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

[Sark]

Why would the NBA want to get rid of super teams anyway? Super teams is how the league makes most of its money.

[celticfan42487]

An franchise tag. And players can be tag year after year after year. One tag per team. Done.

[Bulls Heero 81]

Agenda, good discussion. Have you seen the reported penalties of the new luxury tax? I don't think we will see those 85 - 100 million payrolls we have seen in the past. I think LA and other teams will take the hit that one year or two and restructure. The only owner who won't care is the new Nets owner. That is why we saw all those sign and trade deals go down before the new CBA kicked in, because those teams will lose flexibility moving forward. LA can't get Howard and Nash in the new CBA. Also, large bad contracts on those teams will become harder to move as time goes on.

Boston already had Pierce and got lucky with Rondo and Perkins. They traded a bunch of good assets (at the time) to acquire Allen and Garnett. It took several years to acquire those assets.

Miami, again is an anomaly developed under the old CBA. You can in theory try to do what they did, however the chances are slim to none. So many things have to go right for this to work. You need 5 guys who are willing to give up money in the same FA year. Also, you need to have a team that can accommodate all of them. Wade and Haslem have strong ties to that team and Miller/ Haslem signed due to each other willing to commit to the Heat (Florida teammates). James, Maverick Carter and Miller are good friends as well. So that played a factor. Also, Riley still has to maneuver and create max cap space in the right year while staying competitive (two play off appearances) to avoid alienating its star player (Wade). Players' careers are short and they have to get as much money as they can before retirement. Most players no matter what kind of endorsements they get don't turn down money.

We saw it this past off season and last season. Anthony didn't want to be a free agent, he wanted to force a trade for max money. Everyone thought CP3 was going to take a pay cut to become a free agent and join NY and be with his friend Anthony, but Paul wanted max money too. Just recently, Howard wanted to be traded so he could get last year and everyone thought he was walking to Brooklyn and join Williams, didn't happen.

Remember the 1 to 1 tax made it much easier for Arison to swallow in the old CBA when he signed the big three, but that is going to change. He owns a mid market team with a fanbase that is very lukewarm and a has a very basic local TV deal. Even he recently admitted his team isn't LA or NY that can cover massive losses every year. Remember he is a hobby owner.

I don't know why you fear something that hasn't even happened yet. If a business run (not hobby run) LA team has a 100 million dollar payroll for the next 6 years and can still make the same profit margin as before while dominating, then sure complain away. Even then they are still restricted as a tax paying team and young star players lose leverage as they can no longer acquire them. They would only be able get a star player by being bad and getting lucky or making a trade while they are not a tax paying team. Even if they sign a player with cap space they still have to worry about the apron. The 74 million apron in many ways is becoming the unofficial had cap.

[Sark]

An franchise tag. And players can be tag year after year after year. One tag per team. Done.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that athletes have to be allowed to eventually become free agents.

[Boneman2]

A new c.b.a. isn't going to matter at this point, now that all the super stars have already alligned in a few select markets, the damage is done.

Seriously, LA sports Kobe, CP3, Pau, Howard, Nash, and Griffin, and only one of the above was actually drafted into that market. The NBA has major flaws like baseball.

Ultimately, the league has got to stop initiating bailouts every few seasons. It gives owners a false sense of security and then they end up overpaying again and again.

[Bulls Heero 81]

An franchise tag. And players can be tag year after year after year. One tag per team. Done.

They already have that. Teams can now control a player for 9 years (average career is 4.8 years). What more do you want? Eliminate free agency?

[yaaar]

A new c.b.a. isn't going to matter at this point, now that all the super stars have already alligned in a few select markets, the damage is done.

Seriously, LA sports Kobe, CP3, Pau, Howard, Nash, and Griffin, and only one of the above was actually drafted into that market. The NBA has major flaws like baseball.

Ultimately, the league has got to stop initiating bailouts every few seasons. It gives owners a false sense of security and then they end up overpaying again and again.

How is that a major flaw unless you accept that every team has to suck at some point and get lucky in the draft. It's sad how the system makes fans actually crave and advocate failure. If a team does well and doesn't suck, trading is the only way for them to get better. The draft lottery is meant as protection for bottom dwelling teams to get back up, not a perfunctory part of the system that every team is supposed to take their turn in. Teams shouldn't be happy to take handouts and cover their losses from franchises that do better. Fans shouldn't be asking their teams to tank just because they're not one of the favorites to win it all. The "treadmill" shouldn't be looked on as stupid of shameful because at least they're trying. The real losers are the ones that put together crap teams on purpose so they can get draft picks, throwing up their hands saying "what else can we do?"

So tell me again why the system is broken? Because of trades?

[Sark]

A new c.b.a. isn't going to matter at this point, now that all the super stars have already alligned in a few select markets, the damage is done.

