Players now dictate new "super teams"

[macdaddy]

Is the solution to get rid of superteams actually to get rid of max salaries? Check out this blog. I agree with what this guy is saying and think it's a good idea. http://espn.go.com/b...us-about-parity

That makes some sense but isn't that concept already proven wrong in Miami. All three of those guys took less than the max to play together.

[Admin]

I saw Kevin Love complaining that Minn. isn't surrounding him with good players. The truth is that there just aren't enough players to go around to make every team a contender or even to make 16 teams contenders. Plus players act like the are entitled to win a championship. To me the real problem is the league and the 'officiating'. Whether you believe there is deliberate fixing or just star calls it amounts to an unfair advantage for star players and their teams. If the officiating was done correctly then balanced teams would have a chance at competing for the title. But this is what Stern and many others believe would result in bad ratings.

Well Kevin Love would look darn good here next to Al with Harden or someone like that in the backcourt along with Harris/Teague. I'd gladly give up Josh and pick(s) to make that happen!

[Guest]

That makes some sense but isn't that concept already proven wrong in Miami. All three of those guys took less than the max to play together.

Miami doesn't prove this at all. Capping maximum salary is the biggest driving force behind this. I've preached about that before. Lebron, Wade, and Bosh all got close enough to what would be considered "the max". Well, would they still do that if an alternative was to have 2 or 3 times as much money offered from their original teams? I doubt this considerably. Plus, people who get the max are generally underpaid with some notable exceptions. Anyone who believes Lebron, Kobe, Durant, old Shaq, etc. are/were not underpaid is not paying attention to the CBA and their production. Caps are bad. Team level it is bad and at the individual level it is worse. Edited July 10, 2012 by hawksfanatic

[AHF]

What I wanted to see in the last CBA was a franchise tag that carried with it a significantly higher maximum salary so the player would end up getting 10% or whatever more than they could otherwise get. I don't understand the complaint that the new CBA doesn't address this though. It was never intended to so it isn't a fault of the drafting or language. There was rhetoric about addressing this issue but the sides never agreed on anything and the league dropped the issue completely. So it isn't that they did a bad job putting together the language, it is that neither side intended to do anything meaningful to stop the super friends process. I agree with GM and others that it is a very serious threat to the league's long-term success.

I honestly can't watch the super teams, unless I'm cheering against them.

You and me both. I will be rooting hard against Miami and NJ.

[NineOhTheRino]

Well Kevin Love would look darn good here next to Al with Harden or someone like that in the backcourt along with Harris/Teague. I'd gladly i give up Josh and pick(s) to make that happen!

I guess if the goal is being mediocre like before. You're rolling out 2 PFs ( neither special on defense) and 2 combo gaurds. Have fun watching that lineup miss the playoffs and draft on the bad end of the lottery. Time we do what we do best in this city. Lets be damn good at losing.

[frankthetank966]

Yes, I agree. I have been saying this since the Miami Heat drama went down two years ago. Even though I've never posted on here.B/c of this NBA is my least favorite sport of the big 3.

[Buzzard]

I kind of find this funny. On the one hand, people are pissed that players can choose their team...in what other profession are you angered that someone can choose where to work? Seems unAmerican to me. At the other side of the issue, yes this IS a problem. The problem isn't the choosing part as much as also getting max salary deals to go along with this (don't tell me Lebron/Bosh/Wade aren't max, its close enough). That's a problem with the CBA. But don't worry, someone will SURELY come up with a new patch that will solve the problem this time. I know they will. Those past 3 and 4 tries they were just feeling everything out. They've got the solution this time. Or maybe the next, I'm not sure yet.

I have said this several times. After a players first two contracts are up, there is nothing wrong with seeking greener pastures if the original players drafting team is just pissing in the wind. If you cannot win a championship with Bron, Kobe, Jordan, Duncan, Howard etc 9 years is enough mismanagement for anyone to deal with. The CBA needs to be restructured so it can be just two max contracts. Three really thins the league out in my opinion, but I honestly don't know how it can be done. 3 players at 18 starting is 54 million, then fill in the rest with MLE, rookie contracts, and vet minimums. The owners wanted to do away with the MLE, but instead compromised and lowered it. They also wanted a hard cap but no way the players ever agree to that. I think we are stuck with three max players as a rich team model. The small market teams like us can afford two and hope we draft and play free agency well enough to steal some here and there. OKC is the small market poster team with Durant and Westbrook IMO. Edited July 10, 2012 by Buzzard

[AHF]

Anyone who believes Lebron, Kobe, Durant, old Shaq, etc. are/were not underpaid is not paying attention to the CBA and their production.

I disagree with the idea that team caps are bad but you are 100% right that maximum salary rules allow this super friends concept to happen. If JJ commands $20M on the open market then you know Lebron commands at least $34M. If there are no team caps, then that is no problem for a team like LA or NY to form superteams but if you have team caps and uncapped individual salaries then you won't have super teams because someone will be paying huge amounts for Deron and Dwight (and a big but lesser salary for JJ) and they won't have the cap room to combine them all on the same roster. Edited July 10, 2012 by AHF

[NineOhTheRino]

Yet I bet had Atlanta been the desired destination for a super team we'd all be singing a different tune. Play the hand you're dealt.

[Guest]

Why not just do away with individual caps on salaries? You add on more la(w)yers of complexity with a new clause/exception in the CBA with other "solutions". The problem has been identified, its the process about which they attempt to solve it that people will disagree on.This new CBA did have an intent to stop these superfriends teams from forming, I think AHF is pulling some revisionist history here by saying it did not. Just ask Dan Gilbert during the negotiations as to what he was trying to stop (yes its ironic that he may be helping create a new one but that's what happens).

