Free-agency all the time: Someone needs a to put a stop to it before the NBA dies

[NoBonus]

Okay, Lebron, and whomever, and whoever clearly took part in some unfair business practices and made a wonder-team in Miami during a regularly scheduled free-agency. It changed the face of the NBA; raised the bar to compete for a title for a few years. So what, right?
Lebron will forever be known as the best player who could never get it done without an insane amount of help; I mean, let's be honest, Coby Karl could win rings on the current Heat roster if he replaced Lebron; he will never be held in the same esteem as MJ or Bird or Magic or even Kobe... those guys got it done themselves... they wanted to be the star, they were the stars, and they won the rings. Lebron can never get there in Miami, he isn't the star... DWade is the star who can win rings; Lebron is just a selfish sellout who cares more about getting a ring than anything else... to a fault. So who cares, right?

Unfortunately, now NBA stars who seemed like good citizens are showing their whiny, spoiled baby, selfish side and are demanding TRADES during their current contracts so they can go make a wonder team, too. This is not free agency for CP3 or Carmelo, yet, they want to get dealt so they can "compete" and enjoy the riches and fame of playing in a huge city. So, again, who cares, right? CP3 can jump off a cliff for all I care.

So what is my problem with all this? What happens when the talent divide is so great between teams that everyone can predict who will be the champion? Let's examine the history of the NBA, shall we? During the Celtics Era of the 60's and 70's NBA interest dropped... the league was faced with COMPETITION from the ABA. So, let's face it, if it weren't for the increase of competition in the league with the 80's Celtics and Lakers, the league would have probably died off. And here we are again with the players making one or two wonder teams in a league with 30 teams. Who would ever want to watch that?

I am not saying this is the doomsday of the NBA; hopefully, fans will weather the Heat years and look to the future, but it is not a good sign when small market teams cannot even keep the players they have under contract. Something needs to change; hopefully, fans will start booing these players and stop buying their jerseys, shoes, etc and as the money for them dries up, so will that attitude.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

As longs as there are frontrunners these DBs will sell jerseys in abundance. They're perfect mates actually. Maybe they should choose which team to go to based on jersey colors.

 

[Bricklayer]

Much will depend on the success or failure of the Miami crew. Maybe not soon enough to save the fans in Denver or New Orleans though.

I still say they should get a franchise player tag out of this CBA and just shut this junk down before it even gets going. Once upon a time the assumption was that the league would work because the top guys would stay with their franchises -- remember too that before the last CBA guys could be signed for as long as you wanted too. If the current generation are too wussy to be counted on for that sort of steadfastness and loyalty, then the league is going to have to enforce it for them.

 

[NME]

I think these issues were covered a bunch in the Lebron threads.

 

[Superman]

Okay, Lebron, and whomever, and whoever clearly took part in some unfair business practices and made a wonder-team in Miami during a regularly scheduled free-agency. It changed the face of the NBA; raised the bar to compete for a title for a few years. So what, right?
Lebron will forever be known as the best player who could never get it done without an insane amount of help; I mean, let's be honest, Coby Karl could win rings on the current Heat roster if he replaced Lebron; he will never be held in the same esteem as MJ or Bird or Magic or even Kobe... those guys got it done themselves... they wanted to be the star, they were the stars, and they won the rings. Lebron can never get there in Miami, he isn't the star... DWade is the star who can win rings; Lebron is just a selfish sellout who cares more about getting a ring than anything else... to a fault. So who cares, right?

Unfortunately, now NBA stars who seemed like good citizens are showing their whiny, spoiled baby, selfish side and are demanding TRADES during their current contracts so they can go make a wonder team, too. This is not free agency for CP3 or Carmelo, yet, they want to get dealt so they can "compete" and enjoy the riches and fame of playing in a huge city. So, again, who cares, right? CP3 can jump off a cliff for all I care.

