This CBA sucks

[Yank3525]

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.

[jpengland]

As a Celtics fan the only part that sucks is that they did build the right way and now they're being penalized for it.

Drafted Tatum, Brown, Pritchard, Hauser

And even then, they can't really pay Brown and Tatum while affording to have anyone else. If you can be great at drafting and can't afford to keep the guys you picked then there's something wrong.

Why can't they keep the guys they drafted? Kornet, Horford, Porzingis, White and Jrue were not drafted by the Celtics. There's nothing stopping the Celtics from keeping the guys they drafted only. Now how good the team would be is a totally different thing.

Fair, they could keep them. But there are teams that can't. What happens when Chet, Jalen Williams, and SGA are all max guys? They can't possibly keep them all.

I guess if the NBA wants that kind of league then fine but I think the CBA needs some changing to help teams stay together. Personally if you don't care about players staying with the teams that drafted them I'd eliminate the max contract and put in a hard cap. Open market, superstars get a lot and then everyone else basically takes a pay cut.

I agree with this.

Hard cap. Proper G league system, reward teams for developing talent with lesser cap impacts for those drafted or developed through G league team.

Salaries as percentage of cap. League approves deals and rejects anything that puts a team even 0.1% above the cap.

Salaries attached to percentage of cap and not dollar amount so you don’t get cap space spikes etc.

Rewards smart moves, good drafting and genuine player development.

[Snakebites]

Yeah I know obviously a celtics fan,

I mean, I know you lampshade it at the beginning, but respectfully this truly is the crux of the issue.

The same teams have for much of the league's history won championships time and time again. Obviously the CBA doesn't address all of those issues- it is still harder to build a champion in Minnesota than it is in LA, but at the very least this helps open up the league more.

The Celtics played the tax game very well- they managed the cap effectively for a number of years and earned for themselves a window of a few years with which to win. They won a championship last year and could have won one this year had the injury bug not hit.

I think it should be difficult to maintain a team at a contending level for many years. I like that we're getting turnover. I like that we have 4 finalists this year who don't have a championship banner between them in the last 45 years. That's all good stuff.

It just doesn't feel good for the fans of teams who are used to being in the mix nearly every year. Parity never feels good to those used to getting more.

Sorry, that's just how I see it. And this is coming from fan of a team that hasn’t been in the mix for a long time and his hoping, through sound planning and good decisions, that they’ll be able to rise when the next power vacuum hits.

[og15]

Yeah I know obviously a celtics fan,

but why is it so hard to cut money even when you're trying to do the "right" thing? They should just make the second apron essentially a hard cap and you can spend up to it how you wish. From what I read, they even made it so you can't trade a guaranteed contract for a non guaranteed contract over the apron, why are they trying to lock you into the apron?

Honestly don't know anyone who enjoy this CBA. It kind of took a lot of fun out of trades and even killed the buy out market which was 99% hype and 1% production (almost always somebody washed up who makes zero impact).

The CBA is beyond idiotic because it was literally structured to stop one owner, Steve Ballmer. And at the end of the day Kawhi’s knees were more relevant to the Clippers than Ballmer’s pockets.

The idea that the NBA is a better product when you’re forced to dismantle a championship team after 2 years vs giving them an extended run is idiotic. But all of the owners of small market teams even handcuffed themselves. Boston is a really good example of how a punitive CBA wasn’t needed to force parity, NBA teams just needed to get better GMs and decision makers in the front office.

80% or higher of the people on the forum believe the draft is rigged based on the poll conducted, and a large majority of them say that the teams are self sabotaging to allow players to go to certain places.

So if that is true, then there should be no complaints about small market owners self sabotaging with something like the CBA, supposedly these teams and owners are constantly doing this and are okay with it.

The NBA is trying to force parity though, you are correct, but I don't even know if fans actually like parity as much as they claim to either.

[Hornet Mania]

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.

Knicks being legit contenders (and now conference favorites) for the first time in forever also helps a ton, I'm sure. Their fan base was a sleeping giant.

[YogurtProducer]

I do agree that there should be some relief for teams that draft good players and do it the right way. It doesn't make much sense to penalize teams for drafting well when the whole point of the CBA changes was to prevent big markets from getting stars and forming super teams.

But the CBA is effective at creating parity and limiting the formation of super teams, which I very much approve off.

The relief is you have better players you can flip in trades.

Like OKC In a couple years might need to make the tough choice to trade JDub for a a couple more cost friendly vets. That is not "punishing" them that is them cashing in on a good value young guy.

IMO that is way better for the league than watching OKC max out SGA/JDub/Chet and winning 65+ games for the next decade.

[YogurtProducer]

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.

Most casual fans don't give a **** about that man. That is 99% of the ratings.

[MNRunLeft]

Fair, they could keep them. But there are teams that can't. What happens when Chet, Jalen Williams, and SGA are all max guys? They can't possibly keep them all.

OKC can keep them (atleast will have the choice to) because they have the pipleline of cheap young players to fill in the margins around them and provide depth. Its less about paying up to keep your star players if you choose do so but they better be actual stars if you are going to play them the max and if you go with 3 max guys you essentially need to fill in your roster with rookie contracts plus under market contracts, MLE type deals and vet min contracts. You can no longer have 3 max or 2 super max plus then fill in your starting lineup with guys making $20-30+ million per year.

The max or near max contract for a player who can't produce to that level for whatever reason has become an even larger issue for teams in the new CBA because they can't simply deal with the financial impact, its also having meaningful impacts the the teams flexibility to make other improvements to their roster.

[bkkrh]

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.

[Chuck Everett]

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.

[Ducklett]

Cba is great, saved us from endless LeBron and Warriors finals. Small market teams actually have a chance now, and rich teams can't just buy the title

Compare this with the Dodgers and baseball, where the season is already over for half the league.

This is one of the reasons I have never cared about MLB. Even during the one or two years my home team was actually good (they always suck), I just couldn't give two caps because said team never spends money so they never have a real chance.

[RRyder823]

NBA punishing teams that want to field the best team while providing benefits for teams fielding an non-competitive team is going to slowly kill the league.

Just like it killed the NFL and NHL?

Difference in the NFL is there are tons of ways to manipulate the cap, you can't do that in the NBA.

Teams can not give out fully guarenteed deals to more then one or two players at the end of the bench.

It's an option.

In other words teams are still adjusting to how to actually manage their rosters

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[RRyder823]

This doesn't do anything for that. Owners have a set spend as a group...

It has everything to do with it. A lot of the owners didn't want to go over the tax to have a competing team

They don't really care about going over in general. The issue is there other penalties. The NBA doesn't want the owners to go over. That was the point of all of this.

Counter argument. Said GM could continue to do a good job instead of living for years off a hot one or two year stretch

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[NZB2323]

I’m okay with it. We don’t need 1-2 superteams dominating the league with way more talent than other teams.

[bkkrh]

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.

[Swift21]

I'm not a fan of it either.

[ForeverTFC]

blame cheap owners

Players get the same % of BRI regardless so has nothing to do with how much the owners are spending. The CBA was put in place to 1) take away player power, 2) stifle player movement and 3) give small markets a better chance to compete.

[floppymoose]

.

[Swift21]

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.

[floppymoose]

I think a hard cap is what they wanted, but the union refused.

No. Not a sticking point for the union. This was among the owners.