Who do you support?

[Fairview4Life]

so what do you suggest Fariview, just leave things the way they are, let the Players have 53% and get back to basketball?

53% is fine with me. Lop a year off of contract lengths, maybe tweak the MLE a bit or whatever, so teams can fix mistakes a little quicker. I don't like sign and trades all that much, but removing them is probably not worth it, and might even harm the original team more. There is no need to nuke the league from space like the owners seem to want. I'd also put in rules about revenue sharing of some local broadcast rights and sponsorships, and limiting the amount of credit that can be used when buying a team. But that's all owner specific stuff.

What I'd really like to see is the NBA setting up a competitor to the NCAA, and teams use that as a development league, instead of the NBADL. But that's neither here nor there.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

so what do you suggest Fariview, just leave things the way they are, let the Players have 53% and get back to basketball?

I'm starting to think we tend to lose by a basic hard cap. I mean, we're one of the few profitable teams. HAd MLSE had the balls, we co9uld have been onse of those tax teams and been more competitive. the problem is they've always had the wussy stance, not paying tax until it's clear they are close. That was there choice. Regardless, the ability to over pay FA's is what helps us get them in the first place. Maybe if we can't over pay, then we don't get them? and if it was a hard cap, we may not have that ability. Still, I think the system needs tweaking, it's jsut what do you do.


I posted in another thread, and I'll repost it here, a system that would keep the FA market going, so the Players should be happy, but help to ensure that it rotates around the league, so that may keep the league happy.

They should allow teams to go a few years over the tax to take a run, thenimpose the tougher sanctions to make it hard to do it for extended periods and spread the wealth. Maybe teams can only be in the tax of two years, in a five year period, and then they lose their exceptions, first round picks and pay a higher tax if the don't cut salary. It would spread it around a bit more. Teams would have to get close and then take their shot, and then it would be other teams that would have the advantage.

For the players, there would always be a market, but for the teams it would not only be certain teams who would be there constantly. There would be more movement, and it wouldn't be the same teams in the running year after year, unless they were doing it while being under the tax. Teams would have to plan in out in like five year plans, when they are going to make their move, as if they make the move and don't get it done in two years, they'll have to tear it down and start again, or pay the tough penalty and lose their exceptions and maybe even picks.

Just wanted to bump so Fairview could see my edit.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

I also think that when they get close on the Bri split, they should get over that hurtle, by taking that money and agreeing to divert it towards community relations to repair damage to league PR by lockout, provide some more money to the community and maybe increase fans support, which would then increase BRI which would come back to everyone. That way, when they get close, they can say neither the owners or the players win, but the fans do.

[DG88]

Charles Barkley and Reggie Miller sum up my view on the labour dispute
http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_t ... ef:nbahpt1
http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_t ... g_pt2.nba/

[Tenacious_C]

I thought everyone knew that the NHL had benefited from league parity.

So none of those articles compared the league pre-lockout and post-lockout, and none of them compared payroll expenses as the determining variable for any disparity pre and post lockout. This is exactly why just saying it's common knowledge doesn't make any sense. I'll just take that one CBC article that analyzed the NHL over 5 years, called parity a fact, and do the same for the NBA. A league where one player makes a much larger difference on outcomes, and hasn't been operating under a hard cap like the NHL. Let's go back over the last 5 years and see what we find.

Breaking down the CBC article paragraph by paragraph, in comparison with the last 5 NBA seasons not under a hard cap:

Although the Detroit Red Wings won more games, piled up more points, enjoyed more playoff series celebrations than any other NHL team, parity has prevailed in the first five seasons since the lockout ended.

Although the Dallas Mavericks won more games, and piled up more points, and the Lakers have enjoyed more playoff series celebrations than any other NBA team, parity has prevailed over the last 5 NBA seasons.

There have been five different Stanley Cup winners since the lockout and an assortment of eight clubs have advanced to the final. The Red Wings also have made the most final-four appearances at three, and 12 of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference final at least once since the lockout.

There have been four different title winners since 2006/07 and an assortment of seven clubs have advanced to the final. The Lakers also have made the most final-four appearances at three, and 13 of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference finals at least once since the 2006/07.

Detroit, San Jose and New Jersey not only rank one, two and three in terms of regular-season success, this trio is the only group that has gone five-for-five in playoff appearances.

Dallas, San Antonio, LAL, and Orlando rank one, two, three, and four in terms of regular season success, and all four have gone five-for-five in playoff appearances.