So what is my problem with all this? What happens when the talent divide is so great between teams that everyone can predict who will be the champion? Let's examine the history of the NBA, shall we? During the Celtics Era of the 60's and 70's NBA interest dropped... the league was faced with COMPETITION from the ABA. So, let's face it, if it weren't for the increase of competition in the league with the 80's Celtics and Lakers, the league would have probably died off. And here we are again with the players making one or two wonder teams in a league with 30 teams. Who would ever want to watch that?

I am not saying this is the doomsday of the NBA; hopefully, fans will weather the Heat years and look to the future, but it is not a good sign when small market teams cannot even keep the players they have under contract. Something needs to change; hopefully, fans will start booing these players and stop buying their jerseys, shoes, etc and as the money for them dries up, so will that attitude.

There's so much wrong with this post that I don't really know where to start.

 

[Superman]

Much will depend on the success or failure of the Miami crew. Maybe not soon enough to save the fans in Denver or New Orleans though.

I still say they should get a franchise player tag out of this CBA and just shut this junk down before it even gets going. Once upon a time the assumption was that the league would work because the top guys would stay with their franchises -- remember too that before the last CBA guys could be signed for as long as you wanted too. If the current generation are too wussy to be counted on for that sort of steadfastness and loyalty, then the league is going to have to enforce it for them.

I understand the concern for small market teams, and the NBA in general, especially with the latest happenings in the NBA. Really been a concern for a long time for small market teams in every sport.

What I don't understand is how anyone can think that a player shouldn't be allowed to play wherever he wants to play once his contract has expired.

 

[Bricklayer]

I understand the concern for small market teams, and the NBA in general, especially with the latest happenings in the NBA. Really been a concern for a long time for small market teams in every sport.

What I don't understand is how anyone can think that a player shouldn't be allowed to play wherever he wants to play once his contract has expired.

I am fundamentally unconcerned with the superstar players and the sad necessity that they may have to be deified and take $100 million from one city rather than another.

I am considerably concerned for the league, its teams, and its fans, the health of which groups btw the entire privileged liestyle fo the superstars depends upon.

 

[Superman]

I am fundamentally unconcerned with the superstar players and the sad necessity that they may have to be deified and take $100 million from one city rather than another.

I am considerably concerned for the league, its teams, and its fans, the health of which groups btw the entire privileged liestyle fo the superstars depends upon.

That's essentially ownership, and it's ridiculous. You draft a player, and he's yours for the rest of his career, even though you're only giving him a limited term contract.

There's a ton of other things the new CBA needs to address, such as guaranteed money and penalties for holdouts and such, to make it unpalatable for a player to make a fuss while under contract and make it easier for teams to undo mistakes when a player busts, or fails to live up to his contract. Such changes would help the NBA maintain some semblance of parity, to whatever extent that's even a real concept anymore. I understand concern for the league and those associated with it. I don't think you have to create an environment where a team owns a player's rights indefinitely once they enter the league in order to promote the health of the NBA.

Besides that, it simply won't happen. The union would never agree to it, for the simple fact that it's a totally undesirable concept for any player -- superstar or not -- to be told that they can't choose where they want to play once they fulfill the terms of their contract. Just like if you sign a work contract with a company, you want to be able to choose whether you want to stay there or go somewhere else once you've satisfied your obligations. Regardless of the differences between the basic layman and a multimillionaire athlete, the fundamental desire to have some control over your career is universal. There's no way the players' association would ever agree to such an idea, and I can't imagine the NBA or ownership groups would even have the gall to present it. At least not in the form you're talking about.

 

[SacKings7]

Hasn't this already been discussed basically every day since "The Decision"? I know I've thrown my 2 cents into this whole thing more than once already

 

[Bricklayer]

That's essentially ownership, and it's ridiculous. You draft a player, and he's yours for the rest of his career, even though you're only giving him a limited term contract.

