dlpin

I do not understand the bold statement. The franchise tag as implemented by the NFL has no limit on the number of seasons it can be applied to any player. The only limit is only one is allowed per season. The only way the Cavs lose Bron for nothing with a franchise tag system, is if they choose not to use it on him. Zero chance that would have happened.

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.

Ricky Williams was a multiple drug infraction risk who was suspended for a season and the next strike would have been longer, Edgerrin James was way past his prime right around 30 yrs old, Curtis Martin was a injury risk, Jerome Bettis was involved in a big trade, Eric Dickerson was involved in a big deal, Marshall Faulk was involved in a big deal, Warrick Dunn was not a big time player but was part of a running back duo and Ricky Watters was not in his prime.

Brees was involved in a contract dispute and competing with another top draft pick for the starting job. Eli forced his way before the draft this way he was not on a a team that he did not want to play for. His brother knows all about the franchise tag that the Chargers would have been able to use as leverage. Notice here that QBs, the stars of the NFL are a very short list in your list.

Now do you not think the Cavs valued Bron as much as Peyton? Utah thought of Deron as much as Brees? Denver thought of Melo as much as Rogers? The Raps valued Bosh as much as Eli? That is really my point, if you do not see that we are watching a different NBA.

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.

What you are failing to understand is the leverage it gives a owner to keep his stars. QBs and RBs are hardly ever given a franchise tag because their agents know from day no one is going to let a Peyton Manning or Tomilson while still in their prime walk. Its the leverage of the tag that gets the deals done. In the NBA there was no leverage with Melo nexts contract, no leverage with Bosh or Bron. And same can be said with Derons next contract. Stars do not walk in the NFL, they already know there is zero chance they can.

You better believe any owner with half a brain would slap a franchise tag on Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rogers et al two or more years in a row if they could not get a deal done. And players detest one year deals much less multiple instances of them. That is what you are failing to see.

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.

It will and it does. You keep throwing it out there that it does not change anything, yet in the NFL, and any sport for that matter, most players do not want to play even one season under a one year deal. One major injury and their star power, signing bonus, and security blanket is out the door. This is the reason not even half the teams have to use it, and the last QB Cassel that was assigned the tag was immediately traded. Most will sign long term deals and they are not bad deals. But the drafting team only loses the player if they choose too.

Turner is a great example of how it works when players do move as is Matt Cassel. Chargers were already paying LT big bucks so they let him walk instead of assigning him the franchise tag. Releasing players to make room under the hard cap or using the tag was their only options, but at least they had options. Cassel was a risk to pay that much to but it worked out in that New England got something in return via trade. Most players of this kind of quality, especially QBs ( stars ) and RBs ( stars ) do not move around from team to team leaving the drafting team with absolutely nothing in return.

Read, this hardly ever happens with a star QB or RB while they are still in their prime, read it is happening all the time with stars in the NBA to the point of becoming a epidemic.

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.

The games are fundamentally different because of the team emphasis in football and star emphasis in basketball. If you don't have a superstar player, you aren't competing for a championship. The only example to the contrary in the last 30 years is the Pistons who had 4-5 All-Star or borderline All-Star players but no superstar and they won a single championship.

The trend is very strong now that franchise players are deserting the markets they don't like. That is why I see the franchise tag being such a good thing for basketball fans. No one is going to keep rooting for Toronto, Cleveland, Memphis, Utah, etc. if their top players keep deserting to form "superteams" in high profile markets. For every Kevin Durant we see right now (quietly reupped with OKC) there are several other studs clamoring to jump ship to a sexier address (Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire, Carlos Boozer, Chris Bosh, etc.). As a fan, I want a team that was smart enough to draft Chris Paul to be able to keep him rather than watching him Chris Bosh his team. At least Carmelo let the Nuggets get value out of his departure. Things are brutal for the fan bases of the Cavs and Raptors right now and I wouldn't be feeling too chipper if I were in Utah or Denver right now either.

