The Lockout has arrived.

[Superman]

Lots of things are bad about it. It's bad for the league that this generation of franchise players is leaving or threatening to leave every small market team. There is more involved than the whims of the player. He's part of a league, a team, a fan base, a city.

You're being sensational. Every franchise player isn't threatening to leave every small market team. Kevin Durant just resigned with the Thunder, probably the smallest market in the league. Other franchise level players have stayed with their small market teams. You're talking about three players.

Furthermore, it's not about the whims of the player. You sign a contract to play in this place for this many years, and you play out that contract. At what point is your career up to you? Yes, the league and the team and the fanbase and the city are worth of consideration, but when is it my decision where I want to play? When no one really wants me anymore? You draft me, and I play out my contract. I sign an extension with you, and play that out. Why am I a bad guy because I decide that I want to play somewhere else?

And what happens when Blake Griffin wants to leave the Clippers to go play for OKC, because Sterling sucks and doesn't want to win, and he'd rather be back home? What, now he can't leave LA and go to a small market? Or are you only going to give small market teams the ultimate ability to retain their own free agents?

Hell, why do we draft players and force them to go to a team in the first place? Why can't the player choose? What's so bad about players choosing where they want to go right from the start?

There's a world of difference between being drafted and being a free agent. You keep going down this path and you'll have to argue for getting rid of free agency entirely.

Once the Kings decided, they rebuilt correctly. If Cousins and Tyreke were just about to reach their prime and decided to leave to a big market and had no consequences at all....I really do think I'd be completely done with the NBA. The team would be a disaster and there's be no reason to hope it would ever be different. Even drafting future superstar would mean little or nothing.

Yeah, it sucks for the Kings and other small market teams that they aren't the most attractive free agent destinations. But either you get rid of free agency, or you acknowledge that you have a smaller window to build a contender and you go balls-out to do so while you have a chance. And if you make smart decisions, maybe you can keep your free agents. The Cavs made poor decision after poor decision, with nothing to show for their efforts other than the heroics of LeBron James. The Raptors didn't even try to do anything to build around Chris Bosh. Meanwhile, OKC has built a good team around Durant, and has more room to improve. Don't be Cleveland. Don't be Toronto. Be OKC.

And even at the end of the day, if you do everything right, you still might lose someone to free agency. You can't get rid of that possibility without getting rid of free agency. If that's what you think should happen, then we're too far apart on this to ever see eye to eye.

The NFL gets this already with the franchise tag which I would be in full support of for the NBA as well. The league is inching that direction by attempting to restrict sign & trades and extend & trades.

The franchise tag is the most unfair thing about player compensation in sports. You don't even allow the player to hit the market, while he's in his prime and his earning potential is its highest. If you want to create a tag or restricted free agency that allows the player to hit the market, but allows the Bird team right of first refusal, then that's a different story. I still think it's oppressive and unfair to the player, but at least you allow him to earn the money that the market will bear for him.

You can go back to some of my posts last year after the Miami situation (edit: see link below), and you'll see that I had similar ideas to this. I'm not arguing for unfettered free agency. I'm actually in favor of more restrictions. At a certain point, if the big market teams have no cap space, and the system restricts them from sign and trades, then the small market teams have a much better shot at retaining their own players in free agency. But you don't have to essentially tell the best players that they'll never be able to decide where they want to play, regardless of them playing their contract out.

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/sho...ore-the-NBA-dies/page2&highlight=compensatory

 

[Vlade4GM]

And I disagree with much of your argument here. It's not about "taking down specific teams" per se, it is about leveling the playing field. And capping the spending is ABSOLUTELY the way to do it. I don't care if Buss makes 50 trillion a year in TV rights and he burns Benjamins to light candles in his bathroom, but I don't want that to turn into a competitive disadvantage in fielding a team on the financial front (I know players will still want to go to larger markets in general). What NEEDS to be done is take away the financial incentive to do so!

Yes, the Lakers and Celtics have done well as big market teams, but New York has not (as far as wins/losses go). Frankly, if I never see the Lakers or Celtics in the Finals again it would be too soon. I would be just as interested in a Suns / Orlando finals as a Lakers / Celtics - moreso in fact as I enjoy seeing parity and new faces in these big events.

I LOVE the fact that different teams can rise up and compete any particular year in many sports. That's GREAT for the various leagues and great for smaller market teams to be viable for home ticket sales.

Kings fans didn't sell out 19 of their first 26 seasons because the Lakers or Celtics were in town, they sold the games out to see the Kings play. After tasting some success and then declining as well as going through a BAD economic period, attendance is down in Sacramento. But having a team that can compete night in and out would be helpful in drawing in the more casual fans to games.

In general, having those home teams be able to be comptetitive would do wonders for other teams ticket sales as well if there were a better chance of a win at home.

I think parity would actually help the league tremendously.

You can take away the financial incentive to do so without hard capping team salary. You just limit the amount of money teams can give players going to them as outright free agents.

Parity is a pipe dream, there isn't enough talent to go around, and it isn't good for the league. I think we should try to make sure that every team has some legit opportunity to eventually build themselves up given good team management, but spreading all the star players throughout the league is going to water down the game and make it boring.

What you personally prefer is irrelevant to what benefits the league as a whole. Parity would not work well with basketball, it's a star driven league, and there isn't enough stars to go around for parity to even work right, let alone be profitable. You water all the teams down, get rid of dynasties, you will kill the NBA. Every year of Spurs vs. Pistons (figuratively speaking of course) would be terrible for the league.

 

[Warhawk]

You can take away the financial incentive to do so without hard capping team salary. You just limit the amount of money teams can give players going to them as outright free agents.

Parity is a pipe dream, there isn't enough talent to go around, and it isn't good for the league. I think we should try to make sure that every team has some legit opportunity to eventually build themselves up given good team management, but spreading all the star players throughout the league is going to water down the game and make it boring.

What you personally prefer is irrelevant to what benefits the league as a whole. Parity would not work well with basketball, it's a star driven league, and there isn't enough stars to go around for parity to even work right, let alone be profitable. You water all the teams down, get rid of dynasties, you will kill the NBA. Every year of Spurs vs. Pistons (figuratively speaking of course) would be terrible for the league.

There are different ways to skin a cat, so to speak, and a hard cap is one way. It is also the most balanced / fair way to do it on a team-by-team basis.

You seem to think your idea of what is "good" for the league is more valid than anyone else's. I'll disagree and leave it at that.

Financial parity would work wonders in basketball. Dynasties don't make the NBA "better" or more interesting for the fans. (I know you disagree here, but frankly, I think you are crazy on this point.) It just means some teams are "guaranteed" (in quotes because nothing is guaranteed, however the odds are highly slanted) to be the Globetrotters and others the Generals. How is that any fun? How is that "good" for all the non-Globetrotter teams? How does that make the league "better"? I'd love to see the Kings, for instance, draft well and then be able to draw FA here with good fiscal management instead of being financially crippled from the start and not having those FA opportunities.

