My whine about the amnesty rule

[freakazoid]

Super teams will continue with 5 to 8 teams taking the best players from the other 20 -25 teams.

So the lock-out was a farce, atleast it was not about what we thought it was about. Owners just wanted a bigger piece of the pie.

There is absolutely no truth to this. There have always been ring chasers, and just because the NBA doesn't control player movement down to every last single player, doesn't mean they didn't make a lot of progress with the last CBA. All you have to do is look at Dallas, and what happened to them after winning a title. You can't point to Miami, and then completely ignore the fact that Cuban was unable to have his cake, and eat it, too.

People should keep in mind that a lot of the additional tax payer limitations don't even kick in until next year. Just because competitive balance didn't happen overnight, doesn't mean the new CBA didn't make a lot of progress. It did.

 

[Stifle Tower]

There is absolutely no truth to this. There have always been ring chasers, and just because the NBA doesn't control player movement down to every last single player, doesn't mean they didn't make a lot of progress with the last CBA. All you have to do is look at Dallas, and what happened to them after winning a title. You can't point to Miami, and then completely ignore the fact that Cuban was unable to have his cake, and eat it, too.

People should keep in mind that a lot of the additional tax payer limitations don't even kick in until next year. Just because competitive balance didn't happen overnight, doesn't mean the new CBA didn't make a lot of progress. It did.

Dallas didn't implode because of the CBA. It was a calculated gamble on the part of Cuban to get DWill and Howard to join Nowitzki. To do that, he had to clear salary space, just like Miami did prior to having DWade, Lebron and Bosh sign. Had those 3 gone elsewhere, Miami would have been decimated, and probably turned to Boozer and others as their second options.

 

[freakazoid]

Dallas didn't implode because of the CBA. It was a calculated gamble on the part of Cuban to get DWill and Howard to join Nowitzki. To do that, he had to clear salary space, just like Miami did prior to having DWade, Lebron and Bosh sign. Had those 3 gone elsewhere, Miami would have been decimated, and probably turned to Boozer and others as their second options.

Well, you're half right. I wasn't trying to say Dallas imploded simply because of the new CBA. Cuban did take a calculated gamble, but the new CBA was most definitely a factor in why he chose to take that gamble, when he could have made a run at another championship . The situation with Miami is completely different, because they didn't break up a championship team to gamble on those players. Clearing cap space isn't a big deal, unless you're breaking up a championship team to do it, then it kinda is.

I was resonding to the idea that super teams are going to take over the league, and that the new CBA didn't do anything to change it. If that was the case, then Cuban could have just kept his championship team together, and just waited for all the ring chasers to come play there for the minimum. There are some very good reasons why he didn't do that. He didn't throw away another chance at a title just because he wanted to go after certain players. Part of it was that, and the other part was because he would've been ****ed when the new rules kick in next year.

 

[northeast]

I think Dallas is an unusual case, an outlier, and not indicative of the typical way things will work in the future.

 

[freakazoid]

I think Dallas is an unusual case, an outlier, and not indicative of the typical way things will work in the future.

Please expound.

 

[northeast]

So you aren't considered competitive if you don't make the finals every year?

For the purposes of this discussion, I am defining a league as being less competitive if the same few teams tend to win over and over, while other teams just don't seem to ever have a shot.

If one team does not make the finals every year, that would mean the league is more competitive, while the one team is less competitive.

 

[green]

There is a simple fix: If you are amnestied, you get your contract money and it doesn't count against the cap. BUT, IF you sign with another team, you forfeit your previous contract, the previous team is released from paying you, and you now operate under your current contract. That would force players to 1) actually LIVE UP to their contract. 2) If they can't physically live up to their contract, then they can't go chasing a ring, they must retire, or 3) if they decide to keep playing, they will be paid WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. Funny concept that a lot of Americans don't believe in, especially union members.

The player can still get his money, if that is what is most important to him, but he can't screw over the team paying him by agreeing to a significantly less contract to chase a ring. How fair would it be to Dallas if they amnestied a player, he went and signed for the vet minimum, and then he played a significant role in the finals against Dallas? Dallas would be paying the guy to be Dallas. Not right at all.