Seriously, LA sports Kobe, CP3, Pau, Howard, Nash, and Griffin, and only one of the above was actually drafted into that market. The NBA has major flaws like baseball.

Ultimately, the league has got to stop initiating bailouts every few seasons. It gives owners a false sense of security and then they end up overpaying again and again.

Every one of them was traded to LA except for Blake. Blame the dumb ass teams that trade their stars to LA, not the CBA. CP3, Dwight, and Nash could have all easily been traded elsewhere.

[Don Draper]

I'm saddened that 107 people have been successfully tricked into believing a hard cap is what creates competitive balance.

And for you guys attempting to drag baseball thru the mud answer me this: When is the last time the MLB had a work stoppage?

[Agenda42]

Agenda, good discussion. Have you seen the reported penalties of the new luxury tax? I don't think we will see those 85 - 100 million payrolls we have seen in the past. I think LA and other teams will take the hit that one year or two and restructure. The only owner who won't care is the new Nets owner. That is why we saw all those sign and trade deals go down before the new CBA kicked in, because those teams will lose flexibility moving forward. LA can't get Howard and Nash in the new CBA. Also, large bad contracts on those teams will become harder to move as time goes on.

I think LA and other teams will periodically step out of the tax for a year to reload. I think $100M is probably not happening, but it doesn't need to happen with the lower max contract size.

LA can get Howard, as it wasn't a sign and trade, but they would have to alter the timing on their Nash acquisition to the previous deadline. I don't think that will really be a problem, now that we're seeing players would prefer to not extend their contracts anyway; the big market teams will get their stars by trading for expiring players that want to re-up with them, while small market teams can't make the same move because those players will just be rentals.

I think it's quite easy for the Lakers to avoid bad contracts, because superstars keep lining up to sign with them. The only big market team that seems to have a thing for impatiently acquiring bad contracts is the Knicks, and that's the one thing keeping them from contending in the past decade really.

Boston already had Pierce and got lucky with Rondo and Perkins. They traded a bunch of good assets (at the time) to acquire Allen and Garnett. It took several years to acquire those assets.

Sure, the Celtics traded some assets to get their big 3. It is trivially obvious to show that what they got was better than what they gave, and equally easy to show that they were able to lure those superstars because they were a big market and their small market teams didn't expect to be able to resign them.

About 24 out of 30 NBA teams cannot build a team the way Boston did, no matter how many trade assets they have available.

Miami, again is an anomaly developed under the old CBA. You can in theory try to do what they did, however the chances are slim to none.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't think most players will leave money on the table, but I also don't think that what Miami did is possible for about 24 NBA franchises, nor is it possible to compete with them for those 24 franchises.

I think that with the smaller max contract, the plan of being a desirable market with lots of available cap space means that the Heat plan not only can, but will succeed again. The next Heat won't even need to take less money, because the max contract starts at just 25% of the cap.

I don't know why you fear something that hasn't even happened yet. If a business run (not hobby run) LA team has a 100 million dollar payroll for the next 6 years and can still make the same profit margin as before while dominating, then sure complain away. Even then they are still restricted as a tax paying team and young star players lose leverage as they can no longer acquire them. They would only be able get a star player by being bad and getting lucky or making a trade while they are not a tax paying team. Even if they sign a player with cap space they still have to worry about the apron. The 74 million apron in many ways is becoming the unofficial had cap.

I think you're putting way too much faith in the new CBA's 2013 provisions. You can't make a sign and trade as a taxpayer anymore, but players want to do what Howard is doing anyway so they can get an extra year on their contract. Trading for an expiring superstar will be the new sign and trade, and it won't result in improved prospects for the team losing the superstar.

The new luxury tax just happens to kick in at the same time as the Lakers shiny new TV deal, and even if they are perennially in the repeater tax, they'll still be more profitable than they were before that deal was signed. It'll probably affect Chicago, but not either of the NY teams, the Lakers, and probably not the Celtics.

[Bulls Heero 81]

Agenda, why do you consider Miami to be this big bad market like LA/ NY/ CHI, it's not. No one cared about this franchise a few years back. Now it's just a "right now" glamor market, even Lamar Odom didn't resign there after being traded away. I really don't remember any big free agent going there before James and Bosh. This reminds me of how Orlando was the glamor market a decade ago when they tried to sign a big 3 themselves (first to try this). There really aren't many "bad" places to play in. The NBA is consisted of large and mid market teams. I think if Golden State management and ownership gets its act together, they can become a glamor market and be the big market it should be for players, they are moving to San Fransisco. Who wouldn't want to play there?

