League Parity Thought Experiment

[Bensational]

I've been thinking for a bit, that to stop super teams forming, what if all 30 teams did an annual vote to determine 30 franchise players.

Each team would select 5 players in the league that they think are 'the best'. The 30 who get the most votes would become 'franchise players', and excluded from playing on the same team as any other 'franchise player'. To compensate them, they'd be open to exclusive contracts that only a designated franchise player could get.

The problem then becomes player growth or decline. What happens when a Giannis makes a massive jump one season, but the league already has 30 players locked into 'franchise deals'? Does a team that features one of the players who no longer made the Top 30 the room to drop that player and acquire one of the new franchise names?

This is just for fun, but I'd love to get some thoughts on workarounds for this.

[NickAndersonsBack25]

What if each team was entitled to award one unlimited value contract that did not count against the salary cap? Only one player can have that designation for the season.

Same result with less gamesmanship?

Perhaps a team with that slot open in the offseason can offer it to any player in the league who doesnt have a franchise player contract? But ok to Rose has been engaged in serious discussions on a one-year, $2.1 million minimum deal with the Cavaliers.offer to player under an ordinary contract.

[NickAndersonsBack25]

What if each team was entitled to award one unlimited value contract that did not count against the salary cap? Only one player can have that designation for the season.

Same result with less gamesmanship?

Perhaps a team with that slot open in the offseason can offer it to any player in the league who doesnt have a franchise player contract? But ok to Rose has been engaged in serious discussions on a one-year, $2.1 million minimum deal with the Cavaliers.offer to player under an ordinary contract.

Big markets would get the LeBrons for sure but that's the way it is already. Would this limit them to one LeBron?

[npiper17]

Not sure how it would work with an annual vote - what if players got injured? They'd want some contract security for sure.

Also when you listen to JJ Redick's podcast and he talks about players wanting to settle down and that years are often more important than money, it makes you wonder how willing players would be to switch teams each year.

That said, no matter what ratings for Game 7 of the Finals there are, I do find the current incarnation of the NBA to be relatively boring. You've got 3/4 teams hoping for an injury to the Warriors behemoth for a chance at a de facto title - I know some people disagree and say the NBA is fun to watch and it's never had parity anyway so why worry? But it seems particularly extreme at the moment when you look at victory margins etc.

I did have an idea a while back that teams basically have salary slots and players can sign into those slots but it would never pass the players union.

[Bensational]

Hmmm. Imagine a MAX deal of $25-30M for any player. And franchise eligibility allows you to earn up to twice that, with only the standard max counting against the cap.

So a player would still sign a long term deal, and if they lose their franchise eligibility, then they still get a max deal. That team would be eligible to sign a new max player if they have cap space. Or, they could trade their player for one of the new franchise players - if they're on a team that already has a franchise player.

For example, if a Durant/Westbrook combo emerge, and you have a Rose, or an aging Duncan/Pierce/KG/etc who have dropped out of Top 30 rankings, then you can flip them for whichever player OKC chooses not to give their franchise contract to.

[Magiclee]

I like the concept if for nothing else than a conversation piece. I think you'd have to re-work the selection criteria. If you ask each team to vote for the top 5 players in the league, you're not going to get 30 different names. You could also run into collusion issues where teams are voting specifically to break up a team in their division.

[OrlDave]

The NFL has a "franchise tag" that can delay a player from bolting. Not sure if that would work in the NBA.

[KingRobb02]

There is definitely something wrong with any idea that restricts player movement. And yes, saying I can only maximize my earning potential by staying in the city that (unfairly) drafted me, is a restriction.

[tiderulz]

There is definitely something wrong with any idea that restricts player movement. And yes, saying I can only maximize my earning potential by staying in the city that (unfairly) drafted me, is a restriction.

this is how i feel.

[MagicFan101]

This is an incredibly difficult "problem" to solve.

I use air quote notation on problem because I am sure teams like Golden State and Cleveland now or Miami and Boston a few years ago don't see this as the a problem.

One idea I had was to have salary spots. Every team is allowed the following salary spots:

1 spot at a max value
1 spot at a 2nd tier value
3 spots at a starter tier value
1 spot at a 6th man tier value
...
and so on for varying values / tiers of bench players.

A team can choose not to sign their max value player and pick up a spot at any lower tier but they may never exceed these limits.

If players are willing to sign for less, they can absolutely still team up. But perhaps this makes it more difficult as the drop in salary is steeper?