No, your stance is ridiculous. The NBA is private sports league. One league in a world of leagues. It can do whatever the hell it wants. If a player just can't live by the bargained rules, he can go play anyplace else he wants. Turkey, Alabama, Afghanistan, wherever. But he has no inherent right to play for the NBA, or anybody else. If he can't live with the rules of the organization, then tough. Its no more unfair to him then you not being able to hack the rules at Microsoft and ending up at Bob's Electronics instead. You want to work for the best, receive the greatest compensation, the most fame, babes, worship and shoe contracts? Then here are the rules that work for us. If you'd rather not play by the rules, then have fun in Europe. We're nto stopping you.

And given that the idea has already been pioneered by the NFL, who the NBA owners are making noise about imitating, its hardly unprecedented or off the board. Nor even impractical in implementation. Its been canvassed over and over. It could be as simple as the franchise tag meaning an absolute right to match any contract offered to the franchise player, with some bonus to the player for his inconvenience, and an automatic no trade clause to cement the marriage. Player not only makes his money, he exceeds it. And as always with these things, you can ALWAYS make a run at getting concessions effecting a few union members by offering other concessions to the majority who will never be effected. That's before you even get to the break the union lockout from hell disaster that looms.

 

[NoBonus]

I understand the concern for small market teams, and the NBA in general, especially with the latest happenings in the NBA. Really been a concern for a long time for small market teams in every sport.

What I don't understand is how anyone can think that a player shouldn't be allowed to play wherever he wants to play once his contract has expired.

I have no problems with players signing where ever they wish once they are free agents. I have a problem with contracted guys demanding trades into these wonder teams and the negative impact that will have on the league.

 

[Superman]

No, your stance is ridiculous. The NBA is private sports league. One league in a world of leagues. It can do whatever the hell it wants. If a player just can't live by the bargained rules, he can go play anyplace else he wants. Turkey, Alabama, Afghanistan, wherever. But he has no inherent right to play for the NBA, or anybody else. If he can't live with the rules of the organization, then tough. Its no more unfair to him then you not being able to hack the rules at Microsoft and ending up at Bob's Electronics instead. You want to work for the best, receive the greatest compensation, the most fame, babes, worship and shoe contracts? Then here are the rules that work for us. If you'd rather not play by the rules, then have fun in Europe. We're nto stopping you.

I'm not talking about a right to play for the NBA. I'm talking about the right to fulfill a contract and then go play for another team. And at the risk of pounding this entire argument into the ground -- again -- Microsoft protects intelligence, not talent. A non-compete clause or whatever is different than lifetime ownership of a player's rights.

And the whole "dare you to go to Europe" thing doesn't promote the health of the NBA anymore than players piling on in one city and bringing a bunch of attention to the league, be it good or bad. Because there are players who would actually go to Europe, and before long, the NBA isn't the premiere basketball league in the world anymore. I'm not saying they have to bow to the whims of these admittedly selfish, egotistical and immature millionaires in order to stay relevant, but you don't dare them to leave either. Because they will, eventually.

And given that the idea has already been pioneered by the NFL, who the NBA owners are making noise about imitating, its hardly unprecedented or off the board. Nor even impractical in implementation. Its been canvassed over and over. It could be as simple as the franchise tag meaning an absolute right to match any contract offered to the franchise player, with some bonus to the player for his inconvenience, and an automatic no trade clause to cement the marriage. Player not only makes his money, he exceeds it. And as always with these things, you can ALWAYS make a run at getting concessions effecting a few union members by offering other concessions to the majority who will never be effected. That's before you even get to the break the union lockout from hell disaster that looms.

If the NBA is serious about imitating the NFL's labor agreement, they'll insist on a hard cap, which actually promotes active free agency as a means of maintaining parity in the NFL, rather than restricting it. And it works. And the major sore spots of the NFL's labor deal, as it relates to the players, are the franchise tag and restricted free agency. Those elements are the primary cause of contract disputes and holdouts, because the players in general hate them.

