Draft Idea

[wutang112878]

Again, what I'm arguing is that the moral hazard (tanking) is not bad enough to need a radical change to the draft.

 
I'd point to my last post, it could have some consequences that really are good for the league beyond just fixing the draft order issue.
 
 

I do, however, like the idea of draft rights being held while a player attends college (similar to draft rights on professional european ballers). I'd add a twist, however -- you get a fixed number of years of contract control, and those years get ticked off whether you employ the player or do not.

 
I dont get this though, doesnt this bring up an issue similar to your player dictated destination issue?  Now if a player is drafted by Philly they can stay in college 2 years to avoid going there which would allow back-channeling and the player will claim they will stay in college unless Philly trades them....  you can see where this is going.  Thats why I like the idea of 'Philly drafted you, come out whenever you want but they will be your NBA employer for 4 years'

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
Maybe those teams dont find themselves in hopeless situations in the first place.  Maybe during the Big3 era we got a high pick and got a Len Bias type player that extended the Big3s window and allowed us elegantly transition into the next great Celtics team the way it seemed Reggie Lewis might allow the Celts to do that in the 90s.  Orlando might have been able to pickup a 2nd fiddle for Howard and he might have stayed there.  Ultimately teams are going to have peaks and valleys just like business cycles, but in todays lottery world you have to bottom out to get your high picks.  With the wheel, where you dont have to bottom out to get a top pick, its possible that your stay in the valley of suck is shortened.  That right there actually might be the real justification for the wheel, if it spreads out the talent more equally and it brings about more parity and fewer instances of teams sucking for an extended period then that is good for the NBA.  The same way that parity and the ability to rebuild quickly helped the NFL.

First:

NBA playoff droughts:
Minnesota -10 years
Sacramento- 8
Detroit - 5
Phoenix - 4
Cleveland - 4

NFL Playoff drought:
Buffalo - 14 years
Cleveland - 11 years
Oakland - 11 years
St. Louis - 9 years
Tampa - 6 years
Jacksonville - 6 years
Miami - 5 years
Tennessee - 5 years

So the idea that the NFL has easy rebuilds and competitive balance all figured out is not really accurate.

As for the rest, we're not going to agree. You seem to think throwing Orlando a top 5 pick during the Howard era solves things, but I see a franchise that gave Rashard Lewis max money and used their first post Dwight pick on a player who has played exactly zero NBA games. The current NBA system rewards player development and wise salary cap decisions, and good organizations have had no trouble whatsoever in building great teams. The draft is only a small part of it. Let me ask you this: is Kawhi Leonard the same player he is now if he spent his time in Sacramento? Is Rondo the player he is if the Knicks draft him? Does Hibbert develop as well in Cleveland? The wheel makes good teams better. It spreads the talent around, in theory. But the bad organizations will still be bad, they'll now just have fewer opportunities to get a pick right. Maybe the Celtics do find their "Len Bias" (though I find that to be a really odd example), but it doesn't do anything for organizations employing David Kahn. Ultimately, in an attempt to build parity, you're creating a larger divide.

 

[wutang112878]

I'm not arguing with your numbers but I'd use a different measurement for parity.  If we polled NFL and NBA teams and asked them if they thought their franchise had a chance to win it all, I can confidently say you are going to get overwhelming more Yes's in the NFL than the NBA.  There are what maybe 6 NBA teams that really feel like they have a chance to win, and in the NFL I would say there are maybe 12 each year that feel like they have no chance, thats a huge difference.  Correct or just perceived the NFL has an advantage here over the NBA. 
 
We arent going to agree but the truth is probably somewhere in between our viewpoints.  I never suggested the wheel would solve NBA world hunger, and it wont fix bad organizations, but would you agree that the wheel could possibly provide improvements beyond just the draft order?  I think you are glossing over the fact that it 1- Gives teams high picks without bottoming out, and 2- Creates a completely level playing field (from an order standpoint) for rookie talent acquisition.  The later can help the front office focus their efforts when teams know what picks they will get each year, and the competitive advantage will really be found in what players you sign and in trades.
 
As for the Len Bias example, horrible writing on my part.  At the time of the pick the thought was that the Big 3 was beginning to age, and that Bias could step in and play a lot of minutes and reduce the load on the Big3 thus extending their careers and gradually having the torch passed to him.  Now it didnt exactly work out like that, but with the wheel good teams might have that possibility.
 
There isnt one exact conducive environment for players though.  You have some great examples of players who developed because they were in great organizations, and some players need just that.  Rondo needed that structure for his stubbornness and the talent support to figure out how his unique game could succeed in the NBA.  But look at Al Jefferson and Perkins who developed in the same place.  Al had more raw talent but Perk was showing more steady development before 2008 while Al looked clueless on defense play after play after play.  Then obviously Perks play seemed to skyrocket when he was asked to be the 5th best player on the court but he really didnt become that much of a better player he just had better talent around him.  Then Al went to Minny and his usage goes up he looks like an improved player because his great offensive game was showcased.  Imagine if Perk was traded instead of Al, Al would not have looked that good on the Big3 Celtics.  His offense would have been a big help but he wouldnt have gotten the touches he got in Minny, and he wouldnt have been able to stay on the court because of his defensive problems.  So there is a guy who actually benefited by being able to do some development on a crappy team.  How much is Kidd-Gilchrist benefiting because there isnt great talent playing ahead of him?   How much did Carmelo benefit from having Denver run by Kiki and it gave him time during that chaos to hone his offensive game?  I'm not trying to be an a$$ and just disagree but I genuinely think there are players who benefit from being on bad teams, getting NBA minutes they probably dont deserve based on their current skill level and develop more rapidly as a result.  Its the same reason the Celts basically threw away 05/06 and 06/07 to just develop young players.  Which, to bring it full circle, they might have be reluctant to do if they knew they werent going to have a high pick in the 06 and 07 drafts :q:

 

[crystalline]

Yes.
In baseball more than half of the teams feel like they could get hot and win the wildcard and then who knows how far they'd go in the playoffs.
In the NFL more than half the teams feel like they can get a wildcard spot and then who knows how far they'd go in the playoffs.
In the NBA about 6 teams think they have a shot to win it all. The 8 seed in the playoffs has almost no chance to go far in the playoffs.

In large part this is due to the rules of each sport. Favorites in the NBA have a higher chance of winning than in any other sport. This gives the NBA playoffs a feeling of inevitability.

 

[Infield Infidel]

First:

NBA playoff droughts:
Minnesota -10 years
Sacramento- 8
Detroit - 5
Phoenix - 4
Cleveland - 4

NFL Playoff drought:
Buffalo - 14 years
Cleveland - 11 years
Oakland - 11 years
St. Louis - 9 years
Tampa - 6 years
Jacksonville - 6 years
Miami - 5 years
Tennessee - 5 years

So the idea that the NFL has easy rebuilds and competitive balance all figured out is not really accurate.

Numbers wise, this is a bit apples and oranges since NFL playoffs are 12 of 32 teams, and NBA is 16 of 30. More than half the NBA makes the playoffs, including teams under .500 fairly often.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Again, what I'm arguing is that the moral hazard (tanking) is not bad enough to need a radical change to the draft.
 
In any event, the wheel will never happen. The old draft system (12 balls for the worst team, 11 balls for the second worst, etc.) failed when the league lost its shit over the Orlando Magic getting the Chris Webber (#1) pick the year after they scored Shaquille O'Neal, despite being the best of the lottery teams. That's a risk you take with a lottery, and I'm okay with it.
 
The current system is a little too tilted towards favoring the worst teams -- there is some moral hazard there -- which is why I prefer a return to the old system, or some other modification that evens the odds out a little. My concerns are entirely practical. The NBA needs to put out a good, competitive product on the floor. I don't want to see a Liga-style disparity develop.
 
I do, however, like the idea of draft rights being held while a player attends college (similar to draft rights on professional european ballers). I'd add a twist, however -- you get a fixed number of years of contract control, and those years get ticked off whether you employ the player or do not.

