The legacies of super-teams and ring-chasers...does it really matter?

[In2ition]

It seems to me that if you don't allow free agency, and allowing players to play where they want, including superstars, you are allowing teams to continue to make bad decisions and not evolve and get better. Teams are always trying to figure out how to improve their culture, the luxuries that they afford and treat their players, and playing styles that help fit the best players games. If I was the best player in the world, but my front office didn't put the best kind of players that worked best with me along with an offensive and defensive game plan around me, it would be tough to become the best I could become. Think Terry Porter with the Suns. Westbrook doesn't bring out the best in Durant. Marbury didn't bring out the best in Amare, Marion, and JJ. All the power to trade players shouldn't sit in the hands of the teams, players should also have a say. And we should respect their right to do so. Durant didn't choose to move to OKC, his team was sold and moved. He may have loved to live in Seattle his whole career. Durant had a good team around him, but was their offense and Westbrook best for Durant? It felt like it was best for Westbrook. I personally don't care if star wants to go where they are going to be happy. If they leave my team, my team needs to do better to figure out how to keep them happy and compelled the star to improve their own team.

[The Bobster]

Well, the owners don't "allow" free agency, the players earned it in 1976 by fighting for it in court. The only question is what restrictions can the owners and players agree to operate under.

The only way you can keep star players from joining championship caliber teams with cap space is to put restrictions on teams based on how many games they win. And nobody's going to want that - if you think there's rumors of tanking now, wait until the next Shaquille O'Neal becomes available as a free agent under a system like that.

[Mori Chu]

Nobody here is saying that we should get rid of free agency. To argue against that point is a straw man.

[Indy]

Nobody here is saying that we should get rid of free agency. To argue against that point is a straw man.

OK, then what is your issue? The players should have said, hey owners, keep more of your money so we can delay getting raises to help you not make bad decisions and pay your workers too much? OK, maybe that was a straw man too, but I am really unsure as to why a worker would choose to forgo a raise for the betterment of an owner, when the owner is in no way struggling.

[O_Gardino]

What would you do to improve competitive balance? Besides twitter-shaming players who choose to join a good team.

[Indy]

What would you do to improve competitive balance? Besides twitter-shaming players who choose to join a good team.

I will start by saying that I am no capologist, so my takes could be ridiculous. But my first step would be to do more profit sharing like the NFL. They are by far the most competitively balanced sport of the big 4. But on the flip side, they treat their players the worst. If you did more profit sharing as a league, and also did the same with the players (for instance, their salary is not 100% of their compensation, but maybe only 60%, with league-wide profit going back to the players based on tenure, as an option), you could take care of owners/players in small markets. That way there would be less desire to jump ship for the big cities. That said, you will never be able to prevent that completely. There is a reason the general population of the US drifts to the big cities and doesn't stay in OKC or San Antonio.

And I haven't thought any of this through any longer than it took me to type it...

[The Bobster]

As long as human beings are running the teams there will always be haves and have-nots. There are always going to be guys like Mark Cuban who look for every competitive advantage while others just look to maximize their profits.

Teams like Brooklyn and Sacramento *should* be getting better, but both have made personnel decisions that have held them back. Then there's a team like Philadelphia that combines a questionable plan with bad luck.

And as long as you have states with no state income tax (Florida & Texas) and other cities with much better marketing possibilities (New York & Los Angeles) things will never be equal financially.

But I can accept a player saying "I want to maximize my earnings." I just don't want to hear a player say "I'm joining them because they're my best opportunity for a ring." Especially when the team won 73 games last year! That's clearly contrary to competitive balance. Is it in their rights to do that? Clearly. But I don't want to see it.

[Indy]

As long as human beings are running the teams there will always be haves and have-nots. There are always going to be guys like Mark Cuban who look for every competitive advantage while others just look to maximize their profits.

Teams like Brooklyn and Sacramento *should* be getting better, but both have made personnel decisions that have held them back. Then there's a team like Philadelphia that combines a questionable plan with bad luck.

