Discussion in 'Know Your Enemy' started by Rob, Jan 31, 2019.
Because its still the nets.
Nice job creating this thread Rob! It has been entertaining and a ton of hits!
Thanks.. and i think this knicks conversation is a reflection of todays NBA.. its very interesting. Players arent necessarily valuing what fans think players would normally value.
It used to be top dollar, but we are seeing players accepting less to control their destiny.
Championships were always considered a big motivator.. but i think players arent making that #1
Top dollar worked when the difference was between $20 million and $35 million. Doesn't matter when the difference is between $250 million and $190 million... The supermax doesn't work because they make obscene amounts of money in any case (and deservedly so, because that's a part of the revenue generated by the league).
That's why the next CBA will be a tough deal to make. The franchise tag has been mentioned by some owners (won't really make it to the negotiations, the NBAPA has drawn a red line there and there won't be any deal that includes it, and the owners know it) and talks about a hard cap will take place (still, very hard to reach any deal that includes a hard cap... but probably will get more traction than the tag).
It's clear that money alone is not enough incentive, so something must be done... They might increase the supermax, but that only increases the risk of a supermax that goes wrong à la John Wall.
It's going to be interesting, but the league is aware that something must be done, and that money is not the answer this time.
The franchise tag has done nothing but alienate players in the NFL, so i doubt they will introduce that into the NBA.
The players are in a good position right now. They have control of their destiny, and the league is only making more money. It is funny that there was a time where we would hate the fact that players are only looking for top dollar.. and now that they make decisions for themselves, its like "Money isn't enough". This is not directly at you TMC, i'm just seeing this in general.
I don't think there is an issue with the NBA's system. They may point to the Warriors, but that was still a team that drafted into this position. They developed players to get to this position and made smart moves early on. Then on top of that, Steph's injury and contract is what really allowed this team to get where it is.
Try telling that to small market teams. The current situation is great for the NBA as a league, but it doesn't promote parity, and small market teams will keep putting themselves in weak positions to keep their top players.
OKC might be the exception (so far, but I think Russ' contract is going to hurt them long term) but let's see what happens with Milwaukee and Gianni's if they're not a contender (and everybody is a free agent this summer, pretty sure they're going to have to overpay to keep their current guys, and that means not much of a chance to improve by the time Gianni's is a free agent again in two years because you've tied all your available cap to Middleton and some other decent, but not great, guy). Of with any other team small market team that drafts a big talent but can't surround them with talent. I think Donovan Mitchell is going to sign his extension with Utah in due time, but also think he's gone after that first extension.
I think the current situation is good for the league (in terms of money, at least) and for big market teams. But owners will want to promote parity, and the NBA is a better league when the talent is more spread out and teams can keep the great players they draft.
One of the things I fear is that the league and big market team's owners will try to address this issue sharing the revenue between teams in a different way, so the small market teams get paid more by the league and adding a bigger luxury tax that teams in big markets won't be afraid to pay. That doesn't solve the parity issue, but will certainly be enough to have a few happy owners in small markets. Sucks for fans of those teams, tho... Not saying it's gonna happen, but that's a possibility, because the NLPA wouldn't be opposed to that kind of deal between owners.
When has the NBA ever had parity? there are always dominant teams. Of course, the league wants the small market teams to believe they have a chance, and sometimes teams will put the talent on the floor to compete. Milwaukee is leading the east, for example. It does suck that certain markets attract big names, just based off of the city name itself, but that doesn't prevent teams from making their organization a winner. It is all about ownership. Good ownership groups have great attention to detail. There was a story i heard on the radio about a former warrior that went to play somewhere else, and they told Draymond to appreciate what he has (must have been when draymond was talking about wanting the max). Because that organization would restrict small things like how many towels they could have or something small like that..
small details that make an NBA player feel like they are in a world class organization. TV deals can really up the value of teams, and that's obviously easier to do in a big market. But paying above the salary cap is doable for all of these owners. There are just some owners that want to make their team an institution, versus a run of the mill NBA team. You can't tell me the market changed in the bay area that much from when Cohan was owner, to where Lacob and Guber are now.
Owners matter, that's true. And the Warriors and Knicks are perfect example of what good/bad ownership can do to a team, no matter the market, because NYC can be THE market, but the Bay Area is also one of the top markets in the league. And both teams couldn't be run more differently.
I just think the NBA is making it harder and harder to root for a small market team. And I don't think that's good business, because it means less revenue (not only TV deals, but also merchandise, because this is already a global league). Long term, it matters, and the league should strive to reach that parity, or something closer to it.
Detroit is not exactly a big market, and the Pistons are a classic team, one that has won several rings. But that's not something that's going to happen again anytime soon, because, frankly, no great star wants to sign there anymore. Portland was a great team that won a ring in 77 and made the finals twice in the 90s, right now it's only a matter of time before Dame wants to be traded somewhere else, and it's not like the Blazers are cheap.
And San Antonio might be the best example. They were a dynasty because of Duncan, the most unselfish star the league has seen lately, and Pop and a great front office, but, even tho they remain one of the top franchises in the league in terms of coaching and how the franchise is run, they couldn't keep Kawhi happy and ultimately had to trade him.
Toronto is one of the top markets in the league, but it always has been tough for them to attract free agents.
At the pace we're going, the only markets that will matter in the NBA will be New York, LA, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Dallas and the Bay Area. Everybody else will be along for the ride.
So I think the NBA should strive to achieve something close to parity. And a hard cap would be a step in the right direction. It's not gonna happen, tho...
But i think most great teams are started by drafting that star. Sure, that takes some luck due to the draft year, draft class, and draft position. But if you do draft a Steph Curry, Dray and Klay , that gives you the chance to build an environment where stars will want to come. I don't know any team that was built solely on signing a superstar.
TMC, i think a part of this article does kind of show what you are talking about:
Cap relief as part of a trade package has value for a team like the Knicks, or Lakers..etc... but for the Pelicans, what does that cap relief give you? Having money isn't going to just land you free agents. The Pelicans are right in trying to get real assets for AD. They have the best player in the deal, and they should only accept what they feel is acceptable. that is a disadvantage when operating a smaller market team.
Yes, pretty much. Cap room has a lot of value for the few teams that can attract free agents. Other teams are simply facilitators of those deals. LA or the Knicks have a need cap for relief, but it has zero value for a team that New Orleans that's going to start from scratch.
A different thing is that a team like New Orleans try to get out of bad deals, like Somolon Hill's contract, signed during the last big spike of the cap, but it's not to get cap room, but to get rid of him because you can't move him unless he's part of a package.
The Pels are doing what's expected, btw. Unless the Lakers offer is completely outrageous, they shouldn't trade Davis til July, where Boston and other teams can be players (imagine if the Knicks win the lottery and Zion is in his way to New Orleans). And, worst case scenario, the Lakers offer will still be there. Trading him now would border on malpractice.
Separate names with a comma.