The problem with your first suggestion is that, while the incentives of the bottom feeders to tank is reduced, it comes as the expense if incentivizing teams to pass up a shot at an 8 seed.

As for your comment on draft eligibility, I think that makes great sense although I would rather see it not be a 1-for-1 tradeoff. Maybe players who sign at 19/20 are team property for 5 years, those who sign at 20/21 are team property for 4 years, and so on.

How about this plan:

1. The wheel
2. A supplemental draft round, between rounds 1 and 2, for the non-playoff teams in inverse order of finish.
3. A tradeable cap exception to non playoff teams, funded by the playoff teams.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I'm not arguing with your numbers but I'd use a different measurement for parity.  If we polled NFL and NBA teams and asked them if they thought their franchise had a chance to win it all, I can confidently say you are going to get overwhelming more Yes's in the NFL than the NBA.  There are what maybe 6 NBA teams that really feel like they have a chance to win, and in the NFL I would say there are maybe 12 each year that feel like they have no chance, thats a huge difference.  Correct or just perceived the NFL has an advantage here over the NBA. 
 
We arent going to agree but the truth is probably somewhere in between our viewpoints.  I never suggested the wheel would solve NBA world hunger, and it wont fix bad organizations, but would you agree that the wheel could possibly provide improvements beyond just the draft order?  I think you are glossing over the fact that it 1- Gives teams high picks without bottoming out, and 2- Creates a completely level playing field (from an order standpoint) for rookie talent acquisition.  The later can help the front office focus their efforts when teams know what picks they will get each year, and the competitive advantage will really be found in what players you sign and in trades.
 
As for the Len Bias example, horrible writing on my part.  At the time of the pick the thought was that the Big 3 was beginning to age, and that Bias could step in and play a lot of minutes and reduce the load on the Big3 thus extending their careers and gradually having the torch passed to him.  Now it didnt exactly work out like that, but with the wheel good teams might have that possibility.
 
There isnt one exact conducive environment for players though.  You have some great examples of players who developed because they were in great organizations, and some players need just that.  Rondo needed that structure for his stubbornness and the talent support to figure out how his unique game could succeed in the NBA.  But look at Al Jefferson and Perkins who developed in the same place.  Al had more raw talent but Perk was showing more steady development before 2008 while Al looked clueless on defense play after play after play.  Then obviously Perks play seemed to skyrocket when he was asked to be the 5th best player on the court but he really didnt become that much of a better player he just had better talent around him.  Then Al went to Minny and his usage goes up he looks like an improved player because his great offensive game was showcased.  Imagine if Perk was traded instead of Al, Al would not have looked that good on the Big3 Celtics.  His offense would have been a big help but he wouldnt have gotten the touches he got in Minny, and he wouldnt have been able to stay on the court because of his defensive problems.  So there is a guy who actually benefited by being able to do some development on a crappy team.  How much is Kidd-Gilchrist benefiting because there isnt great talent playing ahead of him?   How much did Carmelo benefit from having Denver run by Kiki and it gave him time during that chaos to hone his offensive game?  I'm not trying to be an a$$ and just disagree but I genuinely think there are players who benefit from being on bad teams, getting NBA minutes they probably dont deserve based on their current skill level and develop more rapidly as a result.  Its the same reason the Celts basically threw away 05/06 and 06/07 to just develop young players.  Which, to bring it full circle, they might have be reluctant to do if they knew they werent going to have a high pick in the 06 and 07 drafts :q:

This is undoubtedly true, but it's not a function of league rules so much as it's a function of a player like LeBron James having far more impact on the game of basketball than a similarly talented player does in the NFL. If the idea is to get the NBA to a point where a dozen teams annually feel like they have a chance to win a championship, that's completely unrealistic. There are only so many LeBron James' and Kevin Durant's to go around. The NBA has always been that way, and the only real way to avoid that would be to reduce the number of playoff games played so that there's more random chance involved. The best teams are more likely to lose a best of 3 than they are a best of 7.
 
As for the bolded, you're assuming a result that isn't inherent to the proposal. The wheel does not create a completely level playing field in terms of rookie talent acquisition. But it does make the consequences of screwing up a top 5 pick become much more drastic, and it also would serve to hinder the growth of several franchises. In 2007, 2008, and 2009 Oklahoma City drafted Durant, Westbrook, and Harden with top 5 picks. Under the wheel, OKC drafts Durant #2, then gets to add D.J. White at #29 in 2008, Eric Maynor in 2009, Kevin Seraphin in 2010, and Brandon Knight in 2011. And now Kevin Durant is a free agent. Meanwhile, Oklahoma City's only hope in terms of adding talent around Durant and building a competitor was to attract free agents to. . .Oklahoma City. Now, obviously Sam Presti is a great General Manager and several of those drafts would have gone differently and he may have been able to extract far more value out of those draft slots than his colleagues managed to, but it's a very real possibility that a lot of small market teams that aren't popular free agent destinations would be completely screwed by the wheel. You're proposing a system that emphasizes free agency in a league in which half the league has never signed a marquee free agent. When was the last time a big free agent signed with Milwaukee, Minnesota, Toronto, Atlanta, Cleveland, Indiana, Oklahoma City, Denver, Memphis, New Orleans, Sacramento or Utah? So if that's where competitive advantage is found, how is that improving competitive advantage at all? Aren't you just making is substantially harder for those sorts of teams to acquire talent?
 
And my point wasn't that there's no benefit to playing for a crappy team. My point is that some teams develop players far better than others, and that assuming that Player A has the exact same career if you put him on Minnesota as he would if you put him on San Antonio is a flawed assumption. The teams that develop players better already have a competitive advantage in the NBA, and that advantage would only be accentuated by the wheel. The rich will get richer, because of the system's new found emphasis on free agency and because rookie talent will, hypothetically at least, be distributed more evenly. You'd be giving "the rich" (for lack of a better term--basically, just well-run organizations) more young talent, without providing any additional incentive for players to sign with the have-nots in free agency. I really, truly struggle to see how this creates more parity.

 

[wutang112878]

This is undoubtedly true, but it's not a function of league rules so much as it's a function of a player like LeBron James having far more impact on the game of basketball than a similarly talented player does in the NFL. If the idea is to get the NBA to a point where a dozen teams annually feel like they have a chance to win a championship, that's completely unrealistic. There are only so many LeBron James' and Kevin Durant's to go around. The NBA has always been that way, and the only real way to avoid that would be to reduce the number of playoff games played so that there's more random chance involved. The best teams are more likely to lose a best of 3 than they are a best of 7.

 
I disagree with this, it would take some radical change but it can be done.  I forget the thread but I proposed the idea of allowing each team to have 1 player who is not bounded by a maximum salary so Lebron could get the $35M he is worth, and then slot the remaining players, so you get one $12M player, another $10M player, etc   The numbers would need some tweaking but basically you could get to the point where players salary is aligned with value and superstars are actually spread out amongst the league.  In that scenario the wheel isnt as harmful to struggling franchises because they have a chance at getting a premier FA because Russell Westbrook for instance would probably be intrigued to go to the Bucks to make $25M a season
 
 

As for the bolded, you're assuming a result that isn't inherent to the proposal. The wheel does not create a completely level playing field in terms of rookie talent acquisition. But it does make the consequences of screwing up a top 5 pick become much more drastic, and it also would serve to hinder the growth of several franchises. In 2007, 2008, and 2009 Oklahoma City drafted Durant, Westbrook, and Harden with top 5 picks. Under the wheel, OKC drafts Durant #2, then gets to add D.J. White at #29 in 2008, Eric Maynor in 2009, Kevin Seraphin in 2010, and Brandon Knight in 2011. And now Kevin Durant is a free agent. Meanwhile, Oklahoma City's only hope in terms of adding talent around Durant and building a competitor was to attract free agents to. . .Oklahoma City. Now, obviously Sam Presti is a great General Manager and several of those drafts would have gone differently and he may have been able to extract far more value out of those draft slots than his colleagues managed to, but it's a very real possibility that a lot of small market teams that aren't popular free agent destinations would be completely screwed by the wheel. You're proposing a system that emphasizes free agency in a league in which half the league has never signed a marquee free agent. When was the last time a big free agent signed with Milwaukee, Minnesota, Toronto, Atlanta, Cleveland, Indiana, Oklahoma City, Denver, Memphis, New Orleans, Sacramento or Utah? So if that's where competitive advantage is found, how is that improving competitive advantage at all? Aren't you just making is substantially harder for those sorts of teams to acquire talent?

