A potential solution for superteams, spreading the talent

[Synciere]

There's no solution for superteams because they aren't a problem. You still have to play the games. There will always be a chance for so called superteams if they draft well and the money keeps flowing. People really need to stop complaining.

[Lala870]

The fact that Durant went to GSW was kind of a fluke. It's unprecedented in league history and only happened because of a series of reasons, including a massive comeback by Cleveland spurred on by injuries to Curry, Bogut, and Iggy plus a Draymond Greene suspension.

Boguts comments disagree with this narrative

[TooBigYo]

Here is the premise:

Any organization who signs a player to 65-70% or greater of their available max contract gets cap relief and contract benefits. These benefits apply to players who have played with an organization for 6 or more years or were drafted and not traded by the organization.

Benefits:
-The player can make an additional 10% over their current allowed contract (which, I believe is still more than another team can pay them in some cases).
-10% of the contract and all the the additional 10% is not counted toward cap space. (10% for players making 65-100% max, ~20% for players making the additional money.)
-Players can be signed to extensions whenever.
Penalty:
-Upon a trade, the given player receives a bonus of what would have been the 10% increase in salary

Obviously the KD deal shows the current system is flawed. My hometown Utah Jazz would benefit greatly from this deal, but other teams who have had their hearts broken by losing their franchise player (Orlando with Dwight, OKC, Portland) or who were forced to trade a player (New Orleans, Minnesota etc.) would benefit greatly from this kind of deal.

OKC is a great example of why this should happen. They were arguably the best team in the West when they went to the finals. They had four young players who were going to get massive deals, and (although they should not have traded Harden) they could not afford to keep them all without paying a substantial luxury tax that their owner was loathe to dole-out. The fans suffered, and a small-market team ended up with one out of four (Serge Ibaka drama aside) players from their core.

Should we penalize them for drafting well? I don't believe so.

To a lesser extent, the Jazz and future TWolves/76ers are in the same category. In two years, the Jazz will have to pay Hayward, Favors, Gobert, Hood, Exum, and a possibly Lyles and Hill. We are by no means a super-team but we have enough quality players that will be offered max or near max contracts on the open market that this is going to sting us and possibly eliminate our ability to compete for a championship. Maybe we won't be that good anyway, but that is not exactly pertinent to the discussion.

This wouldn't completely fix the problem. You can argue that both the GSW and Cleveland would benefit from it. Having said that, it might have tipped the scales against KD/Harden/Ibaka moving teams and Lebron joining up with Bosh and Wade in the first place (read: the Cavaliers would not have Kyrie). The Warriors also deserve to have Curry, Thompson, and Green because they drafted them- all far lower than they would go in a redraft. This deal would hypothetically save them about 4 million off their current salary cap, which is not much in the grand scheme of things. The Cavaliers would save about 5 million. The hypothetical OKC team would have been saving around 8 million this year. Same for the Jazz in 2 years.

Anyway, I am just wondering what you think. The system would not hurt players in any way, just reward those who stayed with the team that developed them.

Do any of you folks like this idea? Are there any additional provisions you would see working?

Thanks for the input and possibly derision.

[Masterfully]

-10% of the contract and all the the additional 10% is not counted toward cap space.

I think this particular idea would only make the problem worse. If Miami can keep Wade at a cap discount it only makes it easier to get Lebron and Bosh. Likewise with Golden State. If we make it less expensive to keep their existing players it only makes it easier to nab KD.

I stand by my fix all. Every team is granted one uncapped roster spot. It would REALLY make KD, Lebron, etc think twice about going somewhere and settling for the mere max.

[EireannX]

The aim should be to prevent superteams and spread the talent. Creating rules where you can create a superteam as long as you drafted them just encourages longer tanking pilgramages so you can draft your stars.

[jptremblay]

Another idea to fix the tank problem is to forbid the protected picks...
For example, today's Lakers will get their pick back if they get a top 3 pick...So to lose many games as possible will benefit them into getting their pick back..
But...if you forbid that, Lakers have lost their pick no matter what...So there's nothing to win with another tanking year...and like that, a lot of examples like Kings with Bulls last year.

So if you use your pick in a trade, you lost it or win it, but without any protection or restriction.

[jbk1234]

The aim should be to prevent superteams and spread the talent. Creating rules where you can create a superteam as long as you drafted them just encourages longer tanking pilgramages so you can draft your stars.

But the talent is never going to be perfectly spread out and allowing teams to hold onto their drafted players longer gives fan bases hope. In the one and done era, it normally takes years for these guys to develop into good NBA players. A good portion of that rookie contract is devoted to development. Plus, there are limits to fan patience with tanking (just ask Hinkie).

