Bill Simmons Article on "How He Would Fix The Lockout"

[cman88]

a hard cap HAS to be put in place to save the league...this is something that the players are going to have to cave into. and of course they consider it a "blood issue"....

everyone outside of the players can see that NBA players are some of the most rediculously paid athletes. this is a league where Eddy Curry can make 11million$ sitting on the bench over-eating

the league with the formation of the Heat, Knicks etc. is migrating into this era of stockpiling as many ISO player stars as you can..if thats the brand of basketball you want to watch, il stop watching..

a hard cap will promote putting together teams that are "Really good" around a superstar and playing more team ball....The 2010 Celtics that pushed the Lakers to 7 didnt have any superster player, just alot of "really good" players...same with the 2011 Dallas mavericks

A hard cap is a must?  Naw, I don't buy it.  You say the 2008 Celtics were a team without superstars.  Not according to their salaries.  The 2008 C's would never have been allowed to happen with a hard cap.  Pierce, KG, & Ray would have been over the cap just by themselves.

Everyone out side of the players can see the NBA players are some of the most over paid?  So, what am I? A nobody?  I don't think they are all that over paid at all, outside of a select few.  NBA players make some of the highest salaries simply due to the fact the NBA has the least number of players compared to other leagues.  The revenue created per player is probably the highest of any league.  Of course it stands to reason their salaries are going to be the highest.

I said the 2010 Celtics squad, not the 2008 team...the 2010 team went through alot of stars through solid team ball with over the hill players to make it to the Finals...it took

but something needs to be done to stop the NBA from migrating towards this trend of "super teams" with 2-3 iso playing superstars teaming up...

and something needs to be done to stop under/non-performing players from handicapping teams from improving themselves....the Knicks/Celtics were mired in medicority alot due to huge contracts crippling them....granted, alot of that can be due to poor GM decisions. once solid GM's were put in place, those teams improved after purging the bad contracts

[PosImpos]

I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two

How many true stars do you think there are currently in the NBA?

Not enough for every single team, it's true.  But there are plenty of teams that had no All-Stars last year, and more than a few who had more than 2.

[PosImpos]

I really got a kick out of how the agents look at negotiating with some of these GMs as taking candy away from a baby. Those guys really are master negotiators and there should be rules or something to protect some of these GMs from being manipulated into these horrible mid-tier player contracts.

TP

Only in the NBA would this happen.  Look at football and baseball.  The teams making smart decisions all have one thing in common, smart, business-educated GM's, not ex-players.

NBA owners need to smarten up and stop hiring ex-players as GMs, and start going after guys like the Epsteins and Cashmans of the world.

Perhaps this is true, but I will remind you that David Kahn, supposedly the worst GM in the sport (not sure if I agree), is a non-player business-educated fellow.  Many very good GMs have been ex-players / coaches.

[Fan from VT]

I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two

How many true stars do you think there are currently in the NBA?

Not enough for every single team, it's true.  But there are plenty of teams that had no All-Stars last year, and more than a few who had more than 2.

aren't there 24 all stars and 30 teams each year? Your vision of the nba is one where every team wins between 32-52 games. Fun.

[PosImpos]

I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two

How many true stars do you think there are currently in the NBA?

Not enough for every single team, it's true.  But there are plenty of teams that had no All-Stars last year, and more than a few who had more than 2.

aren't there 24 all stars and 30 teams each year? Your vision of the nba is one where every team wins between 32-52 games. Fun.

Yes, fun.  You'd see the majority of the league resemble the kind of teams that are seeded between 6 and 8 each year.  There would only rarely be a team like the ones that are usually 1 seeds now, but you'd still see very good teams that are more like 2-4 seeds now.  I think that would be a more interesting league.  Perhaps not for the fans of teams that are currently stacked (Heat, Lakers etc), but many more average fans would find they had stars closer to home to cheer for.