 
Over the long-term this is technically not true.  Over the long-term every goes through the same slots and it seems as though a lot of thought was put in to make sure if you start at 2 o'clock on the wheel over the next 6 years you get about the same amount of value as if you started at 8 o'clock.  Its kind of similar to a fantasy football snake draft where, while its not perfect, the idea is the guy picking 10 gets about the same value as the guy picking at 1.
 
OKC is actually a great example, because look at what happened with Harden.  Eventually they couldnt afford all 3 guys and they had to breakup that core.  Now in a world where all the best FAs flock to the best locations, certainly LA could have afford to do that, but maybe the wheel needs to be coupled with some other changes to make it work.  Forget about the wheel, I mean would it not be good for the league to have a hard cap for everyone?  That would give your small market teams a better chance in free agency.
 
You are right that emphasizing free agency with the wheel exacerbates the problem for the small market franchises, but how many of those franchises have really been lifted up in the current system?  Instead of Bogut, and Yi the Bucks could have had a core of Chris Paul and Joakim Noah.  We both agree there was no helping Kahn...  Wheel or no wheel we cant fix stupid.  But when the ramifications of making a bad pick are even higher, does that maybe get stupid executives fired more quickly?  Kahn probably doesnt get to waste 7 first rounders, he is probably out the door much more quickly.  Highlighting incompetence more quickly might be a good thing.
 
Overall I will fully admit that to implement the wheel other changes to the overall NBA system probably need to be made.  I have to imagine the owners would realize that as well.  Maybe its as simple as having rookie deals be 3 years max, but more likely it would have to be more complex than that.  But stepping back a bit, do you think the current NBA system, lottery, free agency, cap rules, etc creates an environment where each team is on equal footing?  I dont think it does, so I dont have much reservation about significant blowing up pieces of it.
 
 

And my point wasn't that there's no benefit to playing for a crappy team. My point is that some teams develop players far better than others, and that assuming that Player A has the exact same career if you put him on Minnesota as he would if you put him on San Antonio is a flawed assumption. The teams that develop players better already have a competitive advantage in the NBA, and that advantage would only be accentuated by the wheel. The rich will get richer, because of the system's new found emphasis on free agency and because rookie talent will, hypothetically at least, be distributed more evenly. You'd be giving "the rich" (for lack of a better term--basically, just well-run organizations) more young talent, without providing any additional incentive for players to sign with the have-nots in free agency. I really, truly struggle to see how this creates more parity.

 
Lets run with this line of thinking for a second, the rich get a better influx of talent.  How much talent can they actually retain?  Could SA retain their Big3 and a top 5 pick that they develop in a true top 5 pick talent?  Is it possible we have the inverse of the Marlins who develop talent that ultimately signs elsewhere, but instead of the Marlins its these marquee development machines that eventually run into cap and luxury tax issues which possibly has better talent reaching free agency?  Maybe it would make it easier for Milwaukee to implement a strategy of signing Tier2 free agents who have been developing by well run organizations and trying to create a poor-mans Indiana where you have great depth of 5 starters but no truly elite star.
 
Sorry if I sound repetitive but the current system sucks and creates haves and have nots too, its really not like we are trying to move away from utopia with these changes.  To some degree I really think the wheel and any corresponding changes that are necessary are worth giving a shot for no other reason than just trying something else to see if it could possibly be better.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
I disagree with this, it would take some radical change but it can be done.  I forget the thread but I proposed the idea of allowing each team to have 1 player who is not bounded by a maximum salary so Lebron could get the $35M he is worth, and then slot the remaining players, so you get one $12M player, another $10M player, etc   The numbers would need some tweaking but basically you could get to the point where players salary is aligned with value and superstars are actually spread out amongst the league.  In that scenario the wheel isnt as harmful to struggling franchises because they have a chance at getting a premier FA because Russell Westbrook for instance would probably be intrigued to go to the Bucks to make $25M a season
 
Over the long-term this is technically not true.  Over the long-term every goes through the same slots and it seems as though a lot of thought was put in to make sure if you start at 2 o'clock on the wheel over the next 6 years you get about the same amount of value as if you started at 8 o'clock.  Its kind of similar to a fantasy football snake draft where, while its not perfect, the idea is the guy picking 10 gets about the same value as the guy picking at 1.
 
OKC is actually a great example, because look at what happened with Harden.  Eventually they couldnt afford all 3 guys and they had to breakup that core.  Now in a world where all the best FAs flock to the best locations, certainly LA could have afford to do that, but maybe the wheel needs to be coupled with some other changes to make it work.  Forget about the wheel, I mean would it not be good for the league to have a hard cap for everyone?  That would give your small market teams a better chance in free agency.
 
You are right that emphasizing free agency with the wheel exacerbates the problem for the small market franchises, but how many of those franchises have really been lifted up in the current system?  Instead of Bogut, and Yi the Bucks could have had a core of Chris Paul and Joakim Noah.  We both agree there was no helping Kahn...  Wheel or no wheel we cant fix stupid.  But when the ramifications of making a bad pick are even higher, does that maybe get stupid executives fired more quickly?  Kahn probably doesnt get to waste 7 first rounders, he is probably out the door much more quickly.  Highlighting incompetence more quickly might be a good thing.
 
Overall I will fully admit that to implement the wheel other changes to the overall NBA system probably need to be made.  I have to imagine the owners would realize that as well.  Maybe its as simple as having rookie deals be 3 years max, but more likely it would have to be more complex than that.  But stepping back a bit, do you think the current NBA system, lottery, free agency, cap rules, etc creates an environment where each team is on equal footing?  I dont think it does, so I dont have much reservation about significant blowing up pieces of it.
 
 
 
Lets run with this line of thinking for a second, the rich get a better influx of talent.  How much talent can they actually retain?  Could SA retain their Big3 and a top 5 pick that they develop in a true top 5 pick talent?  Is it possible we have the inverse of the Marlins who develop talent that ultimately signs elsewhere, but instead of the Marlins its these marquee development machines that eventually run into cap and luxury tax issues which possibly has better talent reaching free agency?  Maybe it would make it easier for Milwaukee to implement a strategy of signing Tier2 free agents who have been developing by well run organizations and trying to create a poor-mans Indiana where you have great depth of 5 starters but no truly elite star.
 
Sorry if I sound repetitive but the current system sucks and creates haves and have nots too, its really not like we are trying to move away from utopia with these changes.  To some degree I really think the wheel and any corresponding changes that are necessary are worth giving a shot for no other reason than just trying something else to see if it could possibly be better.

 
I'm just gonna go ahead and bow out of this. I don't see the current NBA system as broken, so much as I see it as fundamentally strong but in need of some tweaks. In my mind, the lack of competitive balance is about organizational failures more than anything else, and the league is quickly heading to a place where it's more competitive than it's ever been. I don't see many
franchises out there that haven't had a chance to compete because of the current NBA system; I do see a lot of franchises that have made a bunch of mistakes or fallen victim to plain old bad luck. I also fundamentally disagree that you could, with the current talent pool of the NBA, build 12 true contenders. At least not organically. In a vacuum, maybe you could, but the league doesn't exist in a vacuum. So since we're working from completely different baselines, going through specific details of these proposals is more or less just an exercise in futility. 

