New CBA Deal

[CitySushi]

Im surprised.

that one helped the players.

get a team more cap space and the player still gets paid.

This time around it doesn't really make any sense, because what the amnesty really did was help teams that were over the cap at the time (which was nearly every team at the last CBA). This time around, nearly every team has cap space, so it doesn't make sense to help out the handful of teams over the cap for them to reduce their luxury tax and/or create more cap space.

 

[tducey]

Nice to see a deal done but yeah it'd be nice to see more parity around the league. At least in other sports any team can win. In the NBA it seems like only a very few teams can win.

 

[The Q]

Nice to see a deal done but yeah it'd be nice to see more parity around the league. At least in other sports any team can win. In the NBA it seems like only a very few teams can win.

More player freedom = more parity.

It's not a hard formula.

Owners don't want that to fit their own agenda and the masses are too stupid and believe them when they sya the opposite is true.

 

[WiggyRuss]

More player freedom = more parity.

It's not a hard formula.

Owners don't want that to fit their own agenda and the masses are too stupid and believe them when they sya the opposite is true.

defintely not true when you have a capped out system- ESPECIALLY when stars often times make a significant part, if not a majority of their money from endorsements.

then they dont make decisions based on money- they make decisions based upon winning and you get super teams.

your premise is completely illogical and does not fit how the NBA operates AT ALL.

 

[The Q]

defintely not true when you have a capped out system- ESPECIALLY when stars often times make a significant part, if not a majority of their money from endorsements.

then they dont make decisions based on money- they make decisions based upon winning and you get super teams.

your premise is completely illogical and does not fit how the NBA operates AT ALL.

My premise is historically factual.

Look at MLB and the NFL.

Both have more freedom of movement and way more parity. Not even close.

now the nba will never have the same level of parity as either because of it's 5 on 5 nature, but guys being able to change teams is what keeps things interesting.

It makes teams have to actually work to keep players around. Getting lucky in the lottery doesn't guarantee you anything.

My premise is right on the money. The NBA had more parity even in the days when S&Ts were allowed more than they do now.

 

[CitySushi]

My premise is historically factual.

Look at MLB and the NFL.

Both have more freedom of movement and way more parity. Not even close.

now the nba will never have the same level of parity as either because of it's 5 on 5 nature, but guys being able to change teams is what keeps things interesting.

It makes teams have to actually work to keep players around. Getting lucky in the lottery doesn't guarantee you anything.

My premise is right on the money. The NBA had more parity even in the days when S&Ts were allowed more than they do now.

Originally, I had 100% agreed with you, but after further thought the NBA isn't really comparable to the NFL and MLB.

First the MLB has no salary cap system. It creates a different type of free market with uncapped salary for players. Players being able to switch teams more freely is a product of this. But the parity doesn't really exist because of free agency, it's because of teams being able to control draft picks and players who are only eligible for arbitration and not free agency. The teams are able to control their younger players at considerable savings, including arbitration values. For example, Kris Bryant, current NL MVP is only making 650k. While you could attribute that to the equivalent of a rookie contract, he basically has 3 years locked up at that figure, and then another 3 years of arbitration. The arbitration figures are generally much lower than the player could reasonably expect on the free market. Thus he's essentially team controlled for 6 years versus the NBA where they have 4 years max. In addition to that, the players contract starts once the player is called up. Meaning the players can be stashed to develop in the minors at considerable savings, and pushing back their arbitration clocks to when they're basically in their prime already and ready to contribute.

The NFL is different because of one thing: non-guaranteed contracts. The reason the free agent market is much different is because player loyalty is almost an after thought. With teams being able to cut you without long term ramifications on the cap, past bonus and guaranteed money, it creates a dissonance between the players and the teams. It's why you see hold out from players to get more money while they're in their prime. It's why you see teams cut good players because their production no longer warrants their salary. It's really ruthless when you think about the nature of the game they play and how prevalent injuries are towards a sustainable career.

The NBA has guaranteed contracts AND a fixed salary cap.

 

[WiggyRuss]

My premise is historically factual.

Look at MLB and the NFL.

Both have more freedom of movement and way more parity. Not even close.

now the nba will never have the same level of parity as either because of it's 5 on 5 nature, but guys being able to change teams is what keeps things interesting.

It makes teams have to actually work to keep players around. Getting lucky in the lottery doesn't guarantee you anything.

My premise is right on the money. The NBA had more parity even in the days when S&Ts were allowed more than they do now.

you cannot POSSIBLY compare the NBA and MLB/NFL. In the NBA a couple guys coming together changes the league. In the NFL it doesnt matter- JJ Watt is the best defensive player in the league and on his own he is nothing.

please reason out in your head how this detracts from parity instead of promoting it. BEing able to "designate" 1 player means each team gets just that ONE PLAYER they can designate- and that player will be less tempted to join a super team. I mean- this is self explanatory i would have assumed.

