Ownership to take a hard line on the next CBA

[action781]

I hate the hard cap. some teams can spend more money because there's more interest in those teams; don't you want those teams to do well?

I think it's embarrassing that Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are Superbowl winning quarterbacks; that doesn't happen with a soft cap.

As a fan, I much prefer the NBA to baseball or football. It's a nice blend of consistency season to season but allowing for pretty fast rebuilding. Teams that build a strong infrastructure and generate a lot of revenue should be rewarded by being able to field a good team. Additionally, a team should always be able to keep a hometown hero/player they drafted. Unlike football, we can see basketball players and there's 1/5 as many players on a basketball team than a football team. Attachments are made. If we had to let Rondo walk because we couldn't keep him under a hard cap, well, that would lessen a lot of interest in the sport.


But here's an idea: in combination with less guaranteed money, how about having a soft cap, but you can only exceed it for 3 years in a row before needing to spend one year below it? That way a team that is close could make a push for the title to put them over the top, but it couldn't be sustained indefinitely.


In general, though, I care about the product on the floor. Right now, the likely league champion will either be starting Derek Fisher or JJ Hickson and Boobie Williams. That's already getting bad enough; Do we want it to get worse? Because it will with a hard cap spreading out the talent more. Don't we still enjoy watching replays of the old Finals, where Walton came off the bench and a guy like Danny Ainge may have been the worst starter on the floor?


Besides, in the NBA i think a harder cap would not only lead to worse overall teams playing in the playoffs (as it would be much more of a crapshoot who got in), but the finals outcome would be much more boring. Guess what, if a hard cap leveled the field so that every team tried to build around 1 or 2 stars they could afford and everyone else role players, Lebron is winning a title every year. His cast is so bad now, that with a hard cap it would essentially mean every team would have one of the stars with just as bad a supporting cast; this means singular elite players would have more power and control over the outcome.

Agree whole heartedly - TP

[wdleehi]

I hate the hard cap. some teams can spend more money because there's more interest in those teams; don't you want those teams to do well?

I think it's embarrassing that Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are Superbowl winning quarterbacks; that doesn't happen with a soft cap.

As a fan, I much prefer the NBA to baseball or football. It's a nice blend of consistency season to season but allowing for pretty fast rebuilding. Teams that build a strong infrastructure and generate a lot of revenue should be rewarded by being able to field a good team. Additionally, a team should always be able to keep a hometown hero/player they drafted. Unlike football, we can see basketball players and there's 1/5 as many players on a basketball team than a football team. Attachments are made. If we had to let Rondo walk because we couldn't keep him under a hard cap, well, that would lessen a lot of interest in the sport.


But here's an idea: in combination with less guaranteed money, how about having a soft cap, but you can only exceed it for 3 years in a row before needing to spend one year below it? That way a team that is close could make a push for the title to put them over the top, but it couldn't be sustained indefinitely.


In general, though, I care about the product on the floor. Right now, the likely league champion will either be starting Derek Fisher or JJ Hickson and Boobie Williams. That's already getting bad enough; Do we want it to get worse? Because it will with a hard cap spreading out the talent more. Don't we still enjoy watching replays of the old Finals, where Walton came off the bench and a guy like Danny Ainge may have been the worst starter on the floor?


Besides, in the NBA i think a harder cap would not only lead to worse overall teams playing in the playoffs (as it would be much more of a crapshoot who got in), but the finals outcome would be much more boring. Guess what, if a hard cap leveled the field so that every team tried to build around 1 or 2 stars they could afford and everyone else role players, Lebron is winning a title every year. His cast is so bad now, that with a hard cap it would essentially mean every team would have one of the stars with just as bad a supporting cast; this means singular elite players would have more power and control over the outcome.

Agree whole heartedly - TP

So, is the NFL suffering from lack of talent in the playoffs?

I will go as far as to say there are more good teams in the NFL with a chance to win it all then the NBA. 



And there are not enough real stars for all the teams in the NBA. 

[Fan from VT]

I hate the hard cap. some teams can spend more money because there's more interest in those teams; don't you want those teams to do well?

