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

[RoyalWun]

Some teams HAVE to overpay to get a decent-good player to join their team.
Some teams don't have to do s***.

[EnigmaticProblem]

The teams that have to overpay are the teams that are horrible. I don't mean in location-- I'm talking about record; about playoff progress.

The teams that don't have to do shizzz are the teams with good records, who constantly make it far, in the playoffs. Boris Diaw, when waived, signed with the Spurs. Richard Hamilton went to the Bulls. Kenyon Martin signed with the Clippers.

Give these players a non-comedic reason to sign with Milwaukee.

[bullsnewdynasty]

The teams that have to overpay are the teams that are horrible. I don't mean in location-- I'm talking about record; about playoff progress.

The teams that don't have to do shizzz are the teams with good records, who constantly make it far, in the playoffs. Boris Diaw, when waived, signed with the Spurs. Richard Hamilton went to the Bulls. Kenyon Martin signed with the Clippers.

Give these players a non-comedic reason to sign with Milwaukee.

Lol, you are actually complaining about these guys? Past their prime vets who sign with contenders? Ring chasing isn't exactly new, it even happened a bunch during the 90s.

And besides, the Bulls paid Rip a $5 mil salary. It isn't like they're paying him the min.

[EnigmaticProblem]

I'm not the one complaining. lol.. I've never complained about the structure of the current collective bargaining agreement. I was just explaining to 'RoyalWun' that the atrocious teams have to overpay for decent talent (Landry Fields).

Those past their prime vets constitute as "decent/good", no? That's what 'RoyalWun' inquired about.

[Agenda42]

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.

This is such BS. It's not just the NFL, that happens in pretty much every pro sports league including the NBA.

...

By the way, since 2000:
21 out of the 30 NBA teams have played in a Conference Finals series.
23 out of the 32 NFL teams have played in a Conference Championship game.

To be clear, I'm saying that something big has happened in the last few years with the whole stars teaming up phenomenon. As long as teams like the 03-04 Pistons or the 02-03 Spurs were good enough, small market teams had a target to build for. Now you're looking at star-studded teams like the Lakers and Heat being what you have to beat, and I don't think you can build a team like that without having a top quality market behind your franchise.

[RatherUnique]

[
Small wonder, then, that everyone already knows that only a few teams have a shot at the NBA title before the season even starts.

That just seems to be the nature of the sport judging by how 2 teams combined for 8 rings in the '80s, and one team won 6 titles in 8 seasons in the '90s.

[Bulls Heero 81]

Agenda, how is this any different from other eras though? What do you mean by the last few years? I could have swore the Bulls won 6 titles in the 90's. Maybe I imagined the spurs four titles. I guess LA didn't really win 5 titles the last decade. Maybe the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Sixers, Rockets weren't staples of the post season in the 80's. We can go further back if we want to with the Celtics and Lakers back in the day. To this day only James and Bosh were willing to take less than the max to sign in Miami. They were signed and traded, but they were already gone. Miami had to cut payroll for several years while staying competitive to make this happen. Melo, Paul, and Howard were traded and did not want to leave a single cent uncounted. It is still up to the team to trade them, they are not free agents. This is the last year you can sign and trade players as a tax paying team. People are over reacting to one anomaly, something that probably won't ever happen again. Seriously, you had Miller, Battier, Haslem, James, Bosh, Wade, and Allen take huge pay cuts, most of those guys did in the same off season. Who else out there is taking these large pay cuts? Even KG at his accelerated age is making 10 million a year. Hell, Dallas beat Miami in 2011.

