The Lockout has arrived.

[Superman]

You are really right. But it is only one side of coin. I think that root of problem it is absence of compensation for free agents leaving to more attractive franchise. For example: LeBron leave Cleavland for Miami and Cavaliers stay with nothing.
I think, that in this case Miami should pass to Cleav any part of their salary cap depends on size of Lebron's contract. Suppose , something like 5 million for max contract. So, Cavaliers will increase their possibility for free agents resigning, and Miami will reduce their ability for resign another free agents from others. I mean, that we desperately need system that will give compensations to teams which can't hold their players from departure.

Cleveland got several draft picks and a $14 million trade exception from the "trade" that landed LeBron in Miami.

On the flip side, they could have gotten nothing. If we want to boost compensation for a team that tried to keep a player on a max contract and got turned down, then let's talk. But Cleveland didn't get left as high and dry as they could have been. I'm not really shedding tears for the Cavs as a franchise. Teams have always lost good players; this is nothing new.

 

[sidney]

Carmelo and Deron Williams got traded because their teams didn't think they'd be able to keep them once they hit free agency. It had nothing to do with Bird rights. They wanted to get compensation before it was too late. Carmelo didn't force his way to the Knicks through trade because of Bird rights; he did it because he wanted to sign his extension before the lockout. Utah traded Deron Williams because they saw it unlikely that he would resign with them. Again, not a S&T and had nothing to do with Bird rights.

Most of the time, players aren't forcing their way anywhere. If a player says he wants to be traded, and the team acquiesces, that's the team's prerogative, and again, it has nothing to do with Bird rights. Usually when a S&T that has anything to do with Bird rights is done, it's done because the Bird team has no intention of keep the player but wants to get some compensation for him, like when we traded for Brad Miller. The Pacers didn't want to pay him, he could have signed with a number of teams outright, but he agreed to a S&T that the Pacers perpetrated for their own benefit. It wasn't a case of him forcing his way anywhere. They could have told him to trample off and sign a non-Bird deal with whoever would have him. You're acting like S&T deals hold the Bird team ransom, when in reality it's a way for them to recoup something for a player they're losing anyways.

The Amare deal is most certainly NOT an anomaly. I think perceptions have been grossly skewed away from reality with the craziness of the past year or so. In reality, when a player is a free agent and wants to leave, he just leaves. He goes wherever he wants to a team that can pay him what he wants to be paid. The Bird rights give the home team an advantage, and that's why over the years big name free agents often stayed at home for max contracts (and still do, like Joe Johnson and Rudy Gay). But there are still players who pick up and leave for a new team, and it's not just Amare Stoudemire. And again, in that case, the Suns didn't want to keep him for what he wanted. The fact that he said he would have stayed is an argument for Bird rights as they are.

Bird rights are good. Being able to trade them in a S&T diminishes the effect they have on the player's decision. A superstar can force their new team to push for a sign and trade and end up with all the incentives there that were supposed to give the hometown team an advantage. Why would they stay in a small market? If you don't see that as a major problem in the NBA, we'll just disagree. IMO what happened in Miami could ruin the league. I'm in favor of making Bird rights more powerful, not less.

Amare is an anomaly for a superstar trade, not a regular FA move. His team did less than they were able to keep him. I'm specifically addressing the superstar movement, not lesser player movement.

 

[Superman]

Bird rights are good. Being able to trade them in a S&T diminishes the effect they have on the player's decision. A superstar can force their new team to push for a sign and trade and end up with all the incentives there that were supposed to give the hometown team an advantage. Why would they stay in a small market? If you don't see that as a major problem in the NBA, we'll just disagree. IMO what happened in Miami could ruin the league. I'm in favor of making Bird rights more powerful, not less.

Amare is an anomaly for a superstar trade, not a regular FA move. His team did less than they were able to keep him. I'm specifically addressing the superstar movement, not lesser player movement.