Only two clubs – the Florida Panthers and Toronto Maple Leafs – have not made the playoffs in the past five seasons, and another eight have failed to win a playoff series. The clubs that have made the playoffs, but haven't won a series include: Atlanta Thrashers, Minnesota Wild, Phoenix Coyotes, Los Angeles Kings, St. Louis Blues, Tampa Bay Lightning, Columbus Blue Jackets and New York Islanders.

Only three clubs – the Clippers, Kings and Timberwolves – have not made the playoffs in the past five seasons, and another eight have failed to win a playoff series. The clubs that have made the playoffs, but haven't won a series include: Charlotte Bobcats, Indiana Pacers, Milwaukee Bucks, New York Knicks, Toronto Raptors, Washington Wizards, Portland Trail Blazers, and Philadelphia 76ers.

Here's the NBA data, please let me know how the NHL hard cap system produced more parity than the NBA, for example, over those 5 years. Remember, this is just using the CBC's dumb criteria on the NBA. This is ingoring the differences in the game, payroll, and does not try and figure out why parity happened over that time period, etc., etc., etc..

Code: Select all

Team   W   L   PTS   Playoff Appearances   Series Won   Conference Finals   Finals   Titles
Dallas Mavericks   280   130   560   5   5   1   1   1
San Antonio Spurs   279   131   558   5   7   2   1   1
Los Angeles Lakers   278   132   556   5   12   3   3   2
Orlando Magic   262   148   524   5   6   2   1   0
Boston Celtics   258   152   516   4   9   2   2   1
Phoenix Suns   256   154   512   3   3   1   0   0
Denver Nuggets   252   158   504   5   2   1   0   0
Houston Rockets   245   165   490   3   1   0   0   0
Utah Jazz   245   165   490   4   4   1   0   0
Cleveland Cavaliers   241   169   482   4   7   2   1   0
New Orleans Hornets   227   183   454   3   1   0   0   0
Chicago Bulls   226   184   452   4   3   1   0   0
Portland Trail Blazers   225   185   450   3   0   0   0   0
Atlanta Hawks   211   199   422   4   3   0   0   0
Detroit Pistons   208   202   416   3   4   2   0   0
Miami Heat   207   203   414   4   3   1   1   0
Philadelphia 76ers   184   226   368   3   0   0   0   0
Toronto Raptors   183   227   366   2   0   0   0   0
Golden State Warriors   181   229   362   1   1   0   0   0
Oklahoma City Thunder   179   231   358   2   2   1   0   0
Charlotte Bobcats   178   232   356   1   0   0   0   0
Indiana Pacers   176   234   352   1   0   0   0   0
Milwaukee Bucks   169   241   338   1   0   0   0   0
New York Knicks   159   251   318   1   0   0   0   0
Memphis Grizzlies   154   256   308   1   1   0   0   0
Washington Wizards   152   258   304   2   0   0   0   0
New Jersey Nets   145   265   290   1   1   0   0   0
Los Angeles Clippers   143   267   286   0   0   0   0   0
Sacramento Kings   137   273   274   0   0   0   0   0
Minnesota Timberwolves   110   300   220   0   0   0   0   0


So it's now common knowledge that parity exists in the NBA, right?

The hard cap systems in both the NHL and NFL make it so the superstars are spread throughout the league and therefor can be maintained. I think you would have to be living under a rock to think that there is balance in the NBA.

Could you imagine a team that has Crosby, Ovechkin and Luongo on the same squad? Let's not forget that the NHL dresses 18+2 and the NBA is 11 at the most.

When a team with a roster of 11 players has 3 Superstars on it, ill signed through FA; there is no parity. What did those teams get in return? Cleveland got some picks, the Raps got some pics and what did Miami give up?

http://m.espn.go.com/nhl/story?storyId=4822342&wjb

"Ultimately, a cap league is a cap league no matter what sport," Holland said. "And if you look at the NFL, Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl last year and missed the playoffs this season. It's hard to stay good for a long period of time. It's designed for parity; it's designed for competitive balance."

[Fairview4Life]

The hard cap systems in both the NHL and NFL make it so the superstars are spread throughout the league and therefor can be maintained. I think you would have to be living under a rock to think that there is balance in the NBA.

Could you imagine a team that has Crosby, Ovechkin and Luongo on the same squad? Let's not forget that the NHL dresses 18+2 and the NBA is 11 at the most.