I think it's embarrassing that Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are Superbowl winning quarterbacks; that doesn't happen with a soft cap.

As a fan, I much prefer the NBA to baseball or football. It's a nice blend of consistency season to season but allowing for pretty fast rebuilding. Teams that build a strong infrastructure and generate a lot of revenue should be rewarded by being able to field a good team. Additionally, a team should always be able to keep a hometown hero/player they drafted. Unlike football, we can see basketball players and there's 1/5 as many players on a basketball team than a football team. Attachments are made. If we had to let Rondo walk because we couldn't keep him under a hard cap, well, that would lessen a lot of interest in the sport.


But here's an idea: in combination with less guaranteed money, how about having a soft cap, but you can only exceed it for 3 years in a row before needing to spend one year below it? That way a team that is close could make a push for the title to put them over the top, but it couldn't be sustained indefinitely.


In general, though, I care about the product on the floor. Right now, the likely league champion will either be starting Derek Fisher or JJ Hickson and Boobie Williams. That's already getting bad enough; Do we want it to get worse? Because it will with a hard cap spreading out the talent more. Don't we still enjoy watching replays of the old Finals, where Walton came off the bench and a guy like Danny Ainge may have been the worst starter on the floor?


Besides, in the NBA i think a harder cap would not only lead to worse overall teams playing in the playoffs (as it would be much more of a crapshoot who got in), but the finals outcome would be much more boring. Guess what, if a hard cap leveled the field so that every team tried to build around 1 or 2 stars they could afford and everyone else role players, Lebron is winning a title every year. His cast is so bad now, that with a hard cap it would essentially mean every team would have one of the stars with just as bad a supporting cast; this means singular elite players would have more power and control over the outcome.

Agree whole heartedly - TP

So, is the NFL suffering from lack of talent in the playoffs?

I will go as far as to say there are more good teams in the NFL with a chance to win it all then the NBA. 



And there are not enough real stars for all the teams in the NBA. 

I think the good teams in the NBA are better than the good teams in the NFL. I think we're seeing the best of an overall mediocre league in the NFL. We've seen exciting games with highlights, but these are not legendary teams; these are the least-flawed teams. Look at recent superbowl winners: the giants and steelers barely made the playoffs and were deeply flawed teams that were able to win. The Colts could have gone undefeated this year and they are not exactly the mid-90's cowboys. These are historically uninspiring teams that are the best of an evened out league; frankly, it's kind of boring. I want to see, in any sport, teams that stack up against historical greatness, where once every 5-10 years a true "cinderella" stuns everyone and takes the league by storm.

[wdleehi]

I hate the hard cap. some teams can spend more money because there's more interest in those teams; don't you want those teams to do well?

I think it's embarrassing that Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are Superbowl winning quarterbacks; that doesn't happen with a soft cap.

As a fan, I much prefer the NBA to baseball or football. It's a nice blend of consistency season to season but allowing for pretty fast rebuilding. Teams that build a strong infrastructure and generate a lot of revenue should be rewarded by being able to field a good team. Additionally, a team should always be able to keep a hometown hero/player they drafted. Unlike football, we can see basketball players and there's 1/5 as many players on a basketball team than a football team. Attachments are made. If we had to let Rondo walk because we couldn't keep him under a hard cap, well, that would lessen a lot of interest in the sport.


But here's an idea: in combination with less guaranteed money, how about having a soft cap, but you can only exceed it for 3 years in a row before needing to spend one year below it? That way a team that is close could make a push for the title to put them over the top, but it couldn't be sustained indefinitely.


In general, though, I care about the product on the floor. Right now, the likely league champion will either be starting Derek Fisher or JJ Hickson and Boobie Williams. That's already getting bad enough; Do we want it to get worse? Because it will with a hard cap spreading out the talent more. Don't we still enjoy watching replays of the old Finals, where Walton came off the bench and a guy like Danny Ainge may have been the worst starter on the floor?