This is what I disagree with. They can't force the Bird team to do a S&T. The Bird team can tell them to kick rocks after they play out their contract. The S&T is the Bird team's method of securing compensation. If they aren't interested in doing that, they don't have to. Like Phoenix. In reality, the Suns should have done a S&T, and Amare would have gotten his 6th year and more money, but the Suns said "screw it" and let him walk. They tried to trade him the season before because they knew they weren't going to resign him. It's not that they knew he wouldn't stay, it's that they didn't want to spend the $130 million or whatever to keep him. It's a decision they made without regard for their Bird rights or Stoudemire's preferences.

What happened in Miami is not a referendum on Bird rights, except to say that Cleveland's Bird rights were able to secure them some compensation rather than losing him for nothing. What happened in Miami is that star players decided that they wanted to use their free agency as they saw fit. If you want to restrict star player movement, you can bolster Bird rights, but that has nothing to do with teams who don't wish to retain players.

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/sho...ngs-rebuild...&p=839750&viewfull=1#post839750

There are ways to bolster Bird teams ability to get compensation, and restrict teams from doing what Miami did. I had some ideas that are in that link above. I just think people are being far too reactionary to a rare occurence that they didn't like, when that's the exception to the rule.

 

[sidney]

This is what I disagree with. They can't force the Bird team to do a S&T. The Bird team can tell them to kick rocks after they play out their contract. The S&T is the Bird team's method of securing compensation. If they aren't interested in doing that, they don't have to. Like Phoenix. In reality, the Suns should have done a S&T, and Amare would have gotten his 6th year and more money, but the Suns said "screw it" and let him walk. They tried to trade him the season before because they knew they weren't going to resign him. It's not that they knew he wouldn't stay, it's that they didn't want to spend the $130 million or whatever to keep him. It's a decision they made without regard for their Bird rights or Stoudemire's preferences.

What happened in Miami is not a referendum on Bird rights, except to say that Cleveland's Bird rights were able to secure them some compensation rather than losing him for nothing. What happened in Miami is that star players decided that they wanted to use their free agency as they saw fit. If you want to restrict star player movement, you can bolster Bird rights, but that has nothing to do with teams who don't wish to retain players.

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/sho...ngs-rebuild...&p=839750&viewfull=1#post839750

There are ways to bolster Bird teams ability to get compensation, and restrict teams from doing what Miami did. I had some ideas that are in that link above. I just think people are being far too reactionary to a rare occurence that they didn't like, when that's the exception to the rule.

The player can't force a S&T, but they can force the team they want to sign with to commit valuable assets to attempt it. And in the end, that's pretty much always going to work if the player is valuable enough. NY either didn't have the 1st rounders to entice Phoenix or Amare wasn't worth it to them since he's a borderline superstar.

You listed some other interesting ideas in that other thread that have been discussed as well. My view is that you allow a reasonable hometown advantage for teams to keep the player. The player should not have a way of signing with another team and still get that same financial benefit. You want to leave? Fine, but you are getting less money and years period and there is no way around it. I think we'd see far fewer superstars jumping around to build super teams if that was the case.

 

[Superman]

The player can't force a S&T, but they can force the team they want to sign with to commit valuable assets to attempt it. And in the end, that's pretty much always going to work if the player is valuable enough. NY either didn't have the 1st rounders to entice Phoenix or Amare wasn't worth it to them since he's a borderline superstar.

You listed some other interesting ideas in that other thread that have been discussed as well. My view is that you allow a reasonable hometown advantage for teams to keep the player. The player should not have a way of signing with another team and still get that same financial benefit. You want to leave? Fine, but you are getting less money and years period and there is no way around it. I think we'd see far fewer superstars jumping around to build super teams if that was the case.

Amare was a free agent, and the Knicks had the cap space. That's not the scenario that S&T is used in. It's used when a team wants compensation and the best compensation they can get is from a team without adequate cap space, and the player agrees to it. No one can force a S&T, it's a mutual agreement by all parties involved. No one gets the short end.


And again, my major objection to all this fuss is that I believe that if a star player wants to go play for someone else, he should be allowed to leave, and I don't think his compensation should be drastically neutered just because he doesn't want to stay where he is. Whether we're talking about big market vs small markets issues, or if we're just talking about good organization vs bad organization, or anything else, if LeBron James wants to leave Cleveland, and he's earned his free agency, then I don't think he should have to play for significantly less than what he would make if he stayed.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I like the idea of compensation picks but the problem is that the talent level and roster size in the NBA vs. the NFL or MLB where comp picks are common practice makes it an unfair trade. If the comp picks were in between the lottery and non-lottery of the first round then you may be on to something.

