The future for the NBA?

[Cebby]

Re: The future for the NBA?

You're making contradictory points. In one sentence, you say championship level teams have to be blown up. The next sentence, you say nothing would change at all and the championship teams would still be championship teams.

When did I say that?

The Heat wouldn't dominate because they wouldn't have the ability to offer James or Bosh the max and still sign minimum level players. Both Bosh and James would have to take considerably less money to play there.

For everyone saying that a hard cap wouldn't stop Miami, you are right. It wouldn't affect current teams in 2010-2011. But it would make it so that another "Miami" could never happen again unless every one of a trio took a HUGE paycut.

Again, you guys don't seem to understand.

Bosh and James (and Wade) didn't take the max. They each took about 2 million less than the max.

Those three signed for low enough so that the Heat could sign 2 solid players for more than the minimum. The Heat would dominate more because depth would cease to exist in the NBA. As I said, the Lakers, Celtics, or Magic wouldn't be able to keep their four top players, let alone any depth. The Heat would have the best roster in the league by a mile.

Even with a hardcap you'll always be able to sign players for the minimum even if you're at the cap.

If you don't allow team to sign players for the minimum you'll see forfeits when a team is hit with injuries and can't sign replacements.

[Rocky]

Re: The future for the NBA?

I don't see it as "the beauty of it"

Forcing teams to blow up championship rosters seems pretty stupid to me.

I think the NBA has the best cap handling of any sport. You can keep a roster together, but at the risk of not being able to acquire any new players. It's not the Lakers, Heat, Celtics, or Magic's fault that Isiah Thomas was an idiot.

The NBA isn't going to have parity even with a hardcap. Every team in basketball won't be equal because a Lebron or Kobe is worth substantially more than even the 5th or 6th best player in the league. Aside from Peyton Manning, every player in the NFL can be more or less marginalized.

It's not like NBA teams aren't going to continue to sign big stiffs to 3rd option money. It may be less money, but on a percentage basis it will be more or less the same.

That's contradictory. If you going to 'blow up' a team, they wouldn't be championship worthy if I agreed with you (which I don't...Lebron has won 0 rings and Kobe's team barely made the playoffs without Gasol).

Again, you guys don't seem to understand.

Bosh and James (and Wade) didn't take the max. They each took about 2 million less than the max.

Those three signed for low enough so that the Heat could sign 2 solid players for more than the minimum. The Heat would dominate more because depth would cease to exist in the NBA. As I said, the Lakers, Celtics, or Magic wouldn't be able to keep their four top players, let alone any depth. The Heat would have the best roster in the league by a mile.

Even with a hardcap you'll always be able to sign players for the minimum even if you're at the cap.

If you don't allow team to sign players for the minimum you'll see forfeits when a team is hit with injuries and can't sign replacements.

C'mon man. You know that James and Bosh were signed with the intent that almost half of the active roster would make the league minimum in the first year. And then with the intent that they would have more flexibility the following years. There's no way that's going to be allowed with a hard cap. I'm not talking about reserve players or signing players to the minimum becaause of injury. Nearly half of the active roster will be making the vet minimum. You take away two more million from James and Bosh and they are leaving up to $12-13 million on the table to sign those players. Not even Lebron James would leave that much money behind, especially if Cleveland could better themselves with non-guaranteed contracts and a hard cap.

[Cebby]

Re: The future for the NBA?

That's contradictory. If you going to 'blow up' a team, they wouldn't be championship worthy if I agreed with you (which I don't...Lebron has won 0 rings and Kobe's team barely made the playoffs without Gasol).

The Lakers would have to get rid of most of their roster, but the Lakers would still be in good shape because they have an elite player. Teams without an elite player like the Celtics, Pistons, or Magic would be out of luck.

Lebron and Kobe not winning on their own doesn't matter because the teams they lost to wouldn't exist. The Nash, Amare, and Marion Suns would have ceased to exist when Amare's rookie contract was up and the Celtics that beat Lebron wouldn't have existed in the first place.

You know that James and Bosh were signed with the intent that almost half of the active roster would make the league minimum in the first year. And then with the intent that they would have more flexibility the following years. There's no way that's going to be allowed with a hard cap.

