1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

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

Discussion in 'NBA Dish' started by TheresTheDagger, Jul 4, 2016.

  1. TheresTheDagger

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    10,099
    Likes Received:
    7,741
    Excellent point and something that I recognized of course. I considered adding this point to my post but felt I needed to drive home the point of "elite" free agents changing the balance of power.

    Also a great point. But something (IMHO) I think most fans understand and can live with. At the very least, that is something that can be changed. Elite athletes factoring in the Los Angeles lifestyle or Miami's South Beach are things no team can change. It will always suck for an elite athlete to play in Milwaukee vs. Los Angeles/Chicago/New York/Miami/San Fransisco.
     
  2. Kim

    Kim Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 1999
    Messages:
    8,972
    Likes Received:
    3,664
    While keeping star players is a good thing for teams in the league in general imo, I don't think this situation applies. I mean, KD was there for 9 years! How many years should teams be able to keep their star? 15? There's something to be said about drafting a player young and building a fan base around him, but that isn't the issue. Players aren't leaving left and right after 4 years. Rookie contracts are 4 years and then teams re-up for another contract...it's a pretty damn long time that teams have a strong hold on who they draft.
     
  3. Icehouse

    Icehouse Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2000
    Messages:
    13,365
    Likes Received:
    3,714
    No it's not. The only thing different about Wilt deciding to hook up with West and Baylor is he couldn't use free agency to do it, as it didn't exist. When Wilt forced his way there, each member of that trio was arguably the best at their position in league history.
     
    #83 Icehouse, Jul 5, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2016
  4. kubli9

    kubli9 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,999
    Likes Received:
    4,375
    I think the goal of the league should be to keep star players with one franchise for their entire careers. Players would still be free to leave and still make a lot of money, just not as much as they would have with their original team.
     
  5. Kim

    Kim Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 1999
    Messages:
    8,972
    Likes Received:
    3,664
    That's how the CBA is structured right now though. It just so happens that the TV contracts raised the cap a lot, so GS can offer $27M, and the players didn't want a smoothing period. All the while, KD still could have made more money in OKC...I think that's the case here. So for pure money, KD would have signed a 1+1 with OKC, then opt out, then re-sign for a max deal next year where he gets a higher starting salary bc of his 10yr status and more money due to staying with OKC.
     
  6. daywalker02

    daywalker02 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    88,856
    Likes Received:
    42,780
    This is just the beginning....

    of the end
     
  7. plutoblue11

    plutoblue11 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,526
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    People act like this is "new." Players in the past NBA days, simply forced their way out of town or refused to play.
     
  8. Carl Herrera

    Carl Herrera Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    45,153
    Likes Received:
    21,570
    1. From the recent reports, it seems that the people whining about the super teams are mostly owners/management and not players. Most players are not superstars, I don't think they have an interest either way in terms of whether there are super teams or not.

    In fact, the vast majority of players, who are not superstars, probably prefer an environment that makes super-teams more likely: relatively low individual salary max, greater freedom of movement. This way, there is more money left for the non-superstar players and greater ability to find the best location and best deal for each player.

    2. Owners are complaining about the Warriors superteam, but the system really is working as intended: If any team accumulates multiple top talent, they will either need to pay up or end up "sharing" some of them.

    Miami, for example, ended up losing LeBron in part because they were too cheap to pay the tax on Mike Miller's contract (which pissed LeBron off). OKC, who didn't want to pay the tax, ended up "sharing" Harden (and Reggie Williams). Cleveland got their "Big 3" but is paying through the nose in terms of luxury tax.

    The NBA champs since 2011 have included small markets San Antonio and Cleveland. Meanwhile, Lakers and Knicks have struggled.

    3. GSW can fit all the talent under the cap now due to the huge cap jump, but soon they, too, will be paying luxury tax through the nose if they hope to keep their collection of talent together as everyone's deal comes up and must be re-signed under the new scale and any aging/departing players will need to be replaced by guys signed under the new scale. In other words, they are going to face the same issues faced by Miami and OKC. We'll see what happens-- will GSW pay for a dynasty or will they break it up over $.
     
  9. TheresTheDagger

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    10,099
    Likes Received:
    7,741
    Not quite.

    Teams still had some semblance of control. They would trade and get value back...or....threaten to trade the player someplace he didn't want to be.

    Now, players simply wait out their contract and leave.

    So, in actuality it is new.
     
  10. nono

    nono Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    156
    I'm a water cooler fan and I agree with you on this.
     
  11. francis 4 prez

    francis 4 prez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    22,025
    Likes Received:
    4,552


    certainly seems to be a lot more ball-hitting than there used to be.
     
  12. francis 4 prez

    francis 4 prez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    22,025
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    even though it wouldn't have cost the player's a cent, for some reason they didn't want to smooth the cap increases, they wanted to help the warriors build a super team. they basically said "we don't want any extra money, but hey, in return is there any way fewer of us could have a chance to compete for a championship. oh there is? well then sign us up for that option. man, we sure showed those owners."
     
  13. glimmertwins

    glimmertwins Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    5,856
    Likes Received:
    4,162
    Come on - stop being a sheep and open your eyes. The way ESPN covers GS is different than the way non ESPN media covers the Warriors. If you think ESPN doesn't have an agenda to cover stories that relate to sports they televise, then your very naive. Want an example? Why did Bill Simmons get suspended and ultimately fired for calling the NFL commish a liar even though it was clear to everyone that he was indeed a liar? Because ESPN isn't "sports news" - it's a specific sports point of view....and the presence of a marketable guy like Curry on a successful team like GS means there is something ESPN can sell - Curry and the Warriors.