In the NBA you are never going to get parity like the NFL because the stars matter SO MUCH. Its 1 or 2 or 3 guys out of 5 and not one or two or three guys out of 22. Of course stars help but a great TEAM will beat an NFL team with 3-4 stars and a mediocre team almost every time- in the NBA- there is simply no fucking way you are winning anything unless you have one of the best players in the game on your team.

 

[The Q]

Originally, I had 100% agreed with you, but after further thought the NBA isn't really comparable to the NFL and MLB.

First the MLB has no salary cap system. It creates a different type of free market with uncapped salary for players. Players being able to switch teams more freely is a product of this. But the parity doesn't really exist because of free agency, it's because of teams being able to control draft picks and players who are only eligible for arbitration and not free agency. The teams are able to control their younger players at considerable savings, including arbitration values. For example, Kris Bryant, current NL MVP is only making 650k. While you could attribute that to the equivalent of a rookie contract, he basically has 3 years locked up at that figure, and then another 3 years of arbitration. The arbitration figures are generally much lower than the player could reasonably expect on the free market. Thus he's essentially team controlled for 6 years versus the NBA where they have 4 years max. In addition to that, the players contract starts once the player is called up. Meaning the players can be stashed to develop in the minors at considerable savings, and pushing back their arbitration clocks to when they're basically in their prime already and ready to contribute.

The NFL is different because of one thing: non-guaranteed contracts. The reason the free agent market is much different is because player loyalty is almost an after thought. With teams being able to cut you without long term ramifications on the cap, past bonus and guaranteed money, it creates a dissonance between the players and the teams. It's why you see hold out from players to get more money while they're in their prime. It's why you see teams cut good players because their production no longer warrants their salary. It's really ruthless when you think about the nature of the game they play and how prevalent injuries are towards a sustainable career.

The NBA has guaranteed contracts AND a fixed salary cap.

No question it's different. But there's no need to allow for unfair price fixing (one team can offer more than the rest) and it was laughably short sighted to take away real S&Ts off the table.

When you get a draft and you can control guys for well below market rates (especially when guys can contribute at 19 from day 1) I don't feel bad for any team.

 

[WiggyRuss]

No question it's different. But there's no need to allow for unfair price fixing (one team can offer more than the rest) and it was laughably short sighted to take away real S&Ts off the table.

When you get a draft and you can control guys for well below market rates (especially when guys can contribute at 19 from day 1) I don't feel bad for any team.

okay- thats a cool argument and you are certainly welcome to your opinion but that has nothing to do with parity and fixing the super-team phenomenon..

because the stars make so much in endorsements- their NBA salary becomes less and less important- thus they are willing to forego some of it to collaborate on super teams.

This CBA lessesns that impact and promotes parity.

 

[The Q]

okay- thats a cool argument and you are certainly welcome to your opinion but that has nothing to do with parity and fixing the super-team phenomenon..

It doesn't need fixing. Players should be allowed to go where is best for them, within the parameters of the cap.

If a team stinks, they shouldn't just be able to give more money simply because the ping pong balls fell the right way.

It's lazy FO stuff and league speak that makes you think keeping teams stagnant is for "competitive balance."

Only the truly ignorant believe that. it's been proven over and over again that it's not about competitive balance.

 

[WiggyRuss]

It doesn't need fixing. Players should be allowed to go where is best for them, within the parameters of the cap.

If a team stinks, they shouldn't just be able to give more money simply because the ping pong balls fell the right way.

It's lazy FO stuff and league speak that makes you think keeping teams stagnant is for "competitive balance."

Only the truly ignorant believe that. it's been proven over and over again that it's not about competitive balance.

i gotcha- i think you make some points that are at least semi-valid- especially considering your point of view. I get what you are saying- why incentivice staying with your original team?

your argument isnt a parity argument- its a free market argument- and as we have seen- in the free market- when salaries are restricted by the cap and the stars make more money off the court then on- they will bypass dollars in order to win big by joining up. Thats what this prevents- it incenticizes NOT forming a super team by making that financial incentive so much that guys give up leaving and going to a better team becuase the difference isnt a million or two- its potentially tens of millions - if not more.

 

[The Q]

i gotcha- i think you make some points that are at least semi-valid- especially considering your point of view. I get what you are saying- why incentivice staying with your original team?

your argument isnt a parity argument- its a free market argument- and as we have seen- in the free market- when salaries are restricted by the cap and the stars make more money off the court then on- they will bypass dollars in order to win big by joining up. Thats what this prevents- it incenticizes NOT forming a super team by making that financial incentive so much that guys give up leaving and going to a better team becuase the difference isnt a million or two- its potentially tens of millions - if not more.

