What are your thoughts on superstars creating NBA "Mega Teams""

Originally posted by crzy:
God I hope there is an extended lockout.

I hope all the NBA players lose a year of paychecks, half of them would go broke.

The player's union would come crawling back to the owners.


Franchise tags, non-guaranteed contacts, reduced salaries.


No more motherf**kers holding teams hostages like Lebron and Melo did this past year.


The players union needs to be obliterated.

I agree with you that LeBron held the Cavs hostage by telling them they were the frontrunners all the way until he told them he was leaving on national TV. But Melo didn't hold Denver hostage. He never gave them any indication he was resigning. But I do get your point in general.

The thing is the teams trade players at a whim to whichever team they want to trade the player to. Look at Kendrick Perkins and Deron Williams. I think players having to wait out their 2nd contract to go to the team they feel is better for them is more than a fair tradeoff.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
It's bad for the NBA. 85% - 90% of teams and cities will never have a chance to compete at the highest level. That's bad for competition and ratings in a sense because certain cities lose interest. The Knicks, Lakers, Heat and Celtics are the Super Teams at the moment. And that has a tendency to build on itself. Good players want to go to already good and winning programs. There isn't much incentive to go to Cleveland. It's not that dersirable of a city and it isn't a very good team.

But on a personal level it's their money and their "free agency." So they can go where they want to go.

I do wonder if it is the best system? How is a team like Cleveland supposed to get good? Draft good and then the best player leaves when he can?

It's weird that this doesn't really occur in the NFL. The Packers play in some unrecognizable city in Wisconsin, yet you don't hear of them not being able to land free agents.

I really don't know what the answer is for the NBA. It's certainly not fair to force players to stay with the team that draft them until that teams wants to get rid of them. Maybe a hard cap could balance things out.

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
It's bad for the NBA. 85% - 90% of teams and cities will never have a chance to compete at the highest level. That's bad for competition and ratings in a sense because certain cities lose interest. The Knicks, Lakers, Heat and Celtics are the Super Teams at the moment. And that has a tendency to build on itself. Good players want to go to already good and winning programs. There isn't much incentive to go to Cleveland. It's not that dersirable of a city and it isn't a very good team.

But on a personal level it's their money and their "free agency." So they can go where they want to go.

I do wonder if it is the best system? How is a team like Cleveland supposed to get good? Draft good and then the best player leaves when he can?

It's weird that this doesn't really occur in the NFL. The Packers play in some unrecognizable city in Wisconsin, yet you don't hear of them not being able to land free agents.

I really don't know what the answer is for the NBA. It's certainly not fair to force players to stay with the team that draft them until that teams wants to get rid of them. Maybe a hard cap could balance things out.

It doesn't seem to be the case in the NFL where small market teams like New Orleans and Green Bay can win. And even cold less desirable cities. I agree I don't think it's fair to force players to stay with a team that drafted them. But something is wrong lately. It has a very "engineered feel." Super teams in historically winning cities or desirable locations. It just doesn't seem like a level playing field anymore. Maybe a hard cap is a good thing. Maybe not. Perhaps there are other things that can be tried. But at the prestent pace of things 4 - 5 teams will win the next 20 championships because they will keep attracting the top FA's and the other teams won't have a chance. I don't think that's good for basketball.

In the NFL there are "franchise tags" which keep star players from trying to join up and form superteams.

There are "compensatory" picks given to teams that lose free agents.

There is a hard salary cap that is enforced.

There are non-guaranteed contracts which keep players in line.

There is an age limit, so that young, entitled athletes aren't given the reigns to a franchise before they're allowed to drink.



All of these things foster parity in the NFL, which is what make it a superior product to the NBA.

I'd rather be a Kings fan.

Originally posted by crzy:
In the NFL there are "franchise tags" which keep star players from trying to join up and form superteams.

There are "compensatory" picks given to teams that lose free agents.

There is a hard salary cap that is enforced.

There are non-guaranteed contracts which keep players in line.

There is an age limit, so that young, entitled athletes aren't given the reigns to a franchise before they're allowed to drink.


All of these things foster parity in the NFL, which is what make it a superior product to the NBA.

Good post. I'm with Crzy on this one but LA made some valid points. At the end of the day, I would love the NBA to implement what the NFL does. First and foremost, there NEEDS to be a hard cap. Then other things like franchise tag, non-guaranteed contracts, etc. It would really bring parity to the league and make it a overall better product.

NBA also needs revenue sharing


David Stern will save the NBA.

Originally posted by crzy:
In the NFL there are "franchise tags" which keep star players from trying to join up and form superteams.

There are "compensatory" picks given to teams that lose free agents.

There is a hard salary cap that is enforced.

There are non-guaranteed contracts which keep players in line.