The current Bird rights allow the player to hold their team hostage - sign and trade me or you get nothing and we'll make sure everybody knows it. But the take backs usually suck and probably benefit the new team by freeing up some salary and roster space. Congratulations, we just signed your star SF! But, if you are willing to deal we'll give you our third string malcontent SF on an MLE contract plus the 29th pick in the draft. Blow me over with a feather, where do I sign?

 

[sidney]

Amare was a free agent, and the Knicks had the cap space. That's not the scenario that S&T is used in. It's used when a team wants compensation and the best compensation they can get is from a team without adequate cap space, and the player agrees to it. No one can force a S&T, it's a mutual agreement by all parties involved. No one gets the short end.


And again, my major objection to all this fuss is that I believe that if a star player wants to go play for someone else, he should be allowed to leave, and I don't think his compensation should be drastically neutered just because he doesn't want to stay where he is. Whether we're talking about big market vs small markets issues, or if we're just talking about good organization vs bad organization, or anything else, if LeBron James wants to leave Cleveland, and he's earned his free agency, then I don't think he should have to play for significantly less than what he would make if he stayed.

I'll say again...I agree with you that one party cannot force a S&T. Never said they could. They can force their new team to commit assets and effort to it as a condition of signing. The player does so in his own interest to get his extra year and $$. The signing team does so to lure the player into signing. The losing team does so because table scraps are better than nothing now that their small market franchise has been devastated.

No on gets the short end of the stick? Hardly.

And your last paragraph....I just could not disagree more. Take away a system that gives small market teams any advantage to keep their guys and think league will fail. Especially in today's NBA. The NFL which is less dependent on single player talent gets this and it's time for the NBA to do the same and strengthen franchise rights to keep their guys.

 

[Superman]

I like the idea of compensation picks but the problem is that the talent level and roster size in the NBA vs. the NFL or MLB where comp picks are common practice makes it an unfair trade. If the comp picks were in between the lottery and non-lottery of the first round then you may be on to something.

The current Bird rights allow the player to hold their team hostage - sign and trade me or you get nothing and we'll make sure everybody knows it. But the take backs usually suck and probably benefit the new team by freeing up some salary and roster space. Congratulations, we just signed your star SF! But, if you are willing to deal we'll give you our third string malcontent SF on an MLE contract plus the 29th pick in the draft. Blow me over with a feather, where do I sign?

That is a problem with comp picks. In the NFL (which is where my idea mostly came from), 3rd and 4th round picks contribute right away and sometimes even start, even for good teams. In the NBA, even late 1st rounders are often nailed to the end of the bench, so compensatory picks after the 1st round are kind of limited in value. I get that. But I also think it's unfair to stick picks into the middle of the first round. That's why I'm more in favor of the restricted free agency idea.

To the Bird rights issue (still), they don't allow the player to hold the team hostage. If your problem is that players can leverage the Bird team's ability to give them more money against the Bird team's desire to get compensation, it's important to realize that the Bird team can say no. In reality, this benefits them, it doesn't hurt them. They're losing their guy anyway. Your real issue is with free agency.

And again, this hypothetical about the Bird team taking back bad contracts is just not ever realized. As in the Miami deal, neither Cleveland nor Toronto took back any contracts whatsoever. As a matter of fact, Cleveland got three or four picks and a $14.5 million trade exception. I don't get the complaint. Denver didn't take back any bad contracts in the Carmelo deal, and actually got rid of a bad contract in Chauncey Billups, plus took back picks and a couple of solid players. I can't think of any deal in which a team did a S&T and took back a bad contract. Going back to the Miller S&T, the Pacers took back Scot Pollard, who they wanted and was expiring. Think about it: Would you do the deal you described? Wouldn't you say "no, just give me the pick"?

As the Bird team, you are under no obligation to take a bad contract back in a S&T. You can tell the player to get bent, and tell the team that doesn't have the cap space to sign him to get bent.

