All the ideas about how to fix free agency seem clearly flawed to me other than one.

[Kblaze8855]

You hear about hard caps...which will never happen. The players wouldnt agree....the NBA would miss seasons. You can come in with "Well then let them miss seasons! Owners need to take control!" all you want...youre living in a fantasy land. It will not happen. THe NBA wont just fold for years to break the players backs. Period. You thinking they should means nothing to the real world. It costs too much to not come through on those Tv contracts. They are not gonna miss seasons with a new digital rights/tv deal being negotiated which it will be soon. It would cost more money than its worth. The real money is is selling tv rights not selling tickets to games. Missing seasons to bully the union costs too much money. Period.

You hear about needing NFL style franchise tags....which would not only be hard t oget by the players union...but would cripple the teams trying to use them if it were NFL style. To get the players onboard the starting pay would have to be insane....and raise by insane rates if you kept trying to use it. Much like how the NFLs does it would eventually price you out of keeping anyone and they would walk anyway. Why pay Paul George 54 million dollars to not win when you can trade him for assets?


Which gets me to my point....



One way I can see teams and players accepting if done right....

The pre Tom Chambers(88) rules where the players first team has right of first refusal. It sounds like restricted free agency but it isnt. Not quite....


After 76 when Oscar settled the lawsuit against the ABA/NBA they agreed to allow free agency. But it only applied to veterans with a set number of years of service(easily accepted now in the form of rookie contracts). Vets could choose who to play for....with a catch.

You can sign for whatever money ____ wants to pay you...and your team can match it if you accept....OR...match it and trade you to the team you signed with. IF you dont come to terms? The NBA would have an arbitrator come to terms for you. And who wants that? It rarely happened. IT would often be straight up cash....but many times it was players and the deals went down as trades in history but were really free agent signings. The best real world example is Moses Malone.

He was a free agent after 82. He was the leagues MVP. The biggest FA ever.

He signs with Philly who had made 3 finals without winning and had Doc(MVP from the season before) and 3 other all stars.

Houston matches to the leagues surprise....they knew the Rockets didnt have the money. But they just wanted compensation. They didnt wanna let it reach arbitration so the deal ended up being Cauldwell Jones(Good athlete/shot blocker), a first round pick, and cash. Look it up anywhere Moses was traded in Philly. In reality...he was a free agent signing. And the Rockets did well. They tanked without him and got SAmpson and Hakeem out of it. They actually had the #1 and #3 picks the following year(Drafted Rodney Mccray....great defender you have no reason to be aware of). How did a team as good as the 83 76ers(65 wins....champs...nearly swept the playoffs) have a #3 pick?

The same way the Lakers had the #1 pick(worthy) the year before despite being the champions.

The Cleveland Cavaliers were idiots.

They traded their top pick in consecutive years for garbage veterans from the two NBA finals teams while they were among the worst in the league.

The Cavs owner was soon kicked out of the league and he is the reason you can no longer trade consecutive #1 picks. Just some trivia for you there....

Rockets got a swift rebuild with a top lottery pick and the 76ers got to win the title with the first free agency spearheaded superteam.

Pretty much all the old system did was make it a lock that nobody ever walked for nothing. Even if all the owner wanted was cash.....which was often the case at the time. Teams made less income. Owners wanted cash more than players. Gus Williams(Sonics superstar) was traded to the Sonics from the Suns for cash. The Knicks turned down Doctor J from the Nets instead insisting on getting 5 million dollars in cash(yes...the Knicks have been stupid for about 40 years now).

So you see a lot of "Traded to the ____ for cash) deals. But it was really whatever the team demanded...because nobody wanted the league to decide for them.

Some version of the old Right of first refusal rule is about as far as I think the NBA could push it and get it by the union. The player stills gets paid....he goes where he wants...you just go Paul George style instead of for nothing.

The teams would be all over it. No longer any risk of losing a guy for nothing. The only issue would be who decides on the deal if the teams cant....

But can you see that happening? Is someone gonna let Silver decide whats enough for KAT or Devin Booker when they can work it out themselves?

