i understand the league has always had teams with multiple superstars.. magic/kareem mchale/bird olajuwon/drexler shaq/kobe etc... however these were created by trades/good or lucky drafting, etc... more than superstar conspiracy.. my suggestion to stop or at least slow this down is this: increase the Max amount a player can get by 50%. this way a team will still sign that one superstar but the next superstar would really have to take much less... and I don't think egos will allow as much teaming up if superstar B is that much lower than superstar A... the total salary cap per team will still be the same and so the players as a whole won't suffer... thoughts? other suggestions?
My thoughts are it doesn't matter how a team was created, at the end of the day the results are still the same...a few stacked teams. I like how you consider one team ripping off another a good way to build a team but signing a free agent is somehow a bad way. I also like how you left tanking out of the equation, since that's what led to every title to come through Texas.
Why not just harden the cap (to some degree) and say there is no max player salary? This would sprinkle one star per team. Anybody think LeBron, Wade, CP3, Melo (or anyone else) would turn down $25-$35 million from a desperate franchise? To have some mercy on teams that draft well, maybe a franchise tag could apply up to year 7 or so. Ain't no way the "trio" in Miami would have happened under these circumstances.
No. How about suck it up? The NBA would be boring if everyone was on an even playing field. You need contenders, pretenders, underdogs, dark horses, etc. It's what keeps the NBA unique and fun to watch. The NBA has been successful this far, just let it run its course.
How would you define "superstar"? What if that superstar no longer was one at the middle of his contract?
The thing is, players see what it takes to win a championship. The teams that have won it in recent history have had multiple great players. Honestly, If you don't have that (or have players that can develop into that) you're just spinning your wheels. If not Lebron and Wade, someone would take that monetary risk. I may be, I may be wrong....but I doubt it.
I have no problem with have's and have-nots, but i think the risk of letting players congregate to "stacked" teams, is that LA and NY and other glamorous destinations have a huge advantage b/c of endorsements... I would rather the NBA not go the way of MLB and rather the way of the NFL.
I like the idea of a hard cap and no max salary. basically my idea is also to stop limiting max salaries at a level where multiple max players can be signed by one team.
again, I don't mind have's and have nots. I just feel that every team should have a fairly equal chance of becoming a "have".
So how do you give money to the poor teams in the NBA, as they are currently get money from the luxury tax from teams willing to spend money. Where will the NBA get that money from?
Those "poor" teams only receive 3-4 million from the luxury tax. Those teams would be better off financially if salaries are reduced across the board with a hard cap.
maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the luxury tax in basketball is to help teams in financial trouble, as much as it is to prevent rich teams from overspending. (unlike where in baseball , revenue sharing is more to help the poorer teams.)
I think it would be better to limit teams to 2 max contracts and the next highest salary cannot be within 20 percent of a max.
hard cap would definitely be good, but you must consider that the nba is much different from the nfl in the nfl you can easily cut players are there are a lot more players on the roster, thus it is much easier to work with the hard cap clearly bird rights are not a key factor for players to stay mainly because of sign and trades and that players are willing to take some cuts in salary, but removing the max contract is NOT the solution , this could cause desperate teams to way overpay superstars in a league where they are treated like gods anyway
I'm drunk so I don't know if what i'm saying is clear with what the OP is intending, but I'm pretty sure if multiple superstars want to team up they would all take a pay cut like what the miami stars did (it's similar but the cut they took was much less than what we think it is).
Looks to me teaming up superstars with superstars isn't such a bad idea after all....look at the heat's record in their last 39 games (32-7). Not to mention Lebron being the top candidate to win his third MVP making it an MVP 3-peat. The reason why we aren't as upbeat about it as other teams are is simply because it's those other teams (Heat and now possibly the Knicks) that have the luxury of putting one together. I'm positive there wouldn't be one soul on this fanbase agaisnt the idea of adding two or possibly three superstars at any point in time (any three of them).
