Why I don't think the NBA will miss any games next year

All that has to happen is for Stern to grow a set and have the officials start calling the game by the book, instead of all this bs of letting guys like Lebron take 4 and 5 steps and shuffle their feet all the time, calling all those no-contact fouls against DWade's defenders, and all the other superstar favoritism that is shown. If that were the environment, all the superstar bologna goes away, all the players look more generic, and the owners will give out more even contracts. And instead of bailing out franchises like the Hornets, just let them close up shop, run the league down to about 20 to 24 teams until the players wake up to what is happening to their game.

Frankly, I'm sick of watching superstar treatment. I've seen this game get distorted too many times. I can go back to the Kings/Lakers series years ago and even beyond that to find plenty of injustices and teams that went down in history as just another team when they should have been champions because of their great teamwork. It should be the best team, the best 5-8 guys with the best offensive and defensive chemistry as a team that wins the championship. I'm tired of seeing inferior basketball that caters to babies like Lebron and Melo. Just tired of it. I want to see basketball that is played fairly and where maximum effort is rewarded right alongside skill. The league needs to change and go back to a bygone era of teams like the Willis Reed Knicks, the Bill Russell Celtics, or the 70-71 Milwaukee Bucks team that won a championship in just their third or fourth year of existence and were obviously one of the best teams on the planet until Kareem pulled his number and demanded a trade out.

I hope the owners break the player's backs on all this brat baby acting stuff. And I hope they lower salaries and set up a better retirement income situation for the players so they can't spend all their juice and wind up on the streets at 45 years of age. I'm hoping for change for the better and an equal playing field for all the markets. This game is too good to be destroyed by a few baby brat players and a few stupid owners that don't know how to budget and work within the system. It needs to be tightened up. There needs to be a firm cap. And there needs to be equal revenue sharing. Get it done.

 

Hardcaps are something the owners want because they're spending too much of their own money. I am totally for the hardcap, 100%, but like was said earlier, it's the owners and GM's and whatnot who sign these players to multimillion dollar contracts, its not like the players just dictate what they want. Sign and trades are complete jokes, why that was ever agreed upon, especially from the owners prospective is beyond me. You need to shorten contracts to no more than 4 years with a buyout incase of medical complications that keep a player from playing. For example a player is making $10M a year and has two years on their contract, but can't play (Redd) a team should be able to pay 4M or so of the remaining 20M and let him go.

 

The owners don't need a hardcap. They just need to stop overpaying people. No one forces them to say, give freaking Joe Johnson a max deal. Or give Amare one even though insurance won't cover him. They know the risk entering into these deals, same way the players know the risks when they sign. If the owners should get a escape card when things go wrong then you should grant the players an escape card when they are stuck on an undervalued contrcat (i.e. David West pre-injury or Derrick Rose now) or when they sign somewhere as a free agent and then get traded (i.e. Ariza and now Miller).

 

Agree. The smaller teams have to offer MORE money than the big teams to entice a player over. Then those teams are STUCK with that contract they already had to overpay for after the player HIMSELF fizzles out. I can see if the team made stupid moves after that to keep their team from contending. But the Michael Redd example shows the team DID try to remain competitive, but its Redd himself that has flamed out.

I think its less to do with parity, everything to do with $$$. The LA Clippers owner doesnt give a darn about being competitive, yet he's more profitable than the Bucks or the Pacers who've won FAR more than they have. Its about the Bucks and Pacers want to make money for trying, while the Knicks and Clippers don't do squat but still rake in the dough

 

they have a full season, nobody wants to lose money.

Look in the NFL, in march nobody was in a rush to get things done, but now in June, with the preseason near they already meeting and giving up a bit, so they dont lose any money for not playing.

 

The Larry Brown "play the right way" team DID beat the diva team for the championship. I like a good ol' fashioned brand of fundamentally sound basketball without divas. Though I disagree with some of that.

I think the players themselves are WAY LESS CULPABLE in this than the amount that gets put on them. Of course players want big contracts and their shark agents squeeze out every drop they can get. And the players have been pampered and enabled way BEFORE they get to the NBA. Not saying the players aren't at fault, just I think even if they weren't so pampered it'd be much of the same issues with teams overpaying for talent, league over-promoting individual talents, and losing money in the process.

The owners complained about not making money recently? What did they do in response to these spoiled entitled players milking the system? Give $100 million dollars to Charlie Villanueva and Ben Gordon.

Agree that David Stern needs to grow a pair to do the RIGHT things and stop being enforcer in the irrelevant things. Like the players having to wear suits off the court. That addresses people's visual aid of the players getting "humbled" but thats the cliche "lipstick on a pig" that doesnt address the NECESSARY issues of the game.

But the owners pay David Stern's salary as much as the players. So Stern is gonna be the owner's pet, he knows where his bread is buttered.

Was against it but I think the league could lose 2 teams. The problem is the 2 franchises that SHOULD be dissolved have 2 of the most highest profile names attached (Bobcats with Michael Jordan, Clippers with Blake Griffin).

 

Personally, contraction is the one thing I want to avoid at all costs, not least because I know that we'll be one of , if not the first team targeted because Minnesota's sucked ass for the last few years and Rubio's nowhere as big as Griffin.

And that is something that just isn't going to happen for many reasons, but if it does, I think it would be obvious New Orleans has to be the first one to go, as they've shown that they can't be successful even with one of the best players in the league. Minny wasn't having problems when KG was playing.

 

I really think there is enough talent floating around especially since intl player pool is very very large right now. Truth is...some teams are going to be really bad. That's just how it works, take away 2-4 teams and there will still be really bad teams. Someone has to finish last afterall.

Also Smaller Market teams are doing alright for themselves. The Grizzlies have done better, the Spurs have won 4 championships. The Thunder are really good, Portland and Utah also have been relevant for a long time now.

Yeah it is harder to win with a smaller market but that is true for every sport. As for paying more I don't see that. It's not the case.

The thing is they are making bad decisions with WHO they pay. They are paying Redd 18mil and are not getting that money back because he hasn't helped the team a way a 18mil player should. If you pay a guy that much you should be a contending team for winning your conference and with that success comes a lot more attendance. The Thunder aren't paying their guys more, they just allocated their money correctly, same with the Spurs.

I don't mind the superteams at all, I think what needs to happen is non-guaranteed contracts. We see it WAY too often in the NBA these guys get their 16mil per year deal then their production drops. It would be nice for teams to be able to cut these players just like in the NFL, then they could always manage their profit line instead of being locked into things they don't want any more. I know it is unlikely to happen but it would help a lot I think. The players shouldn't be so against it either because they could always 'holdout' like NFL players do when they want more money.

Also the Owners are to blame for large contracts but the market dictates these contracts also. If you don't want to lose your player you are forced to pay.

I'm not a fan of a strict hard cap if it breaks up the Heat, Lakers, Celtics, etc. Superteams have been around forever, most championship teams have multiple HOFamers on it.