This new CBA is awful

[nomansland]

Current CBA is nothing but purposeful sabotage made for top teams to prevent them to stay on top for more than 2-3 years. It's artificially created obstacle created to prevent sustained success.

Not sure I fully agree with that. There's definitely an element of owners wanting to put guardrails on themselves and then point to the cap when people call them cheap.

But even if what you're stating is a motive, I'm kind of fine with that. Superteams are boring unless they're the team you root for.


The timing of the implementation of this cap really screwed some teams (including Denver) but over time teams will adjust and figure out how to manoever through it. That'll probably be better for the league in the long run.

I just fear that in 5 or so years they'll make new changes that upend the environment again.

[pepe1991]

Current CBA is nothing but purposeful sabotage made for top teams to prevent them to stay on top for more than 2-3 years. It's artificially created obstacle created to prevent sustained success.

Not sure I fully agree with that. There's definitely an element of owners wanting to put guardrails on themselves and then point to the cap when people call them cheap.

But even if what you're stating is a motive, I'm kind of fine with that. Superteams are boring unless they're the team you root for.


The timing of the implementation of this cap really screwed some teams (including Denver) but over time teams will adjust and figure out how to manoever through it. That'll probably be better for the league in the long run.

I just fear that in 5 or so years they'll make new changes that upend the environment again.

oh for sure there are motivations of owners who can tell " see, it's not that i don't want to waste half of billion dollars a year on basketball team, it's bad nba that doesn't allow me ".

[Chris Porter's Hair]

As a Warriors fan, as soon as it went into place I said, "Well, that's one way to kill us. Whether or not that is good for the league I'm not sure, but it is going to make it just about impossible to build like we did." I think now we're seeing the next teams that did a really good job building a powerhouse running up against how harsh this CBA is. Boston is in the middle of it now. OKC will be there soon. I'm still not positive whether I think it is good or bad for the league; I think perhaps the intent is sound, but it is just a little over the top.

[CoP]

If good ownership is good they will always win over the long term

Parity is good for the league. Look at the nfl

Over the last 25 years, there have been:
- 12 different champions in the NBA, 6 of which won multiple
- 13 different champions in the NFL, 7 of which won multiple
- 14 different champions in the NHL, 7 of which won multiple
- 16 different champions in the MLB, 6 of which won multiple

The idea that the NFL has this great parity is a myth. The most parity over the last 25 years has been in the sport that has no salary cap.

Now do playoff droughts and seasons without advancing and conference finals/championships made

Parity isnt only measured in championships.

Teams/fans feel like they can go from bottom feeder to contender in any given offseason (ala Washington last year)

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

I provided data for my argument. Looking at diversity of championships is a decent definition of parity. If you want to refute that, do the research yourself mate.

Here's another stat though. In the last 25 years, 21 different teams in the MLB (with no salary cap) have made it to the World Series. Meanwhile, 21 different teams in the NFL (with a hard cap) have made it to the Super Bowl. This idea that a hard cap has brought some amazing level of parity to the NFL is a fallacy.

If we're just providing one-off anecdotes, I guess I could mention that the current NBA champion was a bottom feeder just a few years ago. And that the two World Series teams last season had finished last in their divisions just two years before.

[seren]

It is essentially a real hard cap. The problem I have with it is not so much that it is a hard cap but how it treats max contracts and injured players. They need to cap the impact of max contracts on the cap. Otherwise, you are punishing the teams with successful players. Look at Cleveland. Their budget is completely screwed by Mobley winning DPOY. How does it make sense? The other issue is there is no exception for long term injured players screwing Indiana, Boston and Milwaukee. You lose your star player for a season ending injury and your only way out is completely dismantling your team. That makes absolutely no sense.

[eyriq]

I love it. Competing on team building, not spending, provides parity.

[wegotthabeet]

However there was rumours for months that the Celtics would be trading Jrue and Porzingis at the end of the season anyway.

The thought that the Celtics were going to have to be broken up even if they were repeat champs is the biggest black mark against this CBA.

