Deron Williams traded to the Nets

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
You know that there's nothing that requires owners to give out guaranteed contracts, right?

The current CBA is the deal that the owners wanted in '99. No one's forcing them to guarantee contracts or to grossly overpay players. Stop trying to save the poor owners from themselves.

The structure of the league prevents non-guaranteed contracts due to competition. A team that offers players non-guaranteed contracts would never be able to sign a player because their competition would offer guaranteed contracts. Case in point: Memphis tried that s**t on Xavier Henry and failed miserably.


4 teams have won 23 of the past 30 championships.

If the NBA wants to keep the current system in place, they should just end the charade and eliminate every single team except the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, Celtics, Spurs, and Knicks, etc.

Why not just make it an 8 team league, because the rest of the teams have no hope of competing anyways.

Because a team that makes the playoffs every year, but doesn't win anything is still profitable and successful. Teams like Dallas, Phoenix, Orlando, etc. still do well, even if they aren't winning a title. Hell, before Lebron left, Cleveland was doing well. Bottom-feeding teams can get superstars temporarily and take turns being profitable until their star leaves, or they get a competent GM to surround him with talent. I see nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
What strange idiosyncrasy allows teams like San Antonio and Oklahoma City to be competitive, but not other teams? .

Luck, pure luck.

And the current "superteams" trend ensures that even if small market team luck into a Durant or Duncan or Carmelo....that they won't be able to retain that talent once that player becomes eligible for free agency.


I understand that management plays a huge part in whether or not a team is successful.

I just think there should be a system in place that gives teams a greater chance of retaining their talent. Like I suggested above, Carmelo should have a choice between $25M per year in Denver or $15M per year in New York. There should also be a system of compensatory picks in place that allows Cleveland, Toronto, and Denver to automatically pick in the top 5 in the 2011 NBA Draft for losing huge superstars.

Originally posted by pantstickle:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
You know that there's nothing that requires owners to give out guaranteed contracts, right?

The current CBA is the deal that the owners wanted in '99. No one's forcing them to guarantee contracts or to grossly overpay players. Stop trying to save the poor owners from themselves.

The structure of the league prevents non-guaranteed contracts due to competition. A team that offers players non-guaranteed contracts would never be able to sign a player because their competition would offer guaranteed contracts. Case in point: Memphis tried that s**t on Xavier Henry and failed miserably.


4 teams have won 23 of the past 30 championships.

If the NBA wants to keep the current system in place, they should just end the charade and eliminate every single team except the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, Celtics, Spurs, and Knicks, etc.

Why not just make it an 8 team league, because the rest of the teams have no hope of competing anyways.

Because a team that makes the playoffs every year, but doesn't win anything is still profitable and successful. Teams like Dallas, Phoenix, Orlando, etc. still do well, even if they aren't winning a title. Hell, before Lebron left, Cleveland was doing well. Bottom-feeding teams can get superstars temporarily and take turns being profitable until their star leaves, or they get a competent GM to surround him with talent. I see nothing wrong with that.

Further to this point, aside from about an 8 year stretch in the 70's, the championships have been concentrated to a small group of teams since the beginning of the sport. It's not a function of a system, it's a function of having great players in a sport where there aren't a lot of people on the field of play.

If you have Kobe and halfway decent talent around him, you're going to be a contender. LeBron? Same thing. Prime Shaq/Duncan? Same thing. No system can change the basic nature of the sport.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by pantstickle:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
You know that there's nothing that requires owners to give out guaranteed contracts, right?

The current CBA is the deal that the owners wanted in '99. No one's forcing them to guarantee contracts or to grossly overpay players. Stop trying to save the poor owners from themselves.

The structure of the league prevents non-guaranteed contracts due to competition. A team that offers players non-guaranteed contracts would never be able to sign a player because their competition would offer guaranteed contracts. Case in point: Memphis tried that s**t on Xavier Henry and failed miserably.


4 teams have won 23 of the past 30 championships.

If the NBA wants to keep the current system in place, they should just end the charade and eliminate every single team except the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, Celtics, Spurs, and Knicks, etc.

Why not just make it an 8 team league, because the rest of the teams have no hope of competing anyways.

Because a team that makes the playoffs every year, but doesn't win anything is still profitable and successful. Teams like Dallas, Phoenix, Orlando, etc. still do well, even if they aren't winning a title. Hell, before Lebron left, Cleveland was doing well. Bottom-feeding teams can get superstars temporarily and take turns being profitable until their star leaves, or they get a competent GM to surround him with talent. I see nothing wrong with that.