And as long as you have states with no state income tax (Florida & Texas) and other cities with much better marketing possibilities (New York & Los Angeles) things will never be equal financially.

But I can accept a player saying "I want to maximize my earnings." I just don't want to hear a player say "I'm joining them because they're my best opportunity for a ring." Especially when the team won 73 games last year! That's clearly contrary to competitive balance. Is it in their rights to do that? Clearly. But I don't want to see it.

Even great players are very lucky to get more than 15 years out of their NBA careers. Their window for greatness is not very long. Assume you had to accomplish everything you ever wanted to do from a career standpoint by the time you were 35. And you can't achieve that goal on your own; you have to rely on other people, that you usually cannot control (owner, gm, coach), to get you to that pinnacle. Why would you not use your powers to be in the best situation for YOU to achieve that goal? I get the Superbone argument of saying that if it helps your team, you are for it, and if it hurts your team you are against it. I am talking about from the players' perspective. Why is it looked down upon to place yourself in the best possible position?

[O_Gardino]

But I can accept a player saying "I want to maximize my earnings." I just don't want to hear a player say "I'm joining them because they're my best opportunity for a ring." Especially when the team won 73 games last year! That's clearly contrary to competitive balance. Is it in their rights to do that? Clearly. But I don't want to see it.

Does that apply to all players, or just stars? Are you upset with David West for joining the Warriors?

[The Bobster]

I don't think David West joining them really moves the needle much at all when it comes to competitive balance.

[In2ition]

Nobody here is saying that we should get rid of free agency. To argue against that point is a straw man.

I'm not trying to say anyone is saying we should get rid of free agency. I guess simply put, you can get upset or angry with stars moving to other teams for whatever reason, that's your prerogative. Personally, I think it's a waste of time and silly for me to get riled up over it. I've got to keep my blood pressure down.

[Shabazz]

Simplest solution for a more even distribution of stars across multiple teams is to remove the max salary while leaving the salary cap/luxury tax. Teams and players would have tough decisions to make if stars could earn what they're actually worth. Durant would have had a lot to think about if Golden State offered him $25M per, but a team like Brooklyn (just an example) offered him $45M per.

[Indy]

Simplest solution for a more even distribution of stars across multiple teams is to remove the max salary while leaving the salary cap/luxury tax. Teams and players would have tough decisions to make if stars could earn what they're actually worth. Durant would have had a lot to think about if Golden State offered him $25M per, but a team like Brooklyn (just an example) offered him $45M per.

But that seems to really hurt most players. It is great for the top 20 guys in the league, but the next 250 get killed in that.

[Hermen]

Simplest solution for a more even distribution of stars across multiple teams is to remove the max salary while leaving the salary cap/luxury tax. Teams and players would have tough decisions to make if stars could earn what they're actually worth. Durant would have had a lot to think about if Golden State offered him $25M per, but a team like Brooklyn (just an example) offered him $45M per.

But that seems to really hurt most players. It is great for the top 20 guys in the league, but the next 250 get killed in that.

Could increasing the minimum salary help? If they had to pay role players more then there wouldn't be enough money for several max contracts per team.

[Aztec Sunsfan]

I've heard before about a "Franchise Player" tag system.

Y say one, maybe two tags per team, no limits on max salary (but they would count against the cap, maybe not 100%, but still), mínimum 4 years contracts with no early terminations, only medicals exceptions. Reduce the current amounts and increments on max contracts, so a clear gap is created between going to a team for max-but-no-tagged-contract VS staying as Franchise Player in your current team. This creates security and commitment for both the team and the player.

Trade rules. Give the Tagged players a No-trade clause, but if a tagged player gets traded, he must forfeit the diference in money between his tag and the available Max for his years in the league. This way, you also discourage teams to use lightly this tag, while reducing tagged player demands for trades (They would have to be really pissed off to the degree of leaving money on the table)

[O_Gardino]

I think the NBA already does a pretty good job of giving players reasons to stay in small markets.

