Changes to the NBA?

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Guys are figuring out how to get on teams with their buddies already with a soft cap. Having no cap would be a disaster in the NBA because it would make teaming up that much easier and they'd get even richer doing it.

[Wolvesfan21]

Expanding on my previous post. Max contracts are the problem. Every top player is underpaid severely because of it and it allows multiple players to join up and dominate. LeBron and Davis should both be making like 50% of the cap not 25% or whatever it is. As long as top players are underpaid they will dominate. You could legitimately build a team full of value guys and compete against anyone with a fair system.

Why do they have max contracts? I think because of PR reasons mostly. They don't want LeBron making 80 million a year. It might offend some fans. As if 40 Million is really that different. So I think it should be a non issue.

I would also do what Soccer does in Europe they allow teams to purchase players and their contracts. For instance Wolves like so and so player and think he is underpaid. They then can buyout his contract for more with the proceeds going to that next team. Or if another team wants to dump the player they can do so but take a hit on the contract. The player still makes his money, the team is either taking gains or losses based on the value. You would have a lot more freedom to have player movement in this system. Since you are just buying and selling of the contracts. Still have Lux tax so teams could go over the cap but with the same penalties.

Why doesn't the NBA do this? PR reasons I think again. The "owners" buying and selling players looks bad. That's all I can think of.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Old school take here... but even more player movement isn't all that appealing to me as a fan.

Part of being a fan is being emotionally invested in the club (both good and bad). I know a lot of players aren't, despite the hollow musings they share from time to time. So if the fans have less obvious reasons to follow a club, I feel like it's sort of a house of cards.

[Wolvesfan21]

Old school take here... but even more player movement isn't all that appealing to me as a fan.

Part of being a fan is being emotionally invested in the club (both good and bad). I know a lot of players aren't, despite the hollow musings they share from time to time. So if the fans have less obvious reasons to follow a club, I feel like it's sort of a house of cards.

At the same time though, teams are stuck with players too. So it works both ways. You would create a fairer system because you could make player movement easier. So any given year almost team could win the NBA title more so then now where only a few teams have a chance. Biggest factors going to coaching and management assembling great rosters.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Old school take here... but even more player movement isn't all that appealing to me as a fan.

Part of being a fan is being emotionally invested in the club (both good and bad). I know a lot of players aren't, despite the hollow musings they share from time to time. So if the fans have less obvious reasons to follow a club, I feel like it's sort of a house of cards.

At the same time though, teams are stuck with players too. So it works both ways. You would create a fairer system because you could make player movement easier. So any given year almost team could win the NBA title more so then now where only a few teams have a chance. Biggest factors going to coaching and management assembling great rosters.

If you increase player movement even less teams will have title chances, not more. The NBA is a top heavy league so the only way for parity to exist is to keep stars spread out and increasing their ability to change teams will keep them bunched together on big market teams where they can make the most money off the court.

[Wolvesfan21]

Old school take here... but even more player movement isn't all that appealing to me as a fan.

Part of being a fan is being emotionally invested in the club (both good and bad). I know a lot of players aren't, despite the hollow musings they share from time to time. So if the fans have less obvious reasons to follow a club, I feel like it's sort of a house of cards.

At the same time though, teams are stuck with players too. So it works both ways. You would create a fairer system because you could make player movement easier. So any given year almost team could win the NBA title more so then now where only a few teams have a chance. Biggest factors going to coaching and management assembling great rosters.

If you increase player movement even less teams will have title chances, not more. The NBA is a top heavy league so the only way for parity to exist is to keep stars spread out and increasing their ability to change teams will keep them bunched together on big market teams where they can make the most money off the court.

Yes that would help the big market teams, but what would hurt way more is no max contracts. So LeBron unless he took less money, probably a lot less would be paired with a bunch of avg players. No team unless they drafted a superstar could afford two without going super LUX cap hell.

I would like both implemented. Could you imagine how cool the game would be if it was a more even playing field? I honestly hate the super team crap. It's lopsided garbage and has ruined the league.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I've long been an advocate of making it more advantageous for players + teams to lock up star talent for longer.

Obviously, this comes from somebody who grew up watching some of the Bird/Magic stuff, the Bulls, the Jazz, et al.

Most of the financial changes the NBA has made has actually made it harder to pull that off... to attract a different type of fan than me...

- younger
- casual
- social media obsessed
- shorter attention span (more tech savvy? more viewing options? more demanding?)

And that's fine. The NBA probably thinks they have me hooked and I'm not going anywhere, but they need to keep attracting new fans. And to an extent, they're wise to do so. I'm not going to spend a ton on merchandise and everything else. We'll see if it's a bit of a myopic take by the NBA eventually. It's not like they're not doing their homework on this stuff... it's a billionS dollar organization.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

I've long been an advocate of making it more advantageous for players + teams to lock up star talent for longer.

Obviously, this comes from somebody who grew up watching some of the Bird/Magic stuff, the Bulls, the Jazz, et al.

Most of the financial changes the NBA has made has actually made it harder to pull that off... to attract a different type of fan than me...

- younger
- casual
- social media obsessed
- shorter attention span (more tech savvy? more viewing options? more demanding?)

And that's fine. The NBA probably thinks they have me hooked and I'm not going anywhere, but they need to keep attracting new fans. And to an extent, they're wise to do so. I'm not going to spend a ton on merchandise and everything else. We'll see if it's a bit of a myopic take by the NBA eventually. It's not like they're not doing their homework on this stuff... it's a billionS dollar organization.

It also doesn't help things when the league's super team breaks up (Warriors) and the ratings drop a decent amount the next year. People say they want parity, but the audience numbers don't reflect that. They want someone to root against every night just as much as they want teams to root for and right now there is no league nemesis.

[Wolvesfan21]

I know my Nephew who is 15 likes the Warriors and I'm sure he doesn't watch much now at all. I'm sure specifically that segment, the young Warrior fan is not watching now. I think there were ALOT of "young bandwagon" types.

We don't have parity either, we just have different super teams. You'll always have super teams when guys are forced to take less then what they are worth.

[thedoper]

Its hard to argue that the NBA hasnt as a whole been better for fans, players and owners generally. The only people getting screwed are the fans who grew up rooting for a regional team. The culture is changing, the NBA may not be ready for a roller derby style traveling roadshow of teams, but it is so much more about rooting for players. So when players leave a team, they dont even think they are doing the fans a disservice, since collectively/globally their fanbase loyalty and their brand increase in stature. I was just thinking about this when I woke up, but the local sports team may end up being the dinosaur in all of this. Because big picture, what or who does it matter to that the Wolves suck? And why should a player who has the majority of the world telling them that they're amazing stay loyal to a jersey with a wolf on it when that team has done very little to increase fandom?

I personally hate the "player empowerment era" but that is because Im romantic to an era of local franchises being the key builder of fame for these players. Its just not that way anymore. Every other industry people are free to follow where the most opportunity is, as long as there is this much money in it, basketball will only get worse. Fighting it is a losing battle. The Wolves wont last forever, I just cant see how they matter. The organization has been a laughing stock since they've been in the league apart from the 10 years they had a top 20 all time player. And even then they tried everything they could to fuck that up.