Fixing the NBA's free agent system

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
With Durant deciding on going for the closest thing to a sure thing, the folly of the NBA free Agent system is further exposed. In the West, the regular season basically becomes completely uninteresting except for which teams are going to try the hardest to tank and how many games the GSW will win. All this because the system ensures that all the offers (except the home team) are the same for any max player. Teams must count on a player wanting to play there on factors other than money. This becomes a tremendous problem for the lesser competitive teams and lesser glamorous cities. OKC is instantly in dire straights. If Westbrook leaves next year, the team basically has no hope outside the draft lottery. The current system is a good way to end up with 2 competitive teams ---- one in the East and one in the West with everyone else jockeying for the lottery. That hasn't happened yet, but the road there is now paved.

Easy fix
1. Hard cap
2. No max contracts
3. If you want to give a home team an advantage to retain, then work on a compensation system for free agents that leave or a tax system to sign away players, etc

But this is not a good day for the NBA, and I would expect it to lead to changes. Although the Miami collusion failed to lead to any modifications.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
It's not broken.

There was a momentary blip caused by the cap jump, and the NBAPA refusing cap smoothing. That's what made Durant to the Warriors possible. It wouldn't be possible in the future.
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
6,082
I'm pro labor so I couldn't disagree with this more. OKC lost Durant by having a cheap, scummy owner. He shouldn't be stuck there.
 

Manzivino

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
7,139
MA
Having the Heat as villains was great for the NBA even though the East was non-competitive for years. The only thing bad for the league is indifference, with super teams everybody loves or hates them.
 

jp9183

New Member
May 19, 2009
186
People could also refuse to trade for Bogut which would prevent that but no one will do that.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
Would this thread exist if he had signed with the Celtics?
 

jp9183

New Member
May 19, 2009
186
no, but its the rich get richer theme. It kills basketball for me somewhat too. I'll watch because i'm a fan but I'm not going to watch anything outside of Celtics games now. Its kind of a why bother.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,676
Give teams with existing superstars the ability to sign their own free agents for longer than 5 years while continue restricting other teams to only 4 years. If say OKC could offer KD35 7 or 8 years at max money compared to 4 from other teams that would potentially keep players in the same spots as the money is guaranteed.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
no, but its the rich get richer theme. It kills basketball for me somewhat too. I'll watch because i'm a fan but I'm not going to watch anything outside of Celtics games now. Its kind of a why bother.
Basketball has always been a sport which is dominated by a few teams and a handful of players at a time. I mean, the number of teams worth bothering about in terms of following a title run for next year just went from four to three. So what?
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
This is 100 times better than every good player forcing his way to the Lakers. The dynamics may not be much different, but at least it isn't the Lakers.

I am interested how KD fits in on that team. Kerr's genius was rebuked in the finals. Bogut was the one guy that seemed to bother Lebron around the rim, so he my not be as easy to replace.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,461
Somewhere
It's not broken.

There was a momentary blip caused by the cap jump, and the NBAPA refusing cap smoothing. That's what made Durant to the Warriors possible. It wouldn't be possible in the future.
The biggest issue with NBA contracts in my estimation is the convergence of contract value between the NBA elite and rotation players (or worse). This has become particularly egregious this offseason, but I don't see how the league can fix it without changing how the cap is structured.
 

tbrep

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2012
637
Max contracts also aren't going anywhere because they benefit 95% of NBA players.
This is spot on. NBA Players Association will never screw over 95% of the players just so handful of superstars are paid more.

The biggest factor enabling the formation of super-teams is max contracts. When teams become equivalent in terms of salary, then non-financial reasons (e.g. winning a title, night-life in the city) become exponentially more important. But it's also the factor that neither side has any interest in removing.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
The biggest issue with NBA contracts in my estimation is the convergence of contract value between the NBA elite and rotation players (or worse). This has become particularly egregious this offseason, but I don't see how the league can fix it without changing how the cap is structured.
If the Players' Union want to increase this convergence, they could limit the number of max contracts any team can offer. That way every team would get one of the best 32 players.

Not going to happen though.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,461
Somewhere
If the Players' Union want to increase this convergence, they could limit the number of max contracts any team can offer. That way every team would get one of the best 32 players.