Besides, in the NBA i think a harder cap would not only lead to worse overall teams playing in the playoffs (as it would be much more of a crapshoot who got in), but the finals outcome would be much more boring. Guess what, if a hard cap leveled the field so that every team tried to build around 1 or 2 stars they could afford and everyone else role players, Lebron is winning a title every year. His cast is so bad now, that with a hard cap it would essentially mean every team would have one of the stars with just as bad a supporting cast; this means singular elite players would have more power and control over the outcome.

Agree whole heartedly - TP

So, is the NFL suffering from lack of talent in the playoffs?

I will go as far as to say there are more good teams in the NFL with a chance to win it all then the NBA. 



And there are not enough real stars for all the teams in the NBA. 

I think the good teams in the NBA are better than the good teams in the NFL. I think we're seeing the best of an overall mediocre league in the NFL. We've seen exciting games with highlights, but these are not legendary teams; these are the least-flawed teams. Look at recent superbowl winners: the giants and steelers barely made the playoffs and were deeply flawed teams that were able to win. The Colts could have gone undefeated this year and they are not exactly the mid-90's cowboys. These are historically uninspiring teams that are the best of an evened out league; frankly, it's kind of boring. I want to see, in any sport, teams that stack up against historical greatness, where once every 5-10 years a true "cinderella" stuns everyone and takes the league by storm.

These teams play a high level.  The fact that teams can change so much from one season to the next makes the NFL so exciting.  Almost every team starts the year as possible contenders. 


NBA, there were what, 6 teams at the beginning of the season that had a chance.  Why watch the rest of the teams?

[Roy Hobbs]

I hate the hard cap. some teams can spend more money because there's more interest in those teams; don't you want those teams to do well?

I think it's embarrassing that Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are Superbowl winning quarterbacks; that doesn't happen with a soft cap.

As a fan, I much prefer the NBA to baseball or football. It's a nice blend of consistency season to season but allowing for pretty fast rebuilding. Teams that build a strong infrastructure and generate a lot of revenue should be rewarded by being able to field a good team. Additionally, a team should always be able to keep a hometown hero/player they drafted. Unlike football, we can see basketball players and there's 1/5 as many players on a basketball team than a football team. Attachments are made. If we had to let Rondo walk because we couldn't keep him under a hard cap, well, that would lessen a lot of interest in the sport.


But here's an idea: in combination with less guaranteed money, how about having a soft cap, but you can only exceed it for 3 years in a row before needing to spend one year below it? That way a team that is close could make a push for the title to put them over the top, but it couldn't be sustained indefinitely.


In general, though, I care about the product on the floor. Right now, the likely league champion will either be starting Derek Fisher or JJ Hickson and Boobie Williams. That's already getting bad enough; Do we want it to get worse? Because it will with a hard cap spreading out the talent more. Don't we still enjoy watching replays of the old Finals, where Walton came off the bench and a guy like Danny Ainge may have been the worst starter on the floor?


Besides, in the NBA i think a harder cap would not only lead to worse overall teams playing in the playoffs (as it would be much more of a crapshoot who got in), but the finals outcome would be much more boring. Guess what, if a hard cap leveled the field so that every team tried to build around 1 or 2 stars they could afford and everyone else role players, Lebron is winning a title every year. His cast is so bad now, that with a hard cap it would essentially mean every team would have one of the stars with just as bad a supporting cast; this means singular elite players would have more power and control over the outcome.

Agree whole heartedly - TP

So, is the NFL suffering from lack of talent in the playoffs?

I will go as far as to say there are more good teams in the NFL with a chance to win it all then the NBA. 



And there are not enough real stars for all the teams in the NBA. 

I think the good teams in the NBA are better than the good teams in the NFL. I think we're seeing the best of an overall mediocre league in the NFL. We've seen exciting games with highlights, but these are not legendary teams; these are the least-flawed teams. Look at recent superbowl winners: the giants and steelers barely made the playoffs and were deeply flawed teams that were able to win. The Colts could have gone undefeated this year and they are not exactly the mid-90's cowboys. These are historically uninspiring teams that are the best of an evened out league; frankly, it's kind of boring. I want to see, in any sport, teams that stack up against historical greatness, where once every 5-10 years a true "cinderella" stuns everyone and takes the league by storm.

