I haven't really cared about the players deciding where they went to play until this Dwight deal came down. He publicly forced what he wanted, and I don't even know what the difference is between him and Mello, except that the Rockets kind of got screwed this time. Are the players turning back the "progress" the NBA made by creating 5-7 teams with all of the NBA talent? How does the NBA reestablish the parity that allowed the Pistons, Rockets, and early Spurs to challenge and win tittles?
Understand the NBA isn't interested in creating parity. They have made a business decision to allow players to team up and create dynasty's. This in turn has led to the casual fan watching the NBA in droves but in the process kills all semblance of league balance and makes it increasingly difficult (not impossible) for small market teams to be successful. Thats just the way it is.
Confirmed by Stephen "A-hole" Smith on ESPN2. The NBA is looking to attract the casual TV-viewing, memorabilia-buying fan and build on the fanbase of more nationally-recognized super teams, not be concerned about die-hard fans of small-market teams. Looks like more "Basketball Reasons" bs to me.
Stop with this garbage. They signed six-year, $110 million deals - above the max had they straight up signed with Miami. They took a minor discount because their original teams were nice enough to sign and trade and give them max raises. Money absolutely matters.
The situation played out perfectly for guys like them. It takes three superstars to be Free Agents at the same time. They then have to find a team with essentially zero players on their payroll and all players would have to agree to take pay cuts (only Wade took a paycut, LeBron and Bosh went to a state with no state income tax, which saved them millions). It was a completely unique situation and wasn't nearly as bad as Dwight's bs. LeBron and Bosh kept quiet, played out their contracts, and did what they were allowed to do. We may never see a situation like that play out again. But we will continue to see player's demand to be traded to the best markets. Kevin Love is on the clock.
The big 3 is slated to take almost 60 million, and if there was a hard cap there's no way they could afford much more.
Also, hard cap would crush Miami. 3 near max contracts on the same team with a hard cap makes it unbelievably difficult to put some solid pieces around them with the so little available money they have after their big 3.
He really wanted to go to the Nets, but to spite him the magic said we will trade his instead to the lakers.
MLB gets a lot of flack for lack of parity but really it is an NBA problem. I'd bet on Lakers vs Heats NBA finals versus the field over all other possibilities. There's gotta be thousands of possible match ups. Baseball pick the two favorites you should bet the field...as well as the NFL. It's definitely a problem but I don't think Stern cares to fix it. It is making the league more popular some how .......how that is I really have no idea
The NBA's never really had any parity, outside of individual years or until recently. If we are talking about the Pistons out of the 80s, it's because the one super team in the conference, were more or less in decline, while the 76ers were going into a decade of depression. Moreover, the Bulls weren't quite in their championship form, yet, as the Cavs couldn't quite stay healthy enough for a solid playoff run. The Knicks weren't on the map, quite at that point. Even after Detroit decline and Bulls became champion, what team in the Eastern Conference honestly stood a chance against the Bulls with MJ, outside of New York. If we are talking about the Rockets, they simply managed to be the best really good team out of Phoenix, Utah, San Antonio and Seattle . . . you could probably say because they had the best big man. Over in the East, it was pretty much Chicago (with MJ retired from basketball) and New York's show until Orlando popped up on the scene. Even in the mid 90s, the really bad teams, which permeated over half of the teams in the conference still couldn't compete with the powerhouses ... there teams with losing records in the playoffs. It wasn't true parity, but it was parity in the sense that there were five teams who could realistically reach the NBA Finals. Again, that was only in the West. As far as San Antonio goes, pretty much any team in the West had to fight through the Lakers to get to the Finals. Even in the Spurs glory days, it's funny to say that there was actual parity in the NBA, since the contenders for a title in the West was pretty much between Dallas, San Antonio, and Phoenix. Die hards can include Houston, if they like. Although, the West did have some pretty good teams down towards the 8th spot. In the East, there was actually parity, because nearly all of the teams were mediocre, outside of Detroit and a few odd years by Miami, New Jersey, Indiana, and later Boston. That was more of Detroit actually having competent management that was capable of putting a pretty consistent team together and not relying on one star player to carry a mediocre franchise. Look at the difference between teams, like the 76ers and Nuggets versus teams like the Cavs or Raptors. It's funny how back in May, people were talking about how the Heat would handle the off-season, if they lost to Boston or even Indiana of all teams. Even on Clutchfans, there was a thread proposing trades for one of Miami's big 3. So, Miami wasn't really the only team that could win the East. You also have to remember Chicago lost Rose, while Dwight's head wasn't into the game in Orlando. How can you say parity doesn't exist now in the NBA, as much as it did in the past? Right now, the Western Conference is probably the toughest that it has ever been on average it's had about 6 to 7 teams over the last 13 seasons who have had at least 50 wins or more. That was not the case, during the 1980s. How in the world does a team under .500 get a home playoff series or even a 5th or 6th, while the top team has 12 + game lead over the 2nd place team. What do these franchises have in common over the last six years? Washington, Sacramento, Minnesota, Charlotte, New Orleans/Charlotte (before Tom Benson), LA Clippers, New York, New Jersey, and Toronto. Can we point a finger a bad management for once in these discussions? Another problem with the NBA is simply put the viewing public and casual fans do not want to watch mediocre teams, unglamorous franchises, or teams that do not have a superstar or two play in the most important games.
It's not only the teams that don't win, it's also the casual fan that doesn't necessarily have a team he/she cheers for. At least in the NFL (America's most popular sport) you have absolutely NO idea who's gonna win the super bowl, because in the NFL there is parity. But as of right now most people can correctly name 6 teams/conference that will be in the playoffs and name the only 3 teams with a chance to be in the finals (Heat, Lakers, Thunder). That's something worth complaining about. With crap like these super teams I think the NBA is constantly losing fans, but as long as the fans lost are not from Big Markets they don't care. If LA, NY, Miami, and Chicago still have tons of fans, that's more than enough to support the NBA financially.... Here in Houston we have no choice but to do things the way teams used to do and suck till we can draft a Franchise Player.
Parity is overstated, because in the end ...given the context of well managed teams versus poorly managed teams ... there's going to be a difference. Some teams are luck enough to figure out the system. Even in the MLB and NFL, there are teams that are perpetual losers and have been for the last decade or twenty years for the most part. Moreover, most NFL teams can compete with above average QB or even consistently good defense, and this period in the NFL has been one that has supplied a good number of above average quarterbacks, you can almost go down the list of 12-16 players who can be Pro-Bowl /All-Pro caliber any given year. Even then, it's funny how people disregard certain things, like how the AFC has only featured three teams, since 2003 for the Super Bowl - Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and New England. As far as other contenders go, you could say San Diego and Baltimore have all been annually competitive. Throw in Tennessee, maybe and you have a conference full of run-of-the mill teams who have been limited to scarce division titles. The NBA is not like other sports leagues, it's about the stars, not necessarily the teams. How many people were clamoring for Philadelphia or Atlanta to win outside of those cities? Even in other sports, do you think cas
