dlpin

How can you not understand this? In the NBA a player can sulk and sit out and there would still be demand for him. They keep him on a franchise tag indefinitely and keeps tanking the season. And unlike the NFL, teams would still be interested in him. Let me say this again: Kareem and Wilt demanded trades when there wasn't a free agency and got them. If a player wants to leave, all they have to say is demand a trade. You don't know what you are talking about. Ricky Williams' first suspension came AFTER he joined the Dolphins. Edgerrin James was traded to the Cardinals when he was 27. Jerome Bettis requested a trade because his coach at the Rams wanted to move him to fullback, and he was traded along with a 3rd round pick for a 2nd round pick, hardly a "big trade." Eric Dickerson's trade was as big as Carmelo's. Curtis Martin had missed 3 games in 3 seasons when he was traded. Marshall Faulk was traded for a 2nd and 5th round picks. Warrick Dunn was twice a pro bowler and former rookie of the year. Ricky Watters left SF after his 3rd year there, and he was an ALL PRO the last year in SF. In other words, you were wrong in every single thing you said. As for your last point, you clearly don't understand what I am saying. The issue is not how much the team valued these players, but that the franchise tag would do nothing. The franchise tag does nothing in football to keep players in the same team. It would do even less in the nba where superstars are MORE valuable than in the NFL.

In the NBA teams don't have leverage, period, and no franchise tag is going to change that. Deron Williams had one year and a half under his current contract. Vince Carter forced his way out of toronto with 2 years left in his contract. KG forced a deal with 2 years left in his contract. Heck, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Wilt Chamberlain forced trades to the Lakers at a time there even wasn't any free agency. The reason top quarter backs rarely change teams in their primes is that their original teams are willing to pay whatever it takes to keep them, while in the NBA that doesn't happen. Do you think that if the Colts were restricted in what they could pay Peyton that Peyton would stick around? Nevermind, of course, the fact that one of you examples actually changed teams. Brees changed teams. Eli Manning forced his way to another team. Ricky Williams, Edgerrin James, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, Eric Dickerson, Marshall Faulk, Warrick Dunn and Ricky Watters all either left via free agency in their primes or demanded to be traded due to contract disputes. If staying with one team for their careers is something desirable, then the NBA does a better job than the NFL. Other than a handful of quarterbacks, everyone changes teams much more frequently.

What is the difference between signing a one year deal and a player in the last year of his contract? What you are saying makes zero sense. Every single one of the players who changed teams this year had a chance to sign an extension before the last year of their contract. And when given the choice between playing the last year of their contract and becoming a free agent or signing an extension, they all chose to play one year and become a free agent. What would change with a franchise tag? And how are the examples you are giving proof of anything? Didn't all the examples you give change teams? Of the 7 players given the franchise tag in 2007, only 2 are still with their original teams (and 4 of the other five either changed teams before the season they were tagged or immediately after). Only 5 of the 12 players franchise tagged in 2008 are still with their teams. Heck, only 7 of the 15 tagged just in 2009 are still with their teams right now. The difference between the NFL and the NBA is that in the NFL the teams can offer as much money as they want to their key players. Not the franchise tag.

While that is nice in principle, again, how would a franchise tag change anything? Players already have to play a minimum of 5 to 7 years with the team that drafted them. How would forcing the players to stay 6 to 8 meaningfully change anything? Let's say Lebron wanted to leave but was franchise tagged. Don't you think that by this point of the season the cavs would have already dealt Lebron to avoid losing him for nothing? So in the end nothing would have changed. The only way to keep players with their original teams longer is to eliminate maximum contracts and allow the teams that drafted them to pay as much as they want. The reason MJ stayed with the Bulls wasn't that he was loyal, it was that the bulls could pay him 30 million a year while the knicks could only pay him 20. Same thing for virtually every other star. Stars are leaving more frequently now because if the salaries are all the same, then the big markets and their advertising dollars will always have an advantage. If cleveland could offer 30 million to lebron and the heat only 15, no way he leaves. But if he could only make 15 in either cleveland or miami, then miami is the more desirable location. The franchise tag wouldn't change superstars changing teams.