[Kibago]

hard cap, exception for 1 max player who you can pay double the salary max and have it count as the max against your cap. (so if the cap is $60 mil and the normal max is $11 mil, your one star makes $22 mil but has a cap hit of $11m.)

you can trade for someone else's max guy, but only one max guy can get that '22m counts as 11m cap' bonus. you can't sign a max guy if you have one. so a superstar has no problem switching markets to a team with an empty max slot if they dislike theirs, but if they want to team up with another superstar they're stuck making $11m instead of $22. if they force a trade to a max-slot-filled team, their new team has the full $22m counting against the cap and they're guaranteed to lose one of the two stars at contract expiring time (unless he wants to stay at $11m)

[Bulls Heero 81]

hard cap, exception for 1 max player who you can pay double the salary max and have it count as the max against your cap. (so if the cap is $60 mil and the normal max is $11 mil, your one star makes $22 mil but has a cap hit of $11m.)

you can trade for someone else's max guy, but only one max guy can get that '22m counts as 11m cap' bonus. you can't sign a max guy if you have one. so a superstar has no problem switching markets to a team with an empty max slot if they dislike theirs, but if they want to team up with another superstar they're stuck making $11m instead of $22. if they force a trade to a max-slot-filled team, their new team has the full $22m counting against the cap and they're guaranteed to lose one of the two stars at contract expiring time (unless he wants to stay at $11m)

This is somewhat similar to the designated player rule in MLS. A player that can be paid whatever but not count against the team's cap/ payroll. Although, if this is implemented you can easily get two more max players if the hard cap is still set high.

[EireannX]

People claiming a hard cap wouldn't change anything seem to be denying reality.

A hard cap would have stopped LA from assembling the team they have. Obviously because they are spending as much as they are.

A hard cap would have stopped Miami from having the team they have. They fitted their core under the cap with the idea that their raises would blow through the cap and they would rely on exceptions to add to the core.

So in a hard cap situation would the players involved be willing to leave another 10 million plus each on the table? And if so, why?

[Agenda42]

Agenda, how is this any different from other eras though? What do you mean by the last few years?

I'd say that since Boston formed their big 3, the stakes have gone up in terms of what is expected to contend. More talent is being concentrated in the hands of fewer teams because the rules make it advantageous to have max players and then fill in your rotation with MLE guys that sign for cheap.

You mention a bunch of teams that ended up dominating basketball. I won't go into all of them, but just because the outcome was a bunch of rings for a few teams doesn't mean that the small market teams had no hope. It took an officiating travesty to give the Kobe-Shaq Lakers the win over a Kings team based on Webber. The Jazz reached the Finals twice and very nearly won it all with Stockton and Malone. The Rockets picked up their franchise's first title with Hakeem and a few average or worse starters.

I don't think rosters like those have much chance of competing against the new superteam. It sure looks to me like winning a title in the superteam era means you have the ability to attract free agents to play for you, and I don't think this was a necessary condition for winning in other eras.

To this day only James and Bosh were willing to take less than the max to sign in Miami.

The part where players take a little less than the max isn't of much concern to me. In my eyes, the problem is that the max contract has never been a smaller portion of the cap. That's the rule change that is pushing superstar players to play together.

[Dennis 37]

How about we change how the game is officiated so the impact of superstars isn't a stratosphere above your average player?

On second thought, this. There have been games where the Raptors would be competitive with a network TV ratings favourite team, but one knew that phantom fouls against the Raptors, combined with no-calls against the stars of the chosen team, would doom any hope that the underdog could win. I don't mind my team bring at a disadvantage talent-wise as much as I mind when my local colourman states, "Well he hasn't been in the league long enough to get that call." bull, a foul is a foul, no matter how long you've been in the league. Look at the USA /LTU Olympic game. The US players were having fouls called against them, that if were called in an NBA game, the underdog would have a chance.

The Raptors, for the most part, can't keep a player past 7 years. So how many years of star calls do Raptor fans get the benefit of?

Maybe my aversion to superstar teams has nothing to do with evening the playing field talent wise. Maybe it is because I know that if all the stars align and all Raptors play at the top of their game, they don't just have the superteam to compete against, the have the NBA approved referee star bias to contend with as well.

[Agenda42]

[
Small wonder, then, that everyone already knows that only a few teams have a shot at the NBA title before the season even starts.

That just seems to be the nature of the sport judging by how 2 teams combined for 8 rings in the '80s, and one team won 6 titles in 8 seasons in the '90s.

