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

[Don Draper]

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.

You do realize most of these leagues have limits to the amount of foreign born players right? Oh wait. You're the same guy who just said price ceilings are good for business. Nevermind.

[Mr Grant Hill]

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.

Jordan won his first ring in his 7th season.
Isiah won his first ring in his 8th season.
Wilt won his first ring in his 8th season.
Cousy won his first ring in his 9th season.
Moses won his first ring in his 9th season (ABA&NBA).
Barry won his first ring in his 9th season (ABA&NBA).
Hakeem won his first ring in his 10th season.
Robinson won his first ring ins his 10th season.
Robertson won his first ring in his 11th season.
West won his first ring in his 12th season.
Dirk won his first ring in his 13th season.
Baylor won his first ring in his 14th season.
.
Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Stockton, Gervin, Wilkins etc. never won a title.

But yeah, Paul and Co. are so special, it's just natural that they don't have the pride to compete on their own. We need to respect it.
GTFO!

[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.

Jordan won his first ring in his 7th season.
Isiah won his first ring in his 8th season.
Wilt won his first ring in his 8th season.
Cousy won his first ring in his 9th season.
Moses won his first ring in his 9th season (ABA&NBA).
Barry won his first ring in his 9th season (ABA&NBA).
Hakeem won his first ring in his 10th season.
Robinson won his first ring ins his 10th season.
Robertson won his first ring in his 11th season.
West won his first ring in his 12th season.
Dirk won his first ring in his 13th season.
Baylor won his first ring in his 14th season.
.
Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Stockton, Gervin, Wilkins etc. never won a title.

But yeah, Paul and Co. are so special, it's just natural that they don't have the pride to compete on their own. We need to respect it.
GTFO!

Jordan was playing with Pippen, Rodman & Horace Grant.
Isiah was playing with Dumars, Rodman and Laimbeer.
Wilt played with Hal Greer, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor & Gail Goodrich.
Cousy played with Bill Russell, Tommy Heinsohn, K.C. Jones, Sam Jones & John Havlicek.
Moses played with Dr. J, Mo Cheeks, Bobby Jones and Andrew Toney.
Robinson played with Tim Duncan.
Oscar played with Kareem.
Jerry West played with Wilt, Elgin Baylor & Gail Goodrich.
Dirk was playing on a team with almost a $90 mil payroll.
Elgin Baylor played with Wilt, Jerry West & Gail Goodrich.

Now would you rather play with those guys or guys like Mo Williams, David West, or Hedo Turkoglu? Do you think you have a better shot at winning a title playing with guys of the caliber listed or guys like Mo Williams, David West, Hedo Turkoglu?

[Agenda42]

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.

I'm not mad that star players decide to leave teams that aren't putting together a competitive roster around them. I'm mad that star players always pick from a list of 5 or so cities when they decide to leave. The Lakers get this weird exemption where once per decade, they're allowed to take the best big man on the planet from any roster they choose.

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?

People don't cite the NFL as a league with parity because of outcomes. They cite the NFL because the NFL system doesn't build in as many advantages for the haves over the have nots. The Pats, Colts, and Steelers don't spend more money than other AFC teams. They don't get to consistently underpay for free agents like the top NBA teams do. They don't get to make sweetheart trades for star players to come over from other teams.

Over in the NFL, Denver can sign the biggest free agent name in the league (Peyton Manning), but in the NBA they have no shot at signing a star player.

[smith2373]

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?

People don't cite the NFL as a league with parity because of outcomes. They cite the NFL because the NFL system doesn't build in as many advantages for the haves over the have nots. The Pats, Colts, and Steelers don't spend more money than other AFC teams. They don't get to consistently underpay for free agents like the top NBA teams do. They don't get to make sweetheart trades for star players to come over from other teams.

Over in the NFL, Denver can sign the biggest free agent name in the league (Peyton Manning), but in the NBA they have no shot at signing a star player.

And over in the NBA, three of the best players in the league all want to team up to play in Miami but in the NFL, the Dolphins can hardly attract one star player to sign there. Why is that you ask? Because the Miami Heat have a great front office while the Dolphin's FO is ****.

The NFL isn't any different. You telling me if they were getting offered the same contract, who is Adrian Peterson gonna play for: The Cleveland Browns, the Miami Dolphins or the New England Patriots? He's gonna play for the team that has the better front office and the team that he feels has the best chance of winning. Just like in the NBA, why would LeBron waste his time with the Cleveland Cavaliers or Bosh waste his time in Toronto when they can sign with a team that they feel they have a better chance of winning with and they trust the front office more?

