The future for the NBA?

[King_B_Mack]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Haven't read through the entire thread, and this has probably already been mentioned...but the only way this is really bad for the league is if it continues. CP3 is already touting yet another big 3 in NY with he and Melo joining STAT. Whats next? Dwight Howard and Deron Williams saying F-it and meeting up with Durantula in Brooklyn in 5 years?

IMO, having the top 12-15 players all playing for four premium destination markets would kill the league.

Which is exactly the point I've been saying from the begining on top of the other things I have a problem with in all this. The NBA is a copycat league and if this thing is a success, this is going to be what everyone does. When Shaq came into the league, the NBA became a big man's league. With Nash, Paul, Kidd, Williams coming to form it became a point guard's league, then LA makes the move to get Gasol and it became about getting the length to matchup against the Lakers. That move sent everyone in a frenzy at the deadline that year trying to come up with an answer to what LA was doing. With this, especially if it's successful, teams are going to be trying to be trying to stack superstar players and we'll be stuck with three or four teams encompassing all the league's top players and there's no way you can convince me that, THAT is good for the league.

[Taur3asi3]

Re: The future for the NBA?

The NBA has been a big man's league since day one.

George Mikan
Bill Russell
Bob Pettit
Wilt Chamberlain
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Among numerous others

It never ceased being a big man's league.

Aside from that, I don't think stacking a team with 3 star players is something other teams can easily copy.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: The future for the NBA?

The NBA has been a big man's league since day one.

George Mikan
Bill Russell
Bob Pettit
Wilt Chamberlain
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Among numerous others

It never ceased being a big man's league.

Aside from that, I don't think stacking a team with 3 star players is something other teams can easily copy.

After Ewing retired, the center position has been abysmal. Shaq really was the last of the great centers. There've been some great big men like Duncan and KG, but as far as the big guys at the 5, there hasn't been a great one in a long time.

[Taur3asi3]

Re: The future for the NBA?

I agree the center position the last 10 or so years has been an abortion but power forwards are still big men. My point being that unless you have a generational or spectacular wing player or point guard (like Jordan/Pippen, Rick Barry, or Isiah Thomas) it's very difficult bordering on impossible to win without being strong inside. This has never and will never ever change.

Hence the NBA being a big man's league.

[JohnDoe8865]

Re: The future for the NBA?

I just think a lockout is the best thing and hopefully a hard cap comes from it. And by hard cap, I mean a HARD CAP.

Oh, you signed LBJ, Wade, and Bosh and you dont have anything left? You want to sign a bunch of ring chasers at the minimum? And you have 1.1 million left. Good luck with that. The Cap is THE CAP. If you want to play with 6 players versus another team's 12, be our (The NBA's ) guest!

That's my "radical" solution anyway...

[Taur3asi3]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Your radical solution would ruin the league.

[brahmagoul]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Your radical solution would ruin the league.

How so? A hard cap, forcing a lot more talent to be evenly despersed, would remedy the problem of empty arenas when you have matchups like the Grizzlies vs. Timberwolves. A hard cap would also make the draft much more relevant again.

[Cebby]

Re: The future for the NBA?

I just think a lockout is the best thing and hopefully a hard cap comes from it. And by hard cap, I mean a HARD CAP.

Oh, you signed LBJ, Wade, and Bosh and you dont have anything left? You want to sign a bunch of ring chasers at the minimum? And you have 1.1 million left. Good luck with that. The Cap is THE CAP. If you want to play with 6 players versus another team's 12, be our (The NBA's ) guest!

That's my "radical" solution anyway...

Again, the Heat would benefit from a hard cap more than any team in the league.

The Lakers, Celtics, Magic, Mavs, Hawks, Nuggets, and Blazers would have to completely dismantle their teams (every top playoff team aside from the Cavs and Suns for obvious reasons) and the Bulls and Thunder wouldn't be able to resign Rose or Westbrook for legit salaries.

For example, the Lakers' top 5 players (Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, and Artest) alone are 20 million over the cap. The Celtics Big Three plus Rondo are over the cap. Shard, Howard, and Vince are about a million under the cap.

Even with minimum players, the Heat would be way better than every team in the league. Their big three plus Miller and Haslam would be the best at the cap team by a mile.

A hard cap wouldn't affect the Heat at all. For all real purposes, they had a hard cap this year.

A hard cap would also make the draft much more relevant again.

If you're instituting a "hard" cap where you can't go over for any reason 60-80% of the league wouldn't be able to sign their rookies and just about every good rookie would be a free agent after their first contract.

[Vince]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Hard Cap's don't allow teams to retain their own players.

[slimm44]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Haven't read through the entire thread, and this has probably already been mentioned...but the only way this is really bad for the league is if it continues. CP3 is already touting yet another big 3 in NY with he and Melo joining STAT. Whats next? Dwight Howard and Deron Williams saying F-it and meeting up with Durantula in Brooklyn in 5 years?

IMO, having the top 12-15 players all playing for four premium destination markets would kill the league.

That's kind of how it was in the 80's with some REALLY deep and stacked teams and some bottom feeders. Maybe they're (inadvertently) trying to rebuild the Showtime '80's. Maybe not, who knows.

