Since 1984, the NBA championship has been passed around 7 teams (6 if you don't count Miami's one-and-done). In that same time frame, 16 different teams have won the World Series. Does the MLB have some kind of anti-Laker system in place?
I think that has more to do with the nature of the game. A great player like Michael Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan can have a much larger impact on a basketball team with 5 on the floor than an equally great baseball player with 8 players on the field every day and pitchers who play once every 5 games.
How are you going to have a hard cap with guaranteed salaries? I guess there are ways but it would require major restructuring of the current salary structure. The players will not go for either option (non-guaranteed salaries vs. major salary restructure) and there will be a lock out.
I don't like the idea of a hard cap. The NFL model where teams lose good players b/c they must get under the hard line is no good. I actually think the current system is pretty fair, its just dumb owners/GM's who cant control themselves. (Brian Cardinal - full MLE, Bobby Simmons makes $11 mill this season, Jerome James - full MLE, etc.) All that really should be done is to change the Max length of contracts to 3 years (so if teams make a mistake it wont kill them forever) and either lessen the percentage increases for teams signing players or do away with them all together. (Bosh makes about $16 mill this season, which is about right, but if he gets a Max contract this offseason he'll be making $24/25mill by the time its done.) If the players insist on keeping the increases to reflect younger players increases in skill, then the average value of the contract should have to fit under the cap, not just the first year. i.e. a team with $15 mill in cap space couldn't sign a guy to contract that starts out at $15 mil per year but ends up being $20 mill when the terms are up. I think the percentage increases are a killer because for pretty much every contract signed features them and their collective impact grows more than the salary cap each year. Also, while I understand that the lux tax is meant to keep teams from spending their way to victory I don't like how it forces some teams to basically give away players to avoid the tax threshold. I think two changes could be made to ensure that good GM's who find and retain good talent aren't penalized. I think that the lux tax should not apply to players on rookie contracts at all (lessening the incentive for teams like Phoenix to sell draft picks for cash), and the lux tax should be .50 per dollar on players that sign new contracts with their original teams (I'll define "original team" as either the team that drafted them or a team that trades for them on draft night or while still on a rookie contact). Small market teams that arent necessarily attractive FA destinations shouldn't be penalized for trying to keep the guys that they drafted. i.e. Indiana should even have to consider trading Granger for tax concerns. **As a side note I think the overall quality of the league would improve dramatically with 2 less teams. But that won't happen so I'll leave it alone.
Since 1980, 8 teams, the Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs and the Heat, have won all the NBA championships. There is no much, as the NFL calls it, parity. Compare that number to MLB since 2000: Yankees, Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, White Sox, Cardinals and Phillies have all won the World Series. Or to the NFL since 2000: Rams, Ravens, Patriots, Buccaneers, Steelers, and the Giants have won the Superbowl. I think the lack of parity compared to MLB and the NFL coupled with the bad economy and "superstar teams" such as the Celtics and Lakers may be somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction.
Here's why I really don't like that idea - do you really want to sweat out losing your franchise guy every three years? I'd want teams to have a chance to keep their once-an-era franchise guys for the duration of their career. That's why I'd prefer a "Lemon Law" to end longterm contracts when it's obvious in the first two years that it was a big mistake (Jerome James, Eddy Curry, etc). Again, with limitations on the frequency in which it can be employed.
I hear you, but the home team still can offer more money w/ higher percentage increases. For most guys that's enough.