A lot of it does come down to management and coaching. But money is a big part too. That needs to be set where all teams have parity (financially). The rest is obviously impossible to have parity on.

 

[Superman]

There are different ways to skin a cat, so to speak, and a hard cap is one way. It is also the most balanced / fair way to do it on a team-by-team basis.

You seem to think your idea of what is "good" for the league is more valid than anyone else's. I'll disagree and leave it at that.

Financial parity would work wonders in basketball. Dynasties don't make the NBA "better" or more interesting for the fans. (I know you disagree here, but frankly, I think you are crazy on this point.) It just means some teams are "guaranteed" (in quotes because nothing is guaranteed, however the odds are highly slanted) to be the Globetrotters and others the Generals. How is that any fun? How is that "good" for all the non-Globetrotter teams? How does that make the league "better"? I'd love to see the Kings, for instance, draft well and then be able to draw FA here with good fiscal management instead of being financially crippled from the start and not having those FA opportunities.

A lot of it does come down to management and coaching. But money is a big part too. That needs to be set where all teams have parity (financially). The rest is obviously impossible to have parity on.

I think it's impossible to have financial parity.

You have an owner that's worth $10 billion, but his team isn't generating the revenue another team is, and that other owner is worth $500 million. So you're telling me the team with the higher revenue should be sharing their profits with another team, even though the one owner is worth 20 times more than the other? I disagree.

I think you have to determine what money matters. The only money that I think matters is the money that gets spent on player compensation. You even that out, and you even out competition. If there are still small market considerations to deal with (Team X in a small market is competitive, but can't turn a profit), then you deal with those later. But when you allow one team to spend twice as much as another team, you can never lay any claim to true competition. Like you say, there are some things you can't control or even out: money is one, along with free agents, the draft, etc. The only thing you can really do anything about is how much money each team is allowed to spend every year. If you do that, I think everything else works itself out.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Your criteria are entirely subjective. I don't think there's any way to make them not subjective. That's the problem. I'm sure the Knicks will call what they did with Carmelo Anthony "savvy negotiating and foresight," but not everyone would.



Not necessarily saying there was anything untoward about what happened with Gasol. In hindsight, the trade is not as lopsided as it looked at the time. Still, it basically amounted to a sign and trade (or extend and trade) which is exactly what happened with Carmelo Anthony. We might look back in three years and determine that the Nuggets came out better than the Knicks in the Carmelo deal, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire episode was contrary to the spirit of the rules. Same thing with Gasol and the Lakers.



I think sign and trades aren't always horrible. But if you create some compensation for a team that loses a free agent, then you neuter the benefit of the sign and trade for everyone involved. If the Nuggets let Carmelo's contract expire, then offer him a max deal, but he goes to the Knicks anyways (or wherever he goes), the Nuggets get a compensatory pick in the first round, somewhere around 15-18. That's probably more valuable than the two first rounders that the Heat sent to Cleveland for LeBron. They can lose a player to free agency, and get compensation for him without taking on equal salary.

But when you have a team that has no intention of retaining a player in free agency (Suns with Amare Stoudemire; Pacers with Brad Miller), why not trade him to someone who wants him and is willing to pay him, and get yourself some compensation? At least you have the option. And again, this is entirely different from the Carmelo Anthony situation, and it's why I don't necessarily think sign and trades need to be nixed completely. I'm perfectly fine with killing them for teams already over the tax threshold, however.



This is what I don't get. You're arguing for a principle that you feel strongly about, but at the end of the day, it has zero bearing on the net result. Whether you built your team "legitimately" or "illegitimately" isn't important. What's important is competition, as that's the whole reason for a cap and tax in the first place. I don't see why it matters if you built your team through the draft, free agency, trades, or whatever. What matters is that you have a team that's well over the cap, into the tax level, and they are still adding salary. Why have a cap if you're not going to do anything to stop those teams from spending?

A team's reward for building a dominant team through good management and savvy and foresight is having a dominant team, making the playoffs, having a chance to win championships, and creating a culture of winning, which leads to sponsorships, endorsements, TV deals, more free agent attraction, etc. Your reward shouldn't be that you get to keep adding salary. I can understand an argument for extensions for players whom you have Bird rights for (although that can be tweaked for players you trade for), but adding an MLE player every year? No. Continuing to do sign and trades for more players? No.

First of all, so what if it's subjective? Secondly, you know what I mean, how specific would you like me to get? We're not writing out the fine print of a contract here, I think you can figure out for yourself that I mean basketball-related managing skills: recognizing talent, recognizing under/overvalued players, developing players well, putting a team together that fits well. I don't see why I should have to spell this out for you, I know you know what I mean.

I think you can definitely argue that (at the time) the return for Gasol was not ideal, to say the least, I'm just saying that I don't think it was necessarily a failure of the system in the same way it was with Carmelo, but rather just a lucky happenstance for the Lakers. I think the system discriminated in favor the Lakers over the Grizzlies in the sense that they could afford Gasol, but they weren't the only ones vying for him that could/would do that, that was the least of teams' concerns in trying to get him at that point.

I actually have been thinking about draft pick compensation, and it does make sense, but I'm weary of it because of how much I hate it in baseball. Baseball has their players under control 6-7 years, so it's not really fair to tag them with draft compensation as well, especially when it's done on so many players and the compensation creates a whole new draft round entirely. Anyway, you make a good argument for it, and I think it could be a good idea.

I don't think I said nix them completely, I said restrict them.

You're trying to make the problem about the concentration of talent, and I don't think that's really the problem here. How they build their team absolutely matters, because not every team has the market draw to build through free agency, or have players manipulate their way to them in trades. However, quality team management is something every franchise has the potential to have, and I think if they build it legitimately, then they should have the freedom to not only keep those players together, but also to make it feasible by having the means to be able to put players around them. I'm not saying that means they should have as many resources as they had on the previous deal, but they should still have a way to build some semblance of a team around them, or else you're just virtually forcing them to get rid of their expensive players, which I think is bad for basketball. My plan does not prevent them from buying mid-level players, but it does prevent them from buying star players and everything in between.

Yes, I agree, but they aren't going to be able to maintain that if you make it virtually impossible to keep a team built around those star players for very long, that's my point. Star players become very pricey as time goes along, I don't think teams should be punished for having star players for a long time if they acquired them through good team management.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, I am saying no sign and trades for them.

 

[sidney]

You're being sensational. Every franchise player isn't threatening to leave every small market team. Kevin Durant just resigned with the Thunder, probably the smallest market in the league. Other franchise level players have stayed with their small market teams. You're talking about three players.

Lebron, Bosh, Melo. Deron traded to avoid the mess. Dwight and Chris Paul drama on the way. Sensational indeed.

There's a world of difference between being drafted and being a free agent. You keep going down this path and you'll have to argue for getting rid of free agency entirely.

The draft and restricted free agency out of rookie contracts are already accepted forms that limit player choice. More restrictions are on the way if the owners get their way.

