"Only way to avoid 'super teams' is to impose a hard cap."

EnigmaticProblem · Post #81 » by **EnigmaticProblem** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:19 pm

All of this "super teams" and "parity" drivel is nonsensical. The major predicament here is poor front office management. Take the Raptors, for example. The Raptors have made horrible moves upon horrible moves, for years, which has a compounding effect. From the atrocious contract they gave to Kapono, to the atrocious trade for Jermaine O'Neal (which involved trading the #17 pick [Hibbert] to Indiana), to trading Jermaine O'Neal to the Heat for cap space (Shawn Marion), to wasting that cap space on Hedo Turkoglu. This is an unfortunate pattern. Their latest cap space squandering endeavors include Linas Kleiza, and Landry Fields. Kyle Lowry is an absolute bargain, but, Colangelo goes and fugggs that up with the Fields signing. I can take 10-15 other franchises, and do the same for them.

I believe, if there were some sort of fantasy draft tomorrow, it would even the playing field, for about a year or two, but the teams with poor front office management would inevitably wind up exactly where they are now. The collective bargaining agreement needs minor tweaking to marginalize big-market - small-market parity. You don't want to "punish" teams for their location, or the fan base. That's what you get for purchasing a team in a major market, right? What you want to do is marginalize other tangents. For example, one idea I've seen floating around that I thought was brilliant is. . . Only non-playoff teams get selections in the first round; this will undoubtedly accelerate "rebuilding". I also disagree with the whole differentiation between the MLE, and the MMLE. I believe luxury-tax-paying teams should be restricted from both the MLE, and MMLE, and should be limited to veteran's minimums/minimum salary exceptions. This would disallow "super teams" /big-market powerhouses from hastily adding quality talent. So, Miami's big-three wouldn't have been able to add Mike Miller, Shane Battier, and Ray Allen. I doubt any of those players sign for the minimums. Sign and trades should also be subject to deterring trade kickers. These are just some changes I would make. . .

At the end of the day, all of this "parity" is attributed to atrocious front office management. Just look at the Knicks, or the Bulls. These are massive markets, yet, they faced decades of derision.

gamer4Life · Post #82 » by **gamer4Life** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:19 pm

Bad question. The question should be rephrased as,

Can a hard cap prevent the formation of "super teams"?

(No)

Agenda42 · Post #83 » by **Agenda42** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:19 pm

followwind wrote:It doesn't matter what system you put in.

A team with inept management and cheap ownership will not be able to do anything good. The whole blaming the players for wanting to leave because the team can't build correctly around the guy and blaming the system for teams failure is obsurb.

Certainly I agree with this.

On the flip side, though, I'm bothered by the fate of teams like the Jazz. They're consistently well run and make tons of good personnel decisions, but they can't seriously contend because they are never on any star player's list of teams to play for.

Geaux_Hawks · Post #84 » by **Geaux_Hawks** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:25 pm

Agenda42 wrote:
followwind wrote:It doesn't matter what system you put in.

A team with inept management and cheap ownership will not be able to do anything good. The whole blaming the players for wanting to leave because the team can't build correctly around the guy and blaming the system for teams failure is obsurb.

Certainly I agree with this.

On the flip side, though, I'm bothered by the fate of teams like the Jazz. They're consistently well run and make tons of good personnel decisions, but they can't seriously contend because they are never on any star player's list of teams to play for.

They have young talent. No need for star players via free agency. Once they establish themselves with Favors, Kanter, Heyward, etc.. they can then consolidate and make moves from there.

followwind · Post #85 » by **followwind** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:28 pm

Agenda42 wrote:
followwind wrote:It doesn't matter what system you put in.

A team with inept management and cheap ownership will not be able to do anything good. The whole blaming the players for wanting to leave because the team can't build correctly around the guy and blaming the system for teams failure is obsurb.

Certainly I agree with this.

On the flip side, though, I'm bothered by the fate of teams like the Jazz. They're consistently well run and make tons of good personnel decisions, but they can't seriously contend because they are never on any star player's list of teams to play for.

When was the last time the Jazz shelled out max money in FA market? In fact, when was the last time they were in Lux tax threshold?

And how about the Spurs? They are consistently well run and make good decisions too, and they have won championships.

There are a lot of factors that will result in team success. Having a good management only the treadstone of a successful team, but that doesn't mean they will always compete. Lucked out in a draft will get them back on track too.

DanTown8587 · Post #86 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:41 pm

By the way, this thread is great. There is no priority on the team that has star players leaving to make moves to keep them there. LeBron is probably the only guy who left a title contender and when he did, he clearly upgraded.

the_warden · Post #87 » by **the_warden** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:13 pm

Agenda42 wrote:Oh, sorry, I should have reported that. NBA regular season ratings are down 15%, and NBA non-Finals playoffs ratings are down 35%, relative to 10 years ago.