[DanTown8587]

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't see how paying the best players more money is better for the league. How you paying for that? By cutting the salary of the middle class of the league? There is no one who is for this. Owners MAKE MONEY when they have to pay LeBron, Durant, etc the max. And the middle class of the league stays healthy.

[Agenda42]

And over in the NBA, three of the best players in the league all want to team up to play in Miami but in the NFL, the Dolphins can hardly attract one star player to sign there.

Anyone can pick and choose **** like that.

It's off topic, so I won't go into details here, but the Dolphins have gotten plenty of star players to sign with them over the years.

The NFL isn't any different. You telling me if they were getting offered the same contract, who is Adrian Peterson gonna play for: The Cleveland Browns, the Miami Dolphins or the New England Patriots? He's gonna play for the team that has the better front office and the team that he feels has the best chance of winning. Just like in the NBA, why would LeBron waste his time with the Cleveland Cavaliers or Bosh waste his time in Toronto when they can sign with a team that they feel they have a better chance of winning with and they trust the front office more?

NFL free agency is very different. In the NBA, the money is the same in every city for the stars. In the NFL, the money is different in every city. The big market NFL franchises don't get first dibs on every star player that hits free agency, either, tons of stars opt to sign in places that would have no chance to sign a big time player in the NBA.

I don't blame the players for doing what is best for themselves, I blame the NBA for setting up an unfair system.

[Don Draper]

And over in the NBA, three of the best players in the league all want to team up to play in Miami but in the NFL, the Dolphins can hardly attract one star player to sign there.

Anyone can pick and choose **** like that.

It's off topic, so I won't go into details here, but the Dolphins have gotten plenty of star players to sign with them over the years.

It remains that the NFL player market is vastly more fair and balanced than the NBA market, and I really doubt you disagree on that point.

Fair to who? The NFL owners who are ripping off the players?

LOL @ calling a cartel that has successfully suppressed the wages of its employees fair. The MLB is fair. The NFL is not.

[smith2373]

And over in the NBA, three of the best players in the league all want to team up to play in Miami but in the NFL, the Dolphins can hardly attract one star player to sign there.

Anyone can pick and choose **** like that.

It's off topic, so I won't go into details here, but the Dolphins have gotten plenty of star players to sign with them over the years.

The NFL isn't any different. You telling me if they were getting offered the same contract, who is Adrian Peterson gonna play for: The Cleveland Browns, the Miami Dolphins or the New England Patriots? He's gonna play for the team that has the better front office and the team that he feels has the best chance of winning. Just like in the NBA, why would LeBron waste his time with the Cleveland Cavaliers or Bosh waste his time in Toronto when they can sign with a team that they feel they have a better chance of winning with and they trust the front office more?

NFL free agency is very different. In the NBA, the money is the same in every city for the stars. In the NFL, the money is different in every city. The big market NFL franchises don't get first dibs on every star player that hits free agency, either, tons of stars opt to sign in places that would have no chance to sign a big time player in the NBA.

I don't blame the players for doing what is best for themselves, I blame the NBA for setting up an unfair system.

But there's also more star players in the NFL than in the NBA. If the NBA had the amount of star players the NFL had, I'm sure the Nuggets & Bobcats would be able to sign them.

[Agenda42]

Fair to who? The NFL owners who are ripping off the players?

LOL @ calling a cartel that has successfully suppressed the wages of its employees fair. The MLB is fair. The NFL is not.

Fair in terms of competitive balance. In the NFL, the team that bids the most generally gets the player, and every team has the same amount of money to spend. In the NBA, star players only move in one direction, from everywhere else to LA, NY, Boston, Chicago, or Miami. In a world where the championship contenders have 3-4 all stars each, 20 NBA franchises might as well not exist.

The balance of power between the NFL and the NFLPA is clearly not in a good place, but as a fan that doesn't have much impact on me.

[DanTown8587]

The only people who want no max contracts are the guys currently getting paid max contracts. The owners would hate it (would mean having to pay massive amounts of money to one player who might want to leave anyway), the union would hate it (it's tax cuts on the rich paid for by the rest of the players).

The NFL is not a comparable model to the NBA. NFL rosters have four times the amount of players while having only about twice as much money.