Yeah, it sucks for the Kings and other small market teams that they aren't the most attractive free agent destinations. But either you get rid of free agency, or you acknowledge that you have a smaller window to build a contender and you go balls-out to do so while you have a chance. And if you make smart decisions, maybe you can keep your free agents. The Cavs made poor decision after poor decision, with nothing to show for their efforts other than the heroics of LeBron James. The Raptors didn't even try to do anything to build around Chris Bosh. Meanwhile, OKC has built a good team around Durant, and has more room to improve. Don't be Cleveland. Don't be Toronto. Be OKC.

OKC test has not come yet. Durant signed his max extension under restricted free agency. Just like Lebron, Bosh, Wade, Deron, Paul, and Dwight did. We'll see what he does in a few years.

The franchise tag is the most unfair thing about player compensation in sports. You don't even allow the player to hit the market, while he's in his prime and his earning potential is its highest. If you want to create a tag or restricted free agency that allows the player to hit the market, but allows the Bird team right of first refusal, then that's a different story. I still think it's oppressive and unfair to the player, but at least you allow him to earn the money that the market will bear for him.

1) Boo hoo. It benefits the money generating system, cities, league, and fans that they enjoy when the checks come in....which is more important that what city they prefer.
2) as the NBA does with restricted free agency, the player never loses a dime in salary. Contract is simply matched.

I have no problem with Amare for example. His home team wouldn't pay - he gets his elsewhere. Good for him. That's the type of free agency that will still exist 95% of the time.

 

[Warhawk]

I think it's impossible to have financial parity.

You have an owner that's worth $10 billion, but his team isn't generating the revenue another team is, and that other owner is worth $500 million. So you're telling me the team with the higher revenue should be sharing their profits with another team, even though the one owner is worth 20 times more than the other? I disagree.

I think you have to determine what money matters. The only money that I think matters is the money that gets spent on player compensation. You even that out, and you even out competition. If there are still small market considerations to deal with (Team X in a small market is competitive, but can't turn a profit), then you deal with those later. But when you allow one team to spend twice as much as another team, you can never lay any claim to true competition. Like you say, there are some things you can't control or even out: money is one, along with free agents, the draft, etc. The only thing you can really do anything about is how much money each team is allowed to spend every year. If you do that, I think everything else works itself out.

I think you misunderstood my point. Your bolded statement is what I am arguing for by "parity" - parity in the amounts team can spend on players.

 

[Superman]

First of all, so what if it's subjective? Secondly, you know what I mean, how specific would you like me to get? We're not writing out the fine print of a contract here, I think you can figure out for yourself that I mean basketball-related managing skills: recognizing talent, recognizing under/overvalued players, developing players well, putting a team together that fits well. I don't see why I should have to spell this out for you, I know you know what I mean.

I'm not asking for specificity. I'm saying your criteria only matter as far as you can throw them. It's what YOU think is important, and it's not necessarily even what's best for the league. Not to nitpick, but there are several points of contention with your criteria. I personally don't care how a team gets built, and I can't understand why it matters to you. If the objective is to promote competition, then the means is of no importance, only the net result. If you traded for star players and now you're $20 million over the cap, you have to conform. If you signed free agents and now you're $20 million over the cap, you have to conform. If you drafted great players and extended them and then hit home runs on a couple MLE players and extended them, and now you're $20 million over the cap, you have to conform. The only thing that matters to me is your payroll number, and that's not subjective in the least.

I think you can definitely argue that (at the time) the return for Gasol was not ideal, to say the least, I'm just saying that I don't think it was necessarily a failure of the system in the same way it was with Carmelo, but rather just a lucky happenstance for the Lakers. I think the system discriminated in favor the Lakers over the Grizzlies in the sense that they could afford Gasol, but they weren't the only ones vying for him that could/would do that, that was the least of teams' concerns in trying to get him at that point.

Agreed. Also not what my point was with regard to Gasol. I was simply pointing out that I think the Gasol situation is just as bad as the Carmelo situation, when you get past the Carmelo drama. Has nothing to do with the return in the trade.

I actually have been thinking about draft pick compensation, and it does make sense, but I'm weary of it because of how much I hate it in baseball. Baseball has their players under control 6-7 years, so it's not really fair to tag them with draft compensation as well, especially when it's done on so many players and the compensation creates a whole new draft round entirely. Anyway, you make a good argument for it, and I think it could be a good idea.

Yeah, baseball's draft is out of control. The NFL draft is getting there. I'm not talking about 30 compensatory draft picks. I'm talking about compensatory picks in the first round for teams that lose star level players to free agency (only if they made max level offers and still didn't retain them), and maybe a compensatory pick for a team that loses a good player because they couldn't fit him due to cap restraints. Maybe make it two compensatory picks if a player left for less money. In a given year, that might be five extra picks, total. But it reduces the value of sign and trade offers, because you'll get compensation even if you can't keep your guy. But it forces you to make a qualified offer, so you can't just let players walk because you'd rather have the pick. You have to put an offer out there for say, 10 days, and there's a significant possibility you could wind up having to honor that offer. Include a rule that states you can't trade said player for one calendar year, and we're set.

I don't think I said nix them completely, I said restrict them.

We're right there after adding compensatory picks. And include a restriction against any team over the tax, and we're good.

You're trying to make the problem about the concentration of talent, and I don't think that's really the problem here. How they build their team absolutely matters, because not every team has the market draw to build through free agency, or have players manipulate their way to them in trades. However, quality team management is something every franchise has the potential to have, and I think if they build it legitimately, then they should have the freedom to not only keep those players together, but also to make it feasible by having the means to be able to put players around them. I'm not saying that means they should have as many resources as they had on the previous deal, but they should still have a way to build some semblance of a team around them, or else you're just virtually forcing them to get rid of their expensive players, which I think is bad for basketball. My plan does not prevent them from buying mid-level players, but it does prevent them from buying star players and everything in between.

Like I said before, I don't care how they built their team, nor do I see how it matters. If you're above a certain threshold, you should have to conform.

Yes, I agree, but they aren't going to be able to maintain that if you make it virtually impossible to keep a team built around those star players for very long, that's my point. Star players become very pricey as time goes along, I don't think teams should be punished for having star players for a long time if they acquired them through good team management.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, but I am saying no sign and trades for them.

How are they being punished? They have a team that's has a really good chance to contend. A new restriction would just make it necessary for them to cut payroll to stay under the threshold. They don't have to tear their team apart. The Lakers can't add Ron Artest and Matt Barnes and Steve Blake. They have to make some adjustments with Derek Fisher and Lamar Odom. They'd probably move Luke Walton with cash considerations. They still have Kobe, Gasol and Bynum. As Kobe gets older, they can't keep paying him $30 million a year, plus $15 million for Gasol and Bynum, but isn't that good for them? It forces teams to do what you say they should do: build through smart decision making, savvy and foresight, rather than just adding MLE players every year and calling that "maintenance." You see what I'm saying?

I think if you limit those teams, and every other team that's over a threshold -- not because they're good and winning titles, but because they're over the threshold -- then you necessarily reduce player compensation, you take big market teams off the table for free agency every once in a while, you kill sign and trades to big money/market teams (sorry Dwight Howard, sorry Chris Paul). And then the small market teams have a legitimate shot at retaining their guys. They even have a shot at adding a big free agent every once in a while.