These teams play a high level.  The fact that teams can change so much from one season to the next makes the NFL so exciting.  Almost every team starts the year as possible contenders. 


NBA, there were what, 6 teams at the beginning of the season that had a chance.  Why watch the rest of the teams?

I absolutely agree.

Also, it's not like the NBA is currently in an era of absolutely elite teams.  The three best teams right now are, who?  The Cavs, Lakers, and Celts?  None of those teams, in my mind, stack up with the all-time greats.  I'd say the Colts, in terms of relative strength, are right up there with the Lakers, etc.

I'm definitely in favor of a more level playing field, which means that no franchise is truly doomed.  The NFL and NHL are both surviving just fine with a hard cap; the NBA can do the same.

[wdleehi]

I hate the hard cap. some teams can spend more money because there's more interest in those teams; don't you want those teams to do well?

I think it's embarrassing that Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are Superbowl winning quarterbacks; that doesn't happen with a soft cap.

As a fan, I much prefer the NBA to baseball or football. It's a nice blend of consistency season to season but allowing for pretty fast rebuilding. Teams that build a strong infrastructure and generate a lot of revenue should be rewarded by being able to field a good team. Additionally, a team should always be able to keep a hometown hero/player they drafted. Unlike football, we can see basketball players and there's 1/5 as many players on a basketball team than a football team. Attachments are made. If we had to let Rondo walk because we couldn't keep him under a hard cap, well, that would lessen a lot of interest in the sport.


But here's an idea: in combination with less guaranteed money, how about having a soft cap, but you can only exceed it for 3 years in a row before needing to spend one year below it? That way a team that is close could make a push for the title to put them over the top, but it couldn't be sustained indefinitely.


In general, though, I care about the product on the floor. Right now, the likely league champion will either be starting Derek Fisher or JJ Hickson and Boobie Williams. That's already getting bad enough; Do we want it to get worse? Because it will with a hard cap spreading out the talent more. Don't we still enjoy watching replays of the old Finals, where Walton came off the bench and a guy like Danny Ainge may have been the worst starter on the floor?


Besides, in the NBA i think a harder cap would not only lead to worse overall teams playing in the playoffs (as it would be much more of a crapshoot who got in), but the finals outcome would be much more boring. Guess what, if a hard cap leveled the field so that every team tried to build around 1 or 2 stars they could afford and everyone else role players, Lebron is winning a title every year. His cast is so bad now, that with a hard cap it would essentially mean every team would have one of the stars with just as bad a supporting cast; this means singular elite players would have more power and control over the outcome.

Agree whole heartedly - TP

So, is the NFL suffering from lack of talent in the playoffs?

I will go as far as to say there are more good teams in the NFL with a chance to win it all then the NBA. 



And there are not enough real stars for all the teams in the NBA. 

I think the good teams in the NBA are better than the good teams in the NFL. I think we're seeing the best of an overall mediocre league in the NFL. We've seen exciting games with highlights, but these are not legendary teams; these are the least-flawed teams. Look at recent superbowl winners: the giants and steelers barely made the playoffs and were deeply flawed teams that were able to win. The Colts could have gone undefeated this year and they are not exactly the mid-90's cowboys. These are historically uninspiring teams that are the best of an evened out league; frankly, it's kind of boring. I want to see, in any sport, teams that stack up against historical greatness, where once every 5-10 years a true "cinderella" stuns everyone and takes the league by storm.

These teams play a high level.  The fact that teams can change so much from one season to the next makes the NFL so exciting.  Almost every team starts the year as possible contenders. 


NBA, there were what, 6 teams at the beginning of the season that had a chance.  Why watch the rest of the teams?

I absolutely agree.

Also, it's not like the NBA is currently in an era of absolutely elite teams.  The three best teams right now are, who?  The Cavs, Lakers, and Celts?  None of those teams, in my mind, stack up with the all-time greats.  I'd say the Colts, in terms of relative strength, are right up there with the Lakers, etc.

I'm definitely in favor of a more level playing field, which means that no franchise is truly doomed.  The NFL and NHL are both surviving just fine with a hard cap; the NBA can do the same.

