This one is hard to enforce. Things like the Dwight to Houston because of Parsons is legal but the wink wink thing is not is what makes the rule shaky and arbitrary. Players can talk to players but FO and Coaches cannot? Yeah that's such a strict distinction...
Only $500K and no ban from signing Paul George? The NBA is a joke. With all these small market teams losing franchise players to potential super-teams, there will come a day of reckoning. The association is already weakened when the Pacers, Jazz, Hawks, etc lose their stars. What happens when OKC loses both Westbrook and George next summer? Or New Orleans loses Cousins and perhaps Davis down the road? There are even reports of GMs salivating at the prospect of rescuing Antetokounmpo from Milwaukee four years away from free agency. With the new NBA TV contracts and the hefty price ESPN and TNT paid, how many Warriors, Cavs, Lakers, Celtics games can viewers watch before they decide to cut the cord because all the other teams suck and have no star power left?
I think this ruling will actually encourage teams to disregard tampering rules if Paul George joins the Lakers next year. Teams pay more than this to acquire a second round pick! If a $500,000 fine helps you land a superstar they'll gladly pay it.
I know it's a different situation, but the Timberwolves got raked over the coals for the Joe Smith deal. I believe they lost multiple draft picks if memory serves.
Welcome to the world of watching the NBA in the 1960's and the subsequent transformation in the '70's on the Tube (and it was a tube, with many tubes in the box). Boston dominated the league and games on TV in the '60's. It was pretty much Boston playing somebody, kind of like the Yankees, who seemed to be on TV every weekend. They won 10 championships in 11 seasons, domination we'll never see again. Nothing new to anyone here. The '70's were far different, with 14 teams in 2 divisions at the start of the decade and 22 in 4 by decade's end. A huge change, with arguably the greatest NBA parity of any decade in league history. No repeating champions, and 8 different teams winning championships in 10 years. Has it ever come close to parity like that since? The 1970's brought a remarkable transformation. There were more games on TV, with more teams to watch on occasion, but still dominated by a handful, similar to what you're concerned about today, yet things were definitely changing for the better. The ABA was absorbed, adding 4 teams and a LOT of great players. The NBA had become much more attractive to the general public, attracting fans in droves. In other words, the league became far more competitive. In my opinion, it set up the glory years of the 1980's, which led to such great play in the 1990's. The league began to get better contracts for broadcast rights, and fans got more games to watch. The problem today, if it is one (some would argue that it's not), is far too many teams, diluting the talent available to each team, and it has become easier for a few teams able to attract superstars, and good role players pursuing a championship, to beat everyone else. If the league weren't getting so many players from Europe and South America (via Euro leagues), with a trickle now from China, parity would be even worse, in my opinion. Good management, always important, has become crucial. In my humble opinion, Les locking up Daryl Morey for the next 4 seasons (at least - not sure exactly how long his contract is now, with the extension - whether he had a season or 2 left and the extension adds to that) is going to make whoever buys the Rockets view them as a lot more attractive. Parity, or the lack of it, has grown as a problem for the league. Heck, the lack of parity between the conferences continues, with no sign that it's changing. The Rockets are one of the teams benefiting from the relative lack of parity, thanks to Morey. Houston is struggling now, and that's "thanks" to Harvey, but historically has been an attractive place for players to live. Let's hope it stays that way.
Excellent post. Though I agree on many points you make, the issue is not just parity, which as you pointed out has existed throughout the history of the NBA. The current problem is different because the NBA signed a record TV deal with cable networks in the era of cord-cutting and increased audience fragmentation online and over-the-top. ESPN and TNT need to reach a wider audience over the course of a programming season in order to justify the price tag. Having the same 3-4 teams with all the superstars will not work to drive viewers to these networks. The programming schedule has to be balanced otherwise the gain in viewers from big matchups will be negated by the losses in the undercards. A prime example is this year's playoffs. The Warriors-Cavs finals matchup drew great numbers, but the playoffs overall were terrible in the early rounds. The NBA eventually lost potential revenue from all the sweeps and early series conclusions. Again, you can have a league without true parity. Just look at the NFL. The Patriots have dominated for 2 decades, but the product on TV appears competitive with balanced matchups every week where every team even the bottom feeders have one or two legitimate superstars. The NBA's current consolidation of superstars on a handful of teams is a recipe for disaster. You can't sell a TV package to viewers for 30 nationally televised games if you only have 3-4 teams that can sell those matchups. The ratings might be great in the top matchups, but will suffer losses in everything else. A few years down the road and this TV deal will come to haunt the NBA when ESPN and TNT pull out because of permanently declining revenue.
I just read the bspn version of the comments Magic made about G A. According to bspn all Magic did was complement him. He said nothing about wanting him or talk money for him. I guess if you're in management with a team, you can't complement someone on another team.
