I hate the Yankees and Red Sox for that stacked team theory that they get to exercise, it's why I root against them. No one likes Goliath. If Miami Heat implode (and I'm saying I'm wishing for injuries) and have a crappy season, that would make a great story. Them not winning a title is a consolation prize, but that would mean more then likely that the Lakers win another title, and that would be about the same on the hurl-o-meter.
Team management figures out how to build a contender, or they get fired and bring in better management, or the team goes under and has to move to a more attractive city. However, good management is tough to find though, and teams too often put themselves into bad positions financially. Hand holding a bad franchise isn't going to help in the long-term. You have to let them rise to the top or crash-and-burn. But let's be honest, the current NBA business model is built around having the marketable, big-city teams in the playoffs. Financially speaking, I think the NBA would be fine with sapping away star players from smaller market teams and placing them in marquee teams. The Heat free agency may be the beginning of an NBA arms race, and I see a lot more teams trying to pair up superstars in the future. The prospect of that happening can pay off big dividends in the playoffs.
Think 2007 New England Patriots: That team shattered TV ratings right and left. With such a polarizing team, people are going to watch to see if their greatness is realized, or watch in hopes that their smug asses are bumped off their pedestal. But the point is that they'll be watching. If certain eastern conference teams can step their game up, the NBA is going to rake in the money come playoff time.
The problem is, when the owners and players go to the table for CBA negotiations, the owners are going to be able to pull out data that says NBA attendance figures are way down. Thus revenue is down. It should be no secret the owners wish to drop salaries across the board. This kind of a hook up gives them fuel for their fire. That's what I think when I read between the lines of Kidd's statement.
But there's already a lot of rules in place to prevent that. The salary cap being one of them. Revenue sharing being another. Clearly the NBA does not completely agree with your sink or swim concept. The NFL doesn't agree with you either, that's why they have a franchise tag. A franchise tag in the NBA would have even more of an effect because of the disparity in team size. In most cases, a single star player in the NBA holds more value to a franchise than a single star player in the NFL. I would completely support having this in the NBA. Supporting this sink or swim concept seems like you could eventually have a whole bunch of teams whose sole purpose is to provide an opponent for the marquee teams to play...kind of like a whole bunch of Washington Generals (or Pittsburgh Pirates). Completely sucks all the competitiveness out of it.
I think there is a happy medium between sink or swim and total parity. I'm not sure that the NBA has found that equilibrium yet. The current economy is certainly exposing some of the issues of the current system, and they are sure to be addressed, though potentially left unresolved, during negotiations of the CBA. I can't see the players' union agreeing to a franchise tag system, especially considering its general disdain with NFL players. In the current NBA, not every team can have a superstar player, but teams need to figure out how to remain competitive and generate revenue in current state. The alternative is the NBA setting up regulations to force parity, and with the current talent pool of players, I don't think that is a financially viable decision.
The difference is that 2 of the top 3 players in the league are on the same team. Those lakers and celtics teams never had that. It would have been like if Magic and Bird decided to team up...
wha wha wha lebron and wade are on the same team, the nba sucks wha wha wha, shut up, get over it, move on with your life. the nba is not going under, their will still be an nba in 20 years. if players become free agents and want to team up thats their choice. the nba will be fine, rating for heat games are going to be great, much better than last year. cleaveland will be quite the opposite, theyll get the first pick in the draft and can rebuild.
Exactly. Every team does what they can to get better. People that hate the Heat now should hate the Lakers too. Did people forget that they got Pau for free, basically? Kobe, Artest, Pau and Bynum are better than Bosh, Lebron and Wade.
The Cavs ate off Lebron for 7 years.. they made money and sold a ton of jerseys and there Franchise Value went sky high, it may have drop since Lebron left, but I bet it is still higher than when he came to Cleveland. SO count your money and move on,. it's like Pimpin.. He Chose Miami.. Can't hate. he too less money Don't Hate the Pimp, Hate the Game.. I didn't make the rules "Lebron" I just play by them..
Huh!? When did I say that? I was simply pointing out your illogical assumption that because the CBA contains both free agency and a salary cap, that both are loved by the owners. Only an idiotic owner would prefer the free agency system over the lack of one.
and you made an assumption that I think owners love the free agency system, my only point is that it exists. edit and to the point that I was responding to, do you think owers of winning teams love the draft. its all about perspective
What is good for the players may not be good for the league. FA is for the benefit of the players. It's a compromise. I am not saying that the players have no right to be free agents. They have to make as much money as they can too. But from a pure basketball point of view, FA is not good. As a fan, would you rather have elite players moving around every few years, or would you want those players be representatives of their respective teams for the duration of their careers? (One of the reasons I don't follow baseball anymore is because the rosters change so fast. You don't really know who you are rooting for.) As a fan, would you want to see a league where only a handful of the teams are competitive, and about half of the teams pretty much give up by the all-star break?
Now I'm utterly confused. Just because it exist doesn't mean it's best for the league. To make an analogy, the best thing for Nike is to have 3rd world country underaged girls make shoes for them on almost negligible salary. Just like the best thing for the NBA is for player movement to be 100% restricted at the whims of the owners. The only difference is, NBA players have a lot more leverage than little girls working in 3rd world countries. One of the benefits? Free Agency. Huh!? Of course winning teams like the draft. It puts players where the league wants them. It 100% restrict player movement because players can do nothing about where they go, and how much they make. If you ask all 30 owners if they like the draft, all 30 will answer HELL YES. There's nothing more team-friendly in terms of salary than the NBA rookie scale.
so we'll go back to my question, do you players should not have the right to be free agents. or do you think they should, its just not good for the league. why do you think it isn't good for the league.
