Would the NBA be better without a salary cap?

[celtsfan84]

For the record, the bulk of these suggestions would have made the KG-Pierce-Allen combination impossible to form and would have ended thoughts of Banner 17 if instituted in 2007.  The Celtics are hurt by these "new rules" more than most other teams.

Looking back at history, the dynasties (Bird vs. Magic, Michael's run, Shaq and Kobe) have been the most successful periods for the NBA.

I think saying the NBA would be better by making it "more equal" would be a grave mistake.

I don't look at this as a way to make it "more equal"


Stars still rule.



But, it will allow more flexibility for teams to restart without being stuck with pointless cap hurting money. 

Then you are giving NBA teams incentive to be poorly managed.  Giving incompetent GMs a "get out of jail free" card would likely just lead to more incompetent GMs and bad risks and investments.

Wouldn't you be more likely to make a bad investment if you knew you could get out of it?  This helps teams in the short run but hurts them in the long run.  Otis Smith would still be running a team.

It helps smart teams. 


It allows franchises clear out both bad management and bad contracts.



Better then letting the fans of a team have to wait and suffer through big mistakes.

Doesn't the current system help smart teams?

How does it allow franchises to clear out bad management?  Bad management gets to fix their mistakes, as you said.  It allows teams to add bad management.

Also, are you aware of the concept of dead money in the NFL?  Teams take cap hits when they cut massive contracts.  It is frequent that a player counts against a team's salary cap and isn't even on their team.

Yes I do.  Smart teams know how to manage it.  They take the hit one year and move on.  Of course the cap hit is from money they have already payed. 


In the NBA, you can waive a guy and still pay all the money left on the contract with a cap hit for all the years.  (or use the new spread out rule for the last year of the contract)




It is easier to turnover a bad team in the NFL.  Doesn't necessarily mean the team will become good, but it gives the fan base actual hope.

And what would these bad teams do with the additional cap room and money they would have?  They'd sign good players, ideally.

And where would these good players come from?  If they came from poor teams, you'd just be reshuffling poor teams.  If they came from mediocre teams, the mediocre teams would suddenly become poor because they lost their talent.  If they came from elite teams, you are watering down the NBA playoffs and Finals.

I know I wasn't watching Spurs-Thunder and Celtics-HEAT and thinking, "You know what would be awesome, if these teams were a bit worse!  Let's move James Harden to Detroit, Tony Parker to Sacramento, Chris Bosh back to Toronto, and Paul Pierce to Washington".

I prefer to see elite teams battle it out.  The ratings say that most fans agree.