If you go to a hard cap, are we really expecting Milwaukee to pay Russell Westbrook 25 to 30 million a year when Lebron is getting $45 million? What a hard cap would do in theory is not at all how it would go in practice.

[DanTown8587]

Fair to who? The NFL owners who are ripping off the players?

LOL @ calling a cartel that has successfully suppressed the wages of its employees fair. The MLB is fair. The NFL is not.

Fair in terms of competitive balance. In the NFL, the team that bids the most generally gets the player, and every team has the same amount of money to spend. In the NBA, star players only move in one direction, from everywhere else to LA, NY, Boston, Chicago, or Miami. In a world where the championship contenders have 3-4 all stars each, 20 NBA franchises might as well not exist.

The balance of power between the NFL and the NFLPA is clearly not in a good place, but as a fan that doesn't have much impact on me.

And NBA owners don't want competitive balance. The draft, rookie scale and restricted FA allows that.

In a hard cap system, OKC would never keep Durant four years. Same with the Clippers and Blake Griffin. The owners are SAVING money by giving max contracts to these players. Why would they want to pay them more money?

[Don Draper]

Fair in terms of competitive balance. In the NFL, the team that bids the most generally gets the player, and every team has the same amount of money to spend. In the NBA, star players only move in one direction, from everywhere else to LA, NY, Boston, Chicago, or Miami. In a world where the championship contenders have 3-4 all stars each, 20 NBA franchises might as well not exist.

Ah, the competitive balance koolaid. What you guys don't realize is it works both ways. By capping the amount teams spend it also becomes harder to challenge good teams (especially in the NFL where good teams can easily shed salary to resign players).

And the notion that teams should cease to exist b/c 2 teams are very good is completely absurd. The demand for basketball will not evaporate overnight. Let's stick to realistic scenarios.

The balance of power between the NFL and the NFLPA is clearly not in a good place, but as a fan that doesn't have much impact on me.

That's a pretty pathetic POV. You have no problem with these guys getting taken advantage, just b/c you want to see a theoretically level playing field. SMH

[Agenda42]

Fair in terms of competitive balance. In the NFL, the team that bids the most generally gets the player, and every team has the same amount of money to spend. In the NBA, star players only move in one direction, from everywhere else to LA, NY, Boston, Chicago, or Miami. In a world where the championship contenders have 3-4 all stars each, 20 NBA franchises might as well not exist.

Ah, the competitive balance koolaid. What you guys don't realize is it works both ways. By capping the amount teams spend it also becomes harder to challenge good teams (especially in the NFL where good teams can easily shed salary to resign players).

And the notion that teams should cease to exist b/c 2 teams are very good is completely absurd. The demand for basketball will not evaporate overnight. Let's stick to realistic scenarios.

I don't see how a hard cap makes it harder to challenge good teams. In the NBA, if you have a team of good players and deep pockets, you can retain them all, no matter how much other teams are willing to pay for your players. In the NFL, you can't exceed the cap to retain your players, so if there's a lot of interest in your guys, you'll have to pick and choose.

I don't think it's good to have teams exist in any league that have no realistic hope of winning a championship. Every NFL team has hope. The Patriots and Colts were jokes for a long time, then they both built consistent contenders. I don't think every NBA team has hope as the system is designed today.

The balance of power between the NFL and the NFLPA is clearly not in a good place, but as a fan that doesn't have much impact on me.

That's a pretty pathetic POV. You have no problem with these guys getting taken advantage, just b/c you want to see a theoretically level playing field. SMH

I have a problem with how the NFL exploits players, especially given how violent a game it is and how short player careers are. It's just not relevant to my experience as a fan. On the NFL board I frequent, I complain about things I don't like about the NFL. Here, I complain about things I don't like about the NBA.

[Agenda42]

And NBA owners don't want competitive balance. The draft, rookie scale and restricted FA allows that.

In a hard cap system, OKC would never keep Durant four years. Same with the Clippers and Blake Griffin. The owners are SAVING money by giving max contracts to these players. Why would they want to pay them more money?

The owners aren't saving money. The elimination of the max contract wouldn't change how much money teams pay to players, it would only change which players get how much money.

The elimination of the max contract rule would favor small market teams because the glamour market teams would not be able to pay fair market value for 3 superstars at once. As it stands now, the money is the same in every city for LeBron, so of course he chooses to play with Wade and Bosh. In a world with no max contract, though, small market teams would be lining up to offer him $35M a season, and it's not so easy to walk away from $20M a season, even if it means you have to play in Milwaukee.

