This. Superteam this superteam that blah blah...if the Rockets were a superteam this thread wouldn't exist. So play with the hand you're given and live with the results. Geezzz...
I like this line of thinking, but I don't think that a hard cap alone will fix the problem. It will help in the interim marginally by forcing teams in the next 3 years to get under the cap because no one, not even the Lakers or Knicks, want to go into the repeater tax. The cap is more about increasing profitability for the owners. But the biggest issue for competitiveness is that incumbent teams don't have enough leverage over their players when it comes to re-signing them. The current Bird rights are not strong enough to make it worth the while for a superstar who really wants to leave town to demand a trade in the last year of the contract. They need to be able to offer 2 years more in guaranteed money or to have franchise player tag that allows teams to pay the max, while non-franchise players get significantly less money. In equilibrium, a hard cap will create an incentive for competitive teams (like the top 8-10 teams) to be right at the cap in total salaries. That has some important implications: 1) salaries become less of an issue than other factors like desirable cities and large sponsorship markets (which still privilege NY, LA, and MIA) and 2) a lower cap will actually make superstars on max contracts even more valuable since the value they bring to a franchise will be far more than the max salary. When I say superstars, I mean Lebron, Dwight, Kobe, Duncan, Nowitzki types that you can win a championship with as a centerpiece and bring in revenue with. That means superstars will have even more leverage over their current teams. The real key then is to allow superstars to get paid what they are worth, like what they would be paid on the open market without a max contract structure that limits the ceiling on contracts. Think of a hard salary cap, but no salary schedule for non-rookie contracts. Superstars would be paid more and middling players would be paid less. So Lebron wouldn't be paid only 3 mil more than the likes of Kevin Martin (which is outrageous).
This is exactly what I posted in the other tread I started. They (NBA) allow these team to be put together!!! I know people say if it were us we wouldn't be saying that, but it isn't us and what about the rest of the NBA. This is really B.S., no matter how you look at it.
Yup, I am tired of this super team stuff. The nba revolves around the lakers thunder heat Knicks and the nets now.
It is a problem when coming into each year . . .. 75% of the teams don't have a chance in hell of winning a championship. Several just getting into the playoffs by default. Rocket River
To prevent super teams, I think the NBA should allow a team to resign their own player without max contract restrictions. Currently, the max contract is basically artificially lowering superstar salaries well below market value. So they figure it they're going to be underpaid, they might as well do it for a super team and win a championship.
If you do that now, you basically ensure that the current concentration of max level players stay with the teams they are on now, and the problem doesn't get fixed until the end of their careers. Maybe the "no-max contract" works as an end game, but the tables need to turn a little to fix things in the short term.
Funny how the front offices that "just get it done" in the modern era just happen to reside in Los Angeles, New York or Miami. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Heat PG: Dwayne Wade SG: Ray Allen SF: Lebron James PF: Rashard Lewis C: Chris Bosh Lakers PG: Steve Nash SG: Kobe Bryant SF: Metta World Peace PF: Pao Gasol C: Dwight Howard
There are lots of ideas on how to create a more competitive balance. The problem lies in that all clubs end up making money, regardless if they finish last or if they finish first. The problem with that is that the CBA is driven by financial reasoning over competitive balance. Owners who care more about winning over the balance sheet produce better teams. This is why teams like the Grizzlies, Bobcats and Clippers will always be at the bottom and teams like Dallas will do whatever they can to be at the top. I think what is really needed is a league contraction.
When did Miami get on that list? Wasnt it until recently? Before Wade, it was years and years of Mourning getting whooped by Ewing. And New York hasn't won an NBA championship since God knows when. Houston got Barkley, Pippen, Francis, Yao, and TMac. Those were all premier players in the league. They had their turn as a "super-team". They just didn't turn them into rings.
I don't believe in the franchise tag, but you could make the incentive for keeping a single home grown players far superior to the 5 years and 7.5% raises that currently exists. My proposal is to keep the max contract rules how they are but add an incentive. Each team can offer 1 player an additional 15% of the salary cap that does not count against the cap provided the following requirements are met: 1. Team must have owned the bird right for at least 15 months 2. Team cannot be above the tax line prior to signing "franchise max" player So in essence Players like Kevin Durant could get paid 45% of the salary cap but only count 30%. But players traded in the last year of their contracts (Melo, Bosh, Dwight, Lebron) would be ineligible. Deron Williams would have been eligible on the other hand. Benefits: 1. Significant financial incentive for franchise players to stay with current team. 15% of 100 is far more persuasive than 2.5% of 30. 2. Each team only has one so the super teams would have to choose and hope the old incentives are enough for their remaining stars. 3. May encourage multiple top 10 players from joining same knowing that only one will get paid while they'd be guaranteed that bonus on another team. What do you think?
that's because the booty buddies wanted to g*ngbang each other in their 20s! you're suppose to wait until you're in your early 30s for that, but the fabulous divas wanted it fast and hard. It happened in the 2008 olympics. they do say there is a lot fornicating going on.
If you're saying the Rockets can't compete because they're in Houston (which is nonsense IMO) then Les needs to move the damn team to Orange County in Southern California or Long Island, New York. Seriously it's all stupid. I don't give a hoot whether a franchise can or cannot make it work in Sacramento or Toronto or anywhere else. I didn't choose those markets. If they can't compete for talent because of their location - well then re-locate where they can compete. For all I care we can have 30 teams in two states. But this idea that we should penalize franchises for their successes is silly. Donald Stirling owns the Clippers in Los Angeles and plays right beside the Lakers, even shares the same building. Yet everyone knows the Clippers are the worst performing franchise in modern sports history. The New York Knicks haven't had championship caliber success since the late sixties, early seventies. How do explain that? Other than crappy front office performance. Meanwhile San Antonio has had more championship success in Texas than either the Mavericks or the Rockets. How does that make any sense if not just plain better management of the franchise. Stop thinking in terms of penalizing success and start expecting better performance and fewer excuses from your management. And yes, it's okay to vote with your feet.
