This CBA sucks

[Invictus88]

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.

Why?

My entire adult life has been lived under the backdrop of cries about how the world has gone soft and how everyone gets a participation trophy these days

So I always have to giggle, because the venn diagram of the people who say stuff like that and then turn around and tout parity as the ideal for a pro sport is very probably just a circle

Really comes down to this fantasy people buy into that there's some sort of inherent moral value to being a professional sports team in a "small market," which was always laughable, and is particularly funny in a day and age when every team is owned by a squadron of hedge fund oligarchs

So I guess we should just have 17 teams in New York and LA and call it a day then?

[Jadoogar]

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.

Why?

My entire adult life has been lived under the backdrop of cries about how the world has gone soft and how everyone gets a participation trophy these days

So I always have to giggle, because the venn diagram of the people who say stuff like that and then turn around and tout parity as the ideal for a pro sport is very probably just a circle

Really comes down to this fantasy people buy into that there's some sort of inherent moral value to being a professional sports team in a "small market," which was always laughable, and is particularly funny in a day and age when every team is owned by a squadron of hedge fund oligarchs

Soccer basically has the system you're looking for. There's no salary cap and, shocker, the richest teams are the most successful.
People don't want teams to be successful because they have a natural advantage outside of the sport (rich owner, big market or desirable location).

[reddyplayerone]

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.

Why?

My entire adult life has been lived under the backdrop of cries about how the world has gone soft and how everyone gets a participation trophy these days

So I always have to giggle, because the venn diagram of the people who say stuff like that and then turn around and tout parity as the ideal for a pro sport is very probably just a circle

Really comes down to this fantasy people buy into that there's some sort of inherent moral value to being a professional sports team in a "small market," which was always laughable, and is particularly funny in a day and age when every team is owned by a squadron of hedge fund oligarchs

Soccer basically has the system you're looking for. There's no salary cap and, shocker, the richest teams are the most successful.
People don't want teams to be successful because they have a natural advantage outside of the sport (rich owner, big market or desirable location).

People are actually totally fine with natural advantages and tend to only draw mostly arbitrary lines of distinction to suit their own ends.

Sports are full of natural advantages. Shaq was just bigger stronger faster than everyone else, and yet nobody ever reasonably suggested he get banned from the league or somehow nerfed cause he was just "unfair"

So I guess we should just have 17 teams in New York and LA and call it a day then?

Is there some moral benefit to having professional basketball in Iowa or Nebraska or something?

[Invictus88]

Why?

My entire adult life has been lived under the backdrop of cries about how the world has gone soft and how everyone gets a participation trophy these days

So I always have to giggle, because the venn diagram of the people who say stuff like that and then turn around and tout parity as the ideal for a pro sport is very probably just a circle

Really comes down to this fantasy people buy into that there's some sort of inherent moral value to being a professional sports team in a "small market," which was always laughable, and is particularly funny in a day and age when every team is owned by a squadron of hedge fund oligarchs

Soccer basically has the system you're looking for. There's no salary cap and, shocker, the richest teams are the most successful.
People don't want teams to be successful because they have a natural advantage outside of the sport (rich owner, big market or desirable location).

People are actually totally fine with natural advantages and tend to only draw mostly arbitrary lines of distinction to suit their own ends.

Sports are full of natural advantages. Shaq was just bigger stronger faster than everyone else, and yet nobody ever reasonably suggested he get banned from the league or somehow nerfed cause he was just "unfair"

So I guess we should just have 17 teams in New York and LA and call it a day then?

Is there some moral benefit to having professional basketball in Iowa or Nebraska or something?

Not specifically. But folks outside of LA and NY care about basketball too. And in totality they vastly outnumber the folks in those two cities. There have to be other teams *somewhere*.

[reddyplayerone]

Not specifically. But folks outside of LA and NY care about basketball too. And in totality they vastly outnumber the folks in those two cities. There have to be other teams *somewhere*.

Sure but that's just good business and has absolutely nothing to do with morality or "fairness," nor does it speak to any inherent virtues found in league parity.

I'm still not sure why I'm supposed to think parity is good

[JRoy]

Parity is better than the Superfriends vs the superFriends every year.

[jbk1234]

Why?