Could a Miami type team be formed again in the new CBA? Sure, but any team built this way will be far from perfect and difficult to build. Still, they have to make that initial pay cut to fit under the cap to make it work and those secondary players still have to take less. Only 6 teams? I think you are suggesting (LAL/ LAC/ NY/ Brooklyn/ Chicago/ Miami) are the only franchises that could do this? I disagree. Put Arison/Riley/ Wade on GS/HOU/Dallas/ Atlanta/ Orlando/ BOS/ PHI/ PHX/SAC/WAS and they could get players to come. If you want to say MIN/CLE/UTA fine, but don't say only 6 teams. Most of these places either are large markets or have great weather, etc.

We can look back at Boston now and say they gave up nothing, but at the time many of those prospects and picks were "great" assets for an aging player who hadn't won anything yet. Remember, MINN doesn't have to trade him to BOS. This was a deal done with Ainge and McHale. The owner doesn't have to agree to this. This is more of a friend helping a friend trade, nothing in the CBA could prevent that.

Who is signing with the Lakers? Most of these big names guys were traded there. No owner or GM has to agree to send them there. LA had no real leverage in either the Nash or Howard trades since they couldn't sign there outright. Phoenix and Orlando don't have to do anything here. And I can't complain about the Howard trade since they gave up fair value for in Bynum, it's not like they gave away Kwame Brown.

Trading away an expiring contract of a bad player for a superstar probably won't happen moving forward because there is no incentive to do so for the team losing its best player. Capped out teams paying luxury taxes have real no room to operate and make moves. If more max players are willing to lose the last guaranteed year of the contract and walk, maybe there is something to this. But to date, only two players were willing to do it.

No matter what CBA is implemented, it can't account for bad owners and management. Orlando could have bottomed out while staying around the minimum salary line and let Dwight walk. Phoenix could let Nash walk and move on. The teams own the player for four or more years, they still have the power to trade the player whenever it wishes to for whatever compensation it can generate. Do some franchises have it tougher than others? Sure, but that's life. Nothing is ever equal. It's too early to judge the new CBA yet. Let's go back to this in 5 years.

[Ditchweed]

I'm saddened that 107 people have been successfully tricked into believing a hard cap is what creates competitive balance.

What is it that does create competitive balance?

[DanTown8587]

I'm saddened that 107 people have been successfully tricked into believing a hard cap is what creates competitive balance.

What is it that does create competitive balance?

If you make a hard cap, you don't make bad front offices smart. You don't make GMs stop drafting bad players. If you make a hard cap, LeBron James is still the best player and will win more games than a team whose best player is Danny Granger.

And what's to stop LeBron James from taking 25 million in say NY over 30 million in Cleveland? So now the Knicks have MORE money to build a team around James than Cleveland does. The Hard Cap would actually make it wiser for the cream of the NBA to go to major markets because they'll make similar money at the end of the day when you compare salary and endorsements, except the team in the major market has more money to build a team than the team in Cleveland.

[Pimpwerx]

This stupidity is still around after the owners pretty much made a mockery of this argument? Put this **** to bed already. Hard cap won't fly, and more importantly, OWNERS DON'T CARE ABOUT COMPETITIVE BALANCE. Get over the superteams already. If your team isn't one, tough f-ing nuts. Deal wit it. PEACE.

[Don Draper]

I'm saddened that 107 people have been successfully tricked into believing a hard cap is what creates competitive balance.

What is it that does create competitive balance?

Simple. The rules of the game.

[Ditchweed]

I'm saddened that 107 people have been successfully tricked into believing a hard cap is what creates competitive balance.

What is it that does create competitive balance?

Simple. The rules of the game.

OK. What rule changes could they bring in to create competitive balance?

Keep in mind that this is a theoretical question, we know that the real purpose of the league is to make the owners more money.

[Agenda42]

Agenda, why do you consider Miami to be this big bad market like LA/ NY/ CHI, it's not. No one cared about this franchise a few years back. Now it's just a "right now" glamor market, even Lamar Odom didn't resign there after being traded away. I really don't remember any big free agent going there before James and Bosh.

Shaq to Miami was not a free agent transaction, but it turns out that very few superstars actually move in free agency. It was a good example of the Heat gaining a competitive advantage as a result of being located in Miami. I don't view Miami as a big market, I view it as a glamour market that is likely to have a sustainable competitive advantage in the new structure of the league.

Miami wasn't interesting in previous eras because players didn't move the way they do now. Players have never had more control over what city they play in than they do today.

Could a Miami type team be formed again in the new CBA? Sure, but any team built this way will be far from perfect and difficult to build. Still, they have to make that initial pay cut to fit under the cap to make it work and those secondary players still have to take less. Only 6 teams? I think you are suggesting (LAL/ LAC/ NY/ Brooklyn/ Chicago/ Miami) are the only franchises that could do this? I disagree. Put Arison/Riley/ Wade on GS/HOU/Dallas/ Atlanta/ Orlando/ BOS/ PHI/ PHX/SAC/WAS and they could get players to come. If you want to say MIN/CLE/UTA fine, but don't say only 6 teams. Most of these places either are large markets or have great weather, etc.