When a team with a roster of 11 players has 3 Superstars on it, ill signed through FA; there is no parity. What did those teams get in return? Cleveland got some picks, the Raps got some pics and what did Miami give up?

http://m.espn.go.com/nhl/story?storyId=4822342&wjb

"Ultimately, a cap league is a cap league no matter what sport," Holland said. "And if you look at the NFL, Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl last year and missed the playoffs this season. It's hard to stay good for a long period of time. It's designed for parity; it's designed for competitive balance."

How about a team with Crosby, Malkin, and Fleury?

I'm not sure if you actually read my post, but the CBC article said there was parity in the NHL and listed their criteria. The NBA met all of those same criteria. 13 of 30 NBA teams have made the conference finals in the last 5 years. There have been 4 different title winners in that time, and 7 different teams in the finals. Only 3 teams haven't made the playoffs at least once, and only 8 of the other 27 teams that made the playoffs haven't won at least one round. That is almost exactly the same numbers as that CBC article you posted as proof of NHL parity! The NBA is comparable with the NHL and it's hard cap system over the last 5 years, according to those parity parameters. And it's all in a league without a hard cap, and where one individual player can have a much larger affect on a game than in hockey, with the possible exception of a hot goaltender.

You also did not bother to figure out if the parity in the NHL the CBC brought up existed before the lockout, or if the new system actually helped create that parity. On top of that, you did not make any effort to show that higher payroll correlates to winning in either the NBA or NHL, or that there is a large disparity in payroll expenses between winning teams in the NBA and losing teams. These two things are essential to your assertion that a hard cap would help increase league parity.

[Fairview4Life]

Thank you, wiretap:

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... Percentage

Expert: Virtually No Correlation Between Payroll And Win Percentage
Oct 12, 2011 11:41 AM EDT

As the NBA league office continues the lockout in an apparent bid to create more parity among teams, a professor of economics at Smith College who has studied the issue says there is almost no relationship between the size of a team's payroll and its success.

“The statistical correlation between payroll and win percentage is practically nonexistent,” said Andrew Zimbalist.

Zimbalist said the league does not have a problem with competitive balance. As examples, he cited the excellent results of the Heat, which plays in the country's 16th-largest television market but has appeared in two of the last six NBA Finals, and the poor results of the Knicks, which have not won a playoff game in 10 years despite paying exorbitant luxury tax bills for several seasons.

In fact, it was not until the Knicks reduced their payroll dramatically last season -- getting far enough under the salary cap to sign Amar'e Stoudemire and force a trade for Carmelo Anthony -- that they qualified for the playoffs for the first time in seven years.

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... z1aaZnkTKe

[J-Roc]

^^
That "expert" doesn't realize that since NBA players make more than ever now (although some BRI calcs say they make the same), the latest trend is for players to demand to play with other star players. The actual location probably doesn't matter as much, but you can be sure Toronto isn't near the top.

Maybe we need another decade of players calling the shots so this expert can have more raw data to play with.

[Indeed]

I thought everyone knew that the NHL had benefited from league parity.

So none of those articles compared the league pre-lockout and post-lockout, and none of them compared payroll expenses as the determining variable for any disparity pre and post lockout. This is exactly why just saying it's common knowledge doesn't make any sense. I'll just take that one CBC article that analyzed the NHL over 5 years, called parity a fact, and do the same for the NBA. A league where one player makes a much larger difference on outcomes, and hasn't been operating under a hard cap like the NHL. Let's go back over the last 5 years and see what we find.

Breaking down the CBC article paragraph by paragraph, in comparison with the last 5 NBA seasons not under a hard cap:

Although the Detroit Red Wings won more games, piled up more points, enjoyed more playoff series celebrations than any other NHL team, parity has prevailed in the first five seasons since the lockout ended.

Although the Dallas Mavericks won more games, and piled up more points, and the Lakers have enjoyed more playoff series celebrations than any other NBA team, parity has prevailed over the last 5 NBA seasons.

There have been five different Stanley Cup winners since the lockout and an assortment of eight clubs have advanced to the final. The Red Wings also have made the most final-four appearances at three, and 12 of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference final at least once since the lockout.

There have been four different title winners since 2006/07 and an assortment of seven clubs have advanced to the final. The Lakers also have made the most final-four appearances at three, and 13 of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference finals at least once since the 2006/07.

Detroit, San Jose and New Jersey not only rank one, two and three in terms of regular-season success, this trio is the only group that has gone five-for-five in playoff appearances.