 

[nightmare3983]

There is a simple fix: If you are amnestied, you get your contract money and it doesn't count against the cap. BUT, IF you sign with another team, you forfeit your previous contract, the previous team is released from paying you, and you now operate under your current contract. That would force players to 1) actually LIVE UP to their contract. 2) If they can't physically live up to their contract, then they can't go chasing a ring, they must retire, or 3) if they decide to keep playing, they will be paid WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. Funny concept that a lot of Americans don't believe in, especially union members.

The player can still get his money, if that is what is most important to him, but he can't screw over the team paying him by agreeing to a significantly less contract to chase a ring. How fair would it be to Dallas if they amnestied a player, he went and signed for the vet minimum, and then he played a significant role in the finals against Dallas? Dallas would be paying the guy to be Dallas. Not right at all.

I like this idea green. Who can we get to champion it the next time CBA negotiations roll around?

 

[nightmare3983]

...they should have locked all these clowns out for the whole year....and then some! They should have waited till they got EVERYTHING they wanted, hard cap, reduced salaries, no guaranteed contracts, minimum of 2 years in college....and most importantly....no VISIBLE tattoo's!

Is that really the MOST important thing?

 

[Stifle Tower]

I was resonding to the idea that super teams are going to take over the league, and that the new CBA didn't do anything to change it. If that was the case, then Cuban could have just kept his championship team together, and just waited for all the ring chasers to come play there for the minimum. There are some very good reasons why he didn't do that. He didn't throw away another chance at a title just because he wanted to go after certain players. Part of it was that, and the other part was because he would've been ****ed when the new rules kick in next year.

Agree with that part. Cuban has already stated that the new rules have changed the way he will build his team. The "Big-3" model is going to work for another couple of years and then we'll either have a couple of owners say "screw it," I'm going all in no matter the cost (the basketball equivalent of Steinbrenner's Yankees), or they'll take a shot, then try to dump players after 1-2 yrs. Could create quite a secondary market for players like Bosh, Boozer, etc. who have signed big contracts but really aren't worth what they're getting. There are going to be some weird trades after next year.

 

[Stifle Tower]

There is a simple fix: If you are amnestied, you get your contract money and it doesn't count against the cap. BUT, IF you sign with another team, you forfeit your previous contract, the previous team is released from paying you, and you now operate under your current contract. That would force players to 1) actually LIVE UP to their contract. 2) If they can't physically live up to their contract, then they can't go chasing a ring, they must retire, or 3) if they decide to keep playing, they will be paid WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. Funny concept that a lot of Americans don't believe in, especially union members.

The player can still get his money, if that is what is most important to him, but he can't screw over the team paying him by agreeing to a significantly less contract to chase a ring. How fair would it be to Dallas if they amnestied a player, he went and signed for the vet minimum, and then he played a significant role in the finals against Dallas? Dallas would be paying the guy to be Dallas. Not right at all.

Interesting concept, but no one is forcing these owners to extend huge contracts to certain players. Will Asik be worth his $8M per? Is Hibbert really a MAX player? IS Gerald Wallace worth 4/$40M? And the list goes on...there are even worse contracts being offered. I'm totally against the amnesty provision. The owners had a chance to clear their books of a player under the old CBA. And what happened? They didn't learn their lesson and here we are again, back to ridiculous contracts being offered. Who's to judge if a player underperforms? Look at Scola. He had a decent season in Houston. His scoring was above his career avg, shooting % and rebounds were fairly close. Why was he amnestied? Clearly, because Houston wants to go after Howard. Not his fault.

If my employer wants to get rid of me without cause, I'd certainly expect severance. Now unfortunately for us peons, that generally means 2 weeks, maybe a month or two pay - tops. But we generally don't have guaranteed employment contracts. Top managers and CEO's may get several months or a lump sum. NBA players get a year's pay.