The problem you have isn't the Bird rights. It's free agency, and I don't think free agency should go anywhere.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

You are right that I don't like free agency. This is a privileged life and not a 9-5 job where you don't like your job you quit and find a new one. It's a sporting league and to make the league at its best player assignments should be controlled by the league. I also think free agency is largely why ticket prices are ridiculous and blue collar fans are priced out of the arena. That said this issue was long decided by the courts and so its a done deal, I am not arguing against it because it is what it is.

Which is why I argue for Bird rights to be stronger in favor of the team than the player, to put some balance back in favor of structure. No you can't force it, but you can strongly suggest it.

 

[Superman]

I'll say again...I agree with you that one party cannot force a S&T. Never said they could. They can force their new team to commit assets and effort to it as a condition of signing. The player does so in his own interest to get his extra year and $$. The signing team does so to lure the player into signing. The losing team does so because table scraps are better than nothing now that their small market franchise has been devastated.

No on gets the short end of the stick? Hardly.

I think this will be addressed in the later part of this post, but in reality, the Bird team has a choice between letting the player walk for nothing, and doing a S&T and getting something back in consideration. I think a free agent should be allowed to leave if he wants.

The idea that the small market team is being devastated is -- I think -- overly sensational. They lost their best player, but it's happened so many times throughout the history of the league that I find the sudden objection to it incredibly disingenuous. The LeBron/Miami story is not the first chapter in this saga. I have a bigger problem with the Super Team issue (which there are ways to address) than with the free agency issue. To me, if a player has played his contract out, he should be allowed to leave in free agency. It's his choice.

And your last paragraph....I just could not disagree more. Take away a system that gives small market teams any advantage to keep their guys and think league will fail. Especially in today's NBA. The NFL which is less dependent on single player talent gets this and it's time for the NBA to do the same and strengthen franchise rights to keep their guys.

That's not exactly what we have. We have a system that gives the Bird team an advantage. It has nothing to do with small vs big market teams, and as a matter of fact, it benefits the big market/big money teams more because they can afford to sustain a $90 million payroll for three or four seasons, and the only way you get to that kind of payroll is by extending your own Bird rights players. The system is not built to protect small market teams, and I don't think it should be. It should be built to stimulate competition, and the only real way to do that is with either a hard cap or a severely prohibitive luxury tax, neither of which is going to happen, I don't think.

Also, as an aside, the fact that the NFL is less dependent on single players to build good teams kind of suggests that they don't need the franchise tag as much as the NBA does. Yet they have it. And frequently you see bad teams tag players, and they remain bad teams. The only time good teams tag players is if they are still working on long term contracts. But the NFL far more frequently sees top level players switch teams via free agency, without regard for market factors, and this strengthens competition. The Saints won a Super Bowl because of free agency. All I'm saying is that the free agency is not harmful to competition.

 

[Superman]

You are right that I don't like free agency. This is a privileged life and not a 9-5 job where you don't like your job you quit and find a new one. It's a sporting league and to make the league at its best player assignments should be controlled by the league. I also think free agency is largely why ticket prices are ridiculous and blue collar fans are priced out of the arena. That said this issue was long decided by the courts and so its a done deal, I am not arguing against it because it is what it is.

Which is why I argue for Bird rights to be stronger in favor of the team than the player, to put some balance back in favor of structure. No you can't force it, but you can strongly suggest it.

I can't imagine why you would think that player assignments should be controlled by the league. I understand the objection to huge salaries, but I can't really complain about that when I have League Pass and NFL Sunday Ticket, and when I buy apparel and merchandise and tickets. It's a chicken/egg argument, really. You say prices are high because of salaries (thru free agency), but I think prices are high because demand is high. The two are closely related, obviously, but as long as arenas are selling out and TV viewership is so high that the Lakers can sign a $3 billion contract, ticket prices aren't coming down. And in reality, all that league revenue determines how much players make.

Anyways, like you said, free agency isn't going anywhere.

I'm saying regarding making Bird rights stronger is that if you make them non-tradeable, you're essentially making it impossible for a team to get any compensation if/when a player does walk.

 

[sidney]

The idea that the small market team is being devastated is -- I think -- overly sensational.

