This CBA sucks

[Sixers in 4]

I posted about this in the alternative to the lottery but they need to do a better job rewarding teams that draft and are run well.

One of the idea is a combination of the NBA and MLB system for compensation picks.

It would operate something like this lose a top 10 player gain two first round unprotected compensation picks from club signing

Lose a top 30 player gain one first round compensation pick from club signing unprotected.

Lose a top 50 player gain a second round pick from the club signing. This probably would need to be an additional pick and not compensation from the signing team.

This would only apply to players drafted by teams and on the team for at least four consecutive years. What would this do? This would reward the small teams who draft well, make it easier to keep their stars, and for those who do leave they get something in return.

What does it do for the big teams like the celtics? The same thing. It also punishes teams who big name hunt. It also discourages trade requests from stars because teams now have the leverage to let their contract expire and still get something back. Maybe a lot less than via trade but it at least gives them some leverage where previously there was none.

How would a top 30 player be determined? Probably similarly to how the NFL does it a combination of what the player signs for and their performance via metrics.

[Statlanta]

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.

Hell you don't even need today's OKC as a counterargument, James Harden got screwed out of OKC just because Presti drafted Jeff Green, Durant, Westbrook and Harden back to back. Hell we've seen many players traded because of the supermax killing their team(Westbrook, Towns, Cousins). Not to mention the Rose Rule killing the 1st team it applied to by hamstringing the Bulls to a deadweight contract for years further adding to how bad the Eastern Conference was in the early 2010s. I know Sofia is watching the coffers for his team when Mobley gets that DPOY money.

[firedavidkahn]

If you want real parity in the league simply get rid of contract limits and institute a hard cap.

Superstars would be able to sign monster contracts that would dwarf what they currently get and it would ensure that if multiple superstars wanted to team up they would be forced to take massive pay cuts in order to do so.

[jbk1234]

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.

During the financial crash in 08, the league actually had to lend teams money to make payroll. The lockout followed. The NBA instituted a salary cap for the first time ever in 84-85. It instituted a luxury tax in 09-10. It instituted the second apron in 24-25.

When LBJ entered the league in 03, the salary cap, which is a function of BRI, was $43M. It's projected to be over $156M next year. That's a four fold increase.

Contrast that to MLB where the largest regional network filed bankruptcy and canceled its contracts with the teams.

I've seen no evidence that the NBA has experienced the type of economic growth it has recently enjoyed over the dynastic periods when it's product was delivered over public airwaves for free.

Intuitively, a league where the overwhelming majority of teams are competitive, will enjoy more demand than a league where only a handful of teams do. I think there's plenty of evidence that bears this out. You simply refuse to look at it.

[reddyplayerone]

During the financial crash in 08, the league actually had to lend teams money to make payroll. The lockout followed. The NBA instituted a salary cap for the first time ever in 84-85. It instituted a luxury tax in 09-10. It instituted the second apron in 24-25.

Ok? I don't see how any of this, particularly the financial crisis, is relevant to the discussion we're having.

If you're trying to suggest that the current CBA is good because it may help curb the effects of another financial crisis? I mean ok, but that's a real shifting of the goalposts to the extent that it's another conversation entirely really

When LBJ entered the league in 03, the salary cap, which is a function of BRI, was $43M. It's projected to be over $156M next year. That's a four fold increase.

Which means that the league has enjoyed massive financial success, and it managed to do so while fielding teams going on dynastic runs over and over again.

To be even more clear: The league enjoyed all that financial success, even with dynastic runs, AND despite the fact that people have been complaining about a lack of parity in the league for as long as I can remember.

Once again we're at the heart of my entire point here: The extent to which the lack of parity has ever been an issue for the NBA, it certainly didn't stop the league from turning massive profits to the point their BRI increased 4 times over.

Like at some point that simply needs to be acknowledged.

Contrast that to MLB where the largest regional network filed bankruptcy and canceled its contracts with the teams.