 

[JimLes]

Interesting concept, but no one is forcing these owners to extend huge contracts to certain players. Will Asik be worth his $8M per? Is Hibbert really a MAX player? IS Gerald Wallace worth 4/$40M? And the list goes on...there are even worse contracts being offered. I'm totally against the amnesty provision. The owners had a chance to clear their books of a player under the old CBA. And what happened? They didn't learn their lesson and here we are again, back to ridiculous contracts being offered.

Two problems. First, there are two salary caps. Minimum and maximum. You have to be above the minimum, which is so close to the maximum right now that it's not even funny. It's at 85%. This encourages teams to sign players when they're under 85% with little regard for actual value. What difference does it make if you overpay a guy by a few million if it means being above the 85%?

The other problem is that the NBA is a closed league. If you don't give that guy a crazy contract, someone else will. Hibbert may not be worth the MAX, but that's the only price you can have him at. If the Pacers could get him at 8 million a year, they would. And remember, the choice the Pacers have is not having Hibbert at the MAX or having him at 8 million a year. The choice is between giving him the MAX or starting Fesenko. And because of the cap, it's not like the Pacers can just say that they can find a player almost as good for 8 million a year and sign him.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Two problems. First, there are two salary caps. Minimum and maximum. You have to be above the minimum, which is so close to the maximum right now that it's not even funny. It's at 85%. This encourages teams to sign players when they're under 85% with little regard for actual value. What difference does it make if you overpay a guy by a few million if it means being above the 85%?

The other problem is that the NBA is a closed league. If you don't give that guy a crazy contract, someone else will. Hibbert may not be worth the MAX, but that's the only price you can have him at. If the Pacers could get him at 8 million a year, they would. And remember, the choice the Pacers have is not having Hibbert at the MAX or having him at 8 million a year. The choice is between giving him the MAX or starting Fesenko. And because of the cap, it's not like the Pacers can just say that they can find a player almost as good for 8 million a year and sign him.

Didn't the Jazz do that with Boozer? With Williams? And at a lower price point, with Ronnie B and Korver?
Teams need to decide whether or not to draw the line on salaries. I'm not going to feel sorry for Greg or KOC if they sign Millsap to a $12M deal. That would be their choice. If I were GM, and he didn't agree to a more reasonable extension, I'd trade him now. Get assets for him.

This is a copycat league. Every team sees what Miami did and wants to have a "Big 3." In a couple of years, it won't be fiscally possible, unless you pay a huge tax in one year, then cut salaries the next. If you become a repeat taxpayer from how I understand the rules, the huge penalties really kick in (I believe in the 3rd year).

 

[JimLes]

Didn't the Jazz do that with Boozer? With Williams? And at a lower price point, with Ronnie B and Korver?
Teams need to decide whether or not to draw the line on salaries. I'm not going to feel sorry for Greg or KOC if they sign Millsap to a $12M deal. That would be their choice. If I were GM, and he didn't agree to a more reasonable extension, I'd trade him now. Get assets for him.

Being a GM is a lot more about being in the right place at the right time then it is about brilliant strokes of genius. Boozer was not worth the money he wanted because the Jazz had Millsap and because they were able to get Jefferson for less. Hence that move was basically a no-brainer. Things might have been different if the Jazz did not have Millsap, or the pieces to get anything resembling a replacement for Boozer. Suppose the Jazz did not have Millsap or the ability to trade for someone decent. What then? You let Boozer go and let Koufos start and hope you can somehow win 53 games again?

To get back to the question of Hibbert, there are two separate issues here. Is Hibbert worth the MAX under generic or ideal circumstances, and is Hibbert worth the MAX to this specific Pacers team, under the current circumstances.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

Last 13

Lakers 7 (5), Spurs 3 (3), Heat 3 (2), Celtics 2 (1), Pistons 2 (1), Nets 2, Mavericks 1 (1), Cavs 1, Magic 1, Sixers 1, Pacers 1, Thunder 1 = 12 different teams

In order to determine competitive balance, I think you have to consider the longevity of bad teams, not the randomness of good teams.