How would they have more flexibility other than the MLE?

You take away two more million from James and Bosh and they are leaving up to $12-13 million on the table to sign those players. Not even Lebron James would leave that much money behind, especially if Cleveland could better themselves with non-guaranteed contracts and a hard cap.

They all left 15 million so yeah, they would leave that much money behind.

[Starlin4Prez]

Re: The future for the NBA?

The Lakers would have to get rid of most of their roster, but the Lakers would still be in good shape because they have an elite player. Teams without an elite player like the Celtics, Pistons, or Magic would be out of luck.

I don't know what is funnier, that you put the Pistons in the same category as the Celtics and Magic or that you just said that Dwight Howard isn't an elite player.

[Bornindamecca]

Re: The future for the NBA?

I don't know what is funnier, that you put the Pistons in the same category as the Celtics and Magic or that you just said that Dwight Howard isn't an elite player.

Dwight is not necessarily elite. If you're talking about absolute top tier, Kobe, Wade and Lebron are the only ones that fit into that group. It's an important difference because you can build around one elite player(Kobe) and one very good player(Pau) and fill a squad with roleplayers and have enough to win a championship. You can't do that with Dwight at this point. He needs more than one more very good player to form a championship nucleus.

Now if you mean elite including tops at their position, then it's a different discussion.

[Cebby]

Re: The future for the NBA?

I don't know what is funnier, that you put the Pistons in the same category as the Celtics and Magic or that you just said that Dwight Howard isn't an elite player.

I meant the 2003-2008 Pistons.

Dwight Howard isn't an elite player. He's a great defensive player and the best center in the league, but if you can't score you can't be an elite player to me. Dwight cannot take over a game.

He certainly has the potential to be an elite player, but at this point he isn't.

Dwight is not necessarily elite. If you're talking about absolute top tier, Kobe, Wade and Lebron are the only ones that fit into that group. It's an important difference because you can build around one elite player(Kobe) and one very good player(Pau) and fill a squad with roleplayers and have enough to win a championship. You can't do that with Dwight at this point. He needs more than one more very good player to form a championship nucleus.

Now if you mean elite including tops at their position, then it's a different discussion.

This is more or less my view.

I don't consider simply being a top 10 player or the best center elite. In my opinion there could theoretically be no elite players in the NBA or 15.

At this point I would put Wade, Lebron, and Kobe in that category with Durant at "do it again and your in" status. Howard, Paul, Melo, and Deron Williams are all great players, but there's a pretty clear step between them and the other four.

[Starlin4Prez]

Re: The future for the NBA?

I meant the 2003-2008 Pistons.

Thank you for clearing that up. I was gonna say. Lol.

Dwight Howard isn't an elite player. He's a great defensive player and the best center in the league, but if you can't score you can't be an elite player to me. Dwight cannot take over a game.

I will agree with you about the offense, but defensively and on the boards he can and that is just as crucial as scoring. And he is the best at it. Too me that makes him elite in that regard. Just imagine if he develops a legitimate 10-15 footer with the way he moves inside...omg.

[Rocky]

Re: The future for the NBA?

At this point I would put Wade, Lebron, and Kobe in that category with Durant at "do it again and your in" status. Howard, Paul, Melo, and Deron Williams are all great players, but there's a pretty clear step between them and the other four.

Lebron and Durant don't have any rings. Wade and Kobe played on mediocre teams when they didn't have an dominant (or at least All-Star) big man. Your notion that only these four teams would be better off is ridiculous. Most championship teams are built off superstars...that's true, but to say that it would be impossible to build a team that could beat the teams of these superstars just doesn't hold any water. Orlando beat Cleveland with Howard and a bunch of good players (irrelevant if Lewis is paid like one or not). Dallas, Phoenix, Utah, Denver, etc. had a better team than Kobe pre-Gasol teams. They had 1 or 2 All-Stars (which would be possible under a hard cap) and a bunch of good players.

Of course teams with superstars are going to have an advantage. That's the way it is now.