If you own a game like NBA 2k, create an association mode with a fantasy draft.  The league you get from that is rather like what I envision (i.e. mostly fair distribution of talent).

[Fan from VT]

I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two

How many true stars do you think there are currently in the NBA?

Not enough for every single team, it's true.  But there are plenty of teams that had no All-Stars last year, and more than a few who had more than 2.

aren't there 24 all stars and 30 teams each year? Your vision of the nba is one where every team wins between 32-52 games. Fun.

Yes, fun.  You'd see the majority of the league resemble the kind of teams that are seeded between 6 and 8 each year.  There would only rarely be a team like the ones that are usually 1 seeds now, but you'd still see very good teams that are more like 2-4 seeds now.  I think that would be a more interesting league.  Perhaps not for the fans of teams that are currently stacked (Heat, Lakers etc), but many more average fans would find they had stars closer to home to cheer for.


If you own a game like NBA 2k, create an association mode with a fantasy draft.  The league you get from that is rather like what I envision (i.e. mostly fair distribution of talent).

Yes, i'd love watching non-patterned, totally variable year to year league with obviously less talented championship teams. ugh.

[PosImpos]

I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two

How many true stars do you think there are currently in the NBA?

Not enough for every single team, it's true.  But there are plenty of teams that had no All-Stars last year, and more than a few who had more than 2.

aren't there 24 all stars and 30 teams each year? Your vision of the nba is one where every team wins between 32-52 games. Fun.

Yes, fun.  You'd see the majority of the league resemble the kind of teams that are seeded between 6 and 8 each year.  There would only rarely be a team like the ones that are usually 1 seeds now, but you'd still see very good teams that are more like 2-4 seeds now.  I think that would be a more interesting league.  Perhaps not for the fans of teams that are currently stacked (Heat, Lakers etc), but many more average fans would find they had stars closer to home to cheer for.


If you own a game like NBA 2k, create an association mode with a fantasy draft.  The league you get from that is rather like what I envision (i.e. mostly fair distribution of talent).

Yes, i'd love watching non-patterned, totally variable year to year league with obviously less talented championship teams. ugh.

You mean a league in which you don't already know at the start of the season who the top 4-5 teams will be, and the most likely teams in the Finals? 

Yes please.

[mgent]

I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two

How many true stars do you think there are currently in the NBA?

Not enough for every single team, it's true.  But there are plenty of teams that had no All-Stars last year, and more than a few who had more than 2.

aren't there 24 all stars and 30 teams each year? Your vision of the nba is one where every team wins between 32-52 games. Fun.

Yes, fun.  You'd see the majority of the league resemble the kind of teams that are seeded between 6 and 8 each year.  There would only rarely be a team like the ones that are usually 1 seeds now, but you'd still see very good teams that are more like 2-4 seeds now.  I think that would be a more interesting league.  Perhaps not for the fans of teams that are currently stacked (Heat, Lakers etc), but many more average fans would find they had stars closer to home to cheer for.


If you own a game like NBA 2k, create an association mode with a fantasy draft.  The league you get from that is rather like what I envision (i.e. mostly fair distribution of talent).

What makes you think the teams would stay that way though?  Free agency isn't the only way teams get better and worse.  Drafting talent (or busts) and making trades both play a significantly bigger factor, I think.  After a while those teams are just gonna get shaken up again and no one knows for a fact whose potential will come to fruition.

We all know some GMs make better moves more consistently than others.

[Kane3387]

I really got a kick out of how the agents look at negotiating with some of these GMs as taking candy away from a baby. Those guys really are master negotiators and there should be rules or something to protect some of these GMs from being manipulated into these horrible mid-tier player contracts.

TP

Only in the NBA would this happen.  Look at football and baseball.  The teams making smart decisions all have one thing in common, smart, business-educated GM's, not ex-players.

NBA owners need to smarten up and stop hiring ex-players as GMs, and start going after guys like the Epsteins and Cashmans of the world.

