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

[Sark]

If Lebron left NY to go to Cleveland to form a super team, would people be mad?

[Bulls Heero 81]

They were all contenders, but those teams that played in the Finals (sans Utah) were actually really good teams and teams that you would call super teams today. The Suns had Barkley (the MVP) and an All-Star in Johnson. The Sonics had Payton and Kemp, two guys All-NBA second team. The Jazz probably wasn't even the best team in those years, if the Rockets had ANYONE else at the PG spot they likely win those series.

I wouldn't call any of those teams a superteam, myself. They were built with the superstar, sidekick, role player structure that was the historical norm for NBA contenders. Maybe you could say the Hakeem-Drexler Rockets were a superteam, but to me superteams are defined by having at least 3 perennial all-stars on the roster, all playing at a high level.

In my view, past examples of superteams would include the Showtime Lakers, Bird-Parish-McHale Celtics, and the 60s Celtics.

Agenda, are you serious? There are many players who don't make the All Star team for whatever reason but are still All Star caliber. I exclusively followed that 92-93 Phoenix team when they first traded for Barkley, they were probably one of the most talented teams ever assembled in the history of the league. Those guys were great talents, not some role players and side kicks. A team like that today would be considered illegal. Can you imagine these boards back then if they existed? There was a reason they were called the "team of destiny".

Charles Barkley
Kevin Johnson
Cedric Ceballos
Dan Majerle
Danny Ainge
Tony Dumas
Oliver Miller
Mark West
Tom Chambers

Prime (fit) Barkley and Kevin Johnson were superstars. Cedric Ceballos and Dan Majerle were considered to be great third options. Danny Ainge was a great glue guy and effective role player. Tony Dumas (before the drugs) and Oliver Miller (before the eating) were up and coming talents with upside. Even Tom Chambers (once a MVP candidate) was an effective reserve there in the twilight of his career on that team. That Portland team was like the OKC back in the day with all that talent, but for whatever reason didn't have the mental fortitude necessary to play up to its true potential. What about the early 80's Sixers? What were they? 80's/90's Pistons? Those Sonics teams and those players were no joke either at that time or in the present. All those teams had superstars and all stars. Just because Michael Jordan was great doesn't mean we should diminish how talented and great these other teams and its players were. Those teams would be frightening in the present. Not all super teams win.

[Agenda42]

The 93 Suns were as good as the Thunder are today. My point is that the NBA has ALWAYS been "gather all ye all stars" and try to win that way. This isn't some new development.

Obviously teams have always tried to assemble the best possible talent to win.

That doesn't offer much information to resolve the question of how to structure the league for best competitive balance.

[clevceltics]

Agenda,
Im not sure you have disproven my point about a true superstar and a bunch of scrubs playing together. Kobe makes almost 28 mil this year and many would argue that he is worth more than that given what he means to the Lakers. It could argued that he is worth 35 maybe even 40 mil on an open market just based on the revenue that he brings to a club. With the current cap which would be the hard cap number, you are forced to pay players the vet min. You keep bringing up the contract that Jordan received in 97 as an example. Well there are players making 17, 18, 19 mil now. Do you not think if the max cap was lifted they wouldnt be making more.

For a team like Cleveland, LeBron suredly was worth at least 35 minimum. If the vet min is about 1 million and 1st rd rookie contracts are valued at close to 1 min for the 30th pick, how are adding the quality players that you profess that can acquire?


Lastly, in general for folks that keep saying give the Bobcats a fair chance to build their own "superteam". What is stopping them from acquiring their own star players besides their own stupidity? Stop faulting the Lakers for being able to acquire Howard. They drafted Bynum when at least 9 other teams had the same chance. Bynum developed into the 2nd best center in the game. When the time came they traded him for the best center in the game. Its called being smart and playing within the rules. People act asthough someone forced the Bucks to take Bogut over Bynum. There isnt a rule that says the Lakers can only make smart moves and the Raptors always have to make dumb ones. Thats just the reality of the situation

[Sark]

The 93 Suns were as good as the Thunder are today. My point is that the NBA has ALWAYS been "gather all ye all stars" and try to win that way. This isn't some new development.