NBA needs to take the next step.  Go back to being a game as a team, not being a superstar.

[dlpin]

Regarding the hard cap, as I already said I doubt that they will implement it.

Regarding whether or not it SHOULD be in place, I am totally, 100% against it. Maybe make the luxury tax more significant, maybe make hard limits on how many max players a team can sign, or make bird rights non-tradable.

It's one thing on the NFL, when you necessarily have a bunch of role players you can play around with to maintain a good core. But in the NBA, a hard cap will mean that teams that draft well will be punished and forced to blow up their teams. I mean, there is a reason the exception is called the "Bird exception." Can you imagine if the celtics and the lakers had to blow up their teams midway through the 80s?

Besides, even the NFL's "hard cap" is not that hard, with all the teams playing around with the whole "likely compensation" thing that can be included in the cap one year to allow the team to go over the cap the next.

[PosImpos]

So, is the NFL suffering from lack of talent in the playoffs?

I will go as far as to say there are more good teams in the NFL with a chance to win it all then the NBA. 



And there are not enough real stars for all the teams in the NBA. 

But is that really because more teams in the NFL are good teams, or rather because the talent in the NFL is more spread out so it's possible to be a "good" team made up largely of roleplayers plus a good quarterback, a few decent receivers, and a good running back? 

I mean, football is a much different game, but when a team can win a championship one year and then not make the playoffs the next I think that says more about how difficult it is to maintain a team full of talented players in the NFL than anything else.

Part of the problem with the NFL / NBA comparison is that the NFL playoffs are one and done, so a bad team can have a stretch of a few good games and get far in the playoffs.  In the NBA, the better team almost always wins over the course of 7 games - unless the teams are very evenly matched and it comes down to the wire.

Nevertheless, I'd much rather watch a Finals matchup between two teams stacked with talent than two teams with one or two real stars that managed to scrape their way through the earlier rounds.  A hard-capped league full of teams with 1 or 2 stars surrounded by role players sounds pretty boring to me.  Certainly would make the regular season more interesting, though.  Most teams would finish with 35 to 45 wins.

[Roy Hobbs]

A hard-capped league full of teams with 1 or 2 stars surrounded by role players sounds pretty boring to me.  Certainly would make the regular season more interesting, though.  Most teams would finish with 35 to 45 wins.

I don't understand why several people are making this argument.  It's as if they expect there to be a hard cap, but with the same salaries as now.  A team isn't going to have to have KG, Paul Pierce, and a bunch of Scalabrines.  Rather, the salaries of all players except the truly elite are going to go down.  That's why you're hearing talk of players like Boozer, Amare, etc. being in the $8 million range, and it's why teams are trying to move contracts like Iguodala's and Monta Ellis'. 

If it's a $60 million hard cap, let's say, and you have two players earning $15 million each, that still leaves $30 million for the remaining 10 to 12 players.  With a more reasonable salary structure, that's not unworkable at all.

[Donoghus]

I really think the NFL model is the way to go.  Hard cap and all.  There's a reason that the National Football League is the most successful professional sports league in North America.  And I think much of it has to do with the business model they have.

Rozelle always pushed for the idea of parity and revenue sharing,a hard cap, and non-guaranteed salaries has certainly created that feeling in today's NFL.  Look at the Miami Dolphins, for example, two years ago they were 1-15 and a year later they're in the playoffs.  There is hope for fans of all 32 teams every preseason.  Misguided management and personal decisions can still hamper a franchise (see Oakland Raiders) but the system in place allows a franchise the ability to bounce back quickly rather than wait years on end to shed bad salaries, get under the luxury tax, etc...

Certainly there are some drawbacks to the NFL CBA.  To me, the biggest being the ridiculousness of the rookie salary scale (see 1st round draft picks).

However, I really think that the NBA would be a better league if they were to implement a hard cap structure.  In theory, it would certainly lower some of the ridiculous salaries getting thrown to marginal players that can hamper a franchise going forward.  The risk of poor management will always exist but I think a hard cap is a step in the right direction especially for parity sake. 

IMO, a lot more good than bad would come from the NBA going to a hard cap. 