[MagicFan101]

There is definitely something wrong with any idea that restricts player movement. And yes, saying I can only maximize my earning potential by staying in the city that (unfairly) drafted me, is a restriction.

The NBA is a business and the players are employees. Employees are compensated for contributing to the growth and earnings of their employer. Therefore the success of the company is the initial focus. If it is determined that continuity of team core players improves a fan base and leads to league success, then creating opportunities for a player to maximize their earnings in the city that drafted them is not wrong at all ... it is good business.

[KingRobb02]

There is definitely something wrong with any idea that restricts player movement. And yes, saying I can only maximize my earning potential by staying in the city that (unfairly) drafted me, is a restriction.

The NBA is a business and the players are employees. Employees are compensated for contributing to the growth and earnings of their employer. Therefore the success of the company is the initial focus. If it is determined that continuity of team core players improves a fan base and leads to league success, then creating opportunities for a player to maximize their earnings in the city that drafted them is not wrong at all ... it is good business.

1. The nba is not a business. It is a cartel. We have a collection of franchises that collude to artificially lower the cost of their primary good, while also not allowing competitors to enter the market without approval.
2. The entire idea of a draft is that we provide these franchises with new talent at a pre-determined artificially low cost. Then we say that teams control these players for 7 years. Now you want to add a layer that says players are only free to leave if they sacrifice a lot of money.
3. I kind of think these last 3 Finals spit in the face of continuity driving interest. We just had the most watched Finals since 1998 [SOURCE], and I don't think it was because of continuity or parity. It was because we had a historically great team built on guys taking advantage of the ridiculous salary cap to play together.
4. When you say that it's good business for guys to stay in one city, you are kind of just saying it is better for the 30 owners if we remove some freedom from the 500 players. Kind of silly.

[MagicFan101]

There is definitely something wrong with any idea that restricts player movement. And yes, saying I can only maximize my earning potential by staying in the city that (unfairly) drafted me, is a restriction.

The NBA is a business and the players are employees. Employees are compensated for contributing to the growth and earnings of their employer. Therefore the success of the company is the initial focus. If it is determined that continuity of team core players improves a fan base and leads to league success, then creating opportunities for a player to maximize their earnings in the city that drafted them is not wrong at all ... it is good business.

1. The nba is not a business. It is a cartel. We have a collection of franchises that collude to artificially lower the cost of their primary good, while also not allowing competitors to enter the market without approval.
2. The entire idea of a draft is that we provide these franchises with new talent at a pre-determined artificially low cost. Then we say that teams control these players for 7 years. Now you want to add a layer that says players are only free to leave if they sacrifice a lot of money.
3. I kind of think these last 3 Finals spit in the face of continuity driving interest. We just had the most watched Finals since 1998 [SOURCE], and I don't think it was because of continuity or parity. It was because we had a historically great team built on guys taking advantage of the ridiculous salary cap to play together.
4. When you say that it's good business for guys to stay in one city, you are kind of just saying it is better for the 30 owners if we remove some freedom from the 500 players. Kind of silly.

Nothing you said is incorrect but everything you said is wrong. It is the same image from a different lense I suppose.

You can refer to the NBA as a cartel of you wish but in the end, this is capitalism. Similar complaints can be made by employees and unions of nearly every company. But few such representatives earn avarege salaries in the millions.

[KingRobb02]

The NBA is a business and the players are employees. Employees are compensated for contributing to the growth and earnings of their employer. Therefore the success of the company is the initial focus. If it is determined that continuity of team core players improves a fan base and leads to league success, then creating opportunities for a player to maximize their earnings in the city that drafted them is not wrong at all ... it is good business.

1. The nba is not a business. It is a cartel. We have a collection of franchises that collude to artificially lower the cost of their primary good, while also not allowing competitors to enter the market without approval.
2. The entire idea of a draft is that we provide these franchises with new talent at a pre-determined artificially low cost. Then we say that teams control these players for 7 years. Now you want to add a layer that says players are only free to leave if they sacrifice a lot of money.
3. I kind of think these last 3 Finals spit in the face of continuity driving interest. We just had the most watched Finals since 1998 [SOURCE], and I don't think it was because of continuity or parity. It was because we had a historically great team built on guys taking advantage of the ridiculous salary cap to play together.
4. When you say that it's good business for guys to stay in one city, you are kind of just saying it is better for the 30 owners if we remove some freedom from the 500 players. Kind of silly.