Now you are trying to argue unprovable hypotheticals. The bottom line is lower seeds have had as much success in the nba as in the nfl, despite the fact that the nfl is single elimination and the superbowl is always on neutral fields.

Again with the misleading "wildcard" designation. The Broncos were a wildcard in 1997, but had the 2nd best record in the conference and 4th best record in the league. The 2000 Baltimore Ravens also had the 2nd best record in the conference and in fact the 2nd best record in the league. The 2005 Steelers were the #5 seed and would have been the #2 seed in the NFC. The 2007 Giants and 2010 Packers actually had the 4th best record in their conferences So it is absolutely misleading to use that as an example of parity. It is the same as me saying that the NBA has more parity because a #8 seed went to the NBA finals but a #8 seed never made the superbowl. That is all a matter of rules, of course. As for how many 2nd place division teams have won the NBA since 1994: 95 rockets, 02 lakers, 04 pistons, 07 spurs. How many 2nd place (and lower) in the division teams have made it to the superbowl at all? 6 since 94. In the NBA, its also 6. All this while once again ignoring the fact that one is single elimination and the other is a best of 7. So if anything, by your rationale the NBA has better parity.

Let me disagree with 2 points here and agree with 1. First, while philosophically and ethically it is good to have a level playing field, the fact is that it does not translate to popularity. The highest rated NBA finals ever are the ones with Michael Jordan in them. The NBA was at its absolute most popular when the Bulls were winning 6 out of 8 (and would have won 8 out of 8 if Jordan didn't retire for a bit). Likewise, what finals do you think would have a higher ratings this year, Lakers vs Celtics for the 3rd time in 4 years, or Hawks versus OKC? Second, there isn't a single league world wide where 90% of the teams compete for a championship every decade or so. In that regard, the NBA is actually doing quite well. 17 franchises have won the NBA finals. Meanwhile, the NFL, which has been played professionally for much longer than the NBA has been around, has had 27 different champions. If you only count currently existing franchises, the NBA has 14 franchises who have won it all and the NFL (again, counting the pre super bowl days) 22.So even though the NFL has been around for 3 decades more, and had more teams early than the NBA (by the mid 70s the nfl had 28 teams and the nba 18), the difference is 8. But I do agree that a significant problem of the league is owners who don't do anything.

How would having a franchise tag prevent teams from having multiple superstars? Would a franchise tag have prevented the celtics from getting Allen and KG (KG had 2 years left in his deal when he was traded)? Would a franchise tag have prevented Kobe and Pau Gasol from teaming up? The franchise tag would do nothing in the NBA. Lebron had to stay in cleveland 7 years before he could become a free agent. Do you think forcing him to stay there an 8th year would have changed anything? Williams had another year at least with the Jazz. Do you think forcing him to stay there another year would do anything? Teams would still be willing to deal superstars early instead of losing them for nothing after the franchise tag. And the hard cap, while not a terrible idea (it is better than a soft cap), would not have prevented the spurs and lakers from dominating the decade. You know what team right now would benefit the most from a hard cap? The heat. The Miami Heat are 20th in salary and would easily fit under a hard salary cap, while the magic, celtics, hawks and bucks would all have to cut role players to fit the system. The hard cap would make role players less valuable because the NBA is ruled by superstars. People are completely overreacting to the heat decision while ignoring that their proposals would do nothing to actually prevent situations like that and only benefit the heat itself. The real problem with the NBA isn't superstars moving around too much (Lebron and Melo stayed longer with the teams that drafted them than most nfl stars do). The problem with the NBA is owners who are only interested in making money off of luxury tax payouts and extorting cities for concessions. Owners that keep extorting small markets for facilities and money and then leaving.