[PosImpos]

A hard-capped league full of teams with 1 or 2 stars surrounded by role players sounds pretty boring to me.  Certainly would make the regular season more interesting, though.  Most teams would finish with 35 to 45 wins.

I don't understand why several people are making this argument.  It's as if they expect there to be a hard cap, but with the same salaries as now.  A team isn't going to have to have KG, Paul Pierce, and a bunch of Scalabrines.  Rather, the salaries of all players except the truly elite are going to go down.  That's why you're hearing talk of players like Boozer, Amare, etc. being in the $8 million range, and it's why teams are trying to move contracts like Iguodala's and Monta Ellis'. 

If it's a $60 million hard cap, let's say, and you have two players earning $15 million each, that still leaves $30 million for the remaining 10 to 12 players.  With a more reasonable salary structure, that's not unworkable at all.

You're right, considering that player salary will go down, the hard cap may not have as severe an effect as one might think.

I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

[PosImpos]

Rozelle always pushed for the idea of parity and revenue sharing,a hard cap, and non-guaranteed salaries has certainly created that feeling in today's NFL.  Look at the Miami Dolphins, for example, two years ago they were 1-15 and a year later they're in the playoffs.  There is hope for fans of all 32 teams every preseason. 

To each his own, I guess.  That's exactly what I dislike about the NFL.  The Miami team that went 1-15 is not that different from the team that went 11-5...so the difference in record was schedule difficulty, a bit of luck, and the relative strength of the division.

I'd rather see teams with a good combination of talent and good management being successful year after year than have a league where a team that's totally awful one year can pull out 10+ wins the next.  There may be hope for the fans of every team each season, but there's also the chance that a team can go from being absolutely amazing to being not so great in one or two seasons (see: Patriots).

[action781]

I hate the hard cap. some teams can spend more money because there's more interest in those teams; don't you want those teams to do well?

I think it's embarrassing that Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are Superbowl winning quarterbacks; that doesn't happen with a soft cap.

As a fan, I much prefer the NBA to baseball or football. It's a nice blend of consistency season to season but allowing for pretty fast rebuilding. Teams that build a strong infrastructure and generate a lot of revenue should be rewarded by being able to field a good team. Additionally, a team should always be able to keep a hometown hero/player they drafted. Unlike football, we can see basketball players and there's 1/5 as many players on a basketball team than a football team. Attachments are made. If we had to let Rondo walk because we couldn't keep him under a hard cap, well, that would lessen a lot of interest in the sport.


But here's an idea: in combination with less guaranteed money, how about having a soft cap, but you can only exceed it for 3 years in a row before needing to spend one year below it? That way a team that is close could make a push for the title to put them over the top, but it couldn't be sustained indefinitely.


In general, though, I care about the product on the floor. Right now, the likely league champion will either be starting Derek Fisher or JJ Hickson and Boobie Williams. That's already getting bad enough; Do we want it to get worse? Because it will with a hard cap spreading out the talent more. Don't we still enjoy watching replays of the old Finals, where Walton came off the bench and a guy like Danny Ainge may have been the worst starter on the floor?


Besides, in the NBA i think a harder cap would not only lead to worse overall teams playing in the playoffs (as it would be much more of a crapshoot who got in), but the finals outcome would be much more boring. Guess what, if a hard cap leveled the field so that every team tried to build around 1 or 2 stars they could afford and everyone else role players, Lebron is winning a title every year. His cast is so bad now, that with a hard cap it would essentially mean every team would have one of the stars with just as bad a supporting cast; this means singular elite players would have more power and control over the outcome.

Agree whole heartedly - TP

So, is the NFL suffering from lack of talent in the playoffs?

I will go as far as to say there are more good teams in the NFL with a chance to win it all then the NBA. 



And there are not enough real stars for all the teams in the NBA. 