 

[wutang112878]

Well this sucks, now I have no excuse to procrastinate my real work and this was infinitely more intellectually stimulating.  Damn you!

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Well this sucks, now I have no excuse to procrastinate my real work and this was infinitely more intellectually stimulating.  Damn you!

 
Okay, how about we start with a proposal that feels far more realistic and doesn't require tearing down everything from the draft, to salary structure, to free agency and starting from scratch. The number one thing, in my mind, that the league could do to improve competitive balance is to make it easier for franchises to get out of crippling contracts. So how do you do so in a manner that the player's union would get on board with? That seems like an obvious tweak that could drastically improve the current system.

 

[crystalline]

This is undoubtedly true, but it's not a function of league rules so much as it's a function of a player like LeBron James having far more impact on the game of basketball than a similarly talented player does in the NFL. If the idea is to get the NBA to a point where a dozen teams annually feel like they have a chance to win a championship, that's completely unrealistic. There are only so many LeBron James' and Kevin Durant's to go around. The NBA has always been that way, and the only real way to avoid that would be to reduce the number of playoff games played so that there's more random chance involved. The best teams are more likely to lose a best of 3 than they are a best of 7.

 
Counterintuitively, injecting randomness like this would probably be a good thing for the sport. 
This randomness contributes to the NFL's parity and therefore success.
 
Another advantage the NFL has is that rosters turn over quickly, because the sport is hard on the body and because contracts are not guaranteed.  This means that the Arizona cardinals can go from last in division in 2006 to winning the NFC in 2008, and you can cite the Seahawks, Jets, 49ers etc. as recent examples of teams whose fortunes go up and down.
A team that signs LeBron is likely to be good for many years – the Bulls and Lakers had a long run, etc. 
 
Basketball has several forces that tend to favor dynastic teams.  I'm not sure the draft structure is the biggest one.
 
Edit: reply to cross post.
 

Okay, how about we start with a proposal that feels far more realistic and doesn't require tearing down everything from the draft, to salary structure, to free agency and starting from scratch. The number one thing, in my mind, that the league could do to improve competitive balance is to make it easier for franchises to get out of crippling contracts. So how do you do so in a manner that the player's union would get on board with? That seems like an obvious tweak that could drastically improve the current system.

 
My proposal is to remove the cap on annual or total salary in a contract, and instead limit the number of years (to 3?).  That would mean players move more often, and limits the damage of crippling contracts.  Plus, this proposal has a chance of getting done in collective bargaining, though if one side were to kill it I'd guess it would be the players who like the ability to sign long contracts.

 

[TroyOLeary]

Why is parity seen as inherently superior?  I like that the NBA has considerably less parity than other pro sports.

 

[wutang112878]

 
Okay, how about we start with a proposal that feels far more realistic and doesn't require tearing down everything from the draft, to salary structure, to free agency and starting from scratch. The number one thing, in my mind, that the league could do to improve competitive balance is to make it easier for franchises to get out of crippling contracts. So how do you do so in a manner that the player's union would get on board with? That seems like an obvious tweak that could drastically improve the current system.

 
Thank you for appeasing me, this is making my day much brighter.
 
How about we go back one step further.  Can we avoid signing those contracts in the first place?  What about an elevated hard-cap?  This year the cap was ~$59M or $1.77B for the league as a whole.  But the total salary spending (sum of team salary) was ~$2B or $68M on average.  Why not set the cap at $70M and the teams who would be over would be the Nets, Knicks, Heat, Lakers, Bulls, Clips, Grizz, etc  So a lot of playoff teams are taking a step back which would create some more parity.  And with a hard cap I have to imagine salary and value are going to be more closely aligned.  From the union perspective, spending overall should be the same now maybe its distributed a little differently but if the figure is the same I have to imagine you could add a few teaks and find a common ground with them.

 

[wutang112878]

Why is parity seen as inherently superior?  I like that the NBA has considerably less parity than other pro sports.

 
More fans leads to more revenue.  We have this, what I think is, short-sighted view that superstars and superstar teams are what the viewing public wants to see, but I think thats just because historically thats how the NBA has attracted their fans.  But what we have seen in the NFL is that when the fans for each franchise feel they have a chance, they care more about other games and the league as a whole which leads to more fans overall and more revenue.

 

[Scoops Bolling]

Why is parity seen as inherently superior?  I like that the NBA has considerably less parity than other pro sports.

Because it means that significant portions of the league have a disinterested fanbase. I can't see how you could possibly like less parity...its so much more boring.

 

[crystalline]

 
More fans leads to more revenue.  We have this, what I think is, short-sighted view that superstars and superstar teams are what the viewing public wants to see, but I think thats just because historically thats how the NBA has attracted their fans.  But what we have seen in the NFL is that when the fans for each franchise feel they have a chance, they care more about other games and the league as a whole which leads to more fans overall and more revenue.

 
The NFL also has a few players that rarely change teams and can be promoted as superstars.  Those are usually QB's - Brady, the Mannings, Aaron Rodgers.  So in some sense they have the best of both worlds -- parity, plus recognizable superstars.
 
I'm thinking a bit out loud here - one reason why this works is that a good QB is almost essential for success (almost: Brad Johnson), but they are not sufficient.  Putting Tom Brady on a team with crappy defense and no o-line won't get the team very far. 
In the NBA, superstars are both necessary and almost sufficient.  Two superstars means you have a shot at a championship.  LeBron+Wade has a shot.  In-their-primes Kobe+Shaq make a contender.  Duncan+rotating cast makes a contender.

 

[wutang112878]

 
The NFL also has a few players that rarely change teams and can be promoted as superstars.  Those are usually QB's - Brady, the Mannings, Aaron Rodgers.  So in some sense they have the best of both worlds -- parity, plus recognizable superstars.
 
I'm thinking a bit out loud here - one reason why this works is that a good QB is almost essential for success (almost: Brad Johnson), but they are not sufficient.  Putting Tom Brady on a team with crappy defense and no o-line won't get the team very far. 
In the NBA, superstars are both necessary and almost sufficient.  Two superstars means you have a shot at a championship.  LeBron+Wade has a shot.  In-their-primes Kobe+Shaq make a contender.  Duncan+rotating cast makes a contender.

 
The marketing of QBs is somewhat a self fulfilling prophecy outside of the top 5 guys.  Anyone who retains his place as a 'franchise QB' for a few years keeps that card for almost his entire career for some reason. 
 
But the NBA just does a bad job of marketing, Stephen Curry is such an entertaining player but he isnt as recognizable as say Colin Kaepernick but he is so much better than him.  Its sort of always been this way, where the NBA markets its superstars but that next tier of guys never gets any recognition.  But somehow the MNF crew can make Rivers vs Big Ben look like a great matchup.  There has to be some way to bridge that gap.
 
 
In the NFL there are many ways to build a real contending team.  When Joe Flacco has a huge cap hit, it points the Ravens at a disadvantage when building the rest of their roster.  Ditto for Manning in Denver.  But in the NFL there is no cap on those elite player salaries, so those players really arent as precious as superstars are in the NBA.  So the 49ers can take the $15M they arent paying for a franchise QB and put that into their defense which is what lets them win games.  The more intuitive economics of the game really makes a big difference as well.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
Thank you for appeasing me, this is making my day much brighter.
 
How about we go back one step further.  Can we avoid signing those contracts in the first place?  What about an elevated hard-cap?  This year the cap was ~$59M or $1.77B for the league as a whole.  But the total salary spending (sum of team salary) was ~$2B or $68M on average.  Why not set the cap at $70M and the teams who would be over would be the Nets, Knicks, Heat, Lakers, Bulls, Clips, Grizz, etc  So a lot of playoff teams are taking a step back which would create some more parity.  And with a hard cap I have to imagine salary and value are going to be more closely aligned.  From the union perspective, spending overall should be the same now maybe its distributed a little differently but if the figure is the same I have to imagine you could add a few teaks and find a common ground with them.