61 to 19 wins and franchise loses 25% of it's value while Lebron gets his extra guaranteed year that was meant to be the incentive for him to stay?

Cleveland will be fine...the have 2 late future firsts.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I'm saying regarding making Bird rights stronger is that if you make them non-tradeable, you're essentially making it impossible for a team to get any compensation if/when a player does walk.

First, when I say player assignments controlled by the league I mean drafts and trades should be where the big movement comes. Free agency should be less about the big stars getting paid than it is the blue collar guys getting their chance to go somewhere they will be better utilized and can maybe move up on the totem pole.

And by making Bird rights stronger and non-tradeable its about keeping the financial incentives in favor of the team that holds the player's rights. In the case of superstar max dollar players they can take a pay cut to move and be happy or make the most money on the team that invested in them. That will be their choice. But no more having their cake and eating it too. For the guys that are not max dollar guys they'll still be able to look for better opportunities elsewhere.

 

[Superman]

61 to 19 wins and franchise loses 25% of it's value while Lebron gets his extra guaranteed year that was meant to be the incentive for him to stay?

Cleveland will be fine...the have 2 late future firsts.

These are two separate issues. The fact that Cleveland went from 61 to 19 wins in one season sucks for their fans, but it is a free agent's decision to make. If he wants to leave after playing out his contract, then that's the way it is. It's not the first time a team has lost their star player to free agency, and it won't be the last. This is free agency. To get all up in arms about it now is unseemly.

As for him getting his extra year and money, was Cleveland supposed to say "no"? Really, what should they have done? The system, as it is, allowed them to get some picks and a significant trade exception in exchange for a player that was not going to stay with their team. The alternative would be for them to get nothing. Surely, something is better than nothing, no matter how little that nothing is. And I'll say again, they didn't have to take back bad contracts as a part of that deal.

In reality, both LeBron and Chris Bosh would have signed with Miami, whether their Bird teams did S&Ts or not.

If you're issue is with the SuperTeam aspect, then there are other ways to address that, like the restricted free agency I mentioned, that would prevent James and Bosh from signing with the same team in the same offseason.

 

[sidney]

In reality, both LeBron and Chris Bosh would have signed with Miami, whether their Bird teams did S&Ts or not.

Neither of us can know if that is true. Their chances of getting that extra year were extremely high if Miami was offering picks and an exception for the reasons you mentioned. I'm quite sure that was part of their pitch to get them to sign.

 

[Superman]

First, when I say player assignments controlled by the league I mean drafts and trades should be where the big movement comes. Free agency should be less about the big stars getting paid than it is the blue collar guys getting their chance to go somewhere they will be better utilized and can maybe move up on the totem pole.

And by making Bird rights stronger and non-tradeable its about keeping the financial incentives in favor of the team that holds the player's rights. In the case of superstar max dollar players they can take a pay cut to move and be happy or make the most money on the team that invested in them. That will be their choice. But no more having their cake and eating it too. For the guys that are not max dollar guys they'll still be able to look for better opportunities elsewhere.

All due respect to everyone's idea about how much money these guys make, and all that, because that's a legitimate debate, but I think that if a team has the cap space to sign a free agent and is willing to sign him to a max deal, he should be able to sign there if he wants to and make the salary he commands as a star player. He is, after all, a driving force in the league. If anyone should be able to make max money... I disagree with the idea that, if he wants to play wherever he wants to play as a free agent, he should be forced to play for significantly less.

And again, with regard to free agency and player movement, when there are real restrictions on teams (like with a hard cap), then player movement via free agency is a good thing, and it stimulates competition. The Saints don't win the Super Bowl without free agency. The Jets aren't in the AFCCG two years in a row without free agency. What separates those teams from the Redskins, who are very active in free agency, is that they made smart moves and drafted well, and have good coaching staffs, whereas the Redskins haven't been smart and have turned over the coaching staff once every two years. The divide between good teams and bad teams isn't money, not when there are real restrictions. The divide is that good teams make smart moves (and get lucky), and bad teams make dumb moves. In either case, free agency isn't the problem.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

But the NBA is the only major US sport where one player can so dramatically impact a team. The Pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassell for chrissakes. Baseball you can't put the guy in the lineup 9 times in a row or throw your star pitcher 162 games. Even in hockey star players might average around 20 minutes of ice time a night. Basketball is the only sport where the star plays 80%+ of the minutes and touches on 75%+ of the possessions. To just say a team should lose everything it is building towards because one guy thinks your city that has lined his pockets with millions for 7 years is beneath his talents is just ... well it doesn't sit well with me, I hate it, and I think that attitude should not be rewarded.

