Is Free Agency really a Good Thing?

[Puff]

This summer probably more than any, for me, has put into question whether of not free agency is a good thing.

I understand that the players have short careers and prior to free agency sometimes ended up with teams that they really did not want to be on and sometimes were underpaid. Free agency appears to have increased their earning power but has it? The reason that they are earning more than ever before is basically because of the enormous television contracts in place and on the horizon. The other main reason for increase earnings is because of the CBA. Why couldn't a system be devised to still compensate the players based on a percentage of basketball revenue, their individual performance and team results. The Lebron's and Durant's would still be able to earn what they deserve.

The big difference is that they would be tied to the team that drafted them and not able to hold their current team and fan base hostage. They could still request a trade but they would not be able to leave for nothing in return. Their current team could not low ball them due to parameters put into place based on performance.

I remember the days when it was not a constant revolving door year in year out. The players built up a great rapport with their fan base and were held in high esteem by all as long as they gave effort and did not do anything stupid off the court. It became your team and you became very close to all of your players whilw draft picks were your new blood. Their were no DECISIONS on ESPN. There were no league wide recruiting trips.

I no it has no chance in hell of ever changing back to the old days, but it is mighty frustrating watching the Bledsoe and Monroe crap go on. We traded for Bledsoe and gave him a chance to grow but in the end we might only have him for 40 games. This is not because it is good for anyone but him. The real loser is the fan base. That is you and me.

Lebron left Cleveland for Miami because it was good for him. Lebron left Miami for Cleveland because it was good for him. Stevenson left the Pacers, because it was good for him. Now I see where Curry might want to play in Charlotte when his contract is up in Golden State. Durant has mentioned going back to DC when his contract is up in OK City. Who is that really good for?

I'm done.

[Scutt]

Durant has mentioned going back to DC when his contract is up in OK City. Who is that really good for?

I think that would be great for Wizards fans, don't you?

[Marz11]

It's what you get when players are marketed and promoted as more important than teams. The process of free agency also isn't helped with the way the media reports these things.

The Spurs tried to teach the league a lesson last season that team is more important than individuals and unfortunately the NBA and its media has learnt nothing.

To the point that "experts" are predicting the Cavs to win the championship next season and OKC to finish ahead of the Spurs.

[DirtyDez]

[lilfishi22]

[SunsFanSSOL]

It mostly benefits the large market teams.

[JTrain]

[Revived]

It mostly benefits the large market teams.

This. It benefits large market teams and teams that have player who can call the city that the team resides in as "home".

Suns won't be signing a superstar FA anytime soon imo unless everything is else perfectly aligns. Even when we signed Nash, he wasn't exactly being courted by the Lakers, Knicks or Heat at the time.

Teams like PHX will just have to completely rely on the draft and then hope for a star player and then hope that the star player will stay with the franchise 8 years later when he becomes a UFA or else hope that the team wins a championship before that 8 years is up. Or they have to hope that someone who grew up here and has tied to Arizona or PHX wants to come back "home".

As of right now, Harden is about the only player that's even close to being a star who has ties to Arizona. I can't think of another top 50 player who has ties to PHX other than being drafted by them (Dragic).

So yea basically hope.

[SunsFanSSOL]

It mostly benefits the large market teams.

This. It benefits large market teams and teams that have player who can call the city that the team resides in as "home".

Suns won't be signing a superstar FA anytime soon imo unless everything is else perfectly aligns. Even when we signed Nash, he wasn't exactly being courted by the Lakers, Knicks or Heat at the time.

Teams like PHX will just have to completely rely on the draft and then hope for a star player and then hope that the star player will stay with the franchise 8 years later when he becomes a UFA or else hope that the team wins a championship before that 8 years is up. Or they have to hope that someone who grew up here and has tied to Arizona or PHX wants to come back "home".

As of right now, Harden is about the only player that's even close to being a star who has ties to Arizona. I can't think of another top 50 player who has ties to PHX other than being drafted by them (Dragic).

So yea basically hope.

Hopefully Frye pulls a Lebron and comes back in 4 years. #thereturn

[phrazbit]

I dont think there are enough knee jerk reactions going on in this thread.

Free agency might be rough sometimes as a fan, but to say it ONLY benefits a few teams is a crock. During the era before free agency we saw basically two teams winning the vast majority of NBA titles (Boston and LA). Free agency creates a league where savvy front offices are rewarded rather than the dumb luck of the draft system which can grant an incompetent team a star then keep them shackled by holding their rights perpetually. The Shaq era Lakers and the 2012 & 13 Miami Heat are the only franchises to win titles largely on the back of free agency. Most contenders are built though savvy cap maneuvering, trades and scouting.

And getting rid of free agency would be grossly unfair to the players. Sure, you could create a system where the stars get the big money they deserve, but it would be guys like Channing Frye, Goran Dragic, Isaiah Thomas, ect ect, those mid-tier free agents would get utterly screwed without free agency. After being traded by the Suns, Goran Dragic would have been trapped on the Rockets, viewed as a role player and making beans. The Suns only got him because they offered more money than the Rockets were willing to pay... obviously those situations never exist in a world without free agency. Only the obvious max guys would get what they're obviously worth. Everyone else gets the shaft.

[Frank Lee]

Tom Chambers.... the first 'Free Agent"

[drewsprocket]

I think that we are experiencing a drought talent wise for star players in this league. And I don't think Free Agency is exactly helping to spread the wealth either...Often is concentrates talent and enables marginal star players to still get paid.

There don't seem to be enough skillful teams either for that matter. Our Star-centric sport swings wild between being a single (some cases a big 3) player oriented offense to playing a well rounded system which produces success (Spurs, Memphis, Blazers). The Spurs are a team which relies so much on its system anchored by fading star players and compatible surrounded talent. The worst teams seem to have marginal talent of ill fitted players without a matching or adaptable system. Last year, the Suns found some symbiosis between its players and its system but lacked in health and interior D.

The NBA schedule may be in part to blame. As much as I love a lengthy season, I'm beginning to believe that it'd be helpful to reduce the number of games played and back to backs altogether. What's the use when one of the biggest issue come playoff time is whether your stars have enough gas left in the tank.