Like you, I don't believe that you can control market factors, and I don't think you should even try. It's impossible, and there are too many other considerations (taxes, owner net worth, etc.)

 

[bajaden]

There's also an element of hypocrisy (don't take this personally) whenever anyone complains about the S&T, because at some point, your team will benefit from it. We did it for Brad Miller in 2004. If we were going to lose Reke or Cousins, we'd benefit from it with compensation that we would otherwise never get. It's getting to be more and more of a problem, as players are essentially holding teams hostage in order to go to the team they want to go to. That's not what happened with James, Bosh and Miami.

I agree completely. A sign and trade may make it possible for a player to have his cake and eat it too, but in most cases it allows the original team to get something back in return, as opposed to just letting the player walk. However, I do agree with your suggestion that the team losing the player should be compensated with a draft pick or picks, depending on the value of the player. Similar to what baseball does. The league could even add compensetory picks.

You could still allow a sign and trade, but not allow the traded player the same benefits as the player that resigns and stays. That would be in keeping with the spirit of that clause.

 

[Superman]

Lebron, Bosh, Melo. Deron traded to avoid the mess. Dwight and Chris Paul drama on the way. Sensational indeed.

Again, what exactly is wrong with what LeBron Jame and Chris Bosh did? You play out your contract, you're a free agent. If you're not going to grant them free agency, then why put up the facade of free agency? Just tell them they're yours once they're drafted, and that's it. It's ownership.

The draft and restricted free agency out of rookie contracts are already accepted forms that limit player choice. More restrictions are on the way if the owners get their way.

Those restrictions are only accepted by the players because the eventuality is unrestricted free agency. You're not going to come out of a legal battle over anti-trust issues with even more anti-trust issues, chief among them being even more restricted free agency.

OKC test has not come yet. Durant signed his max extension under restricted free agency. Just like Lebron, Bosh, Wade, Deron, Paul, and Dwight did. We'll see what he does in a few years.

Durant signed his extension for five years, with no opt-out, unlike LeBron, Bosh, Wade and Anthony. Deron Williams was traded out of the blue because Utah wasn't going to make a play for him once he hit free agency. He did NOT force his way out. Dwight Howard has made no overtures toward leaving at any point, unlike LeBron, Bosh, Wade and Anthony, who set the stage for last season's events four years before they happened. Everything being said about Howard is speculation at this point. Chris Paul's supposed wish-list included Portland and Orlando, which is another indication that these latest developments aren't about market size; they're about contending for titles.

You're painting a picture of a league full of star players who are interested in nothing more than getting out of small markets to play in big markets. That's not what's happening. There are several factors at play, but bottom line is that if you think the fix is simply making it so that marquee players can't leave and go where they want, then we see things different on that fundamental issue. Like I said, what happens if Blake Griffin wants to go play for OKC? Are you only going to tell players that they can't leave small markets, but allow them to leave big markets? How do you determine what's a big market? Again, I disagree with you here, and I think you're starting down a path that is overly oppressive.

1) Boo hoo. It benefits the money generating system, cities, league, and fans that they enjoy when the checks come in....which is more important that what city they prefer.

Not really. The NBA performs better when the big market teams are good, even if the small market teams are awful. So if Chicago, New York, LA, Miami, Dallas are good, the NBA will be fine. If we break this down to the nitty-gritty, protecting the small market teams at the possible expense of big market teams is counter-productive.

And your "boo-hoo" shows why we disagree. I'm in no way compassionate toward marquee players who might be told they can't make $100 million in New York, they have to make $100 million in Memphis. Yeah, boo-freakin-hoo. BUT I do think that a player who plays his contract out in its entirety should be allowed to choose where he wants to play.

We'd be having a different discussion if marquee players were taking half the money to go play for contenders in big markets. I'm pretty sure we'd be on the same side of the table in that case. Although, the argument could also be made that players are sacrificing their own money for the chance to win, which is a lot better -- if you ask me -- than being more concerned with making money than with winning championships. If so-and-so takes a paycut to help his team add talent, he gets praised. But we don't want LeBron to go to the Lakers for the MLE. Double-edged sword, but a much more clear-cut issue.

2) as the NBA does with restricted free agency, the player never loses a dime in salary. Contract is simply matched.

Perpetual restricted free agency... Can't get with it.

 

[bajaden]

Why should there be consequences for the players? You play out your contract, you're a free agent, you sign where you want. What's so bad about that?

This has nothing to do with S&Ts, by the way. If a player earns his free agency by playing out his contract, why shouldn't he be able to sign with a team that has the cap space to pay him what he wants to make?

Once again, I agree! As long as a player has held up his end of the contract, and that contract is up, he should be allowed to sign where ever he wants, as long as that team has the space to sign him. Which is why I think his original team should have more incentives available to offer him as a means of keeping him. On the compensation side, as I said, I agree with draft picks being one avenue. Perhaps economic compensation should be looked at as well.

For instance, how much money is Cleveland going to lose as a result of losing LeBron? Lets face it, big stars put butts in the seats, as well as possibly getting you into the playoffs. Extra games means extra income. Not only for the team, but for the resturants and businesses surrounding the area. Point being, that in the case of a player like LeBron, there's a huge financial impact. As well as an image impact. Players that might have considered signing with Cleveland because of LeBrons presence there, will now look elsewhere.

I'm not saying there's a right or wrong here. I'm just pointing out the colateral damage. So maybe some financial compensation, not from the team that signed James, but from the league itself, might be considered. Perhaps a certain percentage of the BRI could be set aside for such a purpose. Yeah, I know, not likely

 

[sidney]

You could still allow a sign and trade, but not allow the traded player the same benefits as the player that resigns and stays. That would be in keeping with the spirit of that clause.

In many cases the motivation for the team receiving the player to do the sign and trade is to get their newly signed guy those same benefits as if he had stayed probably because they made them that promise when convincing the player to come. If those benefits can't be transferred why would the receiving team give up anything?

 

[bajaden]

I think it's impossible to have financial parity.

You have an owner that's worth $10 billion, but his team isn't generating the revenue another team is, and that other owner is worth $500 million. So you're telling me the team with the higher revenue should be sharing their profits with another team, even though the one owner is worth 20 times more than the other? I disagree.

I think you have to determine what money matters. The only money that I think matters is the money that gets spent on player compensation. You even that out, and you even out competition. If there are still small market considerations to deal with (Team X in a small market is competitive, but can't turn a profit), then you deal with those later. But when you allow one team to spend twice as much as another team, you can never lay any claim to true competition. Like you say, there are some things you can't control or even out: money is one, along with free agents, the draft, etc. The only thing you can really do anything about is how much money each team is allowed to spend every year. If you do that, I think everything else works itself out.

I hate to butt in, but I think thats what Warhawk was saying. I think the two of you are in agreement.... Just saying!

