This CBA sucks

[hugepatsfan]

For me personally, I feel the new CBA is just furthering what has been the worst impact of the "player empowerment" era. I just don't FEEL IT with any of these matchups anymore. There's no sweat equity in them. There's not the same amount of teams meeting in the playoffs back to back years or three out of 4 years with mostly the same core. The players have been hopping team to team for a while now which was hurting that for me, and now the league basically gave the teams on the other side motivation to tear their teams apart too.

Like I can see why, in a basketball sense, OKC vs. MIN or NYK vs. IND should be fun series. But meh, it's just not compelling for me. And neither was BOS-DAL in the finals last year or BOS-IND/MIN-DAL either. Sure, I was interest because my team was in it, but for quite a while now once the Celtics have been eliminated, I simply don't find the rest of the playoffs compelling enough to really get into. I'll put it on in the background or at least catch highlights and watch a few breakdowns, but I just don't find it super interesting to watch unless I look up while doing other things and see it's close in the 4th quarter.

[Michael Bradley]

superteams were forming so they came up a way to deter that...and it is working. there's alot of parity now and no dynasties. why is this a bad thing? this was in a response to prior complaints. they will tweak it some more based on feedback of this one.

Yep, NBA ratings are way up this playoffs and we have four teams left that have not won a championship in a long time or ever as in the case of Minnesota. Injuries aside, the playoffs this year have been amazing to watch. Superteam Era was revolting in its excess and the way players and spend-happy teams colluded to control the overall league balance. That era produced a terrible product with only three or four teams that mattered from a realistic competitive standpoint. Most rs games were irrelevant, and this suppression of the rest of the league turned a lot of fans off. The league was also just flat boring.

Ratings are up because the style of play this postseason resemblance what it used to look like pre-freedom of movement. I don't think the ratings increase is due to "parity". The casual fan has never cared about that.

Ratings are up 2% from last year (3% if you exclude NBA TV), and it's not like it's all small/mid market teams. You had Knicks vs Celtics, the Lakers with Luka, and the Warriors all being involved. It's likely a mix of big market stars/teams plus half the series' going at least 6 games (3 game 7's). I don't think it says anything about the CBA or whether fans prefer parity. The Knicks making a deep run is going to be good for ratings since it will involve the NY market. If the Finals are Pacers/OKC, then I don't think you'll see the casuals rushing out to watch it. Knicks/OKC or Knicks/Wolves will do numbers.

I remember reading somewhere that super teams are actually good for TV viewership, and I think that makes sense since it gives casual viewers a natural villain to root against (ex. the Warriors with KD). We need to see a larger sample of parity in order to test whether fans would prefer that instead.

[Billl]

Honestly, this cba is awesome. A strict salary cap is fantastic and the flattened lottery odds are great. Management just needs to learn to play by the new rules. I think everyone around the NBA saw brown out lobbying for a super max deal and saw this coming. I'm sure boston did to and decided it was worth it to max out this window. Ultimately though, if you pay 2 guys each 35% of the cap and then you only have 30% left for the rest of the roster. I mean, there is a reason the celtics were able to trade for some other really good but highly paid players for peanuts and that's because other teams valued the flexibility. It's a little rich to take advantage of that and then complain when your team no longer has the flexibility they traded away.

[reload141]

OKC are in a sweet spot atm with this CBA, they have a legit 2–3 year window to dominate and reel off some championships as the last possible dynasty before it’s totally open for every team in the league, they need to take advantage of that.

[pieguyxx]

Think people are reading too much into it. Its nothing more than to save owners money so they have an excuse not to pay the CJ McCollums of the world max/near-max money.

[Ducklett]

The problem that I always had with the whole draft and contract setup in the NBA is that teams that generally do a good job management wise often get punished in the long run.

To go with the Celtics example. Almost all of their current players were developed by them (Tatum, Brown, Pritchard, Hauser), improved significantly while playing for them (White, Kornet) or kind of rebuilt/resurrected their career/reputation with them (Porzingis, Horford).

So it feels kind of weird to say, well you did such a good job with your current players, that would have been available for pretty much every other team before you signed or traded for them, that you aren't able to resign them any more.