Nothing you said is incorrect but everything you said is wrong. It is the same image from a different lense I suppose.

You can refer to the NBA as a cartel of you wish but in the end, this is capitalism. Similar complaints can be made by employees and unions of nearly every company. But few such representatives earn average salaries in the millions.

Which is also a silly argument. No one in normal jobs gets "drafted" to move to a random city based on the industry they want to partake in. Most people finish college or whatever training and then firms bid on their services. I would say that i have a relatively skilled job, but I am not foolish enough to feel like there aren't tens of thousands of people who could replace me if i were to leave. NBA players make millions because they are pretty much irreplaceable and they bring in twice the income than they cost.

If you really want capitalism, you would be advocating for no salary cap and no max salary. It is not capitalist to say "we made up this arbitrary number that franchises are allowed to spend, and players can only make up to a small percentage of that." Any idea that pushes for parity is pretty much by the book Socialism.

[MagicFan101]

1. The nba is not a business. It is a cartel. We have a collection of franchises that collude to artificially lower the cost of their primary good, while also not allowing competitors to enter the market without approval.
2. The entire idea of a draft is that we provide these franchises with new talent at a pre-determined artificially low cost. Then we say that teams control these players for 7 years. Now you want to add a layer that says players are only free to leave if they sacrifice a lot of money.
3. I kind of think these last 3 Finals spit in the face of continuity driving interest. We just had the most watched Finals since 1998 [SOURCE], and I don't think it was because of continuity or parity. It was because we had a historically great team built on guys taking advantage of the ridiculous salary cap to play together.
4. When you say that it's good business for guys to stay in one city, you are kind of just saying it is better for the 30 owners if we remove some freedom from the 500 players. Kind of silly.

Nothing you said is incorrect but everything you said is wrong. It is the same image from a different lense I suppose.

You can refer to the NBA as a cartel of you wish but in the end, this is capitalism. Similar complaints can be made by employees and unions of nearly every company. But few such representatives earn average salaries in the millions.

Which is also a silly argument. No one in normal jobs gets "drafted" to move to a random city based on the industry they want to partake in. Most people finish college or whatever training and then firms bid on their services. I would say that i have a relatively skilled job, but I am not foolish enough to feel like there aren't tens of thousands of people who could replace me if i were to leave. NBA players make millions because they are pretty much irreplaceable and they bring in twice the income than they cost.

If you really want capitalism, you would be advocating for no salary cap and no max salary. It is not capitalist to say "we made up this arbitrary number that franchises are allowed to spend, and players can only make up to a small percentage of that." Any idea that pushes for parity is pretty much by the book Socialism.

If you go and work for a large company you are assigned to a specific team, role, project or whatever. In many cases this is not the role you would have chosen for yourself but you do it because at that time it is the most profitable to you. You are put in the role the company feels they can get the most value out of you. If you don't like your current role, you can leave the company or you can work hard, earn the respect of colleagues and be invited to rotate to a new role.

How is this all that different than being drafted? If you don't like where you are then retire, go to Europe / China, or play out your rookie deal and prove to the teams you want to play for that they should offer you a major deal or a trade for you.

Also, I'm not actually advocating for a hard cap or anything like it. I'm simply pointing out your mistake in labeling restrictions on player movement as wrong. I'm perfectly fine with the way the league is now but I do understand why it may be good for the business as a whole to to limit super teams. Sure, the finals were a huge success but about about the rest of the season or even the playoffs? In my first post in this thread I purposely pointed out that this is on a "problem" if your team isn't benefiting from it. My Orlando isn't benefiting from it now, that doesn't mean we can't in the future.

[Statlanta]

My answer to parity is allow for contract updates instead of incentives. There is no way an All-Star/All-NBA let alone an MVP be on a pay wage of role players. If a player were to win 1 of the major awards he should be able to re-negotiate his contract.

[tiderulz]

Nothing you said is incorrect but everything you said is wrong. It is the same image from a different lense I suppose.

You can refer to the NBA as a cartel of you wish but in the end, this is capitalism. Similar complaints can be made by employees and unions of nearly every company. But few such representatives earn average salaries in the millions.

Which is also a silly argument. No one in normal jobs gets "drafted" to move to a random city based on the industry they want to partake in. Most people finish college or whatever training and then firms bid on their services. I would say that i have a relatively skilled job, but I am not foolish enough to feel like there aren't tens of thousands of people who could replace me if i were to leave. NBA players make millions because they are pretty much irreplaceable and they bring in twice the income than they cost.