Nah. Plus is removes one of the big threats of not going along with it when a player demands out. Losing him for nothing. When you CANT lose him for nothing...why honor his trade demand unless you just wanna do him a favor or get rid of the hassle? You wont be forced into it by getting left with nothing like the Cavs last year, Raptors with Leonard now, or...the Magic with Shaq.


Can you really see the NBA pulling off anything more restrictive than the 80s system without losing seasons to the players union refusal? I dont.

But I think it could be pulled off. I dont know that the players would fight it too much. Same pay if not better.....same choice of destination.

Would you take issue with it as a player?

[Kblaze8855]

Oh and when youre bored you should read some of the old articles from when various rules changed. Heres one on when they got rid of the Right of first refusal and how teams feared players would be uncoachable and lazy without restrictions and with the bigger contracts:




For NBA players such as Frank Johnson, the new collective-bargaining agreement between the league and its players association represents exciting possibilities and a chance to perhaps recapture past glories. Commissioner David Stern, however, considers the contract as representing little more than the status quo.

In between the two extremes are many general managers and coaches wondering where the money to pay the players an average salary of $900,000 six years hence will come from and if they'll be able to handle the athletes who'll be receiving it.

Two weeks ago, the league and its players association, the NBAPA, agreed in principle to a new six-year collective-bargaining agreement that, among other things, reduced the NBA draft to three rounds this June and only two in subsequent years, continued the salary cap that limits a team's payroll and altered the guidelines of the right of first refusal.

It is that last item that might have the greatest effect, both immediately and in the future. Previously, an NBA team could retain a free agent who received an offer from a second team by merely matching the amount of the offered contract. The team could then keep the player or trade him.

Under the new agreement, a team's right of first refusal will be retained only for players ending their initial contract, or a negotiated extension of the first contract, who have been offered more than $250,000 by their former team.

Any NBA player with seven years or more experience whose second contract has expired is a free agent. Should he receive an offer and sign with another team, his former squad cannot retain his services or match the offer and try to trade him. To keep a seventh-year free-agent player, the original team must offer a raise of at least 25% above his previous salary.

After the 1988-89 season, unsigned players with four years experience will qualify under the new plan and after the 1993-94 season, players with three years experience are eligible.

As it stands today, 33 players will become unencumbered free agents at the end of the playoffs. With the exception of a few all-stars like Moses Malone, Sidney Moncrief and Tom Chambers, the group comprises players like Johnson, who has averaged 10.4 points and 5.1 assists during his seven seasons with the Washington Bullets.

Johnson was a free agent before the 1987-88 season but, due to foot injuries that limited him to 32 games the previous two seasons, there was little interest beyond Washington. In the Bullets recently concluded season, the guard played in 75 regular-season and all five playoff games, leading him to wonder how he's regarded now.

"I think it will be very interesting," he said. "I'm pretty excited. Last year at this time I really had no options, because of the foot injuries and because of the system. Now I think that I've proven that I can play, so we'll see."

For the NBA owners, the greatest fear is that the free agents will all go packing for Los Angeles, Boston and big money, glamour cities like New York and Chicago. Stern says the salary cap will prohibit that, and also reasons that a team still has plenty of time to ensure that its young talent won't want to go anywhere else.

"If you have a guy you drafted for five years, that's a pretty good shot," he said. "All these negotiations (in sports) are over the concept of free agency. You can't buy that from players, you can't say, 'Here, here's $10, promise me that you won't ask for this anymore.'

"That's the thread that runs through talks, 'If I don't want to be here where can I go?' That's what we addressed. If a guy is intent on leaving, he'll play out his contract and go. But the teams have an option. Take someone like Brad Daugherty. He likes Cleveland because they make him happy. Then the team gets into a winning situation and is competing for a championship. Everyone is happy, everything is good."

Not quite, say some coaches. Despite all the talk about natural ability, the truth is that the Larry Birds and Magic Johnsons of the league got to the top because they worked harder than everyone else. Now, if everyone is making superstar money, said one Eastern Conference coach, "I don't know how you're gonna be able to coach guys anymore.