 
I just don't see that as realistic. Those contracts come about due to too wide a variety of circumstances. It's not simply that teams don't accurately value a player, nor is that because of the soft cap they feel like they can afford to overpay. In a lot of cases (Amare, for instance) the salary becomes bad with time due to health, while in others (Rudy Gay, Jeff Green) the player just never really lived up to their potential. In other cases, guys just sort of fell off and nobody is really sure why (Deron Williams). I don't think you'll ever reach a point where player salaries and value are perfectly aligned, and you're always going to end up with albatrosses. I just think there should be a simpler mechanism for teams to get out of said contracts. I don't know how you go about doing so without pissing off the players union. It may be as simple as allowing an amnesty every 3-5 years, but something as simple as that would lead to more free agency movement and far more financial flexibility.

 

[Brickowski]

The idea isn't to give badly managed teams a break.  It's to discourage tanking and improve the product on the floor.  Bad teams that are not even trying to win are even more boring than bad teams that are actually trying.
 
There are going to be perpetually bad teams in the NBA.  It's the price of expansion, and a draft lottery isn't going to fix it. 

 

[wutang112878]

 
I just don't see that as realistic. Those contracts come about due to too wide a variety of circumstances. It's not simply that teams don't accurately value a player, nor is that because of the soft cap they feel like they can afford to overpay. In a lot of cases (Amare, for instance) the salary becomes bad with time due to health, while in others (Rudy Gay, Jeff Green) the player just never really lived up to their potential. In other cases, guys just sort of fell off and nobody is really sure why (Deron Williams). I don't think you'll ever reach a point where player salaries and value are perfectly aligned, and you're always going to end up with albatrosses. I just think there should be a simpler mechanism for teams to get out of said contracts. I don't know how you go about doing so without pissing off the players union. It may be as simple as allowing an amnesty every 3-5 years, but something as simple as that would lead to more free agency movement and far more financial flexibility.

 
You've also got the 'I've got to overpay because I either sign this guy or lose him', ala Bass where the options were the overpay or trying to replace Bass with limited financial resources.
 
What about building off of the NFL contract structure with signing bonus and salary.  Use that structure but the entire contract (bonus & salary) is guaranteed, however if you want to trade the player the team receiving that player would only be on the hook for the salary portion of the contract.  Lets use Williams as an example, he signed a 5 year roughly $100M deal.  What if his bonus was $40M or $8M a year and his salary is $12M a year.  Then this offseason if they want to move him they could offer him up at 3/$26M which would have some decent value on the market.  As for the bonus, we probably couldnt use the acceleration model and hit the Nets with a $24M cap hit, so maybe that $8M in bonus per year just stays on their cap.  Thats sort of like the amnesty, in that it gives you somewhat of an out with the contract but you can probably get the union buy-in as well

 

[zenter]

 
I just don't see that as realistic. Those contracts come about due to too wide a variety of circumstances. It's not simply that teams don't accurately value a player, nor is that because of the soft cap they feel like they can afford to overpay. In a lot of cases (Amare, for instance) the salary becomes bad with time due to health, while in others (Rudy Gay, Jeff Green) the player just never really lived up to their potential. In other cases, guys just sort of fell off and nobody is really sure why (Deron Williams). I don't think you'll ever reach a point where player salaries and value are perfectly aligned, and you're always going to end up with albatrosses. I just think there should be a simpler mechanism for teams to get out of said contracts. I don't know how you go about doing so without pissing off the players union. It may be as simple as allowing an amnesty every 3-5 years, but something as simple as that would lead to more free agency movement and far more financial flexibility.

 
I read much of this thread as a full-throated argument against the salary cap.
 
The system exists as it does today in order to accomplish one main goal, and two subordinate goals: 1) maximize profits for the NBA and its owners, 2a) depress player salaries as much as possible (in service of #1), and 2b) maintain a semblance of competitive balance (in service of #1). The draft system, the age limits, the NCAA deal, the lottery, the ping pong balls, the cap, the trade rules... They all serve this first master.
 
In a no-cap scenario, a bad (or bad luck) team isn't hamstrung by bad salary decisions that makes it impossible to pay a generational player. For many teams, tanking is a way to deal with the fact that they can't lure a great player with a great free-agent contract. And, of course, the new sign-and-trade rules make it harder for the poor teams to transform through free agency.
 
Now, I'm a tiny bit of realist, so let's assume the cap ain't going nowhere. imagine instead that the draft is the drafting team offering a 4-year RFA contract. Other teams with room can offer more, and it's up to the drafting team to match and keep the player. If they don't match, then player can to the highest bidder. A team with a middling end-of-lottery/wildcard record and a lot of expirings could make a big offer. Add an advantage to the drafting team - they can go over cap for 1 year to keep their draftee at no penalty, but competing offers must fit within cap.
 
By fully de-linking cap-management and tanking, you give the pretty-good more options to rebuild than merely a draft (or a McHale-gift trade).

 

[wutang112878]

In that scenario you really have to bottom out to get a top tier talent.  To get a high draft pick, not only do you have to do well in the lottery but you also have to have cap space in future years.  Take the Pelicans, they arent good and dont have cap space for the foreseeable future, they cant actually keep a top talent guy for the next 2 years.  Now to rebuild they have to completely tear their roster apart and try to get to a blank slate with a healthy cap ASAP, and thats going to look a lot like tanking.

 

[zenter]

In that scenario you really have to bottom out to get a top tier talent.  To get a high draft pick, not only do you have to do well in the lottery but you also have to have cap space in future years.  Take the Pelicans, they arent good and dont have cap space for the foreseeable future, they cant actually keep a top talent guy for the next 2 years.  Now to rebuild they have to completely tear their roster apart and try to get to a blank slate with a healthy cap ASAP, and thats going to look a lot like tanking.

 
See? This thread is an argument against the salary cap.

 

[wutang112878]

You're a tricky one

 

[zenter]

More seriously, I'm not saying tanking won't happen. Nor do I really think it's a serious problem.
 
However, if one wants to solve for tanking, a simple solution is to allow teams higher up in the draft to get in on top draftable talent without tanking, right? In the context of a cap - where teams generally cannot access top talent through free agency - removing the ping pong incentive (or weakening it substantially) may help teams rebuild without playing the ping pong game. If the Pelicans are unwilling to pay a 1-year penalty for going over cap with drafted talent, that in and of itself says something about their ability to compete. I go to watch the talent on the court. Teams should be willing to pay to play.
 
If tanking isn't a problem worth solving for, the only real (achievable) change I'd make is to have draft order completely by record, irrespective of playoff status. The Hawks need a lotto-class pick far more than Phoenix does.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
See? This thread is an argument against the salary cap.

Remove the salary cap completely, and the NBA becomes the EPL overnight. The Knicks, Nets, Lakers, Bulls and a handful of others will end up dominating free agency and a guy like Anthony Davis is just doing a short stint inNew Orleans until James Dolan gives him 40 million a year.

 

[wutang112878]

More seriously, I'm not saying tanking won't happen. Nor do I really think it's a serious problem.
 
However, if one wants to solve for tanking, a simple solution is to allow teams higher up in the draft to get in on top draftable talent without tanking, right? In the context of a cap - where teams generally cannot access top talent through free agency - removing the ping pong incentive (or weakening it substantially) may help teams rebuild without playing the ping pong game. If the Pelicans are unwilling to pay a 1-year penalty for going over cap with drafted talent, that in and of itself says something about their ability to compete. I go to watch the talent on the court. Teams should be willing to pay to play.
 
If tanking isn't a problem worth solving for, the only real (achievable) change I'd make is to have draft order completely by record, irrespective of playoff status. The Hawks need a lotto-class pick far more than Phoenix does.

