DanTown8587 wrote:when players take drastically less, they create a system that is unfair to the rest of the league because it creates a situation unique to the player and the team he's going to. In a system with max contracts, players at the top make the same. If Chris Paul in July goes to say the Spurs for five million dollars so that they can sign Gordon Hayward, that's a deal that Paul ONLY gives to the Spurs to create a team outside of the "normal" range in how teams spend money and the talent they can acquire. The Spurs don't have the cap space to sign Paul and Hayward to fair market deals so if one of them accepts drastically less, that's unfair to the rest of the league. If the Spurs sign Paul and Hayward to max deals, they have to make moves either with lack of depth or pay massive luxury taxes; players taking less allows the benefit of a player's talent with the negatives of his salary taking up cap space. THATS an unfair advantage; LeBron James or Kevin Durant being exceptionally good at basketball isn't unfair.
This is such a tenuous argument. You act like a team like the Timberwolves ha an equal chance at free agents as a team like the Lakers. There's "unfairness" littered throughout the league. Why do you stop the buck at a player freely choosing to accept less money to play with who he wants? As you keep saying, it's not up to the players to make a balanced league.
Does Durant joining a 73 win team not throw off competitive balance? Does LeBron joining 2 other top 10 players not throw off competitive balance?
The same James-led team that lost two finals and was a missed FT away from winning one and might not have even won the 2012 Finals if Jeff Green didn't have surgery?
And the same Warriors team that LOST the Finals?
You are literally in another thread right now arguing that this year's Warriors would beat the dynasty Bulls. Pick a lane.
What would you have the Heat and Warriors do, not try and sign them? Tell those players they can't play with other stars?
No, I'm against saying that it falls on players and organizations to create balance. You're basically saying that teams and players should basically be restricted at some level from signing players of a certain level to a fair deal; that being either supremely good at basketball or supremely talented at roster construction should somehow punish you.
I'll say this one last time. No one is arguing that teams shouldn't be able to sign star players. No one is even saying that players should be barred from going where they want. This argument has been about whether a player's legacy should be affected if he chooses to go play with other star players (who were once rivals) and form a team that is the odd-on favorite to win the title.
Stop constantly shifting the debate.
You mean the hypothetical "what if the owners decide they don't like money"? It's beyond ridiculous to even comment because it's an impossible scenario that would never happen, ever.
First, the point of the hypothetical is not to provide a realistic scenario, it's to prove the fallacy in your "logic."
Second, there is only one answer to my hypothetical, and you are refusing to provide that answer because you know it hurts, if not refutes, your stance. The answer to the hypothetical is simple: Yes, if the 10 best players in the world decided to join one team in a no-cap league, their inevitable championship would not be revered on the same level as other championships. Not even close.
next year as a result.