What do you call parity? Lower seed upsets? Didn't we have a #4 seed in the finals last year? In fact, over the past decade the only time the 2 number 1 seeds met in the finals was in 08. And the only reason the packers were a #6 seed is because of seeding rules, because if they only seeded by record they would be the #4 seed (same record as the eagles but won head to head during season). Just like the #6 Giants had actually the #4 best record. Meanwhile, if the NBA seeded like the NFL, the 07 finals would have been between two #4 seeds. So this whole thing with lower seed winning it all is just false. As for parity, the Patriots, Steelers and Colts have won the AFC every year since 03. And that is all while ignoring the fact that single elimination makes upsets more likely. If the NFL had, say, a 3 game playoffs, the colts, patriots and steelers would likely have won at least 8 of the past 10 titles.

I completely agree with Hawksfanatic regarding the NFL vs NBA comparison. The impact superstars have on the NBA is such that you will never have parity. Contrary to popular belief, the most dominant teams over this past decade weren't even over the luxury tax. They just happened to have the best superstar at the time. The 00-02 lakers and the spurs around that time were not over the luxury tax and for the most part were not even among the top 5 payrolls in the sport. They only went over the luxury tax when it came time to resign everyone. Also, as he said, single elimination playoffs make upsets a lot more likely than a best of 7 series. Finally, people keep pointing to green bay and pittsburgh as examples of "small market" teams. But with regards to the NFL, green bay and pittsburgh are not "small market teams." Because of their history I would bet these two teams are top 3 in the league in number of fans (along with the cowboys). It's like Detroit and Toronto in Hockey being bigger markets than Los Angeles or New York. On top of that, there is the fact that football is simply a lot more popular than basketball. There is 0 parity in college football and college football is still the second most popular sporting event in the nation. The NFL is not and should never be a model for the NBA.

I am pretty sure that any provision that would prevent an out of contract player from signing with a team would be struck down by the courts very quickly. There is a reason why even with restricted free agency teams must still offer a deal to keep the player's rights. As for the "less movement of the top players" bit, a franchise tag does nothing because in the end it is still clear the player will be leaving. So unless you do away with free agency, top players will still leave. What they have in the NBA is even better than a franchise tag. Right now there is no doubt in my mind that Lebron wanted to leave cleveland from the start. But under the current system, he still had to sign a 3 year extension to even become a free agent, so there was no chance for him to leave on his own for 7 years. Not even the NFL does that. Do you think that a team is going to be able to keep a superstar that wants to move because of a 1 year franchise tag? It is just the nature of the sport that superstars will have a lot of power. One superstar can turn any team around. In football, if players throw a tantrum and demand to be moved, they are more easily replaced. TO demands out of philly and philly can just bench him, even as other teams sour on him because of his attitude. Same thing for Haynesworth. In basketball, if a player sulks, plays poorly and forces the team's hand to be dealt, other teams will still chase the player. See Vince Carter. See Deron Williams. Deron Williams was able to force a trade a year and a half before his free agency.

Are you not in NC right now? Shouldn't you be a fan of the bobcats, panthers and hurricanes? Why should people stop caring about the teams they grew up caring about? How is becoming a hawks fan, a braves fan or a thrashers fan making anyone "part of the community?" In fact, let's look at some of top users of this forum. Should Dolfan become a rockets fan? Should AHF become a Pacers fan? Don't get me wrong, I want the hawks to do well as the NBA doing well in Atlanta is good for NBA fans here in general. But I won't stop being a celtics fan just because I moved here.

I agree with 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. 3 is already there. Bought out players have to clear waivers, which means that teams have a chance to get the bought out players. It just doesn't happen as a sort of courtesy between owners, in order to avoid stepping on each other's toes. 4 is also already here with restricted free agency. A team already has a guaranteed 5 years (if no one else offers the player a contract and he plays a season on the offer sheet to become an UFA), or 7 (if the player signs for the minimum necessary to become a UFA). And in any case, the Deron Williams and Vince Carter examples show that nba stars have a lot of say in where they play. A superstar is so important in the nba that they can sulk and force their way where they want because no one is going to want to waste them. This is not like the NFL where virtually everyone is replaceable.