 
Ok, you just won me over with this.  The Bucks could decide to abandon free agency plans and instead spend their cap dollars on rookies.  That would provide small market teams with a legitimate strategy just like the baseball small market strategy to develop young talent retain a select core.  Why not take this a step further and throw out draft order completely and give teams 'cap credits' based on total losses.  Instead of getting the #1 pick you get a $8M cap credit that can be used towards the draft auction. 

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
Ok, you just won me over with this.  The Bucks could decide to abandon free agency plans and instead spend their cap dollars on rookies.  That would provide small market teams with a legitimate strategy just like the baseball small market strategy to develop young talent retain a select core.  Why not take this a step further and throw out draft order completely and give teams 'cap credits' based on total losses.  Instead of getting the #1 pick you get a $8M cap credit that can be used towards the draft auction. 

 
Like 2 posts ago you were trying to figure out ways to eliminate bad contracts, and now you're trying to create an open bidding system for 19 year olds who have never played a game in the NBA? An 8 million dollar cap credit means, essentially, that bad teams are giving Jeff Green's contract to rookies. One of the major reasons teams are so attracted to drafting their own talent as opposed to acquiring it through free agency is that it controls their cap cost.

 

[zenter]

Ok, you just won me over with this.  The Bucks could decide to abandon free agency plans and instead spend their cap dollars on rookies.  That would provide small market teams with a legitimate strategy just like the baseball small market strategy to develop young talent retain a select core.  Why not take this a step further and throw out draft order completely and give teams 'cap credits' based on total losses.  Instead of getting the #1 pick you get a $8M cap credit that can be used towards the draft auction.

 
Because you are now re-linking tanking with the cap, since cap credit is based on record.
 
If the goal is to weaken the incentive of tanking, then you need to provide secondary avenues (other than draft) to talent acquisition. In other words, let teams throw money at the problem. As a result of this premise, how a poor team manages draftee compensation should not substantially impact the cap, and teams with cap room should have the ability to offer rookies more than a given draft slot allows. Basically, if the Heat manage their team well enough to have $10M in cap room, why not drive up the cost of keeping Wiggins/Embiid/Parker (presuming they're willing to pay)?
 
Again, tanking is not a big concern to me. The reason it's an issue at all is that the current salary system doesn't allow anyone (Russian oil magnates excepted) from buying their way to championship. You have to draft and trade your way there, especially with the crappy S&T rules. In the absence of other options, tanking provides opportunities to teams. Either remove the cap (and max contract limits) more or less altogether or allow teams to compete for top draft talent (outside their slot) using cap space.

 

[crystalline]

 
See? This thread is an argument against the salary cap.

Whoa whoa.

I completely agree that the main driver is increasing owners profits.

However, the arguments above have been about increasing parity while keeping profits high. So people have not largely been talking about the team salary cap- they have been about the player salary cap- the max contract.

Removing the cap on the max size of a contract while keeping the team salary cap in place should have little effect on the owners' bottom line. Right?

 

[wutang112878]

 
Like 2 posts ago you were trying to figure out ways to eliminate bad contracts, and now you're trying to create an open bidding system for 19 year olds who have never played a game in the NBA? An 8 million dollar cap credit means, essentially, that bad teams are giving Jeff Green's contract to rookies. One of the major reasons teams are so attracted to drafting their own talent as opposed to acquiring it through free agency is that it controls their cap cost.

 
Maybe we tweak the numbers, but I was just thinking of a #1 pick, today the salary is $4M.  The $8M would represent that $4M plus $4M in cap dollars per year because you had the privilege making the #1 pick.  That seems somewhat reasonable to me.  This certainly sounds hypocritical with my lets avoid bad contracts stance, but I would be willing to sacrifice some of that if it meant creating a system that allowed small market teams an approach they could use to consistently compete.  I think thats a much bigger problem for the league than bad contracts even though I hate those too.
 
 

 
Because you are now re-linking tanking with the cap, since cap credit is based on record.
 
If the goal is to weaken the incentive of tanking, then you need to provide secondary avenues (other than draft) to talent acquisition. In other words, let teams throw money at the problem. As a result of this premise, how a poor team manages draftee compensation should not substantially impact the cap, and teams with cap room should have the ability to offer rookies more than a given draft slot allows. Basically, if the Heat manage their team well enough to have $10M in cap room, why not drive up the cost of keeping Wiggins/Embiid/Parker (presuming they're willing to pay)?
 
Again, tanking is not a big concern to me. The reason it's an issue at all is that the current salary system doesn't allow anyone (Russian oil magnates excepted) from buying their way to championship. You have to draft and trade your way there, especially with the crappy S&T rules. In the absence of other options, tanking provides opportunities to teams. Either remove the cap (and max contract limits) more or less altogether or allow teams to compete for top draft talent (outside their slot) using cap space.

 
Yes but while you get the credit, there are also all the teams with cap space that you have to worry about competing with.  Yeah some tanking incentive is still there but its diminished, but I guess its not any more risky that possibly getting kicked out of the top 3 picks either, ugh.
 
Removing the cap is just not possible.  If there was no cap and no luxury tax with the same budget Brooklyn could spend $180M on salary this year, the Lakers could spend close to $100M, Knicks are at $98M, Heat would be up to $93M.  That would create such a have and have not system that small markets would be crushed, and when they played these 'haves' it would look like AAA vs a major league team.  If you kept the luxury tax it reduces this problem somewhat, but you also just made it easier for teams who want to go over the cap to do so and they also get a better, broader selection of players to do it with.  Anything that moves us closer to a have and have nots system is something the league just cant afford to do in my opinion.
 
Removing max contracts is certainly possible, and I wonder if that might fix the tanking problem.  I think you have to go back to the Celts in 80/81 with Bird and the Lakers in 81/82 to find the last example of a team whose best player was in their first 4/5 years of their career and led their team to a title.  So if you draft an elite talent you get a fun 4/5 years with him but if you want to win a title with him you are going to be paying him some crazy amount which is going to reduce the players value, which then increases the value for players who are not on max deals.  I think that might be enough to reduce tanking once Lebron and Durant arent the value that they are today. 

 

[wutang112878]

Removing the cap on the max size of a contract while keeping the team salary cap in place should have little effect on the owners' bottom line. Right?

 
It should yes.  Reading between the lines with this, I believe the owners are worried that if Lebron gets $35M then Luol Deng is going to want $20M.  I dont agree with this line of thinking because all the league has to do is to refuse to sign guys at those salaries, or spend more on Luol Deng at the expense of those below him.  At the end of the day if your budget is $65M, your budget is $65M regardless if Deng is on there at $20M or $12M. 
 
I have always looked at the cap as a mechanism for the owners/GMs to be saved from themselves because they are unable to operate in a true free market free agent system.  I never understood how the cap limits overall spending, I think the luxury tax limits the spending of the haves and levels the playing field a bit, but with or without the cap I think overall teams would be spending roughly the same amount.  Now, in this no cap scenario there are going to be about 3 years of wild spending before budgets get filled with bloated contracts but then spending should come back to reality again.

 

[tims4wins]

 
Removing max contracts is certainly possible, and I wonder if that might fix the tanking problem.  I think you have to go back to the Celts in 80/81 with Bird and the Lakers in 81/82 to find the last example of a team whose best player was in their first 4/5 years of their career and led their team to a title.  So if you draft an elite talent you get a fun 4/5 years with him but if you want to win a title with him you are going to be paying him some crazy amount which is going to reduce the players value, which then increases the value for players who are not on max deals.  I think that might be enough to reduce tanking once Lebron and Durant arent the value that they are today. 

 
I don't know very much about the NBA - not compared to a lot of you guys at least - but this to me seems like the most feasible solution that wouldn't require changes to the draft, etc. If Lebron is able to make whatever a team is willing to pay him, but that team has to stay under a hard salary cap, then that team has to manage its resources well in order to compete. And guys who are currently second bananas making max contracts may look to play elsewhere for a bigger payday. Top tier talent would be more spread around.
 