With a hard cap, on the other hand, the Heat may have been able to build the team they've just put together, but the prospect of keeping it together for more than a couple of seasons is pretty much non existent. Same principles apply to the Lakers, who have been way over the cap and continue to add payroll every year, despite the so-called cap and luxury tax that are in place now. That system has remained in tact for so long because some owners are okay with never winning anything as long as their franchise is profitable, so if the Lakers are paying a $30 million tax Donald Sterling gets his yearly bonus and all is right in his world. I don't think you can solve the problems the NBA has by keeping players locked down for the duration of their careers.

 

[NoBonus]

There's so much wrong with this post that I don't really know where to start.

Well, for starters, I'm nuts. Just ask anyone that's been around my threads.

 

[Superman]

I have no problems with players signing where ever they wish once they are free agents. I have a problem with contracted guys demanding trades into these wonder teams and the negative impact that will have on the league.

Me too. I wish the teams had consistently taken the hard line from the beginning and discouraged trade demands by simply denying them, perhaps docking pay for a player who took his demands public or allowed his agent to do so. This isn't a new thing. Players have been demanding trades since way back when.

 

[Bricklayer]

I'm not talking about a right to play for the NBA. I'm talking about the right to fulfill a contract and then go play for another team. And at the risk of pounding this entire argument into the ground -- again -- Microsoft protects intelligence, not talent. A non-compete clause or whatever is different than lifetime ownership of a player's rights.

And the whole "dare you to go to Europe" thing doesn't promote the health of the NBA anymore than players piling on in one city and bringing a bunch of attention to the league, be it good or bad. Because there are players who would actually go to Europe, and before long, the NBA isn't the premiere basketball league in the world anymore. I'm not saying they have to bow to the whims of these admittedly selfish, egotistical and immature millionaires in order to stay relevant, but you don't dare them to leave either. Because they will, eventually.



If the NBA is serious about imitating the NFL's labor agreement, they'll insist on a hard cap, which actually promotes active free agency as a means of maintaining parity in the NFL, rather than restricting it. And it works. And the major sore spots of the NFL's labor deal, as it relates to the players, are the franchise tag and restricted free agency. Those elements are the primary cause of contract disputes and holdouts, because the players in general hate them.

With a hard cap, on the other hand, the Heat may have been able to build the team they've just put together, but the prospect of keeping it together for more than a couple of seasons is pretty much non existent. Same principles apply to the Lakers, who have been way over the cap and continue to add payroll every year, despite the so-called cap and luxury tax that are in place now. That system has remained in tact for so long because some owners are okay with never winning anything as long as their franchise is profitable, so if the Lakers are paying a $30 million tax Donald Sterling gets his yearly bonus and all is right in his world. I don't think you can solve the problems the NBA has by keeping players locked down for the duration of their careers.

No, none of the players will go to Europe. Not yet. And when they are willing to, the hard cap will only encourage it, not discourage it.

As an aside, you can't insult the luxury tax and argue for the hard cap in the same sentence, since the luxury tax is essentially a first step to a hard cap, and has functioned as a hard cap for 75% of the league. Nor have the people for whom it did not apply particularly dominated. The Lakers only very of alte, Dallas, Portland, New York, Philadelphia was big etc. Indeed for that matter its done a spectacularly bad job of promoting parity in the New England Football League

And again, I do not give a flying **** what upsets or does not players in general. Anything that promotes rapid player movement = bad for the fans, who are the ONLY people who matter in the whole equation. There is no business without them. And players are not possessions to them -- they are emotional investments. The bigger the player, the bigger the investment.

 

[Bricklayer]

Me too. I wish the teams had consistently taken the hard line from the beginning and discouraged trade demands by simply denying them, perhaps docking pay for a player who took his demands public or allowed his agent to do so. This isn't a new thing. Players have been demanding trades since way back when.

Not for this purpose. Which is the whole reason it has to be shut down. There is no defense built into the current system for this. Its a cancer for which the NBA's structure has no immunity. Once the players' motivations go south, once you can no longer count on them to act in ways that balance the equation, then you have to force them to do so.