The 6 teams I had in mind are LAL, LAC, NY, Brooklyn, Chicago, Boston. I don't think players will have to take a pay cut in the future to form a new Big 3, because their max contracts will only add up to 75% of the cap.

I think that about half the league has no shot in a NBA defined by attracting superstars from other teams to your own: Toronto, Indiana, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, Washington, Charlotte, Memphis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Denver, Utah, Portland, Minnesota, Phoenix, Sacramento.

The reason I think the remaining teams aren't likely to get it done is that you don't just need the ability to lure 3 max players to your team, you also need the financial ability to fill out your roster with MLE guys around those players. For example, I certainly think Marc Cuban could get players to come play for him, but it's also clear that he thinks he can't run an $85M payroll anymore.

We can look back at Boston now and say they gave up nothing, but at the time many of those prospects and picks were "great" assets for an aging player who hadn't won anything yet. Remember, MINN doesn't have to trade him to BOS. This was a deal done with Ainge and McHale. The owner doesn't have to agree to this. This is more of a friend helping a friend trade, nothing in the CBA could prevent that.

The ability to trade good assets for superstar players is available only to a select few franchises. The Celtics got that trade done because they had trade assets, but also because they are the Celtics.

No matter what CBA is implemented, it can't account for bad owners and management.

The problem with this line of thinking is that there will always be bad owners and bad management somewhere. What you're effectively saying is that well-run teams like Utah and Denver can only contend if poorly run teams stop existing, because the superstar players that leave those poorly run teams always end up in the same few cities.

[DiscoLives4ever]

I'm saddened that 107 people have been successfully tricked into believing a hard cap is what creates competitive balance.

What is it that does create competitive balance?

If you make a hard cap, you don't make bad front offices smart. You don't make GMs stop drafting bad players. If you make a hard cap, LeBron James is still the best player and will win more games than a team whose best player is Danny Granger.

And what's to stop LeBron James from taking 25 million in say NY over 30 million in Cleveland? So now the Knicks have MORE money to build a team around James than Cleveland does. The Hard Cap would actually make it wiser for the cream of the NBA to go to major markets because they'll make similar money at the end of the day when you compare salary and endorsements, except the team in the major market has more money to build a team than the team in Cleveland.

I see this argument a lot, but I think a great case study is Utah Jazz vs LA Lakers for the last dozen years. One team has a handful of rings, the other hasn't even made the Finals. Is this because LA has 5-rings worth of better front office management? The best player for LA in that time span that they drafted was Andrew Bynum, who is comparable to Deron Williams drafted by the Jazz. Every other move LA has made to out-compete Utah has been accomplished by players pushing to go there because of market and being able to pay at times when Utah couldn't.

Nobody is claiming the system should reward bad management, just that players should have to choose between a stacked team and money so that the playing field is a bit more level.

[Pimpwerx]

Agenda, why do you consider Miami to be this big bad market like LA/ NY/ CHI, it's not. No one cared about this franchise a few years back. Now it's just a "right now" glamor market, even Lamar Odom didn't resign there after being traded away. I really don't remember any big free agent going there before James and Bosh.

Shaq to Miami was not a free agent transaction, but it turns out that very few superstars actually move in free agency. It was a good example of the Heat gaining a competitive advantage as a result of being located in Miami. I don't view Miami as a big market, I view it as a glamour market that is likely to have a sustainable competitive advantage in the new structure of the league.

Miami wasn't interesting in previous eras because players didn't move the way they do now. Players have never had more control over what city they play in than they do today.

You're wrong. Tons of athletes have homes in Miami where they vaca in the offseason. If Miami was some hot spot to play, then we would have leverage in other sports too. We don't. It's Pat Riley and Micky Arison just doing a great job. Yeah, it's nice living here, but most athletes don't seem to give 2 **** about that when considering where to play. Otherwise, all our sports teams would be boss like the Heat. PEACE.

[Agenda42]

You're wrong. Tons of athletes have homes in Miami where they vaca in the offseason. If Miami was some hot spot to play, then we would have leverage in other sports too. We don't. It's Pat Riley and Micky Arison just doing a great job. Yeah, it's nice living here, but most athletes don't seem to give 2 **** about that when considering where to play. Otherwise, all our sports teams would be boss like the Heat. PEACE.

Certainly it's not only about the location. That front office is fantastic. That said, I'm pretty sure the Milwaukee Heat would not have LeBron if the same fantastic organization were located there.

It's interesting to ask why the glamour factor isn't such a big story in other sports as it is in basketball. My best guess is that it's because only the NBA has a system where star players make the same money everywhere. I think that the Marlins don't get big name free agents because they don't offer the same money as the Yankees, Red Sox, or Angels, basically.