I disagree, and let me cite one specific example: the 1995-96 NBA season. As everyone knows, that's the year Jordan came back, won 72 games, and generally stomped all over the league. In hindsight it's the most dominant year ever.

However, as it was happening, a lot of teams thought they had a contender. Houston was the defending champ with Hakeem and Drexler. San Antonio had the reigning MVP and a pretty nice set of complimentary players. Utah was a perennial contender with Stockton and Malone. The Sonics lineup built around Payton and Kemp was quite strong. Shaq and Penny were crushing people in Orlando. The Pacers fielded what was probably the best Reggie Miller / Rik Smits roster of the era. The Knicks were a trendy pick too, with Ewing and a bunch of tough defensive guys.

Lots of teams thought they had pretty good chances coming into that season. It wasn't anything like the current season, where it's a foregone conclusion that one of three teams will be winning it all, and you need three all-stars to be a contender.

[Dennis 37]

hard cap, exception for 1 max player who you can pay double the salary max and have it count as the max against your cap. (so if the cap is $60 mil and the normal max is $11 mil, your one star makes $22 mil but has a cap hit of $11m.)

you can trade for someone else's max guy, but only one max guy can get that '22m counts as 11m cap' bonus. you can't sign a max guy if you have one. so a superstar has no problem switching markets to a team with an empty max slot if they dislike theirs, but if they want to team up with another superstar they're stuck making $11m instead of $22. if they force a trade to a max-slot-filled team, their new team has the full $22m counting against the cap and they're guaranteed to lose one of the two stars at contract expiring time (unless he wants to stay at $11m)

This is somewhat similar to the designated player rule in MLS. A player that can be paid whatever but not count against the team's cap/ payroll. Although, if this is implemented you can easily get two more max players if the hard cap is still set high.

I would modify this. Teams should be able to pay their own draft picks whatever they want and have it only count against the cap at the max salary rate. If the player gets traded to another team, he can retain that salary, but it must all count against the cap of the new team. If a player leaves as a free agent, he would only be eligible for the max salary.

Bosh would have still left because he is not worth max salary as he makes no one else better on his team. LeBron is not leaving Cleveland and giving up tens of millions.

Also, why do trade exemptions expire? Bosh doesn't expire when he goes to Miami, why does an asset, traded for Bosh, have an expiry date? Why can't a team combine trade exemptions? The inability to combine exemptions, or hold onto them until they are useful, I see as a disadvantage to teams that lose there star players as they have a limited amount of time and flexibility to use the assets they get in exchange.

[Bulls Heero 81]

Agenda, again many teams had an uphill climb back then. Not much has changed. In the 80's the Lakers had a big four (Magic/ Kareem/ Scott/ Worthy), etc. Every year there are really only 4-8 teams that have a real shot to take it all. The Rockets you mentioned are not a small market team, still aren't. You mentioned teams like Utah/ Sacramento being competitive in the 90's, but don't mention OKC, Memphis, and SA. The league, like most sports, work in cycles. If anyone would have told me before 95 that Miami would be a competitive franchise with the potential to become a dynasty, I would have laughed at you. Remember Miami is not LA/CHI/NY/SF/PHI/HOU/Dallas, it's a mid market expansion team.

What Wade/James/ Bosh/ Miller/ Haslem did probably won't be duplicated. People underestimate how much money they left on the table to do this and the personal connection between these players. Look at the contracts signed by other superstars and lesser talent. That money made a huge difference. Look at Joe Johnson's contract. Only Bosh and James took less than the max and were willing to let go of that sixth year, no one has done that since (well it's five years now).

