Is the new system anti-competitive-balance?
by MR on Dec 10, 2011 6:55 PM EST
Email
PrintSomeone check my math here, because I think the new NBA has just struck a blow for the superteams.
We've got the amnesty clause, in which teams will jetison decent but drastically overpaid players like Arenas, Rip, Elton Brand, Billups etc. Doesn't that mean that Miami, Boston, Dallas, LA, NY etc are going to get some decent talent for pennies on the dollar?
Plus those teams who are jacked up to the limit on salaries are going to have an out to clear room (like Mike Miller).
Doesn't this just help the superteams get more super?
This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.
40 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Amnestied players can only be auctioned to teams under the cap.
The problem is that guys like Billups and Arenas already said they don’t wanna cooperate if they get auctioned and want to control their own destiny.
Thát’s the real problem: players want to control their own destiny.
Lebron and Bosh at least went through FA but Carmelo strong armed the Nuggets and now CP3 is doing the same to the Hornets. Howard want’s to play with CP3 and Kobe or with Derron Williams and the Magic are just going to have to deal with it.
This is an alarming trend. The NBA has always been a players league and will always be. You basically have to get lucky in the draft and be smart the rest of the way. Smaller markets like Sacremento and Indiana and good markets that aren’t marque NBA markets like Washington and Toronto are not as attractive as LA or NY and never will be. Those markets always have had trouble to sign top FA’s to surround their drafted star with. Nowadays, however, the drafted stars themselves want to flee their teams to form super teams and they strong arm their original teams to control their own destiny.
Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back!
David Aldridge
That is scary indeed in the NBA.
We have to see how the next generation of NBA players with respect to their first teams and how loyal they are before we make conclusions on this CBA. In principle, assuming players still want to go to where the money is, this new system should even out talent to some degree. It won’t be to the extent of the NFL, but it should make the 8 man cores more even. However, this generation of players wants to go to the same teams to create superteams.
In the next CBA if this trend continues with superteams and players trying to choose their destinies like this, maybe the NBA should propose folding every team except the Lakers, Clippers, Knicks, Nets, Bulls, Celtics, Heat (if it’s still desirable), and the Mavericks. This would be made up of all glamour teams and/or the biggest market franchises. Let’s see how the NBPA reacts to that.
what are dwight and cp3 doing that is so bad?
what did ’melo do that was so wrong? Would it be better if they kept quiet until the moment they became FAs then told their teams “thanks but no thanks”? The teams dont have to make these trades, they do it because the player has told them they are leaving after their contract is up. I cant figure out what is possibly wrong with that, eventually every player is a FA and has options.
I believe in free agency and movement even with these stars, but I don't believe in the hoopla that surrounds these players' when their contracts are soon going to be up.
Maybe Chris and Dwight really aren’t pushing these agendas that much (after all, their play is going to command whatever money they make and that’s their number one job), but either agents and/or other business associates seem to be driving this as much if not more than the players, just like boxing promoters are….
With any other business, when a contract is up (for any person or service), there will be negotiations before the deal is up. However, it seems that these negotiations are done in public way too often and the ESPN/LeBron machine hypes it up two or three years in advance which is exacerbating negative reactions, including mine.
So your problem is with the media then.
Irony (n.) -Michael Westbrook as the hero on Bully Beatdown.
by Jim America on Dec 12, 2011 9:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Like everyone, they want what is best for them, they want to control their destiny. Nothing really wrong with that. However, I believe that if you are paid over 500 times the national median income that you have to give some things up. You give up Christmas day with your family. You give up recreational drugs. You give up the chance to live in whatever city you want.
Howard, Paul et al are just using the system to their best advantage. Nothing really wrong with that. I wish the system was set up so that they couldn’t do what they are doing. It’s a major flaw.
I’d also like to see a little more loyalty from these guys to their fans, but perhaps that’s too much to expect. I’d also like to see a little more hard work and patience so that these top players build their own success rather than gaming the system and treating it like a video game. But again, that may be too much to expect from people like that.
by MR on Dec 11, 2011 11:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Like everyone, they want what is best for them, they want to control their destiny. Nothing really wrong with that. (…)I’d also like to see a little more loyalty from these guys to their fans, but perhaps that’s too much to expect. I’d also like to see a little more hard work and patience so that these top players build their own success rather than gaming the system and treating it like a video game. But again, that may be too much to expect from people like that.
Absolutely, until recently (2010) it didn’t get to the proportions it’s at now. It’s really hurting the league as a whole. Maybe the casual fan only want’s to see 4 good teams but even they will not like it in the long haul.