Further to this point, aside from about an 8 year stretch in the 70's, the championships have been concentrated to a small group of teams since the beginning of the sport. It's not a function of a system, it's a function of having great players in a sport where there aren't a lot of people on the field of play.

If you have Kobe and halfway decent talent around him, you're going to be a contender. LeBron? Same thing. Prime Shaq/Duncan? Same thing. No system can change the basic nature of the sport.

This is a fair point.


I believe that the main reason why the NFL is more popular than the NBA or the MLB is because of parity. Even the s**ttiest teams have a hope of going from 1-15 to the Super Bowl champions the next year. Which fosters a greater level of interest and fan support for the Cleveland Browns or Carolina Panthers, than the bottom-feeders of the NBA.

I understand that the NBA will never have the same level of parity as the NFL, but there can still be institutional changes that give small-market teams a more level playing field. Cleveland or Denver or Utah will never able to attract free agents. That is a huge competitive disadvantage.

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
What strange idiosyncrasy allows teams like San Antonio and Oklahoma City to be competitive, but not other teams? .

Luck, pure luck.

And the current "superteams" trend ensures that even if small market team luck into a Durant or Duncan or Carmelo....that they won't be able to retain that talent once that player becomes eligible for free agency.


I understand that management plays a huge part in whether or not a team is successful.

I just think there should be a system in place that gives teams a greater chance of retaining their talent. Like I suggested above, Carmelo should have a choice between $25M per year in Denver or $15M per year in New York. There should also be a system of compensatory picks in place that allows Cleveland, Toronto, and Denver to automatically pick in the top 5 in the 2011 NBA Draft for losing huge superstars.

It's not luck. At all. Case in point, even the team in the biggest market was the laughing stock of the league for a decade when they were improperly managed. Not a single playoff appearance. Huge payroll, huge market, no playoffs and no acquisition of big stars. They weren't able to acquire anyone or significance until they purged their bad contracts.

The same principle goes both ways.

LeBron & Bosh played for their respective teams for 7 years, and Melo for 7 1/2. They did retain their talent for a longer period of time than most teams do in other sports. Most of the big time players stay even longer. Should teams be allowed to keep their players forever?

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
At all. Case in point, even the team in the biggest market was the laughing stock of the league for a decade when they were improperly managed. Not a single playoff appearance. Huge payroll, huge market, no playoffs and no acquisition of big stars. They weren't able to acquire anyone or significance until they purged their bad contracts.

Yet another reason why the NFL is superior to the NBA. Non-guaranteed contracts. Teams don't have to suffer for half a decade for their mistakes, which allows teams to rebuild much more quickly...leading to greater parity.

Originally posted by crzy:
This is a fair point.


I believe that the main reason why the NFL is more popular than the NBA or the MLB is because of parity. Even the s**ttiest teams have a hope of going from 1-15 to the Super Bowl champions the next year. Which fosters a greater level of interest and fan support for the Cleveland Browns or Carolina Panthers, than the bottom-feeders of the NBA.

I understand that the NBA will never have the same level of parity as the NFL, but there can still be institutional changes that give small-market teams a more level playing field. Cleveland or Denver or Utah will never able to attract free agents. That is a huge competitive disadvantage.

I hear ya about football vs. basketball, I just don't think that sort of parity is possible as long as it's a 5 on 5 sport. Another factor are 7 game series' as opposed to single games. A 7 game series greatly reduces the likelihood of upsets. If football had a similar construct, there probably wouldn't be a great variance in the teams that win the SB.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the superteams either. I like the compensatory pick idea. At the same time, I don't think that free agency is THAT big of an element in creating a perennially successful team. It's a distant 3rd behind drafting and trading.

Originally posted by crzy:
Yet another reason why the NFL is superior to the NBA. Non-guaranteed contracts. Teams don't have to suffer for half a decade for their mistakes, which allows teams to rebuild much more quickly...leading to greater parity.

But why is it that owners in the NFL have been able to refrain from offering guaranteed contracts, whereas the NBA owners can't help themselves? There's nothing that dictated that the NBA owners couldn't do the same thing.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by crzy:
Yet another reason why the NFL is superior to the NBA. Non-guaranteed contracts. Teams don't have to suffer for half a decade for their mistakes, which allows teams to rebuild much more quickly...leading to greater parity.

But why is it that owners in the NFL have been able to refrain from offering guaranteed contracts, whereas the NBA owners can't help themselves? There's nothing that dictated that the NBA owners couldn't do the same thing.

