What would you change to achieve league parity?

[Rudy Bargnani]

* by not making money i meant to say in the future with the repeater tax, not this current season.

[TrueTorontoFan]

You would need a hard cap. Taxation doesn't work. Hard cap would.

[TrueTorontoFan]

I'm keeping faith that money breaks up Golden State in another year.

Some interesting bullet points I've read this week:

---A sweep may cost golden state $22 mill
--A sweep may cost the NBA so much that the cap/tax thresholds go down next year by a mill or so. This alone won't make much diff.
--Bobby Marks tweeted he expects it will cost GS $1.3 billion conservatively over the next 4 years to keep the core together and that he doesn't think the team is making money. Cleveland lost money last year.
--Most expect The Durant rumour to "take less money to keep the core together" really only means for this next 1 year where he signs a lebron-esque 1 year w an option contract and opt out next year and demand the max w early bird rights.

Who knows how ego's play into this. Does golden state have to choose between Draymond and Klay for a supermax contract? Does the owner not want to pay repeater tax? Why does my phone autocorrect Klay to Allah?

see we are actually the richest owners

[Mess]

Parity is a fallacy. It has never existed and never will. I'm not sure why people are so certain a league with 30 stars on 30 teams would be better than what we have now. Sure, I do consider GS to be a notch above the other relatively dominant teams of the past but thinking that they will "ruin the NBA" is ridiculous. You can hate them all you want, no one is stopping you there. But it's not as disastrous as many people are making them out to be.

Did the Yankees ruin baseball in the late 90's?

[3inthekeon]

Parity is a fallacy. It has never existed and never will. I'm not sure why people are so certain a league with 30 stars on 30 teams would be better than what we have now. Sure, I do consider GS to be a notch above the other relatively dominant teams of the past but thinking that they will "ruin the NBA" is ridiculous. You can hate them all you want, no one is stopping you there. But it's not as disastrous as many people are making them out to be.

Did the Yankees ruin baseball in the late 90's?

To answer the bold - so fans of most teams would have a realistic hope of their team actually winning a championship at some point in their lifetimes.

I'm actually OK with what we've accomplished the past 3+ years. I got a lot of entertainment in our regular seasons and even in the playoffs. But that's me, there are a lot of fans who think any season that doesn't end in a championship was a failure. For those fans, the NBA doesn't provide much realistic hope, unless you're a fan of a select few teams.

[KeonClark]

Complete parity isn't good for any league. The nhl was far more popular when the oilers, and then later red wings and avalanche were kicking ass with star studded rosters. NFL is at its best when the Cowboys or patriots are Killin it. Same with baseball and the Yankees. Fans love either rooting for or against the big bad champs.

And the nba had that last year with the LeBron and the warriors. But it has swung too far, from dominant upper tier teams to one unbeatable goliath. And it changed in one move, literally when Kevin durant decided he wanted to stack the deck.

There needs to at least be a chance for the element of suprise. What we have now is frankly stupid.

[Mess]

But it's hard, likely impossible, to quantify the number of Casual fans following only marquee games vs Hometeam-only fans vs Hardcore watch every game they can fans. And even then, which one of those should the league be focused on attracting? And what would be the most effective method of doing so?

And if you structure it so 15 teams can be legitimate contenders (by watering down the best teams), does that really make things better for the league? If you put Lowry on the Magic, Love on the Hornets, Kyrie on the Knicks and all 4 teams win 42 games, is that a net positive for the NBA?

[Mess]

But it has swung too far, from dominant upper tier teams to one unbeatable goliath. And it changed in one move, literally when Kevin durant decided he wanted to stack the deck.

There needs to at least be a chance for the element of suprise. What we have now is frankly stupid.

I do agree it's a little too extreme, but I don't buy the certainty that stuff like this is going to be a permanent problem moving forward. An event like CP3 signing somewhere for $10M as a reaction to GS will help convince me, but I'll wait to see it first.

[DanH]

I do agree it's a little too extreme, but I don't buy the certainty that stuff like this is going to be a permanent problem moving forward. An event like CP3 signing somewhere for $10M as a reaction to GS will help convince me, but I'll wait to see it first.