Perhaps this is true, but I will remind you that David Kahn, supposedly the worst GM in the sport (not sure if I agree), is a non-player business-educated fellow.  Many very good GMs have been ex-players / coaches.

I thought he was an old sports writer...

Kahn hails from Portland, Oregon, and attended college at UCLA, graduating with an English degree in 1983. While at UCLA, he wrote on a free-lance basis for the Los Angeles Times. Upon his graduation, he returned to his hometown of Portland and worked as a sportswriter for The Oregonian from 1983 through 1989, where he covered the local and national sports scene, including the NBA's Portland Trail Blazers.[1][2]
After leaving the Oregonian, Kahn pursued and received a law degree from NYU,[3] and worked with a Proskauer Rose, the same law firm that represents the big four North American sports leagues (NFL,NBA, MLB, and NHL) in many of their legal matters, for several years.

Just because you get a law degree doesn't mean you're a negotiator... Nor that ypu are a good business man.

Kahn was hired by the Indiana Pacers in 1995, remaining with the organization until 2004, working mostly on the business side of the franchise.[4][5] After his tenure with the Pacers, Kahn returned to Portland and spearheaded an effort to lure the Montreal Expos or another major-league team to Portland; the Expos ultimately relocated to Washington, D.C. and became the Nationals. Kahn was also involved in real estate ventures in the Portland area. In 2005, he purchased several teams in the NBDL.[6]

Just because it says business side above doesn't mean that much... It mainly has to do with selling tickets and getting sponsorships. I worked for business operations for OKC and those people have no input on Player Personnel Matters. B-Ball Ops handles all that.

On May 2009, Kahn was hired by the Minnesota Timberwolves as president of basketball operations to replace Kevin McHale.[5] In the 2009 NBA Draft, he selected three point guards in the first round, and shortly after traded the third, Ty Lawson, to the Denver Nuggets.[7] Echoing comments made by a number of columnists after Kahn made several controversial moves in the summer of 2010, including the signing of center Darko Milicic, ESPN writers Chad Ford and John Hollinger called his tenure "baffling" to them.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kahn_(sports_executive)

[Fan from VT]

I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two

How many true stars do you think there are currently in the NBA?

Not enough for every single team, it's true.  But there are plenty of teams that had no All-Stars last year, and more than a few who had more than 2.

aren't there 24 all stars and 30 teams each year? Your vision of the nba is one where every team wins between 32-52 games. Fun.

Yes, fun.  You'd see the majority of the league resemble the kind of teams that are seeded between 6 and 8 each year.  There would only rarely be a team like the ones that are usually 1 seeds now, but you'd still see very good teams that are more like 2-4 seeds now.  I think that would be a more interesting league.  Perhaps not for the fans of teams that are currently stacked (Heat, Lakers etc), but many more average fans would find they had stars closer to home to cheer for.


If you own a game like NBA 2k, create an association mode with a fantasy draft.  The league you get from that is rather like what I envision (i.e. mostly fair distribution of talent).

Yes, i'd love watching non-patterned, totally variable year to year league with obviously less talented championship teams. ugh.

You mean a league in which you don't already know at the start of the season who the top 4-5 teams will be, and the most likely teams in the Finals? 

Yes please.

YES!!!! I want to see two great teams go at it in year 1, and know that those two teams are going to try to run it back in year two, and if one or both gets bounced in year two, they are going to bust their butts trying to win it again in year three, with on the fringe teams trying to build a little bit to bust into the club, to disrupt the elite circle.

Think about these last years with C's Lakers. C's win, then Lakers seek revenge, and win it but boston doesn't make it because orlando spoils it, both get there in year three, and Lakers triumph, then in year 4 we are all hoping for another rematch or some other similar scenario of greats, but look at how exciting it was for Memphis to bust up the perhaps final run of a great Spurs franchise, and Dallas finally comes through against the franchise that broke their hearts 5 years previously (good luck having THAT happen with full parity).