 

[jthompson1]

Im sick of this being discussed. The fact is we wouldnt be talking about this if Lebron, Wade, And Bosh came to us. They didn't do anything they weren't aloud to do. Let's just focus on our own team.

 

[Entity]

Im sick of this being discussed. The fact is we wouldnt be talking about this if Lebron, Wade, And Bosh came to us. They didn't do anything they weren't aloud to do. Let's just focus on our own team.

I disagree with this. follow me here. my first NBA live was 2003. I decided after months of playing to trade my players and make a dream team on the kings. It took severl trades that seemed strange. Anyway I ended up with a starting 5 of Bibby, Mcgrady, Peja, Webber and Garnett. I played about 4 or 5 games and I just didn't feel right. I hit the reset button. I don't believe had The kings traded away the team for Lebron and Bosh I would have enjoyed it as much. I mean I like watching players grow and come into their own. I enjoy watching Thompson have good and bad games I liked watching Kevin Martin mature same with Garcia. It just wouldn't feel right otherwise to me.

 

[Kings Faithful]

I disagree with this. follow me here. my first NBA live was 2003. I decided after months of playing to trade my players and make a dream team on the kings. It took severl trades that seemed strange. Anyway I ended up with a starting 5 of Bibby, Mcgrady, Peja, Webber and Garnett. I played about 4 or 5 games and I just didn't feel right. I hit the reset button. I don't believe had The kings traded away the team for Lebron and Bosh I would have enjoyed it as much. I mean I like watching players grow and come into their own. I enjoy watching Thompson have good and bad games I liked watching Kevin Martin mature same with Garcia. It just wouldn't feel right otherwise to me.

Thats exactly how I feel... i've played the 2k series alot and at some point end up deciding to make a super team in franchise mode once in a while... after I'm done I realize that it was more fun finding ways to trade for the superstar players than it was to actually play with them :/

 

[Superman]

No, none of the players will go to Europe. Not yet. And when they are willing to, the hard cap will only encourage it, not discourage it.

As an aside, you can't insult the luxury tax and argue for the hard cap in the same sentence, since the luxury tax is essentially a first step to a hard cap, and has functioned as a hard cap for 75% of the league. Nor have the people for whom it did not apply particularly dominated. The Lakers only very of alte, Dallas, Portland, New York, Philadelphia was big etc. Indeed for that matter its done a spectacularly bad job of promoting parity in the New England Football League

I'm missing the link between a hard cap and players leaving for Europe. Are you saying that because the money is more restricted, more players would leave? But if that's the case, then why wouldn't players leave because of their free agencies being restricted?

Regarding a hard cap vs. a luxury tax, I'm not saying that the tax doesn't serve a purpose. But paying the tax is a decision that each team can make, and for the Lakers, going to the Finals three years in a row has probably more than offset the tax they've paid these three years. I don't mean to insult it by saying that's it not as effective as a hard cap, whether it's a similar device or not. It's simply not as effective.

As for parity in the NFL, the fact that there have been 16 different Super Bowl champions in the last 20 years speaks to the parity there. That's half the league. Compared to the NBA, where there's been 7 different champs in the last 20 years, barely 1/4 of the league. Three three peats (going on a fourth), three teams with four or more championships. I don't think that money can buy you a championship, but it does help you get the best players. You still have to put role players around them and have the right coaching and all that, so it's not like restricting the big market teams' spending is going to automatically make the Bucks and Timberwolves contenders, anymore than the Lions and Bills are contenders because of a hard cap in the NFL. But it does promote player movement, which puts pressure on good teams and makes it a little easier for bad teams.

The point again was that the NFL's labor deal promotes free agency, rather than restrict it. And not only is the NFL in fine shape financially, the fans are loyal, and even bad, small market teams can put together a four year plan and win a Super Bowl, like the Saints just did. And that story was only made possibly because of active free agency (Drew Brees, Darren Sharper, Will Smith, Scott Fujita, Jonathan Vilma, etc.)