[Cebby]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Orlando beat Cleveland with Howard and a bunch of good players (irrelevant if Lewis is paid like one or not). Dallas, Phoenix, Utah, Denver, etc. had a better team than Kobe pre-Gasol teams. They had 1 or 2 All-Stars (which would be possible under a hard cap) and a bunch of good players.

But none of those teams would have existed.

Orlando, Dallas, Phoenix, Utah, and Denver have all been way over the cap.

Obviously the Lakers and Cavs are as well, but they could take a hit much easier because they rely on one player instead of several.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: The future for the NBA?

But none of those teams would have existed.

Orlando, Dallas, Phoenix, Utah, and Denver have all been way over the cap.

Obviously the Lakers and Cavs are as well, but they could take a hit much easier because they rely on one player instead of several.

I agree with the stuff you've been saying for the most part, but this makes no sense. Kobe is the one guy on the roster you wouldn't touch with the Lakers, but Gasol and Bynum are what made the Lakers champions. If they're forced to give up one of those guys because of a hard cap it's not some easy fix for the Lakers. We've seen them without Gasol, it wasn't pretty.

[pietasterp]

Re: The future for the NBA?

But none of those teams would have existed.

Orlando, Dallas, Phoenix, Utah, and Denver have all been way over the cap.

Obviously the Lakers and Cavs are as well, but they could take a hit much easier because they rely on one player instead of several.

We're starting to come to some agreement here, Cebby - my point all along is that the whole landscape of the league would be different with different rules. What I still don't necessarily agree with you on is that we have any way of knowing how that league would look if the financial structure of the league was different (i.e. you can't say teams x, y, z wouldn't have players a, b, c, etc....because everything would be different). By that same logic, the cascade of events that brought LeBron and Bosh to the Heat, with Wade staying put, we don't know that the 20 things that happened prior to that would have happened...

My point, which I'm probably not doing a very good job explaining, is that you can't say all the other teams would be bad but the Heat would still have the exact same outcome, because everything would have been totally different in the league. I understand your points that Wade and Bosh signed for less than the max, but there were circumstances that led up to them being free agents simultaneously, not having teams getting it done originally (although I would argue Cleveland was getting it done....I mean, 60 wins 2 years in a row, c'mon!), existing salary structures that allowed Miami to clear cap with guaranteed-contract dumps, etc. etc. etc....Basically the chain of events that led to what happened, if we try to go back and connect the dots in a big game of "what if" in a hard-capped non-guaranteed contract environment, is way too complex and unpredictable for anyone to say with any certainty what would have happened, let alone asserting that what happened to the Heat specifically would definitely still have happened.

[JohnDoe8865]

Re: The future for the NBA?

We're starting to come to some agreement here, Cebby - my point all along is that the whole landscape of the league would be different with different rules. What I still don't necessarily agree with you on is that we have any way of knowing how that league would look if the financial structure of the league was different (i.e. you can't say teams x, y, z wouldn't have players a, b, c, etc....because everything would be different). By that same logic, the cascade of events that brought LeBron and Bosh to the Heat, with Wade staying put, we don't know that the 20 things that happened prior to that would have happened...

My point, which I'm probably not doing a very good job explaining, is that you can't say all the other teams would be bad but the Heat would still have the exact same outcome, because everything would have been totally different in the league. I understand your points that Wade and Bosh signed for less than the max, but there were circumstances that led up to them being free agents simultaneously, not having teams getting it done originally (although I would argue Cleveland was getting it done....I mean, 60 wins 2 years in a row, c'mon!), existing salary structures that allowed Miami to clear cap with guaranteed-contract dumps, etc. etc. etc....Basically the chain of events that led to what happened, if we try to go back and connect the dots in a big game of "what if" in a hard-capped non-guaranteed contract environment, is way too complex and unpredictable for anyone to say with any certainty what would have happened, let alone asserting that what happened to the Heat specifically would definitely still have happened.

The bolded part is pretty much my opinion, but better articulated. The "what-ifs" are not in play. The "what now" is important now.

And to the point earlier about teams forfeiting because of injury, here is how you fix that. You require teams to carry atleast 10 players. If one goes down, you are allowed to sign a D-League player to take his place until he is back.

[Vast]

Re: The future for the NBA?