I don't think the NBA should react to Durant moving any more than they needed to react to the Spurs drafting Duncan. Does it give one team an advantage? Yes. But it's an advantage from sheer luck and timing, not some systematic problem with the rules. The Warriors had to manage themselves well to get in this position, and they will have to manage well to continue winning. The only thing I would say to the NBA is that this may not have happened if the franchise was still in Seattle.

If I was the NBA, and I wanted to work on competitive balance (I'm not sure they do), I would address poorly managed teams. Some teams haven't put together a squad with any hope at all in a long time, and it's not the system that keeps them from winning. They just aren't managing as well as some others. Owners and GM's are competing just as much as coaches and players. If the ownership group just hasn't done anything well, maybe apply some pressure to get them to appoint some new leadership.

[Ring_Wanted]

I've heard before about a "Franchise Player" tag system.

Y say one, maybe two tags per team, no limits on max salary (but they would count against the cap, maybe not 100%, but still), mínimum 4 years contracts with no early terminations, only medicals exceptions. Reduce the current amounts and increments on max contracts, so a clear gap is created between going to a team for max-but-no-tagged-contract VS staying as Franchise Player in your current team. This creates security and commitment for both the team and the player.

Trade rules. Give the Tagged players a No-trade clause, but if a tagged player gets traded, he must forfeit the diference in money between his tag and the available Max for his years in the league. This way, you also discourage teams to use lightly this tag, while reducing tagged player demands for trades (They would have to be really pissed off to the degree of leaving money on the table)

Creating a real gap between what the curren team and everybody else can offer has always been a key to any possible solution to superstars dumping franchises. Regardless of form, that is the way for small franchises being able to retain players. Then again, such power needs to be balanced out by a smart front office that won't give out absurd contracts.

[Ring_Wanted]

I think the NBA already does a pretty good job of giving players reasons to stay in small markets.

I can't really agree with this, although things have changed a little. Ask Houston, OKC (twice), Minni, Sacto or Memphis. The only reason small markets are not abandoned more frequently is because there is a right to match offer sheets, but after that, a well consolidated star can get basically the same money elsewhere if he is smart about the duration of his deals.

[Shabazz]

Simplest solution for a more even distribution of stars across multiple teams is to remove the max salary while leaving the salary cap/luxury tax. Teams and players would have tough decisions to make if stars could earn what they're actually worth. Durant would have had a lot to think about if Golden State offered him $25M per, but a team like Brooklyn (just an example) offered him $45M per.

But that seems to really hurt most players. It is great for the top 20 guys in the league, but the next 250 get killed in that.

I don't know that I agree. It would be interesting. If you signed LeBron for $100M/year, you wouldn't have money to sign anyone else and LeBron wouldn't be up for that. I think it would create a dilemma for the quasi-stars. Teams would possibly feel forced to offer them insane salaries if they can't land top tier players and then they'd have to decide between those salaries and taking a big hit to play with the franchise guys.

Also, those top 20 players are probably responsible for 80% of the marketing and fan interest. They "deserve" to be making more.

[Indy]

Simplest solution for a more even distribution of stars across multiple teams is to remove the max salary while leaving the salary cap/luxury tax. Teams and players would have tough decisions to make if stars could earn what they're actually worth. Durant would have had a lot to think about if Golden State offered him $25M per, but a team like Brooklyn (just an example) offered him $45M per.

But that seems to really hurt most players. It is great for the top 20 guys in the league, but the next 250 get killed in that.

I don't know that I agree. It would be interesting. If you signed LeBron for $100M/year, you wouldn't have money to sign anyone else and LeBron wouldn't be up for that. I think it would create a dilemma for the quasi-stars. Teams would possibly feel forced to offer them insane salaries if they can't land top tier players and then they'd have to decide between those salaries and taking a big hit to play with the franchise guys.

Also, those top 20 players are probably responsible for 80% of the marketing and fan interest. They "deserve" to be making more.

I agree they should make more. What I don't agree with is that the league would be fine if the next 20-50 players decided to play in another league (due to significant pay increases over taking what is left on the table here).

But this is all moot, since it isn't going to happen.