If you really want capitalism, you would be advocating for no salary cap and no max salary. It is not capitalist to say "we made up this arbitrary number that franchises are allowed to spend, and players can only make up to a small percentage of that." Any idea that pushes for parity is pretty much by the book Socialism.

If you go and work for a large company you are assigned to a specific team, role, project or whatever. In many cases this is not the role you would have chosen for yourself but you do it because at that time it is the most profitable to you. You are put in the role the company feels they can get the most value out of you. If you don't like your current role, you can leave the company or you can work hard, earn the respect of colleagues and be invited to rotate to a new role.

How is this all that different than being drafted? If you don't like where you are then retire, go to Europe / China, or play out your rookie deal and prove to the teams you want to play for that they should offer you a major deal or a trade for you.

Also, I'm not actually advocating for a hard cap or anything like it. I'm simply pointing out your mistake in labeling restrictions on player movement as wrong. I'm perfectly fine with the way the league is now but I do understand why it may be good for the business as a whole to to limit super teams. Sure, the finals were a huge success but about about the rest of the season or even the playoffs? In my first post in this thread I purposely pointed out that this is on a "problem" if your team isn't benefiting from it. My Orlando isn't benefiting from it now, that doesn't mean we can't in the future.

if you dont like your role within a company, you can walk to the company next door and get hired doing the same thing at the same or higher pay. Much different than having to move overseas and make 10-20% of what a player could make in the NBA. Being drafted means you have to work for 1 company for at least 5 years, thats servitude. limiting player movement is wrong, just like the NCAA limited player movement with athletes when coaches can walk whenever they want

[KingRobb02]

Nothing you said is incorrect but everything you said is wrong. It is the same image from a different lense I suppose.

You can refer to the NBA as a cartel of you wish but in the end, this is capitalism. Similar complaints can be made by employees and unions of nearly every company. But few such representatives earn average salaries in the millions.

Which is also a silly argument. No one in normal jobs gets "drafted" to move to a random city based on the industry they want to partake in. Most people finish college or whatever training and then firms bid on their services. I would say that i have a relatively skilled job, but I am not foolish enough to feel like there aren't tens of thousands of people who could replace me if i were to leave. NBA players make millions because they are pretty much irreplaceable and they bring in twice the income than they cost.

If you really want capitalism, you would be advocating for no salary cap and no max salary. It is not capitalist to say "we made up this arbitrary number that franchises are allowed to spend, and players can only make up to a small percentage of that." Any idea that pushes for parity is pretty much by the book Socialism.

If you go and work for a large company you are assigned to a specific team, role, project or whatever. In many cases this is not the role you would have chosen for yourself but you do it because at that time it is the most profitable to you. You are put in the role the company feels they can get the most value out of you. If you don't like your current role, you can leave the company or you can work hard, earn the respect of colleagues and be invited to rotate to a new role.

How is this all that different than being drafted? If you don't like where you are then retire, go to Europe / China, or play out your rookie deal and prove to the teams you want to play for that they should offer you a major deal or a trade for you.

Also, I'm not actually advocating for a hard cap or anything like it. I'm simply pointing out your mistake in labeling restrictions on player movement as wrong. I'm perfectly fine with the way the league is now but I do understand why it may be good for the business as a whole to to limit super teams. Sure, the finals were a huge success but about about the rest of the season or even the playoffs? In my first post in this thread I purposely pointed out that this is on a "problem" if your team isn't benefiting from it. My Orlando isn't benefiting from it now, that doesn't mean we can't in the future.

How is that different from being drafted? The part where I get to choose where I work. Your failing is that you keep trying to equate the NBA to the lives of the average worker. If you got a call tomorrow saying that your options are to go work in Wyoming for 7 years or not work in this country at all, you would probably want to reach out to a lawyer.

Besides that, in your scenario, the BEST case for a player would be to play well and be stuck in a city he never chose or leave the country/retire.

[MagicFan101]

Which is also a silly argument. No one in normal jobs gets "drafted" to move to a random city based on the industry they want to partake in. Most people finish college or whatever training and then firms bid on their services. I would say that i have a relatively skilled job, but I am not foolish enough to feel like there aren't tens of thousands of people who could replace me if i were to leave. NBA players make millions because they are pretty much irreplaceable and they bring in twice the income than they cost.