Changing this rule alone wouldn't result in a balanced playing field, but it would eliminate the superteam phenomenon. That would result in better chances for small market teams to win.

[microfib4thewin]

How about we change how the game is officiated so the impact of superstars isn't a stratosphere above your average player? The CBA is only going to solve issues related to spending power, unfortunately the imbalance of the league is mostly tied in to the influence the best players have over everyone else. The Heat and the Lakers are in a much better position to win a title compared to the Knicks and the Nets despite all 4 teams equally spending money like a madman because they have much better talent, and in the Lakers case the fit is also there. The Spurs also have a better chance at winning than the Knicks and the Nets despite a much smaller payroll because they have a rare talent in Duncan and a GOAT coach. Star players will never be traded unless his contract is absolute toxic or if he has off-court issues. As a result, player movement is minimal and you don't see stars switch teams as often as you see in other leagues. A league with no player movement would only ensure that the status quo will not be broken and the next season will usually play out the same as the previous one unless 2010 happens again.

The Rangers and the Cardinals hardly bat an eye when Lee and Pujols left. Can you imagine a top tier talent moving that wouldn't change the landscape of the NBA?

[Ditchweed]

What's missing in all these arguments is why does the NBA league exist?

It exists to maximize the profits for all the owners, whether by immediate financial return, or by the building of equity for the cost of a franchise, or by getting lucrative TV contracts, and so on.

What it does not exist for is the free personal sport enjoyment of the fans who do not contribute to the bottom dollar. It does not exist for the RealGM poster types if they don't buy tickets or anything to add to the bottom line nor does it exist for people who watch it on TV for free. It exists more for the father who takes his kids to the game, for people who buy season tickets, who rent boxes, for networks who contract games and who sell commercial time and/or pay for view games, for those who spend money.

It is an entertainment business and is all about money. It also is not a social right for people who feel they have some degree of ownership over the existence and direction of their team and the league. They don't. The teams and league market themselves to bring in the most $$$$ for themselves. If you add to their bottom line, they look and listen, else you are just one of a number of a meaningless number.

So what is the answer to all the pandering in these posts? Simple. The league will bring in a system that will make the most profit for the most owners: whether it be via making superteams to draw paying fans, whether it be via a hard cap, whether it be via reducing their worker's (players) salaries, or whatever they can do to increase their gain. If it is not in place now, the owners will move toward putting it in place.

A team like the Lakers getting a multi million dollar TV contract helps everybody's profit via the Lakers who move a big chunk of their profit to the poor via revenue sharing and with new luxury taxes. That in turn will be split amongst the poor and the bulk of the non paying owners who are now happier. The Lakers don't like the situation because their profit goes down, but more owners do like it, so it exists. A point to keep in mind here is would the Lakers get that TV contract with a team that is continually a first round exit from the playoffs, probably not, so there is reason for their super team to exist.

However, if the league thinks that a more equitable league (parity) via a hardcap will bring in more money overall by bringing in more payers to smaller market teams and thus more overall profits than it can with super teams, it will eventually come about.

In the meantime, all we can do is sit back and wait for the new revenue sharing and luxury taxes to kick in with their desired effect before anything else is decided. If the luxury tax isn't working with the desired effect, the most likely possibility is the paying curve to go higher at the bigger overages.

[Ditchweed]

Fair to who? The NFL owners who are ripping off the players?

LOL @ calling a cartel that has successfully suppressed the wages of its employees fair. The MLB is fair. The NFL is not.

Fair in terms of competitive balance. In the NFL, the team that bids the most generally gets the player, and every team has the same amount of money to spend. In the NBA, star players only move in one direction, from everywhere else to LA, NY, Boston, Chicago, or Miami. In a world where the championship contenders have 3-4 all stars each, 20 NBA franchises might as well not exist.

The balance of power between the NFL and the NFLPA is clearly not in a good place, but as a fan that doesn't have much impact on me.

And NBA owners don't want competitive balance. The draft, rookie scale and restricted FA allows that.

In a hard cap system, OKC would never keep Durant four years. Same with the Clippers and Blake Griffin. The owners are SAVING money by giving max contracts to these players. Why would they want to pay them more money?

How do you figure that? The players get their total from the %age of the BRI ... the owners overall wouldn't spend more or less, just the distribution from the teams to the 450 players would be different.