My entire adult life has been lived under the backdrop of cries about how the world has gone soft and how everyone gets a participation trophy these days

So I always have to giggle, because the venn diagram of the people who say stuff like that and then turn around and tout parity as the ideal for a pro sport is very probably just a circle

Really comes down to this fantasy people buy into that there's some sort of inherent moral value to being a professional sports team in a "small market," which was always laughable, and is particularly funny in a day and age when every team is owned by a squadron of hedge fund oligarchs

Soccer basically has the system you're looking for. There's no salary cap and, shocker, the richest teams are the most successful.
People don't want teams to be successful because they have a natural advantage outside of the sport (rich owner, big market or desirable location).

People are actually totally fine with natural advantages and tend to only draw mostly arbitrary lines of distinction to suit their own ends.

Sports are full of natural advantages. Shaq was just bigger stronger faster than everyone else, and yet nobody ever reasonably suggested he get banned from the league or somehow nerfed cause he was just "unfair"

So I guess we should just have 17 teams in New York and LA and call it a day then?

Is there some moral benefit to having professional basketball in Iowa or Nebraska or something?

MLB ratings and box office receipts suggest this is not the case. Once the midmarket fans figure out they're basically financing a farm team for the larger markets, and it happens relatively quickly, they stop paying for it. The value offered to fans, at least in theory, is competition. You're selling an entertainment product. It has to be entertaining.

[threethehardway]

So I guess we should just have 17 teams in New York and LA and call it a day then?

Why does every response to the critique of parity and enforced meritocracy via the draft and all types of bureaucratic arcane non-sense are in American team sports defaults to "So you just want every team in NYC, LA or Miami."


When obviously that will never happen.

Lol, it's like discussing the need for universal healthcare in America and people jump to wait times and not being able to pick their doctor. As if the rest of the developed where has millions of people dying everyday waiting to see a doctor.

It's obvious that the only thing America has perfected is propaganda to uphold bureaucratic middlemen nonsense that only exists to extract money, attention and time from people who can't think beyond what was already here.

The draft, salary cap, cap space, max contracts, luxury tax...all exist to protect owners from competing to procure talented players on the basis of compensation.

It doesn't exist to prevent NYC from having 20 teams.

Don't you get it? Most owners do not care to build competent sports organizations. The ones that do, spend money on it and naturally, they become better than the ones that don't and only want to capitalize on an the appreciate of their sports team. The value of their team is built off teams that give a damn.

Lol, you guys rather have the Zach Lavines and Bradley Beals of the NBA get paid 40 million a year because an owner needs a 25 a game scorer to put butts in the seats of a team that hasn't won a damn thing 30 years than have a league where superstar talent is paid properly to have a real class structure. Thus, talent is distributed according to compensation not roster slots and cap space.

Fans give owners a free ride. You pay for their stadiums and spread their "small market" propaganda so Bradley Beal can have generational wealth and win 30 games a year.

American fans pay for losers that get cheap young players gifted to them for being bad and ruin them and then blame the players, knowing damn well it's the worst team in the league with the worst coach and owner lol.

American professional team sports is the only thing in the world where you can lose and be rewarded for it and it's considered fair when the whole point is to win as much as possible.

[reddyplayerone]

MLB ratings and box office receipts suggest this is not the case. Once the midmarket fans figure out they're basically financing a farm team for the larger markets, and it happens relatively quickly, they stop paying for it. The value offered to fans, at least in theory, is competition. You're selling an entertainment product. It has to be entertaining.

But MLB is a sport that doesn't have a salary cap at all, so I really don't see how its economic system is at all comparable here. Like there probably is a disparity in the way teams spend in that sport that we just don't see in the NBA actually.

And even then, I'm STILL not sure why any fans should care?

Or I'll put it this way: If I was a baseball fan and my favorite team didn't have a payroll competitive to LA or NY or whatever, I'd probably be pretty pissed off at the bums owning and running my favorite team and not at the teams not being run that way in other major cities.

It's not LA's or NY's problem if Iowa isn't willing to spend what they are to succeed, especially considering, like I've already said, ALL of these teams are owned by groups who can afford it.

[Sofia]

Understand and agrees with limitations on teams being built by deepest pockets only. However the CBA should incentivise good scouting and keeping your draft picks by allowing salary cap discount for players that signed their first contract with that team.

Teams shouldn’t be penalised for being elite at scouting and drafting.


For example, if a max extension has a 10% discount applied to the team that first signed (not drafted, to allow leeway for draft day trades) that player, the team could still be paid in full without forcing the team to make hard decisions about cutting the player loose because they have other good young players. If that player gets traded, the cap discount does not transfer.