And again, I do not give a flying **** what upsets or does not players in general. Anything that promotes rapid player movement = bad for the fans, who are the ONLY people who matter in the whole equation. There is no business without them. And players are not possessions to them -- they are emotional investments. The bigger the player, the bigger the investment.

Rapid player movement is never good, but player movement in general is NOT bad for the fans. What happened with the Miami Heat, and what appears to be happening with the Knicks, that's bad for the health of the league, and certain measures can and should be taken to prevent that type of activity, or at least minimize the supposed advantages (like a hard cap, which would break the SuperHeat up within two years due to salary cap restrictions). But that is not a reason to totally restrict players in free agency, especially the best players in the NBA, the ones who are bringing the fans to the table in the first place. You can stop super teams without resorting to such a drastic measure.

Edit: My comment about NFL players hating the franchise tag and restricted free agency was about the likelihood of the NBAPA agreeing to similar instruments in their new labor deal. Based on how unpopular they are in the NFL, they don't have a big shot of being embraced by the NBA.

 

[Superman]

Not for this purpose. Which is the whole reason it has to be shut down. There is no defense built into the current system for this. Its a cancer for which the NBA's structure has no immunity. Once the players' motivations go south, once you can no longer count on them to act in ways that balance the equation, then you have to force them to do so.

Just tell them no and don't trade them. Tell Chris Paul to get bent and play out his contract. Same for Carmelo Anthony. Or trade them to Minnesota or Indiana or something. While players are under contract, the teams have the right to tell them no.

 

[DocHolliday]

I stopped reading when i saw that Lebron and whomever were involved in "unfair" business practices?? Really? Two people talking about where they might like to be employed at a future time is an unfair business practice?

Even while under contract. If Lebron Wade and Bosh were sitting around at dinner while playing for Team USA and were saying "Man, I'm really enjoying playing with you guys. It would be great if we could all play together some day. Well you know a few of us are up for free agency in a couple years, maybe when it gets closer we can try to set it up and see if a team will sign all of us together."

That's not unfair. Now Wade may very well have been putting out feelers on the back end with Pat and the rest, going back to Lebron, Bosh etc and saying that hey it's very possible. Technically that would be a team kind of talking to a player under by proxy, that would be unfair, I agree. However, we'll never know that, and you'll never prove it.

So, we have to stick with the facts that we know. Lebron Wade, possibly Bosh and CP3 all talked about playing together in the future. By the rules of the NBA there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Stern was asked if there are any problems with that, if that in fact happened. He said he would not try to enforce players not being able to talk to each other, there's nothing wrong with it. That's not an exact quote, but that's the jist of it.

 

[Superman]

I stopped reading when i saw that Lebron and whomever were involved in "unfair" business practices?? Really? Two people talking about where they might like to be employed at a future time is an unfair business practice?

Even while under contract. If Lebron Wade and Bosh were sitting around at dinner while playing for Team USA and were saying "Man, I'm really enjoying playing with you guys. It would be great if we could all play together some day. Well you know a few of us are up for free agency in a couple years, maybe when it gets closer we can try to set it up and see if a team will sign all of us together."

That's not unfair. Now Wade may very well have been putting out feelers on the back end with Pat and the rest, going back to Lebron, Bosh etc and saying that hey it's very possible. Technically that would be a team kind of talking to a player under by proxy, that would be unfair, I agree. However, we'll never know that, and you'll never prove it.

So, we have to stick with the facts that we know. Lebron Wade, possibly Bosh and CP3 all talked about playing together in the future. By the rules of the NBA there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Stern was asked if there are any problems with that, if that in fact happened. He said he would not try to enforce players not being able to talk to each other, there's nothing wrong with it. That's not an exact quote, but that's the jist of it.