The issue is, this GSW core could be set up for the next 5+ years with little to no drop off. It doesn't matter if CP3 signs somewhere cheap next summer. It doesn't matter what anyone does, unless CLE manages to start collecting even more top players, or LeBron leaves for SAS or something. GS is, at this point, an inevitability for the foreseeable future, barring significant injuries.

You don't need other players to make the same choices for the inequality to continue - it will continue all on its own. The only way to fix it is to break up the Warriors. There's no new cap jump to give another team a chance to pull the same trick as they did and provide them some competition.

This stuff won't be a permanent problem, unless we have another cap jump next time the TV deal gets renewed (I doubt that very much - odds are TV deals will start to go down in value with all the cord cutting, but even if not, the League will have learned their lesson and have systems in place to bleed in the impact slowly) to allow another team to pull off a similar trick. But permanent is not really the measure here - this is a problem for the next little while, several years at least, and several years is an infinity in a league where long term contracts and future picks are thrown around like candy for near-term gains.

[KeonClark]

The issue is, this GSW core could be set up for the next 5+ years with little to no drop off. It doesn't matter if CP3 signs somewhere cheap next summer. It doesn't matter what anyone does, unless CLE manages to start collecting even more top players, or LeBron leaves for SAS or something. GS is, at this point, an inevitability for the foreseeable future, barring significant injuries.

You don't need other players to make the same choices for the inequality to continue - it will continue all on its own. The only way to fix it is to break up the Warriors. There's no new cap jump to give another team a chance to pull the same trick as they did and provide them some competition.

This stuff won't be a permanent problem, unless we have another cap jump next time the TV deal gets renewed (I doubt that very much - odds are TV deals will start to go down in value with all the cord cutting, but even if not, the League will have learned their lesson and have systems in place to bleed in the impact slowly) to allow another team to pull off a similar trick. But permanent is not really the measure here - this is a problem for the next little while, several years at least, and several years is an infinity in a league where long term contracts and future picks are thrown around like candy for near-term gains.

Agree 100%

Also though, I think there is a realistic hope that next year could be the final show for this current incarnation of the warriors. Why? Well, the same reasons as the Beatles or the shaq and kobe's or anything involving successful alpha males throughout history: money, ego, or both.

Any of these are realistic scenarios by as soon as summer 18:

1. Ownership will shed salary. I've heard they're already losing money now BEFORE the curry and durant mega deals. Cavs lost 40 million last year. Apparently with tax penalties, warriors could be spending 1.3 BILLION over the next 4 years on payroll. That's just not sustainable, no matter how much you love winning.
2. Klay and or draymond leaving, either because of point #1 or wanting to head their own team. They will both be up for new deals in 2 years and will certainly want the max, they are currently underpaid in the new climate
3. Steph and or KD leaving. This is the shaq and kobe example. Sure they're best buds now, but at what point does one say "you know what, I'm still in my prime. I'm tired of getting half the credit. I could find a new team with a couple all Stars to help me, the mvp candidate, and try and get another ring as THE GUY to complete my legacy"

So I guess I'm plating devils advocate. Yes the next 5 years look bleak. But I'd bet in 3 years or less some of the above factors end this iteration as we know it, and not father time in 5+ years as assumed

[Deems]

In terms of business and to the casual fan this is great for any league. I'm sure no league really cares for the opinion of the % of fans who are true fans of competition. At the end of the day this is a business of entertainment.

[DanH]

Agree 100%

Also though, I think there is a realistic hope that next year could be the final show for this current incarnation of the warriors. Why? Well, the same reasons as the Beatles or the shaq and kobe's or anything involving successful alpha males throughout history: money, ego, or both.

Any of these are realistic scenarios by as soon as summer 18:

1. Ownership will shed salary. I've heard they're already losing money now BEFORE the curry and durant mega deals. Cavs lost 40 million last year. Apparently with tax penalties, warriors could be spending 1.3 BILLION over the next 4 years on payroll. That's just not sustainable, no matter how much you love winning.
2. Klay and or draymond leaving, either because of point #1 or wanting to head their own team. They will both be up for new deals in 2 years and will certainly want the max, they are currently underpaid in the new climate
3. Steph and or KD leaving. This is the shaq and kobe example. Sure they're best buds now, but at what point does one say "you know what, I'm still in my prime. I'm tired of getting half the credit. I could find a new team with a couple all Stars to help me, the mvp candidate, and try and get another ring as THE GUY to complete my legacy"

So I guess I'm plating devils advocate. Yes the next 5 years look bleak. But I'd bet in 3 years or less some of the above factors end this iteration as we know it, and not father time in 5+ years as assumed

A lot of those money assumptions for the future is because they assume high paid role players are brought back, like Iggy and Livingston. In all likelihood, if it comes down to choosing, ownership keeps the stars and fills out the roster with cheap ring chasers.