Howard, Paul et al are just using the system to their best advantage. Nothing really wrong with that. I wish the system was set up so that they couldn’t do what they are doing. It’s a major flaw.
Bingo. The league wanted both more money and to change the system, but in the end settled for more money and some rather insignificant system changes. A missed chance, for sure.
Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back! - David Aldridge
What seems to be the officer, problem? - Randy Marsh
by Dutch Hoopfan on Dec 12, 2011 5:24 AM EST up reply actions
I guess to me it looks like a product of bball's natural dynamics.
it’s THE sport where ONE player is all the difference, so as long as there is FA, there will always be frenzies for these players and they’ll always have a ton of control. Eliminating sign-n-trades would be terrible for teams like Denver and NO who would then have to just lose their star with nothing in return. Letting the home team pay far, far more than anyone else might work but will also skyrocket player salaries. Franchise tags? So Dwight Howard gets stuck on 1yr deals that pay him the avg of the top5 highest paid Cs….even though he is by far the best of them all? That’s never, ever going to happen and quite frankly it shouldn’t.
basically i dont see how to remove the player’s leverage…it’s the nature of the game
Easy
1) When you sign a max or near max FA that has not been with your team for 2+ years it counts 125% on your cap for the lifetime of the contract.
2) No sign-and-trades.
doesnt #1 just favor the Lakers and Knicks even more?
sets up a scenario where only the big spenders can go after FAs?
how does sign-and-trades hurt competitive balance? Without them players would still change teams but their original team would get nothing in return right?
If I'm not mistaken, in conjunction it would help keep players where they are.
They would make stealing away FAs harder to do.
I literally came up with those ideas in 10 seconds. I’m sure someone smarter than me could come up with plenty of ways to make it harder to sign away big FAs but leaving the door open for a guy to move if he really really wants to (but it would have to cost him big money).
by MR on Dec 12, 2011 8:29 PM EST up reply actions
i feel like there should be a point for every player
at some stage in his career where he is an unfettered free agent (unless he has decided to sign contracts). Lotto balls shouldnt doom a guy to being bound to a shit franchise for the duration of his career unless he wants to give up a ton of money. On the other hand, maybe I just don’t like anything that would help Donald Sterling.
yeah. I hear you.
That’s why I think the 125% cap hit could help. It means that it hurts the franchise more than the player.
Anyway I don’t think being a top 10 player should guarantee you x dollars through your career. Maybe if you’re unlucky enough to be drafted by a bad franchise you can escape by only earning 80% or x for your career.
It’s a tough situation, but I think the ultimate goal should be a good, competitive league. That trumps the players’ rights and it trumps the owners’ rights. Right now we do not have that and we’re getting further and further away.
why not just give
something like non cap 3m bonus for your top player/year he is on your team BUT
that said player needs to been signed his rookie deal with you & never been on other team after that.
If that star player demands trade he can kiss goodbye to that bonus money…
For what it's worth
The new CBA grants advantages to teams resigning their own free agents in terms of contract length (5 instead of 4 years) and annual raises (7.5% compared to 4.5%).
In case people didn’t know.
Irony (n.) -Michael Westbrook as the hero on Bully Beatdown.
by Jim America on Dec 14, 2011 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
I did know that. IMO the difference needs to be much larger.
by MR on Dec 14, 2011 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
As far as the star players go(Lebron, Dwight, CP) that 3% difference is not much of a factor. Especially because Howard and Paul are making that and then some by leaving the miniscule markets of Orl and especially NO when they end up in LA and NY.
And the point is keeping guys in those small markets, and away from those two large markets in particular.
I'm a Wizards fan. We've been trying to tell you about Lebron for years. Hated the man before it was cool.
Follow @Dylan___V
by returnofswagger on Dec 14, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Making millions playing a game justifies giving up some control over your destiny imho
The money, the lifestyle comes with the draft, trades etc.
Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back! - David Aldridge
What seems to be the officer, problem? - Randy Marsh
by Dutch Hoopfan on Dec 13, 2011 5:02 AM EST up reply actions
I'd also add
If you want to maker sure Miami doesn’t win a championship, you’d better claim Chauncey Billups.
If teams are scared to use the amnesty provision
then yes, it will be. Overwhelmingly so. IF say, Baron Davis and Richardson Jefferson went to the Heat, it’d be hard to stop them. Hopefully, if teams like the Pacers, etc claim those guys, it’ll work out as intended.
Honestly, the problem with the NBA is that it dramatically caters to star players in its rules and their enforcement. Star players get better calls. With the NBA 6 foul system and the bias, a star has to be completely out of control to foul out. The 4 quarters creates more breaks than the college game, making it easier for players to rest between possessions. Stars end up playing a lot longer.