[threethehardway]

But MLB is a sport that doesn't have a salary cap at all, so I really don't see how its economic system is at all comparable here. Like there probably is a disparity in the way teams spend in that sport that we just don't see in the NBA actually.

And even then, I'm STILL not sure why any fans should care?

Or I'll put it this way: If I was a baseball fan and my favorite team didn't have a payroll competitive to LA or NY or whatever, I'd probably be pretty pissed off at the bums owning and running my favorite team and not at the teams not being run that way in other major cities.

It's not LA's or NY's problem if Iowa isn't willing to spend what they are to succeed, especially considering, like I've already said, ALL of these teams are owned by groups who can afford it.

Let's be real.

American sports fans don't view sports as competition between organizations but as competition between players and the sports business class want to keep it that to prevent any critical analysis of sports as business

Lol, I mean, it's the same country that convinced people that the college sports are amateur sports to prevent paying players despite universities paying coaches millions per year and building million dollar sport complexes and selling jerseys of popular players.

If professional sports isn't about competition between players but organizations and organizations agree to rig the rules in the favor of owners then what exactly are we watching when a team like Charlotte Hornets is so damn bad?

Because I bet if there wasn't revenue sharing, cap rules and the draft, organizations would behave differently.

Let's be real, the NBA is closer to Harlem Globetrotters vs. The Generals in most nights. Good popular teams pay bad teams to be bad. That's what the revenue sharing is. It keeps crappy unpopular teams in the league.

If your favorite team is crappy and considered a farm team for popular good teams, that's the deal the owner made because they didn't want to compete.

[Mr Puddles]

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.

Why?

My entire adult life has been lived under the backdrop of cries about how the world has gone soft and how everyone gets a participation trophy these days

So I always have to giggle, because the venn diagram of the people who say stuff like that and then turn around and tout parity as the ideal for a pro sport is very probably just a circle

Really comes down to this fantasy people buy into that there's some sort of inherent moral value to being a professional sports team in a "small market," which was always laughable, and is particularly funny in a day and age when every team is owned by a squadron of hedge fund oligarchs

Soccer basically has the system you're looking for. There's no salary cap and, shocker, the richest teams are the most successful.
People don't want teams to be successful because they have a natural advantage outside of the sport (rich owner, big market or desirable location).

In 2009, the Dutch league celebrated that for the first time in 45 years, a club outside the country’s three biggest teams won the national championship. In other words, for nearly half a century, just three teams dominated every single title.

Whenever a smaller club developed a talented young player, one of the big three would quickly sign him away. This cycle makes it almost impossible for smaller teams to compete long-term.

On a European level, a similar pattern emerged. The big three Dutch teams were once competitive in Europe, but a 1995 rule change eliminated the cap on international players per club. This caused effectively the same thing to happen to these teams what they had been doing to small domestic teams, e.g. Amsterdam (Ajax) would develop a good young player, only for Barcelona to snatch him up right away.

The rule change happened in 1995. The results speak for themselves:
- In the 24 year prior to the rule change, these big three Dutch clubs won a combined 6 championship league titles (including 4 by Ajax), that's 25% of all titles during that period for you math geeks our there.
-In the 30 year following the rule, these teams have won exactly zero, making it to finals exactly zero times as well. That's 0% if my math is correct.

I basically completely lost interest in soccer because of it. Even if the team I'm supporting would somehow miraculously win a championship, it would just get gutted the following season by richer clubs. Smaller teams are basically just glorified g-league teams developing talent for a small cohort of rich teams.

[jbk1234]

MLB ratings and box office receipts suggest this is not the case. Once the midmarket fans figure out they're basically financing a farm team for the larger markets, and it happens relatively quickly, they stop paying for it. The value offered to fans, at least in theory, is competition. You're selling an entertainment product. It has to be entertaining.

But MLB is a sport that doesn't have a salary cap at all, so I really don't see how its economic system is at all comparable here. Like there probably is a disparity in the way teams spend in that sport that we just don't see in the NBA actually.

And even then, I'm STILL not sure why any fans should care?

Or I'll put it this way: If I was a baseball fan and my favorite team didn't have a payroll competitive to LA or NY or whatever, I'd probably be pretty pissed off at the bums owning and running my favorite team and not at the teams not being run that way in other major cities.

It's not LA's or NY's problem if Iowa isn't willing to spend what they are to succeed, especially considering, like I've already said, ALL of these teams are owned by groups who can afford it.