As a fan, teams need a better way to retain their stars then is currently available. I get the argument about letting players have freedom but I just don't care as much about that as a fan as a I do about an enjoyable product and the only thing I enjoy about the Knicks or Heat is rooting against them. I also recognize that my view doesn't coincide with maximized ratings - Shaq in LA bring bigger ratings than Shaq in Orlando. But as a fan, I'd like to see a league where Orlando can keep their superstar rather than having to cough him up for pennies on the dollar because he wants to go to LA or Boston or NY, etc.

It is my view as a fan that teams that can't retain their superstar are doomed. You saw it with Lebron half-***ing the playoffs last season for Cleveland while waiting to take his talents to South Beach and I hope we don't see it in Atlanta (assuming we some day actually get our hands on a superstar).

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.

Noticed you stayed away fron the NFC when citing a disparity. Since 1994 when the NFL put the hard cap in place, there have been 5 wild card super bowl champions. Up until that time there had only been one and that was the 1980 Raiders. The number of wildcard teams went from one to two per conference in 1978. Yet from 1978 until 1994 you still only have one wild card champion. Over a same amount of years frpm 1994 until 2010 you have 5. I do not see how anyone can be blind to the fact that the NFL has a lot more parity now than they did before.

Everyone of those wild card champions finished 2nd in their division. Here is the question of the day, Since 1994 how many 2nd place division teams have one a NBA championship since 1994? 5 for the NFL vs how many for the NBA?

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.

Philosophically, I just don't think it's ethical to limit anyone's income. A person must be worth what the market says they are worth. To do otherwise sabotages the market, and you end up as fanatic suggests... the NFL would not be viable if it there were international competition for its players... the NBA, on the other hand, will increasingly have to defend its turf over the coming decade or two.

What is legitimate, on the other hand, is to place disadvantages on the competitiveness of a team's roster as they edge out beyond a standard deviation (or two?) beyond their peers... because naturally people lose interest if you end up with the equivalent of Globetrotters/Washington Generals games.

Parity? It's less that there is a necessity for every game being decided by less than 10 points, and more so a necessity that 90% of the teams legitimately compete for a championship for a few years every decade or so... a kind of rotational parity.

So all of that contributes to the premise that you really have to manage both ends of the Bell curve with the CBA--provide mainly financial dis-incentives to ownerships who might tend to sit back and rake-in the money, competitiveness-be-damned... and provide mainly competitive dis-incentives to ownerships who might become so engrossed in the pursuit of a championship that they effectively price-out the competition.

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.

That is the whole point. With a hard cap and only "one" franchise tag, teams would be hard pressed to get two superstars like Shaq and Kobe on their team and having three should be all but impossible. That is how the playing field would level out. Under a hard cap Kobe and Gasol would be the Lakers limit, no way could they afford to keep Odom, Artest, and Bynum unless they were willing to take serious pay cuts.

You may not realize this but we ( Falcons) got Turner because that Chargers had to choose to either pay him and release/cut others or let him go. They chose to let him walk and we ended up with a pro bowl running back. That is exactly how a hard cap should work and if structured properly does work.

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.

So we went back almost three decades to find parity. Back in the day there was some parity, but that was 30 years ago. That was also at a time when their were less teams for a starting caliber player to be on. The euro leagues being a threat is a joke, they could not even afford 10 million a year for Childress and were happy as hell when Houston took him off their hands. Europe is suffering far more from this economic down turn than we are. At least we had a high standard of living when it started, most of theirs was in bad shape from day one compared to ours and now its only worse.

Find parity now, I could care less about watching the playoffs from 20 years ago. But they would be more entertaining than the 4 game 1st and 2nd round sweeps we see now. You come up with conjecture that the owners need to worry about the euro league and find some history of parity in the NBA from the early 90s and act like it is some sort of social cause to worry about owners or players making the most millions.