There's the very real possibility that Wade went and talked to Pat Riley back in 2008 and said "this is the plan, get ready to make this happen," and Riley proceeded accordingly. I don't know how realistic that is, especially since the Heat were trying to sign Lamar Odom and others just last summer. It's not like they stripped the roster bare like the Knicks did. Still, could have happened.

As you said, though, can't ever be proved. Short of one of these guys writing a tell-all book in twenty years, once all the minute details have been forgotten, we'll never know.

 

[Kingster]

That's essentially ownership, and it's ridiculous. You draft a player, and he's yours for the rest of his career, even though you're only giving him a limited term contract.

There's a ton of other things the new CBA needs to address, such as guaranteed money and penalties for holdouts and such, to make it unpalatable for a player to make a fuss while under contract and make it easier for teams to undo mistakes when a player busts, or fails to live up to his contract. Such changes would help the NBA maintain some semblance of parity, to whatever extent that's even a real concept anymore. I understand concern for the league and those associated with it. I don't think you have to create an environment where a team owns a player's rights indefinitely once they enter the league in order to promote the health of the NBA.

Besides that, it simply won't happen. The union would never agree to it, for the simple fact that it's a totally undesirable concept for any player -- superstar or not -- to be told that they can't choose where they want to play once they fulfill the terms of their contract. Just like if you sign a work contract with a company, you want to be able to choose whether you want to stay there or go somewhere else once you've satisfied your obligations. Regardless of the differences between the basic layman and a multimillionaire athlete, the fundamental desire to have some control over your career is universal. There's no way the players' association would ever agree to such an idea, and I can't imagine the NBA or ownership groups would even have the gall to present it. At least not in the form you're talking about.

I really don't care if it's an undesirable by players to commit to a team. Not in the least. It's not a sanctified right to play in the NBA for the team of their choosing. First and foremost, this thing that we follow, is a SPORT. The NBA is in the business of SPORT. And if there's anything intrinsic to sport is that the game must be fair. Otherwise, it ceases to be sport. And at that point, it ceases to be of interest to fans who follow the sport. It becomes a gimmicky charade. The competition to win becomes a joke, a pre-packaged, arranged joke.

 

[Superman]

I really don't care if it's an undesirable by players to commit to a team. Not in the least. It's not a sanctified right to play in the NBA for the team of their choosing. First and foremost, this thing that we follow, is a SPORT. The NBA is in the business of SPORT. And if there's anything intrinsic to sport is that the game must be fair. Otherwise, it ceases to be sport. And at that point, it ceases to be of interest to fans who follow the sport. It becomes a gimmicky charade. The competition to win becomes a joke, a pre-packaged, arranged joke.

Yes it is, insofar as the rules of free agency currently allow it. In other words, you fulfill your contract, you can go to whatever team you want to go, provided they want you and can pay you what you want to be paid. As I said earlier, whether any individual on this side of the glass cares about how the players feel is irrelevant. The collective bargaining agreement is an agreement between the players, the owners, and the league. The players are 1/3 of the equation, and if they don't want their rights in free agency restricted in that manner, it's not going to happen.

As to the rest of your post, I understand and agree with you on the importance of fairness in the sport. That's why I'm a proponent of a hard cap. I don't think telling players that they can't leave in free agency is A) fair, B) practical, or C) necessary. Restricting free agency in the manner proposed does not promote fairness or competition.

I'm a fan of a small market team just like everyone else is. I would love for the Kings to be able to tell Tyreke Evans and DeMarcus Cousins "you ain't goin nowhere, so get comfortable." But I don't think it's right to nail a player to the floor, nor do I think it's necessary for the intrinsic fairness of the sport to be held in tact. Player movement promotes competition, so that if and when we want to sign a free agent from another small market team, said team doesn't swoop in and block the move, and we're left in the dark. Free agency is one of the tools that a team can use to build a winner. Restricting it is the opposite of what the NBA should do.

