Deadspin article: Could Ben Simmons change the structure of NBA

[celticsclay]

Thought this was interesting article. Speculates that a powerful agency like Klutch sports could really change balance of power in NBA by allowing rookies to leave their teams after their initial rookie contract (pretty much unheard for a guy getting max at moment)

https://deadspin.com/ben-simmons-could-upend-the-nbas-power-structure-with-o-1832715259

I realize these are big if's, but if Ben Simmons did this (and a second big if) it emboldens other players to just play out their rookie contract and leave for more desirable situations, it would be a pretty horrible problem for the NBA. The bad teams, particularly in cold weather or smaller market areas, would seemingly just stay bad for ever.

[Who]

I think it would be great. Further help players get away from lousily run teams.

[PhoSita]

So let's just abolish the draft.

Then we'll get rid of every team except for those located in the top 8-10 media markets.

Maybe some of the eliminated teams can form their own secondary league.


The bottom line is, the closer you get to allowing players to have complete control over where they want to play, the closer you get to a situation where it makes little to no sense to have a league larger than 8-10 teams.  Which means that two thirds of the players in the league are out of a job or forced to play overseas.



Perhaps the players union will agree to some actually effective measures to curb the creeping power of star-run player agencies like Klutch.  In theory at least the players union exists to protect the interests of the average player, not the superstars.

We'll see.

[Who]

Then we'll get rid of every team except for those located in the top 8-10 media markets.

Maybe some of the eliminated teams can form their own secondary league.


The bottom line is, the closer you get to allowing players to have complete control over where they want to play, the closer you get to a situation where it makes little to no sense to have a league larger than 8-10 teams.  Which means that two thirds of the players in the league are out of a job or forced to play overseas.

I'd love to see them cut 10 teams and go to a 20 team league. There isn't enough talent to support a 30 team league.

Too many mediocre teams.

[KG Living Legend]

So let's just abolish the draft.

Then we'll get rid of every team except for those located in the top 8-10 media markets.

Maybe some of the eliminated teams can form their own secondary league.


The bottom line is, the closer you get to allowing players to have complete control over where they want to play, the closer you get to a situation where it makes little to no sense to have a league larger than 8-10 teams.  Which means that two thirds of the players in the league are out of a job or forced to play overseas.



Perhaps the players union will agree to some actually effective measures to curb the creeping power of star-run player agencies like Klutch.  In theory at least the players union exists to protect the interests of the average player, not the superstars.

We'll see.

 I hear you Pho. However your Smart enough to know why this will never happen.

[SHAQATTACK]

Then we'll get rid of every team except for those located in the top 8-10 media markets.

Maybe some of the eliminated teams can form their own secondary league.


The bottom line is, the closer you get to allowing players to have complete control over where they want to play, the closer you get to a situation where it makes little to no sense to have a league larger than 8-10 teams.  Which means that two thirds of the players in the league are out of a job or forced to play overseas.

I'd love to see them cut 10 teams and go to a 20 team league. There isn't enough talent to support a 30 team league.

Too many mediocre teams.

i agree and have stated the same for decades.  those oldclubs in the 70's has 5-8 stars on them   GS reminds me of those clubs .

15 teams would cut out the fat ,and. teams would be loaded with greatstarting fives.

In tue NHLthere was only 6 teams  early 60's

[GreenEnvy]

Then we'll get rid of every team except for those located in the top 8-10 media markets.

Maybe some of the eliminated teams can form their own secondary league.


The bottom line is, the closer you get to allowing players to have complete control over where they want to play, the closer you get to a situation where it makes little to no sense to have a league larger than 8-10 teams.  Which means that two thirds of the players in the league are out of a job or forced to play overseas.

I'd love to see them cut 10 teams and go to a 20 team league. There isn't enough talent to support a 30 team league.

Too many mediocre teams.

Slippery slope. There’s always been, throughout all the major sports (regardless of size of league), great and awful teams. It’s a natural and unavoidable circumstance. And that’s fine. There should be good and bad teams.

You cut it down to 20 and there are still 5 or so clearly better than the rest and 5 teams that are poorly run and have no shot at playoff success. Should we continue chopping until there are only all-star lineups on nearly every team?