Bring in a hard cap, and Memphis's victory gets a "neat" instead of an "OH MY GOD THIS IS AWESOME!!" because that would happen all the time and be thoroughly unimpressive. And if your team gets bounced from the playoffs, instead of thinking "let's build and I can't WAIT to bounce THEM next year" it's "well, maybe we'll keep enough of the team together to make the playoffs, but it's 50/50 that EITHER of us will be there next year."  That. Sucks.


If I want basketball where the favorites change on a whim, and anybody can win with the right luck year to yaer, with a clean slate basically every season, I can watch the NCAA.

[PosImpos]

I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two

How many true stars do you think there are currently in the NBA?

Not enough for every single team, it's true.  But there are plenty of teams that had no All-Stars last year, and more than a few who had more than 2.

aren't there 24 all stars and 30 teams each year? Your vision of the nba is one where every team wins between 32-52 games. Fun.

Yes, fun.  You'd see the majority of the league resemble the kind of teams that are seeded between 6 and 8 each year.  There would only rarely be a team like the ones that are usually 1 seeds now, but you'd still see very good teams that are more like 2-4 seeds now.  I think that would be a more interesting league.  Perhaps not for the fans of teams that are currently stacked (Heat, Lakers etc), but many more average fans would find they had stars closer to home to cheer for.


If you own a game like NBA 2k, create an association mode with a fantasy draft.  The league you get from that is rather like what I envision (i.e. mostly fair distribution of talent).

What makes you think the teams would stay that way though?  Free agency isn't the only way teams get better and worse.  Drafting talent (or busts) and making trades both play a significantly bigger factor, I think.  After a while those teams are just gonna get shaken up again and no one knows for a fact whose potential will come to fruition.

We all know some GMs make better moves more consistently than others.

Absolutely.  There will still be some teams that are consistently good while others that are consistently bad.  But it would hopefully be due to good management / bad management, not a lack of money or an inability to entice free agents to stay.

[PosImpos]

I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two

How many true stars do you think there are currently in the NBA?

Not enough for every single team, it's true.  But there are plenty of teams that had no All-Stars last year, and more than a few who had more than 2.

aren't there 24 all stars and 30 teams each year? Your vision of the nba is one where every team wins between 32-52 games. Fun.

Yes, fun.  You'd see the majority of the league resemble the kind of teams that are seeded between 6 and 8 each year.  There would only rarely be a team like the ones that are usually 1 seeds now, but you'd still see very good teams that are more like 2-4 seeds now.  I think that would be a more interesting league.  Perhaps not for the fans of teams that are currently stacked (Heat, Lakers etc), but many more average fans would find they had stars closer to home to cheer for.


If you own a game like NBA 2k, create an association mode with a fantasy draft.  The league you get from that is rather like what I envision (i.e. mostly fair distribution of talent).

Yes, i'd love watching non-patterned, totally variable year to year league with obviously less talented championship teams. ugh.

You mean a league in which you don't already know at the start of the season who the top 4-5 teams will be, and the most likely teams in the Finals?  

Yes please.

YES!!!! I want to see two great teams go at it in year 1, and know that those two teams are going to try to run it back in year two, and if one or both gets bounced in year two, they are going to bust their butts trying to win it again in year three, with on the fringe teams trying to build a little bit to bust into the club, to disrupt the elite circle.

Think about these last years with C's Lakers. C's win, then Lakers seek revenge, and win it but boston doesn't make it because orlando spoils it, both get there in year three, and Lakers triumph, then in year 4 we are all hoping for another rematch or some other similar scenario of greats, but look at how exciting it was for Memphis to bust up the perhaps final run of a great Spurs franchise, and Dallas finally comes through against the franchise that broke their hearts 5 years previously (good luck having THAT happen with full parity).