There's not enough talent (or positions) to go around to matter with hard cap in basketball. It's ridiculous. If you look at the NFL, NHL, and MLB, almost every position is nearly 14 to 20 players deep at least, with players who are either HOF bound, superstars, a perennial all-star/pro-bowler, a savvy-well accomplished veteran, or a young player who is on his way to being among the best or a quality starter. Even with all that, then comes the players who trailing them, such as the stars or future HOFs in decline, or the often injured stars who can't quite stay on the field to the players who are borderline all-stars and above average. In the NBA, I don't think there has ever been a point in its history (except maybe in 80s-90s) where all of the positions (or even 3.5ths) where deep enough to spread quality players to most of the rosters. In the NBA, it is already hard enough to find one player who is top 10 at his position. While in the NFL, as well as the MLB and the NHL (to a lesser extent), there are guys who could come off the bench or out of the minor league's tomorrow and become a pro-bowl type player or at least as a reliable starter. The drafts in NFL is about 7 rounds long (with 30 picks in each of them), though it seems like every pick is vital to franchise as we've seen a number of players in lower rounds of the draft become stars or contributing starters for many teams. So important enough, to put a losing team into playoff picture. Usually in the NBA, most people (and sometimes teams) seem to disregard everything after about 20th or 22nd pick, except odd teams like the Spurs. Mainly, because that is usually when the talent stock starts to significantly drop, sometimes even earlier. Combine that with the fact that those sports also have more positions, deeper talent pools, and potential among its younger player to make an immediate impact. 12 spots is smallest of the four major sports. Football teams are usually about 52 players deep, as the NHL is about 17 - 20 while the MLB is about 23 - 30. Also, throw in the fact the last two have a host of minor league affiliates (a farm system where they can develop younger players, international talent, and players who need to work on their games.
If Stern really wanted parity and fair competition in the league, he should fix the 'star' system and the horrible refs. Ask for more money from both the players and the owners to better train and monitor the performance of the refs. As long as the refs remain the way they are, teams with stars will always have an unfair advantage, no hard salary cap will change any of that.
I thought after that Battier article, Kobe actually started practicing shooting blindfolded to prepare for it. I need find where I read that...
I like the hard cap but if a team makes a mistake, they should be able to let the player go(would still have to pay the player) and take a hit for only one year against the cap.
I think having a hard cap and basement would be good for the nba. One of the biggest advantages the nfl has is every yr is a contract yr. This makes guys play hard because if they get cut, they only keep the signing bonus. They could make 1/2 the contract guaranteed like the ones cuban draws up. Having the ability to cut a guy after 3yrs of a 6 yr deal and having only half count against the cap for the duration would give teams more flexibility and put more onus on player developement. So lets say a team sign a guy for 6yrs 60m and after yr 3 the guy turns into vin baker, then the team can cut the guy and walk away from him. Since hes been paid 30 m in those 1st 3yrs and only half is guaranteed, the team would take a 5m cap hit per yr for the next 3yrs. This would not only force teams to be extra cautious with the salaries, butwouldnt kill the team with a mistake.
None of this is about competitive balance or such BS. It's about the owners being able to make a bigger profit in good times and lose less money in bad times. It's about more money for the team and less for the players.
I think its more about keeping the carrott dangling. Look, there aren't enough guuys that play with the intesnsity of kobe or kg
Ok first of all, Hard caps and guaranteed salaries don't go together. Hard caps kill movement. Absolutely just kills it, rips it to shreds, throws it into the garbage can to be burned in the incinerator and finally feasted upon by rats in the gutter. Teams can't do trades unless salaries match under the hard cap, and if your salaries are guaranteed then there's no way you can get out of signing players you hate later on. Basically what you start the season out with is what you'll end with. And if you sign a player to a 5 year contract? There's no way you'll get out of it. On the player side, this is actually the best ever situation. You can go for broke in your contract year, you know bash your head on the floor, break your legs going for that reb, and once you're signed? Take life so easy that you make Jerome James's work ethic Kobesque. On the owner's side, you'd have even guys like Mark Cuban losing interest when he finds out he can't get rid of Dampier for 5 years. Anyway, the only way this plan will work out is if there are no guaranteed salaries, which is what I proposed a few months ago. I mean, football dudes don't have guaranteed salaries, and although basketball is a contact sport, its the least physical sport out of soccer, football and hockey because the the league wants a high scoring, free-flowing game.