"You're going to have to give guys four- or five-year deals to get them to stay with your team, and unless he is a superstar you know that he's gonna take a year or two off somewhere down the line."

Stern argues that such talk is an "almost racist approach." He asks, "What's uncoachable? Is Bruce Springsteen uncoachable? Does he tank it because he pulls down $1 million for a show? Is Michael Jackson uncoachable? If that happens, it only says something about the way teams select players, how they indoctrinate them and motivate them. I've seen Moses Malone in all-star games where he's only getting $1,500 clearing guys out of the lane in a way that money can't buy."

By the end of the new contract between the league and the NBAPA, the salary cap of most teams will have almost doubled from the current $5 million. As in the old agreement, the players will receive 53% of gross revenues, which could bring an increase of about $400,000 to today's average $500,000 salary.

"When we first heard about the new agreement, we went straight to our owner and asked him about it," said the Eastern Conference coach. "He said everything was fine--it didn't bother him at all. Either these guys (the league and its owners) are incredibly dumb or there's more money around than we ever dreamed of."

The answer surely lies closer to the second possibility. The league set an attendance record during the 1987-88 season, with the total gate increasing for the sixth straight season. Since 1983, NBA attendance has climbed more than 31%.

Currently, the league receives about $13 million from WTBS for the rights to broadcast games on cable television. Next season that amount increases to $23 million and the NBA will also begin talks with CBS for a new contract. In the next two seasons, four new franchises will enter the league. Each paid $32.5 million for that right and Stern adds that he expects all to be close to the top in both attendance and revenues.

Not only do those figures tell where the money is coming from, they also indicate why neither the league nor the players were anxious to force the issue and face the ramifications of a strike.



Stern was calling people racist for hating on the rich nba players 30 years ago.

[iamgine]

Hard cap can happen if the cap is high enough.

[Kblaze8855]

The only way to raise the hard cap high enough for the players to ever accept it is to give them an increased chunk of the revenue by percentage and wasn

[iamgine]

It could be a regressive hard cap, non negotiable for a long time. Like...above a certain amount (with inflation) the percentage decreases. In the long run it could be better for the owners even though they might take a loss now.

[Overdrive]

You hear about hard caps...which will never happen. The players wouldnt agree....the NBA would miss seasons. You can come in with "Well then let them miss seasons! Owners need to take control!" all you want...youre living in a fantasy land. It will not happen. THe NBA wont just fold for years to break the players backs. Period. You thinking they should means nothing to the real world. It costs too much to not come through on those Tv contracts. They are not gonna miss seasons with a new digital rights/tv deal being negotiated which it will be soon. It would cost more money than its worth. The real money is is selling tv rights not selling tickets to games. Missing seasons to bully the union costs too much money. Period.

You hear about needing NFL style franchise tags....which would not only be hard t oget by the players union...but would cripple the teams trying to use them if it were NFL style. To get the players onboard the starting pay would have to be insane....and raise by insane rates if you kept trying to use it. Much like how the NFLs does it would eventually price you out of keeping anyone and they would walk anyway. Why pay Paul George 54 million dollars to not win when you can trade him for assets?


Which gets me to my point....



One way I can see teams and players accepting if done right....

The pre Tom Chambers(88) rules where the players first team has right of first refusal. It sounds like restricted free agency but it isnt. Not quite....


After 76 when Oscar settled the lawsuit against the ABA/NBA they agreed to allow free agency. But it only applied to veterans with a set number of years of service(easily accepted now in the form of rookie contracts). Vets could choose who to play for....with a catch.

You can sign for whatever money ____ wants to pay you...and your team can match it if you accept....OR...match it and trade you to the team you signed with. IF you dont come to terms? The NBA would have an arbitrator come to terms for you. And who wants that? It rarely happened. IT would often be straight up cash....but many times it was players and the deals went down as trades in history but were really free agent signings. The best real world example is Moses Malone.

