shouldn't be bound to guaranteed contracts then.

Lebron James played for 7 years in Cleveland, which is probably about half his career. That's a pretty significant amount of time. It's not his fault they were not able to construct a championship team for him to play with. When the opportunity arose, he decided it would be best for HIS career to go to a place that increases his chances to win a title.

Carmelo Anthony is in a similar situation. He played in Denver for 7.5 years. He is not from that part of the country, and neither is his wife. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter to tell him where he has to play, once he has fulfilled his contract?

[PleezeBelieve]

You realize that, in any normal business, you can leave when you want, right?
Are they under contract?

No.

And under my scenario. after a completed contract a player would have the right to leave the NBA and go to another league if he wants. If the player stays in the NBA and his owner wants him, he should have to stay if owner is willing to pay market value.

[PleezeBelieve]

Lebron James played for 7 years in Cleveland, which is probably about half his career. That's a pretty significant amount of time. It's not his fault they were not able to construct a championship team for him to play with. When the opportunity arose, he decided it would be best for HIS career to go to a place that increases his chances to win a title.

Carmelo Anthony is in a similar situation. He played in Denver for 7.5 years. He is not from that part of the country, and neither is his wife. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter to tell him where he has to play, once he has fulfilled his contract?
See, posts like this establish my point.

Small Market teams blamed for not being able to do enough to keep star player even though the Big Market team didn't do anything either, and in many cases, did far worse even though they were given the same opportunities.

Only didfference here is Big Markets are rewarded for failing while Small Markets are not.

Simple concept to under here.

[chains5000]

Are they under contract?

No.

And under my scenario. after a completed contract a player would have the right to leave the NBA and go to another league if he wants. If the player stays in the NBA and his owner wants him, he should have to stay if owner is willing to pay market value.
So if I wanna be, let's say, a waiter in a restaurant in my hometown, would I have to leave for another town so I can change to another restaurant?
Yeah, that sounds like normal business.

[gts]

Are they under contract?

No.


neither are free agents

[PleezeBelieve]

The only control a player should have is what they do on the court and how they choose to push their personal endorsement opportunities.

As the numbers show, given the chance, star players flood to big markets which is not an overall good business model for the NBA.

So you fix it.

Blame the players. To think the elite players in their prime could pull a move like this and not have severe repercussions from CBA aspect is laughable. In James/Wade/Bosh case, they were are willing to give up millions to pull this coup.

[PleezeBelieve]

neither are free agents
I'm challenging the entire concept of open free agency.

Catch up.

[chains5000]

I'm challenging the entire concept of common sense.

Catch up.
Fixed

[Sarcastic]

See, posts like this establish my point.

Small Market teams blamed for not being able to do enough to keep star player even though the Big Market team didn't do anything either, and in many cases, did far worse even though they were given the same opportunities.

Only didfference here is Big Markets are rewarded for failing while Small Markets are not.

Simple concept to under here.

The reason Lebron left for Miami is that they had the money to sign 3 max free agents, who also happened to be his friends, who he also happened to want to play with. Had Cleveland had the cap space to sign 3 max players, and Miami didn't, the big 3 would have signed there.

You are putting too much emphasis on market. If market mattered SOOOO much, the Knicks would have won a championship in the past 40 years. They play in the number 1 market on the entire planet, and yet still went through 10 years of irrelevance.

[PleezeBelieve]

So if I wanna be, let's say, a waiter in a restaurant in my hometown, would I have to leave for another town so I can change to another restaurant?
Yeah, that sounds like normal business.
You're not getting it. Under a contract, a person isnt privy to change positions within that company anytime they want.

NBA = business

If you're under contract in the NBA, and your parent owner wants your services at a market value matching your production level, you should stay.

Player preference should be stripped from the equation.

[PleezeBelieve]

The reason Lebron left for Miami is that they had the money to sign 3 max free agents, who also happened to be his friends, who he also happened to want to play with. Had Cleveland had the cap space to sign 3 max players, and Miami didn't, the big 3 would have signed there.

You are putting too much emphasis on market. If market mattered SOOOO much, the Knicks would have won a championship in the past 40 years. They play in the number 1 market on the entire planet, and yet still went through 10 years of irrelevance.
Okay, I'm done with you... lol

[PleezeBelieve]

The reason Lebron left for Miami is that they had the money to sign 3 max free agents, who also happened to be his friends, who he also happened to want to play with. Had Cleveland had the cap space to sign 3 max players, and Miami didn't, the big 3 would have signed there.