In general there is way too much focus on contracts in the league the last few years. A lot of times if a player "sucks" or not is more based on how much he earns than how he actually plays and how tradeable/untradeable he is based on that.

So you believe there shouldn't be a salary cap? Because the honest truth is, if no one underperformed their pay (i.e. Paul George, Embiid, Zion, Lavine, Beal, Ayton, MPJ, Jamal Murray, Brandon Ingram), no one would give a crap that anyone was making too much. There are too many NBA guys who are making a lot of money and not giving enough production based on it. Jimmy Butler pouted his way to a 120mm dollar extension with Golden State, that he has no way of physically living up to.

Too many legacy contracts in the NBA.

I think that the league needs a general reform. The draft was implemented in 1947 and it was a system that made sense when you had a handfull of teams and it was an American sport. The reason the MLS and US Soccer isn't more competitive is literally the US player development and draft system.

Right now picks and rookie contracts are way to overvalued. On one side things like the salary cap exist to guarantee equality and make small market teams competitive, but at the same time there are so many rules and common practices in place that contradict them. Things like vets signing with rebuild teams to mentor them for the first half of the season with the expectation to be bought out and sign with a contender later and so on.

There are multiple ways to go, in general I think something like a Rookie free agency would make sense, with teams being able to spend more salary based on their standing the previous season instead of draft picks. The counterargument might be that this would go against small markets, but you can also have the perspective that teams would be forced to create a culture that makes players want to play for their team. Kind of like college recruitment.

From a non rookie perspective, it would be an idea to differentiate between tenure. Meaning a player that is already playing a certain amount of years either impacts the salary cap less, or the salary cap is split up. Like I can f. e. spend 50% on players that have played for my team less than 4 years (including free agents) and not go over the cap here and 50% for players with a longer tenure and have no cap limit here. Basically rewarding teams that do a good job in developing their players and kind of a motivation to not having to tear the whole roster down during a rebuild and trade solid starters for Cents on the Dollar.

Not saying that any of those solutions are perfect or wouldn't need some adjustment, more that I feel that at this point the league is trying to make a completely outdated system work by trying to put bandaids on every hole.

I don't want to derail this thread into politics or anything close to it, but that isn't the issue. US soccer gets like 6th pick of the athletes.

[Mamba81p]

I hate it because cheap owners always have the excuse not to spend too much. Nuggets had a legitimate reason not to spend money on Kcp and brown while in the past owners like sarver and arison were exposed for cheap moves.

[NO-KG-AI]

Isn't this what we wanted? 7 different champions over the last 7 years. The CBA has made super teams next to impossible.
I understand where Celtics' fans are coming from because their main players were drafted by the team but in the grand scheme of things, i would prefer the parity we have now to the KD-warriors or Heatles era.

Their two stars were drafted, and they traded for and paid a boatload of money for the other 3 starters. The CBA isn’t making them lose the JBs and it didn’t stop them from paying mega deals to them either.

The Celtics are gonna have to make moves to have 4 deals over $30 mill instead of 5. Woe is me.

[jpengland]

The league should have a hard cap.

I like this CBA. Reward smart financial planning, developing talent and identifying margins.

It’s also opened up the league and allowing smart teams to quickly rise.

OKC is two of the three you listed and they won't be rewarded for it. This CBA is eventually going to break up that team.

My next post clarified that I’d support rewarding drafting and developing talent with that salary counting less against the cap (with proper G league set up etc etc).

But yes OKC will have problems retaining everybody, but they also wouldn’t be anywhere near a title if the CBA wasn’t put in place.

We have four teams coming from basically nowhere fighting for a title.

This CBA isn’t perfect but has been a huge step in the right direction.

[zimpy27]

We're in the transition period from less restrictions to more restrictions.

This time was always going to feel the worst.

In a few years we would have adjusted contracts to the new CBA and it won't feel as bad as this

[Patches Perry]

It's going to become very difficult to win a championship without really impactful players on rookie deals, or guys taking big pay cuts.

