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

[Kblaze8855]

Jalen and Chet are both eligible for 250-296 million.

I think it’s 250 or so but goes up with an all NBA pick. Jalen was already all NBA so I think one more would elevate the back end of his deal to just shy 300 million But feel free to correct me.

I’m not gonna ask you which one they should keep short term because they will probably pay them both. They won’t even be in the luxury tax if they pay them both. They’re gonna have another couple of years after that before they reach Celtics territory and have to break it up.

But the day is coming. That’s why the CBA was written that way. They’re not gonna let you have a Supermax then 2 more.

This is obviously a repeat of the previous thunder contender with chat, probably in the Harden role.

people still question if they chose the right guy to keep Between Westbrook and Harden, even though Westbrook was more established, and it really came down to Harden or Ibaka.

Chet, I suppose has the higher ceiling…

Jalen getting shipped out for a gang of picks so they reload into the 2030s is pretty possible.

They probably figure they can win at least one more, unlike the Celtics, who are already in the luxury when they won. They still have a shit load of picks and in a couple years whoever they move is gonna get them four or five more I’m sure.

They’re going to be loaded with assets. They almost can’t even afford to use for the next 10 years. They have the picks and the talent to trade for whoever comes up on the market Star wise but whoever it is, they aren’t gonna be able to pay for long.

You have to get out of the tax for two years in five to not have the repeater penalty where the league starts, taking picks and team building tools like your mid-level exception and the ability to make certain kinds of trades. And they aren’t in it yet so this isn’t a right now thing.

I’m just guessing Williams isn’t gonna retire in OKC unless Chet gets hurt before signing back.


The NBA has basically decided to eliminate the era defining consistent lineups of the past. The system we have wouldn’t allow the showtime Lakers. Or birds Celtics. I’m not sure you could create the warriors again from scratch.

you can keep your bird forever and you might hold onto your Mchale, but you can’t have Parish on top of it and you forget about having Dennis Johnson.

Is the NBA better if the Lakers had to send James Worthy to the nets for a bunch of picks because 12 teams would sign him to a super max offer and they could only keep showtime together for three years once Magic got paid?

They’ve basically eliminated dynasties so we have eight straight years of different champions. While acknowledging that run started before the new rules It feels like it’s going to be going on for sometime.

The league and fans basically identify arrows by the Dynasty of the time. The era fans are least familiar with is the 70s when there wasn’t one.

The NFL thrives off the parity, but basketball is not football in this country.

Is the sport better for having a ton of one and done champions that get shredded for draft picks because more franchises have the potential to win? Or is it worse because We don’t get the one or two teams that feel special?

I suppose the thunder could navigate it well enough to be considered special anyway….

[Baller234]

I don't think the parity you're describing is entirely owed to this. It's a factor of course but I also think it has to do with the randomness of the modern game. So it's a combination of both.

I don't know if having dynasties or not having them is better for the league. I do like parity but not when it's random and fluky.

[Im Still Ballin]

The '80s were insane. Post-merger, pre-expansion. Imagine having multiple Hall of Famers coming off the bench... Easily the best teams in NBA history.

[tontoz]

I think the max salary rules have backfired. Now any good young player gets the max, and anyone who makes 3rd team All NBA makes the supermax. Getting rid of all the max rules would force teams to actually negotiate contracts instead of just gifting them.

[Xiao Yao You]

I think the max salary rules have backfired. Now any good young player gets the max, and anyone who makes 3rd team All NBA makes the supermax. Getting rid of all the max rules would force teams to actually negotiate contracts instead of just gifting them.

Teams would be even less stacked if tou are paying one player most of your payroll to 1 player instead of two or 3

[Norcaliblunt]

I’ve always said the constant discussion of contracts, salary caps, aprons, luxury tax, player options, team options, buyouts, the CBA, the ratings, yada yada yada is what’s wrong with the league.

Instead of talking about great teams and basketball like the 80’s Celtics and Lakers, or the great champions we’ve actually have had the last 8 years here we are talking about off the court rules.

So yes the rules make the league suck.

[tontoz]

Teams would be even less stacked if tou are paying one player most of your payroll to 1 player instead of two or 3

You don't have to pay them that. You have to actually negotiate.

[Xiao Yao You]

You don't have to pay them that. You have to actually negotiate.