You are putting too much emphasis on market. If market mattered SOOOO much, the Knicks would have won a championship in the past 40 years. They play in the number 1 market on the entire planet, and yet still went through 10 years of irrelevance.
Knicks won't win anything with Amare and Melo.

Still doesn't change the premise of my point.

[chains5000]

You're not getting it. Under a contract, a person isnt privy to change positions within that company anytime they want.

NBA = business

If you're under contract in the NBA, and your parent owner wants your services at a market value matching your production level, you should stay.

Player preference should be stripped from the equation.
I do have a contract and I can change jobs whenever I want, just need to tell my boss 15 days before.
Are you a slave or something?

[Sarcastic]

Knicks won't win anything with Amare and Melo.

Still doesn't change the premise of my point.

Is your premise that players should have no rights, and the owners should control the players for their entire careers?

[Da KO King]

Look, the NBA Union is about to be busted. 2/3 of the NBA owners wont stand being farm teams to bigger markets when those big markets have just as much ability to draft and cultivate their own talent.
You are overstating the problem. When the owners sit in their closed door meeting there will certainly be some hard feelings in the room. However, once the money starts getting discussed the chill in the air will warm.

It's been said that on average teams bring in $1 to $1.5 million in revenue per home game. Yet when one of the hot ticket teams come to town that number jumps to $1.6 to $2.2 million. All these owners are getting paid off the traveling circus that is Miami, Los Angeles, Boston; with New York likely becoming a hot ticket also.

These guys are business men first and foremost. They will put anger to the side and figure out an internal compromise. They'll device a way that keeps the money coming in while allowing small market owners (OPINION: to continue to stupidly spend money as though they are not a small market then blame the players for their money mismanagement) to remain active and competitive.


I'm not going to address any of your other points because it just comes off as sour grapes honestly. Outside the workplace considerations are a factor in ANY job recruitment. Getting upset because it came into play here is craziness.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The only control a player should have is what they do on the court and how they choose to push their personal endorsement opportunities.

As the numbers show, given the chance, star players flood to big markets which is not an overall good business model for the NBA.

So you fix it.

Blame the players. To think the elite players in their prime could pull a move like this and not have severe repercussions from CBA aspect is laughable. In James/Wade/Bosh case, they were are willing to give up millions to pull this coup.

As KBlaze said if star players didn't want to play somewhere and they had to for as long as their owners wanted them, it'd be even worse with more holdouts, questions about players tanking on the court ect.

Lebron and Bosh took less money to have a better chance at a championship. What's wrong with that? Isn't the goal to win championships? Lebron has all of the individual accomplishments he could ever want, so a better opportunity at a championship now and in the future makes a lot more sense than doing what he was doing in Cleveland, leading them to very good regular season records, but ultimately falling short in the playoffs due to the lack of a championship-caliber second option.

Everytime the Cavs were after a legit all-star they fell short. Boozer walked and turned into one of the best power forwards, they fell short when they pursued Ray Allen and Michael Redd and ultimately ended up with Larry Hughes, they fell short when they pursued Amare Stoudemire and ended up with Antawn Jamison and Chris Bosh didn't want to play there either.

So can you blame Lebron for going to a team with a superstar and another all-star when he has the chance? Especially after 7 years wthout a legit all-star teammate.

This whole idea that players should want to win with less talent around them is asinine.

The only thing wrong with what Lebron's decision was the egotistical way he handled it, not where he chose to go. And as laughable as the 1 hour special and all of that crap was, it's old news now.

Free agency makes all of the sense in the world.

[Da KO King]

Some of you are misunderstanding Pleeze's point. He's not arguing about how or why the Heat became The Heatles.

He's saying the NBA should get rid of true free agency. He'd prefer to have players "rights to the league" owned by one team until that team decides they no longer want said player.

[chains5000]

Some of you are misunderstanding Pleeze's point. He's not arguing about how or why the Heat became The Heatles.

He's saying the NBA should get rid of true free agency. He'd prefer to have players "rights to the league" owned by one team until that team decides they no longer want said player.
I get, but I don't agree with it.
The players already are forced to play for a certain team at their careers start, I think they should be allowed to choose where they play after that.

[ginobli2311]

Some of you are misunderstanding Pleeze's point. He's not arguing about how or why the Heat became The Heatles.

