What would you change to achieve league parity?

[Maury]

I think over time teams will adjust to the three point shot better, but there is still a problem with the way the league is set up and how talent is distributed, and it's resulting in a poor product for the fans. What would you change? Is it possible to fix or do we have to ride it out?

[LJ2]

I think the tax system that is in place was working, but the revenue increase from television deals screwed things up. Perhaps someone more familiar with the the tax system and tv deals can speak more to it.

If there was a way to get players that money without increasing the cap limit then it may work again.

[DanH]

This conversation comes up from time to time, and the answer is always exactly the same. A hard cap, no max salaries. Problem solved.

The issue is a) the players want freedom of movement (which requires a soft cap or no cap to be maximized), and have proven time and again that when given that freedom, they choose to build superteams rather than spread talent; and b) the owners seem to have no interest in changing the current set up, which is making everyone money hand over fist, and certainly not enough interest to actually fight the players in negotiations.

[3inthekeon]

There have been blips of parity, but this has been a longstanding issue.

Going back to 1980, over half the championships - 21 of 37, were won by 3 teams (Lakers, Bulls, Spurs).
Of the remaining 16 seasons, 4 teams (Celtics, Pistons, Heat, Rockets) won 12.
That leaves 4 single winners and 19 franchises that have won squat.

[Puffer]

The best way might be to go back to geographic/population density split of the country. Leave it up to each team to develop ball within their designated area and tie players to a team for 5 years. Canada and the US have 350 million pop. Each team gets an area of 12 million. Rivalries are built in and based on real pop and player distribution. Of course this would be unfair labour practice and highly illegal I expect.

[BadDinosaur]

This conversation comes up from time to time, and the answer is always exactly the same. A hard cap, no max salaries. Problem solved.

The issue is a) the players want freedom of movement (which requires a soft cap or no cap to be maximized), and have proven time and again that when given that freedom, they choose to build superteams rather than spread talent; and b) the owners seem to have no interest in changing the current set up, which is making everyone money hand over fist, and certainly not enough interest to actually fight the players in negotiations.

I'd do either that or very heavy taxation when over cap... like for example for every 2.5 million $ over cap you'd have to pay tax in 100% increments. So :
1 - 2.500.000$ over cap: 100 %
(example: 2 mil over tax would actually cost 4 mil)
2.500.001 - 5.000.000$ over cap: 200%
(example: 4.500.000$ over cap would actually cost 13.500.000$)
5.000.001 - 7.500.000$ over cap: 300%
(example: 7.000.000$ over cap would cost 28.000.000$)
...and so on. With the money collected being transfered to teams with lowest salary totals.
I think that with that kind of structure a deal like GSW signing KD would never have happened, because they'd rather be in anticipation mode of resigning Curry and retaining their current roster a year later.

[3inthekeon]

Dan hit the nail on the head. Hard cap prevents dynasties, And eliminating the artificial suppression of max salary would help spread elite talent throughout the league rather than allowing it to be clustered.

[ebrian]

I'm going to go off on a tangent here -- what do you guys think it would take for Cleveland to put up a decent fight with Golden State? I've read some rumors about Paul George or Melo -- I can't see either one of those guys making enough of a difference.

I feel as though the Warriors will be dominant for many years.. I really don't want to start treating the NBA Finals like I do with Olympic Basketball where, every team is aiming for the silver medal and hoping not to embarrass themselves in the gold medal game. What can Cleveland do? (Or the Spurs)

[Shredder]

I agree with Dan H about the hard cap, and no max contracts. I think the problem would still be similar, although less severe. Due to the fact that in bball a single player can make the difference. We might not see super team A vs super team B, but we would prob see Superstar Player A vs Superstar Player B. But I agree the playing field would be much better with a hard cap, and no max contracts. Players would truly have to put there money where their mouth is regarding winning championships. Would they take less to win, or go/stay with a team that could pay them substantially more.

[DanH]

I agree with Dan H about the hard cap, and no max contracts. I think the problem would still be similar, although less severe. Due to the fact that in bball a single player can make the difference. We might not see super team A vs super team B, but we would prob see Superstar Player A vs Superstar Player B. But I agree the playing field would be much better with a hard cap, and no max contracts. Players would truly have to put there money where their mouth is regarding winning championships. Would they take less to win, or go/stay with a team that could pay them substantially more.

Yeah, in the NBA it is basically impossible to avoid the "Superstar A vs B" problem. But with a hard cap and no max, you could well end up in situations where the truly elite end up taking up so much cap room that they end up with shoddy surrounding casts, helping teams without those stars be competitive.

Still, so long as players are free to take below market to win, there will be some semblance of the super team. Just at a degree far lesser than what we have now, and you'd definitely not have the Warriors, or even the Cavs, in a system like that.

[Maury]

I love all these ideas but is there even a chance this could happen? I say no, the NBAPA won't agree to a hard cap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blackjitsu]

None of this prevents bad GMs from being bad GMs. Furthermore, the last thing I want are players limited to where they can play. A hard cap is going to stop the Kings from being the Kings?

Golden State exists because of good drafting, and Steph Curry taking a pay cut due to early career injuries.

Cleveland exists because bad GMs took bad contracts to make LeBron's return possible.

More importantly I want nothing to do with parity as a fan. Te most popular pro sports in the world lack parity, or hard caps for a reason.

[DanH]

None of this prevents bad GMs from being bad GMs. Furthermore, the last thing I want are players limited to where they can play. A hard cap is going to stop the Kings from being the Kings?

Golden State exists because of good drafting, and Steph Curry taking a pay cut due to early career injuries.

Cleveland exists because bad GMs took bad contracts to make LeBron's return possible.

More importantly I want nothing to do with parity as a fan. Te most popular pro sports in the world lack parity, or hard caps for a reason.

Golden State exists THIS YEAR because of those things, plus the cap spike. In a hard cap system, they would not look like this next year. Cleveland definitely couldn't look like they do in a hard cap system.

Yes, the Kings will keep being the Kings. Any team can suck in any system. But the current system allows for a team to be so dominant as to render the season and apparently even the playoffs unnecessary. More importantly, it allows them to stay that way long term.

The problem with the current outlook in the NBA, for many, is not that this season was incredibly predictable, but that the near future seems just as predictable.

Nevermind that the hard cap is only half the solution. If Durant was eligible to sign for 60M last offseason, then Curry's cheap-ish deal would have made no difference - any team with established stars would have trouble being in that market. It's easy for stars like Durant to wave away the loss of up to 5M a year, something like 10-20% of their salary, in the name of winning. Finding young superstars in their prime who will do the same when it is more like 50% of their potential salary would be far more rare.

[3inthekeon]

Cleveland exists because bad GMs took bad contracts to make LeBron's return possible.

The only bad contract I remember the Cavs dumping for Lebron's return was Jarrett Jack's. And even that was a 3 team deal that netted Danny Ainge Marcus Thornton and Cleveland's 1st round pick last year, which Ainge later packaged to the Suns for Isaiah Thomas.

[Rudy Bargnani]

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?