Not going to happen though.
I agree -- the NBAPA is basically operating like a union in the traditional sense. So compensation for the top guys is going to be shunted. It is too bad, though.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
This is 100 times better than every good player forcing his way to the Lakers. The dynamics may not be much different, but at least it isn't the Lakers.

True, but that's my point. Next up will be players forcing their way to the Lakers and Knicks, since those are the biggest markets = biggest endorsements.

It went from three to two in my opinion.
Correct, other then injury to a key player. The LV odds to win the NBA championship: GS 4/5; Cleveland 4-1; SA 15-1; everyone else 30-1 or worse. Heck the Celtics are the 5th shortest odds at 40-1.
To me that is not the distribution of odds that you want 6 months before the season starts.
Compare that to the NFL odds with 10 teams that have 18-1 or better odds and the favorite being 7-1.

Would this thread exist if he had signed with the Celtics?
I am sure every team would like to have Durant, and then every city's fan base 2nd choice would have been OKC. Going to the Celtics would not have made the Celtics the favorite in the East, so the problem would still exist, but it would be more of a potential problem.


I'm pro labor so I couldn't disagree with this more. OKC lost Durant by having a cheap, scummy owner. He shouldn't be stuck there.
Pro labor would certainly be for doing away with max contracts. The entire premise is based on a renegotiation of the NBAPA -- NBA agreement. A lifting of maximum contract along with an increase of the real cap. Trying to do compromise to maintain the competitive balance of the league.

It's not broken.

There was a momentary blip caused by the cap jump, and the NBAPA refusing cap smoothing. That's what made Durant to the Warriors possible. It wouldn't be possible in the future.
It is broken. The Miami collusion happened without the big increase. Granted, you can never stop 3 stars to take less money to play together. But it is a lot harder to make that decision if you are leaving a few hundred million on the table.



But the idea of the thread is to get a pulse and start a discussion on what fans in general think. And it seems that the majority at this point, think it is a short term problem that a system change would not remedy in the future or that it doesn't require a remedy. I do see it as a bigger problem, since the very nature of any league is for it to be competitive and I don't think that is what we will have in 2017 barring an injury.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,296
This is exactly what the NBA wants. They don't want any inner circle HOF types to ever have to retire without having won a championship, so they deliberately created a system that would incentivize the building of Superteams.

I'm not even sure it's a mistake. If you're the sort of fan who takes the attitude that Only Championships Matter, the regular season has always been completely meaningless, and you didn't really need to start paying attention until the conference finals anyway. If you enjoy watching basketball games, Golden State becoming the nWo doesn't change that appreciably.
 

BigMike

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2000
23,244
If the Players' Union want to increase this convergence, they could limit the number of max contracts any team can offer. That way every team would get one of the best 32 players.

Not going to happen though.
Neither side wants that to happen. Ultimately the league wants superteams, because they know they increase ratings. Players want freedom, and honestly it has always been star driven at collective bargaining time.

And I know they have limited the stars salaries. Poor LeBron has to live year to year on barely 30 something million, because the most he could get on a 4 year contract is 137.7 million right now, but if he waits a year he can get a more realistic 158 million for 4
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,312
And I know they have limited the stars salaries. Poor LeBron has to live year to year on barely 30 something million, because the most he could get on a 4 year contract is 137.7 million right now, but if he waits a year he can get a more realistic 158 million for 4
When discussing contracts in any sport there is literally no worse argument than "oh gee, they are so overpaid!"

The only thing that argument missed is comparing what Lebron makes vs Obama, who's the leader of the free world.

We all know that ever single penny they .are over (pick your number) is completely excessive.
 