He was a free agent after 82. He was the leagues MVP. The biggest FA ever.

He signs with Philly who had made 3 finals without winning and had Doc(MVP from the season before) and 3 other all stars.

Houston matches to the leagues surprise....they knew the Rockets didnt have the money. But they just wanted compensation. They didnt wanna let it reach arbitration so the deal ended up being Cauldwell Jones(Good athlete/shot blocker), a first round pick, and cash. Look it up anywhere Moses was traded in Philly. In reality...he was a free agent signing. And the Rockets did well. They tanked without him and got SAmpson and Hakeem out of it. They actually had the #1 and #3 picks the following year(Drafted Rodney Mccray....great defender you have no reason to be aware of). How did a team as good as the 83 76ers(65 wins....champs...nearly swept the playoffs) have a #3 pick?

The same way the Lakers had the #1 pick(worthy) the year before despite being the champions.

The Cleveland Cavaliers were idiots.

They traded their top pick in consecutive years for garbage veterans from the two NBA finals teams while they were among the worst in the league.

The Cavs owner was soon kicked out of the league and he is the reason you can no longer trade consecutive #1 picks. Just some trivia for you there....

Rockets got a swift rebuild with a top lottery pick and the 76ers got to win the title with the first free agency spearheaded superteam.

Pretty much all the old system did was make it a lock that nobody ever walked for nothing. Even if all the owner wanted was cash.....which was often the case at the time. Teams made less income. Owners wanted cash more than players. Gus Williams(Sonics superstar) was traded to the Sonics from the Suns for cash. The Knicks turned down Doctor J from the Nets instead insisting on getting 5 million dollars in cash(yes...the Knicks have been stupid for about 40 years now).

So you see a lot of "Traded to the ____ for cash) deals. But it was really whatever the team demanded...because nobody wanted the league to decide for them.

Some version of the old Right of first refusal rule is about as far as I think the NBA could push it and get it by the union. The player stills gets paid....he goes where he wants...you just go Paul George style instead of for nothing.

The teams would be all over it. No longer any risk of losing a guy for nothing. The only issue would be who decides on the deal if the teams cant....

But can you see that happening? Is someone gonna let Silver decide whats enough for KAT or Devin Booker when they can work it out themselves?

Nah. Plus is removes one of the big threats of not going along with it when a player demands out. Losing him for nothing. When you CANT lose him for nothing...why honor his trade demand unless you just wanna do him a favor or get rid of the hassle? You wont be forced into it by getting left with nothing like the Cavs last year, Raptors with Leonard now, or...the Magic with Shaq.


Can you really see the NBA pulling off anything more restrictive than the 80s system without losing seasons to the players union refusal? I dont.

But I think it could be pulled off. I dont know that the players would fight it too much. Same pay if not better.....same choice of destination.

Would you take issue with it as a player?


Doubt the owners need money these days, but if you can't do a s&t ala KD/Dlo send a capexception at the new contractrate the other way.

[PP34Deuce]

Gone in America are the days of people staying at a job past 3 years so why should players?

I know teams get upset and fans share the sentiment but this isnt as huge an issue as people think. Players are smarter at understanding the rules and the NBA is trying to keep up. It's like all the tech giants who abuse the rules and regulations..government is so behind.

Itll balance out within 3 to 5 years. The league will adjust and theyve always been about compromise.

NFL is not like that.

[bladefd]

How about every team gets to void 1 contract once every 3 years or at least get it off the cap? It would allow them some flexibility to get out of 1 trash contract every few years

[DMAVS41]

How about every team gets to void 1 contract once every 3 years or at least get it off the cap? It would allow them some flexibility to get out of 1 trash contract every few years

They had essentially that...it was called the Amnesty Clause.

[RealSkipBayless]

Can you please unban Dray n Klay?

Thank you.

[brooks_thompson]

I have to go off on a little tangent for a minute, I'm sorry.