Dallas, San Antonio, LAL, and Orlando rank one, two, three, and four in terms of regular season success, and all four have gone five-for-five in playoff appearances.

Only two clubs – the Florida Panthers and Toronto Maple Leafs – have not made the playoffs in the past five seasons, and another eight have failed to win a playoff series. The clubs that have made the playoffs, but haven't won a series include: Atlanta Thrashers, Minnesota Wild, Phoenix Coyotes, Los Angeles Kings, St. Louis Blues, Tampa Bay Lightning, Columbus Blue Jackets and New York Islanders.

Only three clubs – the Clippers, Kings and Timberwolves – have not made the playoffs in the past five seasons, and another eight have failed to win a playoff series. The clubs that have made the playoffs, but haven't won a series include: Charlotte Bobcats, Indiana Pacers, Milwaukee Bucks, New York Knicks, Toronto Raptors, Washington Wizards, Portland Trail Blazers, and Philadelphia 76ers.

Here's the NBA data, please let me know how the NHL hard cap system produced more parity than the NBA, for example, over those 5 years. Remember, this is just using the CBC's dumb criteria on the NBA. This is ingoring the differences in the game, payroll, and does not try and figure out why parity happened over that time period, etc., etc., etc..

Code: Select all

Team   W   L   PTS   Playoff Appearances   Series Won   Conference Finals   Finals   Titles
Dallas Mavericks   280   130   560   5   5   1   1   1
San Antonio Spurs   279   131   558   5   7   2   1   1
Los Angeles Lakers   278   132   556   5   12   3   3   2
Orlando Magic   262   148   524   5   6   2   1   0
Boston Celtics   258   152   516   4   9   2   2   1
Phoenix Suns   256   154   512   3   3   1   0   0
Denver Nuggets   252   158   504   5   2   1   0   0
Houston Rockets   245   165   490   3   1   0   0   0
Utah Jazz   245   165   490   4   4   1   0   0
Cleveland Cavaliers   241   169   482   4   7   2   1   0
New Orleans Hornets   227   183   454   3   1   0   0   0
Chicago Bulls   226   184   452   4   3   1   0   0
Portland Trail Blazers   225   185   450   3   0   0   0   0
Atlanta Hawks   211   199   422   4   3   0   0   0
Detroit Pistons   208   202   416   3   4   2   0   0
Miami Heat   207   203   414   4   3   1   1   0
Philadelphia 76ers   184   226   368   3   0   0   0   0
Toronto Raptors   183   227   366   2   0   0   0   0
Golden State Warriors   181   229   362   1   1   0   0   0
Oklahoma City Thunder   179   231   358   2   2   1   0   0
Charlotte Bobcats   178   232   356   1   0   0   0   0
Indiana Pacers   176   234   352   1   0   0   0   0
Milwaukee Bucks   169   241   338   1   0   0   0   0
New York Knicks   159   251   318   1   0   0   0   0
Memphis Grizzlies   154   256   308   1   1   0   0   0
Washington Wizards   152   258   304   2   0   0   0   0
New Jersey Nets   145   265   290   1   1   0   0   0
Los Angeles Clippers   143   267   286   0   0   0   0   0
Sacramento Kings   137   273   274   0   0   0   0   0
Minnesota Timberwolves   110   300   220   0   0   0   0   0


So it's now common knowledge that parity exists in the NBA, right?

The hard cap systems in both the NHL and NFL make it so the superstars are spread throughout the league and therefor can be maintained. I think you would have to be living under a rock to think that there is balance in the NBA.

Could you imagine a team that has Crosby, Ovechkin and Luongo on the same squad? Let's not forget that the NHL dresses 18+2 and the NBA is 11 at the most.

When a team with a roster of 11 players has 3 Superstars on it, ill signed through FA; there is no parity. What did those teams get in return? Cleveland got some picks, the Raps got some pics and what did Miami give up?

http://m.espn.go.com/nhl/story?storyId=4822342&wjb

"Ultimately, a cap league is a cap league no matter what sport," Holland said. "And if you look at the NFL, Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl last year and missed the playoffs this season. It's hard to stay good for a long period of time. It's designed for parity; it's designed for competitive balance."

If superstar is that important, why the owner is asking for 50/50 on RBI?
The owners are being greedy to protect their assets (superstars), while not willing to give them more.

