RealGM

First of, I'm a Cleveland fan, so I'm obviously biased, but it also means I have pretty good understanding on what kind of monopoly certain teams have in this league, with Lakers & Celtics winning 34 out of 64 possible titles, so, this is long past being fair.

I looked over the leaked (supposed) proposal from the players union, and, while obviously is really inconsiderate, most of these are really good news for smaller markets who are actually committed. Look, it's really easy for Lakers to sign free agents, it really is, why wouldn't anyone play in LA? You take a pay cut but you make it back from endorsements. Teams like the Spurs only won through being very very lucky, by being able to draft really well to surround Tim Duncan with real talent.

2 MLEs, 250% of salaries, put that in, and say goodbye to NBA monopoly as you have it, watch teams like Portland, Cleveland, & Orlando take over.

Just saying.

The NBA is a business first and foremost.

Like all businesses it looks to cater to its largest customers. That means large market teams that drive its revenue stream. Why would they want to make it harder for their flagship teams, their bread and butter teams to do business?

But regardless of that why would small market teams take over? They still would need to actually draft correctly, sign responsibly and do good jobs at putting teams together.

And whats ironic is that the most frivolous spending of late have not come from the larger market teams but by the smaller market teams (memphis, phoenix, san antonio, etc.).

Also I wouldnt quite call Portland a small market team (they have monopolized the Pacific Northwest, have a sizeable network and is owned by one of the wealthiest men in the world who has never shied away from spending)...nor do I believe that if Cleveland still had Lebron th as t you would be saying this.