He's saying the NBA should get rid of true free agency. He'd prefer to have players "rights to the league" owned by one team until that team decides they no longer want said player.

sorry. that would be the worst thing ever for the nba. that would kill the sport.

it sounds to me like this is just a bunch of butt hurt fans of individual teams that are looking for reasons to blame the players when they should be blaming the front office.

cavs fans: lebron exceeded all expectations. he transformed your franchise and your front office dropped the ball. we've been over this. they lost boozers, the failed to get allen or redd, they overpaid hughes, they brought in wally (LOL), and then refused to trade him in 09 for a good piece, they couldn't get amare or bosh or gasol. They didn't bring in a legit 2nd option.

do you people honestly think lebron would have left if the cavs had gotten gasol or dirk or something in 2005? of course not.

small market teams can win. they just have to do a better job. players should not be owned or punished based on where a ping pong ball tells them they have to play.

its the dumbest thing ever.

its bascially this:

no matter where the team is, if they can get quality players, the superstar will want to stay or come. look at the the thunder. look at the kings. look at the spurs. it can work. is it harder? of course, but until clevleand turns into a desirable place to live on par with miami or ny or LA....its going to be harder.

hell, the mavs couldn't even get rashard lewis in free agency and he's from dallas. life isn't fair. big corporations have more advantages. get over it.

but this is sports. and the fact remains that its better for the nba for all the big markets to be good. that is something the die hard fans on here can't comprehend i guess. what is better for the league? the knicks winning 65 games or the grizzlies winning 65 games? we all know the answer.

and that is the end of it. its reality. deal with.

[Da KO King]

I get, but I don't agree with it.
The players already are forced to play for a certain team at their careers start, I think they should be allowed to choose where they play after that.
Oh without question I think Pleeze is off the deep end and there is absolutely no chance of that happening. Still, it seemed as though some people misread the point he was making.

[2LeTTeRS]

Look, the NBA Union is about to be busted. 2/3 of the NBA owners wont stand being farm teams to bigger markets when those big markets have just as much ability to draft and cultivate their own talent.

Too bad those 1/3 of owners in big market teams are probably some of the most powerful owners in the league. Do you really think Dolan and Buss and whoever owns the Heat are going to willingly agree to a hard cap? Do you think they're going to start sharing their revenue from local TV deals so teams like the Kings and Hornets can compete on an even playing field with them? I don't.

I seriously believe that the notion that at the end of the day all the owners will present a united front while the players won't is ridiculous.

[Da KO King]

I seriously believe that the notion that at the end of the day all the owners will present a united front while the players won't is ridiculous.
That is a WHOLE different subject that would probably have to be taken to the "Off the Court" section and would lead to lots of "negged" posters and possibly a ban or two.

[2LeTTeRS]

That is a WHOLE different subject that would probably have to be taken to the "Off the Court" section and would lead to lots of "negged" posters and possibly a ban or two.

I completely agree, and in a different context I'd love to have that conversation but here you're right it wouldn't go too well. Still stand by my statement though.

A week or 2 ago when the ESPN was beginning their coverage of the NFL labor dispute they had Teddy Bruschi on. The Sportscenter anchor continually tried to get him to rip the Players Union and he wouldn't. He said they're doing the right thing, they should never give up money/rights because if they do the players will never get them back. He said they should fight tooth and nail to make sure they don't give back a penny, because their not just representing themselves but future generations of players.

If I were a leader in the NBA Players Union I would have e-mailed the youtube link of that interveiw to my entire union. If the leadership does their job and stars continue their involvement in negotiations I could see the loyalty and sense of responsibility to their brothers being greater within the union than with the owners.

[nycelt84]

Some of you are misunderstanding Pleeze's point. He's not arguing about how or why the Heat became The Heatles.

He's saying the NBA should get rid of true free agency. He'd prefer to have players "rights to the league" owned by one team until that team decides they no longer want said player.

What he's talking about is bringing back the reserve clause which is something that would not stand in court nor be tolerated by the players.

[ginobli2311]

you know what is funny?

this would actually be a problem if players started dictating what teams they played for as rookies like magic and kobe. that would actually be a problem....these guys leaving teams after 7 years is not a problem.

so just another reason why this thread is so way off base again. imagine lebron coming into the league and his agent/people call up cleveland and tell them not to draft him because lebron doesn't have a future with them. that is exactly what kobe's people did with new jersey. ask callipari. i've hear him say this again and again. that would be a problem.

or how about if durant said he'd only leave college if he got the chance to play with dwight howard.....that is exactly what magic said. he only came out to play with kareem.

wake up people. these players are giving over half of their good years in the league to franchises currently. cry me a ****ing river.

[2LeTTeRS]

What he's talking about is bringing back the reserve clause which is something that would not stand in court nor be tolerated by the players.

Agreed. If the owners want to have more control over players, in a way that would be legally valid they would need to impose a franchise tag (which I don't think is realistic because the players won't go for it) or change the triggering conditions for restricted free agency.