Obviously teams have always tried to assemble the best possible talent to win.

That doesn't offer much information to resolve the question of how to structure the league for best competitive balance.

If you want competitive balance, start with getting rid of the superstar call. Refs calling fair games would do much more to even out the game than a hard cap.

[LateRoundFlyer]

Lastly, in general for folks that keep saying give the Bobcats a fair chance to build their own "superteam". What is stopping them from acquiring their own star players besides their own stupidity? Stop faulting the Lakers for being able to acquire Howard.

Not sure who that part's directed towards, being that you conveniently refused to specify, but I can't help but feel on the receiving end, given this comment I made earlier:

Giving OKC, Minnesota, or Indiana a real shot at keeping together their young core and building their own superteam? Now you're onto something...

Seeing as how no one thus far has, to the best of my knowledge, said a word about giving the Bobcats a "fair chance to build their own 'superteam'", I don't see where else you could be getting that notion from. But sure, since we're on the subject, nothing's stopping them from building their own superteam, just as nothing's "stopping" OKC from resigning Harden and paying out the ass in supertax payments to keep theirs come 2016. But you seem to be under the influence that everyone here feels sorry for small market owners and hates the Lakers for their ability to pluck the best player in every trade, all because they have suggested (quite rightly) there may be flaws with the status quo. This is plainly false.

In fact, if you bothered to pay attention to anyone but Agenda42, you will have noticed that several others like me have spoken out against the need for a hard cap, if for no other reason than that the current system encourages the rampant idiocy you claim to abhor. And, FYI, I'm a Laker fan, bud.

[Agenda42]

For a team like Cleveland, LeBron suredly was worth at least 35 minimum. If the vet min is about 1 million and 1st rd rookie contracts are valued at close to 1 min for the 30th pick, how are adding the quality players that you profess that can acquire?

$35M for LeBron is an easy buy, no question. The reason you would be able to acquire good role players to put around LeBron is that the market for players would adapt to stars making more. You would see fringe all-stars making a fraction of what they do today. The story from that Bulls roster I'm trying to tell isn't the one about Jordan. It's the one about guys like Rodman and Kukoc, who would be making 3-4 times what they did back then under today's system.

LeBron and 7 minimum players leaves you $15M to field a rotation. Probably you'd spend half of that on 2 guys at the Dennis Rodman level. Then you'd spend in the range of $2M each to round out your rotation. This wouldn't be a scrubby roster by any means.

The rookie scale would need to be adjusted as well, as the current one only makes sense in the context of the current system. NBA veterans would not be okay with late 1st round picks making as much as they are.

Lastly, in general for folks that keep saying give the Bobcats a fair chance to build their own "superteam". What is stopping them from acquiring their own star players besides their own stupidity? Stop faulting the Lakers for being able to acquire Howard. They drafted Bynum when at least 9 other teams had the same chance. Bynum developed into the 2nd best center in the game. When the time came they traded him for the best center in the game. Its called being smart and playing within the rules. People act asthough someone forced the Bucks to take Bogut over Bynum. There isnt a rule that says the Lakers can only make smart moves and the Raptors always have to make dumb ones. Thats just the reality of the situation

The Lakers aren't just an elite franchise, they're also well run. Drafting and developing Bynum was key to their acquisition of Howard. That quality of consistently not doing stupid things is what separates the Lakers from the Knicks.

However, it is not only stupidity is blocking the Bobcats from acquiring Howard. Howard, like many star players before him, had a very short list of big market teams he would consider playing for. It didn't matter how much Houston or Denver or Utah would offer in exchange, or how well those teams have been run historically, Howard wasn't going to play for them.

[Tave]

I detest this growing sentiment that "competitive balance" is a good unto itself. What is the endgame in a "perfectly competitive league?" Every team finishes with a .500 record, a new team wins the title every year, and no one can retain key players because of punitive CBA cap restrictions? That sounds like a crappy product all around.