Bring in a hard cap, and Memphis's victory gets a "neat" instead of an "OH MY GOD THIS IS AWESOME!!" because that would happen all the time and be thoroughly unimpressive. And if your team gets bounced from the playoffs, instead of thinking "let's build and I can't WAIT to bounce THEM next year" it's "well, maybe we'll keep enough of the team together to make the playoffs, but it's 50/50 that EITHER of us will be there next year."  That. Sucks.


If I want basketball where the favorites change on a whim, and anybody can win with the right luck year to yaer, with a clean slate basically every season, I can watch the NCAA.

But it won't be the NCAA, because there will be 7 game series to lessen the amount of crazy upsets.

But on the other hand, what would be THAT wrong with the NBA playoffs being a little (not a lot) more like March Madness?  There's a reason people all across the country go nuts for March Madness.  It's because you can never be sure how it's going to play out.


Honestly, all I'm talking about is an NBA where the champion is much more often like the '04 Pistons than the '01 Lakers or the 96 Bulls.  That's what I'd like to see.

[RAG50K]

I think I'd rather watch a league where almost every team has a true star or two

How many true stars do you think there are currently in the NBA?

Not enough for every single team, it's true.  But there are plenty of teams that had no All-Stars last year, and more than a few who had more than 2.

aren't there 24 all stars and 30 teams each year? Your vision of the nba is one where every team wins between 32-52 games. Fun.

Yes, fun.  You'd see the majority of the league resemble the kind of teams that are seeded between 6 and 8 each year.  There would only rarely be a team like the ones that are usually 1 seeds now, but you'd still see very good teams that are more like 2-4 seeds now.  I think that would be a more interesting league.  Perhaps not for the fans of teams that are currently stacked (Heat, Lakers etc), but many more average fans would find they had stars closer to home to cheer for.


If you own a game like NBA 2k, create an association mode with a fantasy draft.  The league you get from that is rather like what I envision (i.e. mostly fair distribution of talent).

Yes, i'd love watching non-patterned, totally variable year to year league with obviously less talented championship teams. ugh.

You mean a league in which you don't already know at the start of the season who the top 4-5 teams will be, and the most likely teams in the Finals? 

Yes please.

YES!!!! I want to see two great teams go at it in year 1, and know that those two teams are going to try to run it back in year two, and if one or both gets bounced in year two, they are going to bust their butts trying to win it again in year three, with on the fringe teams trying to build a little bit to bust into the club, to disrupt the elite circle.

Think about these last years with C's Lakers. C's win, then Lakers seek revenge, and win it but boston doesn't make it because orlando spoils it, both get there in year three, and Lakers triumph, then in year 4 we are all hoping for another rematch or some other similar scenario of greats, but look at how exciting it was for Memphis to bust up the perhaps final run of a great Spurs franchise, and Dallas finally comes through against the franchise that broke their hearts 5 years previously (good luck having THAT happen with full parity).


Bring in a hard cap, and Memphis's victory gets a "neat" instead of an "OH MY GOD THIS IS AWESOME!!" because that would happen all the time and be thoroughly unimpressive. And if your team gets bounced from the playoffs, instead of thinking "let's build and I can't WAIT to bounce THEM next year" it's "well, maybe we'll keep enough of the team together to make the playoffs, but it's 50/50 that EITHER of us will be there next year."  That. Sucks.


If I want basketball where the favorites change on a whim, and anybody can win with the right luck year to yaer, with a clean slate basically every season, I can watch the NCAA.

But it won't be the NCAA, because there will be 7 game series to lessen the amount of crazy upsets.

But on the other hand, what would be THAT wrong with the NBA playoffs being a little (not a lot) more like March Madness?  There's a reason people all across the country go nuts for March Madness.  It's because you can never be sure how it's going to play out.


Honestly, all I'm talking about is an NBA where the champion is much more often like the '04 Pistons than the '01 Lakers or the 96 Bulls.  That's what I'd like to see.