Perhaps it's my bias as an OKC fan but I wish players that a team drafted only counted as a smaller percentage against the cap. This would incentivize homegrown teams rather than free agency heavy ones. If you draft and develop a player, you should see some kind of discount against the cap for retaining them.

[jpengland]

The problem that I always had with the whole draft and contract setup in the NBA is that teams that generally do a good job management wise often get punished in the long run.

To go with the Celtics example. Almost all of their current players were developed by them (Tatum, Brown, Pritchard, Hauser), improved significantly while playing for them (White, Kornet) or kind of rebuilt/resurrected their career/reputation with them (Porzingis, Horford).

So it feels kind of weird to say, well you did such a good job with your current players, that would have been available for pretty much every other team before you signed or traded for them, that you aren't able to resign them any more.

In general there is way too much focus on contracts in the league the last few years. A lot of times if a player "sucks" or not is more based on how much he earns than how he actually plays and how tradeable/untradeable he is based on that.

So you believe there shouldn't be a salary cap? Because the honest truth is, if no one underperformed their pay (i.e. Paul George, Embiid, Zion, Lavine, Beal, Ayton, MPJ, Jamal Murray, Brandon Ingram), no one would give a crap that anyone was making too much. There are too many NBA guys who are making a lot of money and not giving enough production based on it. Jimmy Butler pouted his way to a 120mm dollar extension with Golden State, that he has no way of physically living up to.

Too many legacy contracts in the NBA.

I think that the league needs a general reform. The draft was implemented in 1947 and it was a system that made sense when you had a handfull of teams and it was an American sport. The reason the MLS and US Soccer isn't more competitive is literally the US player development and draft system.

Right now picks and rookie contracts are way to overvalued. On one side things like the salary cap exist to guarantee equality and make small market teams competitive, but at the same time there are so many rules and common practices in place that contradict them. Things like vets signing with rebuild teams to mentor them for the first half of the season with the expectation to be bought out and sign with a contender later and so on.

There are multiple ways to go, in general I think something like a Rookie free agency would make sense, with teams being able to spend more salary based on their standing the previous season instead of draft picks. The counterargument might be that this would go against small markets, but you can also have the perspective that teams would be forced to create a culture that makes players want to play for their team. Kind of like college recruitment.

From a non rookie perspective, it would be an idea to differentiate between tenure. Meaning a player that is already playing a certain amount of years either impacts the salary cap less, or the salary cap is split up. Like I can f. e. spend 50% on players that have played for my team less than 4 years (including free agents) and not go over the cap here and 50% for players with a longer tenure and have no cap limit here. Basically rewarding teams that do a good job in developing their players and kind of a motivation to not having to tear the whole roster down during a rebuild and trade solid starters for Cents on the Dollar.

Not saying that any of those solutions are perfect or wouldn't need some adjustment, more that I feel that at this point the league is trying to make a completely outdated system work by trying to put bandaids on every hole.

I’d also scrap the draft. Let everyone enter as a free agent.

Hard cap. Zero exceptions.

Proper G League with a G League portion of salary cap.

Discounted salary cap implications for players you have developed via the G league or under certain ages as well as retaining players.

Actually reward talent evaluation and development. Rookies and young guys would actively be seeking out contracts with teams with good track records of development too making it even more rewarding. Smart use of cap and contracts and track records of developing allows you to grab the best youngsters and turn them into stars.

[jbk1234]

I actually believe Silver and the owners set the CBA up intentionally to make a hard cap a more palatable choice in the future. Obviously the second apron penalties are too punitive, they cannot be overcome even with excellent management. It's designed to be a cautionary tale starring the first few victims and little else.

(tinfoil off)

It's designed to prevent teams from doing what the Warriors did and spending twice the salary cap in perpetuity. When Durant left to go to Brooklyn, and the Warriors traded a first so they could get Dlo on a rookie max back, that made it clear that luxury tax penalties alone were not a sufficient deterrent to ensure compliance with spending limitations. It was made worse by the Warriors then trading Dlo for Wiggins before extending Wiggins.

As far as Silver, he doesn't get a vote that's independent of the majority of owners. It's the owners who didn't want to compete with a team willing to spend twice the cap for decade running.

