I was under the impression the new CBA would negate superstars joining 1 team ?

The owners didnt get the hard cap they wanted , the contracts are still guaranteed and players being able to hold teams hostage didnt change.

I think a lot of that is because the owners didnt push hard enough and rather settled for the 49-51% band BRI .....

They really need to add something like a franchise tag to the NBA.

 

Lockout or not, players can still choose where they want to play when they are a Free Agent.

 

One, that's what it means to be a Free Agent. People should choose to go where they want to go.

What they should get rid of is max contracts but keep the salary cap. If that happens, Lakers will have to give Kobe a $35MM a year contract, they can still clear enough cap room to $15 MM free for Chris Paul, but now Chris Paul will really have to choose between getting $15 MM at LA or $35MM for New Orleans. It wouldn't matter that the Lakers have a $200 MM a year TV deal if they don't have the cap room to sign players. Most players can't make up $20 MM a year in endorsements, but $5MM is possible. You think Lebron would give up $30MM a year to leave Cleveland?

 

That would have been perfect.

 

The union is against this because most of the NBA players union are role players, not superstars.

 

In the end there's only so much you can do. If superstars are willing to take less money then its up to him


Like how people love saying "oh athletes make so much money." But then they don't want the same athletes to have any free choice on where to play

 

You thought that's what the lockout was about? No offense, but anyone who thought that is pretty gullible. It was never about that, it was always about the owners getting a bigger share of the pie. All that competitive balance was a load of bull.

And heck no I would never support a franchise tag for the NBA.

 

Free agency is a good thing. You got to have an out from Khan and Sterling type owners...