"Only way to avoid 'super teams' is to impose a hard cap."

[[GR]]

Franchise Tag is the only realistic way I can think of that can avoid "super teams" IMO. The hard cap isn't going to stop the Lakers of the world to form super teams like we are seeing now.

Restricted contracts already work as a franchise tag. In fact, they guarantee longer service. In the NFL, you cannot be franchised more than two years in a row in the NFL.


And the union will never agree to that.

[EnigmaticProblem]

Franchise tagging is ridiculous. I'd hate the idea of someone controlling where I'm able to work, and live.

It won't fix anything, though. You'll still have trouble attracting/keeping players to surround your "franchise" player. Sure, some teams'll luck into a LeBron James through the draft, and that MAY attract talent, but that'll just mean you have one more Oklahoma City/San Antonio. It won't solve your "parity"" issues, throughout.

I think my suggestions are very plausible and viable mechanisms.

But that is standard practice for most jobs. You live where your boss tells you to. If they tell you to relocate, you do it. If they tell you to stay, you do it. If they tell you to work in Wyoming for the next 20 years, you do it. You can always quit if the location isn't agreeable to you. Same thing goes for NBA players. It isn't like these guys are barely scraping by, working minimum wage while being shuffled around the country.

I can choose where I want to work. Today, I'm working in Toronto, but, if tomorrow I decide I want to quit, and go work in Vancouver, I can. I can go work in New York, if I wanted. I could go to Los Angeles, and work there. However, with franchise tagging, even after you honor your contract, you won't be able to leave.

Moreover, it really depends on the terms and conditions of the franchise tag. From my understanding, the NFL allows a player to be "tagged" for only three consecutive years, while mandating a salary increase every consecutive year. There's still a few issues with this. . .

* You're controlling where a person is able to work. At the end of the day, these leagues are businesses, and the players are workers. You shouldn't control where someone works.
* A player, if kept beyond his preference, could become malcontent. This could effect his play during his tenure. Moreover, it only prolongs the inevitable. If a player wants to leave, like Howard did, he will eventually leave. Then, you have to rebuild.
* The salaries chaperoning franchise tagging will cripple most small markets' ability to build around said franchise (if we're using the NFL's structure).

P.S., Doesn't RFA status/Bird Rights substitute as franchise tags?

[bullsnewdynasty]

Franchise tagging is ridiculous. I'd hate the idea of someone controlling where I'm able to work, and live.

It won't fix anything, though. You'll still have trouble attracting/keeping players to surround your "franchise" player. Sure, some teams'll luck into a LeBron James through the draft, and that MAY attract talent, but that'll just mean you have one more Oklahoma City/San Antonio. It won't solve your "parity"" issues, throughout.

I think my suggestions are very plausible and viable mechanisms.

But that is standard practice for most jobs. You live where your boss tells you to. If they tell you to relocate, you do it. If they tell you to stay, you do it. If they tell you to work in Wyoming for the next 20 years, you do it. You can always quit if the location isn't agreeable to you. Same thing goes for NBA players. It isn't like these guys are barely scraping by, working minimum wage while being shuffled around the country.

I can choose where I want to work. Today, I'm working in Toronto, but, if tomorrow I decide I want to quit, and go work in Vancouver, I can. I can go work in New York, if I wanted. I could go to Los Angeles, and work there. However, with franchise tagging, even after you honor your contract, you won't be able to leave.

Moreover, it really depends on the terms and conditions of the franchise tag. From my understanding, the NFL allows a player to be "tagged" for only three consecutive years, while mandating a salary increase every consecutive year. There's still a few issues with this. . .

* You're controlling where a person is able to work. At the end of the day, these leagues are businesses, and the players are workers. You shouldn't control where someone works.
* A player, if kept beyond his preference, could become malcontent. This could effect his play during his tenure. Moreover, it only prolongs the inevitable. If a player wants to leave, like Howard did, he will eventually leave. Then, you have to rebuild.
* The salaries chaperoning franchise tagging will cripple most small markets' ability to build around said franchise (if we're using the NFL's structure).

P.S., Doesn't RFA status/Bird Rights substitute as franchise tags?

Nobody's making them play in the NBA. If they don't like the rules, then they can just find another league to play in.

[EnigmaticProblem]

lol.. That's the most absurd thing I've heard today.

"So, I can come play in your league?"
"Of course. You just have to play in Cleveland until we absolutely can't keep you there with all these rules we have in place, to keep you there for as long as we can."