Or they could’ve just paid the tax. I have zero empathy for this. Someone recently bought the team. Anyone who has a championship caliber roster but isn’t willing to pay the tax to keep it together shouldn’t own a team. Sucks for the fans, but if they can afford a team, they can afford to pay the tax.

[pepe1991]

It is essentially a real hard cap. The problem I have with it is not so much that it is a hard cap but how it treats max contracts and injured players. They need to cap the impact of max contracts on the cap. Otherwise, you are punishing the teams with successful players. Look at Cleveland. Their budget is completely screwed by Mobley winning DPOY. How does it make sense? The other issue is there is no exception for long term injured players screwing Indiana, Boston and Milwaukee. You lose your star player for a season ending injury and your only way out is completely dismantling your team. That makes absolutely no sense.

Because fools made Disabled Player Exception count into cap space.
Let's say Bucks got one for Lillard, in theory they could have signed player for 50% of his salary for one year or Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception worth around $14M or something like that.

In both cases team with injury would suffer due:
1) still being in terrible financial situation
2) still having trouble founding somebody to take 1 year deal
3) suffer all the penalties from aprons despite fact so much cap is dead cap

[djsunyc]

the players need to check themselves. this cba had the 1% of the top line players making all the money - and they knew this when they signed. the class divide within the players association is crazy.

i would put a cap on the max a guy can make but raise the minimum salary requirements so that more players are making better wages and it's distributed more evenly.

maybe a drafted player exception where a certain amount of dollars on an extension of your own drafted player doesn't count towards the cap.

[Chuck Everett]

It is essentially a real hard cap. The problem I have with it is not so much that it is a hard cap but how it treats max contracts and injured players. They need to cap the impact of max contracts on the cap. Otherwise, you are punishing the teams with successful players. Look at Cleveland. Their budget is completely screwed by Mobley winning DPOY. How does it make sense? The other issue is there is no exception for long term injured players screwing Indiana, Boston and Milwaukee. You lose your star player for a season ending injury and your only way out is completely dismantling your team. That makes absolutely no sense.

Injuries are a part of the game. The players are still getting paid. It's not like being injured means their salary goes away. Sucks maybe, but that's life.

[jfs1000d]

It is essentially a real hard cap. The problem I have with it is not so much that it is a hard cap but how it treats max contracts and injured players. They need to cap the impact of max contracts on the cap. Otherwise, you are punishing the teams with successful players. Look at Cleveland. Their budget is completely screwed by Mobley winning DPOY. How does it make sense? The other issue is there is no exception for long term injured players screwing Indiana, Boston and Milwaukee. You lose your star player for a season ending injury and your only way out is completely dismantling your team. That makes absolutely no sense.

Injuries are a part of the game. The players are still getting paid. It's not like being injured means their salary goes away. Sucks maybe, but that's life.

In life if ya got money you can overcome. Nba? Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pointgod]

Agreed the new CBA is trash for everyone except maybe 2nd tier superstars like KAT and Devin Booker that can make 70 million a year from their extensions. I called out what is happening with the aprons because the whole point of the CBA was to stop Balmer but these idiotic owners shot themselves in the foot. This is hurting small markets and big markets alike, well run teams and poorly run teams as well. It’s also squeezed out the NBA middle class and replaced them with rookies. If you’re a fan of quality basketball and team building you should absolutely hate it.

[Dacost]

It is essentially a real hard cap. The problem I have with it is not so much that it is a hard cap but how it treats max contracts and injured players. They need to cap the impact of max contracts on the cap. Otherwise, you are punishing the teams with successful players. Look at Cleveland. Their budget is completely screwed by Mobley winning DPOY. How does it make sense? The other issue is there is no exception for long term injured players screwing Indiana, Boston and Milwaukee. You lose your star player for a season ending injury and your only way out is completely dismantling your team. That makes absolutely no sense.

This goes both ways look at all the money Memphis save with Jackson losing DPOY giving them alot more flexibility then other other teams with super max players.

[nikster]

Breaking up good teams that good ownership has built is bad business.