I'm a Denver Nuggets fan and I have no problem with "superteams." I don't want to watch a league full of mediocre squads stumble their way into championships through blind luck or because the competition is so marginal.

The people whining about superteams remind me of the parents who harassed my local Rec center into changing our youth soccer league into "non-competitive, no-goal totals" so that their loser kids wouldn't feel bad about getting whooped. Take that Harrison Bergeron social equality nonsense and shove it.

[clevceltics]

Lastly, in general for folks that keep saying give the Bobcats a fair chance to build their own "superteam". What is stopping them from acquiring their own star players besides their own stupidity? Stop faulting the Lakers for being able to acquire Howard.

Not sure who that part's directed towards, being that you conveniently refused to specify, but I can't help but feel on the receiving end, given this comment I made earlier:

Giving OKC, Minnesota, or Indiana a real shot at keeping together their young core and building their own superteam? Now you're onto something...

Seeing as how no one thus far has, to the best of my knowledge, said a word about giving the Bobcats a "fair chance to build their own 'superteam'", I don't see where else you could be getting that notion from. But sure, since we're on the subject, nothing's stopping them from building their own superteam, just as nothing's "stopping" OKC from resigning Harden and paying out the ass in supertax payments to keep theirs come 2016. But you seem to be under the influence that everyone here feels sorry for small market owners and hates the Lakers for their ability to pluck the best player in every trade, all because they have suggested (quite rightly) there may be flaws with the status quo. This is plainly false.

In fact, if you bothered to pay attention to anyone but Agenda42, you will have noticed that several others like me have spoken out against the need for a hard cap, if for no other reason than that the current system encourages the rampant idiocy you claim to abhor. And, FYI, I'm a Laker fan, bud.

No that wasnt directed at you. It was a general statement that speaks to many who have basically stated that teams similar to the ones you mentioned dont have a chance to build a superteam and that a hard cap is the only way of achieving this supposed balance that we apparently lack.

[clevceltics]

For a team like Cleveland, LeBron suredly was worth at least 35 minimum. If the vet min is about 1 million and 1st rd rookie contracts are valued at close to 1 min for the 30th pick, how are adding the quality players that you profess that can acquire?

$35M for LeBron is an easy buy, no question. The reason you would be able to acquire good role players to put around LeBron is that the market for players would adapt to stars making more. You would see fringe all-stars making a fraction of what they do today. The story from that Bulls roster I'm trying to tell isn't the one about Jordan. It's the one about guys like Rodman and Kukoc, who would be making 3-4 times what they did back then under today's system.

LeBron and 7 minimum players leaves you $15M to field a rotation. Probably you'd spend half of that on 2 guys at the Dennis Rodman level. Then you'd spend in the range of $2M each to round out your rotation. This wouldn't be a scrubby roster by any means.

The rookie scale would need to be adjusted as well, as the current one only makes sense in the context of the current system. NBA veterans would not be okay with late 1st round picks making as much as they are.

Lastly, in general for folks that keep saying give the Bobcats a fair chance to build their own "superteam". What is stopping them from acquiring their own star players besides their own stupidity? Stop faulting the Lakers for being able to acquire Howard. They drafted Bynum when at least 9 other teams had the same chance. Bynum developed into the 2nd best center in the game. When the time came they traded him for the best center in the game. Its called being smart and playing within the rules. People act asthough someone forced the Bucks to take Bogut over Bynum. There isnt a rule that says the Lakers can only make smart moves and the Raptors always have to make dumb ones. Thats just the reality of the situation

The Lakers aren't just an elite franchise, they're also well run. Drafting and developing Bynum was key to their acquisition of Howard. That quality of consistently not doing stupid things is what separates the Lakers from the Knicks.

However, it is not only stupidity is blocking the Bobcats from acquiring Howard. Howard, like many star players before him, had a very short list of big market teams he would consider playing for. It didn't matter how much Houston or Denver or Utah would offer in exchange, or how well those teams have been run historically, Howard wasn't going to play for them.