There was no inconsistency. The picks are worth something. Just not enough to turn around any franchise. But enough for cheapskate owners to either fill out their rosters with players in the bottom of the rookie scale or sell the picks. Meanwhile, for the top teams they are mostly worthless. The celtics aren't going to spend less in order to keep the Billy Walkers and Omar Bradleys of the world. So you have a proposal that accomplishes nothing in terms of balance and provides yet another incentive for the bad owners to keep being bad. If teams spending too much is a problem, have a hard cap. That is it. As for plans, we might not have insider information, but all it takes is to actually look at how consistent the actions of a team are to see if there are any long term plans. The hornets had a couple of fire sales after being a game away from the conference finals. I wouldn't call that a basketball plan (and the owner who complained about money was also the owner who moved the team there). Making it easier for cheapskate and incompetent owners to just keep doing what they are doing is really not the answer.

Losing late 1st round and 2nd round picks are not going to stop the top teams from spending money. Getting late 1st round and 2nd round picks will not make the cheap teams competitive. What it will make is provide an extra incentive to be cheap, as those picks can be sold later. If there is a max that teams shouldn't spend more, then make it a hard cap. Rewarding cheap owners with mostly irrelevant picks that they will end up selling anyways is not the answer to anything. Hornets lucked into a superstar, and the only reason they haven't been more successful is the owner's cheapness. And the fact is that none of those franchises have a plan. The pacers, raptors, suns, utah and so may have had varying degrees of success, but at least they clearly had a plan.

While your intentions may be good, this would be terrible. You would have even more salary dump trades than you have now. If there is a soft salary cap, there should be no non-financial incentive to stay below those limits. Either teams cannot spend more than the cap or if they do the consequences should be purely financial. Rewarding cheap owners with more picks would be terrible for the league. Like all we need is more young players being shipped to play for the clippers and kings of the world... What we need is a system that better rewards attempts at success while increasing the penalties for long term ineptitude. Here's what I would like to see in the new CBA: - Reduce the odds in the draft lottery for every year a team participates in it, or at least put restrictions that if a team has had a top 3 pick in the past 4 years it can't have one again.. The clippers have had a top 4 pick 11 times in the last 26 years. There should be no reward for losing like they do. - Do away with max salaries and guaranteed contracts. The only way to keep superstars with the teams that drafted them is to allow that team to offer however much it takes. If the cavs could offer 30 million for lebron and the heat just 15, do you think he would have left? The only reason MJ didn't leave chicago is that they paid him 30 mill a year while NY could only offer 20. Franchise tags don't work and never will. A team already has at least 5 years guaranteed with a player, forcing one more year will do nothing. - Reduce the amount of luxury tax a team gets for every year they fail to make the playoffs. People are overreacting to Lebron's decision with all this talk of superstars. The real problem this league has is a bunch of owners with ZERO interest in winning games who only own the teams for the guaranteed profits from tv and the luxury tax. Owners should be penalized for always wanting to put out the cheapest possible team so that they can live off NBA and city money. There are teams that are incompetent but at least try, like the pacers, raptors and so on. But the clippers, kings, hornets, grizzlies, wizards, bobcats, timberwolves, warriors and, until very recently, the nets, have all been more than happy doing nothing, having no plan to getting better, and just collecting nba checks.

To me, it is obvious this team still has massive ego problems. Second time in a week they are down by 3 down the stretch. Who do they have taking the 3? Miller, who is shooting 40% from the 3 point line? House (39%)? Jones (41%)? No, they have Lebron and Bosh. Lebron, a career 32% 3 point shooter and Bosh, a career 29% 3 point shooter.