I think if you are a good draw and not continually losing money and relying on revenue sharing, you deserve a team, even if they are terrible.

Besides, if you were to eliminate the team with the worst combination of recent success, current talent, and ownership/management.... that would be the Knicks.

[PhoSita]

Then we'll get rid of every team except for those located in the top 8-10 media markets.

Maybe some of the eliminated teams can form their own secondary league.


The bottom line is, the closer you get to allowing players to have complete control over where they want to play, the closer you get to a situation where it makes little to no sense to have a league larger than 8-10 teams.  Which means that two thirds of the players in the league are out of a job or forced to play overseas.

I'd love to see them cut 10 teams and go to a 20 team league. There isn't enough talent to support a 30 team league.

Too many mediocre teams.

If the talent at the top of the league were more evenly distributed, I dont' think that would be true.


I think if the top 50 players were distributed relatively evenly throughout the top 18-20 teams, you'd have a very competitive league.  The bottom 10-12 teams could be rebuilding, or an older capped out team in decline.  I don't think it's necessarily a terrible thing for roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the league to be in a rebuilding / decline phase.  Every team should go through a life cycle every 10-20 years that includes a period of player development.

The issue is when there's 1 team that's far more talented than everybody else and another 4-5 teams that are a serious cut above the next 15 teams.

[SHAQATTACK]

youhear it everyday.  THe big media outlets and sports shows bemoan the fact Lakers suck and are not in playoffs for six years .  Big deal ,  .  Its biased as hell and all the major media talks up this dung.  Just today i heard S A. Smith says Lakers need to get back together where they belong at the top of the NBA.  WhY? why not theTimberwolfs ?.  Where is it wrtiiten Lakers should always be a top five or ten team ?   They need to sit at the bottom for 20-30 years and see how it feels and go though rebuilds like everybody else. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Then we'll get rid of every team except for those located in the top 8-10 media markets.

Maybe some of the eliminated teams can form their own secondary league.


The bottom line is, the closer you get to allowing players to have complete control over where they want to play, the closer you get to a situation where it makes little to no sense to have a league larger than 8-10 teams.  Which means that two thirds of the players in the league are out of a job or forced to play overseas.

I'd love to see them cut 10 teams and go to a 20 team league. There isn't enough talent to support a 30 team league.

Too many mediocre teams.

I'm not sure I'd cut 10, but I'd cut several, for sure.

[PhoSita]

Then we'll get rid of every team except for those located in the top 8-10 media markets.

Maybe some of the eliminated teams can form their own secondary league.


The bottom line is, the closer you get to allowing players to have complete control over where they want to play, the closer you get to a situation where it makes little to no sense to have a league larger than 8-10 teams.  Which means that two thirds of the players in the league are out of a job or forced to play overseas.

I'd love to see them cut 10 teams and go to a 20 team league. There isn't enough talent to support a 30 team league.

Too many mediocre teams.

I'm not sure I'd cut 10, but I'd cut several, for sure.

Again, is it an inescapable fact of the sport that there are going to be a ton of completely irrelevant and uninteresting teams, or is it an artifact of the uneven talent distribution in the league?


I would say that based on current trends it seems very unlikely the league will ever contract -- if anything, it seems likely that they will add a couple teams in the near future.  It also seems unlikely that we're going to see any real changes to curb player movement.


So it seems probable that both the distribution of talent and the amount of totally mediocre teams are going to get worse, not better.

[bdm860]

I don't think Simmons is good enough to matter.  No doubt he's good, will be a perennial All-Star, but I don't see him as a generational talent that could single handedly win you a title.

Danny Ferry didnt change the game when he played in Europe instead of the team that drafted him.

Josh Childress didn't change the game when he played in Europe to get out of restricted free agency.

And while Simmons is far, far better than either of them, whatever he does won't change the game either.  Lebron and KD have yet to change the league with their 1+1 deals.

Also don't think Klutch will be a top agency in 5 years.  The most powerful agent is very cyclical, otherwise David Falk would still be on top.  Every few years it seems to be someone else, Klutch will be no different.

