The Legacy of today's Free Agency system. Is it good for the NBA?

Sure - but only because group texting didn't exist in the 1990's. Players didn't choose these things in the past. They just didn't have those opportunities.

 

Most NBA fans are casual fans, and casual fans don't care about this at all.

 

You are a self admitted Bandwagoner huh?

 

Why not? Arguably the 6th most important players on the Warriors just got a max contract.

 

Hopefully it is just a trend and it will die out

not likely though

 

Legacy's are being made on field goal percentages right now. Spend enough time in the gym, tape yourself when you get the right form and everyone in the NBA would be shooting like Stephen.

 

It's easy to overreact based on the KD decision (which some are likening to LeBron's Miami decision 6 years ago).
But that's 1 every 6 years.
My opinion (being from Australia and having followed a number of sports) is that the NBA has the whole player trade thing right.
As much as I like sports like soccer/football - they have no salary cap and clubs buy contracts from other clubs. There is such inequality in the major soccer leagues (ie England, Spain etc) where the rich get richer. Clubs spending 10's of millions $ just to buy a player contract to then negotiate salary for a player.
As much as I dislike KD going to GSW, that's because Steph broke out a few years back and is still on a cheap deal giving them cap space. How many times have GSW been a top club throughout their history?
A few years and things will be different again. If we were in GSW's position, we'd all be over the moon.

 

Most of the people reacting negatively right now are looking at the past with rose tinted glasses, the main difference then and now is that players actually have POWER, and it puts the onus on teams to build around their stars or lose them to teams with better management. What most posters don't realize is players won't leave if you don't give them a reason to, KD wouldn't leave OKC if they surrounded him with good players instead of a team that can't even make the 8th seed without him. If Houston loses Harden in the future, then IMHO they only have themselves to blame for not building a competent team around him.

It was great if you were Magic, or Bird, or MJ or Isiah or whoever back in the day, you had a good GM who would surround you with great players so really there was no point in leaving your team. But if you were stuck in a losing organization then before you were screwed and end up wasting your prime. I mean what if Dream got drafted by the Spurs instead and teamed up with the Admiral instead of drug addicts for most of his career? He might've won 10 rings and been the GOAT under Popovich. Instead he won just 2 rings of off his sheer talent and will power and isn't even considered the best center by non-Houston fans. So to me, nowadays is a much better setup because as an NBA fan, the priority is on having talent on the floor rather than artificial parity. If you want parity then watch NFL or NCAA, it doesn't matter how good or bad you are once March madness kicks in or the NFL playoffs start anybody who is in the bracket can win the championship.

 

I started watching ball in the 80s. Every since I started watching, most years only have 3-4 teams with a real chance to win the title. That hasn't changed. Sure, players have more freedom but the end result is still the same.

 

To be honest, the 4 star approach doesnt guarantee championships. Durant could end up leaving after 1 year, and the Warriors would be left without Bogut, Barnes, Ezeli and other role players for a one year rental. And the balance of power could shift in the west.

 

what the league needs to do is raise the % of max contracts for teams with bird rights from only 7.5% to 10%+ and bring back the extensions. This will diminish the incentive and opportunity for players to leave their own teams.

 

What did I just read?

 

I think the simpler solution is to eliminate max contracts ala the 90's. Then the home team can pay much more, and the star players get paid what they are worth, making it much harder to pair a bunch of them together.

 

Will never happen, for some reason the scrubs think they're entitled to money that should rightfully go to the stars.

 

The max contract and modern CBA, designed to protect stupid GM's and owners that hold advanced degrees yet still can't manage their teams without destroying themselves, lead to this.

Glenn Robinson getting a 10-year deal was like some sort of butterfly effect event.

No it's not good for the NBA. But it isn't the players fault.

 

The NFL has the exact opposite, hard salary cap; franchise tags; non-guaranteed contracts; cut/release players' by boat's dozen to stay under a salary threshold; it's difficult for star players to leave via free agency (unlike NBA, NHL, and MLB), which undermines the aspect of free agency

...Yet, there are only so many teams that can compete, typically if they have star QB. When was the last time a team won a Super Bowl with a mediocre at best QB (for his entire career). While, players still go to the highest bidder or to the team that gives them the best chance to win (even taking a paycut). Moreover, there are still only so many teams that compete for a Super Bowl at the end of the day. People keep talking about how much parity is in the NFL versus other sports, but in reality it's over exaggerated. Only so many teams can compete, year in and out. Typically only, 4-6 teams with realistic shot. "Come on we all know the Browns, Jags, Chiefs Bears, and the Rams are not winning the Super Bowl, this year or next unless they draft some stud QB or some HOF-bound QB goes to one of those teams.

 

I don't like forced parity in sports. Small teams with weasel owners should not be competing simply by virtue of having lucked out on an amazing player in the draft after having deliberately sucked for so long. It's pathetic. Big market teams (LA, NYC, SF, BOS, CHI) etc should get a first choice on players. All the draft does is force great players on to ****ty teams like the Rockets and we see players like Harden waste so many years of their prime with neither good basketball nor a title.

 

Teams like Rockets should focus on developing young talent and providing cheap tickets because the product they provide doesn't justify the fan expense.

 

That's thing that confuses me about these overreactions, people act like the NBA was full of parity in the 80s, when in reality, the 80s only had about 3 to 4 teams who could win a title in a given year.

The East was dominated by the 76ers and Celtics from 1979 - 1986, with the Bucks and Pistons showing flashes of being "really good." Then, the Pistons basically took over, once the 76ers and Celtics got older. The Bucks flamed out, while the Cavs, Hawks, and Bulls were on the rise, but were never on the level to beat a great Celtics/Lakers team in a series.

Here came the era of MJ and the 90s. MJ retired and then Rockets ruled for two years. MJ came back and reigned supreme. Then, the Lakers and Spurs became great teams in a slightly more competitive Western Conference were teams as low 7 and 8 were winning 50 games a year. The West was becoming so competitive in the first round, that 8th seeds were forcing #1 teams to decisive 5 and 7 game series with a number of upsets happening.


The West was COMPLETELY dominated by the Lakers. From like 83-88, no other teams won 50 games in consecutive seasons, while there were a few seasons were 42-45 wins could get you a 2nd seed in the playoffs. Most of teams in the West from 81-87 were complete garbage, even the playoff teams. It's silly to think how people think a modern team couldn't dominate a putrid Western Conference in the 80s. But, once the Showtime Lakers dissolved the lesser teams had gotten all of the superstars from the draft and became the powerhouses of the conference (Seattle, Utah, Portland, Houston, Phoenix).

 

People keep pimping the "RINGZZZZZ" narrative, so yeah, there is no chance this dies out.