The delta in the revenue from the local TV deals is massive when you get into massively different sized markets. That's before getting into the fact that a team like the Cubs can sell out most of their games just due to supply and demand. People don't spend billions to purchase sports teams to lose money in perpetuity, which is what you seem to think is a solution to a problem you're simultaneously arguing isn't a problem.

Again, the value offered to the fans, who ultimately pay for it all, is a competitive sport. There's a reason people don't pay to watch a competition between Walmart v. the local mom & pop store. It's not particularly entertaining. The NBA had been wildly successful in its approach in terms of increasing revenue year over year. They're not changing it because it conflicts with your worldview.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Understand and agrees with limitations on teams being built by deepest pockets only. However the CBA should incentivise good scouting and keeping your draft picks by allowing salary cap discount for players that signed their first contract with that team.

Teams shouldn’t be penalised for being elite at scouting and drafting.


For example, if a max extension has a 10% discount applied to the team that first signed (not drafted, to allow leeway for draft day trades) that player, the team could still be paid in full without forcing the team to make hard decisions about cutting the player loose because they have other good young players. If that player gets traded, the cap discount does not transfer.

nobody is penalized for being elite at drafting

[Ryoga Hibiki]

So I guess we should just have 17 teams in New York and LA and call it a day then?

Is there some moral benefit to having professional basketball in Iowa or Nebraska or something?

why you keep talking about "morality"? it's just a strawman.
this is about financial stability and quality of the product.
you might think there's no value in parity and having superteams in rich markets it's better. I disagree, but whatever.
still, the NBA do this because they want costs to be under control. they don't want the competition to drive payrolls out of control in a closed system, where teams are business partners before sport adversaries.
and the NBA is actually an association of 30 franchises, and the vast majority of them do not want to be forced to lose hundred of millions to compete. that's how you get to this rules.

[reddyplayerone]

The delta in the revenue from the local TV deals is massive when you get into massively different sized markets. That's before getting into the fact that a team like the Cubs can sell out most of their games just due to supply and demand.

Sure, but this ignores that revenues are literally subsidized across the leagues largely on the backs of the money the big markets make. Local TV may be an issue, but it's a specific one that will hardly sink any league as big as NBA/NFL/MLB

People don't spend billions to purchase sports teams to lose money in perpetuity,

Of course not!

To be perfectly specific: People spend billions to buy into collectively bargained cartels that virtually guarantee a pretty massive ROI

which is what you seem to think is a solution to a problem you're simultaneously arguing isn't a problem.

I never said anything like this though? So this seems like a really weird conclusion to draw from what I actually have said.

Again, the value offered to the fans, who ultimately pay for it all, is a competitive sport. There's a reason people don't pay to watch a competition between Walmart v. the local mom & pop store. It's not particularly entertaining.

So really the value offered to fans is entertainment, and when it comes to sports, competitiveness plays a part. I certainly agree with that and haven't argued otherwise ever!

The NBA had been wildly successful in its approach in terms of increasing revenue year over year.

Also true and not once contended by me!

What I would contend is that specifically the NBA managed to increase revenue year over year with the Lakers and Celtics combining for 8 championships in 10 years, the Bulls winning 6 championships in 10 years, then the Lakers and Spurs winning another 10 titles in roughly 10ish years, then Lebron-led teams and the Warriors winning another 6 titles in roughly 10 years.

It is just stating a fact that the NBA's success has coincided with dynastic runs for going on over 40 years now.

Now to say how much of that success is due specifically to dynasties I really have no idea, but from here where I suppose I am running into a bit of a mental snag is that I have to reiterate that I have no idea what anyone is basing the idea it is "good" that the NBA has parity now when it definitely did not before.

If by "good" we mean successful? Then Idk I suppose that remains to be seen? If we mean more entertaining? Not really something I'd be interested in debating one way or the other but I'm glad you're enjoying generally I am too!

And once again we're back at entertainment and competitiveness. To the extent I'm even willing to argue about such things, I guess I would say that I have been and continue to remain entertained by the NBA and that seems to be regardless of whether there are dynasties or not, so I'm having a lot of difficulty seeing where others are able to make such a strong correlation.

To the extent that it pertains to the topic of the CBA and how that specifically relates to the idea of entertainment and competitiveness, I would simply like at this point to note the irony that nobody has yet pointed out how an economic structure that may well end up producing a musical chairs effect with regards to talent may well end up hurting small markets at least as much as it will hurt the larger markets, and the big market teams will still have plenty of natural advantages that may seem even more appealing under such circumstances.

They're not changing it because it conflicts with your worldview.