 

[Vlade4GM]

I'm not asking for specificity. I'm saying your criteria only matter as far as you can throw them. It's what YOU think is important, and it's not necessarily even what's best for the league. Not to nitpick, but there are several points of contention with your criteria. I personally don't care how a team gets built, and I can't understand why it matters to you. If the objective is to promote competition, then the means is of no importance, only the net result. If you traded for star players and now you're $20 million over the cap, you have to conform. If you signed free agents and now you're $20 million over the cap, you have to conform. If you drafted great players and extended them and then hit home runs on a couple MLE players and extended them, and now you're $20 million over the cap, you have to conform. The only thing that matters to me is your payroll number, and that's not subjective in the least.



Agreed. Also not what my point was with regard to Gasol. I was simply pointing out that I think the Gasol situation is just as bad as the Carmelo situation, when you get past the Carmelo drama. Has nothing to do with the return in the trade.



Yeah, baseball's draft is out of control. The NFL draft is getting there. I'm not talking about 30 compensatory draft picks. I'm talking about compensatory picks in the first round for teams that lose star level players to free agency (only if they made max level offers and still didn't retain them), and maybe a compensatory pick for a team that loses a good player because they couldn't fit him due to cap restraints. Maybe make it two compensatory picks if a player left for less money. In a given year, that might be five extra picks, total. But it reduces the value of sign and trade offers, because you'll get compensation even if you can't keep your guy. But it forces you to make a qualified offer, so you can't just let players walk because you'd rather have the pick. You have to put an offer out there for say, 10 days, and there's a significant possibility you could wind up having to honor that offer. Include a rule that states you can't trade said player for one calendar year, and we're set.



We're right there after adding compensatory picks. And include a restriction against any team over the tax, and we're good.



Like I said before, I don't care how they built their team, nor do I see how it matters. If you're above a certain threshold, you should have to conform.



How are they being punished? They have a team that's has a really good chance to contend. A new restriction would just make it necessary for them to cut payroll to stay under the threshold. They don't have to tear their team apart. The Lakers can't add Ron Artest and Matt Barnes and Steve Blake. They have to make some adjustments with Derek Fisher and Lamar Odom. They'd probably move Luke Walton with cash considerations. They still have Kobe, Gasol and Bynum. As Kobe gets older, they can't keep paying him $30 million a year, plus $15 million for Gasol and Bynum, but isn't that good for them? It forces teams to do what you say they should do: build through smart decision making, savvy and foresight, rather than just adding MLE players every year and calling that "maintenance." You see what I'm saying?

I think if you limit those teams, and every other team that's over a threshold -- not because they're good and winning titles, but because they're over the threshold -- then you necessarily reduce player compensation, you take big market teams off the table for free agency every once in a while, you kill sign and trades to big money/market teams (sorry Dwight Howard, sorry Chris Paul). And then the small market teams have a legitimate shot at retaining their guys. They even have a shot at adding a big free agent every once in a while.

Like you, I don't believe that you can control market factors, and I don't think you should even try. It's impossible, and there are too many other considerations (taxes, owner net worth, etc.)

I've told you why how teams are built matters. It matters because the how I laid out is something that every team can possibly do, but the how of using your market, your money, or your present success to lure players is not something every team can do. I think that's objective enough.

You see, that's the thing, I don't think the objective should necessarily be more competitive balance, I think it should be more about opportunity balance. Watering down teams is not really what I'd consider ideal in many respects, I think NBA fans in general respond well to super teams and want to see them play. However, there is a problem when the big markets have a monopoly over those teams, and what I'm suggesting is trying to give other teams a realistic shot at doing that themselves through good team management.

I can't honestly say I've done all the math (especially since a lot of the numbers are so up in the air) but to keep it simple, I just don't want dynasties or super teams to be outlawed. I think you need to keep it a possibility because that's the pinnacle of what teams strive for, it's not championships per se, it's eras of top shelf basketball. I may be wrong, but I think a hard cap prevents that from being possible, or at least prevents it from being sustainable. If I'm wrong and it doesn't do that, and it doesn't put too much of a cap on how good a team can be, then I'm okay with it. I think we have a lot of the same objectives here, I just don't want teams to be watered down so we can have some pointless free-for-all with a bunch of boring teams in the playoffs, it cheapens the trophy's value.

 

[bajaden]

In many cases the motivation for the team receiving the player to do the sign and trade is to get their newly signed guy those same benefits as if he had stayed probably because they made them that promise when convincing the player to come. If those benefits can't be transferred why would the receiving team give up anything?

They wouldn't, unless they were able to trade for the player a year earlier, or to avoid a bidding war, once he's on the market. The whole idea of giving the player a higher percentage of salary increase, and an extra year on his contract, is to intice him to stay with his current team. That was the original intention of that clause. However like most laws, people find a way around the original intention. It wouldn't stop the player from leaving and going to the team he wants to sign with. But he wouldn't be compensated as if he stayed with his original team.

 

[sidney]

You're painting a picture of a league full of star players who are interested in nothing more than getting out of small markets to play in big markets. That's not what's happening.

I don't think I'm the one painting that picture

 

[sidney]

They wouldn't, unless they were able to trade for the player a year earlier, or to avoid a bidding war, once he's on the market. The whole idea of giving the player a higher percentage of salary increase, and an extra year on his contract, is to intice him to stay with his current team. That was the original intention of that clause. However like most laws, people find a way around the original intention. It wouldn't stop the player from leaving and going to the team he wants to sign with. But he wouldn't be compensated as if he stayed with his original team.

I'm with you on that. The intention is good for the league. It's the loophole around that benefit that needs to be closed.

 

[bajaden]

I've told you why how teams are built matters. It matters because the how I laid out is something that every team can possibly do, but the how of using your market, your money, or your present success to lure players is not something every team can do. I think that's objective enough.

You see, that's the thing, I don't think the objective should necessarily be more competitive balance, I think it should be more about opportunity balance. Watering down teams is not really what I'd consider ideal in many respects, I think NBA fans in general respond well to super teams and want to see them play. However, there is a problem when the big markets have a monopoly over those teams, and what I'm suggesting is trying to give other teams a realistic shot at doing that themselves through good team management.

I can't honestly say I've done all the math (especially since a lot of the numbers are so up in the air) but to keep it simple, I just don't want dynasties or super teams to be outlawed. I think you need to keep it a possibility because that's the pinnacle of what teams strive for, it's not championships per se, it's eras of top shelf basketball. I may be wrong, but I think a hard cap prevents that from being possible, or at least prevents it from being sustainable. If I'm wrong and it doesn't do that, and it doesn't put too much of a cap on how good a team can be, then I'm okay with it. I think we have a lot of the same objectives here, I just don't want teams to be watered down so we can have some pointless free-for-all with a bunch of boring teams in the playoffs, it cheapens the trophy's value.