[Dennis 37]

Example - Toronto just over-paid out the ass for Landry Fields...LANDRY FIELDS!

Cleveland and Toronto lost Lebron/Bosh because they put crap teams around them in 6 years

Do you know why Fields got the deal he did? It was to block NY from getting Nash. Does Nash, fricken' Canadian choose to come to Toronto? Hell no, and you're critical of the Raptors front office, who offered Nash 36 million. What else could they have done? If we didn't pay Fields, we would have had to watch Nash come into our building multiple times a year.

As for Bosh, he had Shawn Marion, Jermaine O'Neal and Hedo Turkoglu(back when people still thought he was good).
How is that not trying to surround Bosh with good players? Bosh did nothing to try and talk other players into coming.

The fact is we have to overpay to play in the FA market and we have to fight dirty (Fields) to even be considered by a Canadian FA.

Colangelo hasn't sucked. The hand he is dealt just doesn't have any wild cards.

[LateRoundFlyer]

Franchise tagging is ridiculous. I'd hate the idea of someone controlling where I'm able to work, and live.

It won't fix anything, though. You'll still have trouble attracting/keeping players to surround your "franchise" player. Sure, some teams'll luck into a LeBron James through the draft, and that MAY attract talent, but that'll just mean you have one more Oklahoma City/San Antonio. It won't solve your "parity"" issues, throughout.

I think my suggestions are very plausible and viable mechanisms.

But that is standard practice for most jobs. You live where your boss tells you to. If they tell you to relocate, you do it. If they tell you to stay, you do it. If they tell you to work in Wyoming for the next 20 years, you do it. You can always quit if the location isn't agreeable to you. Same thing goes for NBA players. It isn't like these guys are barely scraping by, working minimum wage while being shuffled around the country.

Pathetic argument. Completely pathetic. You are comparing the plight of the stereotypical 30-something commuter with the bimonthly-salaried white collar office job... to multi-million dollar athletes locked into multi-year contracts with considerably fewer (if any) options to opt out? Seriously? I would ask that you save me the time of picking out those who actually believe that tripe from those with a lick of common sense, but I believe most of those harebrains have voluntarily aired their butthurt already.

The NBA is not an open shop. That is to say, you don't simply get in by signing on the dotted line to play for one of its clubs. You come up through the American basketball pyramid -- high school, college, maybe the D-league-- and maybe then and only then do you stand a chance of earning a guaranteed contract. If we're talking about superstars, they usually bypass most of college and the D-league altogether.

Corporate America is not so restricted. If you refuse to comply with your manager's orders, you can quit or be fired, sure... but there's at least a hundred other qualified applicants who will gladly show you the door if it helps their own chances to succeed you. Meanwhile, how many superstar-caliber athletes do you have at your disposal, if you piss off the one you've got, either by unreasonable demands or lackluster management? The two situations are entirely different.

Nobody FORCES an NBA player to live where they play either. Most NFL players, to my knowledge, actually prefer not to. But again, this considerably narrows down whatever application your initial analogy might have once held, because now we're talking about good practice in just one sports league, and for only the most elite players at that. The only reason that NBA players DO put so much emphasis into location is the length of time they end up playing, coupled with the shortest offseason of any of the major sports leagues.

You want to remedy that? Reduce the number of games played in the regular season. But I digress...

You go on to state that it isn't like these guys are barely scraping by... well, okay. I'm sure the top 1% of NBA players are thrilled to know you feel so much for them that you would spare them the hassle of constant relocation and enduring multiple personnel changes on other teams. How thoughtful. But what happens to the middle and lower class? You know... the 99% of the NBA?

Do you really think the union was formed to protect the Dwight Howards, the Lebron James', the Kevin Durants, the Derrick Roses? You'd be off your rocker if you even entertained such a notion.

The purpose of a union -- at least an ideal one, if such a thing can exist -- is to protect the workers, in this case mid-level players and vet. minimum-quality players. Do you have any idea what kind of concessions would need to be exchanged so that you could have your beloved player controls? Or are you that steeped in myopia that you aren't able to recognize the disastrous consequences this would have on them, and the resulting quality of the league?

You cannot stop superteams this way. They are the market incumbents of the league; they will ALWAYS find ways to circumvent whatever law you think of. And can you really blame them? They are interested in their continued success, are they not? Is that such a terrible thing? Wouldn't your team do the same thing if it had the resources to invest?