But the argument for all that is parity. And that's simply not true. how has it worked out so far. Since the 2011 CBA we haven't seen any uptick in parity.

Look at the 90s, Jordan beat 5 different teams in the finals, many went at least 6 games (and the last utah one should've gone 7, Jordan got away with 2 fouls at the end of the game).

That's way more parity than we've seen since the 98 lockout (where contract restrictions and max contracts came into play).

 

[trojanfan12]

Imo, the NBA needs to quit screwing around with the cap and trying to use half measures to restrict player movement. They need to either follow the NFL model and go with a true hard cap. Or they need to follow the MLB model and not bother with a cap.

This stuff of adjusting max deals and using other means like penalties for going over the cap as a means of trying to incentivize players to stay put rather than go play where they want to play is nonsense. As Q says, it's just a way to cover for lazy FO's.

 

[CitySushi]

i gotcha- i think you make some points that are at least semi-valid- especially considering your point of view. I get what you are saying- why incentivice staying with your original team?

your argument isnt a parity argument- its a free market argument- and as we have seen- in the free market- when salaries are restricted by the cap and the stars make more money off the court then on- they will bypass dollars in order to win big by joining up. Thats what this prevents- it incenticizes NOT forming a super team by making that financial incentive so much that guys give up leaving and going to a better team becuase the difference isnt a million or two- its potentially tens of millions - if not more.

THIS.

When your earning potential is limited in the form of a cap and percentage of cap, it makes incentivizing staying with your team imperative. If for example you can only make 20M with your current team or with any other team out there, you're going to choose the best team. Because at the end of the day you're still making the same, and you get to win. That's what creates super teams in a cap based environment.

When you allow a team to resign their own player to 30M instead of 20M, it gives that player second thoughts on where he should go. Is joining up to form a super team worth sacrificing 50M over the lifetime of that deal? Probably not. It incentivizes the true stars of the game to want to stay with their own teams.

Of course there will always be exceptions to this amongst the top players in the league, because as Wiggy said, they're getting tons of money from endorsements on the side. But for the mid to upper tier players, it's going to make a considerable amount of difference to them in earnings.

The parity comes with players having to choose basically money vs winning, which this new deal accomplishes.

 

[The Q]

THIS.

When your earning potential is limited in the form of a cap and percentage of cap, it makes incentivizing staying with your team imperative. If for example you can only make 20M with your current team or with any other team out there, you're going to choose the best team. Because at the end of the day you're still making the same, and you get to win. That's what creates super teams in a cap based environment.

When you allow a team to resign their own player to 30M instead of 20M, it gives that player second thoughts on where he should go. Is joining up to form a super team worth sacrificing 50M over the lifetime of that deal? Probably not. It incentivizes the true stars of the game to want to stay with their own teams.

Of course there will always be exceptions to this amongst the top players in the league, because as Wiggy said, they're getting tons of money from endorsements on the side. But for the mid to upper tier players, it's going to make a considerable amount of difference to them in earnings.

The parity comes with players having to choose basically money vs winning, which this new deal accomplishes.

So...incentives for lazy FOs.

Teams should have to EARN the right to retain their talent.

You get super teams because their previous teams tend to be incompetent.

 

[CitySushi]

Imo, the NBA needs to quit screwing around with the cap and trying to use half measures to restrict player movement. They need to either follow the NFL model and go with a true hard cap. Or they need to follow the MLB model and not bother with a cap.

This stuff of adjusting max deals and using other means like penalties for going over the cap as a means of trying to incentivize players to stay put rather than go play where they want to play is nonsense. As Q says, it's just a way to cover for lazy FO's.

IMO, they can't go with the NFL model because that would need to include non-guaranteeing contracts, which the players will NEVER go for. So that's kind of out the window.

The MLB uncapped would be possible, however basketball is different from any other sport in that star players are much more valuable per game than say baseball. Your starting pitcher only pitches every 5th game. Your start 3B only bats once every 9 plate appearance. A player can only have so much impact, which is why spending insane amounts of money on one player for say the Yankees doesn't necessarily put them over a team with over-achieving youngster.

Basketball is different in that a star player can change everything about your team. Add in two more, when you have the vast revenue markets of say LA or New York and they would just about out-bid everyone else. There's no way a Milwaukee team would ever be able to compete.

 

[CitySushi]

So...incentives for lazy FOs.

Teams should have to EARN the right to retain their talent.

You get super teams because their previous teams tend to be incompetent.