It is not a cause, it is just a bunch of millionaires playing a game they love to play, and owners paying them what they think they should. A hard cap and franchise tag would still get that done and at the same time it would level out the playing field tremendously, unless of course you can picture the likes of Wade, Bron, Bosh, Garnet, Pierce, Rondo, Allen, Amare, Billups, Melo, Kobe, Gasol, Odom, Duncan, Parker, Gino, Boozer, etc....playing for vet minimums and MLEs. I can't picture that at all to be honest.

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 don't think it is there because I am talking about post-waivers. Bibby gets waived but no one wants to pick up his contract. When he signs a new minimum contract deal, the Hawks should be prohibited from signing him unless the other teams in the league all pass on him at that price, IMO.

I'd like to see less movement of the top players than we are seeing today and I don't think Utah trades Deron if they can franchise him. Likewise, you wouldn't see a situation where a team is led on and then utterly destroyed ala Cleveland. As a fan, I prefer some type of franchise tag to the existing structure.

One I forgot to mention:

(8) PLAYER COLLUSION - In addition to teams being barred from soliciting players under contract with another team, players under contract with one team are prohibited from going after players under contract with another team. If you want to plan out future free agency, do it with your agent and not with players who are under contract with another team. There are lots of practical problems with enforcing this but I would want it on the books in case of egregious examples ala the T-Wolves Joe Smith type of scenario (i.e., a scenario where people are so blatant and stupid about it that they get caught anyway).

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.

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Been at Braves games where we've had to boo loudly just to be louder than fans of teams like the Cardinals and Cubs. It drives me crazy here in Raleigh to drive down the street because I see about 6 or 7 different NFL team logos. It's a problem all over the Southeast.

I personally hate the transplant mentality. If you move to an area, embrace that area as your new home. Become part of the community, including sports.

/two cents

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.

If I were going to make changes I would do the following which would all be focused around what I think would make the product more attractive for fans:

(1) HARD CAP - Eliminate the luxury tax and go with a hard cap and minimum spending floor. Eliminate the exceptions. The appeal of sports to me as a fan is seeing which team can win from the same starting point. In fantasy leagues, everyone starts with the same auction budget and as a fan I want to see that in my pro league. Tie the cap number to a % of the finances to be determined in collective bargaining between the owners and players.

(2) DRAFT ELIGIBLE AGE - Raise the minimum age to 2 years removed from high school. Better scouting and higher impact players makes the draft more meaningful and reduces the "training on the job" concerns.

(3) CLOSE BUYOUT LOOPHOLE - If a player agrees to a buyout, he cannot sign with the team that bought him out or any team that traded him that season unless other teams are offered the chance to match the contract offered by one of the prohibited teams and pass. That protects a marginal player like Mario West who might only have value to the Hawks from losing a job that he would otherwise have in the league while preventing the trade and resign scenarios for desirable players.

(4) FRANCHISE TAG - Institute a franchise tag. As a fan, I detest seeing my team held ransom by the star player who earns the most money on the roster. Make teams pay a premium for using the tag but no more "Decisions" or "Melodrama." The franchise tag is a salary 5% above the maximum (or some other premium).

(5) LIMITED GUARANTEED CONTRACTS/RESTRUCTURING - Give players and teams the right to restructure contracts any way they want and teams the right to cut a player while being on the hook for them for two years. For example, if Orlando wanted to cut Gilbert Arenas they would pay him for the next two years (roughly $39 million) but would be relieved of the rest of his contract. This gives both players and teams leverage if they want to restructure a deal.

(6) OPEN SALARIES UP TO MAXIMUM. I would allow teams to resign players at any price up to a league maximum figure so there would be no more situations where Golden State can't resign their own player for as much as another team can (unless it was based on room under the cap). There would also be no limits on contract length as long as no one was trying an Ilya Kovalchuck sort of contract as a way to lower the annual salary for a player beyond their playing years.