There is an age limit, so that young, entitled athletes aren't given the reigns to a franchise before they're allowed to drink.



All of these things foster parity in the NFL, which is what make it a superior product to the NBA.

I agree with some of those principles. I think the hard cap is good, and comp picks. I'm not a fan of the franchise tags though. Would the Nuggets just franchise tag Melo until he retires? I dislike the idea of teams holding players hostage just as much as I dislike players holding teams hostage.

I doubt the age limit is a big deal though. Players have to be 19 for the NBA and 21 for the NFL. There's not a big difference in the maturity level there or between the two leagues.

I sort of like the non-guaranteed contracts in the way the NFL has them. It's laughable that Tracy McGrady was THE highest paid player last year while Jermaine O'Neal was 3rd on the list.

Originally posted by crzy:
NBA also needs revenue sharing


David Stern will save the NBA.

You honestly believe that? I think he loves what is going on. All of the big market teams have Star Player(s)on their roster and are competitive. Ratings will be probably at an all time high this year for the playoffs and finals. I honestly don't think much change is going to come with the new CBA. I hope, pray I'm wrong but I just don't see it.

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by crzy:
In the NFL there are "franchise tags" which keep star players from trying to join up and form superteams.

There are "compensatory" picks given to teams that lose free agents.

There is a hard salary cap that is enforced.

There are non-guaranteed contracts which keep players in line.

There is an age limit, so that young, entitled athletes aren't given the reigns to a franchise before they're allowed to drink.



All of these things foster parity in the NFL, which is what make it a superior product to the NBA.

I agree with some of those principles. I think the hard cap is good, and comp picks. I'm not a fan of the franchise tags though. Would the Nuggets just franchise tag Melo until he retires? I dislike the idea of teams holding players hostage just as much as I dislike players holding teams hostage.

I doubt the age limit is a big deal though. Players have to be 19 for the NBA and 21 for the NFL. There's not a big difference in the maturity level there or between the two leagues.

I sort of like the non-guaranteed contracts in the way the NFL has them. It's laughable that Tracy McGrady was THE highest paid player last year while Jermaine O'Neal was 3rd on the list.

You're s**ttin me right? Having to play 3 years in a legitimate collegiate program and being free (out of your parents house) for 3 full years is a huge process for these kids...I would love for the NBA to adopt that rule...

I'm not a fan of the franchise tag either, compensatory picks are nice though...

And Im not quite sure where I stand with the hard cap...but its a negative in regards to revenue sharing, just cannot see why most owners would want that...it would promote teams to not try as hard to improve, promote, and push their team because they know their revenue will get tossed into a pot along with LA's revenue, NY's revenue, etc and they'll get a larger piece than they deserve

Originally posted by Amir_Mamu:

Originally posted by crzy:
NBA also needs revenue sharing


David Stern will save the NBA.

You honestly believe that? I think he loves what is going on. All of the big market teams have Star Player(s)on their roster and are competitive. Ratings will be probably at an all time high this year for the playoffs and finals. I honestly don't think much change is going to come with the new CBA. I hope, pray I'm wrong but I just don't see it.

Yes.

David Stern has suggested an age limit, compensatory picks, non-guaranteed contracts, and a franchise tag.....all ideas to reduce player salaries and restore competitive balance.


You know there's a lockout coming right?

The owners want a change and they'll get one.

Originally posted by GameOver:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by crzy:
In the NFL there are "franchise tags" which keep star players from trying to join up and form superteams.

There are "compensatory" picks given to teams that lose free agents.

There is a hard salary cap that is enforced.

There are non-guaranteed contracts which keep players in line.

There is an age limit, so that young, entitled athletes aren't given the reigns to a franchise before they're allowed to drink.



All of these things foster parity in the NFL, which is what make it a superior product to the NBA.

I agree with some of those principles. I think the hard cap is good, and comp picks. I'm not a fan of the franchise tags though. Would the Nuggets just franchise tag Melo until he retires? I dislike the idea of teams holding players hostage just as much as I dislike players holding teams hostage.

I doubt the age limit is a big deal though. Players have to be 19 for the NBA and 21 for the NFL. There's not a big difference in the maturity level there or between the two leagues.

I sort of like the non-guaranteed contracts in the way the NFL has them. It's laughable that Tracy McGrady was THE highest paid player last year while Jermaine O'Neal was 3rd on the list.

You're s**ttin me right? Having to play 3 years in a legitimate collegiate program and being free (out of your parents house) for 3 full years is a huge process for these kids...I would love for the NBA to adopt that rule...

I'm not a fan of the franchise tag either, compensatory picks are nice though...

