Do you like the new CBA rules?

[UK2K]

On one hand, it does force parity to a degree. The richer teams will always go over the luxury tax but at least now they're punished.

On the other hand, I see a lot of players getting way more than they're worth. I suppose that's a good thing, but soon teams will find out that the max contract player they paid for isn't really a max player. You have a lot more player movement now than before.

I haven't made up my mind yet. Need to look into all the changes first.

From first glance, I liked the way it played out.

[DukeDelonte13]

players getting the max that aren't worth it is not the product of the new CBA rules.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

I don't know, I felt at the time it was as much a case of the owners trying to protect themselves from their own front offices (stretch provision, amnesty). As it is, front offices are still making stupid decisions, and so players have more power than was originally thought when the CBA was signed.

I prefer continuity to an extent so smaller contracts are less preferable to me. I preferred the old CBA.

[DukeDelonte13]

I really don't see how players have much more power here.



http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one



NBA teams do not want to let top tier talent slip away. Agents know this. Players can simply test out restricted free agency, competing teams can throw them the max, and the original team has to make a tough choice.


[QUOTE]Free agents and restricted free agency

[T_L_P]

players getting the max that aren't worth it is not the product of the new CBA rules.

This. Not only that, if you're dumb enough to give a non-max player a max contract, it should damage your ability to compete.

If there was no salary cap, the Knicks could give Felton the max, realise they've ****ed up, and go give one to some other player.

[russwest0]

The idea of increasing the luxury tax fines to give small market teams more of a chance was incredibly dumb. Now the only teams who are even able to pay the luxury tax are large market teams.

It's like saying hey, Tiger Woods hits the ball way further than anyone else, lets make it fair and extend the length of the golf courses... But all you've really done is change the meta of the game to what Tiger Woods' strengths are...

[They Won]

I don't follow Chinese basketball.

[navy]

The idea of increasing the luxury tax fines to give small market teams more of a chance was incredibly dumb. Now the only teams who are even able to pay the luxury tax are large market teams.

It's like saying hey, Tiger Woods hits the ball way further than anyone else, lets make it fair and extend the length of the golf courses... But all you've really done is change the meta of the game to what Tiger Woods' strengths are...
:applause:

[T_L_P]

The idea of increasing the luxury tax fines to give small market teams more of a chance was incredibly dumb. Now the only teams who are even able to pay the luxury tax are large market teams.

It's like saying hey, Tiger Woods hits the ball way further than anyone else, lets make it fair and extend the length of the golf courses... But all you've really done is change the meta of the game to what Tiger Woods' strengths are...

The luxury is like an in and out thing though.

Teams who are constantly over it are well and truly ****ed...

[sp6r=underrated]

The new CBA rules were designed to give the owners more money and the players less. They've been a success on that front. Any impact the changes have on competitive balance is incidental to reducing labor costs. I would like to see more money go to the players because it would improve the quality of the league. So I don't like the changes.

Promotion/regulation will not happen in the near future of American sports leagues but I would love to see it. A slightly less radical change that I would support is the removal of the worldwide draft for countries with few to no people in the NBA. This will give teams an incentive to spread the game of basketball by setting up camps in these countries to develop new players. It won't happen but I would love to see it.

[UK2K]

The luxury is like an in and out thing though.

Teams who are constantly over it are well and truly ****ed...
Some owners will pay it no matter what.

Others, like Larry Legend, said his team will not go into the luxury tax no matter what. That's why they only offered Stephenson a set number.

[DukeDelonte13]

The idea of increasing the luxury tax fines to give small market teams more of a chance was incredibly dumb. Now the only teams who are even able to pay the luxury tax are large market teams.

It's like saying hey, Tiger Woods hits the ball way further than anyone else, lets make it fair and extend the length of the golf courses... But all you've really done is change the meta of the game to what Tiger Woods' strengths are...


Dumbest post of the year award. You rely on the stupid assumption that Big market simply equates to big spender.

Donald Sterling, the Dolans, etc.

Dan Gilbert is an example of a small market owner who's never stopped spending.


Just because an owner/ownership group is in a big market doesn't mean they are going to spend all crazy.

[Droid101]

The idea of increasing the luxury tax fines to give small market teams more of a chance was incredibly dumb. Now the only teams who are even able to pay the luxury tax are large market teams.

It's like saying hey, Tiger Woods hits the ball way further than anyone else, lets make it fair and extend the length of the golf courses... But all you've really done is change the meta of the game to what Tiger Woods' strengths are...
Smartest thing you've ever posted.

Just get rid of max salaries. Keep a hard cap but raise it dramatically. Allow your team to raise your cap further if you're a certain threshhold under the cap for a few seasons (your tanking seasons) so that you can throw ridiculous money at a top player or players when you're ready to compete.

Anything. Change it up. League is getting mega boring with the current CBA.