My crazy idea is to just get rid of the cap. Like baseball. I think the Warriors exploited the cap and you know, Lebron and CP3 can do it again this offseason and do it for Houston. Miami did it as well with their superteam. The cap right now exists as an excuse to tell star players to take paycuts for winning, in reality, these guys are worth a lot more money than they are getting. Without the cap, Klay would have no reason to take 50 million less or whatever discount he plans on taking for the warriors. No one is going to have a super team then for the same reason superteams don't exist in the MLB outside of the Yankees and some of the teams they've built...because teams are going to be hesitant to pay Durant, Curry, Klay, Green their combined 500 million. Now I know the main argument against it..."That just means the Lakers and Knicks will be fielding superteams every season!" maybe. They'd still have to pay the right superstars, not all star players are created equally after all. I also think it is harder to maintain a superteam than the Warriors make it look, the Warriors found a bunch of beta-minded star players willing to sacrifice individual pride to win. I don't think a superteam of Davis, Westbrook, Kawhi would be the same. All these guys have tendencies for instance of wanting to be 'the man'. We all know the stories of star players like Melo, Iverson, Rose, etc. This is how NBA players were before the Lebron era anyway and I feel most star players still dream about LEADING their team to championships and not being part of some all-star team...just that the Warriors ruined that. The owners would never go for eliminating the cap in any way though, they have it good, they get to tell players that if you want to win you just take less.
Rockets built a competitive team that in fact defeated the Warriors. But through rigging or crooked refs, the competition was thwarted.
I agree. Personally I blame Foster, Ariza, and Paul, though for vastly different reasons obviously. That injury was so huge. That will sting for years. And as bad as Foster was, I thought the game 6 reffing was the worst in the series. Thanks Mauer.
I am not sure how expanding the league will help create a competitive balance. All it would do is water down the league further. Before implementing ideas, the consequences should be considered. Are you wanting to bring parity to the league or competition? -How do you bring fairness to smaller market teams vs larger market teams? Large market teams can afford things like the luxury cap more than small market teams. -Do we care and/or should we punish owners who use the NBA to make money over being competitive? -Do we protect teams from their own stupidity (ie signing Ryno to massive contracts) and creating massive contracts that burden the team for years? -Is it important for the league to encourage players to stick with a team? Or should this be the organizations responsibility? First, we should get rid of bird rights. Or seriously neuter it. Bird rights should not transfer to another team. Further it should be for several years before eligibility. Allow one player per team to sign for 1.5 over max salary. The player can still be traded, however the team can not resign a new 1.5 max player until that old contract is over. (This helps bring parity) The longer the contract agreed upon, the less the player can make per year. For example, a player can earn more per year with a 2 year contract vs a 5 year contract. This would help teams from signing stupid contract deals that they later regret. It also creates opportunities to disrupt superteams. Theoretically, if you could sign Durant, Harden and LeBron for a 5 year contract on the same team, it would be extremely difficult to break that team apart.
In analogy to MAGA in progress, NBA should let Silver's family members referee and then send Lebron and Harden to the Warriors. Am I doing it right?
You could make an NBA league 1 and an NBA league 2. Like in other sports, teams can be relegated and promoted. And those relegated teams might still get a high lottery pick. That's debatable though. The G league stays farm team league. I would also vouch for a salary cap for players....... Max ends at 28 million.
The only reason there was some semblance of competitive balance throughout the last 20 years or so is because of the cap. It's done a great job until the unprecedented spike which allowed GS to get KD. Even a crazy super team like the Heat only won 2/4 years. One player has such an impact on a basketball team, not having a cap would be crazy.
Cause if u stay with your original team, your teams's salary cap be comes a lot more manageable which in turn meaning you having better teammates. Also teams will want to invest more in developing their own players because they are essentially more valuable than free agents.
Why not have a hard cap and no max contracts? The soft cap is a joke because teams will still pay the tax if they believe their super team can win it every year. These owners are billionaires and make plenty of money off their team. The NFL has the best parity and it's because of their hard cap. There's no way the Warriors would be able to hang onto all of their players. This is a really easy fix, but I guess the NBA enjoys watching the same 2 teams in the finals for 4 years in a row now.
Several things - 1. The idea that only 3-4 teams had a chance at the title this year is nothing new. This has been the way it's been for a very long time. For a long time it was the Spurs/Lakers and maybe a random team or two that would bubble up. For a while, it was Miami/OKC/Spurs. Back in the 90's, it was the Bulls and then 2-3 other teams. etc. 2. Expansion is the exact opposite of what you want - sure, it dilutes talent in the very short-term. But look out 5 years and if a super-team forms again, all the other talent is diluted so it's even harder to compete with them. Contraction would make more sense than expansion. 3. As others have mentioned, max contracts are the heart of the current problem. As long as there are max contracts and Lebron and Durant can only get paid the same as a Paul George type, you're going to have market distortions. Get rid of max contracts and you solve the whole issue (hard cap would be nice as well, but isn't critical). Want Lebron or KD? Fine - but you're going to have more trouble surrounding him with talent than if you build around Irving or Heyward or George because he can probably command $50MM a year. Right now, its the opposite - if you have Lebron or KD, it's no harder to build around them than any other 2nd tier max player.
Nobody wants competitive balance, every sport its at peak popularity when there is domination. People aren't interested in mediocrity.
I think the issue with doing away with max contracts is the players union is not going to support that. You now have 5-10 guys now eating away at everyone elses potential salary. This is why I believe having 1 player per team eligible to make 50% over max salary is a compromise. Does Durant take 25 million contract and play with GSW or does he double his salary else where?
The problem is the precedent has been set. If you want to win, take less, maneuver around the cap, and what can teams do about it? Also, the NBA has always had the least amount of competitive balance of any league. Nothing is stopping Lebron from coming here on a vet deal then renegotiating a bigger deal next year...not even counting all the money he makes outside of his contract anyway. No cap means that teams would have to pay these players, no more excuse of "We can't fit you under the cap. If you really want to win though..." The Warriors owner would be faced with paying easily 400m in salaries or...as MLB teams do...let their star players go elsewhere because even winning has a price too high. It's the same problem the Astros owner is going to face if they keep developing players well and continue to have a strong minor league system. I think we have to look at what would break this warriors team up. 2 things would IMO. Having a hard cap or having no cap at all. I don't think not even the Warriors owner would be willing to pay the true value of those 4 players. Not sure any owner in the NBA would commit the 300m + to build superteams...and if they do then you'll probably have other owners that would too. Right now the cap helps GSW because it prevents teams from competing with them right away. The most sensical way to compete with the Warriors is to just plainly draft well. Right now, the cap is blocking teams from fielding other competing superteams. Personally, I'm not a fan of the hardcap, it will just make the parity insane. I know people like that stuff when it comes to the NFL, I'm not that big a fan of teams being crappy one year then suddenly a force next year...or vice versa as the NFL has this long history of teams losing in the superbowl then being raided for talent. I like consistency, I don't mind the warriors being dominant, I do mind that there isn't much hope to build a team to compete with them other than trusting the process or hope that a superstar takes a paycut to play for your team.
Yeah, like I said, as I think about how to actually do it... Seems impossible. Its a fun idea though.
Don't have too much of a problem with most of what you posted, but I will point out that last summer KD, being the huge b**** that he is, voluntarily took $10 million less just to save his owner some money. He didn't have to. There's always gonna be ways.