Ah, but that's the thing. You balk that the big markets have the resources you lack, and that only by punishing the players can you hamstring the main powers in this league and bring about true parity. Never EVER do you take umbrage to your front office for misusing the resources it has. It's a notion that is and shall always be complete tripe, and any student of economics, much less sports management, can tell you that.

[EnigmaticProblem]

lol.. I hate it when Canadians think negatively of Nash not coming to Toronto. Why the fuggg would he come to Toronto? This is a 38 year old player, with a few years left. If he wanted to waste those 2-3 years, he could just do it in Phoenix. The Suns were a .500 team, in a much tougher conference. It wasn't about the money, in the least. Once again, it came down to what the reasonable posters have been saying all along. . . Front office management. The Raptors had an atrocious record, indicative of an atrocious front office. Why would Nash EVER think of coming to a perennial #1 overall pick contender? Had the Raptors been in the playoffs, I'm sure Nash would not have hesitated to come to Toronto. The Raptors attempt to "block" the Nash trade shows their "rank" as a franchise. The Lakers gave Lamar Odom, Sixth Man Of The Year, to the Dallas Mavericks, a team that beat them in the previous year's playoffs, for nothing. It shows their security as a franchise.

I mean, this really comes down to pathetic front office management. The Raptors hire Rob Babcock, whose first moves were the drafting of Rafael Araujo, and the signing of Rafer Alston to a long-term contract. This is why Carter wanted to leave, and this is why I could never understand why Toronto hated him. Now, you're trying to justify Colangelo's substandard record by attributing it to his "hand". Colangelo fuggged up when he drafted Bargnani, and it's been downhill since. Colangelo drafts Bargnani, who plays the same position as Bosh, and Villanueva, when he should've drafted Gay. Let's ignore that, for a moment. He later trades the #17 pick (Hibbert) for Jermaine O'Neal, who was clearly on the decline. I can continue, if you'd like. This has nothing to do with the hand he was dealt-- Actually, it does. He had a few decent hands. . . He just never knew what to do with them.

P.S., Toronto's off-season would've been an A, had they not signed Landry Fields. They're much better with Lowry, than they would've been with Nash. Toronto's been great at squandering cap room.

[Inigo_Montoya]

Franchise tagging is ridiculous. I'd hate the idea of someone controlling where I'm able to work, and live.

It won't fix anything, though. You'll still have trouble attracting/keeping players to surround your "franchise" player. Sure, some teams'll luck into a LeBron James through the draft, and that MAY attract talent, but that'll just mean you have one more Oklahoma City/San Antonio. It won't solve your "parity"" issues, throughout.

I think my suggestions are very plausible and viable mechanisms.

But that is standard practice for most jobs. You live where your boss tells you to. If they tell you to relocate, you do it. If they tell you to stay, you do it. If they tell you to work in Wyoming for the next 20 years, you do it. You can always quit if the location isn't agreeable to you. Same thing goes for NBA players. It isn't like these guys are barely scraping by, working minimum wage while being shuffled around the country.

Pathetic argument. Completely pathetic. You are comparing the plight of the stereotypical 30-something commuter with the bimonthly-salaried white collar office job... to multi-million dollar athletes locked into multi-year contracts with considerably fewer (if any) options to opt out? Seriously? I would ask that you save me the time of picking out those who actually believe that tripe from those with a lick of common sense, but I believe most of those harebrains have voluntarily aired their butthurt already.

The NBA is not an open shop. That is to say, you don't simply get in by signing on the dotted line to play for one of its clubs. You come up through the American basketball pyramid -- high school, college, maybe the D-league-- and maybe then and only then do you stand a chance of earning a guaranteed contract. If we're talking about superstars, they usually bypass most of college and the D-league altogether.

Corporate America is not so restricted. If you refuse to comply with your manager's orders, you can quit or be fired, sure... but there's at least a hundred other qualified applicants who will gladly show you the door if it helps their own chances to succeed you. Meanwhile, how many superstar-caliber athletes do you have at your disposal, if you piss off the one you've got, either by unreasonable demands or lackluster management? The two situations are entirely different.

Nobody FORCES an NBA player to live where they play either. Most NFL players, to my knowledge, actually prefer not to. But again, this considerably narrows down whatever application your initial analogy might have once held, because now we're talking about good practice in just one sports league, and for only the most elite players at that. The only reason that NBA players DO put so much emphasis into location is the length of time they end up playing, coupled with the shortest offseason of any of the major sports leagues.

You want to remedy that? Reduce the number of games played in the regular season. But I digress...