Vlade, I don't think anyone is arguing against a superteam or a dynasty. What bothers us, is that in general, its the same teams that become superteams. And if so, why? If you honestly believe that the average NBA fan loves seeing the Lakers and the Celtics in the finals every year, then you've lived in La La land too long. I'm sick of seeing the Lakers and the Celtic, and the Bulls etc. I'd like to see, call me crazy, the Kings in the finals. As I've said before. There's some things you just can't take away from LA. It has the glamor, the hollywood stars, the money and the endorsements. The only thing you can do is cap what they can spend. If you can't do that, then nothing is going to change.

I was and still am a huge 49'er fan. I was there when they had a dynasty of sorts. There were no limits on what a team could spend, and the 9'ers had an owner willing to spend. Every player in the league wanted to play for them. So I know what it feels like when the league suddenly changes all the rules and puts a cap on spending.. The fall wasn't sudden, but it was sure. It was painful for me as a fan. To be honest, I was angry at the time. How dare the league interfere and destroy our advantage.

Now years later, I can see the wisdom in that move. The NFL is more popular now than it was then. And they have the closest thing to parity of just about any sport. You can go from the bottom of the league to the top in just one of two years, if you make the right decisions. If you have bad management, then you suffer the consequences. As a 49'er fan, I can certainly attest to that. Management matters. Coaching matters. I'm not for or against the players, and ditto the owners. I'am for a CBA that addresses the problems with the league. And I believe that the answer is probably going to be painful for both sides to some extent.

 

[Warhawk]

I've told you why how teams are built matters. It matters because the how I laid out is something that every team can possibly do, but the how of using your market, your money, or your present success to lure players is not something every team can do. I think that's objective enough.

You see, that's the thing, I don't think the objective should necessarily be more competitive balance, I think it should be more about opportunity balance. Watering down teams is not really what I'd consider ideal in many respects, I think NBA fans in general respond well to super teams and want to see them play. However, there is a problem when the big markets have a monopoly over those teams, and what I'm suggesting is trying to give other teams a realistic shot at doing that themselves through good team management.

I can't honestly say I've done all the math (especially since a lot of the numbers are so up in the air) but to keep it simple, I just don't want dynasties or super teams to be outlawed. I think you need to keep it a possibility because that's the pinnacle of what teams strive for, it's not championships per se, it's eras of top shelf basketball. I may be wrong, but I think a hard cap prevents that from being possible, or at least prevents it from being sustainable. If I'm wrong and it doesn't do that, and it doesn't put too much of a cap on how good a team can be, then I'm okay with it. I think we have a lot of the same objectives here, I just don't want teams to be watered down so we can have some pointless free-for-all with a bunch of boring teams in the playoffs, it cheapens the trophy's value.

Frankly, to me having a "superteam" win titles through higher spending over and over cheapens the trophy's value more than spending parity ever could.

Just because the a team is in LA or NY instead of Topeka shouldn't ensure an effective financial advantage to team building. Should the owners make more money? Sure! All things being equal, will FA rather be in LA than Topeka? Yes! Should the Topeka team be at a permanent effective disadvantage in spending $$$ to get FA because of the lack of a corporate base or TV $$$ in Topeka (even though they might be able to sell out their arena)? NO!

 

[Superman]

Once again, I agree! As long as a player has held up his end of the contract, and that contract is up, he should be allowed to sign where ever he wants, as long as that team has the space to sign him. Which is why I think his original team should have more incentives available to offer him as a means of keeping him. On the compensation side, as I said, I agree with draft picks being one avenue. Perhaps economic compensation should be looked at as well.

For instance, how much money is Cleveland going to lose as a result of losing LeBron? Lets face it, big stars put butts in the seats, as well as possibly getting you into the playoffs. Extra games means extra income. Not only for the team, but for the resturants and businesses surrounding the area. Point being, that in the case of a player like LeBron, there's a huge financial impact. As well as an image impact. Players that might have considered signing with Cleveland because of LeBrons presence there, will now look elsewhere.

I'm not saying there's a right or wrong here. I'm just pointing out the colateral damage. So maybe some financial compensation, not from the team that signed James, but from the league itself, might be considered. Perhaps a certain percentage of the BRI could be set aside for such a purpose. Yeah, I know, not likely

I understand what you're saying. I just don't think LeBron James needs to be held responsible for Cleveland's financial viability. And you can also argue that the hundreds of millions that the Cavs and surrounding businesses made due to LeBron's presence have more than paid for his departure. Had he never been there, that money wouldn't have been made. It's not his fault that they're terrible without him; that's part of the reason he left. And what happens when he retires? One day, life without LeBron (or any other marquee player) begins.

I get it. It's awful that there's an economic windfall after he leaves, but I don't think you can really say that a player should be restricted to staying for the sake of the economic health of the franchise.

 

[Superman]

I don't think I'm the one painting that picture

That's not what's happening.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Vlade, I don't think anyone is arguing against a superteam or a dynasty. What bothers us, is that in general, its the same teams that become superteams. And if so, why? If you honestly believe that the average NBA fan loves seeing the Lakers and the Celtics in the finals every year, then you've lived in La La land too long. I'm sick of seeing the Lakers and the Celtic, and the Bulls etc. I'd like to see, call me crazy, the Kings in the finals. As I've said before. There's some things you just can't take away from LA. It has the glamor, the hollywood stars, the money and the endorsements. The only thing you can do is cap what they can spend. If you can't do that, then nothing is going to change.

I was and still am a huge 49'er fan. I was there when they had a dynasty of sorts. There were no limits on what a team could spend, and the 9'ers had an owner willing to spend. Every player in the league wanted to play for them. So I know what it feels like when the league suddenly changes all the rules and puts a cap on spending.. The fall wasn't sudden, but it was sure. It was painful for me as a fan. To be honest, I was angry at the time. How dare the league interfere and destroy our advantage.

Now years later, I can see the wisdom in that move. The NFL is more popular now than it was then. And they have the closest thing to parity of just about any sport. You can go from the bottom of the league to the top in just one of two years, if you make the right decisions. If you have bad management, then you suffer the consequences. As a 49'er fan, I can certainly attest to that. Management matters. Coaching matters. I'm not for or against the players, and ditto the owners. I'am for a CBA that addresses the problems with the league. And I believe that the answer is probably going to be painful for both sides to some extent.

I admitted in the very post you are responding to that there is a problem in that the big markets have historically had a monopoly on these teams. I've given, at least what I think, are effective alternatives to hard salary caps, by restricting/preventing acquisitions of players by the means of market lure, current team success, and outright spending. The only reason I wish to not absolutely cap spending is because I want teams to be able to sustain the teams they build through quality team management, as well as be able to naturally accumulate role players to round out their team over time. Yes, teams with more money would still have an advantage at sustaining their teams longer because they will probably have more money to spend, but at least they'd have to work to build that team in the first place, instead of taking the easy way outs like the Lakers and Knicks want to do with Howard/Paul/Williams.