As it stands now star players tend to only hit restricted free agency once in their career, when their rookie deals end. I could see the owners pushing to try to get players to still be restricted after their 2nd contract ends as well. This way the owners get the opportunity to match or threaten they will match so that they get compensation when players leave during free agency, while the players don't give up any money, and still get to test free agency.

[Da KO King]

I completely agree, and in a different context I'd love to have that conversation but here you're right it wouldn't go too well. Still stand by my statement though.

A week or 2 ago when the ESPN was beginning their coverage of the NFL labor dispute they had Teddy Bruschi on. The Sportscenter anchor continually tried to get him to rip the Players Union and he wouldn't. He said they're doing the right thing, they should never give up money/rights because if they do the players will never get them back. He said they should fight tooth and nail to make sure they don't give back a penny, because their not just representing themselves but future generations of players.

If I were a leader in the NBA Players Union I would have e-mailed the youtube link of that interveiw to my entire union. If the leadership does their job and stars continue their involvement in negotiations I could see the loyalty and sense of responsibility to their brothers being greater within the union than with the owners.
Honestly this is the strongest stance from the NBA Players Union I've seen in a very long time. The owners will definitely need to have their act together.

[PHILA]

What he's talking about is bringing back the reserve clause which is something that would not stand in court nor be tolerated by the players.
:applause:


http://www.thoughtequity.com/video/clip/5113061689_005.do?assetId=clip_16029300&keywords=oscar%2Crobertson

http://www.thoughtequity.com/video/clip/5113061689_006.do?assetId=clip_16029301&keywords=oscar%2Crobertson

http://www.thoughtequity.com/video/clip/5113061689_007.do?assetId=clip_16029302&keywords=oscar%2Crobertson



From The Big O: my life, my times, my game (2003)

http://i55.tinypic.com/34gvmgz.png




July 12, 2010

LeBron James is a ''genius" and the victim of a ''high-tech lynching,'' and Dan Gilbert is an ''ungrateful ... idiot.''

That's how ex-Bull Chet Walker, an NBA pioneer who made free agency possible, reads this summer's biggest free-agent deal.

James last week used his free agency to defect from his home-state Cleveland Cavaliers to the Miami Heat and join Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh.

''James is a genius for what he engineered with Wade and Bosh,'' Walker said. ''For the first time in league history, players themselves, not an owner or general manager, put together a championship team.''

Gilbert, the Cavaliers' owner, ripped his former star, calling James' departure a ''cowardly betrayal.'' But what incensed Walker the most was Gilbert's boastful guarantee to his fans: ''I personally guarantee that the Cleveland Cavaliers will win an NBA championship before the self-titled former 'King' wins one,'' Gilbert wrote in a statement shortly after James announced his decision Thursday night during a prime-time ESPN special.

''Gilbert's an idiot, and you can quote me,'' Walker said. ''I'm retired, 70 years old and can't nobody bother me for speaking my mind. Who's going to want to come play for Cleveland now that LeBron is gone? But I can see players wanting to come play with LeBron, Wade and Bosh because they'll have a great chance to win a ring.

''Gilbert ought to be grateful, if anything, because for seven years LeBron was the team's cash cow. He made a lot of money for the team and for the city. I can see how Gilbert can be hurt and disappointed. But I don't like the way he and so many other people in the media and elsewhere are ripping LeBron. This kid is the victim of a high-tech lynching. You wouldn't believe the hate I'm hearing on talk radio out here in Los Angeles. I'm really [ticked] off.

''I agree with LeBron's decision, and he had a right to decide his own fate. Players only have a limited time window to get what they want out of their NBA careers. LeBron wants to win a ring now, and after seven seasons, he didn't see the Cavaliers doing enough to make that possible. So he took the initiative, made a hard decision and orchestrated one of the biggest deals in league history. Then he left on his own terms and produced his TV special to announce his decision. I thought the TV program was overplayed, but LeBron had a right to leave the way he wanted to leave.''

James, Wade, Bosh and so many other NBA players have pioneers such as Walker to thank for their free-agent fortunes. In the 1970s, Walker teamed with Oscar Robertson and others to sue the NBA for merging with the ABA and limiting players' options in getting the best contracts from the highest bidder. Though the lawsuit was unsuccessful, the litigation helped make free agency possible.




01.11.10

Chet’s still a union guy, and he says he hates to see the possibility of Gilbert Arenas losing his contract in the suspension over his guns-in-the-locker room controversy. Still, at the same time, Walker said it pains him to see the abuses from some among players in the game today.

Walker was one of the group of defendants who sued the NBA over the plans to merge the NBA and ABA. The historic settlement of the so-called Oscar Robertson suit (Robertson was players’ association chief) created free agency in the NBA.