Yeah I still don't see how any of this is relevant. Broadcast television has declined in market share and relevancy ever since streaming became viable, and that largely has nothing to do with any sport at all.

Whatever happened to a regional network, a simple Google search tells me that MLB still brought in a record $12.1 billion in revenue just last year, so it would seem to me the effect was rather minimal.

I've seen no evidence that the NBA has experienced the type of economic growth it has recently enjoyed over the dynastic periods when it's product was delivered over public airwaves for free.

I mean you literally JUST said that basketball related income increased four fold! What more evidence do you need! LOL

Like atp we have to stop pretending the NBA has been anything other than incredibly financially successful over the last few decades and really any suggestion otherwise is just silly

Intuitively, a league where the overwhelming majority of teams are competitive, will enjoy more demand than a league where only a handful of teams do. I think there's plenty of evidence that bears this out. You simply refuse to look at it.

Honestly I feel like you could have saved both of us a lot of time here if you had just said this and left it at that!

To this end, hey great for your intuition and I'm glad the current economic and actual competitive landscape of the league passes your vibe check?

Truly I think it's great for people to like the idea of parity or to be entertained by a league in which a lot of parity exists, and I can certainly see many of its merits logically, but what I'm continuing to have trouble with is anyone assigning any more value to it than that.

Liking parity is fine, that doesn't mean it's inherently morally superior or that it will lead to unseen levels of success for the league or anything like that.

"You simply refuse to look at it" Seems both entirely unnecessarily antagonistic and like a steadfast refusal to actually comprehend what I'm saying here and tbh idk what to do with that

[WestbrookGOATed]

I thought all contracts in the NBA were guaranteed lol. You learn something new everyday.

[jbk1234]

During the financial crash in 08, the league actually had to lend teams money to make payroll. The lockout followed. The NBA instituted a salary cap for the first time ever in 84-85. It instituted a luxury tax in 09-10. It instituted the second apron in 24-25.

Ok? I don't see how any of this, particularly the financial crisis, is relevant to the discussion we're having.

If you're trying to suggest that the current CBA is good because it may help curb the effects of another financial crisis? I mean ok, but that's a real shifting of the goalposts to the extent that it's another conversation entirely really

When LBJ entered the league in 03, the salary cap, which is a function of BRI, was $43M. It's projected to be over $156M next year. That's a four fold increase.

Which means that the league has enjoyed massive financial success, and it managed to do so while fielding teams going on dynastic runs over and over again.

To be even more clear: The league enjoyed all that financial success, even with dynastic runs, AND despite the fact that people have been complaining about a lack of parity in the league for as long as I can remember.

Once again we're at the heart of my entire point here: The extent to which the lack of parity has ever been an issue for the NBA, it certainly didn't stop the league from turning massive profits to the point their BRI increased 4 times over.

Like at some point that simply needs to be acknowledged.

Contrast that to MLB where the largest regional network filed bankruptcy and canceled its contracts with the teams.

Yeah I still don't see how any of this is relevant. Broadcast television has declined in market share and relevancy ever since streaming became viable, and that largely has nothing to do with any sport at all.

Whatever happened to a regional network, a simple Google search tells me that MLB still brought in a record $12.1 billion in revenue just last year, so it would seem to me the effect was rather minimal.

I've seen no evidence that the NBA has experienced the type of economic growth it has recently enjoyed over the dynastic periods when it's product was delivered over public airwaves for free.

I mean you literally JUST said that basketball related income increased four fold! What more evidence do you need! LOL

Like atp we have to stop pretending the NBA has been anything other than incredibly financially successful over the last few decades and really any suggestion otherwise is just silly

Intuitively, a league where the overwhelming majority of teams are competitive, will enjoy more demand than a league where only a handful of teams do. I think there's plenty of evidence that bears this out. You simply refuse to look at it.

Honestly I feel like you could have saved both of us a lot of time here if you had just said this and left it at that!

To this end, hey great for your intuition and I'm glad the current economic and actual competitive landscape of the league passes your vibe check?