You're making contradictory points. In one sentence, you say championship level teams have to be blown up. The next sentence, you say nothing would change at all and the championship teams would still be championship teams.

In either case, it would balance the competitive power of the league. Sure, teams would lose good players...and those other teams would gain those players. Plus you could build a good money making team cheaper (which is what owners want out of this). The star players should be making more, the roleplayers should be making ALOT less. Or you can try the even approach like the Pistons.

The Heat wouldn't dominate because they wouldn't have the ability to offer James or Bosh the max and still sign minimum level players. Both Bosh and James would have to take considerably less money to play there.

What?? 25 million isn't enough in your opinion?

[yankeesgiants]

Re: The future for the NBA?

We're starting to come to some agreement here, Cebby - my point all along is that the whole landscape of the league would be different with different rules. What I still don't necessarily agree with you on is that we have any way of knowing how that league would look if the financial structure of the league was different (i.e. you can't say teams x, y, z wouldn't have players a, b, c, etc....because everything would be different). By that same logic, the cascade of events that brought LeBron and Bosh to the Heat, with Wade staying put, we don't know that the 20 things that happened prior to that would have happened...

My point, which I'm probably not doing a very good job explaining, is that you can't say all the other teams would be bad but the Heat would still have the exact same outcome, because everything would have been totally different in the league. I understand your points that Wade and Bosh signed for less than the max, but there were circumstances that led up to them being free agents simultaneously, not having teams getting it done originally (although I would argue Cleveland was getting it done....I mean, 60 wins 2 years in a row, c'mon!), existing salary structures that allowed Miami to clear cap with guaranteed-contract dumps, etc. etc. etc....Basically the chain of events that led to what happened, if we try to go back and connect the dots in a big game of "what if" in a hard-capped non-guaranteed contract environment, is way too complex and unpredictable for anyone to say with any certainty what would have happened, let alone asserting that what happened to the Heat specifically would definitely still have happened.

The Heat would not be affected at all, here is why. Lets say that the owners walk the game off the cliff which is what I believe 90% of them want to do to begin with. The new NBA Constitution would look something like this:

1. Hard Cap is put place. The hard cap is there because owners have zero self control and need to be protected from themselves.

2. Guaranteed contracts are done away with. Slugs with fat contracts on the end of the bench contributing nothing will be a thing of the past.

3. 20% rollback in salaries. You have to have it too put in a hard cap since your claiming that your losing money.

4. Age limit is done away with. The NFL 3 year rule will be adopted. This props up the college game again.

[Cebby]

Re: The future for the NBA?

I agree with the stuff you've been saying for the most part, but this makes no sense. Kobe is the one guy on the roster you wouldn't touch with the Lakers, but Gasol and Bynum are what made the Lakers champions. If they're forced to give up one of those guys because of a hard cap it's not some easy fix for the Lakers. We've seen them without Gasol, it wasn't pretty.

But he wouldn't be playing the Phoenix Suns or San Antonio Spurs as you knew them because the Suns wouldn't have had Nash, Amare, Marion, etc.

With a hard cap nobody is carrying three or more good players unless they're willing to accept lower salaries or they're rookies.

Kobe would be more or less on his own, but every player would be. Kobe would have had less help than he has now, but so would Dirk, Nash, Duncan, etc.

I understand your points that Wade and Bosh signed for less than the max, but there were circumstances that led up to them being free agents simultaneously, not having teams getting it done originally (although I would argue Cleveland was getting it done....I mean, 60 wins 2 years in a row, c'mon!), existing salary structures that allowed Miami to clear cap with guaranteed-contract dumps, etc. etc. etc....Basically the chain of events that led to what happened, if we try to go back and connect the dots in a big game of "what if" in a hard-capped non-guaranteed contract environment, is way too complex and unpredictable for anyone to say with any certainty what would have happened, let alone asserting that what happened to the Heat specifically would definitely still have happened.

But none of those things would stop 3 top free agents from coming together.

It doesn't matter if it's Wade, Bosh, and Lebron or if it's A, B, and C.

If a team has a ton of cap space and there are 3 free agents (or if a team has a player and there are 2 free agents) and the free agents are willing to play with lower contracts they would be able to with a hard cap.