(7) TRADE ANY PLAYERS. As long as you remain above the salary floor and at or below the cap, I would allow any players to be traded for any others without needing to match salaries.

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.

*scratches head*

In the previous response you gave, my interpretation was that your complaint was that the picks were worth something, and under the modification I proposed, would be wasted on bad teams.

In this response, there seems to be a stunning change of heart.

Here's the thing. Teams cannot survive long without having one or the other -- either the injection of young talent mainly first round picks or having cap space with which to land veteran talent. So you'll have to explain to me how a given team is going to succeed if over the cap and unable to do either--draft promising youth or sign proven veterans.

(The only other way is to do it through trades, but that's largely irrelevant to the discussion since there's no way to outlaw bad basketball trades. You will always have GMs who make bad decisions.)

If you set your team up, say, the way the Celtics have ($72M committed for next season), or the Lakers have ($92M committed for next season), or the Magic ($78M committed for next season plus the following season)... and this system were in place today, you'd be losing 4-6 young players, in most cases, entire drafts worth of picks. And even if you've given up some talent for picks as BOS has done for 2012, they're losing the best of those picks, so it's no small deal.

Only Salt Lake City is occupies a smaller MSA than New Orleans. Now maybe ownership has been cheap, but obviously, they weren't cheap enough since they lost as much money as they did.

And c'mon. Unless you're now claiming insider status, there can be no "fact" that the franchises don't "have a plan." In general, it's easy for fans to pretend they know the landscape and the production/production capacity ratio for any given team.

The point again being one has to approach the conundrum from both sides of the equation--you need to have a system that works against the motivations that push the outliers at either end (one money-driven, one competition-driven) of the bell curve. Not just the lower end.

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.

I think you're failing to see that, instead, you would have, not just more teams, but pretty much all teams having to be more fiscally responsible in making the choices that they do. The luxury tax threshold would be exceeded on rare occasions when a given team felt like they could justify giving up a 1st in a given year... so this notion that you'd have all these under-cap teams gaining several multiple picks just wouldn't happen.

On the other hand, what you are more likely to see, though, is some of those under-cap teams gaining additional 2nd round picks with some regularity... which, I would contend, is just fine.

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.

Of the teams in that list, there is an argument that several of those have been limited by their financial capacity to do more... the Hornets, in particular, have obviously been limited by their market size, and yet have done remarkably well in putting some pieces beside CP3 to make them, at times, extremely competitive. To gloss over that point that some teams just naturally are not going to have the same resources as others is absurd.

In fact, the only franchises that have been completely inept over the last 10 years in that list are the Clippers, the Bobcats and the Warriors. (Bobcats are an expansion team and a smaller-market team that already lost one franchise, so I don't think they belong.) Regardless, we're talking about 10% or less of the teams having been pathetically incompetent over 10 years or more. Statistically, that's about what ought to be expected, so I don't resort to thinking we need to overhaul things... but am supportive of initiatives that make it less and less financially-rewarding to those teams to remain mediocre-at-best.

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.

I'll take a shot...

The Big-Three-ism Antidote Rule: Strengthen incentives for teams to comply to the salary cap, or if not, to remain under the luxury tax threshold.

- Draft either moved back or league establishment of salary cap and luxury tax moved up

- Teams that exceed the salary cap for a given season lose their highest 2nd round pick in that summer's draft, or alternatively, the next draft in which they have one available

- Teams that exceed the LT threshold for a given season, in addition to being taxed as they currently are, lose both their 1st and 2nd round picks in that draft, or alternatively, the next draft in which they have one or both available

- All teams that remain under the salary cap participate in a new lottery that re-distributes the picks of those teams above it

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.

Is it the Clippers first or OKCs because I don't remember hearing about Cleveland trading it to Boston.

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).

Are you saying that

Horford, Crawford, and 2 first are bad compensation for Howard?

You must hate the hawks.

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?