That's fine if it worked for the NFL, but this isn't the NFL. The way the regular season and playoffs are played in the NFL, there is an inherent attraction in that, and a natural environment for parity. They play 16 game regular seasons and have single elimination playoffs for crying out loud. The fan culture in the NFL is also particularly attracted to the atmosphere and the game itself more than the fan culture in basketball is, so there's less importance of dynasties and star-laden teams. Basketball has been so successful as a star-centered league because the game is played with only 5 players on the court per team, and with only about 8 main players during the entire game. There's an inherent difference in basketball that's going to create more of an emphasis on the individual player, because they have more impact on the game than any other sport does. That's why I don't think NFL parity is going to fly in the NBA. NFL is more like a story that has a really interesting setting and plot (I hate football btw), and the NBA is more like a story that has really attractive characters (and I'm using characters as a metaphor for individual players and whole teams.) I think star players are what gives teams character more than say their franchise history or style of play does.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Frankly, to me having a "superteam" win titles through higher spending over and over cheapens the trophy's value more than spending parity ever could.

Just because the a team is in LA or NY instead of Topeka shouldn't ensure an effective financial advantage to team building. Should the owners make more money? Sure! All things being equal, will FA rather be in LA than Topeka? Yes! Should the Topeka team be at a permanent effective disadvantage in spending $$$ to get FA because of the lack of a corporate base or TV $$$ in Topeka (even though they might be able to sell out their arena)? NO!

Not if that team was put together through quality team management. I'm advocating a middleground here, I'm not advocating the current system.

 

[Superman]

I've told you why how teams are built matters. It matters because the how I laid out is something that every team can possibly do, but the how of using your market, your money, or your present success to lure players is not something every team can do. I think that's objective enough.

I'm sorry, I don't see it. It's not objective at all. I'm not even sure at this point what restrictions you're saying should or shouldn't be in place for teams over the cap. What would you consider an illegitimately gained team?

At the end of the day, the net result is what's important. That's my opinion. I'm not interested in banning so-called "super teams" or dynasties. I just think every team should be beholden to payroll restrictions.

You see, that's the thing, I don't think the objective should necessarily be more competitive balance, I think it should be more about opportunity balance. Watering down teams is not really what I'd consider ideal in many respects, I think NBA fans in general respond well to super teams and want to see them play. However, there is a problem when the big markets have a monopoly over those teams, and what I'm suggesting is trying to give other teams a realistic shot at doing that themselves through good team management.

Promoting competition is not striving for competitive balance. Competitive balance will never exist. But you can promote competition by restricting how much teams can spend on player compensation. End result would be that a team can build itself into a contender, but that doesn't mean they don't have to conform. You have a three or four year run, and then you have to rebuild. Shorter contract lengths, fewer exceptions, and less cap exemptions. I'm not interested in watering the league down. I don't care if a big market team collects a bunch of good players, but I don't think they should be able to keep collecting good players.

Again, I don't see how what you're saying is effectively any different from what's going on right now.

I can't honestly say I've done all the math (especially since a lot of the numbers are so up in the air) but to keep it simple, I just don't want dynasties or super teams to be outlawed. I think you need to keep it a possibility because that's the pinnacle of what teams strive for, it's not championships per se, it's eras of top shelf basketball. I may be wrong, but I think a hard cap prevents that from being possible, or at least prevents it from being sustainable. If I'm wrong and it doesn't do that, and it doesn't put too much of a cap on how good a team can be, then I'm okay with it. I think we have a lot of the same objectives here, I just don't want teams to be watered down so we can have some pointless free-for-all with a bunch of boring teams in the playoffs, it cheapens the trophy's value.

The NFL kills dynasties because they have a hard cap with minimal exceptions, and non-guaranteed contracts. Because of the star-driven quality of the NBA, the NFL system wouldn't work very well. It works in the NFL because the average NFL fan doesn't know who all 53 guys on his team are. He wouldn't recognize his team's left tackle if he saw him in the supermarket. Everyone is hiding behind a helmet. The percentage of players with true star power in the NFL, on and off the field, is significantly less than the NBA. So as players move from team to team, which is much more common in the NFL (as it would be with four times as many players), it doesn't really affect the fanbase as much.

You can't have that kind of situation in the NBA, for several reasons. Not only would it hurt the league, but the players will NEVER agree to a hard cap and non-guaranteed contracts. (Ironically, guaranteed contracts aren't a collectively-bargained right in the NBA; the owners gradually made that concession on a player-by-player basis, to the point that it's now the status quo for everyone, not just stars. Contrast that with the NFL, where even the stars don't have fully guaranteed contracts. Peyton Manning's deal is guaranteed, but there's a team opt-out after this season, which is a rare occurrence and something they agreed upon only because of his health status.)

You can, however, limit all the teams ability to go over the cap, and then you'll limit the amount of exceptions that are used, and so on.

As Warhawk said, nothing cheapens the value of the trophy more than big money/market teams running out and paying for it with big signings every year. If the Yankees win the World Series, it's no big deal: they were supposed to, with a $200 million payroll. If the Marlins win it, you know they're going to fire-sell all their talent and won't sniff the playoffs for the next five years. At least in baseball, a team can shed payroll, save money, and then make a big run for two or three years, and do it all again. In the NBA, it's an exercise just getting rid of salary, and that's because of the restrictions that were supposed to make it difficult to add salary. The system, as it is now, isn't effective on any level. Either open it all the way up, or close it down with some real restrictions. I'm in favor of closing it down, because then, you have at least a semblance of parity, rather than the stacked nature of MLB where you already know where the marquee free agents are going.

 

[Larry David]

You are both looking at this through the lens of what makes the best league, and that’s not what the owners are going for or how this will be decided.

29 owners are looking out for a huge asset. The owners believe that more fans will watch under their proposed system, but also they can sell more tickets in 30 cities and franchise values will be higher if 30 teams have a chance to compete. Otherwise when the new local super TV deals keep popping up, the NBA will become a baseball type system and the value and attendance in small markets will continue to drop.

Lebron took a sledgehammer to the Cavs’ value, and it freaked a lot of people out. The owners see that star players are less committed to making it work in one city than they were 20 and 30 years ago and players are even more inclined to chase the titles and experiences they want, often in big or more attractive markets.

The system they are fighting for is more about “who owns the league” and small and mid-sized teams trying to maximize and protect their franchise value. Don’t let Adam Silver’s “30 teams that compete” confuse you. This is less about helping small markets and more about owners making sure they can keep a star if they draft one.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

This is where I don't see how a player like LeBron can win. If he says "I'm the man, and I'm always going to be the man," then he's labeled as selfish and just out to score points and make money. But if he says "I want to win championships, and if that means teaming up with another star and maybe even deferring sometimes," he's soft, he's not an alpha, he's not clutch, he can't be the #1, etc...

I can't speak for anyone else, but my contempt for James stems for his refusal to consider a third option: "I want to win championships, but I'd rather win them here in Cleveland. I haven't really done all that I could to try to get another star here to play alongside me, I'll try harder to make that happen, before I consider leaving Cleveland as an option."

You may notice that I don't have any ill feelings towards Dywane Wade. Why not? Because he did what he was "supposed" to do: get star players to come play with him. If James had done what he was "supposed" to do (according to me, I'll unapolgetically admit), it would have happened the other way around.

Why people hate him so much for that is beyond me.

How he left Cleveland, including The Decision...