And with that I will bow out of the back and forth unless I have something new to bring to the table.

 

[Superman]

Neither of us can know if that is true. Their chances of getting that extra year were extremely high if Miami was offering picks and an exception for the reasons you mentioned. I'm quite sure that was part of their pitch to get them to sign.

All indications at the time were that both he and Bosh were leaving the extra year on the table. The Cavs and Raptors could have told Miami to "kick rocks, we're not giving those punks the satisfaction." Maybe we can't say for certain what would have happened, but it was anticipated that both of them were signing non-Bird contracts, and they both mentioned that when they announced their decisions.

 

[Superman]

But the NBA is the only major US sport where one player can so dramatically impact a team. The Pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassell for chrissakes. Baseball you can't put the guy in the lineup 9 times in a row or throw your star pitcher 162 games. Even in hockey star players might average around 20 minutes of ice time a night. Basketball is the only sport where the star plays 80%+ of the minutes and touches on 75%+ of the possessions. To just say a team should lose everything it is building towards because one guy thinks your city that has lined his pockets with millions for 7 years is beneath his talents is just ... well it doesn't sit well with me, I hate it, and I think that attitude should not be rewarded.

And with that I will bow out of the back and forth unless I have something new to bring to the table.

I understand what you're saying. I'm simply saying that when a player plays his contract out, he should be allowed to sign wherever he wants, for however much that team is willing and able to pay him. That's the way it's always been. People are upset about LeBron, but it's really nothing new.

 

[Bricklayer]

I understand what you're saying. I'm simply saying that when a player plays his contract out, he should be allowed to sign wherever he wants, for however much that team is willing and able to pay him. That's the way it's always been. People are upset about LeBron, but it's really nothing new.

Nope. Not the way it has always been (started in the 70s). Not even the way it always is now (see, Free Agency, Restricted). Now it would be nice if the players could be trusted to do what's best for the league, but of course they can't. They can be trusted to do what's best for them. When that no longer coincides with what's best for the league, it behooves you as a league to put a stop to it. You aren't running the league for the players' sakes. You are running it for your own sake, and for your customers' sakes. When free agents started running roughshod over the league a dozen years ago, there was a lockout, and out of the lockout came the concept of a maxium salary to preceisely prevent free agents from signing wherever they wanted to for however much they demanded. Good for the players? No. Good for the league? Absolutely. This is no different. Now you have a late breaking trend that is heavily damaging franchises that are already behind the 8 ball when it comes to competing. That is not good for the league or its constituent owners, or its constituent fans. So now, just like last time, would be a great time to slap down a new rule to again restrict free agency, not becuase its good for the players, but because its good for the league.

 

[whozit]

Nope. Not the way it has always been (started in the 70s). Not even the way it always is now (see, Free Agency, Restricted). Now it would be nice if the players could be trusted to do what's best for the league, but of course they can't. They can be trusted to do what's best for them. When that no longer coincides with what's best for the league, it behooves you as a league to put a stop to it. You aren't running the league for the players' sakes. You are running it for your own sake, and for your customers' sakes. When free agents started running roughshod over the league a dozen years ago, there was a lockout, and out of the lockout came the concept of a maxium salary to preceisely prevent free agents from signing wherever they wanted to for however much they demanded. Good for the players? No. Good for the league? Absolutely. This is no different. Now you have a late breaking trend that is heavily damaging franchises that are already behind the 8 ball when it comes to competing. That is not good for the league or its constituent owners, or its constituent fans. So now, just like last time, would be a great time to slap down a new rule to again restrict free agency, not becuase its good for the players, but because its good for the league.