If good ownership is good they will always win over the long term

Parity is good for the league. Look at the nfl

i hear that but

1. i'm not sure that parity is what people like about the nfl
2. the nba has had success with dynasties, and a case can be made that they've relatively struggled in eras of parity
3. the "parity" of the last several years might have more to do with injuries than the structure of the CBA
4. the league's marketing needs to adjust if teams are going to have max 2-3 year windows with their core rosters

When I think of parity beneficial I think of it over large period of time. Sure OKC may not have a large fan base now, but it will grow as a result of the championship and the future runs, both locally and globally.

[Infinite Llamas]

It is what it is…

A complete overreaction to the KD Warriors.

[DarkAzcura]

However there was rumours for months that the Celtics would be trading Jrue and Porzingis at the end of the season anyway.

The thought that the Celtics were going to have to be broken up even if they were repeat champs is the biggest black mark against this CBA.

Or they could’ve just paid the tax. I have zero empathy for this. Someone recently bought the team. Anyone who has a championship caliber roster but isn’t willing to pay the tax to keep it together shouldn’t own a team. Sucks for the fans, but if they can afford a team, they can afford to pay the tax.

It’s not simply a tax, though. Being above the second apron means you don’t have access to certain exceptions. It means you can’t combine players in trades. If you are in it for years, you could potentially lose a draft pick or have it moved to the end of a round. It’s not about owners being cheap anymore. It actually impacts the ability to build your team functionally, which is why people are calling it a hard cap essentially. The penalties are incredibly harsh, and when you add the money aspect to it, yeah, it’s just silly to expect owners to just pay it.

[seren]

It is essentially a real hard cap. The problem I have with it is not so much that it is a hard cap but how it treats max contracts and injured players. They need to cap the impact of max contracts on the cap. Otherwise, you are punishing the teams with successful players. Look at Cleveland. Their budget is completely screwed by Mobley winning DPOY. How does it make sense? The other issue is there is no exception for long term injured players screwing Indiana, Boston and Milwaukee. You lose your star player for a season ending injury and your only way out is completely dismantling your team. That makes absolutely no sense.

Injuries are a part of the game. The players are still getting paid. It's not like being injured means their salary goes away. Sucks maybe, but that's life.

Well of course but you can’t plan for these things and essentially once it hits, you are telling the teams it is pretty much over not only for that particular year but also longer term. There needs to be some relief so teams can have continuity. If Boston for instance didn’t have to pay an exorbitant amount of money this upcoming season and all the other penalties regarding the draft, they would have kept their roster together. Same with Milwaukee. They could have worked around Lillard injury. Same with Indiana with Miles contract.

[seren]

The thought that the Celtics were going to have to be broken up even if they were repeat champs is the biggest black mark against this CBA.

Or they could’ve just paid the tax. I have zero empathy for this. Someone recently bought the team. Anyone who has a championship caliber roster but isn’t willing to pay the tax to keep it together shouldn’t own a team. Sucks for the fans, but if they can afford a team, they can afford to pay the tax.

It’s not simply a tax, though. Being above the second apron means you don’t have access to certain exceptions. It means you can’t combine players in trades. If you are in it for years, you could potentially lose a draft pick or have it moved to the end of a round. It’s not about owners being cheap anymore. It actually impacts the ability to build your team functionally, which is why people are calling it a hard cap essentially. The penalties are incredibly harsh, and when you add the money aspect to it, yeah, it’s just silly to expect owners to just pay it.

Exactly! Your star player has a season ending injury? Tough luck! Not only we will not give you any monetary relief but also we will not let you replace the player with anyone but a veteran minimum guy. That is the current situation.

[jkvonny]

The ones that really hates it are fans of the big market/big spending/big free agent grabbing teams like the Lakers, GSW, Boston,, Knicks, etc.
Or wanting to create superteam types.

I think the CBA has its positives. Def mid/small market friendly. Evens the playing field, induces parity. Like the NFL.

[dockingsched]

People call this parity but it’s really not.

Parity is supposed to just be about creating an even playing field with resources, giving everyone the same shot to be good with equal amount of resources. Giving the low achievers the tools to rise up.

This cba has it backwards though. It doesn’t really lift the low achievers, what it does is punish the high achievers so they can never get too far ahead of the low achievers.

It’s fake parity where the teams that do a great job are smacked back down.