BigMike

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2000
23,244
My point wasn't to complain about the contracts. I have no issue with what LeBron makes. I was just arguing against the notion that somehow the NBA players Union was most concerned about all the rank and file players instead of the stars

But honestly looking at the numbers and realizing that LeBron's salary last year was equal to KG's salary 15 years earlier, he really was underpaid. Now admittedly some of that is because he has games the system and bounced around beyond teams and thus has not maxed out his contracts. Then again if He stays 3 more years in Cleveland, he will get his salary to the point where it is almost double what he made last year
 

MainerInExile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2003
4,825
Bay Area
If it's the NBAPA that really wants the max contract (and I assume it is), I wonder what the owners could possibly give up that would convince the NBAPA to allow a hard cap and the elimination of the max contract. The only thing I can think of is expansion, and I don't know if the owners would make that trade.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
If it's the NBAPA that really wants the max contract (and I assume it is), I wonder what the owners could possibly give up that would convince the NBAPA to allow a hard cap and the elimination of the max contract. The only thing I can think of is expansion, and I don't know if the owners would make that trade.
Please enlighten me, I haven't seen it written anywhere, but I could easily have missed it. Did the NBAPA really negotiate for a max contract? Since this keeps down the amount a top player would make, and the NBAPA is presumably more influenced by the top players, I would think max contracts is something the owners wanted.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
I think we should call this thread "The curse of the Big Ticket" on the (contestable) theory that the Celtics were the first truly egregious superteam.

The hard cap and no max contracts would radically change the NBA besides removing the stink of super teams.

1. The NBA would be less of a star-driven league. The best way to market stars is with rings, and the rings will be more equally distributed. This might hurt casual fan interest.
2. OTOH, usage rates for the stars will probably go up, so perhaps this will partly (completely???) offset the lack of rings.
3. It might be harder to grow the league overseas if the stars don't shine quite as brightly.
4. Parity will increase. The regular season will be meaningful. Early playoff rounds will be meaningful.
5. Home town fans will be happy. They won't be locked out because their team doesn't have the compensating differentials (warm weather, beaches, night life etc.) Once again we'll be treated to athletes saying it's not about the money and then taking the money.
6. There might be an increased emphasis on fundamentals since role players will be more important. It might even change how the game is played.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
Please enlighten me, I haven't seen it written anywhere, but I could easily have missed it. Did the NBAPA really negotiate for a max contract? Since this keeps down the amount a top player would make, and the NBAPA is presumably more influenced by the top players, I would think max contracts is something the owners wanted.
The NBAPA is strongly in favor of max contracts. Also despite what you'd think top players don't really have much pull in the Union because any big decision has to go to the membership for a vote, and most members aren't stars (also why rookies get hosed like in every sport because the union negotiates for them despite them not being members, and it being in the members' interest to screw them).
The top players are fairly willing to accept the max to keep the peace, especially since they make so much in endorsements, which in the past was way more than their contracts.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
I think we should call this thread "The curse of the Big Ticket" on the (contestable) theory that the Celtics were the first truly egregious superteam.

The hard cap and no max contracts would radically change the NBA besides removing the stink of super teams.

1. The NBA would be less of a star-driven league. The best way to market stars is with rings, and the rings will be more equally distributed. This might hurt casual fan interest.
2. OTOH, usage rates for the stars will probably go up, so perhaps this will partly (completely???) offset the lack of rings.
3. It might be harder to grow the league overseas if the stars don't shine quite as brightly.
4. Parity will increase. The regular season will be meaningful. Early playoff rounds will be meaningful.
5. Home town fans will be happy. They won't be locked out because their team doesn't have the compensating differentials (warm weather, beaches, night life etc.) Once again we'll be treated to athletes saying it's not about the money and then taking the money.
6. There might be an increased emphasis on fundamentals since role players will be more important. It might even change how the game is played.
Have the compensating differentials in the NBA really been about the quality of life in the city that teams play in? I mean, this is a year that arguably the four best teams were in Cleveland, Oakland, Oklahoma City, and San Antonio, and free agents aren't really shunning those teams for the Nets, Knicks, and Lakers of the world. The compensating differential seems to be the perceived ability to get a player the ring he wants.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
There's no problem with free agency. The problem is the illusion that parity is good for the league. Top-heavy competition is good for the league, preferably with 3-6 contenders, and a constant ebb and flow into the ranks.

Here's an idea I don't support, but is fun to think about: Expand by two teams, eliminate the draft lottery and institute a promotion/relegation system. The bottom 16 are in the lower conference and get the top 16 picks. Playoffs are shorter, but 16 teams still participate. Thanks to the straight draft, good teams that tank can't just drop to the first pick and bad teams that sign the right guys can't simply rocket to the NBA finals in a single year.