Truly I think it's great for people to like the idea of parity or to be entertained by a league in which a lot of parity exists, and I can certainly see many of its merits logically, but what I'm continuing to have trouble with is anyone assigning any more value to it than that.

Liking parity is fine, that doesn't mean it's inherently morally superior or that it will lead to unseen levels of success for the league or anything like that.

"You simply refuse to look at it" Seems both entirely unnecessarily antagonistic and like a steadfast refusal to actually comprehend what I'm saying here and tbh idk what to do with that

You're getting pretty elastic in terms of your definition of a dynastic model. If we're including 3-4 years runs as a dynasty, than that's not what the current CBA is designed to stop. It's not even designed to stop Durant joining the Warriors. It is designed to stop the Warriors from S&Ting Durant for DLo to maintain a 4th max slot when they're already deep into the luxury and repeater tax. It's designed to eliminate dynasties that result from teams spending twice the salary *cap* for a decade running.

[reddyplayerone]

You're getting pretty elastic in terms of your definition of a dynastic model. If we're including 3-4 years runs as a dynasty, than that's not what the current CBA is designed to stop.

Is 3-4 championships over a relatively short period of time not considered a lot by any standard and in any era? I really don't see how I'm the one being elastic with my definition of a dynasty if that is indeed the case.

I mean either way I see absolutely no point in quibbling over the matter like this. The NBA having 6 different champions in the last 6 years has been objectively noted with reason.

It's not even designed to stop Durant joining the Warriors. It is designed to stop the Warriors from S&Ting Durant for DLo to maintain a 4th max slot when they're already deep into the luxury and repeater tax. It's designed to eliminate dynasties that result from teams spending twice the salary *cap* for a decade running.

Intent and outcome are different things. Once again, it really does remain to be seen whether this CBA will even allow a true 3-4 year run.

Boston just won a title last year; now Tatum is going to miss a season and there's all sorts of speculation about what they'll do to avoid any tax penalties in the immediate future.

Denver won the year before and now there's more talk than ever about what they should do and whether Jokic will or should stay. The conversation around Milwaukee now is about whether Giannis should stay or go.

Others in this thread have already began to wonder whether OKC will be able to keep their current core intact for much longer! And I wonder that myself!

And like, you keep wanting to assign to me a certain worldview, so I'll actually offer you a bit of mine explicitly here:

I'm not sure if it's a "good" thing that the Lakers won't be able to build another dynasty if it also means that the Spurs can't also build a dynasty like they had.

Fundamentally, I don't think the "problem" of parity in the NBA is adequately addressed by in effect dragging every team down to a level where they're all operating more like a mid level franchise than not

And generally speaking, I'll always favor labor in the face of billionaire owners, even if the labor in this case happens to be comprised of millionaires. I don't think a hard cap is particularly "good" or "fair" to the players, and I do think its worth noting inasmuch as I think it's worth noting any and all of the actual tangible effects such changes in the economic structure in the league have.

I think billionaires who buy sports teams should be willing to spend a few million more to make sure that team is a compelling and engaging product for fans. I think that's really bare minimum stuff both ethically and simply from a "most logical way to profit" perspective, and so it will forever be deeply strange to me when fans are so willing to carry the water of billionaires and actively let them off the hook the way they do in this regard.

[MrBigShot]

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

Having a handful of teams capable of winning a championship is in no way remotely comparable to everyone getting a "participation trophy"

There is nothing fun knowing exactly what team will win the championship barring major injuries, as was the case in 2017 and 2018. There are 30 teams in league. Fans have to have at least some semblance of hope that their team can at some point put together a team capable of competing.

People are overcomplicating things in this thread. Who wins shouldn't be a competition between who is willing to spend the most. At the same time, it shouldn't be this difficult to retain home grown drafted & developed talent. Having the supermax from a player obtained in their first 2 years count as the regular max in cap hit would solve the issue pretty easily.

[Invictus88]

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.

I TLDR'd your wall of text.