So basically you are saying the lineup would look like this:
LeBron- 35 mil
Rodman level X- 3.5
Rodman level Y - 3.5
7 vet min players with an avg of - 1.2
And 3 players that make up the other 7.5

So that leads me to two questions:
What boardline all star player is going to play for 3.5?
Second, Why wouldnt LeBron go to NY and take 25 mil knowing he will get that money back in endorsements and still give himself the chance to win a title?

[LateRoundFlyer]

No that wasnt directed at you. It was a general statement that speaks to many who have basically stated that teams similar to the ones you mentioned dont have a chance to build a superteam and that a hard cap is the only way of achieving this supposed balance that we apparently lack.

That is good to know. I only wish you had sourced the comments you referring to, in order to clear up any ambiguity. Otherwise, I have no further objections.

[Agenda42]

What boardline all star player is going to play for 3.5?

In a world where superstars are getting paid what they're worth and there's a hard cap at $58M, quite a few. The player market is horribly distorted by the rules in the current CBA.

Second, Why wouldnt LeBron go to NY and take 25 mil knowing he will get that money back in endorsements and still give himself the chance to win a title?

The league wouldn't be perfectly balanced with no max contract. Big market teams would retain the advantage in acquiring superstars, as they always have.

However, this system would be better than the current system for competitive balance. First off, there is the direct opportunity cost, where LeBron would be taking $10M a season off the table to play where he chooses. Second, though, there is the result that you can't really team up superstars effectively at $25M each under a $58M cap. If the Knicks already had Melo, and the Nets already had Deron signed to market value contracts, going to New York would involve taking a massive pay cut for LeBron.

The result wouldn't be the Knicks having nobody, they'd still be a very desirable place to play. However, right now the big markets don't just get first dibs on stars, they get to stack them up. LA, NY, Chicago, Boston, and Miami currently combine to have 14 of the 24 all stars last season, and that wouldn't happen in a system with no max contract.

[clevceltics]

No that wasnt directed at you. It was a general statement that speaks to many who have basically stated that teams similar to the ones you mentioned dont have a chance to build a superteam and that a hard cap is the only way of achieving this supposed balance that we apparently lack.

That is good to know. I only wish you had sourced the comments you referring to, in order to clear up any ambiguity. Otherwise, I have no further objections.

Understandable, I guess after reading 27 pages and writing in about 14 or 15 you begin to lump teams and comments into one pot instead of going back through every page to point out every single person.

[Ditchweed]

NHL just got a hard cap, and they are headed for more labor trouble. Meanwhile MLB has no cap, and has had labor peace since 1994.

That's because NHL revenues are way down, a hard cap or no hard cap is irrelevant to their issues.

[LateRoundFlyer]

However, it is not only stupidity is blocking the Bobcats from acquiring Howard. Howard, like many star players before him, had a very short list of big market teams he would consider playing for. It didn't matter how much Houston or Denver or Utah would offer in exchange, or how well those teams have been run historically, Howard wasn't going to play for them.

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown is actually the 6th largest media market in the country and the 4th largest metropolitan area. I'd wager his reluctance to sign there has far more to do with how terrible a city HOU is for a twentysomething athlete's lifestyle, and the fact that he would be potentially entering another rebuilding period there, more than the lure of LA or BRK. The Rockets also have a huge presence in China that would doubtlessly have expanded Howard's brand, especially by playing alongside Lin.

[Dennis 37]

If Lebron left NY to go to Cleveland to form a super team, would people be mad?

Not if he had to leave behind 30 million and now can only make a max of 15.

[Agenda42]

However, it is not only stupidity is blocking the Bobcats from acquiring Howard. Howard, like many star players before him, had a very short list of big market teams he would consider playing for. It didn't matter how much Houston or Denver or Utah would offer in exchange, or how well those teams have been run historically, Howard wasn't going to play for them.