And Im not quite sure where I stand with the hard cap...but its a negative in regards to revenue sharing, just cannot see why most owners would want that...it would promote teams to not try as hard to improve, promote, and push their team because they know their revenue will get tossed into a pot along with LA's revenue, NY's revenue, etc and they'll get a larger piece than they deserve

It's not that big of a difference in the level of maturity for a player after one year of college and a player after 3 years of college. It just amounts to 2 more years of getting an easy ride on campus while being king. But I don't see NBA rookies as more problematic than NFL rookies.

I'm not sure about revenue sharing either, but it does serve its purpose in the NFL.

Like I said, I like the comp picks, I'm just not sure how it would work in a league with only two rounds for the entire draft. It probably can work, but our only example is from a sport with 7 rounds to place those comp picks.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by pantstickle:
Overblown. Aside from Lebron/Wade/Bosh, there's nothing out of the ordinary.

Yep. Miami's the only team that's done it.

Lakers = Drafted Kobe 13th overall, Dealt expiring k & picks for Gasol, drafted Bynum 10th, traded Shaq for Odom

Boston = Drafted Rondo 21st in draft, drafted Pierce 10th, traded Al Jefferson & others for KG, traded 5th pick in draft for Ray Allen.

San Antonio = Drafted Duncan 1st, drafted Manu 57th, drafted Parker 28th

OKC = Drafted Durant 1st, drafted Westbrook 4th

Dallas = Drafted Dirk 9th, traded for Jason Kidd, traded for Jason Terry


Look at where a lot of these guys were drafted or what they were traded for. They coulda been had by several teams.

I think the Miami situation, along with the Melo deal, have people concerned that superstars joining forces is becoming a trend. A few teams having a lot of stars has been happening since the beginning though. It's just that it used to be via low market teams selling their star players to the big market teams. Now it's the players deciding what teams they want to play for.

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by GameOver:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by crzy:
In the NFL there are "franchise tags" which keep star players from trying to join up and form superteams.

There are "compensatory" picks given to teams that lose free agents.

There is a hard salary cap that is enforced.

There are non-guaranteed contracts which keep players in line.

There is an age limit, so that young, entitled athletes aren't given the reigns to a franchise before they're allowed to drink.



All of these things foster parity in the NFL, which is what make it a superior product to the NBA.

I agree with some of those principles. I think the hard cap is good, and comp picks. I'm not a fan of the franchise tags though. Would the Nuggets just franchise tag Melo until he retires? I dislike the idea of teams holding players hostage just as much as I dislike players holding teams hostage.

I doubt the age limit is a big deal though. Players have to be 19 for the NBA and 21 for the NFL. There's not a big difference in the maturity level there or between the two leagues.

I sort of like the non-guaranteed contracts in the way the NFL has them. It's laughable that Tracy McGrady was THE highest paid player last year while Jermaine O'Neal was 3rd on the list.

You're s**ttin me right? Having to play 3 years in a legitimate collegiate program and being free (out of your parents house) for 3 full years is a huge process for these kids...I would love for the NBA to adopt that rule...

I'm not a fan of the franchise tag either, compensatory picks are nice though...

And Im not quite sure where I stand with the hard cap...but its a negative in regards to revenue sharing, just cannot see why most owners would want that...it would promote teams to not try as hard to improve, promote, and push their team because they know their revenue will get tossed into a pot along with LA's revenue, NY's revenue, etc and they'll get a larger piece than they deserve

It's not that big of a difference in the level of maturity for a player after one year of college and a player after 3 years of college. It just amounts to 2 more years of getting an easy ride on campus while being king. But I don't see NBA rookies as more problematic than NFL rookies.

I'm not sure about revenue sharing either, but it does serve its purpose in the NFL.

Like I said, I like the comp picks, I'm just not sure how it would work in a league with only two rounds for the entire draft. I probably can work, but our only example is from a sport with 7 rounds to place those comp picks.

You are looking at this 1 vs. 3 years thing from a very narrow perspective...these are KIDS who have had their parents/friends around them growing up in their respective towns and this is their first opportunity in a brand new place with brand new expectations (usually high if we are talkin about the kind of kids who have the ability to be "one and done" kids that go to the NBA) in a high level (not professional but still a high level) of the sport...the transition takes a while and is huge, hell, look at some of the kids in the league now like Derozan in Toronto, dude went to USC, I would say struggled his first year (yes he had flashes but dude was really inconsistent) and several of his teammates attributed that to his inability to adjust to living in that kind of environment, being independent and in college and all that other s**t...

Then a few years later, he still is inconsistent in Toronto...imagine if he just stayed at SC for a couple years, grew up, made a full transformation at the college level, and then when he had to do the same thing AGAIN by going professional, he would have already had a blueprint for how to go about it...sure some guys can do it (both the "1 and done" guys and the guys who came straight out of high school back when they could) but it would have been a huge benefit to them and their respective team had they been able to mature and grow both physically and mostly mentally/emotionally in college before getting to the league...