 

[Packt]

I'm surprised by the overwhelming negative reaction to all this. Miami built a team to win. Players seem willing to make sacrifices to give them the best situation to win. That's what should happen in sports. Things like this is usually praised and glorified. There's legit reason to be concerned about the consequences down the line, sure. But most of all the negative reaction sounds more like fans upset about a potential powerhouse being built and it not being their team.

There has been dominant teams in the past and i don't see this Miami squad being any more dominant than those previous teams. Makes no difference if team was built through the draft or through FA. There is still one ball and players still have to play like a team.

All this talk about the NBA being a business. When players are traded "it's business", nothing personal. But that talk always stops when it comes to a player making a decision for himself. It's business folks. They're looking out for themselves. Just like I want my team to look out for itself.

Lebron and Bosh, they've been acting like douches. Overconfident and haven't proven anything. I would love to see them crash and burn.

 

[kennadog]

I'm surprised by the overwhelming negative reaction to all this. Miami built a team to win. Players seem willing to make sacrifices to give them the best situation to win. That's what should happen in sports. Things like this is usually praised and glorified. There's legit reason to be concerned about the consequences down the line, sure. But most of all the negative reaction sounds more like fans upset about a potential powerhouse being built and it not being their team.

There has been dominant teams in the past and i don't see this Miami squad being any more dominant than those previous teams. Makes no difference if team was built through the draft or through FA. There is still one ball and players still have to play like a team.

All this talk about the NBA being a business. When players are traded "it's business", nothing personal. But that talk always stops when it comes to a player making a decision for himself. It's business folks. They're looking out for themselves. Just like I want my team to look out for itself.

Lebron and Bosh, they've been acting like douches. Overconfident and haven't proven anything. I would love to see them crash and burn.

Well, first off, the players didn't sacrifice anything. The salaries are by-the-numbers smaller than the maximum they could have received, but since Florida has no state income tax, it's likely they will net about the same. So what did they sacrifice?

Secondly, the Heat didn't "build" this team through FA. The players built this team through free agency, by getting together and deciding they would all be in Miami.

 

[stevetaebo]

Well, first off, the players didn't sacrifice anything. The salaries are by-the-numbers smaller than the maximum they could have received, but since Florida has no state income tax, it's likely they will net about the same. So what did they sacrifice?

Secondly, the Heat didn't "build" this team through FA. The players built this team through free agency, by getting together and deciding they would all be in Miami.

Agreed.

Basically the issue is that there is an unfair playing field.

Desirable markets will always have the advantage. They can bypass the entire painful system of rebuilding through the draft in one season. Superstars believe the location is more important than winning. I had no problems wiht KG leaving a bad MIN team. But Lebron or Melo leaving a 60+ win team is awful.

This is where protection for those teams is needed.

 

[NoBonus]

I really like the idea of having a "franchise player" on an NBA team whom the team can sign to a bigger, longer contract... would spread the talent in the league considerably.

 

[NoBonus]

I stopped reading when i saw that Lebron and whomever were involved in "unfair" business practices?? Really? Two people talking about where they might like to be employed at a future time is an unfair business practice?

Even while under contract. If Lebron Wade and Bosh were sitting around at dinner while playing for Team USA and were saying "Man, I'm really enjoying playing with you guys. It would be great if we could all play together some day. Well you know a few of us are up for free agency in a couple years, maybe when it gets closer we can try to set it up and see if a team will sign all of us together."

That's not unfair. Now Wade may very well have been putting out feelers on the back end with Pat and the rest, going back to Lebron, Bosh etc and saying that hey it's very possible. Technically that would be a team kind of talking to a player under by proxy, that would be unfair, I agree. However, we'll never know that, and you'll never prove it.

So, we have to stick with the facts that we know. Lebron Wade, possibly Bosh and CP3 all talked about playing together in the future. By the rules of the NBA there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Stern was asked if there are any problems with that, if that in fact happened. He said he would not try to enforce players not being able to talk to each other, there's nothing wrong with it. That's not an exact quote, but that's the jist of it.

Huh? What they did was collusion by definition...