If the NBA ended the star treatment, changed the rules to only permit 5 fouls, and eliminated the rules on defensive three seconds, you’d actually see more complete teams being built. You’d still have star teams, which focused on just 1-2 players, but you’d also see teams there were about having 5 solid starters.
The new deal had nothing to do with parity
it was just the owners using the economic downturn to take money back from the guys who make the money for them….not different that what is generally happening throughout the country…Stern said so…no one ever talked about parity except writers and fans who wanted to side with the owners for some reason…
The NBA Board of Governors ratification meeting basically confirmed that.
and they addressed competitive balance as something that should happen instead of otherwise….
We’ll just have to see what happens with these small market teams and the other undesirables if some of them can improve over the long haul while we see other perennial dynasties of the last CBA (Suns, MAvs, Lakers) move into mediocrity or the doldrums for some time during this deal. Looks like the Lakers will be set for another 5-8 years given that we will see a CP3/Kobe/Dwight trio without Kobe’s explicit request (at least as far as I know), but the Suns and Mavs are prob not so lucky.
It was obvious all the owners care about was money
They never cared about parity, and that’s what I was trying to tell everyone during the lockout.
But I’m not worried. The Wizards can be competitive in this system if they play their cards right. DC is a very big market, and most definitely should be able to attract FA once we start winning. With a few more draft picks, FAs, and player development, we could be a great team in a few years.
Formerly know as iNFamous SWaGG
by DMVLeGenD on Dec 10, 2011 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Parity was an issue
It just was issue no 2. The fact that league agreed to increase the floor for teams was a big win for the players and for advocates of parity. The fact that teams under the cap get to bid first on amnesty players also helps parity.
The small market owners should have rallied beyond a franchise tag system. The problem was the NBA small market teams wanted more money, so they took that instead of getting a franchise tag. That should have been issue #1 for them, It wasn’t. Fans in small markets will settle.
parity, or a team's improved competitiveness and more money tend to come together.
i do agree that an increased floor against the tax limit will even the competitiveness battle as well. more wins = more revenue for individual teams which hopefully will pay for those increased team salaries.
I wonder how much of the local tv contracts have to go into the new revenue sharing agreement.
well
the good teams will get gooder, but i don’t think market size has much to do with it.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Dec 10, 2011 9:45 PM EST reply actions
So what happens when the T-Wolves claim Arenas and Billups, just to add to their PG collection?
Do they have to go? Can they just opt out and go play for the Heat?
They would have to go
They could retire or request a buyout. Those would be their only options. Btw, T-Wolves could actually make money on this.
Kahn puts in $1 mil bid on Arenas
Arenas calls him up, says he doesn’t want to play for him.
Kahn: It’ll cost you $2 mil.
There are a lot of details I'm not familiar with.
Could the TWolves trade him? At what cap level? What kind of buyout?
Somehow, some way those guys are going to land in LA, Miami, Dallas, NY, Boston etc for pennies.
by MR on Dec 11, 2011 2:38 AM EST up reply actions
Because
No one is going to claim Chauncey Billups to teach and backup their young players, when he just got done saying, “I’m not a good teammate anymore. I’m not a mentor any more. I’m worried about me.”
What sucks, is this… For the most part, the players have the power. If Lebron wants to go to Miami, he can wait out his contract (like he did) and go there. If Dwight and Paul want to go to LA or whereever, they can do what they are doing. If their team trades them beforehand, that’s on them. But when things aren’t going Chauncey’s way for one season, he’s going to come out, and bitch, and make the comments that he did. When really, you’re the one that signed the extended contract.
If you want your freedom as a player, then don’t sign as long of a deal. You don’t force your way out, or bitch and moan when you are still tied to the contract that you signed. If you want your freedom Chauncey, you take the risk and potentially cost yourself the money by signing a shorter deal. Because in reality, the longer the deal, the better it is for the player. You can’t give yourself the security of signing for five years, insuring you get paid (by the team that signed you, because they signed you to play for them, not someone else) for five years, and then want out of that team while still getting paid. You can’t make your cake and eat it too or however the hell that saying goes.
I'm a Wizards fan. We've been trying to tell you about Lebron for years. Hated the man before it was cool.
Follow @Dylan___V
by returnofswagger on Dec 11, 2011 5:00 AM EST up reply actions
If you want your freedom as a player, then don’t sign as long of a deal. You don’t force your way out, or bitch and moan when you are still tied to the contract that you signed
The problem is, he will get his cake, eat it too and then some more because he gets his $14M garuanteed since he is amnestied and then he goes to the Heatles after clearing waivers making even one more million, signing for the vet minimum.