[Rocky]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Again, the Heat would benefit from a hard cap more than any team in the league.

The Lakers, Celtics, Magic, Mavs, Hawks, Nuggets, and Blazers would have to completely dismantle their teams (every top playoff team aside from the Cavs and Suns for obvious reasons) and the Bulls and Thunder wouldn't be able to resign Rose or Westbrook for legit salaries.

For example, the Lakers' top 5 players (Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, and Artest) alone are 20 million over the cap. The Celtics Big Three plus Rondo are over the cap. Shard, Howard, and Vince are about a million under the cap.

Even with minimum players, the Heat would be way better than every team in the league. Their big three plus Miller and Haslam would be the best at the cap team by a mile.

A hard cap wouldn't affect the Heat at all. For all real purposes, they had a hard cap this year.



If you're instituting a "hard" cap where you can't go over for any reason 60-80% of the league wouldn't be able to sign their rookies and just about every good rookie would be a free agent after their first contract.

That's sort of the beauty of the "hard" cap. You can't keep all the players you drafted. The Thunder could keep Durant and Westbrook, but wouldn't have the luxury of bringing in another star using big bucks. If Harden turns out to be a star, he will have to go elsewhere if he wants to get paid. That in turn means parity.

Look, Julius Peppers is the best player that my Carolina Panthers have ever had. But the hard cap made it difficult for us to keep him and some our younger players. They had to make the tough choice...NBA teams will have to do the same.

I would make an exception for franchise players. I would like a rule that you can deem one player as your Franchise player. That player could make more money with your team than anyone else. If you change franchise players, than the player that you took the tag away from automatically becomes a free agent as well as you have to pay him reimbursement.

[phenom1990]

Re: The future for the NBA?

I hate the idea of a hard cap because of the exact reason Rocky stated as a positive. I feel a team like the Thunder should not be punished if they draft well for years and have to pick what they want to keep from their young talent. If you put yourself in the positions and do your work scouting/coaching , you should not have to give up a player you drafted just because of a hard cap. If there are other reasons not related to a hard cap then fine. The idea of punishing a team that drafted well and did their homework to allow other teams that stink; that didn't do their homework as good to get one of those good players the Thunder drafted just as they are entering their prime is just ridiculous imo.

[Cebby]

Re: The future for the NBA?

That's sort of the beauty of the "hard" cap. You can't keep all the players you drafted. The Thunder could keep Durant and Westbrook, but wouldn't have the luxury of bringing in another star using big bucks. If Harden turns out to be a star, he will have to go elsewhere if he wants to get paid. That in turn means parity.

Look, Julius Peppers is the best player that my Carolina Panthers have ever had. But the hard cap made it difficult for us to keep him and some our younger players. They had to make the tough choice...NBA teams will have to do the same.

I would make an exception for franchise players. I would like a rule that you can deem one player as your Franchise player. That player could make more money with your team than anyone else. If you change franchise players, than the player that you took the tag away from automatically becomes a free agent as well as you have to pay him reimbursement.

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.

[Vast]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Again, the Heat would benefit from a hard cap more than any team in the league.

The Lakers, Celtics, Magic, Mavs, Hawks, Nuggets, and Blazers would have to completely dismantle their teams (every top playoff team aside from the Cavs and Suns for obvious reasons) and the Bulls and Thunder wouldn't be able to resign Rose or Westbrook for legit salaries.

For example, the Lakers' top 5 players (Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, and Artest) alone are 20 million over the cap. The Celtics Big Three plus Rondo are over the cap. Shard, Howard, and Vince are about a million under the cap.

Even with minimum players, the Heat would be way better than every team in the league. Their big three plus Miller and Haslam would be the best at the cap team by a mile.

A hard cap wouldn't affect the Heat at all. For all real purposes, they had a hard cap this year.



If you're instituting a "hard" cap where you can't go over for any reason 60-80% of the league wouldn't be able to sign their rookies and just about every good rookie would be a free agent after their first contract.

Insightful post. I'm not very familiar with the financial aspects of the NBA.
Seems like some posters are demanding a hard cap as a solution, when in reality a hard cap would not have prevented the LeBosh-Wade from happening.

It sounds like a hard cap would do alot more harm than good.

[pietasterp]

Re: The future for the NBA?

Insightful post. I'm not very familiar with the financial aspects of the NBA.
Seems like some posters are demanding a hard cap as a solution, when in reality a hard cap would not have prevented the LeBosh-Wade from happening.

It sounds like a hard cap would do alot more harm than good.

While specific events and instances of a hard cap negatively affecting the league certainly exist, I'd say on the whole, a hard cap is a good thing. You can't look at these things as just what happened in Miami; a huge number of things conspired over the preceding several years to make that possible, and the implications of a hard cap aren't just preventing a team from accumulating superstars - it affects (positively, in my opinion) the financial structure of the entire business and every move that every team makes.

Generally speaking, hard caps improve the finances and overall health of a sports league. Just an opinion, but one with at least some anecdotal evidence behind it...