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown is actually the 6th largest media market in the country and the 4th largest metropolitan area. I'd wager his reluctance to sign there has far more to do with how terrible a city HOU is for a twentysomething athlete's lifestyle, and the fact that he would be potentially entering another rebuilding period there, more than the lure of LA or BRK. The Rockets also have a huge presence in China that would doubtlessly have expanded Howard's brand, especially by playing alongside Lin.

I don't want to get too bogged down into the details of individual franchises here. I can see what you're saying about Houston specifically. I think that's evidence that a league where every star makes the same money no matter where he chooses to play is unlikely to ever have competitive balance. Anyway, back to the point.

Howard, like a lot of other superstars, has a very short list of teams he's willing to play for and the power to force a trade to only the cities he wants to go to. His short list is not significantly different than every other superstar's short list in recent memory. Being on that short list is a considerable advantage for the Lakers. That's why the Lakers got Howard, as opposed to one of several other well-run teams with enough trade assets to close a deal.

[LateRoundFlyer]

However, it is not only stupidity is blocking the Bobcats from acquiring Howard. Howard, like many star players before him, had a very short list of big market teams he would consider playing for. It didn't matter how much Houston or Denver or Utah would offer in exchange, or how well those teams have been run historically, Howard wasn't going to play for them.

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown is actually the 6th largest media market in the country and the 4th largest metropolitan area. I'd wager his reluctance to sign there has far more to do with how terrible a city HOU is for a twentysomething athlete's lifestyle, and the fact that he would be potentially entering another rebuilding period there, more than the lure of LA or BRK. The Rockets also have a huge presence in China that would doubtlessly have expanded Howard's brand, especially by playing alongside Lin.

I don't want to get too bogged down into the details of individual franchises here. I can see what you're saying about Houston specifically. I think that's evidence that a league where every star makes the same money no matter where he chooses to play is unlikely to ever have competitive balance. Anyway, back to the point.

Howard, like a lot of other superstars, has a very short list of teams he's willing to play for and the power to force a trade to only the cities he wants to go to. His short list is not significantly different than every other superstar's short list in recent memory. Being on that short list is a considerable advantage for the Lakers. That's why the Lakers got Howard, as opposed to one of several other well-run teams with enough trade assets to close a deal.

I don't disagree with that conclusion at all. If anything, as far as demonstrating the perverse incentive of contract ceilings is concerned, HOU is an excellent case study. Hence my dismay to see HOU lumped in with DEN and UTA by someone trying to make a point against contract ceilings by using them in the first place. It just seems like a wasted opportunity to me.

[Never Wrong]

If Lebron left NY to go to Cleveland to form a super team, would people be mad?

Not if he had to leave behind 30 million and now can only make a max of 15.

Exactly. Leaving 1 or 2 million on the table to play at your desired location is easy to do. But let's see how many players would leave 25-30 million on the table. I say remove the cap on individual salaries and institute a hard cap so if Cleveland wants to spend 90% of their cap on LeBron James, let them. Let's see if Miami's willing to offer the same. And if they aren't, let's see if LeBron's willing to leave that much on the table.

[Tave]

It would never get that lopsided. I agree that a hard cap with no max salaries would spread the talent around a little more (disagree that it's desirable), but the effect as described is exaggerated. You have to account for all the variables: there are a set number of teams, a set number of players, and only so many ways to construct a winning team. As long as you have any cap at all, the Lebrons, Kobe's, Melo, et al will never be paid their TMV because you have to pay 11 other legitimate NBA players if you want to win games and make money.

Lebron would max out somewhere ~50% of the total cap, and at that point you're still talking about him taking ~25+ million to be "the man" and ~20- million to play with other stars. It would be a greater sacrifice than what he made to come to Miami but not inconceivable, especially when you consider how much value championships add to his brand.

And speaking of his brand, what happens to all that endorsement money if a team pays him $45 million/year, surrounds him with D-league talent, and he fails to even make the playoffs? And more to the point, what happens to the owner's bottom line? Lebron isn't a golden goose; his TMV as a player hinges on his ability to produce wins for his team, which would be severely hampered by an owner paying him 90% of their cap.