And what you are saying about the fun 4 or 5 years is exactly the same in the NFL. Look at the Seahawks with Russell Wilson. He is an elite QB (maybe not Brady-Manning elite, but up there) playing on a very low $ rookie deal (especially low since he was a 3rd round pick). This allows the Seahawks to go out and spend $10M on a guy like Percy Harvin. Once Wilson's rookie deal is up and he is making close to $20M instead of under $5M, the Seahawks will have to adjust. I think the model works great in the NFL. Granted, you need to have more than 1-2 top players to compete in the NFL, but the talent is pretty well spread around.

 

[ivanvamp]

I love the idea of getting rid of max contracts, but keeping a hard salary cap for the team.  If the cap is $60 million and a team wants to pay LeBron $50 million of that, well, they're going to suck, but hey, if that's what they want, so be it.

 

[Devizier]

 
Okay, how about we start with a proposal that feels far more realistic and doesn't require tearing down everything from the draft, to salary structure, to free agency and starting from scratch. The number one thing, in my mind, that the league could do to improve competitive balance is to make it easier for franchises to get out of crippling contracts. So how do you do so in a manner that the player's union would get on board with? That seems like an obvious tweak that could drastically improve the current system.

 
Any tweak could be coupled to a mandated increase in the players' share of NBA revenues. Of course it would be hard to see the owners going along with that unless the proposal has a way to "increase the size of the pie" so that they're still making the same or +more money. One of the real problems with any sports league is that many owners are just juicing the league for their guaranteed share of revenue while cheaping out on everythingelse.

 

[Devizier]

I love the idea of getting rid of max contracts, but keeping a hard salary cap for the team.  If the cap is $60 million and a team wants to pay LeBron $50 million of that, well, they're going to suck, but hey, if that's what they want, so be it.

 
I'm a huge fan of eliminating the player max -- I've proposed it a ton of times -- but I think the players union will resist, at least somewhat, because it will gut compensation to midlevel players, who constitute a majority of the union's members. I will say that a team with Lebron controlling 80% of the cap will still be good, maybe even championship caliber. Just look at the Cavaliers.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
I'm a huge fan of eliminating the player max -- I've proposed it a ton of times -- but I think the players union will resist, at least somewhat, because it will gut compensation to midlevel players, who constitute a majority of the union's members. I will say that a team with Lebron controlling 80% of the cap will still be good, maybe even championship caliber. Just look at the Cavaliers.

 
I don't think LeBron controlled nearly 80% of the cap.  Take their best season - 2008-09 - where they went 66-16 and lost in the Eastern Conference Finals (yes, I know they went to the NBA finals a different year but that team only went 50-32).
 
Look here (http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries09.txt):
 
Cleveland's total payroll was $90.8 million.  80% of that would be $72.6 million.  According to this site, here are their individual salaries:
 
Ben Wallace ................. $14,500,000
LeBron James ................ $14,410,581
Wally Szczerbiak ............ $13,775,000
Zydrunas Ilgauskas .......... $10,841,615
Maurice Williams ............ $8,353,000
Eric Snow ................... $7,312,500 retired
Anderson Varejao ............ $5,784,480
Sasha Pavlovic .............. $4,500,000
Delonte West ................ $3,850,000
Daniel Gibson ............... $3,700,000
J.J. Hickson ................ $1,329,480
Lorenzen Wright ............. $1,262,275 min, counts $797,581
Tarence Kinsey .............. $797,581 minimum
Darnell Jackson ............. $450,000
Jawad Williams .............. $244,463 rel 1/7, s 1/12, r 2/2
Trey Johnson ................ $187,258 signed 2/3
 
LeBron not only didn't comprise anything *close* to 80% of their payroll (it was about 15.9%), he wasn't even the highest paid player on the team that year.  
 
There's no way that a team with LeBron taking up 80% of their cap will be any good.  You would have to have 14 other guys consuming just 20% of the cap.  

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
It should yes.  Reading between the lines with this, I believe the owners are worried that if Lebron gets $35M then Luol Deng is going to want $20M.  I dont agree with this line of thinking because all the league has to do is to refuse to sign guys at those salaries, or spend more on Luol Deng at the expense of those below him.  At the end of the day if your budget is $65M, your budget is $65M regardless if Deng is on there at $20M or $12M. 
 
I have always looked at the cap as a mechanism for the owners/GMs to be saved from themselves because they are unable to operate in a true free market free agent system.  I never understood how the cap limits overall spending, I think the luxury tax limits the spending of the haves and levels the playing field a bit, but with or without the cap I think overall teams would be spending roughly the same amount.  Now, in this no cap scenario there are going to be about 3 years of wild spending before budgets get filled with bloated contracts but then spending should come back to reality again.

 
The cap's there for a handful of reasons, I think. I see it is a mechanism to keep the Knicks, Brooklyn, Lakers, etc. from turning into Manchester City and turning the Bucks of the world into Swansea (or whoever, I'm just guessing at who has the lowest team salary in the EPL--I don't even know if Swansea is still in the EPL). Whether it be due to an exceptionally rich owner (the Nets) or revenue (the Knicks, Lakers) there are NBA franchises that could easily double or triple the spending of other teams. If that were allowed to happen, the inevitable result would be that stars would reach UFA and get their payday from one of only a handful of places, like they do in the European soccer. If the NBA were to go this route, they'd need to implement something similar to the system used in MLB where team control can be bought out with extensions. Otherwise I think you'd find that guys like Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Damian Lillard, Andre Drummond, or any other very good player who happened to be drafted by a small market club would end up getting a payday from one of only a handful of clubs as soon as they were eligible. I mean, if OKC can't afford to pay the luxury tax necessary to keep Durant, Harden, and Westbrook together, then they're certainly not going to match a 45 million dollar a year offer for Durant. At least in the current system the playing field is basically flat in terms of what teams can offer, and players like those mentioned actually have to turn money down to leave the team that drafted them.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
I don't think LeBron controlled nearly 80% of the cap.  Take their best season - 2008-09 - where they went 66-16 and lost in the Eastern Conference Finals (yes, I know they went to the NBA finals a different year but that team only went 50-32).
 
Look here (http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries09.txt):
 
Cleveland's total payroll was $90.8 million.  80% of that would be $72.6 million.  According to this site, here are their individual salaries:
 
Ben Wallace ................. $14,500,000
LeBron James ................ $14,410,581
Wally Szczerbiak ............ $13,775,000
Zydrunas Ilgauskas .......... $10,841,615
Maurice Williams ............ $8,353,000
Eric Snow ................... $7,312,500 retired
Anderson Varejao ............ $5,784,480
Sasha Pavlovic .............. $4,500,000
Delonte West ................ $3,850,000
Daniel Gibson ............... $3,700,000
J.J. Hickson ................ $1,329,480
Lorenzen Wright ............. $1,262,275 min, counts $797,581
Tarence Kinsey .............. $797,581 minimum
Darnell Jackson ............. $450,000
Jawad Williams .............. $244,463 rel 1/7, s 1/12, r 2/2
Trey Johnson ................ $187,258 signed 2/3
 
LeBron not only didn't comprise anything *close* to 80% of their payroll (it was about 15.9%), he wasn't even the highest paid player on the team that year.  
 
There's no way that a team with LeBron taking up 80% of their cap will be any good.  You would have to have 14 other guys consuming just 20% of the cap.  

 
I am pretty sure he was just saying that a team that offered LeBron that large of a salary might still be able to compete.

 

[Devizier]

 
I am pretty sure he was just saying that a team that offered LeBron that large of a salary might still be able to compete.

 
Yup. Danny Ferry's inability to manage a basketball team has nothing to do with it.

 

[zenter]

Whoa whoa.

I completely agree that the main driver is increasing owners profits.

However, the arguments above have been about increasing parity while keeping profits high. So people have not largely been talking about the team salary cap- they have been about the player salary cap- the max contract.

Removing the cap on the max size of a contract while keeping the team salary cap in place should have little effect on the owners' bottom line. Right?