If they lost money with a 100M salary in this climate I'd be shocked.

But for the next two years after this one at least, they have Klay and Green locked in for a combined 35M. Throw 65M towards Durant and Curry and that brings them only to 100M. If they need to duck the 122M tax, they can do so by filling out the roster with minimum deals. Odds are they can handle a reasonable tax bill, and can have a few key non-minimum role players as well (though likely not 10M+ each role players).

And after that... who knows where the cap will be? And as much as Klay or Green may want a supermax, they might not get it - they'll be spending the next few years as glorified role players behind Curry and KD.

You are right that there is always some hope - maybe GSW ownership really can't field a profitable team even with all their current advantages, and if they are that incompetent, it can all fall apart. Maybe Durant just gets bored with the 16-0 and decides to sign with the Spurs just to screw with all of us. Maybe the cap miraculously drops as shorter playoff series and a meaningless regular season suppress revenues, and even the 4 star plus minimum deals option becomes untenable. But I wouldn't bet on any one of those things happening, and the default assumption about the next few years should be that they find a way to keep that core together.

[3inthekeon]

Agree 100%

Also though, I think there is a realistic hope that next year could be the final show for this current incarnation of the warriors. Why? Well, the same reasons as the Beatles or the shaq and kobe's or anything involving successful alpha males throughout history: money, ego, or both.

Any of these are realistic scenarios by as soon as summer 18:

1. Ownership will shed salary. I've heard they're already losing money now BEFORE the curry and durant mega deals. Cavs lost 40 million last year. Apparently with tax penalties, warriors could be spending 1.3 BILLION over the next 4 years on payroll. That's just not sustainable, no matter how much you love winning.
2. Klay and or draymond leaving, either because of point #1 or wanting to head their own team. They will both be up for new deals in 2 years and will certainly want the max, they are currently underpaid in the new climate
3. Steph and or KD leaving. This is the shaq and kobe example. Sure they're best buds now, but at what point does one say "you know what, I'm still in my prime. I'm tired of getting half the credit. I could find a new team with a couple all Stars to help me, the mvp candidate, and try and get another ring as THE GUY to complete my legacy"

So I guess I'm plating devils advocate. Yes the next 5 years look bleak. But I'd bet in 3 years or less some of the above factors end this iteration as we know it, and not father time in 5+ years as assumed

Gilbert losing $40 million last year is somewhat akin to one of us losing money by putting it in an RRSP. Sure the money is out of our pocket, but it's for long term gain.

From Forbes:

Gilbert has spent aggressively since James returned to the Cavs in 2014 and has been rewarded with a soaring franchise value. All NBA team values are up dramatically thanks to the league's $24 billion TV deal signed in 2014, but the Cavaliers' jump has outpaced the league by 18%. Forbes valued the team No. 19 in the NBA at $515 million before the return of King James and $1.1 billion last year, 12th highest in the league. The value of the team is up again this year after the 2016 title.

[KeonClark]

Gilbert losing $40 million last year is somewhat akin to one of us losing money by putting it in an RRSP. Sure the money is out of our pocket, but it's for long term gain.

From Forbes:

I don't really see the long term gain, unless he wanted to sell the team today. The cavaliers are very unique as their valuation is 110% tied to LeBron james on the roster. They're not the Lakers or knicks or even raptors for that matter, slow building a sustainable foundation. The minute LeBron leaves again they're right back to irrelevant crap

[3inthekeon]

I don't really see the long term gain, unless he wanted to sell the team today. The cavaliers are very unique as their valuation is 110% tied to LeBron james on the roster. They're not the Lakers or knicks or even raptors for that matter, slow building a sustainable foundation. The minute LeBron leaves again they're right back to irrelevant crap

Right back to irrelevant crap? You realize before Lebron returned, they were 19th, the Raptors were barely ahead of them at 18th.