This has come up in bits and pieces across the Kyrie and AD threads and I think it’s worthy of discussion on its own...
While from a headlines perspective the superstar melodrama is a huge win for the NBA, there are certainly issues with the current system when a player can essentially force their way out with 2 years left on a contract and where many NBA teams, absent tanking and drafting a generational talent, have little/no chance to attract and retain a superstar and therefore very little chance to realistically compete for a championship...
While there are exceptions (‘04 Pistons) and examples of teams that smartly locked up future stars on good contracts (pre-KD Warriors), for the most part stars win in the NBA. And with star players underpriced, this means an already scarce resource is now clustering, and a good number of teams have zero chance to sign one (off the top of my head: IND, CHA, DET, ATL, CLE, MEM, NO, MIN, SAC, UTA - that’s a third of the league). Personally, I’d rather see more even teams battle it out that than know who will very likely win the championship before the season even starts - the Western Conference 2-9 is really interesting, and it’s not unreasonable to say at least 3 teams have a shot to come out of the East. While the NFL does a lot of things wrong, the fact that a team can go from last place to a Super Bowl appearance in a year (PHI) or two (Rams) is cool. The NBA is pretty much the polar opposite with at best maybe a half dozen teams that can reasonably compete for a title. I think efforts to disperse star players and create some parity would be a welcome change.
Beyond the question of whether something should be done (parity is nice, but superstars in NY and LA are generally good for the league too), there is also the question of what, if anything, could be done? A few thoughts that range anywhere from plausible to “it could work, but there is no way the players/owners would go for it.”
1. Eliminate the max contract. I can’t imagine the owners or players going for this, but it’s really the best answer. In a league with 50-60 max contracts but far fewer true superstars, it encourages formation of super teams. But, if AD could make twice as much money going to the Clippers instead of the Lakers, would he be so eager to team up with LeBron?
2. Limit the number of max contracts per team to 2. Obviously a bit more complexity to this or you could just go “max minus $1” but maybe something like 2 max deals and then no other contract can be more than 20% of the cap. We’ve seen guys take a little less to play with other stars, but does Bosh take that big of a hit to team up with Wade and LeBron in Miami? More broadly, this helps the NBA rank and file (more money for the mid-tier players) and leaves teams with fewer big contract liabilities, so this doesn’t seem unworkable.
3. Lower max available to teams that already have max players. Basically, if teams have max players already, the most they can offer to a FA is 5% less (or some other number, the 5% is just hypothetical) than the max he is eligible for for each max deal they already have (e.g. 35% max eligible player can only be offered 30% by team with one max player, 25% by team with two). So, not only does the current team have the higher/longer max to offer, but it also means teams that already have stars can offer less. In theory, should encourage staying with current teams or more dispersion of top players.
4. Compensation to teams losing max FAs. Obviously, nothing would offset the blow of losing an AD or LeBron, but something along the NFL franchise system at least gives teams something to soften the loss that might make some teams call their star’s bluff and being willing to take the lower/shorter contact elsewhere. For example, let’s say any team that makes its FA player a 5 yr max offer and loses him to another team gets that team’s first round picks in the next two drafts (we axe the Stepian rule in this scenario). There are challenges around if picks are owed elsewhere, but presumably that can be worked around (e.g. signing team gives up second round pick in years it cannot convey a first until both firsts are conveyed). I guess the other challenge would be a situation like the Knicks who want to sign KD/Kyrie this off-season... no clear answer comes to mind here.
While from a headlines perspective the superstar melodrama is a huge win for the NBA, there are certainly issues with the current system when a player can essentially force their way out with 2 years left on a contract and where many NBA teams, absent tanking and drafting a generational talent, have little/no chance to attract and retain a superstar and therefore very little chance to realistically compete for a championship...
While there are exceptions (‘04 Pistons) and examples of teams that smartly locked up future stars on good contracts (pre-KD Warriors), for the most part stars win in the NBA. And with star players underpriced, this means an already scarce resource is now clustering, and a good number of teams have zero chance to sign one (off the top of my head: IND, CHA, DET, ATL, CLE, MEM, NO, MIN, SAC, UTA - that’s a third of the league). Personally, I’d rather see more even teams battle it out that than know who will very likely win the championship before the season even starts - the Western Conference 2-9 is really interesting, and it’s not unreasonable to say at least 3 teams have a shot to come out of the East. While the NFL does a lot of things wrong, the fact that a team can go from last place to a Super Bowl appearance in a year (PHI) or two (Rams) is cool. The NBA is pretty much the polar opposite with at best maybe a half dozen teams that can reasonably compete for a title. I think efforts to disperse star players and create some parity would be a welcome change.
Beyond the question of whether something should be done (parity is nice, but superstars in NY and LA are generally good for the league too), there is also the question of what, if anything, could be done? A few thoughts that range anywhere from plausible to “it could work, but there is no way the players/owners would go for it.”
1. Eliminate the max contract. I can’t imagine the owners or players going for this, but it’s really the best answer. In a league with 50-60 max contracts but far fewer true superstars, it encourages formation of super teams. But, if AD could make twice as much money going to the Clippers instead of the Lakers, would he be so eager to team up with LeBron?
2. Limit the number of max contracts per team to 2. Obviously a bit more complexity to this or you could just go “max minus $1” but maybe something like 2 max deals and then no other contract can be more than 20% of the cap. We’ve seen guys take a little less to play with other stars, but does Bosh take that big of a hit to team up with Wade and LeBron in Miami? More broadly, this helps the NBA rank and file (more money for the mid-tier players) and leaves teams with fewer big contract liabilities, so this doesn’t seem unworkable.
3. Lower max available to teams that already have max players. Basically, if teams have max players already, the most they can offer to a FA is 5% less (or some other number, the 5% is just hypothetical) than the max he is eligible for for each max deal they already have (e.g. 35% max eligible player can only be offered 30% by team with one max player, 25% by team with two). So, not only does the current team have the higher/longer max to offer, but it also means teams that already have stars can offer less. In theory, should encourage staying with current teams or more dispersion of top players.
4. Compensation to teams losing max FAs. Obviously, nothing would offset the blow of losing an AD or LeBron, but something along the NFL franchise system at least gives teams something to soften the loss that might make some teams call their star’s bluff and being willing to take the lower/shorter contact elsewhere. For example, let’s say any team that makes its FA player a 5 yr max offer and loses him to another team gets that team’s first round picks in the next two drafts (we axe the Stepian rule in this scenario). There are challenges around if picks are owed elsewhere, but presumably that can be worked around (e.g. signing team gives up second round pick in years it cannot convey a first until both firsts are conveyed). I guess the other challenge would be a situation like the Knicks who want to sign KD/Kyrie this off-season... no clear answer comes to mind here.