In MLB, the following teams have not even been to the playoffs in a considerable amount of time:

Seattle Mariners- 10 Years
Baltimore Orioles- 14 Years
Toronto Blue Jays- 18 Years
Pittsburgh Pirates- 19 Years
KC Royals- 26 Years
Washington Nationals- 30 Years

Can you imagine being a fan of a team that hasn't even made the playoffs in 30 years? 30 YEARS!!!!! If you are under 30 years old, this franchise has not made the playoffs during your existence!

Only 6 teams have have not made the playoffs in the past 3 years in the nba. Look at the list of 6 mlb teams above and how long they have been out of the playoffs. Of the 6 nba teams, a few would be considered likely or possible playoff teams next year (Brooklyn, Minnesota, Golden State).

Baseball sometimes gets off the hook because rarely do teams repeat as champions, but I think that has more to do with the randomness in outcomes in a 7 game series. Only two teams in MLB currently have won more than 60% of their games (Yanks and Rangers). In the last NBA full season (10-11) 9 teams had a winning percentage over 60%, and 3 were over 70%. Baseball just has more randomness to it than do basketball. That's why they need to play 162 games to really determine which teams are any good. Then when teams play a best of 7, it's almost a crap-shoot determining who will win.

 

[northeast]

Baseball is not nearly as influenced by the ref biases, and therefore has teams much less likely to win multiple championships.

 

[northeast]

Last 13

Lakers 7 (5), Spurs 3 (3), Heat 3 (2), Celtics 2 (1), Pistons 2 (1), Nets 2, Mavericks 1 (1), Cavs 1, Magic 1, Sixers 1, Pacers 1, Thunder 1 = 12 different teams

so I was right, basketball is less competitive than football or baseball, if competitiveness is defined as having a lot of different teams making it to the finals or winning the finals over a period of time.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

In order to determine competitive balance, I think you have to consider the longevity of bad teams, not the randomness of good teams.

In MLB, the following teams have not even been to the playoffs in a considerable amount of time:

Seattle Mariners- 10 Years
Baltimore Orioles- 14 Years
Toronto Blue Jays- 18 Years
Pittsburgh Pirates- 19 Years
KC Royals- 26 Years
Washington Nationals- 30 Years

Can you imagine being a fan of a team that hasn't even made the playoffs in 30 years? 30 YEARS!!!!! If you are under 30 years old, this franchise has not made the playoffs during your existence!

Only 6 teams have have not made the playoffs in the past 3 years in the nba. Look at the list of 6 mlb teams above and how long they have been out of the playoffs. Of the 6 nba teams, a few would be considered likely or possible playoff teams next year (Brooklyn, Minnesota, Golden State).

Baseball sometimes gets off the hook because rarely do teams repeat as champions, but I think that has more to do with the randomness in outcomes in a 7 game series. Only two teams in MLB currently have won more than 60% of their games (Yanks and Rangers). In the last NBA full season (10-11) 9 teams had a winning percentage over 60%, and 3 were over 70%. Baseball just has more randomness to it than do basketball. That's why they need to play 162 games to really determine which teams are any good. Then when teams play a best of 7, it's almost a crap-shoot determining who will win.

Eh it's a pretty decent argument until you realize that the NBA HAS SIXTEEN TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFFS EVERY YEAR. That's more than half the league.

Baseball has a 8 teams a year. Just over 1/4 of the league, and that's only since '94 after they added the wildcard. Before that it was it 4. Much tougher to make the playoffs in baseball by far.

 

[northeast]

In order to determine competitive balance, I think you have to consider the longevity of bad teams, not the randomness of good teams.

nah, its a matter of personal preference.
You certainly don't HAVE to, so no.
You can it look at it that way you want, but most attention in sports revolves around who wins it all, not the race to get into the middle of the pack. I would suppose my formula could be improved upon by incorporating more factors, but the fact that football and baseball get more teams competing for the top spot in a given time period than basketball does says it fine for me. Given Chads point, it sounds like a more complex analysis will reach the same conclusions anyway.