CBA

[timpiker]

Can someone please bring me up to date?  Why do we have the current CBA?  Specifically, the cap punishments.  And it intended purpose?

Did the owners actually vote for this?  Why?

[Who]

To stop rich teams from spending $400-500 million on salaries compared to only $200 million on salaries for small market teams.

[Roy H.]

It's meant to be as close to a hard cap as possible, while also being something that the players would agree to.

[Vermont Green]

I think the question is more who was pushing for this.  I think the answer is that the NBA owners needed to reign in escalating spending by teams.  There were issues with regional television networks and other issues that were evidence of stress cracks in the system.  The NBAPA didn't want a hard cap.  So they created this as a way of creating a cap without having to call it a cap.  It seemed to satisfy all parties.

I think in the end, the players are not going to like this and the owners are not going to like it.  The fans don't like it either.  To me, the main problem is that the max and super max contracts are too high.  Once you sign 2 or more of these contracts, a team does not have enough money left to get a good roster around these players.  Way too many players are getting stuck with MLE contracts or less.

BOS was a team built around 2 max contracts and some well paid veterans.  That team had to be broken up.  Then you get teams like OKC who have their best players on rookie or first non-rookie contracts, much more cost controlled.  They got lucky with SGA but they will have to pay him, and everyone else.  Veteran teams are going to have a hard time being competitive.  There is no way to afford a veteran team anymore.

[tazzmaniac]

I think the question is more who was pushing for this.  I think the answer is that the NBA owners needed to reign in escalating spending by teams.  There were issues with regional television networks and other issues that were evidence of stress cracks in the system.  The NBAPA didn't want a hard cap.  So they created this as a way of creating a cap without having to call it a cap.  It seemed to satisfy all parties.

I think in the end, the players are not going to like this and the owners are not going to like it.  The fans don't like it either.  To me, the main problem is that the max and super max contracts are too high.  Once you sign 2 or more of these contracts, a team does not have enough money left to get a good roster around these players.  Way too many players are getting stuck with MLE contracts or less.

BOS was a team built around 2 max contracts and some well paid veterans.  That team had to be broken up.  Then you get teams like OKC who have their best players on rookie or first non-rookie contracts, much more cost controlled.  They got lucky with SGA but they will have to pay him, and everyone else.  Veteran teams are going to have a hard time being competitive.  There is no way to afford a veteran team anymore.

Why won't most owners like it?  It'll restrain mid-tier contracts.  It'll spread out the talent which should mean more competition.  There should be fewer really bad contracts. 

[Who]

I think in the end, the players are not going to like this and the owners are not going to like it.  The fans don't like it either.  To me, the main problem is that the max and super max contracts are too high.  Once you sign 2 or more of these contracts, a team does not have enough money left to get a good roster around these players.  Way too many players are getting stuck with MLE contracts or less.

Draymond Green made a video about this the other day. Telling the players he told them so. That this was a terrible deal for the players and they never should have agreed to it.

I agree with too many players getting stuck with MLE contracts.

And how difficult it is to build a supporting cast around 2 max contracts. I never liked max contracts. Let the owners pay them what they want. Yes, it is a continuation of this problem but it also naturally lets parity happen. It was putting in max contracts that made parity so much harder to achieve because max deals were artificially low compared to the on-court value of an MVP vs a top 10 player vs an All-Star.

[Vermont Green]

I think the question is more who was pushing for this.  I think the answer is that the NBA owners needed to reign in escalating spending by teams.  There were issues with regional television networks and other issues that were evidence of stress cracks in the system.  The NBAPA didn't want a hard cap.  So they created this as a way of creating a cap without having to call it a cap.  It seemed to satisfy all parties.

I think in the end, the players are not going to like this and the owners are not going to like it.  The fans don't like it either.  To me, the main problem is that the max and super max contracts are too high.  Once you sign 2 or more of these contracts, a team does not have enough money left to get a good roster around these players.  Way too many players are getting stuck with MLE contracts or less.

BOS was a team built around 2 max contracts and some well paid veterans.  That team had to be broken up.  Then you get teams like OKC who have their best players on rookie or first non-rookie contracts, much more cost controlled.  They got lucky with SGA but they will have to pay him, and everyone else.  Veteran teams are going to have a hard time being competitive.  There is no way to afford a veteran team anymore.

Why won't most owners like it?  It'll restrain mid-tier contracts.  It'll spread out the talent which should mean more competition.  There should be fewer really bad contracts.

Do you think the Celtics' owners like having to trade Holiday and Porzingis just to get under the apron?  I think owners prefer to be able to keep a good team together once they have a good team, like GSW did all those years.  I don't think owners like how this is playing out.  Probably will push for some adjustments.

[Who]

Richard Jefferson also talked about this in a recent video. Saying he believed all the NBA teams being sold off recently is due to owners not seeing a way they can continue to compete and win Championships under the new CBA like they could under the old CBA.

Particularly the Celtics and Lakers sales.

[Birdman]

7 different winner in last 7 seasons shows it?s gotta be hard to keep a team together who has 3-4 big contracts

[Roy H.]

Richard Jefferson also talked about this in a recent video. Saying he believed all the NBA teams being sold off recently is due to owners not seeing a way they can continue to compete and win Championships under the new CBA like they could under the old CBA.

Particularly the Celtics and Lakers sales.

Maybe with LA, although they got the biggest bag in sports history *and* Jeannie Buss retains governorship, so it's in the "offer you can't refuse" territory.

With the Celtics, I think when they sold they had a realistic shot at three titles.  I believe the story about worries about estate tax, etc.