Your a smart person and I agree with the take your giving on this, but I'm curious what rule you would suggest that isn't draconian in nature and/or isn't likely to have unintended consequences.

 

[rainmaker]

Nope. Not the way it has always been (started in the 70s). Not even the way it always is now (see, Free Agency, Restricted). Now it would be nice if the players could be trusted to do what's best for the league, but of course they can't. They can be trusted to do what's best for them. When that no longer coincides with what's best for the league, it behooves you as a league to put a stop to it. You aren't running the league for the players' sakes. You are running it for your own sake, and for your customers' sakes. When free agents started running roughshod over the league a dozen years ago, there was a lockout, and out of the lockout came the concept of a maxium salary to preceisely prevent free agents from signing wherever they wanted to for however much they demanded. Good for the players? No. Good for the league? Absolutely. This is no different. Now you have a late breaking trend that is heavily damaging franchises that are already behind the 8 ball when it comes to competing. That is not good for the league or its constituent owners, or its constituent fans. So now, just like last time, would be a great time to slap down a new rule to again restrict free agency, not becuase its good for the players, but because its good for the league.

When you suggest restricting free agency, to what extent are you talking about?

 

[Bricklayer]

Just the max level superstar type players, because in the NBA, those guys matter more than all the other players combined. They are the gold standard. So really what you are talking about is nothing more than some sort of franchise player tag to save the little guys' franchise players. I have always liked the idea of adding in much more carrot to an NBA's franchsie player rule than the NFL's pure stick approach, just to smooth things over and minimize holdout type situations. Make a special class of mega-max salaries above the normal maximum etc. If you're going for unguaranteed contracts, make the franchise guys' deals the one type that is fully guaranteed (although that opens up Webber and Hill type franchise screwing possibilities if somebody gets hurt). I would have one hell of a stick standing behind it too. Something punitive enough nobody would even dare challenge it. Life unfortunately is not fair. People and places are NOT equal. So all you have to decide is who is life going to be unfair to? The franchises and their fans? Or the players? I know where my vote goes. The megastars can seek solace with their megamillions and buy themselves a gold plated boat as comfort food.

Now the Carl Landrys and Samuel Dalemberts of the world? I don't think you need to significantly worry about those guys. They aren't franchise guys, and they will normally follow the money. If you are putting in a harder cap it should prevent them from accumulating to such a degree on winning franchises, although you will never be able to stop the below market value ring chasing. That's also of course how you get a restriction on top guys past the union -- you don't threaten the lesser guys, so that the top guys can be outvoted when it comes time to do it. Same thing that happened with the max deals btw.

 

[ElRey]

Cleveland got several draft picks and a $14 million trade exception from the "trade" that landed LeBron in Miami.

On the flip side, they could have gotten nothing. If we want to boost compensation for a team that tried to keep a player on a max contract and got turned down, then let's talk. But Cleveland didn't get left as high and dry as they could have been. I'm not really shedding tears for the Cavs as a franchise. Teams have always lost good players; this is nothing new.

They did get compensated though (indirectly)...they got the #1 and #4 lottery picks this year. When do the Kings ever get this lucky?

 

[ElRey]

I still favor a hard cap. No cap exemptions whatsoever. It's simple and it's fair. All teams are on equal footing. The big markets will always have that big market appeal advantage whatever system you use. But they won't be able to outspend everybody and "buy" a championship. If players want to play for a big market or championship team, that's fine, just take a big paycut.

 

[Bricklayer]

If players want to play for a big market or championship team, that's fine, just take a big paycut.

But that is the crux of the issue. It doesn't actually solve the problem. In fact it might even make it WORSE, with the best players only agreeing to come to smaller teams if they get paid significantly more money, and with a hard cap, the smaller teams thus being screwed capwise.

People can say what they want, but big market teams have not consistently been able to buy titles with money. Just as many big spenders have killed themselves with unwise purchases. But what teams like the Lakers HAVE always done is win their titles with glitz and glamour, pretty girls and hot sun (although why people pursue hot sun I've never figured out). If you make a hard cap wihtout addressing the real advantages Miami and L.A. etc. have over Milwaulkee and Sacramento in terms of recruitment, you might in the end just make things worse by taking away the one counter (i..e money) that those small market teams have. Right now the system is broke because in order to use that counter the small market teams have to go broke, and increasingly the players are ignoring it anyway because so much of their money comes from outside the system (endorsements). But taking it away entirely just leaves the small market guy in a hopeless situation unless you slap down some supplemental rules to try to control player movement.