 
To the bolded: yes, exactly. Hence remove the cap. I guess I don't care if owner profits stay as high as they do... Since there is a fair amount of rev-sharing going on, this is a pressure on all owners and they can tell their GMs what to spend and not spend.
 
I'd remove the team cap and the max contract altogether. Or, more realistically, dramatically raise the soft and hard caps (e.g., 2X current amount) and remove max contract limit. Or remove the hard cap and keep the soft cap and let more teams pay a (small) penalty for going over. And I'd get rid of all these stupid exceptions to the contract rules - mid-level exceptions, vet minimum, etc. If a team decides to pay LeBron 40M/y and also wants to recruit a 15M/y Rajon Rondo, they should be allowed to.
 
I know this is a little far afield of the draft topic, but it's team cap pressure that makes tanking a "problem" as much as it is.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
I am pretty sure he was just saying that a team that offered LeBron that large of a salary might still be able to compete.

 

 
Yup. Danny Ferry's inability to manage a basketball team has nothing to do with it.

 
Well LeBron is so good maybe it's possible, but I don't really see it.  You'd need LeBron and then 14 practically minimum salary guys.  So no, I don't think LeBron at 80% of the payroll can work.  Maybe 50%?  Sure, it's possible.  
 
Anyway, whatever.  The point is that I'm fine if a team wants to try to go that route and see what happens.  I don't like the individual max salary in combination with the salary cap.  Just keep the cap and eliminate the individual max salary.  Let teams figure out how much they want to spend for a LeBron or Durant.

 

[ivanvamp]

And back to my OP….I still like my idea of being able to draft players right out of high school, even if they don't enter the draft right away.  You just keep their rights until they enter the league.  I think it would add a really interesting dimension.

 

[tims4wins]

 
I don't know very much about the NBA - not compared to a lot of you guys at least - but this to me seems like the most feasible solution that wouldn't require changes to the draft, etc. If Lebron is able to make whatever a team is willing to pay him, but that team has to stay under a hard salary cap, then that team has to manage its resources well in order to compete. And guys who are currently second bananas making max contracts may look to play elsewhere for a bigger payday. Top tier talent would be more spread around.
 
And what you are saying about the fun 4 or 5 years is exactly the same in the NFL. Look at the Seahawks with Russell Wilson. He is an elite QB (maybe not Brady-Manning elite, but up there) playing on a very low $ rookie deal (especially low since he was a 3rd round pick). This allows the Seahawks to go out and spend $10M on a guy like Percy Harvin. Once Wilson's rookie deal is up and he is making close to $20M instead of under $5M, the Seahawks will have to adjust. I think the model works great in the NFL. Granted, you need to have more than 1-2 top players to compete in the NFL, but the talent is pretty well spread around.

 
Just to follow up on this, I just read that Russell Wilson will actually make $662K this year. He is basically a free employee at one of the most important positions in sports.

 

[zenter]

 
Just to follow up on this, I just read that Russell Wilson will actually make $662K this year. He is basically a free employee at one of the most important positions in sports.

 
And in the NFL, teams have even more power - contracts offer very little guaranteed money. You can cut a contracted guy and he makes next to nothing (considering the hardship playing football is). This in an industry (with a 1.7 billion dollar annual profit) where the talent is literally compromised for life by participating.
 
I guess what I'm saying is: I see no point in being sympathetic to billionaire owners rather than millionaire players who are bringing in the revenues. Let talent earn what they make, kill the hard cap, and make the draft only one of several avenues to rebuild a team. This actually works pretty well in baseball.

 

[Brickowski]

I don't favor removing the cap on individual salaries.  The NBA is too star-centric as it is, and the bidding wars for the very best players would result in more tanking, not less, as teams cleared salaries in hopes of signing a Lebron James or Kevin Durant.  The current rules already permit veteran stars like Kobe to earn in excess of 30M annually.  That's enough in a league with a 60M cap (and a 71M de facto hard cap).

 

[tims4wins]

I don't favor removing the cap on individual salaries.  The NBA is too star-centric as it is, and the bidding wars for the very best players would result in more tanking, not less, as teams cleared salaries in hopes of signing a Lebron James or Kevin Durant.  The current rules already permit veteran stars like Kobe to earn in excess of 30M annually.  That's enough in a league with a 60M cap (and a 71M de facto hard cap).

 
I'm not sure I agree with this. Obviously it would take a few years to see the impact, but I think you might see more teams go with a Pistons-2004 or Pacers-2013/2014 model of compiling a core of very solid players without having a true star. What is the point of clearing all your salaries and giving Lebron $40M of your $60M cap if you won't be able to surround him with enough talent to win it all?

 

[Brickowski]

 
I'm not sure I agree with this. Obviously it would take a few years to see the impact, but I think you might see more teams go with a Pistons-2004 or Pacers-2013/2014 model of compiling a core of very solid players without having a true star. What is the point of clearing all your salaries and giving Lebron $40M of your $60M cap if you won't be able to surround him with enough talent to win it all?

Maybe you're right, but with no cap on individual salaries, I believe you would see some teams try to sign the big box office attraction for 40 million and then surround him with ring whores willing to play for less and/or young cost-controlled players.  It might not work, but IMHO it would be tried.

 

[wutang112878]

I love the idea of getting rid of max contracts, but keeping a hard salary cap for the team.  If the cap is $60 million and a team wants to pay LeBron $50 million of that, well, they're going to suck, but hey, if that's what they want, so be it.

 
I know you were just throwing some numbers out there, so I am not nitpicking just taking the example a step forward.  The average spend this year is about $70M a team, so you could set that as a hard cap and then a guy like Lebron or Durant are going to pull in $30-35M something like that.  With a hard cap and only $40 to use to build a team around one of those guys with, even though you have a superstar its still a challenge to put together a contending team.  In that scenario a team like Indiana where you have 4 very good but non-superstar starters who make about $10M each can contend with a Lebron + $40M team
 
 

 
The cap's there for a handful of reasons, I think. I see it is a mechanism to keep the Knicks, Brooklyn, Lakers, etc. from turning into Manchester City and turning the Bucks of the world into Swansea (or whoever, I'm just guessing at who has the lowest team salary in the EPL--I don't even know if Swansea is still in the EPL). Whether it be due to an exceptionally rich owner (the Nets) or revenue (the Knicks, Lakers) there are NBA franchises that could easily double or triple the spending of other teams. If that were allowed to happen, the inevitable result would be that stars would reach UFA and get their payday from one of only a handful of places, like they do in the European soccer. If the NBA were to go this route, they'd need to implement something similar to the system used in MLB where team control can be bought out with extensions. Otherwise I think you'd find that guys like Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Damian Lillard, Andre Drummond, or any other very good player who happened to be drafted by a small market club would end up getting a payday from one of only a handful of clubs as soon as they were eligible. I mean, if OKC can't afford to pay the luxury tax necessary to keep Durant, Harden, and Westbrook together, then they're certainly not going to match a 45 million dollar a year offer for Durant. At least in the current system the playing field is basically flat in terms of what teams can offer, and players like those mentioned actually have to turn money down to leave the team that drafted them.

 
Avoiding having a handful of super elite teams is really a 2 pronged approach right?  You have the soft cap that makes it more difficult to add quality talent after you reach the cap threshold, then you have a $10M buffer until you hit the luxury tax which makes it very costly to spend ridiculous dollars on your team.  I agree without these mechanisms there would be about 25 teams that had zero chance every year.
 
In a world where Durant gets $45M, maybe OKC cant compete by retaining that superstar.  But maybe they can use the Indiana model I mentioned.  Its probably easier for small market teams to attract the 2nd tier starts at ~$10M contracts and create a team centered around depth rather than star power.  In today's environment the depth model just doesnt work though, because 2 superstar players and a decent cast will dominate a team of 4 great players all day long.  However, if its almost impossible to have 2 superstars or you have 2 superstars and then $20M left to put a cast around them, while they have the star power those teams would be flawed.