share

Small market teams?

CavFanPR
Registered User
Joined: 04/08/2013
Posts: 453
Points: -997
Offline
Small market teams?

Hello, I'm a fan of a small market team as well as many others on this site. It seems like all these new CBA rules have the intention of destroying small market teams instead of helping them. Teams can have a payroll of 100 million+ like the nets. We should feel lucky that management doesn't know anything about basketball because if they did, the NBA would be done. Once big market teams stop caring about luxury tax penalties and start spending wisely, small market teams won't stand a chance. That's why teams build through the draft now.

Do you think the new CBA salary rules are a monopoly for big market teams?


TheTruth86
Registered User
Joined: 07/16/2013
Posts: 116
Points: 58
Offline
Nope. Luxury tax is pretty

Nope. Luxury tax is pretty solid tool of keeping the intrigue alive.

starpy
Registered User
Joined: 03/10/2011
Posts: 50
Points: 128
Offline
Bear with me

Luxury tax doesn't really do all that much to deter teams in the hunt. You rarely hear of contenders who actively look to shed salary to stay out of luxury tax range, its the over the hill teams that are no longer in the running. Naturally there are exceptions to this trend, but most of those exceptions are relatively small market teams (Harden from OKC).

NBA is easily the most predictable of the big 4. Analysts can pretty consistently pick out the ECF and WCF teams prior to the beginning of the regular season; it gets to be rather boringly predictable for the most part which is why playoff surprises like GS beating #1 seed Dallas a while ago was so exciting and memorable. Low seeded teams in the NHL and NFL routinely upset the higher ranked teams, even the MLB produces a solid amount of upsets and playoff surprises.

That said I don't really think you can just point at the Salary cap as the only reason for the absurd disparity found in the league. While I love the idea of a hard cap in the NBA, I don't feel that just a hard cap will fix it. The one and done policy promotes teams reaching for prospects with high potential, which often comes hand in hand with high bust rate and an inability to contribute anything meaningful on the court for the first couple years in the league. Personally I think that borrowing aspects of leagues who succeed in these areas is better. I think the the 3 and done that the NFL uses is the ideal system to use as prospects will be properly coached and developed for several years and more physically ready to play in the pros, hopefully reducing bust frequency through increased scouting and player experience.

Finally, there are a ton of bad owners in the NBA that just destroy any potential a franchise has to succeed. Bad ownership has a trickle down effect that corrupts teams from the inside. For example the difference in ownership competence and team success for the San Antonio Spurs and the Los Angeles Lakers in comparison to the Clippers, the Kings, or the Bobcats. NFL, difference between perennial contenders such as Pittsburgh and Baltimore vs the Dallas Cowboys or the Cincinnati Bungals.

With all that said I don't think that the NBA is capable of fixing any of these issues frankly. A hard salary cap and new drafting rules are attached to the CBA which means that they will never be addressed as the players union cares for the players interests over any attempt to fix the league, (which obviously they are supposed to being the player's union). They will be locked out for 5 years before they accept a 3 and done policy and/or a hard cap... especially a hard cap. Meanwhile there have been many cases of potential owners who show a passion for basketball rejected for backgrounds, interests of existing owners, and the desire to move to other locales, while owners with no business running professional sports teams continue to run their franchises into the ground. (Donald Sterling, Michael Jordan, The Maloofs for some time).

That was a lot longer and more negative than I originally intended, but it is one of the issues that really grinds my gears about the NBA.
Thoughts, alterations, or complete and total opposition to any/all of my positions would be very welcome.

Tongue-Out-Like-23
Tongue-Out-Like-23's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/16/2010
Posts: 8299
Points: 11850
Offline
"Luxury tax doesn't really do

"Luxury tax doesn't really do all that much to deter teams in the hunt. You rarely hear of contenders who actively look to shed salary to stay out of luxury tax range, its the over the hill teams that are no longer in the running."

Umm... OKC just shed James Harden because of this issue and they were in the NBA Finals the previous year. The Lakers are built in such a way that all of their contracts (outside of Nash) expire at the same time. The Heat just cut Mike Miller. The Grizzlies traded away Rudy Gay. The Pacers might have to part ways with Stephenson. The Bulls can't seem to snag a long-term SG and Boozer is a guy they're looking to amnesty. The Mavericks cut Chandler right after they won a title. The Nuggets traded Iggy for Foye and a 2nd rd pick. The Clippers traded Bledsoe so they wouldn't have to sign a huge extension. Want me to go on?...

I mean, that's in three seasons since the new CBA... I'm sure it will keep on happening, especially with the taxes getting higher and higher for some of these teams.

starpy
Registered User
Joined: 03/10/2011
Posts: 50
Points: 128
Offline
I did mention OKC and Harden

I did mention OKC and Harden as an exception to that in the next sentence.
The Mike Miller example and the Clippers with Bledsoe are legit cases of the luxury tax at work, but most of the others either categorize under: small market team (Stephenson from the Pacers, and Grizzlies with Gay even though I think they got better by getting rid of him so not really just a salary dump).
The bulls unable to snag a long term Sg is more an indictment on Bulls management and in some ways the lack of talent at the Sg position in the league right now. I think they are looking to amnesty Boozer because he performs well below his contract, still has some years left on it, prevents them from playing Taj Gibson big minutes; that is not really a luxury tax issue but a people dont like underproducing, overpaid bigs who dont defend the rim consistently.
Iggy was a free agent and wasn't going to sign with them anyway, even though they reportedly offered the bigger contract, so they were lucky to get what they did, not a luxury tax issue.
If I am not mistaken didn't the Mavs get rid of Chandler because they wanted to get Deron Williams? I guess they could only keep one or the other. Does that really count as the luxury tax as the reason, I don't really know so I will chalk that up as a wash.

As for the Lakers, despite all the huge contracts they already have, they were still able to offer Howard a max deal, that is a prime example of the preeminent issue with the luxury tax and the CBA.

I do hope you are right about these changes happening with higher frequency as this CBA progresses, but I just don't think that things will dramatically change within this current CBA.

Bmore_DC
Bmore_DC's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/19/2010
Posts: 987
Points: 1152
Offline
Actually the opposite is

Actually the opposite is true. The new CBA is designed to HELP small market teams. Now, the player's current teams can pay them (i think) $30 million more than any other team. It also puts emphasis on the importance of the draft. You can find super-stars in free-agency if your lucky, but its easier to do so in the draft (look at all the teams tanking this year).

jonus grumby
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2011
Posts: 141
Points: -14
Offline
Wouldn't last years final 4

Wouldn't last years final 4 teams all be classified as small market teams?

RSS: Syndicate content