AFAIC, asked and answered.

Bosh and James were going to Miami with or without the sign and trade. Yes, they got an added benefit with an extra year and some more money, but the real beneficiary was Cleveland and Toronto...

WHAT?

There's also an element of hypocrisy (don't take this personally) whenever anyone complains about the S&T, because at some point, your team will benefit from it. We did it for Brad Miller in 2004.

Well, as the B.C. posts remain unrecoverable, I suppose that you'll have to take my word for it that I was against that trade, too.

A team's reward for building a dominant team through good management and savvy and foresight is having a dominant team, making the playoffs, having a chance to win championships, and creating a culture of winning, which leads to sponsorships, endorsements, TV deals, more free agent attraction, etc...

That's fine, in the ideal, but it doesn't seem to me that it always works out in practice: Milwaukee built a literal championship team around Lew Alcindor, before he forced his way out of town, and they have since had what has essentially been forty years of irrelevancy. Was that their reward? What was Orlando's reward when O'Neal walked? What will their reward be when Howard walks?

As far as the free agency question is concerned, While I have mostly tried to keep quiet in this particular thread topic, I think that my past history will show that, if I ruled the world, I would completely eliminate free agency. To the extent that I would allow it, it would be completely restricted. I think that, if the home team is capable and willing to match any contract offer, they should always be allowed to. It's one think if Tyreke Evans leaves Sacramento to go to Philadelphia because he wants the max, and Sacramento is only offering ninety percent of the max; it's quite another if Sacramento is offering the max, and he leaves to go elsewhere for the same amount of money.

You have established the opinion that, all things being equal, in a dispute between labor and management. the benefit of the doubt should always go to labor, and it would be fair to say that I don't particularly agree with that.

It's that kind of comment, coupled with the idea that the players are being greedy because they make millions for playing a game and aren't willing to just take whatever the owners are offering and say thank you, that makes an argument seem partisan...

My bad; didn't know we weren't allowed to be partisan...

 

[bajaden]

I understand what you're saying. I just don't think LeBron James needs to be held responsible for Cleveland's financial viability. And you can also argue that the hundreds of millions that the Cavs and surrounding businesses made due to LeBron's presence have more than paid for his departure. Had he never been there, that money wouldn't have been made. It's not his fault that they're terrible without him; that's part of the reason he left. And what happens when he retires? One day, life without LeBron (or any other marquee player) begins.

I get it. It's awful that there's an economic windfall after he leaves, but I don't think you can really say that a player should be restricted to staying for the sake of the economic health of the franchise.

Well first off, and I tried to word what I said carefully, I don't think I said anything about blaming LeBron. I wasn't blaming anyone. I was merely pointing out the afterafects of his leaving. Secondly, I didn't say anything about restricting freeagents from leaving. I was suggesting tha because of the effects of his leaving, that perhaps the league could help with some financial compensation. I wasn't suggesting that LeBron help, or that the team that aquired him help. Something along the same lines as compensating with draft picks.

It was merely a thought. I'm open to anything that helps small market teams compete on a more equal level, without overly penalizing the big market teams. Equalizing isn't a new concept. In horse racing, they make sure each jockey carries a equal amount of weight. In golf, except at the professional level, they handicap each golfer. But even in golf, only a percentage of each golfers ability is handicapped. Meaning that if a 2 handicap plays a 20 handicap and both shoot exactly their handicap, the 2 handicap golfer will win.

So to my mind, the major markets have a distinct advantage financially. I'm all for finding a way to restrict that advantage in some form. But I'm not for totally taking away the entire advantage. I'm for every team in the league, if managed properly, being financially and competively healthy. If the conditions allow for that, and a team is failing anyway, then you deal with that team as an individual problem, and not a league problem.

 

[sidney]

That's not what's happening.

LOL. Sure if you ignore the 3 recent times it has happened since July 2010 and dismiss all the rumors about Chris Paul and Dwight Howard leaving small markets for large ones. Carry on.

 

[bajaden]

I admitted in the very post you are responding to that there is a problem in that the big markets have historically had a monopoly on these teams. I've given, at least what I think, are effective alternatives to hard salary caps, by restricting/preventing acquisitions of players by the means of market lure, current team success, and outright spending. The only reason I wish to not absolutely cap spending is because I want teams to be able to sustain the teams they build through quality team management, as well as be able to naturally accumulate role players to round out their team over time. Yes, teams with more money would still have an advantage at sustaining their teams longer because they will probably have more money to spend, but at least they'd have to work to build that team in the first place, instead of taking the easy way outs like the Lakers and Knicks want to do with Howard/Paul/Williams.

That's fine if it worked for the NFL, but this isn't the NFL. The way the regular season and playoffs are played in the NFL, there is an inherent attraction in that, and a natural environment for parity. They play 16 game regular seasons and have single elimination playoffs for crying out loud. The fan culture in the NFL is also particularly attracted to the atmosphere and the game itself more than the fan culture in basketball is, so there's less importance of dynasties and star-laden teams. Basketball has been so successful as a star-centered league because the game is played with only 5 players on the court per team, and with only about 8 main players during the entire game. There's an inherent difference in basketball that's going to create more of an emphasis on the individual player, because they have more impact on the game than any other sport does. That's why I don't think NFL parity is going to fly in the NBA. NFL is more like a story that has a really interesting setting and plot (I hate football btw), and the NBA is more like a story that has really attractive characters (and I'm using characters as a metaphor for individual players and whole teams.) I think star players are what gives teams character more than say their franchise history or style of play does.

Well I think we both agree that something needs to be done. We just don't agree on what it is. Since we probably won't, and because I'm always right D), I'll just agree to disagree.

I do disagree about my football analysis. I heard the exact same arguments that your giving about football when they decided to go to a hard cap. And believe it or not, football does have its share of stars. I doubt there was anyone in the USA that didn't know who Joe Montana was. But once again, we can agree to disagree.

As for as the cap restricting teams from maintaining their talent level, it all depends on where the cap is set. If its set at 45 million, then I would agree with you. But if its set at 65 million, then I don't think thats an unreasonable ceiling. But your welcome to disagree.

 

[Superman]

LOL. Sure if you ignore the 3 recent times it has happened since July 2010 and dismiss all the rumors about Chris Paul and Dwight Howard leaving small markets for large ones. Carry on.

Chris Paul's wish list included Orlando and Portland. Orlando happens to be the market that everyone is assuming Dwight Howard wants OUT of, only he's never suggested that he doesn't want to be in Orlando. He's said that he wants/needs help, and if Chris Paul winds up in Orlando, wish granted. Has nothing to do with what market they're in.

You'll never hear me defend what Carmelo Anthony did, since he was still under contract. Unlike LeBron and Bosh (and presumably Howard and Paul), he didn't leave as a free agent. He forced his way out of town to the team he wanted to go to, and he did so because he knew that he needed to sign his extension before the CBA expired. Selfish and greedy. I don't think what LeBron and Bosh did was selfish and greedy. I think it was about winning, which is ordinarily what we want professional athletes to be about.