I think shorter contracts will do better for the league, not necessarily hard-cap.
For instance on MLE. If they can keep 6m MLE, while shorten to 2 years + team options, then it would be easier to manage.
You want parity, then the MLE needs to be higher to allow more UFA signings, while shorten their contract years. Their current team can offer up to a 4 years contract, which allows the current team to keep their own players as well.

[Fairview4Life]

^^
That "expert" doesn't realize that since NBA players make more than ever now (although some BRI calcs say they make the same), the latest trend is for players to demand to play with other star players. The actual location probably doesn't matter as much, but you can be sure Toronto isn't near the top.

Maybe we need another decade of players calling the shots so this expert can have more raw data to play with.

The "expert" presumably did some regression analysis on win % and payroll, and found little correlation. Since the study wasn't actually linked there, you can go ahead and try that out on your own if you don't believe his statement.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The hard cap systems in both the NHL and NFL make it so the superstars are spread throughout the league and therefor can be maintained. I think you would have to be living under a rock to think that there is balance in the NBA.

(a) A superstar in the NHL or the NFL doesn't have nearly the impact a superstar in the NBA has.

(b) You're going to have to figure out a different way to define parity, because if you compare it to the NHL or the NFL, the NBA actually doesn't look so bad, this despite the fact that the game itself is set up to have less equality due to the high reliance on one or two star players. If there isn't balance in the NBA, then no pro sports league has it.

(c) I know it's blasphemy to agree with Dwyane Wade, butthe biggest problem with parity in the NBA isn't the lack of a hard cap, it's the existence of maximum salaries. Remove maximum salaries and you're guaranteed to have more parity in the NBA. Imagine how tough it would be to build around Lebron or Kobe if they were paid $50 million a season. Even with the Lakers' payroll of $90 million, you'd be stuck with $40 million left to fill the remaining 13 or 14 roster spots. That's $3 million per player, and if you pay $15 million to get a second tier star (not Wade or Dirk or Melo, who are making more, but a guy like Boozer or David West) suddenly you've got $25 million left for the remaining for 12 or 13 players. One injury to their top 3 players and that team doesn't finish close to the playoffs. Get rid of the max salary and open up free agency a little to allow players to sign big contracts with any team and increase parity. The owners have been fighting the path of parity for along time and continue to do so.

[J-Roc]

^^
That "expert" doesn't realize that since NBA players make more than ever now (although some BRI calcs say they make the same), the latest trend is for players to demand to play with other star players. The actual location probably doesn't matter as much, but you can be sure Toronto isn't near the top.

Maybe we need another decade of players calling the shots so this expert can have more raw data to play with.

The "expert" presumably did some regression analysis on win % and payroll, and found little correlation. Since the study wasn't actually linked there, you can go ahead and try that out on your own if you don't believe his statement.

What does regression analysis have to do with the latest trend of players wanting to gang up on their chosen team?

[MEDIC]

The hard cap systems in both the NHL and NFL make it so the superstars are spread throughout the league and therefor can be maintained. I think you would have to be living under a rock to think that there is balance in the NBA.

(a) A superstar in the NHL or the NFL doesn't have nearly the impact a superstar in the NBA has.

Exactly. This is even more reason to deter 3 NBA superstars from teaming up in certain cities.

If one particular player makes that much of a difference to each individual team, they need to be spread out evenly thoughout the league.

Even more so than the NFL or NHL.

[MEDIC]

If the league has dropped its interest in creating a hard cap with a franchise player tag type system, then the NBPA's original proposal of allowing non-playoff teams to have multiple first round draft picks sounds better than nothing.

At least they get additional assets for development/ trade, etc.

I would want to see more draft rounds & a proper farm system implemented in conjunction with this.

[Fairview4Life]

^^
That "expert" doesn't realize that since NBA players make more than ever now (although some BRI calcs say they make the same), the latest trend is for players to demand to play with other star players. The actual location probably doesn't matter as much, but you can be sure Toronto isn't near the top.

Maybe we need another decade of players calling the shots so this expert can have more raw data to play with.

The "expert" presumably did some regression analysis on win % and payroll, and found little correlation. Since the study wasn't actually linked there, you can go ahead and try that out on your own if you don't believe his statement.

What does regression analysis have to do with the latest trend of players wanting to gang up on their chosen team?

What does that trend have to do with win % vs. payroll, which is what the expert was looking into?

[J-Roc]

What does that trend have to do with win % vs. payroll, which is what the expert was looking into?