My biggest problem with this trade request crap, and an aspect nobody ever talks about, is how all the NBA guys talk about it being a 'brotherhood'. Yet no star requesting a trade ever seems to consider that he is sending 2 or more guys to a situation and location he considers undesirable. Take Shai Gilgeous in the PG deal, for example. The Clippers fawned over him and put tons of resources towards his development in his rookie year. They made him feel confident, like he could be a future star. Who would want to leave that situation to go to Billy Donovan's staff? And then there's Gallinari, who willingly signed with the Clippers under Jerry West when they weren't looking so hot. Then boom, he's going to an OKC team that's tearing it down, because another player wanted to be where he was, NOT because another general manager found him desirable.

People can say it's a business all they want. Sometimes it is, and sometimes calling it 'just a business' is a lame excuse to act selfishly. It's a totally different thing for two general managers to agree to a trade than it is for one player to force his way to the place he wants to be (forcing others out of that place to make room). The players have become some lame bastards.

[34-24 Footwork]

It's quite simple.

If you're Indy, OKC, Utah, Boston, etc, then start hiring euros and white americans, who don't have the same preference for LA/NY that seemingly most black athletes have.

Simple free market solution, that Mark Cuban has now embraced.

It makes too much sense though, so no one will do it.

Lol. League will become much more interesting; all those teams would SUCK on another level.

[Jasper]

I have to go off on a little tangent for a minute, I'm sorry.

My biggest problem with this trade request crap, and an aspect nobody ever talks about, is how all the NBA guys talk about it being a 'brotherhood'. Yet no star requesting a trade ever seems to consider that he is sending 2 or more guys to a situation and location he considers undesirable. Take Shai Gilgeous in the PG deal, for example. The Clippers fawned over him and put tons of resources towards his development in his rookie year. They made him feel confident, like he could be a future star. Who would want to leave that situation to go to Billy Donovan's staff? And then there's Gallinari, who willingly signed with the Clippers under Jerry West when they weren't looking so hot. Then boom, he's going to an OKC team that's tearing it down, because another player wanted to be where he was, NOT because another general manager found him desirable.

People can say it's a business all they want. Sometimes it is, and sometimes calling it 'just a business' is a lame excuse to act selfishly. It's a totally different thing for two general managers to agree to a trade than it is for one player to force his way to the place he wants to be (forcing others out of that place to make room). The players have become some lame bastards.

Problem is money rules 90% of the nutrition of the leagues players , but players also aren't loyal to contracts they signed with intent to be there.
One place looks better , greener grasses , they don't even work with a franchise , but buddy up with someone and force a trade.
The NBA is open market , and I doubt we will ever see the type of teams Boston and LA were in the 80's-90's including the Bulls.
I appreciate the Bucks big time , cause they have one star and everyone likes the franchise and star and are hoping to complete the chip run.

One year to the next players jump ship and all it does is make it even harder to pull a roster together and actually have chemistry that typically takes time.

[Shogon]

It's not going to fix free agency. It might make it ever so slightly less painful, but it's still going to be painful.

Aside from that, by far the biggest problem with the NBA is something that can't be fixed.

The biggest problem with the NBA is the media and the fans are simple minded, embarrassingly intellectually lazy, lacking in depth analysis, and or flat out stupid... and I say that primarily because so, so, so many fans only value rings.

Winning rings is the difference between people saying you suck and people saying you're the best.

And that's the truth.

There is nothing the NBA can do to counter act the "win it all in a team sport or you're an absolute mouthbreathing moron loser as an individual." I mean I absolutely cringe just typing it out. But unfortunately that's how people think.

Michael Jordan's career absolutely confused the media and the fan base into thinking that he primarily did it alone.

It's lazy, it's stupid, and it's inaccurate. And the NBA can't do anything to change it.

[GimmeThat]

so far the league structure is as so: it may seem ideal to help a franchise where the ownership isn't ranked as the best during the prime year on a stacked team, ignoring fans perception as they prove themselves to the "brotherhood" then later ponders retirement rings while cashing leftover checks

the way owners have attempted to fix this, is waiving players, or having players leave their team yet remain on the payroll still. So the numerical way of fixing this, is structure contracts (by current free agencies, most likely vet minimum contracts) where the franchise/seeding of their past team is included in their revenue sharing contract.