I was responding to a guy who basically didn't see the point/value of competitive teams in small markets. That's it. So naturally I responded with the quote. I don't know what deeper sweeping meaning you are trying to derive from this and I'm not motivated to care.

[threethehardway]

I TLDR'd your wall of text.

I was responding to a guy who basically didn't see the point/value of competitive teams in small markets. That's it. So naturally I responded with the quote. I don't know what deeper sweeping meaning you are trying to derive from this and I'm not motivated to care.

Lol and that's why your argument is dumb. You can't think beyond, "Teams in the middle of nowhere deserves a chance too. Beat LA"

The Miami Heat are a small market team that literally gets nobody to come to games even with LeBron James being there and they won 3 championships in the last decade and nobody cares about them. People in Miami have better things to do than go to an NBA game.

The Knicks haven't been a contender since the 90s and people still go to the games.

Clippers are a trash franchise despite being in LA.

Atlanta is a big media market that can't get free agents to join because it's a crappy franchise.

Markets don't matter. Ownership and organization does.

[the sea duck]

Solution? Players you draft don't count against cap. Have a salary cap that only applies to players aquired through trade or free agency.

i've always liked this idea (yes, i know it's not realistic). but i'd also add that someone traded for on draft day or even the summer before their first season would count as a "drafted player" for these purposes. punish teams that buy players, not the ones who draft them.

as for the "teams will need to be smart" argument, sure that's always the case. but the current rules make certain quality players available to dumb teams as well that otherwise wouldn't be.

as you said its unrealistc. but i thought about this a bit because i thought its an interesting idea aswell.

the question that i just cant get over tho. whos gonna pay the rookies and what impact would that actually have for the owners? it basically would mean they pay people that dont count towards their books. thats it. people that dont want to get into the high tax brackets and dont wanna lose money on their nba franchise will not be willing to pay anyways. in theory they would have more freedom to build a good roster like this. but what franchises are actually gonna go out of their way and use it? the ones we already see on top regularly and big markets. And in the end, if you pay the rookies, that dount count towards your books or you pay an extra tax. its still money that needs to be paid.

the biggest problem of this cba for owners are the restrictions they get for being in the 2nd apron. thats what actually makes trading hard.

now if you work something out, like teams have 2 pools. like 1 cap for the rookie contracts and lets say vet mins and 1 cap for the traded and signed players and all the midlevel exceptions and what not. and let them have different kind of ristrictions, so that you cant go out and sign 3 supermax players and keep them for 10 years. or whatever these guys deem as fair and reasonable. im just spitballing but i think something like that could actually be realistic.

i am, admittedly, being lazy with the idea as I'm not even sure the specifics around a rule that i would support. it doesn't necessarily have to not count against the cap, or be part of a different cap. i just directionally want teams rewarded by assembling good "home grown" players, and even more importantly, not broken up by the value demanded by those players just because they are too good to fit on one team. and this isn't just star players. if a team has a couple of stars, but like 10 really good guys they've drafted to put around them, i don't want financials forcing the split of that core. still unrealistic, but i'm open to more realistic ideas that push further in that direction.

[og15]

I TLDR'd your wall of text.

I was responding to a guy who basically didn't see the point/value of competitive teams in small markets. That's it. So naturally I responded with the quote. I don't know what deeper sweeping meaning you are trying to derive from this and I'm not motivated to care.

Lol and that's why your argument is dumb. You can't think beyond, "Teams in the middle of nowhere deserves a chance too. Beat LA"

The Miami Heat are a small market team that literally gets nobody to come to games even with LeBron James being there and they won 3 championships in the last decade and nobody cares about them. People in Miami have better things to do than go to an NBA game.

The Knicks haven't been a contender since the 90s and people still go to the games.

Clippers are a trash franchise despite being in LA.

Atlanta is a big media market that can't get free agents to join because it's a crappy franchise.

Markets don't matter. Ownership and organization does.

It's not one or the other, it's both. Ownership and organization matter, but markets also matter.