What did the lockout accomplish?

We knew at the time that competitive balance took a backseat to owner profitability in the last CBA.

But, that luxury tax money isn't just going to be burned. The Knicks, Lakers, Thunder, etc are going to fund a really big luxury tax pot that will be distributed to the Hornets, Magic, Bucks, etc. So, while the latter teams can't hope to ever compete with the former, they will at least get paid for being a farm team.

And really, when the bigger penalties start coming in a few years, not even the Lakers and Knicks will be able to sustain them. They will have to shed talented players. Plus, in the iterim, how funny would it be to watch the Lakers get eliminated after paying tens of millions in luxury tax for their super team?

 

It's already making an impact. There were 6 tax-paying teams last season (2011-12):

Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Mavs, Spurs, and Hawks

Of these teams who are in danger of paying the repeater tax in 2014-15 if they are in the luxury tax for the previous 3 seasons, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, only the Lakers have forged ahead and increased payroll, willing going $30 million over the luxury tax line. Miami is already over and will stay over, and it remains to be seen what happens to them in 2014-15 or if they do not repeat. They are the reigning champions, so they can justify paying the tax. But if they fail to win a C, then they are going to have a choice to make.

The rest of the teams are grappling right now with getting under the luxury tax line. Atl dumped Joe Johnson. Mavs are under right now. And they've pretty much built out. The Spurs are historically frugal and efficient. Don't look for them to pay the repeater tax. The Celts are grappling right now....still waiting to sign Jeff Green...still sniffing around for another player, another deal, and trying to see if they can fit it all in under $70 million.

The Knicks have already folded down on getting in that position, at least for now. And I don't expect that will change unless they see they are one acquisition away from competing for a championship.

For a great example of luxury tax penalty salary management, look no further than last season's Chicago Bulls. Now, they didn't match Asik. They're consciously trying to avoid the repeater tax and trying to stay as close to $70 million as possible while competing for a championship.

Yeah, here come the Nets and Mr. Deep Pockets. Let's see how long they go on paying out repeater luxury tax...without winning a ring.

OKC is another team to watch. They probably won't cross into the luxury tax until the 2013-14 season. And if they do, you can bet they're going to be playing around trying to stay in the low 70's on payroll. No way do they swell up like the Lakers.

The Lakers, in my opinion, are a special situation. This is Kobe's last 2-3 seaons. It wouldn't surprise me if they won back-to-backs if Kobe hung it up after the 2013-14 season. He'd have his 7 rings and would probably have moved past MJ in all time points. There wouldn't be much left for him to accomplish. I think the Lakers are banking on this. And at worst, they are banking on 3 more seasons for Kobe to accomplish his achievements. They'll pay the tax, but if everyone is still on the stage after 2014-15, and perhaps Kobe is wanting to keep playing, look for him to take a drastic pay cut to keep the team together and look for Gasol to be gone through trade by then. But once the Kobe era has past in LA, don't expect them to ramp up $30 million over the luxury tax line.

As far as the Heat, if they keep winning championships, they won't mind paying a gargantuan luxury tax bill for them. But when they lose their edge, which could be anytime, including this season if Boston or LAL or OKC punks them, then watch to see what their reaction is? Do they go in deeper to get another championship, like the Lakers did this offseason, or do they draw back, move some guys and reallocate assets?

You have to expect that there are always going to be a few teams that go deep into the luxury tax in order to win a ring. But it will only be a few. Yes, it may seem like the same few. But it won't be. Teams will roll up and roll back down in payroll to keep their tax penalties down....including the big boys. The Nets are fresh to the table. Watch them roll back down in payroll if they don't achieve their stated goal to win a championship over the next 3 seasons.

On the other hand, I fully expect the players to exercise their opt-out in 5 seasons. They are going to find the sledding rougher in terms of being able to get big salary deals and being limited in their free agent signings and movement....all caused by the high luxury tax penalties and changes in the S&T clause. I hope the owners hold their ground at that time and make them continue on this course. I like the new CBA. I think it is going to work.

 

I am so rooting for that to happen to both the Lakers and the Heat. But it doesn't look good at this point. At least if we are going to stink here and not be competitive, we can root for OKC to down the Laker machine.

 

This will be the litmus test for the NBA's new CBA .... by current appearances , its a failure when it comes to competetive balance .... but then again , the penalties dont kick in for another year. We'll have to wait and see.



I really wish they would do away with max contracts and institute a hard cap.

As it stands now , the only players NBA teams get value from on contracts are max stars and guy's on rookie deals .... the rest of the league is overpaid.

Doing away with max salaries would allow the top players to maximize their earnings while forcing them to make a real hard decision when considering teaming with another max type player - Basically we wouldnt see teams like Miami and the Lakers inthis situation.

 

Problem is the "middle class" players don't want that and there's a lot more of them in the Union.

Players want money, owners want money. Not enough of them care about competitive balance until it hurts the bottom line- and so far it hasn't. Until fans demand competitive balance (the majority won't) or the other 20 teams in the league are owned by Mark Cuban-like owners (team fan, motivated) then we won't see a change.

 

I didn't read everything everyone wrote, but from the Howard saga, it sounds like truly max players will not be moving teams via FA, only through a trade, not even sign and trade. They would give up large sums of money by moving via FA.

Now borderline stars will move b/c they are offered max dollars from another team that their current teams will not want to match. In other words, the havenots have to overspend on non max dollar players. Probably how it is now, so that really doesn't change.

 

The lockout took money from overpaid players and transferred it to small market owners who, because of free agency, have zero chance of seeing their team ever become a dynasty. At no time was there ever any doubt that media capitals and glamor cities would continue to dominate the NBA.

And, before anyone pipes in, Spurs/Duncan are from a previous generation, same with Dirk/Mavs. I'm talking about the modern NBA, superstars under the age of 30.

 

Oklahoma City.

Teams that are well run will not have problems keeping their stars. If one of our four rookies turns into a star, we'll have no problem keeping him - just like we didn't have any problem keeping Yao and McGrady.

 

I would say that the Rockets have benifited from the new system because with out it we would not have Jeremy Lin or Omer Asik. I think to really see the effects of the new CBA we need to wait for the effects to take place after teams are :

1. forced to pay the repeater tax
2. not able to sign free agents because they do not have a mid level exception available to sign free agents
3. not able to do a sign and trade for other players

 

The only things that could ensure competitive balance are:

-- Eliminating the max contract and instituting a hard cap. Rank and file players would never go for it, however, and proper valuation of players would become even more important. Shrewd, Morey-esque moves would become incredibly effective.

-- Franchise tag. This is more realistic. The only ones opposed would be superstar players on unhappy teams, which, after the Dwightmare, there aren't many left. If the owners were serious about competitive balance (and not just BRI split), then this would have been a real issue in the last CBA, but it wasn't. That tells you everything you need to know.

-- Further incentivizing loyalty. Not just smaller raises and an extra year that will be picked up anyway. If Dwight had signed somewhere as a free agent, he's not really losing $30 million dollars, because that fifth year is as close to a foregone conclusion as there is. The amount lost by singing as a FA is nowhere close to 30 million. It's whatever the difference is between allowable raises. Somewhere in the single digits.