“You hate to see the way some players today are abusing everything we worked so hard for and gave up so much for,” says Walker, who faced an effective blackball that prematurely ended his career for his actions with the players’ association. “I wasn’t the only one. There was Oscar (never offered a coach or GM job even as he’s still a successful businessman), Joe Caldwell, Archie Clark. Guys really were kicked out of the league. For these guys like Arenas to abuse all the hard work we went through to enable them to become free agents and make all the money they do is ridiculous.”

[niko]

I don't get this. Cleveland had Lebron because the ****ing ping pong balls bounced your way. You did nothing to deserve him, did nothing to acquire him except SUCK. So, because the ping pong balls bounced your way, and he left after seven years, there is something fundementally flawed in the system. Because he is human, and wanted to go somewhere and win, a place that is warm and has tons of girls walking around with silicone breasts in bikini's.

The NBA cap has done a wonderful job keeping stars in small markets. If the cap was just a little lower it would probably do even better. But stop acting like it's your god given right to keep the player you got from a lucky break forever. Cleveland is a shit place to live. No CBA agreement can change that. If you make it so restrictive that a player cannot leave, he'll ask out with a trade. Cleveland is not NY, not Miami. Sorry to pick on Cleveland but you know the have's and have nots, replace another city if you like.

This argument is stupid. The NBA always had a few haves, and lots of have nots. We are acting like the system is broken because some players, after years and years, left their original teams.

[LJJ]

I don't get this. Cleveland had Lebron because the ****ing ping pong balls bounced your way. You did nothing to deserve him, did nothing to acquire him except SUCK. So, because the ping pong balls bounced your way, and he left after seven years, there is something fundementally flawed in the system. Because he is human, and wanted to go somewhere and win, a place that is warm and has tons of girls walking around with silicone breasts in bikini's.

The NBA cap has done a wonderful job keeping stars in small markets. If the cap was just a little lower it would probably do even better. But stop acting like it's your god given right to keep the player you got from a lucky break forever. Cleveland is a shit place to live. No CBA agreement can change that. If you make it so restrictive that a player cannot leave, he'll ask out with a trade. Cleveland is not NY, not Miami. Sorry to pick on Cleveland but you know the have's and have nots, replace another city if you like.

This argument is stupid. The NBA always had a few haves, and lots of have nots. We are acting like the system is broken because some players, after years and years, left their original teams.

Yeah, I've especially seen RBA make whiny ass post after whiny ass post about how the unjustified diva attitude of some players is ruining the league.

Don't get me wrong, I think he is a fine poster in general and I understand that James leaving would get under your skin, but this very flawed argument is starting to get old.

That's exactly why contracts end. To give both parties an opportunity to reassess the situation and make a conscious decision to either continue with the same situation or go in a different direction. That shouldn't be exclusively the team's right. Players already get screwed over by not -contractually- having any say in regards to trades and such (don't get me wrong: nobody is feeling sorry for them at those salaries, but it's still pretty shifty on principal), let's not take away the last bit of control they have over their own professional lives.

[LA_Showtime]

The owners have been hurt by this. It'll be hard for them to argue against such a thing since Cleveland, Toronto, and Denver all caved in and traded their franchise players. Good luck trying to convince everyone how bad it is for the NBA during your labor negotiations, when you were the ones who ultimately pulled the trigger.

[niko]

Yeah, I've especially seen RBA make whiny ass post after whiny ass post about how the unjustified diva attitude of some players is ruining the league.

Don't get me wrong, I think he is a fine poster in general and I understand that James leaving would get under your skin, but this very flawed argument is starting to get old.

That's exactly why contracts end. To give both parties an opportunity to reassess the situation and make a conscious decision to either continue with the same situation or go in a different direction. That shouldn't be exclusively the team's right. Players already get screwed over by not -contractually- having any say in regards to trades and such (don't get me wrong: nobody is feeling sorry for them at those salaries, but it's still pretty shifty on principal), let's not take away the last bit of control they have over their own professional lives.

Yeah, no hate on RBA but he knows we dont hate him...

Can you imagine if we have a franchise tag?

Lebron: I'm taking my talents to South Beach.
Gilbert: Nope, you are franchised. Come back to Cleveland FOREVER! HAHAHA!!!

Can we say disfunctional?

[2LeTTeRS]

Honestly this is the strongest stance from the NBA Players Union I've seen in a very long time. The owners will definitely need to have their act together.

Completely agree. The only problem is that as a fan thats a bad thing, I'm expecting a really long lockout. The NBA and players union should go on and look into getting a mediator like the NFL is doing.