These kids cannot even f**king legally drink when they go to play with grown men who can go to the bar at night to just have some drinks or go for a night on the town or some s**t...yet you want to put hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in some of their cases pending where they get drafted) and freedom with grown men in huge cities where they can and will get ravaged by groupies/whores/b*****ds/pieces of s**ts?

Plus, this would make the collegiate game better too, which is a double whammy for all basketball fans

Originally posted by GameOver:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by GameOver:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by crzy:
In the NFL there are "franchise tags" which keep star players from trying to join up and form superteams.

There are "compensatory" picks given to teams that lose free agents.

There is a hard salary cap that is enforced.

There are non-guaranteed contracts which keep players in line.

There is an age limit, so that young, entitled athletes aren't given the reigns to a franchise before they're allowed to drink.



All of these things foster parity in the NFL, which is what make it a superior product to the NBA.

I agree with some of those principles. I think the hard cap is good, and comp picks. I'm not a fan of the franchise tags though. Would the Nuggets just franchise tag Melo until he retires? I dislike the idea of teams holding players hostage just as much as I dislike players holding teams hostage.

I doubt the age limit is a big deal though. Players have to be 19 for the NBA and 21 for the NFL. There's not a big difference in the maturity level there or between the two leagues.

I sort of like the non-guaranteed contracts in the way the NFL has them. It's laughable that Tracy McGrady was THE highest paid player last year while Jermaine O'Neal was 3rd on the list.

You're s**ttin me right? Having to play 3 years in a legitimate collegiate program and being free (out of your parents house) for 3 full years is a huge process for these kids...I would love for the NBA to adopt that rule...

I'm not a fan of the franchise tag either, compensatory picks are nice though...

And Im not quite sure where I stand with the hard cap...but its a negative in regards to revenue sharing, just cannot see why most owners would want that...it would promote teams to not try as hard to improve, promote, and push their team because they know their revenue will get tossed into a pot along with LA's revenue, NY's revenue, etc and they'll get a larger piece than they deserve

It's not that big of a difference in the level of maturity for a player after one year of college and a player after 3 years of college. It just amounts to 2 more years of getting an easy ride on campus while being king. But I don't see NBA rookies as more problematic than NFL rookies.

I'm not sure about revenue sharing either, but it does serve its purpose in the NFL.

Like I said, I like the comp picks, I'm just not sure how it would work in a league with only two rounds for the entire draft. I probably can work, but our only example is from a sport with 7 rounds to place those comp picks.

You are looking at this 1 vs. 3 years thing from a very narrow perspective...these are KIDS who have had their parents/friends around them growing up in their respective towns and this is their first opportunity in a brand new place with brand new expectations (usually high if we are talkin about the kind of kids who have the ability to be "one and done" kids that go to the NBA) in a high level (not professional but still a high level) of the sport...the transition takes a while and is huge, hell, look at some of the kids in the league now like Derozan in Toronto, dude went to USC, I would say struggled his first year (yes he had flashes but dude was really inconsistent) and several of his teammates attributed that to his inability to adjust to living in that kind of environment, being independent and in college and all that other s**t...

Then a few years later, he still is inconsistent in Toronto...imagine if he just stayed at SC for a couple years, grew up, made a full transformation at the college level, and then when he had to do the same thing AGAIN by going professional, he would have already had a blueprint for how to go about it...sure some guys can do it (both the "1 and done" guys and the guys who came straight out of high school back when they could) but it would have been a huge benefit to them and their respective team had they been able to mature and grow both physically and mostly mentally/emotionally in college before getting to the league...

These kids cannot even f**king legally drink when they go to play with grown men who can go to the bar at night to just have some drinks or go for a night on the town or some s**t...yet you want to put hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in some of their cases pending where they get drafted) and freedom with grown men in huge cities where they can and will get ravaged by groupies/whores/b*****ds/pieces of s**ts?

Plus, this would make the collegiate game better too, which is a double whammy for all basketball fans

I'm looking at the big picture for the 1 year vs 3 years in college. I'm saying as far as maturity and ability to perform, NFL and NBA early entry rookies aren't any different. NBA rookies don't seem to struggle any more than NFL rookies and they also don't seem to make a higher proportion of immature mistakes. Of course we can go back and forth with players that excelled after being 1 and done in college vs players who haven't cut it. But the NFL rookies don't seem any more ahead of the curve than NBA rookies. DeRozan just isn't that good.

Also, in my opinion only, the 3 year wait is more necessary with football. In my opinion there's a bigger learning curve for football than basketball.

I do agree that it would be MUCH better for college basketball to make them stay longer though. I guess no one can disagree with that.