[LateRoundFlyer]

How about we change how the game is officiated so the impact of superstars isn't a stratosphere above your average player? The CBA is only going to solve issues related to spending power, unfortunately the imbalance of the league is mostly tied in to the influence the best players have over everyone else. The Heat and the Lakers are in a much better position to win a title compared to the Knicks and the Nets despite all 4 teams equally spending money like a madman because they have much better talent, and in the Lakers case the fit is also there. The Spurs also have a better chance at winning than the Knicks and the Nets despite a much smaller payroll because they have a rare talent in Duncan and a GOAT coach. Star players will never be traded unless his contract is absolute toxic or if he has off-court issues. As a result, player movement is minimal and you don't see stars switch teams as often as you see in other leagues. A league with no player movement would only ensure that the status quo will not be broken and the next season will usually play out the same as the previous one unless 2010 happens again.

The Rangers and the Cardinals hardly bat an eye when Lee and Pujols left. Can you imagine a top tier talent moving that wouldn't change the landscape of the NBA?

First off, even if you favor a officiating solution over a CBA solution, you're not helping yourself when you adopt the same rhetoric as them and try to draw analogies between completely distinct sports leagues. I would have thought that for someone who caps their argument by observing the competitive edge just one superstar provides a NBA club versus that one in the NFL/MLB/NHL, that you would see the contradiction in immediately offering examples of how competitive balance works "in other leagues". So referencing Lee and Pujols to make your point on the premiums that should be paid to culture, personnel, and support systems is not terribly compelling in any way.

Second, as to your claims that "the imbalance of the league is mostly tied in to the influence the best players have over everyone else", how else can you make your point ironclad WITHOUT dealing with purchasing power and resources? From what I gather, you would leave this out in favor of a much more biased officiating policy than what we already have in place, am I right? Yes, let us just call it what is shall, we?

You conclude from a hypothetical involving the Lakers, Spurs, and NY, that both the Lakers and Spurs will be better equipped to win games due to their overall talent and not resources. While this is a keen observation by itself, does it then follow that because LA has 4 potential HoFers, this guarantees success? And, were we to ignore the obvious logical fallacy there, just how many double-standards would neutralizing their incumbent advantage entail?

Keep in mind this league is certainly no stranger to accusations of corrupt officiating. Are you seriously suggesting that making such one-sided calls MORE transparent rather than less changes anything for the better? Oh right, I'm sorry: it's no longer the superteams that would benefit from such calls.

So, whereas a team like the Lakers might be favored by a 3.5 point margin over the Denver Nuggets on the road, and in the same away game, the Knicks might be favored by only 1.2, how else do you propose to accomplish such balance? Obviously officiating the Lakers game, because of the talent they might possess, requires more calls in favor of Denver than it might were NY in their place. And in what twisted world is THIS fair? How is this not the very definition of bias?

At least the small-market sycophants recognize the inherent fallacy in such a proposition. But if their faith in an NFL-style league is still widely misplaced, it at least remains closer to the issue than any game regulations that must be written on a game-by-game basis would.

I have said it numerous times before: let the free market in. You really want to use a different sport so badly to draw conclusions from? Look at soccer in Europe. Even the basketball leagues have a similar setup. Rid this league of trash owners in it purely for the marketing exercise and only then will you have any semblance of parity.

Parity MUST stem for equal opportunity for every team in this league, NOT entitlements that reward failure -- like revenue sharing and lottery picks. There will never be equal resources for every team... but so f*cking what? Market incumbents exist in every industry, not just sports. And yet, upstarts appear every day and thrive through good decisions and sound management. A uniform officiating code supplements this notion, but in no way can it stand on its own and in no way can it exist to grant the underdog extra privilege. Such is another entitlement. And such have already hurt this league enough already.

In the end, everyone wins in this situation, though not without the pain of readjustment first. And that's why such wishes of any grandiose realignment of this league had better start by forcing the issue to their respective owners on a united front... instead of exhibiting their lack of economic sense on RealGM.

[DanTown8587]

[quote="Ditchweed"

How do you figure that? The players get their total from the %age of the BRI ... the owners overall wouldn't spend more or less, just the distribution from the teams to the 450 players would be different.[/quote]

They would of course pay more. They all would have to pay more to second tier stars. They couldn't afford LeBrons or Griffins. they would pay a lot of money to guys who don't change revenue. Westbrook, Bosh, etc