If you really want capitalism, you would be advocating for no salary cap and no max salary. It is not capitalist to say "we made up this arbitrary number that franchises are allowed to spend, and players can only make up to a small percentage of that." Any idea that pushes for parity is pretty much by the book Socialism.

If you go and work for a large company you are assigned to a specific team, role, project or whatever. In many cases this is not the role you would have chosen for yourself but you do it because at that time it is the most profitable to you. You are put in the role the company feels they can get the most value out of you. If you don't like your current role, you can leave the company or you can work hard, earn the respect of colleagues and be invited to rotate to a new role.

How is this all that different than being drafted? If you don't like where you are then retire, go to Europe / China, or play out your rookie deal and prove to the teams you want to play for that they should offer you a major deal or a trade for you.

Also, I'm not actually advocating for a hard cap or anything like it. I'm simply pointing out your mistake in labeling restrictions on player movement as wrong. I'm perfectly fine with the way the league is now but I do understand why it may be good for the business as a whole to to limit super teams. Sure, the finals were a huge success but about about the rest of the season or even the playoffs? In my first post in this thread I purposely pointed out that this is on a "problem" if your team isn't benefiting from it. My Orlando isn't benefiting from it now, that doesn't mean we can't in the future.

if you dont like your role within a company, you can walk to the company next door and get hired doing the same thing at the same or higher pay. Much different than having to move overseas and make 10-20% of what a player could make in the NBA. Being drafted means you have to work for 1 company for at least 5 years, thats servitude. limiting player movement is wrong, just like the NCAA limited player movement with athletes when coaches can walk whenever they want

People take pay cuts for a career change all the time.

If players can negatiate better situations then good for them. If the owners continue to negotiate in their favor then good for them. There is nothing "wrong" (as Rob says) with either situation.

[MagicFan101]

Which is also a silly argument. No one in normal jobs gets "drafted" to move to a random city based on the industry they want to partake in. Most people finish college or whatever training and then firms bid on their services. I would say that i have a relatively skilled job, but I am not foolish enough to feel like there aren't tens of thousands of people who could replace me if i were to leave. NBA players make millions because they are pretty much irreplaceable and they bring in twice the income than they cost.

If you really want capitalism, you would be advocating for no salary cap and no max salary. It is not capitalist to say "we made up this arbitrary number that franchises are allowed to spend, and players can only make up to a small percentage of that." Any idea that pushes for parity is pretty much by the book Socialism.

If you go and work for a large company you are assigned to a specific team, role, project or whatever. In many cases this is not the role you would have chosen for yourself but you do it because at that time it is the most profitable to you. You are put in the role the company feels they can get the most value out of you. If you don't like your current role, you can leave the company or you can work hard, earn the respect of colleagues and be invited to rotate to a new role.

How is this all that different than being drafted? If you don't like where you are then retire, go to Europe / China, or play out your rookie deal and prove to the teams you want to play for that they should offer you a major deal or a trade for you.

Also, I'm not actually advocating for a hard cap or anything like it. I'm simply pointing out your mistake in labeling restrictions on player movement as wrong. I'm perfectly fine with the way the league is now but I do understand why it may be good for the business as a whole to to limit super teams. Sure, the finals were a huge success but about about the rest of the season or even the playoffs? In my first post in this thread I purposely pointed out that this is on a "problem" if your team isn't benefiting from it. My Orlando isn't benefiting from it now, that doesn't mean we can't in the future.

How is that different from being drafted? The part where I get to choose where I work. Your failing is that you keep trying to equate the NBA to the lives of the average worker. If you got a call tomorrow saying that your options are to go work in Wyoming for 7 years or not work in this country at all, you would probably want to reach out to a lawyer.

Besides that, in your scenario, the BEST case for a player would be to play well and be stuck in a city he never chose or leave the country/retire.

They don't get to choose where to work? Are you trying to argue that players were kidnapped and forced to join the NBA over any other career?

For example, if you choose to accept an entry level offer to join the company I work for straight come college you are thrown into an analyst rotation program with thousands of other hires from across the country. You are assigned a specific position and rotate to 2 other roles (posibiliy in different locations) over your first two years. This allows new hires to develop or wider set of skills and a larger network before finding a more long term position with this company or elsewhere. For companies of our size which are as dynamic this a very common situation. You "choose" to join the company but your initial role(s) are basically out of your hands.