Because all contracts are based on precedents. Market value for players is established by agents pointing to similar players with similar stats, production, etc. And at some point, guaranteed contracts became the norm.

The system can't be changed unless that change is dictated by some sort of institutional rule. A team that goes against the grain and tries to sign a player in the current market to a non-guaranteed contract can't do so....as they'll be at a competitive disadvantage in trying to acquire the player.


I know this goes against the basic principles of business.

But I think when it comes to sports..... competitive balance is more important than free-market competition.

I don't look at it as an issue of owners or management being "saved from themselves"


I look at it as an issue of fans being saved from bad management.

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by crzy:
Yet another reason why the NFL is superior to the NBA. Non-guaranteed contracts. Teams don't have to suffer for half a decade for their mistakes, which allows teams to rebuild much more quickly...leading to greater parity.

But why is it that owners in the NFL have been able to refrain from offering guaranteed contracts, whereas the NBA owners can't help themselves? There's nothing that dictated that the NBA owners couldn't do the same thing.

Because all contracts are based on precedents. Market value for players is established by agents pointing to similar players with similar stats, production, etc. And at some point, guaranteed contracts became the norm.

The system can't be changed unless that change is dictated by some sort of institutional rule. A team that goes against the grain and tries to sign a player in the current market to a non-guaranteed contract can't do so....as they'll be at a competitive disadvantage in trying to acquire the player.


I know this goes against the basic principles of business.

But I think when it comes to sports..... competitive balance is more important than free-market competition.

Agree 100%. It's totally for selfish reasons, but personally I'd rather the players have very little rights. Sports were far better before FA, you could grow up rooting for the same group of players, teams that drafted well (like Walsh era) had better 3rd stringers than many starters. Maybe some guys spent careers in spot duty and could have had more individual success elsewhere, but I'm a fan, I could give a s**t, help my team win!

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by crzy:
Yet another reason why the NFL is superior to the NBA. Non-guaranteed contracts. Teams don't have to suffer for half a decade for their mistakes, which allows teams to rebuild much more quickly...leading to greater parity.

But why is it that owners in the NFL have been able to refrain from offering guaranteed contracts, whereas the NBA owners can't help themselves? There's nothing that dictated that the NBA owners couldn't do the same thing.

Because all contracts are based on precedents. Market value for players is established by agents pointing to similar players with similar stats, production, etc. And at some point, guaranteed contracts became the norm.

The system can't be changed unless that change is dictated by some sort of institutional rule. A team that goes against the grain and tries to sign a player in the current market to a non-guaranteed contract can't do so....as they'll be at a competitive disadvantage in trying to acquire the player.


I know this goes against the basic principles of business.

But I think when it comes to sports..... competitive balance is more important than free-market competition.

The NBA is really one business with 30 franchises, so you do want to seek out what's best for the league as a whole. However, I just have a hard time sympathizing with owners that just can't help themselves. It's management's job to assign value to players, and not acquire them if the resources they exhaust exceed what they contribute. There are mechanisms in place where they have a ton of control, specifically the draft, rookie salary cap, and exclusive negotiating right for 2 years with a player who's approaching an extension. The good teams take advantage of that, and those are the ones that stay competitive and profitable. Free Agency is one of the few things that the player has much of a say in.

Regarding the "you're going to lose the fans" point, I agree with it on a theoretical standpoint, but the consolidation of power has actually increased interest in the sport. Larger than life teams or players have been more beneficial to the league than competitive balance has. Magic vs. Bird, Lakers vs. Celtics, Jordan, Shaq/Kobe, LeBron/Wade/Bosh, etc. The league's greatest era of parity (70's) was also a time of terrible economic trouble for them. The NBA Finals were even on tape delay. TV ratings are up significantly this year. I'd attribute a lot of that to LeBron and Miami.

It's increased interest in the casual fan, sure. I'm sure NBA ratings are up across the board this year. But I think that's fool's gold.

The casual fan will care for awhile about Lebron and Wade and the Heat, and the casual fan will turn in to see Carmelo debut in Madison Square Garden. But eventually that casual fan will get bored and tune away. It's the hardcore fans who stay long-term.

But among the hardcore fans of small-market teams, the NBA is dying. Teams hemorrhaging money. Contraction talk. Sacramento moving, New Orleans, Cleveland.

I actually wouldn't mind contraction, I just don't like the status quo. Contract 4 teams and redistribute their talent

Originally posted by crzy:
I actually wouldn't mind contraction, I just don't like the status quo. Contract 4 teams and redistribute their talent

What 4 teams?