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

[smith2373]

I hate the NBA - NFL comparisons where people say "oh, if the NBA had the same salary system as the NFL they'd have parity"... no, the bigger factor in parity, by far, is the one and done postseason of the NFL, as well as the short 16 game season.

Can you imagine if the NBA went with a 16 game season? Didn't the Heat start out 9-7 2 years ago? What about if the playoffs were one and done... pretty sure the last few championship teams have lost game 1 in at least one of their playoff series.

But for some reason, people completely ignore this and cry about salary over and over again. I don't get it.

2011-12 through 16 games

1. Chicago (13-3) v 8. NY (6-10)
2. Philly (11-5) v 7. Boston (7-9)
3. Miami (11-5) v Indiana (11-5)
4. Atlanta (11-5) v Orlando (11-5)

1. OKC (13-3) v 8. Hou (9-7)
2. Den v 7. LAC (10-6)
3. SA (10-6) v 6. LAL (10-6)
4. Utah (10-6) v Memphis (10-6)

Thank you.

Now you've got the 76ers as a #2 seed, and Denver and Utah as top 4 seeds in the west. If that's not parity, I don't know what is.

It gets even more staggering if you eliminate teams that lose the first game of a playoff series (both Miami and Oklahoma City did this).

Exactly, this past season's playoffs if game 1 was the only game of the series these are the results:

Everything remains the same in the West but the Spurs beat OKC in the WCF.

In the East: Chicago beats Philly, Miami beats NY, Orlando beats Indy and Atlanta beats Boston. Every single 1st round series in the East has a different winner except for Miami-NY.

The 2010-11 season:
Hornets beat the Lakers in the 1st round, the Grizzlies beat the Thunder in the 2nd round, giving us DAL/NO vs. MEM in the WCF

Hawks beat the Bulls in the 2nd round, Hawk vs. Heat in the ECF.

[[GR]]

Baseball has had less repeat champions the past decade or so, than the NFL. The only parity in the NFL is when it comes to playoff teams, not who actually wins the SB. The same teams are always in the contention for it each year.

[gswhoops]

If some owners are willing to pay the tax while other teams are being cheap pricks, why shouldn't they be able to?

I don't think Golden State has EVER payed the tax, and they wonder why they suck.. while LA will be in tax hell soon. Yet, one is super-team and one is complete trash.... Owners need to invest in their businesses.

It's not just about being willing to pay the tax...it's also about being able to. Teams in big markets like NY or LA simply make more money, and thus can spend more money (i.e. go into the luxury tax) and still turn a profit. A team in a small market like New Orleans or Salt Lake City simply won't be able to spend 70 or 80 or 90 million dollars a year, with the associated tax penalties, without running their team into the ground financially or having an owner that's OK with losing millions of dollars a year, year after year, on the team.

Big market teams DO have a built-in advantage when it comes to the tax. Denying that is just willful ignorance.

[bullsnewdynasty]

You can forget about the NBA ever going to these shortened seasons because they are not going to pass up that revenue. Not realistic at all.

[jayjamesson]

NBA owners are making out like bandits only paying 100M per year in contracts and expenses.

[jayjamesson]

NBA owners are making out like bandits only paying 100M per year in contracts and expenses.

[jayjamesson]

NBA owners are making out like bandits only paying 100M per year in contracts and expenses.

[jayjamesson]

NBA owners are making out like bandits only paying 100M per year in contracts and expenses.

[jayjamesson]

NBA owners are making out like bandits only paying 100M per year in contracts and expenses.

[jayjamesson]

NBA owners are making out like bandits only paying 100M per year in contracts and expenses.

[Grumpy Heat Fan]

NFL style Franchise tag.

Problem solved. No more teaming up. Every superstar will be forced to stay on their own teams that drafted them.

The league will finally enjoy parity, too. LeBron's Cavaliers might have won something if the Celtics could never form because KG couldn't tell Minny he wanted out. The Western conference would have been completely different if Pau Gasol had no say in the matter and was kept on the Grizzlies, which means the Lakers never get to stack their team. Several teams would have reached the Finals from 2008, 2009, 2010 instead of just the Lakers.

In fact, Shaq sticks with Orlando for most of his career, and LA doesn't win squat during the 3-peat.

[Jordan23Forever]

Yes. There should definitely be a hard cap. Even playing field.

[nykballa2k4]

NFL style Franchise tag.

Problem solved. No more teaming up. Every superstar will be forced to stay on their own teams that drafted them.

The league will finally enjoy parity, too. LeBron's Cavaliers might have won something if the Celtics could never form because KG couldn't tell Minny he wanted out. The Western conference would have been completely different if Pau Gasol had no say in the matter and was kept on the Grizzlies, which means the Lakers never get to stack their team. Several teams would have reached the Finals from 2008, 2009, 2010 instead of just the Lakers.

In fact, Shaq sticks with Orlando for most of his career, and LA doesn't win squat during the 3-peat.

As I mentioned earlier a less binding franchise tag would be better. Player union would never go for that sort of thing. Remember the NBA is a "black" league so says the media thus this level of control will be called slavery (again).