You go on to state that it isn't like these guys are barely scraping by... well, okay. I'm sure the top 1% of NBA players are thrilled to know you feel so much for them that you would spare them the hassle of constant relocation and enduring multiple personnel changes on other teams. How thoughtful. But what happens to the middle and lower class? You know... the 99% of the NBA?

Do you really think the union was formed to protect the Dwight Howards, the Lebron James', the Kevin Durants, the Derrick Roses? You'd be off your rocker if you even entertained such a notion.

The purpose of a union -- at least an ideal one, if such a thing can exist -- is to protect the workers, in this case mid-level players and vet. minimum-quality players. Do you have any idea what kind of concessions would need to be exchanged so that you could have your beloved player controls? Or are you that steeped in myopia that you aren't able to recognize the disastrous consequences this would have on them, and the resulting quality of the league?

You cannot stop superteams this way. They are the market incumbents of the league; they will ALWAYS find ways to circumvent whatever law you think of. And can you really blame them? They are interested in their continued success, are they not? Is that such a terrible thing? Wouldn't your team do the same thing if it had the resources to invest?

Ah, but that's the thing. You balk that the big markets have the resources you lack, and that only by punishing the players can you hamstring the main powers in this league and bring about true parity. Never EVER do you take umbrage to your front office for misusing the resources it has. It's a notion that is and shall always be complete tripe, and any student of economics, much less sports management, can tell you that.

Look, I understand the points that you are trying to make but they hinge on me caring about the wants of NBA players. I don't give a **** about their wants. Not so long as they sign contracts on their own volition anyway.
^And I know that players can live anywhere, I was just making a point in response to a post.

I'm not interested in hard caps*, franchise tags etc. because I am naive enough to believe that they will fix the Kings. The Kings have terrible ownership and one of the worst front offices in the league. They would be just as inept under any other CBA. I want them out and so do most Kings fans. Quite a few are actually boycotting the team right now. I am interested in seeing a league where competently run small market teams are on equal footing with the competently run large market teams. If some players are unhappy, so be it.
*I don't actually want a hard cap for many of the reasons mentioned already. Or at least not a hard cap without significant other changes

[EnigmaticProblem]

I was reading an article the other day that talked about Stern, and how poorly he chooses team owners. Part of it discussed a 'need' to choose wealthier owners, so they can actually sustain a team, long-term.

Much like any start up, there will be growing pains. During these growing pains, owners start cutting costs, 'cause they're not as wealthy as they think they are, which'll lead 'em to square one. So on, and so forth.

EDIT: They actually mentioned Mikhail Prokhorov as the sort of owner Stern should "explore". He's worth nearly fourteen billion dollars, and couldn't care less about a few hiccups.

[Agenda42]

If you ask me, the story of the Spurs is more of a reason to despair than hope for the 20 or so teams in undesirable markets. Their success doesn't seem replicable in any realistic way.

I think it's also worth mentioning that none of the Spurs titles came against teams as good as the current Heat or Lakers teams.

What team did the 2000-2002 Lakers face that was as good as what the current Heat and Lakers teams have faced?

I don't think they did. That's not really the point, though. My point is that if the league is going to be dominated by superteams of 3 or 4 all-star players, I don't see how teams in places like Utah or Denver can realistically compete for a championship, no matter how well they're run.

Here's the thing, though; how can someone say the Lakers have it good just cause they're in LA when a team IN THE SAME FREAKING CITY ONLY NOW has become relevant thanks to getting CP3? Why did Kobe want to LEAVE THE LAKERS when they were sucking? The Clippers sucked before the front office couldn't give two craps. Kobe wanted out cause the Lakers management wasn't getting it done, or do you object to this? Lakers have a good front office, THEY HAVE A GOOD TEAM. Heat have a good front office, THEY HAVE A GOOD TEAM AND PEOPLE ARE FOOLED INTO THINKING THEY"RE A "BIG" MARKET. Knicks, on the other hand, have a bad front office, WHERE WERE THEY UNTIL THEY GOT MELO? And then people try to say "Omg Melo went to Knicks big markets get all the nice things in life". HOW MANY PLAYOFF SERIES HAVE THE KNICKS WON SINCE MELO CAME TO TOWN? Hell, how many playoff GAMES? And then, they let Lin go despite being over the cap cause of some "power play" shenanigan by the agent. What. Ever. Why do Knicks fan always talk about how the Celtics are old but expect something from Kidd, anyways?

Now you have the Magic bending the freak over for no reason. I repeat the question, how does a hard cap stop a dumb front office from making dumb transactions? TELL ME.