 

[AleksandarN]

Just the max level superstar type players, because in the NBA, those guys matter more than all the other players combined. They are the gold standard. So really what you are talking about is nothing more than some sort of franchise player tag to save the little guys' franchise players. I have always liked the idea of adding in much more carrot to an NBA's franchsie player rule than the NFL's pure stick approach, just to smooth things over and minimize holdout type situations. Make a special class of mega-max salaries above the normal maximum etc. If you're going for unguaranteed contracts, make the franchise guys' deals the one type that is fully guaranteed (although that opens up Webber and Hill type franchise screwing possibilities if somebody gets hurt). I would have one hell of a stick standing behind it too. Something punitive enough nobody would even dare challenge it. Life unfortunately is not fair. People and places are NOT equal. So all you have to decide is who is life going to be unfair to? The franchises and their fans? Or the players? I know where my vote goes. The megastars can seek solace with their megamillions and buy themselves a gold plated boat as comfort food.

Now the Carl Landrys and Samuel Dalemberts of the world? I don't think you need to significantly worry about those guys. They aren't franchise guys, and they will normally follow the money. If you are putting in a harder cap it should prevent them from accumulating to such a degree on winning franchises, although you will never be able to stop the below market value ring chasing. That's also of course how you get a restriction on top guys past the union -- you don't threaten the lesser guys, so that the top guys can be outvoted when it comes time to do it. Same thing that happened with the max deals btw.

The problem I can see after signing those mega contracts that they will start to act like Vince Carter and demand to be traded and if they can't get there way they end up playing like paasive pussies like Carter did the last year in Toronto.

 

[Bricklayer]

The problem I can see after signing those mega contracts that they will start to act like Vince Carter and demand to be traded and if they can't get there way they end up playing like paasive pussies like Carter did the last year in Toronto.

This is that eternal holdout/pout problem you run into in the NFL, and why I prefer my franchise tags with a significant carrot. At some point you have to count on guys just having pride. Which of course Vince did not.

Of course if I had owned that franchise I would have sent down orders to play Carter exactly 1 minute of each game until he either grew up, or quit and gave me my money back. 1 minute each game to intentionally destroy his career averages and wipe out both his sponsorship money and any chance he had at the HOF of course. Don't **** with pappa.

 

[est.1999]

Lol Brick

 

[ElRey]

But that is the crux of the issue. It doesn't actually solve the problem. In fact it might even make it WORSE, with the best players only agreeing to come to smaller teams if they get paid significantly more money, and with a hard cap, the smaller teams thus being screwed capwise.

People can say what they want, but big market teams have not consistently been able to buy titles with money. Just as many big spenders have killed themselves with unwise purchases. But what teams like the Lakers HAVE always done is win their titles with glitz and glamour, pretty girls and hot sun (although why people pursue hot sun I've never figured out). If you make a hard cap wihtout addressing the real advantages Miami and L.A. etc. have over Milwaulkee and Sacramento in terms of recruitment, you might in the end just make things worse by taking away the one counter (i..e money) that those small market teams have. Right now the system is broke because in order to use that counter the small market teams have to go broke, and increasingly the players are ignoring it anyway because so much of their money comes from outside the system (endorsements). But taking it away entirely just leaves the small market guy in a hopeless situation unless you slap down some supplemental rules to try to control player movement.

Small market teams often do have to pay more to keep their players regardless, even in prior CBA years. The advantages of big markets ie girls, glits, glamour, etc will always be there no matter what CBA you come up with. What I don't like is a big market team that has that big market appeal advantage already AND the ability to outspend everyone. I don't like the fact that Miami was able to sign 3 superstars to max contracts, and then still have the ability to sign other good players with all the exemptions to go over the cap. The other option to protect small markets from losing star players is to use Franchise Player system, where it would be very tough for a franchise player to leave his current team.