The new trend is for players to demand where they want to play. They'll only demand to play for a team where they know ownership will go into lux tax. Word gets out and that team clears the decks as necessary to get the stars...not too hard in the current system. Once a few great players are on that team, that team then heads into the lux tax (payroll) and wins a bunch (win %).

The difference before is a rich team like the Knicks wasted their efforts on whoever was available at the time (Jalen Rose, lol). But they now know those days are over. They know they just have to hold the line and the right players will come. Chris Paul is next.

[roundhead0]

If teams had the money to afford either option, and they had the option of having a $100M payroll or a $65M payroll, then without knowing anything else about those teams which one would you expect to have a better record, a better chance to make the playoffs, a better chance to make a deep playoff run, a better chance of making it to or winning the finals?

If you were a GM, which cap would you prefer?

I think it's obvious: the higher cap would be the preferred one and the one believed more likely to win. Sure, a team with a lower cap might be stocked with some good young players, but generally speaking good players cost more. I would like to see what happens to the analysis if you were to remove odd outliers, like the bizarro things that the Knicks were doing that (presumably) no one will ever do again. I also wonder if the analysis looked at things like the effect of rookie contracts on short term competitiveness that is lost as players move off the rookie scale and some have to be moved, sort of like how you always see in baseball as players on not-have teams keep getting traded just as they start getting good and would receive a big payday.

I also worry about the trend by contenders to no longer settle for Batman and Robin, but to get have Batgirl (or Alfred if you prefer) there as well to make a strong trio the way the Celtics, Heat, and Lakers (to some extent) have done, and the way the Magic also tried to do with Howard, Lewis, and Carter. Had Carter and Lewis performed anywhere even close to where they could have, or if Otis Smith finds decent value in different players at those salary levels, the Magic could have been a powerhouse.

[knickerbocker2k2]

As others stated you will not have parity because of the power of one player. If parity is your goal, salary cap is not the way to go. Instead it would be to make it more difficult for players to leave the team that drafts them. So for instance allow the team with player rights to offer more money/years (get rid of sign/trade). You can also compensate the lose of player through draft picks.

However what hard cap does is make the teams with top tier talent more powerful. What would happen is that every team will have one marque player. So Lakers won't have Kobe/Gasol/Bynum, but Kobe will go against teams with only one superstar as well. So it will be Kobe vs another go to guy. Since Kobe/Bynum will both be top tier talent/and paid as such, it gives teams with the true superstar advantage. For instance assume Cleveland has Lebron who is paid max ($15M). Toronto top guy is Bosh also making ($15M). Now both are consuming the same amount in salary, however their true worth is not reflected in this. You could say Lebron is twice the talent of Bosh.

The current system has this problem, however with the hard cap, you have less room to fill out your roster, so it makes this problem even worse.

[MEDIC]

If teams had the money to afford either option, and they had the option of having a $100M payroll or a $65M payroll, then without knowing anything else about those teams which one would you expect to have a better record, a better chance to make the playoffs, a better chance to make a deep playoff run, a better chance of making it to or winning the finals?

If you were a GM, which cap would you prefer?

I think the World Championship Blue Jays & the Yankees over the last decade can answer that question accurately.

I also worry about the trend by contenders to no longer settle for Batman and Robin, but to get have Batgirl (or Alfred if you prefer) there as well to make a strong trio the way the Celtics, Heat, and Lakers (to some extent) have done.

I agree. The NBA has become much too predictable. I'd much rather have a league where any given season, a team like Minnesota or Milwaukee could come out of the woodwork & push for a championship.

In order to do that, not only does the salary system need to be revised, but there also needs to be major rule changes & officiating changes.

[PerfectJab]

If teams had the money to afford either option, and they had the option of having a $100M payroll or a $65M payroll, then without knowing anything else about those teams which one would you expect to have a better record, a better chance to make the playoffs, a better chance to make a deep playoff run, a better chance of making it to or winning the finals?

If you were a GM, which cap would you prefer?

I think the World Championship Blue Jays & the Yankees over the last decade can answer that question accurately.

To add to this, the situation in basketball is worst. In baseball you are dealing with many players to make a team competitive while in baskeball you really need just 1 or 2 key pieces with a bunch of scrubs to make your team competitive.

I think the owners are more concerned with protecting their assets than anything else. They can't control where the players want to go but can make it harder. So in essence, the BRI is all about the money while the cap and MLE is about the assets.