Being in a desirable market for free agents isn't the whole story. There is no market big enough to overcome bad management. The Lakers aren't just in the best market, they're also a well run team.

I don't mind the Lakers being good. I don't even mind them having a persistent competitive advantage due to their location and tradition. What I do mind, though, is that this superteam phenomenon is killing the ability of teams in less desirable destination cities to contend, no matter how well they're run. Utah does almost everything right as a franchise, and they have for a long time. They used to be able to contend, and under the current system I no longer believe they can.

[LateRoundFlyer]

Look, I understand the points that you are trying to make but they hinge on me caring about the wants of NBA players. I don't give a **** about their wants. Not so long as they sign contracts on their own volition anyway.

You've got more hubris than I expected. No matter... just because you don't like what the facts are does not magically make them go away. If you didn't give a damn why the sky was blue but still wanted it to be red, would it change the fact that the sky is still blue? Because that's the essence of your argument here. What you've communicated to me and everyone else carries far beyond the realm of personal opinion and into strict defiance of 200+ years of developments in organized labor. You simply do not get to disregard economic precedent when it's convenient for you to do so, or simply because you can't be bothered to come up with a more compelling defense for your petty complaints.

I'm not interested in hard caps*, franchise tags etc. because I am naive enough to believe that they will fix the Kings. The Kings have terrible ownership and one of the worst front offices in the league. They would be just as inept under any other CBA. I want them out and so do most Kings fans. Quite a few are actually boycotting the team right now. I am interested in seeing a league where competently run small market teams are on equal footing with the competently run large market teams. If some players are unhappy, so be it.
*I don't actually want a hard cap for many of the reasons mentioned already. Or at least not a hard cap without significant other changes

What is this, I don't eve-- what on earth ARE you saying here? You're not interested in a hard cap yet you're naive enough to believe that will fix the Kings? Yet you believe they will suffer from poor management no matter what?

I'm going to wager what you wanted to say was that you're *not* naive enough to believe such reforms will fix the Kings, and if so, great. You are halfway there already. If that is what you believed from the get-go, you could have clarified it earlier. But it is of little use at this point.

If, in any case, you truly are doubtful as to what any new package of regulations would do to improve your team's ownership, why bother making compromises for other parties (the players' union, small market owners, et al.) in the first place? Why do any need to be made?

You've said it yourself: you doubt very much that, short of the Maloofs selling your franchise off, that you will likely never field a contender again. And what's more is that (in your words, not mine) "quite a few are actually boycotting the team right now". Do you not see how this merely plays into the Maloofs' narrative?

They are suffering from low attendance and therefore are trying to move the team, so what do Kings fans do? They call a boycott? How laughable. This is more of an endorsement rather than a stern rebuke of their ownership. All this allows them to do is make a stronger case to move the team out of Sactown. Surely you recognize this?

Boycotts never solve anything. At least not on their own, and certainly not in an uncoordinated fashion. You need to join together with fans of other struggling teams and hold their owners accountable collectively. Until you do so, the product they put out might as well be rubberstamped with your seal of approval.

You want small market teams on an equal footing with the majors? Free the market, do not constrain it. Remove the safety net and take away their golden parachutes.

Stop subsidizing the losers. Don't reward teams that tank for lottery picks. Install a silent auction draft.

Make contraction automatic for teams who fail to perform in X number of consecutive seasons.

Repeal max contracts, restricted free agency, and bird rights altogether. Replace it with minimum franchise player compensation and an added trade exception eligible for this auction draft.

Even this, I dare say, would only be tinkering around the edges. You could eliminate trades entirely and replace them with a transfer and loan system, as soccer does quite well, and that would allow small market teams to "sell" their players to the highest bidder. Period. No need to worry about matching salaries or giving up player assets at all.

You could reduce the NBA season to 66 games, reduce playoffs to 6 berths for each conference, and thus give every team something to play for finally.

Recognizing overall best record in addition to the eventual playoff champion would be nice too.

Do any of these reforms stand a chance of seeing the light of day? No, of course not. You don't see any owners proposing them do you? After all, it was the owners who wanted the franchise tag and hard cap during the lockout, right? At least before they "conceded" the issue in order to shore up their economic welfare.

Also worth mentioning is that none of these prevent the formation of superteams at all. In fact, one could say they make creating one even easier. The difference? It won't be only LA, NY or MIA who can plausibly build one anymore.