Again this just seems strange given what I actually have said and what can possibly be gleaned from my worldview therein!

why you keep talking about "morality"? it's just a strawman.

Omg why ask if you're just going to answer like that anyway LOL

I'm asking cause I'm clearly seeking clarity on the matter! The truth is the issue - such as it were - of the whole "Big Market Vs. Small Market" thing often seems to be framed as somehow a fundamentally moral issue pertaining things like fairness and competitiveness and to that end I would really be careful in agreeing only so much.

this is about financial stability and quality of the product.
you might think there's no value in parity and having superteams in rich markets it's better. I disagree, but whatever.

My position is simply this: There's no historical basis to the idea that parity will be valuable to the NBA from a financial stability or product quality standpoint simply because historically we've never really had parity in the NBA.

I don't agree with the poster that said the NBA was destined for the financial success it enjoys today, but I think the league has been in "Too Big to Fail" space long enough that tbh I do not know why anyone would be worried about the financial stability of the league atp.

[Sofia]

Understand and agrees with limitations on teams being built by deepest pockets only. However the CBA should incentivise good scouting and keeping your draft picks by allowing salary cap discount for players that signed their first contract with that team.

Teams shouldn’t be penalised for being elite at scouting and drafting.


For example, if a max extension has a 10% discount applied to the team that first signed (not drafted, to allow leeway for draft day trades) that player, the team could still be paid in full without forcing the team to make hard decisions about cutting the player loose because they have other good young players. If that player gets traded, the cap discount does not transfer.

nobody is penalized for being elite at drafting

We’ll see how deep the OKC coffers are when all the young guys come up due for extensions.

[FlatearthZorro]

The Celtics completely mismanaged their payroll. That's not the NBA's fault.

Why did they sign a 34 year old J-Rue Holiday to a ridiculous contract? Who else was going to offer him anything remotely close? They could have signed a vet to fill that role and provide slightly less production at a literal fraction of the cost.

Similarly for other players/contracts, I have no idea why they didn't use declining contracts rather than escalations to more effectively manage their payroll. That's 100% on the GM.

Lastly, one-dimensional players like Sam Hauser should not be getting $10MM/year on a team strapped for cash. You can get one-dimensional players at vet minimum contract or even rookie contracts.

I don't have any sympathy for the situation because they knew the impact of the new CBA well in advance of some of their financial decisions.

Celtics did that to win a title, and I'm fine with that cause we won 1, it is hard to do that in the NBA.
What Froob is saying is that the rules are really odd, which they are.
This will affect more than just the Celtics, tbh, it could even affect a team like the OKC in a year or two(Cavs also, if they aren't already there and then you got PHO and DEN and I'm not sure what Bucks CAP situation is).

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Understand and agrees with limitations on teams being built by deepest pockets only. However the CBA should incentivise good scouting and keeping your draft picks by allowing salary cap discount for players that signed their first contract with that team.

Teams shouldn’t be penalised for being elite at scouting and drafting.


For example, if a max extension has a 10% discount applied to the team that first signed (not drafted, to allow leeway for draft day trades) that player, the team could still be paid in full without forcing the team to make hard decisions about cutting the player loose because they have other good young players. If that player gets traded, the cap discount does not transfer.

nobody is penalized for being elite at drafting

We’ll see how deep the OKC coffers are when all the young guys come up due for extensions.

they will have amazing assets to trade, worst case.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

My position is simply this: There's no historical basis to the idea that parity will be valuable to the NBA from a financial stability or product quality standpoint simply because historically we've never really had parity in the NBA.

this CBA is the last step of a process that started 40 years ago. Since then, the League has tried to establish parity in terms of payroll. There have been ton of labor disputes, and a couple of lockouts, to go after that principle. Not parity in terms of results, for various reasons the NBA can generate long dynasties. But those never came because someone could afford to spend more than the others.
why is this important?
1) the NBA has no competition to secure the top talent in the world. That's why they want a mechanism that stops teams from outbidding each other to death. We see in Europe teams going bankrupt or needing to be bailed out, because they outstretch themselves to win, forcing everybody to either pay up or give up competing
2) the NBA is not an external entity, it's an association of the 30 NBA teams. They don't respond to Silver and the League Office. The League Office responds to them. Those 30 teams have different needs and priorities, and then they decide how to proceed via majority votes. Most of the owners DO NOT want be forced to overspend to compete, and they will vote accordingly
3) what I don't get, what's the fun in a competition where is the spending power, and not the ability to build the best team, the key differentiator?