[jbk1234]

It's going to become very difficult to win a championship without really impactful players on rookie deals, or guys taking big pay cuts.

Perhaps it's my bias as an OKC fan but I wish players that a team drafted only counted as a smaller percentage against the cap. This would incentivize homegrown teams rather than free agency heavy ones. If you draft and develop a player, you should see some kind of discount against the cap for retaining them.

The problem is that neither Hartenstein nor Caruso are home grown and the Thunder signed or extended both guys knowing those rookie contracts don't last forever.

[jbk1234]

The dumbest rule IMO is the fact that you can't combine salaries when you're a second apron team. The CBA literally makes it extra difficult for teams to get out of apron hell by not allowing them to attach a good contract to a bad one to move, or combining salaries to make the numbers work.

This is maybe one of the few rules of the CBA I don't like. Overall, I like that it forces teams to make financial choices rather than just stacking the deck, but they should have more means of getting back under.

I believe you can aggregate if the net result is you're under the second apron after the trade. What you can't do is aggregate and still be over after the trade.

[Johnny Firpo]

You can call it bad, but it's the reason why the Celtics weren't/won't be able to become a dynasty, and what will also likely prevent the OKC to become one. 7 winners in 7 years. A Charlotte or a Kings fan can actually be optimistic and think about a championship season in maybe 15-20 years. With a little bit of luck, every team will have their turn sooner than later. I think it's a good thing.

[KGDirkTD_Fan]

I'm fine with the CBA. It just sucks/unfair for established teams who gave out their contracts already during the old CBA and got screwed going into the new one.

Teams who made terrible decisions with knowledge of the CBA can kick rocks. Teams and players need to have uncomfortable salary discussions. As it stands max contracts are a lot more damaging if the player performance doesn't meet expectations and value contracts are a lot more valuable to retain or even trade if those players are high performers. 1st and 2nd draft picks probably have better value because of the rooking scale contracts even if they become some 10 min per game bench player. A lot of GMs are going to have to earn their money in this environment.

[JDR720]

I think it's a good thing. Eventually teams will catch on that giving out max contracts to non-stars and huge contracts to role players is a bad idea. Even without this new CBA, those types of contracts very rarely work out for the teams.

[KGDirkTD_Fan]

The league should have a hard cap.

I like this CBA. Reward smart financial planning, developing talent and identifying margins.

It’s also opened up the league and allowing smart teams to quickly rise.

OKC is two of the three you listed and they won't be rewarded for it. This CBA is eventually going to break up that team.

My next post clarified that I’d support rewarding drafting and developing talent with that salary counting less against the cap (with proper G league set up etc etc).

But yes OKC will have problems retaining everybody, but they also wouldn’t be anywhere near a title if the CBA wasn’t put in place.

We have four teams coming from basically nowhere fighting for a title.

This CBA isn’t perfect but has been a huge step in the right direction.

How many championship teams can keep existing in perpetuity by paying everyone their market rate? I don't know the answer but I remember quite a few teams having guys on championship discounts. Scottie Pippen the most famous example of course. 2010-2014 Heat, etc. I don't think the CBA will change that.

The thunder could keep this going for at least 5 years with their picks, and any potential value contracts they can keep on the books. The teams that blew all their picks and paid the highest dollar for subpar talent won't.

[reload141]

It's going to become very difficult to win a championship without really impactful players on rookie deals, or guys taking big pay cuts.

Perhaps it's my bias as an OKC fan but I wish players that a team drafted only counted as a smaller percentage against the cap. This would incentivize homegrown teams rather than free agency heavy ones. If you draft and develop a player, you should see some kind of discount against the cap for retaining them.

The problem is that neither Hartenstein nor Caruso are home grown and the Thunder signed or extended both guys knowing those rookie contracts don't last forever.

This. I know being an OKC fan and seeing the CBA is frustrating because you’ve made amazing pick ups in the draft and that should be rewarded.

But reality is, it’s a 2-3 year window to really dominate the league and reel off a few championships, after that Chet and maybe even JDub are gone but you’ll get draft capital in return and with how you’ve been picking at the draft, it’s not all doom and gloom.