The new CBA kicks in soon. Let's see what happens. That sign and trade won't be available for tax paying teams. Remember, the Lakers are a family business. The owners are not hobby owners like Paul Allen/ Mark Cuban/ Rich Devos/ Micky Arison/ etc. That new tax will eat away at their profits more quickly than in the past. You might see LA/ Miami take a hit for a year and restructure. I think Miami will eventually cut or trade guys like Miller/ Anthony/ Battier and go younger with cheaper contracts. The big three in Miami might take another pay cut for their owner and opt out. Teams are already planning to avoid the repeater tax. You will probably see contending teams going forward hovering around 70-75 million. Let the new CBA get started and do it's thing before we judge it.

[Ikcelaks]

Allowing teams to pay extra penalty-free salary to only players they drafted has a few serious side effects.

1) It becomes extremely difficult to directly transition from being a good team without a super-star to being a great team. The only way to get a top 5-10 player will be to tank. Tanking is absolutely terrible for the integrity and excitement of the league.

2) Teams that luck out for a couple drafts in a row (like OKC with Durant and Westbrook) would have a tremendous advantage over the rest of the league.

3) We'd probably start to see draft-day power-plays (like what the Mannings did to get Eli to NY), since being drafted by the "wrong" team could cost elite players many millions.

[MAQ]

The answer was the 2nd post in this thread.

You have to get rid of the max contracts.

[Bulls Heero 81]

The answer was the 2nd post in this thread.

You have to get rid of the max contracts.

It won't happen though. The owners don't want it and the player don't want it. Doesn't matter. Need another solution.

[microfib4thewin]

People claiming a hard cap wouldn't change anything seem to be denying reality.

A hard cap would have stopped LA from assembling the team they have. Obviously because they are spending as much as they are.

A hard cap would have stopped Miami from having the team they have. They fitted their core under the cap with the idea that their raises would blow through the cap and they would rely on exceptions to add to the core.

So in a hard cap situation would the players involved be willing to leave another 10 million plus each on the table? And if so, why?

It's not that a hard cap wouldn't change anything, but the change isn't necessary for the better. A hard cap would mean that a team either has one superstar or no superstar. The team without the superstar isn't going to win because having better role players do not make up the difference in gap. The standing will be less lopsided, but in the end whichever superstar has the best playoff run is going to win, think Dirk in 2011.

And a hard cap would still not prevent the 2004 Lakers from being created.

[Agenda42]

In the 80's the Lakers had a big four (Magic/ Kareem/ Scott/ Worthy), etc.

I agree that the 80s Lakers offer a similar level of despair for small market teams. The difference I see between then and now is that the superteams that are being built now are happening because of the structure of the league. It's not just one team, it's a repeatable process that is becoming the new standard for how to build a championship team. The way that Boston, Miami, and Los Angeles have built their contending teams simply is not available to most NBA franchises.

You mentioned teams like Utah/ Sacramento being competitive in the 90's, but don't mention OKC, Memphis, and SA.

I don't think that the Spurs teams of the past can hang with the Lakers of the future. Memphis isn't a contender and isn't likely to ever be one. OKC is a cinderella team that's had everything it's ever touched turn to gold, but they won't be able to add talent or even retain their current players beyond next season; I think the most likely outcome for them is no rings.

Basically, I don't think anyone will be as simultaneously lucky and good as the Thunder have been, and if they aren't a dynasty in the modern NBA, small market teams might as well pack up and go home.

The league, like most sports, work in cycles.

...

The new CBA kicks in soon. Let's see what happens.

...

Let the new CBA get started and do it's thing before we judge it.

There's not much comfort to be found in the new CBA. The new, scarier luxury tax clearly doesn't scare the Lakers. The sign and trade not being available to taxpaying teams doesn't do a thing to stop the plan that Boston or Miami used to assemble their roster, and even LA would still have no issues getting Howard. Meanwhile, the smaller maximum contract clearly pushes teams towards accumulating as many max players as possible, while the smaller MLE lets even taxpaying teams continue to add talent to their contending roster on the cheap.

Sure, big market teams will probably take a year off from paying the tax every once in a while, but there are enough big market teams that somebody is always going to have that 3+ all-star lineup that seems nearly impossible to build or retain in a small market. Just look at what the new CBA is going to do to the Thunder next season.