Clippers 2012 1st round pick, top 10 protected until 2016, then not protected at all. Given how bad of an owner Donald Sterling is, this will likely be in the lottery, and if the celtics bid their time, it could be a top 5.

The version posted here is from before Boston's moves were made public. They have since updated it. And he gave boston a B. And how is Boston's moves boneheaded? Perkins only played 12 games this season and the celtics are still the top record in the east. West is now healthy and is a much better player than Nate. So they gave up a center with bad knees who wouldn't be resigned and barely played this season and a point guard that was about to slip out of the rotation for a very good, young guy who can play SF and PF and the clipper's 1st round pick. The magic are slipping. The Lakers are slipping. Those are the teams that Perk would help against. Meanwhile, with Deng having a career year with the bulls and the Heat with Lebron, the celtics had no one to back up Paul Pierce. If Pierce ever had any foul trouble or injury, the celtics would have had Von Wafer guarding Lebron and Deng. This was a very good trade for the celtics. And if Shaq comes back healthy soon, and the celtics land the buyouts they are rumored to be going after (Troy Murphy among them), this would be a phenomenal trade. Helps compete now and help the rebuilding in the future, with a core of Rondo, Green, a clippers 1st rounder and cap space in 2012.

As an outsider who occasionally watches the hawks, let me try to get my opinion across. I am not a "superstar" kind of fan, that tunes in just to see the big names, but I would imagine people who are aren't drawn to the hawks. But as a fan of good basketball, the hawks, to me, are no different of other good teams that have no real shot. So it is probably the same way Hawks' fans see other good teams who are either unwilling or unable to do what is needed to become a contender. Arenas' Wizards team is a good example someone mentioned. The current incarnation of the jazz too. Other examples would likely include the trailblazers. Not arguing whether the Hawks are better or worse than any of these teams. But these are teams that have somewhat plateaued (unlike young teams like OKC or free agent magnets like NYK) and that no one expects will pull a blockbuster move to get over the hump. Good teams that if healthy can likely win 50 games every season, but that most people would be very surprised if they made it to the conference finals, and completely shocked if they won the conference.

You know what the best way to stop superteams from forming is? Eliminate maximum salaries. Leave just a cap, but do away with individual limits. The reason MJ didn't leave the Bulls wasn't Pippen or the titles. It was that Chicago could offer 30 million for him. If Lebron could make 30 million in cleveland, do you think he would have left to make 1/3 the salary cap in Miami? When you make it so every team can only offer the same, then of course the tie breaker for a player is going to be team desirability.

Donald Sterling. The guy has owned the clippers for 30 years. Everyone else has changed in that organization, except him. So there is no one else to blame for making the playoffs just 4 out of 30 years.

Not only are NBA contracts guaranteed, once signed their cap impact is essentially etched in stone. Even if Joe agreed to a mutual contract termination, his salary as it currently is will still count towards the cap.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens with one ownership group in place now. There are basically 2 ways of winning a championship in the NBA: You either draft a superstar or you spend a lot of money. No ifs, ands or buts. Even the one team to win it all in the past 40 years without a true superstar, the 2004 detroit pistons, had to go out and open their wallets to land Rasheed Wallace. Every team to win it all in the past 40 years either drafted superstars (Bird, Magic, Thomas, Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan, Kobe) or went out and either signed a super star or acquired stars by taking on a lot more in contracts (Shaq, KG, Gasol, Sheed).

No, it is you that wildly overstate what the hawks have. Just like your proposed "joe johnson for chris paul" trades. This isn't a video game. That is terrible compensation and easily matched by most teams in the league. Let's say for a second that the magic are stupid enough to even want to trade the best center in the league who is only 25 years old. Do you think Horford, 5 months of a 30 year old crawford, and two late 1st round draft picks are enough? That is essentially an expiring contract, 2 worthless picks, and Horford for Howard. Horford, who is and will always be a borderline all star at best, for a once in a generation athletic freak who should be a 1st team all nba player for at least most of the next decade?