Minnesota Sports Forum

At the end of the day restricted free agency is letting these teams hold onto really good players for up to 9 years if they do it right. I don't think there needs to be anything else to be changed to hang onto guys. If you can't get your team/organization good enough to keep a guy after 9 years, you don't deserve another gimmick to keep him. That's just not fair to the player at that point.

How many players have left championship contending teams to go elsewhere outside of Lebron who went back to the team who drafted him? New Orleans, Denver, Utah, Orlando, Toronto, soon to be Portland. They all had their chances to build around stars and they mucked it up. Notice how Duncan, Parker and Ginobili never left San Antonio. That's not a great market, but they won there and they all stayed for their careers. Dallas is a good market, but Dirk was still a lifer there because they just kept winning a lot every year. D Wade stayed in Miami and if they pay him back for the sacrifices he made in recent years he'll be a lifer there. If you do it right guys stay.

khans2k5 wrote:At the end of the day restricted free agency is letting these teams hold onto really good players for up to 9 years if they do it right. I don't think there needs to be anything else to be changed to hang onto guys. If you can't get your team/organization good enough to keep a guy after 9 years, you don't deserve another gimmick to keep him. That's just not fair to the player at that point.

How many players have left championship contending teams to go elsewhere outside of Lebron who went back to the team who drafted him? New Orleans, Denver, Utah, Orlando, Toronto, soon to be Portland. They all had their chances to build around stars and they mucked it up. Notice how Duncan, Parker and Ginobili never left San Antonio. That's not a great market, but they won there and they all stayed for their careers. Dallas is a good market, but Dirk was still a lifer there because they just kept winning a lot every year. D Wade stayed in Miami and if they pay him back for the sacrifices he made in recent years he'll be a lifer there. If you do it right guys stay.

I might be mistaken Khans, but wasn't Cleveland a 60 win team when Lebron left. I remember him saying that he tried to get Bosh to come to Cleveland but CB refused. There is defnitely a disadvantage for cold weather small market cities.

sjm34 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:At the end of the day restricted free agency is letting these teams hold onto really good players for up to 9 years if they do it right. I don't think there needs to be anything else to be changed to hang onto guys. If you can't get your team/organization good enough to keep a guy after 9 years, you don't deserve another gimmick to keep him. That's just not fair to the player at that point.

How many players have left championship contending teams to go elsewhere outside of Lebron who went back to the team who drafted him? New Orleans, Denver, Utah, Orlando, Toronto, soon to be Portland. They all had their chances to build around stars and they mucked it up. Notice how Duncan, Parker and Ginobili never left San Antonio. That's not a great market, but they won there and they all stayed for their careers. Dallas is a good market, but Dirk was still a lifer there because they just kept winning a lot every year. D Wade stayed in Miami and if they pay him back for the sacrifices he made in recent years he'll be a lifer there. If you do it right guys stay.

I might be mistaken Khans, but wasn't Cleveland a 60 win team when Lebron left. I remember him saying that he tried to get Bosh to come to Cleveland but CB refused. There is defnitely a disadvantage for cold weather small market cities.

Lower taxes in some of the warmer states gives them a nice advantage also.

Interesting thread.

I agree that it seems like the trajectory of free agency is good for the league. The player movement brings excitement and attention.

I agree that forming a team like the Heat did seems against the spirit of the game. But as guys have pointed out, they took even less money than they otherwise would have, and maybe that's why that's been kind of been an exception to the rule.

The Lakers, Nets, and for a while the Knicks all capitalized on star players wanting out of their old cities to assemble teams full of stars, but all three teams fell flat on their face. Unlike the Heat, whose big three actually were friends and played hard and unselfishly, those three teams all proved that all the talent in the world doesn't mean you'll come together as a team.

The Cleveland scenario has been more successful so far--thanks almost entirely to LeBron--but there are some potential chemistry problems there. We'll see next year!

Teams should be ready to adjust their strategies. If somebody lands a guy like Dirk, who is willing to work for less to bring in good free agents, you do that. If you are lucky enough to get a guy like LeBron, you do whatever you can to land him and keep him.

But overall, I think more teams like the Wolves will wisely keep looking to the Spurs as a model--because its more financially possible and because it works. The model--build a solid core through the draft, acquire high character free agents who fit that core rather than just BPA, get the players to buy in by winning games, build a solid team culture with strong leadership, and people will want to stay even if they're taking less money. Nobody can fit that model exactly (the Warriors have as a roster, but switched coaches!), but the Wolves are poised to do that with these players. They have promise, and good attitudes (which you couldn't ever say for Kevin Love). Almost as much as wins, I'm really hoping that these guys come together and start becoming a team that really likes to play with each other.

Last note: I'm fine with star players leveraging more power through free agency. Frankly, the superstars are underpaid. Everybody goes to the games to see those guys, but their salaries are the most limited by the cap--which is needed for parity, but also makes the rich owners even richer. We have to keep the cap, so those guys will have to keep getting underpaid. We can't become like baseball or like soccer in Europe (where only a few super rich teams consistently dominate). But it's good for them if they can choose where they want to play (like *ahem* any other worker in any other business), and it's good for the league because of the fan interest it fosters. And so far, it hasn't lead to any super dominant teams--because at the end of the day, it's a team sport and smart, consistent teams like the Spurs are capable of beating mini All-Star teams who haven't played together that much (and may not even like each other).

sjm34 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:At the end of the day restricted free agency is letting these teams hold onto really good players for up to 9 years if they do it right. I don't think there needs to be anything else to be changed to hang onto guys. If you can't get your team/organization good enough to keep a guy after 9 years, you don't deserve another gimmick to keep him. That's just not fair to the player at that point.