They might start to weaken in 2 years if Davis leaves due to them fumbling his trade plans/image and Lebron's influence wanes.

[SHAQATTACK]

I don't think Simmons is good enough to matter.  No doubt he's good, will be a perennial All-Star, but I don't see him as a generational talent that could single handedly win you a title.

Danny Ferry didnt change the game when he played in Europe instead of the team that drafted him.

Josh Childress didn't change the game when he played in Europe to get out of restricted free agency.

And while Simmons is far, fat better than either of them, whatever he does won't change the game either.  Lebron and KD have yet to change the league with their 1+1 deals.

Also don't think Klutch will be a top agency in 5 years.  The most powerful agent is very cyclical, otherwise David Falk would still be on top.  Every few years it seems to be someone else, Klutch will be no different.

They might start to weaken in 2 years if Davis leaves due to them fumbling his trade plans/image and Lebron's influence wanes.

this is why i want Leturd gone from NBA ,  he has disrupted it with his star power at every turn .  He has led the nba around by its nose too many years cattering to his whims .  He was so much better than the next five best players are more closer in talent , this helps even up the spread of power . 

I agree, Simmons will be a top 10 player , but will not command the power Lebron did .  Once Lebron leaves ,  the gap from 1 to 2 players is not so crazy great .  The only way to beat Lebron was put 3  top p,auers on same team . His physical abilities were unlike anybody before or since .   

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Then we'll get rid of every team except for those located in the top 8-10 media markets.

Maybe some of the eliminated teams can form their own secondary league.


The bottom line is, the closer you get to allowing players to have complete control over where they want to play, the closer you get to a situation where it makes little to no sense to have a league larger than 8-10 teams.  Which means that two thirds of the players in the league are out of a job or forced to play overseas.

I'd love to see them cut 10 teams and go to a 20 team league. There isn't enough talent to support a 30 team league.

Too many mediocre teams.

I'm not sure I'd cut 10, but I'd cut several, for sure.

Again, is it an inescapable fact of the sport that there are going to be a ton of completely irrelevant and uninteresting teams, or is it an artifact of the uneven talent distribution in the league?


I would say that based on current trends it seems very unlikely the league will ever contract -- if anything, it seems likely that they will add a couple teams in the near future.  It also seems unlikely that we're going to see any real changes to curb player movement.


So it seems probably that both the distribution of talent and the amount of totally mediocre teams are going to get worse, not better.

Yeah, I have no delusions about the league ever contracting, but I think you're right when you suggest that the rich are gonna get richer and the poor poorer—because, barring a miracle, star players are never gonna want to go play in Sacramento of Memphis or Charlotte or Cleveland. And if those teams start losing their top draft picks after only 3 or 4 seasons because those guys want to play in the big cities, fans of those lesser teams will have no hope.

[celticsclay]

I don't think Simmons is good enough to matter.  No doubt he's good, will be a perennial All-Star, but I don't see him as a generational talent that could single handedly win you a title.

Danny Ferry didnt change the game when he played in Europe instead of the team that drafted him.

Josh Childress didn't change the game when he played in Europe to get out of restricted free agency.

And while Simmons is far, fat better than either of them, whatever he does won't change the game either.  Lebron and KD have yet to change the league with their 1+1 deals.

Also don't think Klutch will be a top agency in 5 years.  The most powerful agent is very cyclical, otherwise David Falk would still be on top.  Every few years it seems to be someone else, Klutch will be no different.

They might start to weaken in 2 years if Davis leaves due to them fumbling his trade plans/image and Lebron's influence wanes.

this is why i want Leturd gone from NBA ,  he has disrupted it with his star power at every turn .  He has led the nba around by its nose too many years cattering to his whims .  He was so much better than the next five best players are more closer in talent , this helps even up the spread of power . 

I agree, Simmons will be a top 10 player , but will not command the power Lebron did .  Once Lebron leaves ,  the gap from 1 to 2 players is not so crazy great .  The only way to beat Lebron was put 3  top p,auers on same team . His physical abilities were unlike anybody before or since .

Also if Simmons did leave and they end up with Embid and an aging max Jimmy Butler, that would really help our chances of contending with Tatum Brown and Irving the next 5-6 years.