Why? The only reason we remember that team was because they upseted a much more talented opponent. They would be lost to history if the league was diluted because there would be no upsets, as everyone would be at the same level.
Also, even March Madness has favorites,dark horses and underdogs. It's not like all teams are at an even keel talentwise

[KGs Knee]

There's a reason people all across the country go nuts for March Madness.  It's because you can never be sure how it's going to play out.

That isn't the reason people go nuts for March Madness at all.  Its GAMBLING.  Plain and simple.

Do you realize how many peolple who know nothing about college basketball get involved in tounranment pools?  A lot!  There are always people who otherwise wouldn't care a lick who get interested just for the sake of getting in on the fun of possibly winning some money and being invovled in the competetion indirectly.

It's the same reason the NFL is so wildly successful (along with the Super Bowl-which people who don't even care about football watch).  I am in a couple of football pools each year, and almost half of the participants have very little knowledge of football and probabaly couldn't name even 10 current players.  Yet despite this, these same people become interested when there is money to be won.

Honestly, all I'm talking about is an NBA where the champion is much more often like the '04 Pistons than the '01 Lakers or the 96 Bulls.  That's what I'd like to see.

This may be what YOU would like to see, but the casual fan definitely wouldn't.  TV ratings prove this.  TV ratings are always higher when there are dynasties and/or the major market teams are good.

As RAG50K stated, a league where a team like the '04 Pistons are commonplace would be less interesting for casual fans, and would also make the accomplishments of team like that less special.

[KGs Knee]

a hard cap HAS to be put in place to save the league...this is something that the players are going to have to cave into. and of course they consider it a "blood issue"....

everyone outside of the players can see that NBA players are some of the most rediculously paid athletes. this is a league where Eddy Curry can make 11million$ sitting on the bench over-eating

the league with the formation of the Heat, Knicks etc. is migrating into this era of stockpiling as many ISO player stars as you can..if thats the brand of basketball you want to watch, il stop watching..

a hard cap will promote putting together teams that are "Really good" around a superstar and playing more team ball....The 2010 Celtics that pushed the Lakers to 7 didnt have any superster player, just alot of "really good" players...same with the 2011 Dallas mavericks

A hard cap is a must?  Naw, I don't buy it.  You say the 2008 Celtics were a team without superstars.  Not according to their salaries.  The 2008 C's would never have been allowed to happen with a hard cap.  Pierce, KG, & Ray would have been over the cap just by themselves.

Everyone out side of the players can see the NBA players are some of the most over paid?  So, what am I? A nobody?  I don't think they are all that over paid at all, outside of a select few.  NBA players make some of the highest salaries simply due to the fact the NBA has the least number of players compared to other leagues.  The revenue created per player is probably the highest of any league.  Of course it stands to reason their salaries are going to be the highest.

I said the 2010 Celtics squad, not the 2008 team...the 2010 team went through alot of stars through solid team ball with over the hill players to make it to the Finals...it took

but something needs to be done to stop the NBA from migrating towards this trend of "super teams" with 2-3 iso playing superstars teaming up...

and something needs to be done to stop under/non-performing players from handicapping teams from improving themselves....the Knicks/Celtics were mired in medicority alot due to huge contracts crippling them....granted, alot of that can be due to poor GM decisions. once solid GM's were put in place, those teams improved after purging the bad contracts

Ok, whether you meant the 2008 or 2010 Celtics team is irrelevant.  Both were WAY over the cap and were more or less the type of "SuperTeam" you would like to see done away with (just not in style of play).  So are you saying you wouldn't have wanted to see this recent run of Celtics teams even be allowed to be put together?

As far as something needing to be done about these supposed "SuperTeams" with 2-3 iso-playing superstars being put together, the best way to stop it is to beat it with a different style.  It almost sounds like you don't have a problem with the idea of a "SuperTeam" just the style of play some of them play.

The last part I partially agree with you about.  The length of gauranteed contracts needs to be shortened.  Team should still have to pay for making bad signings, just not for as long as they currently do.  I think a 3 year limit on gauranteed contracts would be a good starting point.