[Warriorfan]

I would allow one super max player exemption for each team where there is no limit to retaining your player. One one Super Max player on a team at a time.

[LivingLegend]

Superteams are only a problem for bitter fans of teams that aren't contenders. Nobody stopped watching in the 80s when the Celtics/Lakers/Sixers were dominating. I still watched even though I knew my Sleepy Floyd led squad had zero chance against LA.

The reason super / stacked teams are a good thing is because nobody wants to see average ball in the conf finals and league finals. I don't want to watch squads with major holes on the court, I want to see teams fielding 7-8 great to very good players and really go at it.

As long as you have a salary cap and free agency, superteams will be a possibility. Get rid of the cap and let teams pay a guy like Durant 50 million per year if you don't want them.

Which is what 26 teams in the NBA? So yes, the overwhelming majority of NBA fans and franchises are getting screwed and their interest in watching games goes down 10 fold because there are really only 4 legit contenders. Say you wernt so lucky and you were a Phoenix Suns fan instead of a GSW fan. How would you view the superteams forming knowing there is a 0% chance your favorite team turns into a title contender in the next 5-10 years.

Superteams make the bottom 15 teams in the NBA absolutely unbearable to watch which Im guessing kills their revenue due to declining interest in the team from fans.

I know once LeBron left CLE and the Cavs were winning 20-30 games a season for 4 years, it became very very very hard to actually care about tuning in for games and I consider myself a big time fan, not a casual fan.

Once again, superteams. The reason why the NBA will never in its life be more popular than the NFL. You eliminate parity in the NBA, you eliminate ratings and a growing fanbase

[Black Jack]

Superteams are only a problem for bitter fans of teams that aren't contenders. Nobody stopped watching in the 80s when the Celtics/Lakers/Sixers were dominating. I still watched even though I knew my Sleepy Floyd led squad had zero chance against LA.

The reason super / stacked teams are a good thing is because nobody wants to see average ball in the conf finals and league finals. I don't want to watch squads with major holes on the court, I want to see teams fielding 7-8 great to very good players and really go at it.

As long as you have a salary cap and free agency, superteams will be a possibility. Get rid of the cap and let teams pay a guy like Durant 50 million per year if you don't want them.

Which is what 26 teams in the NBA? So yes, the overwhelming majority of NBA fans and franchises are getting screwed and their interest in watching games goes down 10 fold because there are really only 4 legit contenders. Say you wernt so lucky and you were a Phoenix Suns fan instead of a GSW fan. How would you view the superteams forming knowing there is a 0% chance your favorite team turns into a title contender in the next 5-10 years.

Superteams make the bottom 15 teams in the NBA absolutely unbearable to watch which Im guessing kills their revenue due to declining interest in the team from fans.

I know once LeBron left CLE and the Cavs were winning 20-30 games a season for 4 years, it became very very very hard to actually care about tuning in for games and I consider myself a big time fan, not a casual fan.

Once again, superteams. The reason why the NBA will never in its life be more popular than the NFL. You eliminate parity in the NBA, you eliminate ratings and a growing fanbase

Like I said - when my squad sucked and had to go against superteams like the Jordan Bulls, Shaqobe Lakers, Magic Lakers, Bird Celtics, I still enjoyed NBA. maybe some don't agree and their team has to be a legit threat to win a ring for it to be fun to watch. c'est la vie.

[LivingLegend]

Superteams are only a problem for bitter fans of teams that aren't contenders. Nobody stopped watching in the 80s when the Celtics/Lakers/Sixers were dominating. I still watched even though I knew my Sleepy Floyd led squad had zero chance against LA.

The reason super / stacked teams are a good thing is because nobody wants to see average ball in the conf finals and league finals. I don't want to watch squads with major holes on the court, I want to see teams fielding 7-8 great to very good players and really go at it.

As long as you have a salary cap and free agency, superteams will be a possibility. Get rid of the cap and let teams pay a guy like Durant 50 million per year if you don't want them.

Which is what 26 teams in the NBA? So yes, the overwhelming majority of NBA fans and franchises are getting screwed and their interest in watching games goes down 10 fold because there are really only 4 legit contenders. Say you wernt so lucky and you were a Phoenix Suns fan instead of a GSW fan. How would you view the superteams forming knowing there is a 0% chance your favorite team turns into a title contender in the next 5-10 years.

Superteams make the bottom 15 teams in the NBA absolutely unbearable to watch which Im guessing kills their revenue due to declining interest in the team from fans.