    The Spurs have been even more successful than GS over the last decade yet they have few nationally televised games, and little in the way of media coverage from ESPN(especially compared to the Warriors)....so clearly it's not just about being a good team.
     
  14. francis 4 prez

    francis 4 prez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    22,025
    Likes Received:
    4,552

    building their 73 win team certainly took some skill, and a whole lot of luck like steph curry becoming 10 times better than anybody, including them, thought he would be. but signing durant was basically handed to them by the cap increase.

    this isn't a team that pinched pennies or worked cap magic to sign durant. they gave klay and green basically as much as they could give them. they signed curry for as much as anybody thought he was worth coming off of injuries. they gave iguodala 8 figures a year to come off the bench. they gave bogut 8 figures a year to not even play in the finals. and this is 8 figures a year under the old cap. and they tried to ruin their cap room by giving harrison barnes 16M per year, but he just wouldn't take it.

    it just turned out that while they were on top, unlike for every other team that's been on top, a huge cap explosion occurred that basically gave everyone a free max contract so they could basically be the first team that could be great and also have lots of cap room. and even then, the warriors didn't even actually have max cap room. it was just that with everyone having their free max contract, you could dump a contract like bogut's any time you wanted to.



    P.S. and even then they still needed a huge free agent on the market and for that free agent to be basically the only former mvp in his prime who was willing to kneel and kiss the ring.
     
  15. Icehouse

    Icehouse Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2000
    Messages:
    13,365
    Likes Received:
    3,714
    Those are two different arguments. Teams got some BS type of return back, but as far as superteams being formed because great players decided to play together, it's not new. Even with them leaving to go to other great spots.

    And Durant didn't just wait out his contract and leave. He resigned with OKC after his rookie deal. He has been there almost 10 years. Teams shouldn't have control over a guy or be in position to get something in return for a guy forever. Teams have some semblance of control now, way more than some considering restricted free agency. That doesn't mean they should have all control. A guy should be able to walk after almost 10 years if he wants.
     
  16. Icehouse

    Icehouse Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2000
    Messages:
    13,365
    Likes Received:
    3,714
    Next season around 3-4 teams will have a legit shot to win a title, same as the previous season, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, etc.

    How would it not have cost the players a cent? Didn't every free agent this year and next gain a lot more money by rejecting smoothing in the increase?
     
  17. glimmertwins

    glimmertwins Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    5,856
    Likes Received:
    4,162

    This.

    Lots of skill, lots of luck too. Few teams are lucky enough to steal an MVP player in his prime let alone have 3 draft picks fall to them that would turn into All Stars.
     
  18. francis 4 prez

    francis 4 prez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    22,025
    Likes Received:
    4,552

    oh, the players not caring is entirely predictable. kevin durant forming a superteam isn't going to stop the paychecks from showing up every 2 weeks, so that's about as far as their concern is going to go. and even if the system were working perfectly, in any given year probably 80% of the players know they aren't competing for a championship. so how many will care if the warriors go from the favorites to the prohibitive favorites? guys on the phoenix suns were going to go 0-4 against the warriors and not win the championship no matter what durant did.

    players can understand team A is offering me 14M and team B is offering me 13M. but explaining how smoothing the cap increase would allow the large fraction of players who aren't free agents to benefit along with the guys who are free agents and also prevent competitive imbalances? that would probably require them to pause the nba2k game they were playing to listen.








    it will eventually mean those things for gs, but i'm sure no one wanted the system to allow the best team to have max cap room (as that tweet about adam silver's comments showed). even if this is as good for business as the heatles were, the vast majority of owners who aren't competitive from this glitch probably don't benefit quite as much as the warriors do and they probably have enough ego to not just want to be second class citizens in the nba that they would rather not have superteams. and their actions in making the luxury tax much more punitive seem to show that they actually want competitive balance and aren't just paying it lip service while cashing the checks from the heat and warriors super teams.
     
    #98 francis 4 prez, Jul 5, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2016
  19. francis 4 prez

    francis 4 prez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    22,025
    Likes Received:
    4,552

    i'm not trying to argue the nba has ever had a ton of contenders the way the nfl does with it's almost-boring level of parity (that slightly below average team beat that slightly above average team, what a thrilling upset!), but at the very least we chopped off one contender in okc. and realistically, the spurs and cavs are long shots at best with durant on gsw. i would say it's axiomatic that anything that increases concentration of talent reduces competitiveness amongst the rest. it certainly can't stay the same. not smoothing the cap increase opened that door, and durant walked through it.

    the fact vegas has the warriors ahead of the field shows it won't be as competitive as most years. that may not hurt tv ratings, but i don't know why a player in the league would want to think there are less teams they can be on and still have a shot. that just increases the trade-off between money and winning some free agents face because they have less options to consider for that trade-off.



    the players as a whole were going to get the same amount of money. the cap was going to go up an artificial amount that was less than the $24M it did go up, and the difference was going to be split amongst all of the players. the increase only benefited the players who were free agents. since way more nba players are under contract than are free agents in any given offseason, it only benefited a small portion of the union. if i was under contract and you told me i could make more money than scheduled next year, i would certainly vote for the increased money. but i assume the union heard the words "lower cap" and just hung up the phone so it didn't go very far.
     
  20. digitallinh

    digitallinh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    23
    No I get it, I just think you have it backwards. People like the Warriors, which is why ESPN plays them.

    People don't like the Warriors because ESPN plays them. See?
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now