The top players arent going to get paid more than they do currently?

[tontoz]

The top players arent going to get paid more than they do currently?

Sure the MVPs will. But the problem is someone like Beal getting the supermax just because he is eligible for it.

[Xiao Yao You]

Sure the MVPs will. But the problem is someone like Beal getting the supermax just because he is eligible for it.

Biggest problem with beal is the no trade clause

[Norcaliblunt]

Regardless of “the rules” it’s on the players for taking the money that ruins or breaks up the team.

Players could sign for a little less to try keep these “dynasties” alive but don’t.

Bottom line end of discussion.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Holmgren has missed more regular season games than he's played in. I'm not so sure he's getting every dollar he normally would, or maybe he gets a deal like Zion Williamson's.

But to touch on the subject of this topicif you are a fan of talented team then sooner or later you will hate the second apron. Historically we are used to seeing teams fall off because either the core got too old or the team made bad decisions. With the second apron a GM that makes good picks in the draft and good trades for the supporting cast will find himself picking which good players they are going to get rid of because they made a smart move in the past. That's what's happening to the Celtics. They didn't sign a max free agent from anyone since Gordon Hayward.No robbing opponents of talent through bidding wars. Just paying their own players, who they happened to be right on too frequently.

It's very possible, given age and injury, that they still would be replacing Porzingis and Holiday this summer but there's no way they would be trading KP for Niang. That was nothing but a salary dump. Hypothetically, if Tatum didn't get injured? The NBA's rules would be forcing a rebuild, if not outright destroying one of it's best, most-marketed teams. And the same thing will happen to every team that manages to collect a lot of talent until/unless a bunch of young men each willingly sacrifice 10s of millions of dollars knowing that they are in the 10 to 15 years of their lives where they will be making 99.9% of the money they will ever have (not happening).

There is probably a floor of popularity the NBA can bank on but imagine a real marquee Finals match-up where Tatum and Brown are back in for the 5th or 6th time, facing SGA going for a threepeat, something like that where the elite teams are seriously established and going at it...we can only imagine, we won't actually see it.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Regardless of “the rules” it’s on the players for taking the money that ruins or breaks up the team.

Players could sign for a little less to try keep these “dynasties” alive but don’t.

Bottom line end of discussion.

How many times has Jrue Holiday been traded? If he signs for 5 mil per year it just means Brad Stevens will get an extra first rounder when he decides to move him.

[tontoz]

Biggest problem with beal is the no trade clause

PG13 doesn't have a no trade clause but it's still a toxic contract.

[Kblaze8855]

Regardless of “the rules” it’s on the players for taking the money that ruins or breaks up the team.

Players could sign for a little less to try keep these “dynasties” alive but don’t.

Bottom line end of discussion.

it’s only the end of the discussion if you think someone who started life poor and is trying to maximize the brief window of earning potential is the one who should be sacrificing instead of people like the guy who runs the Nuggets talking about possibly having to trade Jokic over money when his dad owns the Nuggets, the Rams, Arsenal and an NHL team and his mom is the daughter of the founder of Walmart.

both sides could afford to make less money or to generally be less wealthy, but one side has quite a bit more wiggle room.

People like Dan Gilbert have wealth that fluctuates by $20-$30 billion. He’s been from 20 billion up to 40 billion down to 30 up to 50 and now he’s around 27. And we’re talking about players who could afford to leave some on the table?

Steve Ballmers worth like $150 billion. But it’s Kawhi Leonard’s fault if he doesn’t choose to simply pay the repeater luxury tax?

The owners have made it cost prohibitive to build these teams and keep them, but quite a few of them are the kind of rich where nothing is truly cost prohibitive.

The Cash poor NBA owners are actually people like the Buss family who were holding an asset worth $10 billion till they decided to cash it out.

Blaming players because people who have virtually but not quite inexhaustible resources Choose to limit what they will spend for contention?

Especially when even if everyone leaves something on the table teams like the Celtics would still get broken up? They got rid of their fourth and fifth options And saved 180,000,000. If their five best players all left something on the table? It wouldn’t be enough to keep the team together if ownership doesn’t feel like it paying to lose for at least a year.


It’s bad business, so Owners choose not to do it even though they could. Knowing that I don’t know how you blame the players for doing good business when relatively speaking, they need the money a lot more.