2006 was the low water mark, with just a 2.2 share on ABC. 1996 was the high water mark, with a 5.0 share on NBC. Ratings have recovered some since 2006, but the decline in ratings is the main reason NBC dropped the NBA from its program lineup.

you cannot just use ratings from 10 years ago and act like that proves anything

the ratings for *everything* are down relative to 10 years ago. why? because there are 8 bagillion channels to choose from. you cannot use 10 year old ratings to try to make your point about how this doesn't attract the casual fan (especially when you basically admit that ratings are up in recent years)

the_prophet · Post #88 » by **the_prophet** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:56 pm

Some guys here are so stupid. You can't blame the Lakers for playing in LA, owners buy the team knowing that the team is in memphis or utah.
And you can't help the stupid GM's that in 7 years with LeBron for example couldnt put a decent player next to him.

Tai · Post #89 » by **Tai** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:21 am

I'm pretty baffled that someone would make this topic so soon after what the Magic allowed to happen. I understand that this topic wasn't necessarily made in reaction to the Dwight to LA trade, but for those who want a hard cap, you think another lockout's gonna fix that? :lol:

Catchall · Post #90 » by **Catchall** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:22 am

Star players who are in their prime aren't choosing teams to earn big salaries. Lots of teams can offer big salaries. The big-name players (and their agents) are also choosing teams and competing to win for the sake of fame and reputation. Lebron could have made as much or more money staying in Cleveland. Dwight could get plenty paid in Orlando. But if a player really wants to play on a stacked team, he'll take a bit less money to do so, like Miami's Big 3 did.

Sure, a hard cap will help prevent teams like the Lakers from outspending other teams 2:1, but to prevent super teams, you'd need to combine a hard cap with a franchise tag. This is the elephant in the living room as far as I'm concerned. It seems that the NBA tacitly wants the big-name players to migrate to the big media markets when the players are in their prime. It makes for good television and probably better revenues. With the recent CBA, it also seems like the smaller-market teams are amenable to this strategy as long as they have a healthy share of the league revenues.

Keep in mind though that big markets by population include several cities: NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Boston, Houston, the SF Bay Area, Atlanta, Philly, etc. However, the national media centers are really NYC, LA and to a lesser extent Chicago. It helps the league, I guess, if teams in NY and LA are competitive and can manufacture interest for the casual fan. That doesn't mean these teams need to win the title and dominate the league though.

I think David Stern would be just as happy if Dwight ended up with Chris Paul and Blake Griffin.

Catchall · Post #91 » by **Catchall** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:28 am

followwind wrote:
Agenda42 wrote:
followwind wrote:It doesn't matter what system you put in.

A team with inept management and cheap ownership will not be able to do anything good. The whole blaming the players for wanting to leave because the team can't build correctly around the guy and blaming the system for teams failure is obsurb.

Certainly I agree with this.

On the flip side, though, I'm bothered by the fate of teams like the Jazz. They're consistently well run and make tons of good personnel decisions, but they can't seriously contend because they are never on any star player's list of teams to play for.

When was the last time the Jazz shelled out max money in FA market? In fact, when was the last time they were in Lux tax threshold?

And how about the Spurs? They are consistently well run and make good decisions too, and they have won championships.

There are a lot of factors that will result in team success. Having a good management only the treadstone of a successful team, but that doesn't mean they will always compete. Lucked out in a draft will get them back on track too.

The Jazz maxed out AK, DWill, Boozer and "overpaid" at the time for Okur. They're willing to spend to be competitive. They're just not willing to spend like Dallas or LAL. Those Jazz teams were pretty good, but weren't good enough to beat the Lakers a few years ago. So the Jazz rebuilt.

Catchall · Post #92 » by **Catchall** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:30 am

Don't baseball fans say the same thing about the Yankees and Phillies that NBA fans say about the Lakers and Knicks? For most of the country, just celebrate wildly when the Lakers get beat.

Agenda42 · Post #93 » by **Agenda42** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:06 am

followwind wrote:When was the last time the Jazz shelled out max money in FA market? In fact, when was the last time they were in Lux tax threshold?

Well, you can't pay max money to superstars who don't want to play for you, but the Jazz were perfectly willing to sign big contracts with Kirilenko and Boozer. They would have maxed out Deron surely, only Deron was as unlikely to accept that offer as the other stars that Utah hasn't been able to sign.

Utah has been over or near the luxury tax threshold for most of the past decade. A payroll of $70M for them is par for the course, at least up to the point where Deron left.

followwind wrote:And how about the Spurs? They are consistently well run and make good decisions too, and they have won championships.

If you ask me, the story of the Spurs is more of a reason to despair than hope for the 20 or so teams in undesirable markets. Their success doesn't seem replicable in any realistic way.

I think it's also worth mentioning that none of the Spurs titles came against teams as good as the current Heat or Lakers teams.

followwind wrote:There are a lot of factors that will result in team success. Having a good management only the treadstone of a successful team, but that doesn't mean they will always compete. Lucked out in a draft will get them back on track too.