[AnaheimRoyale]

A hard cap would have the reverse effect. With a hard cap, the amount players can get off teams will drop, because there is less demand (owing to less capacity to offer free agents big contracts). In turn, this means as a player, your salary is less important, and things like location, or potential for sponsorship dollars become the key factors. That's what we've seen in Rugby League and AFL, and that's exactly what we saw before the 1999 CBA came into place. Although there was a soft cap prior to 99, for various reasons the size of contracts was exponentially smaller (especially as a rookie). Jordan used to make $3mill per year on his salary, but it didn't matter because he was making $30 mill a year and more off endorsements. With a hard cap system endorsements and lifestyle will trump money, because there's no meaningful difference in money most times. It will also massively increase the profit margins of rich teams, who will in turn be able to further foster a culture that players want to go to (swankier locker rooms, free cars for players, more hot cheerleaders, more money spent by the Lakers on player cross-promotion, etc).

The soft cap has flaws (as opposed to a free market), but there are reasons why you can justify it as a market distortion. A hard cap cheats players and small markets both, it's a stupid idea, and all non-NY/Laker fans are better off that it didn't happen.

[clippertown]

This has never been about talent parity to Stern, its about financial parity. Teams like the Lakers and the Nets will soon be paying millions in additional tax that will ultimately flow into conservative owners pockets and helps to reduce their losses. There is a wide disparity in the market value of teams. Bigger investments require bigger overhead costs.

I would love to see some talent parity, but its a superstar driven league and big expensive teams need big expensive talent to function.

[yaaar]

Won't the existence of super teams make it that much more enjoyable if a non-super team upsets the balance and wins it all?

[LAKESHOW]

ultimately what that means IS NOT what you think it means. Many of you think its a point to stop SUPERTEAMS. thats incorrect. The "MAN" is using it as a way to keep salaries down and stop paying players what they are worth. In other words, a Lebron James, Kobe Bryant type player will get minimum pay in accordance to what they are actually worth.

[Ditchweed]

The league and all the owners need to make more money, the most money possible ... that's what it boils down to, at least that's the goal of the majority of them.

What is the best way to do that? Once that is determined, we can then implement the solution to do that. Everything else is a waste of time.

[smith2373]

You people act as if "superteams" or stacked teams in general are something brand new. They've existed since the NBA was created. The NBA was built on dynasties and stacked teams winning multiple titles, that's the way it's always been and that's the way it always will be. "Superteams" aren't going anywhere. And if you think they are, you're delusional.

And then you guys act like a hard cap will make everyone competitive. Will a hard cap make teams with horrible front offices all of a sudden stop drafting busts, handing out bad contracts and making bad trades? No, it won't. A hard cap won't stop teams like the Lakers, Heat, Celtics, Spurs, etc. from building great teams. They'll still do it. A hard cap won't stop stacked teams, teams with great front offices will still find a way.

And then some of you guys just sound crazy. LeBron plays 7 seasons in Cleveland, the best player he ever played with was Mo Williams and you guys are mad because he left and didn't stay in a horrible situation. Dwight was surrounded by a team full of role players, his 2nd best player was Hedo Turkoglu, and he was likely never gonna win a title with that core but yet you guys are mad because he left and didn't stay in a horrible situation. CP3 wasn't winning **** with New Orleans, Carmelo wasn't winning a title with Denver, Bosh wasn't winning a title in Toronto, but yet you people are mad because they wanted to go to a better situation with a better chance a title. Who the **** do you guys think you are? They don't owe those teams anything.

And then people bring up the NFL and how different teams are in the championship every year. When only one conference in the NFL has parity. When was the last time a team represented the AFC in the Super Bowl that wasn't the Patriots, Colts or Steelers? Meanwhile the NFC has a different team in the SB every year. Flip it to the NBA, for the last 14 Finals only 4 teams have made it out of the West. Meanwhile in the East, there's a different team virtually every year. Coincidence?

[Jack wore plaid]

Who are the 40 people so far that don't understand business? Everyone knows this to be the case. including the union and league. The league should have stuck to their guns and implemented a hard cap during the lock out

[Don Draper]

Who are the 40 people so far that don't understand business? Everyone knows this to be the case. including the union and league. The league should have stuck to their guns and implemented a hard cap during the lock out

40 people don't know understand business, yet you are in favor of a price ceiling.

Ironing.

[Jack wore plaid]

My favorite thing is when people say the poor NBA players have no where to go, and are locked in to contracts. There are literally 100's of leagues around the world for these poor oppressed athletes to go to if they don't want to play for the big bad NBA.