Imagine though, a league with no caps but a luxury threshold. Lakers, Knicks etc can always buy the top talents, but with my franchise tag, will lose the right to pick and compensate the teams losing "star" players meanwhile the luxury tax will mean that teams like Lakers/Knicks will be paying ie LeBron 40 million per season, but with tax, something like 80 or 120 million, that revenue goes to the other owners. Those two teams trying to be all-star teams could make the entire league profitable on their lonesome. Also without picks, other teams will have more young talent to build around. In other words, you will see more OKC-type teams

[DanTown8587]

NBA teams have a MINIMUM of five years service for any player they draft. Why does a franchise tag solve anything?

And higher max salaries effectively kill the middle class of NBA players. The ideas being throw around in this thread are terrible ideas to both owners and players.

[Darain]

NFL style Franchise tag.

Problem solved. No more teaming up. Every superstar will be forced to stay on their own teams that drafted them.

The league will finally enjoy parity, too. LeBron's Cavaliers might have won something if the Celtics could never form because KG couldn't tell Minny he wanted out. The Western conference would have been completely different if Pau Gasol had no say in the matter and was kept on the Grizzlies, which means the Lakers never get to stack their team. Several teams would have reached the Finals from 2008, 2009, 2010 instead of just the Lakers.

In fact, Shaq sticks with Orlando for most of his career, and LA doesn't win squat during the 3-peat.

Grizzles traded Pau Gasol because they felt he wasn't a franchise player (0 playoff wins) and didn't want to pay his contract anymore, they wanted they traded for an expiring Kwame

[smith2373]

NFL style Franchise tag.

Problem solved. No more teaming up. Every superstar will be forced to stay on their own teams that drafted them.

The league will finally enjoy parity, too. LeBron's Cavaliers might have won something if the Celtics could never form because KG couldn't tell Minny he wanted out. The Western conference would have been completely different if Pau Gasol had no say in the matter and was kept on the Grizzlies, which means the Lakers never get to stack their team. Several teams would have reached the Finals from 2008, 2009, 2010 instead of just the Lakers.

In fact, Shaq sticks with Orlando for most of his career, and LA doesn't win squat during the 3-peat.

I don't think you realize how a franchise tag works.

The franchise tag is given to a player who is about to become an unrestricted FA, if a team places a franchise tag then the player must stay for one season, a team only has one franchise tag per year and a player can only be franchise tagged a maximum of three years in a row. It's not like you can franchise tag a guy forever.

And why should players like KG, CP3, Bosh, Dwight & LeBron be forced to stay with teams that put together **** teams around them?

[ITK9]

Hard cap at 70-72 millions

Exclud MAX contracts.Let a team offer any contract they want BUT the second best paid player can't earn more than 75% of the highest paid player.

[DiscoLives4ever]

Any solution needs to do the following to truly be viable:

1) Not cost the rank-and-file players anything.
2) Incentivize being the best player on a team over teaming up.
3) Allow teams to offer their franchise players more money without killing their cap/wallet.
4) Still allow players to choose their destination, but with a financial hit.

I think the best way to accomplish this is with a "drafted franchise player exception" or some such. Basically a player can be signed to the team that drafted him for any amount of money, but it only counts as a max contract for cap/tax purposes. Teams can only have one of these exceptions at any given time. If the player is traded, his salary reverts to the just the max level. If a team uses this exception their minimum cap floor is raised to ensure they are still paying role-players the way they would have otherwise.

This is something that could be added with no major changes to the CBA (easier to get passed by the owners and union). It also accomplishes the following:

1) Players have real value in staying with the team that drafted them, but still can make a decision without the restrictions of a franchise tag (Would LBJ take a $10mil/year hit to win a championship? What about $15mil/year? It's up to him to decide how much extra Cleveland will pay to keep him and nobody else could match it in any way).
2) Teams can pay to keep players that bring them extra revenue (does Gilbert make back that extra $10-$15mil/year by paying it to James?)
3) Players would have incentive to NOT be traded (*cough* Howard *cough*) because it would mean a serious paycut for them.
4) Teams have enough cap space to sign the franchise player and two other allstars...if they can still be convinced to take the paycut.

I think this is a more realistic scenario than things like abolishing the max, franchise tags, or non-guaranteed contracts since this is something the union might actually go for (increases the amount of money the big dogs can make without hurting the average guys). Everybody wins.

[Geaux_Hawks]

You people are ridiculous. Players are stuck on their respective team they were drafted by for the entirety of their rookie contract, and then become RFA. Why should they have to remain with a team that never gave them a chance to win? Lebron and Dwight had no real reason to leave, but Paul, KG,and Bosh had legit reasons to leave or request it.

Parity can happen in the NBA, teams just have to draft correctly, make the right financial choice in free agency, and stay healthy. The Blazers were well on their way to dominance in the West. Oden, Roy, and LMA was the best young trio up and coming. They drafted all of those players, but were decimated by injuries. The Bulls and the Thunder just didn't appear out of no where either though. It's all about how you draft and who you put around those guys you draft.

[followwind]

It doesn't matter what system you put in.

A team with inept management and cheap ownership will not be able to do anything good. The whole blaming the players for wanting to leave because the team can't build correctly around the guy and blaming the system for teams failure is obsurb.