[Carbine]

You have to remove max contracts. That's the only real problem with the current system.

You can form superteams because you can strip the roster bare and get 3 of them and fill out the rest with vets. Boom instant contender.


You remove the max salary and all of a sudden players are being paid what they should be.

If LeBron wants to have his superteams he better be willing to take tens of millions less per year than what he would make otherwise.

If he does that at least it's commendable in a way. Like Brady taking way less than he's worth with the Pats.

You gotta remove the situations like the Conley's of the league being paid more than Kawhi Leonard will make next year. Isn't Conley making 40+ million for the next couple seasons?

Remove the max, let them sign for however much they can negotiate for.

[iamgine]

You have to remove max contracts. That's the only real problem with the current system.

You can form superteams because you can strip the roster bare and get 3 of them and fill out the rest with vets. Boom instant contender.


You remove the max salary and all of a sudden players are being paid what they should be.

If LeBron wants to have his superteams he better be willing to take tens of millions less per year than what he would make otherwise.

If he does that at least it's commendable in a way. Like Brady taking way less than he's worth with the Pats.

You gotta remove the situations like the Conley's of the league being paid more than Kawhi Leonard will make next year. Isn't Conley making 40+ million for the next couple seasons?

Remove the max, let them sign for however much they can negotiate for.
I dunno about this. It seems like it will lead to unintended consequences. Like the league's biggest stars will rot in small market teams while being paid $100M and never winning a championship.

[Overdrive]

Michael Jordan's career absolutely confused the media and the fan base into thinking that he primarily did it alone.


It's Barkley's and Malone's career that made the late '00 Celtics & the Heatles. Not Jordan's.

Players don't want to be either of them. Of course Lebron was and will also be compared to MJ, but KD, KG and the likes? They're in the Barkley territory and rings are the seperator.

[Kblaze8855]

I dunno about this. It seems like it will lead to unintended consequences. Like the league's biggest stars will rot in small market teams while being paid $100M and never winning a championship.


Yea it just results in a lot of great players having terrible careers while even the supposed "real" fans rank them as chokers and empty stat losers because they lost with teams that shouldnt have won. The years where guys are content to lose forever and make money are over. Guys play to win now. They will lose out on a few million and piss off some fans who dont actually care about them just to not end up on a "Best to never...." list ranked under guys who happened to land next to other stars.

[90sgoat]

Lol. League will become much more interesting; all those teams would SUCK on another level.

Do you think Dallas will suck this season?

[bladefd]

They had essentially that...it was called the Amnesty Clause.

I know, but it was a 1-time deal though. Not every 3 years or something

[Xiao Yao You]

You have to remove max contracts. That's the only real problem with the current system.

You can form superteams because you can strip the roster bare and get 3 of them and fill out the rest with vets. Boom instant contender.


You remove the max salary and all of a sudden players are being paid what they should be.

If LeBron wants to have his superteams he better be willing to take tens of millions less per year than what he would make otherwise.

If he does that at least it's commendable in a way. Like Brady taking way less than he's worth with the Pats.

You gotta remove the situations like the Conley's of the league being paid more than Kawhi Leonard will make next year. Isn't Conley making 40+ million for the next couple seasons?

Remove the max, let them sign for however much they can negotiate for.

Conley is closer to 30. Was a lot when he signed it. Not so much now

[Gunslinger]

It's Barkley's and Malone's career that made the late '00 Celtics & the Heatles. Not Jordan's.

Players don't want to be either of them. Of course Lebron was and will also be compared to MJ, but KD, KG and the likes? They're in the Barkley territory and rings are the seperator.

Bran was easily on that list before he won his first chip due to forming a superteam. I remember him getting Elgin Baylor talks before the 2012 chip. Even with superteams for all of his rangs, he could still easily be 1/9 or even 0/9 depending on a couple of bounces/ref calls. Without superteams? I have a feeling he retires ringless.