How many players have left championship contending teams to go elsewhere outside of Lebron who went back to the team who drafted him? New Orleans, Denver, Utah, Orlando, Toronto, soon to be Portland. They all had their chances to build around stars and they mucked it up. Notice how Duncan, Parker and Ginobili never left San Antonio. That's not a great market, but they won there and they all stayed for their careers. Dallas is a good market, but Dirk was still a lifer there because they just kept winning a lot every year. D Wade stayed in Miami and if they pay him back for the sacrifices he made in recent years he'll be a lifer there. If you do it right guys stay.

I might be mistaken Khans, but wasn't Cleveland a 60 win team when Lebron left. I remember him saying that he tried to get Bosh to come to Cleveland but CB refused. There is defnitely a disadvantage for cold weather small market cities.

It was a 60 win team who was clearly not going to win a title because they had no assets to get a second star with Lebron. Another example of an organization that didn't get the job done. Basically the same situation as Dwight in Orlando, Deron in Utah, CP3 in NO, Melo in Denver, Bosh in Toronto, etc. They all lacked the second star to win a title and that's on the organization. Cleveland built up the asset pool after he left and he came back knowing he had the second star he was missing before in Kyrie. If you have a choice to play with a star in Cleveland or Miami of course you are picking Miami, but you may not be leaving at all if you had a second star on your team to begin with.

Good discussion points... and I agree with a lot of it. A couple of notes...

- I wasn't necessarily talking about the (super)star players. As noted, it makes sense for them to stick around with the same team for their first big contract (2nd big contract is better to hit free agency). It just makes financial sense.
- I'm talking about more and more players compiling a Matt Barnes or Kevin Ollie career path. We're going to see a glut of 1 and 2 year contracts. We're going to see second-tier players bouncing all over the league. We'll see a few bigger stars on their 3rd or 4th contract doing the same... but it's primarily those good but not great guys.
- I like consistency. I like to know who I'm cheering for. I like when teams get better. I like when teams have chemistry. With all the roster changes, it's going to be a science experiment every year for a lot of teams. In the age when fantasy sports is huge and gossip sensationalism is right with it... I can see why that's the way the NBA would like it. Hardcore fans are going to watch either way. But you get the casual fan's attention in other ways. You get it through TMZ and radio talking heads and story lines with new guys in new cities and CONSTANT ESPN headlines. The mercenary athlete approach works for them... not for me.
- Shorter contracts protect GMs from themselves. Smart move by them. Even a super duper lousy contract is palatable now because it's only for a year or two or maybe 3. I can see where this is good... but it also gives GMs the power to make A LOT more stupid moves.
- Meh. Maybe I'm too old and too set in my ways. But for me, it's pretty damn cool to see guys go to battle together ... together... to see them develop those on-court relationships that makes you actually root for them and not just because you're obligated to since they're on your favorite team.
- As for using other examples from the past. Remember... we're embarking on a new "golden" age. The old rules don't apply. Remember all that talk about teams up against the cap. Those days are gone for now. Almost EVERY team will have enough cap room to sign a max guy. Many teams will have enough to sign TWO max guys. It's gonna be crazy to see all these GMs with "play money" over the next couple of seasons. JR Smith with a 1-year, $18M contract? Sounds crazy, huh. But I can see it happening. (to a JR Smith-esque player)

Abe I agree with what you are saying and having some guys move around a lot probably doesn't help teams play good basketball. A lot of people I know don't follow the NBA for that and all the reasons you state. I can't blame them at all.

Nick Collison on OKC or Haslem on the heat examples of the solid not spectacular players sticking around long term that it's nice to see.

Another thing that's different is coaches move around seemingly quicker all the time as well. I think in general the NBA reflects the country as a whole. It seems that it used to be the dream to stay with one company long term. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. There is obviously more mobility and there are some good things about it but their are some negatives as well.

I think a lot of GMs doing rebuilding of teams hopes to put together a young team and have them grow together into something special. It's not easy to do. OKC did it with pretty good results. GS just won a championship. Hopefully we can become the next success story.

Remember, when the wolves contend for the title in 3 years, we'll be a "nice story", not a great team.

Good timing with this article... which is basically a state of the NBA piece as we near unchartered territory:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-eight-biggest-nba-free-agency-questions/

"When free agency begins at the stroke of midnight, the NBA will leap into its great unknown: an unprecedented three-year spending frenzy that will change the league forever and stand out in history as an outlier blip in which the NBA lost its mind."

I know what I'm doing/reading during lunch...

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Good timing with this article... which is basically a state of the NBA piece as we near unchartered territory:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-eight-biggest-nba-free-agency-questions/

"When free agency begins at the stroke of midnight, the NBA will leap into its great unknown: an unprecedented three-year spending frenzy that will change the league forever and stand out in history as an outlier blip in which the NBA lost its mind."

I know what I'm doing/reading during lunch...

Thanks for posting. I don't want to be a complete downer, but what's coming doesn't seem like a very good thing for the health of the league. The commish was smart for trying to mitigate this avalanche of salary escalation. Greed may damage the product in the very near future.