It's not something so simple as a lazy FO.

Teams still have to draft well to compete. The creation of super teams is because again of capped earning potential. If you removed a teams ability to go over the cap or pay more to retain their stars and give them only the opportunity to provide the same equal pay, it makes superteams that much easier to form.

These are the scenarios:

In an incentivized NBA:
Player A can sign a 5 year 150M deal with his current team.
Player A can sign a 4 year 110M deal with another team.

In deincentivized NBA:
Player A can sign a 5 year deal worth 150M with current team
Player A can sign a 5 year deal worth 150M with another team.

Which situation do you think is more likely for a player to join up to form a super team? The player who has to sacrifice 40M over the lifetime of that deal or the player who would be paid the same regardless of team?

 

[trojanfan12]

Basketball is different in that a star player can change everything about your team. Add in two more, when you have the vast revenue markets of say LA or New York and they would just about out-bid everyone else. There's no way a Milwaukee team would ever be able to compete.

If those teams can't compete, then they should get out of the league. You could make a strong argument that we could get rid of about 5 teams (or more) in every professional league and it would dramatically improve the overall product.

Also, with the money the NBA is making, revenue sharing, tv deals, etc. there really is no excuse for teams not being able to pay to keep their best players.

People complain that there's no parity in the NBA, but there is. It's just a different kind of parity. It's not the kind where a you rotate champions among various teams (as happens in MLB and the NFL, but it is the kind where different teams are at the top for a few years.

As I mentioned in an earlier post. In the past, teams like the Cavs, Warriors, Spurs, OKC, etc. could never have accomplished what they have over the past several years because the big market teams had all of the advantages. That is no longer the case.

 

[trojanfan12]

It's not something so simple as a lazy FO.

Teams still have to draft well to compete. The creation of super teams is because again of capped earning potential. If you removed a teams ability to go over the cap or pay more to retain their stars and give them only the opportunity to provide the same equal pay, it makes superteams that much easier to form.

These are the scenarios:

In an incentivized NBA:
Player A can sign a 5 year 150M deal with his current team.
Player A can sign a 4 year 110M deal with another team.

In deincentivized NBA:
Player A can sign a 5 year deal worth 150M with current team
Player A can sign a 5 year deal worth 150M with another team.

Which situation do you think is more likely for a player to join up to form a super team? The player who has to sacrifice 40M over the lifetime of that deal or the player who would be paid the same regardless of team?

Actually, it is as simple as lazy FO's. Think about it. If all teams are allowed to offer a player the same amount, then it is up to the team that is faced with losing a player to create reasons for him to stay. Some FO's do a better job of it than others.

Using a couple of recent MLB signings as an example, the Dodgers just re-signed Kenley Jansen and Justin Turner, even though pretty much everyone didn't think it would be possible. Jansen had at least 2 offers for more money. They stayed because, according to Jansens agent, the Dodgers created a family type environment that he didn't want to leave. There's no reason NBA teams can't create similar situations.

Does anyone honestly think that KD would be a Warrior right now if OKC's FO had been doing everything they could to create a situation where he would want to stay?

Either the league is going to have free agency or it's not. Trying to de-incentivize player movement by restricting what they can make in another market isn't true free agency.

 

[CitySushi]

Actually, it is as simple as lazy FO's. Think about it. If all teams are allowed to offer a player the same amount, then it is up to the team that is faced with losing a player to create reasons for him to stay. Some FO's do a better job of it than others.

Using a couple of recent MLB signings as an example, the Dodgers just re-signed Kenley Jansen and Justin Turner, even though pretty much everyone didn't think it would be possible. Jansen had at least 2 offers for more money. They stayed because, according to Jansens agent, the Dodgers created a family type environment that he didn't want to leave. There's no reason NBA teams can't create similar situations.

Does anyone honestly think that KD would be a Warrior right now if OKC's FO had been doing everything they could to create a situation where he would want to stay?

Either the league is going to have free agency or it's not. Trying to de-incentivize player movement by restricting what they can make in another market isn't true free agency.

I get what you're saying and I do agree to an extent. I've been trying to figure out a way to convey my thoughts on this, but I'm having a bit of brain malfunction today.

I think my biggest premise is that there's no way to accomplish what you want without major restructuring done on both sides. You have to get approval from the majority of ownership in the NBA to agree to removing the financial incentives to keep their own players. For every NY or LA, there's a New Orleans or Milwaukee that will oppose.

My stance was not deterring a player from receiving equal pay across all 30 teams, it was that the formation of super teams was not because of this system in place. If anything the formation of super teams becomes increasingly easier if players can make the same amount everywhere, then why would you choose a situation where winning a championship wasn't immediately attainable.