Are you generally in favor of the rules forcing great teams to break up?

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;15021312]So that’s all three.


[IMG]https://www.hostpic.org/images/2507110239590331.jpeg[/IMG]


Let the countdown begin[/QUOTE]

they're gonna be in 2nd apron in 2 years or maybe cant pay for a 5th starter. wallace has potential to earn like 25mil his next contract. Its gonna be shai caruso dort jalen chet and draft picks on the bench

[IMG]https://www.hostpic.org/images/2507110505210381.jpeg[/IMG]


The cap will be about 200 million by that final season.

Im’ asking why are you acting stupid, like the free market doesn’t exist?

I mean you made a whole thread about rules when it doesn’t come down to rules at all.

It comes down to the free market and players leaving for more money.

Why are you making it more complicated?

So you can sound smart?

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;15019735]The counter is just because you drafted well doesn’t mean it’s good for the league if you dominate. Imagine say a richer guy like ballmer or Gilbert owned okc and there was no 2nd apron. They could be flipping Hartenstein Caruso every pick for Giannis in half a year. It be great to watch for a half year but other teams are basically dead for Giannis’ whole prime. Lot of fans wouldn’t be happy. 3/4 of the golden state super team also home grown.

Can also argue it’s smart team building to put together a team that’s not drafted. Haliburton and siakam were traded for. Siakam trade wasn’t the obvious superstar trade most teams didn’t want to pay him a max. If there wasn’t a 2nd apron Indiana could’ve gone for a 3rd star too I think with nembard and turner making good money. Nembard other salary picks for Desmond bane for example like Orlando did.

I get fans see okc current squad way differently than say the kd Kyrie harden nets where everyone forced their way there and the owner spends infinite money but Indiana was technically built the same way. They just feel way different because the names they got weren’t big.[/QUOTE]

The problem with this is that the NBA has always done better when there have been established, dominant teams. The league was growing when Minneapolis ruled, and the Celtics, and the Lakers/Celtic era, and the Bulls, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, and the Warriors. It faced its worst stretches when there was more parity, during the 70s and now.

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;15021513]Im’ asking why are you acting stupid, like the free market doesn’t exist?

I mean you made a whole thread about rules when it doesn’t come down to rules at all.

It comes down to the free market and players leaving for more money.

Why are you making it more complicated?

So you can sound smart?[/QUOTE]

It’s not a free market, and it’s not even close. In fact, it’s not even a market in the traditional sense. The goal of the Lakers is not to increase their market share by putting other teams out of business.

[QUOTE=Duffy Pratt;15021520]It’s not a free market, and it’s not even close. In fact, it’s not even a market in the traditional sense. The goal of the Lakers is not to increase their market share by putting other teams out of business.[/QUOTE]

So you think the leagues rigged? Lmao.

Players leave for more money. Point blank period end of discussion.

If you are implying anything else you are LITERALLY SAYING THE LEGUE IS RIGGED!!!”

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;15021524]So you think the leagues rigged? Lmao.

Players leave for more money. Point blank period end of discussion.

If you are implying anything else you are LITERALLY SAYING THE LEGUE IS RIGGED!!!”[/QUOTE]

What? There are plenty of reasons a player, particularly in the NBA, would want to go somewhere aside from money right then and there.