I think the good teams in the NBA are better than the good teams in the NFL. I think we're seeing the best of an overall mediocre league in the NFL. We've seen exciting games with highlights, but these are not legendary teams; these are the least-flawed teams. Look at recent superbowl winners: the giants and steelers barely made the playoffs and were deeply flawed teams that were able to win. The Colts could have gone undefeated this year and they are not exactly the mid-90's cowboys. These are historically uninspiring teams that are the best of an evened out league; frankly, it's kind of boring. I want to see, in any sport, teams that stack up against historical greatness, where once every 5-10 years a true "cinderella" stuns everyone and takes the league by storm.

These teams play a high level.  The fact that teams can change so much from one season to the next makes the NFL so exciting.  Almost every team starts the year as possible contenders. 


NBA, there were what, 6 teams at the beginning of the season that had a chance.  Why watch the rest of the teams?

I absolutely agree.

Also, it's not like the NBA is currently in an era of absolutely elite teams.  The three best teams right now are, who?  The Cavs, Lakers, and Celts?  None of those teams, in my mind, stack up with the all-time greats.  I'd say the Colts, in terms of relative strength, are right up there with the Lakers, etc.

I'm definitely in favor of a more level playing field, which means that no franchise is truly doomed.  The NFL and NHL are both surviving just fine with a hard cap; the NBA can do the same.

NBA needs to take the next step.  Go back to being a game as a team, not being a superstar.

I disagree with this last post because a hard cap will do the exact opposite.  It will be all about superstars.  Now, we have teams like the celtics that are a "team" and not about "a superstar".  Even the lakers and other contenders like the Magic have 2+ superstars.  If we go to a hard cap, every team will only be able to afford one superstar, so that is what the game will be about.

I disagree with a few of you here still.  I would not have disagreed with you 6 years ago.  But ever since Lebron has taken over the league, I just don't think a team with only 1 superstar could ever take Lebron's team down and if there was a hard cap, teams would not be able to afford more than 1 superstar.  It has nothing to do with a "boring finals" that other people have suggested.  The NCAA final four is the the farthest thing from boring, but will likely only have 1 or 2 NBA "superstar" talents if lucky.

The problem I reiterate is that the league will belong to the best superstars, not the best teams.  Teams like the celtics won't be able to be formed to combat the cleveland lebron's.  People here have said, "it works well in the NFL, why not here?" My answer is that only 5 players play at a time in the NBA, so 1 player can dominate much more easily.  In the NFL, one player only plays 50% of the game so it's impossible for 1 - or even 2 - players to dominate a game like 1 superstar can in the NBA.

[Fafnir]

The NFL isn't a good model for the NBA. The NFL only has one position that is comparable to the impact a single NBA player who's a star can have, QB. The rest of your teams wins depend on the overall depth of your roster, injuries, and coaching. Also football players are inherently less consistent than basketball players.

Meanwhile in the NBA the majority of your wins come from your three best players. If you don't have a top 10 (usually top 5) player you aren't going to win a title.

I'm not outright against a hard cap, but it would require ditching guaranteed contracts. The NBA players union will never concede that.

[scoop]

A hard-capped league full of teams with 1 or 2 stars surrounded by role players sounds pretty boring to me.  Certainly would make the regular season more interesting, though.  Most teams would finish with 35 to 45 wins.

I don't understand why several people are making this argument.  It's as if they expect there to be a hard cap, but with the same salaries as now.  A team isn't going to have to have KG, Paul Pierce, and a bunch of Scalabrines.  Rather, the salaries of all players except the truly elite are going to go down.  That's why you're hearing talk of players like Boozer, Amare, etc. being in the $8 million range, and it's why teams are trying to move contracts like Iguodala's and Monta Ellis'. 

If it's a $60 million hard cap, let's say, and you have two players earning $15 million each, that still leaves $30 million for the remaining 10 to 12 players.  With a more reasonable salary structure, that's not unworkable at all.

Unless the hard-cap was fixed at an artificially high point or the limit for max salaries went down, then of course the concentration of talent would be much more diluted and the ability of a particular team to accumulate talent severely limited. For example, would the Blazers be able to build a team the way they are building it? Of course not.

I strongly dislike the idea of a hard-cap in the NBA  devalues good drafting and limits the effectiveness of good management. There are better ways to achieve parity/control costs. More comprehensive revenue sharing and a progressive luxury tax, for example.