[AHF]

Why not just do away with individual caps on salaries? You add on more la(w)yers of complexity with a new clause/exception in the CBA with other "solutions". The problem has been identified, its the process about which they attempt to solve it that people will disagree on.

I don't have a problem with that approach or a franchise tag approach.

This new CBA did have an intent to stop these superfriends teams from forming, I think AHF is pulling some revisionist history here by saying it did not. Just ask Dan Gilbert during the negotiations as to what he was trying to stop (yes its ironic that he may be helping create a new one but that's what happens).

You must not have followed the negotiations very closely. Dan Gilbert and others did all kinds of talking on this and then dropped the issue completely. There was no intent at the time the CBA was signed that this would stop super teams from forming. Here is an analogy. Remember all the talking George Bush did about a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning? Do you think anyone following that issue actually thought flag burning was going to be illegal after he dropped the issue? He used it for political gain and then dropped the issue. That is this CBA. Lots of talk about the problems of super teams and how to stop them and then once the owners leveraged that into economic concessions from the players they totally dropped any acutal action intended to address the issue. Edited July 10, 2012 by AHF

[Guest]

I disagree with the idea that team caps are bad but you are 100% right that maximum salary rules allow this super friends concept to happen.

I can't remember, have we ever discussed this before? I think at this point we aren't arguing as much as trying to make our preferred option more known to others. Its pretty clear how each of us would go about making corrections, exact details may be a little fuzzy but I doubt those details will change the others opinion.

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

I hate, hate, hate it. This is really going to have an impact on small market teams. I think what Kevin Love does in Minnesota after next season will really tell the story of how the next several years in the NBA will go. I'm gonna go ahead and predict he ends up on the Lakers, leaving Minnesota high and dry.

That is where I see Love as well. The Lakers have already tried to get him, I could see them holding on to Pau one more season and then trading him off to Minne for Love. Makes me sick because before the Hawks really didn't have a chance to get a SS talent, and I now, we REALLY don't have a chance at getting SS talent here due to them wanting to team up. In order to get a FA's now, you have to have already have talent in position.

[Guest]

You must not have followed the negotiations very closely. Dan Gilbert and others did all kinds of talking on this and then dropped the issue completely. There was no intent at the time the CBA was signed that this would stop super teams from forming.

So all the competitive balance and suppporting small market teams talk was about...?

[AHF]

Yet I bet had Atlanta been the desired destination for a super team we'd all be singing a different tune. Play the hand you're dealt.

I'll take that one on as well. First, I would still say that super teams are terrible for the league and that action needs to be taken to the collusion and damage to the game that along with them. Second, if the rules of the game today encourage super teams (and there is no doubt that they do) then I want my team to exploit that as long as the loop hole is open. Thus, I have zero problem saying I think the Hawks should try to land Howard and recruit another stud to join the team and at the same time saying that I think this trend is awful for the game.

[AHF]

So all the competitive balance and suppporting small market teams talk was about...?

The competitive balance talk (so far as the super team concept is concerned) was a legit issue on which owners were internally split and so ended up being empty pandering akin to the flag burning discussion. (I am talking about the league's collective action on this since I will grant that there were individual owners who saw this as a serious issue and wanted it addressed but didn't get the other owners to generate any action on this issue). It sells well with the public but was dropped collectively by the owners once it was leveraged for gains in other areas, most notably the split in BRI. The supporting small market teams talk was about profit sharing which has nothing to do with limits on signing multiple big-time free agents.

[Admin]

I guess if the goal is being mediocre like before. You're rolling out 2 PFs ( neither special on defense) and 2 combo gaurds. Have fun watching that lineup miss the playoffs and draft on the bad end of the lottery. Time we do what we do best in this city. Lets be damn good at losing.

Yeah we'd be awful with an All-Star C and an All-Star best PF in the game lining up next to one another.

[NineOhTheRino]

Yeah we'd be awful with an All-Star C and an All-Star best PF in the game lining up next to one another.

I only base that off the Hawks having an All-Star C/PF combination for the past few years and not being able to get out the second round. In today's NBA titles are won in the back court. Well...at least I think so. Edited July 10, 2012 by NineOhTheRino

[AHF]

For reference on this topic, here is Coon's summary of the new provisions in the CBA.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one

You will notice there is nothing about stopping super teams. The closest provision is the increasing of the disparity between the maximum offer that an incumbent team can make and another team can make but the difference is not that meaningful in the big picture. Nobody thought the difference in raises and 5 years instead of 4 was going to put an end to players colluding to team together.

I have made previous posts alluding to the fact that nothing was done to prevent this in the latest CBA such as the following post from last December on the exact issue of whether the NBA could do anything to block Dwight from pulling a super friends power play involving Kobe and the Lakers and arguing that the NBA didn't bother to address the issue in the CBA and could therefore do nothing to stop it:

There is no reason for the NBA to reject this. They shouldn't get by fiat what they didn't care enough to get in collective bargaining (a franchise tag). For fans, it is a shame we went through the lockout and were left with a league where this continues.

[Guest]

AHF they aren't going to have a provision that says "in order to stop super teams" because that is outlandish. Their motives and what they negotiated on was in attempt to stop super teams. Clearly it failed but it is NOT as if they did not try because they certainly did.Most of the "provisions" have an intent but sometimes the intent is not satisfied or it actually does something being the intent. Unintended consequences a blazing.