I know once LeBron left CLE and the Cavs were winning 20-30 games a season for 4 years, it became very very very hard to actually care about tuning in for games and I consider myself a big time fan, not a casual fan.

Once again, superteams. The reason why the NBA will never in its life be more popular than the NFL. You eliminate parity in the NBA, you eliminate ratings and a growing fanbase

Like I said - when my squad sucked and had to go against superteams like the Jordan Bulls, Shaqobe Lakers, Magic Lakers, Bird Celtics, I still enjoyed NBA. maybe some don't agree and their team has to be a legit threat to win a ring for it to be fun to watch. c'est la vie.

Right, bevause your a big fan of the NBA. Thats not the same for the casual fan.

[bwgood77]

Now the cap is going to go up so that is going to allow talent to go all over the place. But what about an additional restriction.

Lets say teams are only allowed 2 players on a max contract and the rest of the contracts have to be 75% or less of that max, so that means.

1. Teams have to be really careful on who they're dishing out big contracts for, meaning less stupid contracts
2. Meaning that if talent want to form a superteam, someone will have to sacrifice money to do so
3. As players would have to financially give up something, it means stars in the league would spread out, so we don't have all the top 10 players in 4 teams.
4. Higher retention rate of players by their original teams, meaning smaller markets have a much better chance of keeping their superstars
5. More comeptitive league overall, it may weaken the top a bit but moving down we don't have situations like Philly or the lakers were the teams become historically bad.


Now exceptions to those 2 players would be those drafted by the team (so it gives incentives to good drafting), however if they already had 2 max players etc, they can't sign a F.A that wasn't already of their team to a max deal (if that makes sense, so they can only sign their own RFA's to a max after they sign the 2).

There are so many ways it could be better, but the players union will never agree to any of it. I would be in favor of anything like this, or a hard cap, or unguaranteed contracts, but none of it will ever happen so it's kind of tough to put much time contemplating it anymore.

[Spens1]

Now the cap is going to go up so that is going to allow talent to go all over the place. But what about an additional restriction.

Lets say teams are only allowed 2 players on a max contract and the rest of the contracts have to be 75% or less of that max, so that means.

1. Teams have to be really careful on who they're dishing out big contracts for, meaning less stupid contracts
2. Meaning that if talent want to form a superteam, someone will have to sacrifice money to do so
3. As players would have to financially give up something, it means stars in the league would spread out, so we don't have all the top 10 players in 4 teams.
4. Higher retention rate of players by their original teams, meaning smaller markets have a much better chance of keeping their superstars
5. More comeptitive league overall, it may weaken the top a bit but moving down we don't have situations like Philly or the lakers were the teams become historically bad.


Now exceptions to those 2 players would be those drafted by the team (so it gives incentives to good drafting), however if they already had 2 max players etc, they can't sign a F.A that wasn't already of their team to a max deal (if that makes sense, so they can only sign their own RFA's to a max after they sign the 2).

There are so many ways it could be better, but the players union will never agree to any of it. I would be in favor of anything like this, or a hard cap, or unguaranteed contracts, but none of it will ever happen so it's kind of tough to put much time contemplating it anymore.

yeah the hard thing is convincing the players union that it would be for the good of the league.

Look at the NFL, so many teams have star quarter-backs, or a star running back or at least one player said team and fans gravitate to. New England has Brady, Green Bay has Rodgers, Saints have Brees etc. And their is an absolute superstar on at least 60% of the league. meanwhile in the nba there is no spread by in large.

[bwgood77]

Now the cap is going to go up so that is going to allow talent to go all over the place. But what about an additional restriction.

Lets say teams are only allowed 2 players on a max contract and the rest of the contracts have to be 75% or less of that max, so that means.

1. Teams have to be really careful on who they're dishing out big contracts for, meaning less stupid contracts
2. Meaning that if talent want to form a superteam, someone will have to sacrifice money to do so
3. As players would have to financially give up something, it means stars in the league would spread out, so we don't have all the top 10 players in 4 teams.
4. Higher retention rate of players by their original teams, meaning smaller markets have a much better chance of keeping their superstars
5. More comeptitive league overall, it may weaken the top a bit but moving down we don't have situations like Philly or the lakers were the teams become historically bad.


Now exceptions to those 2 players would be those drafted by the team (so it gives incentives to good drafting), however if they already had 2 max players etc, they can't sign a F.A that wasn't already of their team to a max deal (if that makes sense, so they can only sign their own RFA's to a max after they sign the 2).