Garuanteed contracts are only good for the players. They can do what ever the hell they feel like, strong arm their team to agree to being worse off, get to play where they want ánd make even more.
Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back!
David Aldridge
It really depends on what the teams under the cap do
If there are a multiple claims, then players will realize this happens. Right now, their expectations are based on how they’d want to act if they were waived. It’s not like that. It should be explained to them that it’s more like an expansion draft, and they’ve been put up to be bid on by frugal teams.
Owners of under the cap shouldn’t balk, if they do, they’re responsible for the lack of competitive balance. The structures were there, they were just too stupid or cowardly to use them.
Idea's that could have improved competitive balance
- The Sign and Trade should have been excluded.
- Staying should be rewarded big big time (talking 3 yrs extra, $50 million big here)
- No amnesty, just a MLE caphold (while team still pays out full amount.
- Full revenue sharing of all the money (local too)
- No tax but a true hardcap at 120% of the soft cap, 80% salary floor (some teams are contending, some teams are rebuilding at any given point in time)
- Label players in tiers like in the MLB and give a salary scale.
- Per team only 1 type A, 2 type B and 3 type C players or something along those lines.
- 4 years max contracts for FA, 7 for bird team with higher raises
- Only 2 yrs fully garuanteed, after that team options. The remainder of the contract is 50% guaranteed if the said players is waived but doesn’t count against the cap.
If I think a little longer I could come up with over a 100 things to make the league more competitively balanced. The league has really dropped the ball imo.
Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back! - David Aldridge
What seems to be the officer, problem?
by Dutch Hoopfan on Dec 11, 2011 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
The thing with competitive balance
People always seemto forget that it is very possible for non’large market teams to be competitve in the league. Consider the following:
The Spurs and Pistons (Detroit hasn;t been large market since the 80s) are “small” market teams that have, though organized and competent management and coaching, been very competitive and have won championships in the last 10 years. The Suns, while not winning a championship, have been a perennial playoff team the past several years (excluding 2010). OKC and Memphis are two small markey up and coming teams that with good management and coaching should be contenders for years.
The Dan Gilberts lost LeBron due to a) LeBron’s own personality and b) a failure to surround him with talent. Y’all don’t think that if the lockout happened in 2009 not 2011 that Gilbert would have championed the cause of small markets? The Magic are probably going to lose D12 due to similar reasons. You think Chris Paul enjoyed playing for a team with NO OWNER and whose previous owner was, essentially, a bum? The Bobcats are run by a guy who’s managerial claim to fame was drafting Kwame Brown and trading away the best two players in franchise history. The Clippers, until landing the Blake Griffin lottery, where marred by terrible front office decision making and ownership.
In the NBA, floundering teams all too often blame the system for their own shortcomings and take ZERO accountability for their actions. Hopefully our Washington Wizards will be part of that first group of teams that makes decade long dynasties through shrewd basketball and business decision making.
by Ron Carlos Jeines on Dec 12, 2011 2:01 PM EST reply actions
Oh and don't let me forget the New York Knicks
While always making a profit were essentially a bum (i.e. non-competitive) team for the majority of the last 10 years due to stupid management decisions by Isaiah Thomas et. al?
by Ron Carlos Jeines on Dec 12, 2011 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
That's true
The leesh is shorter for less favourable markets though. If you don’t win by yr 3 or 4 your drafted superstar will leave you.
It hapened back in the day too but to a lesser extend. Dudes like Garnet really tried to win and only left after 7 straight early play off exits for example. He didn’t strongarm the TWolves either, he got traded to a place where he innitially didn’t want to go.
Stars always wanted the best second banana’s to come to them and try to beat their equals. Now the superstars dont want second banana’s but equal superstars and they don’t want those players to come to them, no, they’ll just team up where ever the best situation is from a basketball standpoit as well as a business/life standpoint. If needed they’ll strong arm their team in order to get what they want. The league has changed and therefore the system has to change too imho
Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back! - David Aldridge
What seems to be the officer, problem? - Randy Marsh
by Dutch Hoopfan on Dec 12, 2011 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure where market size comes into it. The original post didn't mention it.
Anyway, my original post was about the Amnesty clause and auction. That it will make the rich richer and skew competitive balance even more. If it leads to OKC getting a big (but previously overpaid) talent for pennies on the dollar it’s just as much of a problem.
by MR on Dec 12, 2011 6:25 PM EST up reply actions
sorry didn't mean to get off topic
It just seems to me that the phrase competitive balance always seems to be discussed surrounding the relative competitive balance or lack thereof between the small and large markets.
by Ron Carlos Jeines on Dec 13, 2011 9:45 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