I'm not looking for the ability to always compete. That's pretty unrealistic. I'm looking for a world in which every franchise sometimes has a contender. I'm currently seeing a world in which 20 franchises have no shot to build anything as good as the Lakers or Heat currently have.

ImmortalD24 · Post #94 » by **ImmortalD24** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:14 am

Ah.. the good old days when the NBA had parity:

1949: Lakers
1950: Lakers
1952: Lakers
1953: Lakers
1954: Lakers
1957: Celtics
1959: Celtics
1960: Celtics
1961: Celtics
1962: Celtics
1963: Celtics
1964: Celtics
1965: Celtics
1966: Celtics
1968: Celtics
1969: Celtics

Tai · Post #95 » by **Tai** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:16 am

Agenda42 wrote:
If you ask me, the story of the Spurs is more of a reason to despair than hope for the 20 or so teams in undesirable markets. Their success doesn't seem replicable in any realistic way.

I think it's also worth mentioning that none of the Spurs titles came against teams as good as the current Heat or Lakers teams.

What team did the 2000-2002 Lakers face that was as good as what the current Heat and Lakers teams have faced?

Agenda42 wrote:I'm not looking for the ability to always compete. That's pretty unrealistic. I'm looking for a world in which every franchise sometimes has a contender. I'm currently seeing a world in which 20 franchises have no shot to build anything as good as the Lakers or Heat currently have.

Here's the thing, though; how can someone say the Lakers have it good just cause they're in LA when a team IN THE SAME FREAKING CITY ONLY NOW has become relevant thanks to getting CP3? Why did Kobe want to LEAVE THE LAKERS when they were sucking? The Clippers sucked before the front office couldn't give two craps. Kobe wanted out cause the Lakers management wasn't getting it done, or do you object to this? Lakers have a good front office, THEY HAVE A GOOD TEAM. Heat have a good front office, THEY HAVE A GOOD TEAM AND PEOPLE ARE FOOLED INTO THINKING THEY"RE A "BIG" MARKET. Knicks, on the other hand, have a bad front office, WHERE WERE THEY UNTIL THEY GOT MELO? And then people try to say "Omg Melo went to Knicks big markets get all the nice things in life". HOW MANY PLAYOFF SERIES HAVE THE KNICKS WON SINCE MELO CAME TO TOWN? Hell, how many playoff GAMES? And then, they let Lin go despite being over the cap cause of some "power play" shenanigan by the agent. What. Ever. Why do Knicks fan always talk about how the Celtics are old but expect something from Kidd, anyways?

Now you have the Magic bending the freak over for no reason. I repeat the question, how does a hard cap stop a dumb front office from making dumb transactions? TELL ME.

Asianiac_24 · Post #96 » by **Asianiac_24** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:51 am

Franchise Tag is the only realistic way I can think of that can avoid "super teams" IMO. The hard cap isn't going to stop the Lakers of the world to form super teams like we are seeing now.

dznutzz · Post #97 » by **dznutzz** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:13 am

i'm pretty sure established guys like wade, bron, and bosh would still take a paycut to play together.

EnigmaticProblem · Post #98 » by **EnigmaticProblem** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:14 am

Franchise tagging is ridiculous. I'd hate the idea of someone controlling where I'm able to work, and live.

It won't fix anything, though. You'll still have trouble attracting/keeping players to surround your "franchise" player. Sure, some teams'll luck into a LeBron James through the draft, and that MAY attract talent, but that'll just mean you have one more Oklahoma City/San Antonio. It won't solve your "parity"" issues, throughout.

I think my suggestions are very plausible and viable mechanisms.

OrlChamps2030 · Post #99 » by **OrlChamps2030** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:15 am

No you dont need hardcap, you could get rid of max conracts..think about'

max contracts are the reason there is super teams

Inigo_Montoya · Post #100 » by **Inigo_Montoya** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:23 am

EnigmaticProblem wrote:Franchise tagging is ridiculous. I'd hate the idea of someone controlling where I'm able to work, and live.

It won't fix anything, though. You'll still have trouble attracting/keeping players to surround your "franchise" player. Sure, some teams'll luck into a LeBron James through the draft, and that MAY attract talent, but that'll just mean you have one more Oklahoma City/San Antonio. It won't solve your "parity"" issues, throughout.

I think my suggestions are very plausible and viable mechanisms.

But that is standard practice for most jobs. You live where your boss tells you to. If they tell you to relocate, you do it. If they tell you to stay, you do it. If they tell you to work in Wyoming for the next 20 years, you do it. You can always quit if the location isn't agreeable to you. Same thing goes for NBA players. It isn't like these guys are barely scraping by, working minimum wage while being shuffled around the country.

Is hard cap the only way to avoid "super teams"?