There are so many ways it could be better, but the players union will never agree to any of it. I would be in favor of anything like this, or a hard cap, or unguaranteed contracts, but none of it will ever happen so it's kind of tough to put much time contemplating it anymore.

yeah the hard thing is convincing the players union that it would be for the good of the league.

Look at the NFL, so many teams have star quarter-backs, or a star running back or at least one player said team and fans gravitate to. New England has Brady, Green Bay has Rodgers, Saints have Brees etc. And their is an absolute superstar on at least 60% of the league. meanwhile in the nba there is no spread by in large.

Oh, I agree. I brought up the NFL in my other thread about super teams. The NFL works perfectly. You have a team or two who are always in the playoffs, but so much of it is wide open and most any team has a chance and many last place teams go to first, and some 6 seeds win the Super Bowl. I don't know if you post on our NFL forum but you should if you enjoy it and watch it and have good threads to provide there.

[Spens1]

There are so many ways it could be better, but the players union will never agree to any of it. I would be in favor of anything like this, or a hard cap, or unguaranteed contracts, but none of it will ever happen so it's kind of tough to put much time contemplating it anymore.

yeah the hard thing is convincing the players union that it would be for the good of the league.

Look at the NFL, so many teams have star quarter-backs, or a star running back or at least one player said team and fans gravitate to. New England has Brady, Green Bay has Rodgers, Saints have Brees etc. And their is an absolute superstar on at least 60% of the league. meanwhile in the nba there is no spread by in large.

Oh, I agree. I brought up the NFL in my other thread about super teams. The NFL works perfectly. You have a team or two who are always in the playoffs, but so much of it is wide open and most any team has a chance and many last place teams go to first, and some 6 seeds win the Super Bowl. I don't know if you post on our NFL forum but you should if you enjoy it and watch it and have good threads to provide there.

i watch it here and there but not a big time fan by any stretch of the imagination (the amount of stoppages kill me honestly, and then theirs the endless ads........)

[ebill_03]

This one supermax that mostly doesn't count to get the top 30 players spread amongst the 30 teams might result in more parity than it does now but it still wouldn't be as good as no max contracts. A team with the 30th best player in the league has no chance at competing against the team with the best player in the league if both teams best players have an equal cap slot, given that everything else on the teams rosters are constructed equally.

Now if the best player in the league is being paid 60 million, while the best 30th best player is being paid 22 million, and also has the 32nd and 38th best players at 20 and 18 million on the team, in addition to even more depth the second team is actually likely to win.

[Black Jack]

Which is what 26 teams in the NBA? So yes, the overwhelming majority of NBA fans and franchises are getting screwed and their interest in watching games goes down 10 fold because there are really only 4 legit contenders. Say you wernt so lucky and you were a Phoenix Suns fan instead of a GSW fan. How would you view the superteams forming knowing there is a 0% chance your favorite team turns into a title contender in the next 5-10 years.

Superteams make the bottom 15 teams in the NBA absolutely unbearable to watch which Im guessing kills their revenue due to declining interest in the team from fans.

I know once LeBron left CLE and the Cavs were winning 20-30 games a season for 4 years, it became very very very hard to actually care about tuning in for games and I consider myself a big time fan, not a casual fan.

Once again, superteams. The reason why the NBA will never in its life be more popular than the NFL. You eliminate parity in the NBA, you eliminate ratings and a growing fanbase

Like I said - when my squad sucked and had to go against superteams like the Jordan Bulls, Shaqobe Lakers, Magic Lakers, Bird Celtics, I still enjoyed NBA. maybe some don't agree and their team has to be a legit threat to win a ring for it to be fun to watch. c'est la vie.

Right, bevause your a big fan of the NBA. Thats not the same for the casual fan.

Casual fans liked all the dynasties I mentioned and ratings when down (generally) when each ended.

I think the hyper-connected fan era is just encouraging more complaining. What would people have said about a team with a still-dominant Kareem getting two straight #1 overall picks and netting Magic Johnson with the second? What about the absurdity of rooting for a team in Denver or Golden State when you have juggernauts led by Magic and Bird tearing up the leauge? Oh how horrible a time that must have been!

Even worse, imagine when the Celtics won back to back to back to back to....finals. What's the point of playing if Russell / Cousy and friends are so great???

[Star-Lord]

So you would rather just have the whole NBA turn into only 3-4 teams having a realistic shot while the other 26 teams remain irrelevant?

A NBA Finals and playoff series back when each team had a allstar/level player and a supporting cast was so much more fun to watch and root for. I dont know how anybody could actually prefer the new superteam NBA to the NBA of the mid-late 2000s

... Because it's pretty much the same NBA.