The New NBA - Non Superteams Need Not Apply

[Celtic]

Lately I am noticing a disappointing trend in the NBA and in the non hard-cap sports. Whether it's the Suns looking to trade Amare, the Wizards looking to completely blow things up, or in the MLB, smaller teams trading their star young players to the big teams for prospects, all because the thought of affording their star player is now considered impossible.

I remember when Charles Barkley played his best years for the 76ers with no hope of winning a championship, when great players played for their teams and tried to win. There was a time when it was OK to try and win on a nightly basis, to accept your team as it was and play. It seems that in today's NBA, if you don't think you can win it all, you are better off rebuilding. Look at Phoenix, why on earth would you consider trading Amare to Cleveland? You are making one of the most powerful teams in the league so much stronger, by removing arguably your best player? It seems as though too much value is placed on the all or nothing mentality. I understand their is a time to accept the truth and to realize your place in the league, and of course their are financial issues to consider, especially in today's economy. However, there is a real danger that this will become a very cyclical scenario.

What happens if every year the teams with no chance of winning continuously trade away their players, for example why would the Kings even consider trading Kevin Martin? Year in and year out the top teams get to cherry pick players that are available thus creating a rotation of talent and expiring contracts. There is a possibility that a situation much like in the soccer world could occur, when there are really only a handful of teams per league really ever in contention. I, for one do not want to see this happen.

I may be exaggerating, and it may be the Hennessey talking, but I am not crazy about the whole super team concept that is perpetuating throughout the NBA. Look at the Celtics for example, how rare is it that in 2007 that much talent could be assembled on one team? Look at the Lakers, the Magic, the Cavs, this is not normal. If you're not one of the Super teams you have no chance, even the Spurs have fallen by the wayside, of course age is not on their side, but the truth is they can't compete talent-wise any more.

What's the answer? There isn't one, unless Popovich's vision comes to reality, maybe there needs to be a commission to veto trades made purely on a financial basis. The simple fact is these weaken the league and the product. I, for one would like to see a return to a more competitive balance.

[Who]

It all depends on whether the team has the capacity for sustainable improvement to the point of becoming a contender (at some point in the future).

If they do, then it's a bad decision to give up a top talent.

If they don't, then it's the right decision to rebuild.

[wdleehi]

The NBA, more then any other of the major sport, is all about having a top 5 player to build around. 


Which means outside of 5 teams, no one else really has a chance.  Therefor, unless you are in Florida or the LA Lakers, you have to hope to get lucky in the draft.  Trading the high payed players helps you 1, save money and 2, get a higher chance at winning the draft lotto.



That's why I really want to see the NBA shift from the star centered rules to more team centered rules.  While having a top 5 star should provide your team an advantage, well run teams that do not get that type of lotto luck can still compete for a title in the playoffs with deep, well designed, talented teams.  (Think those Phoenix teams)

Personally, I get sick watching a team so poorly ran like the Cavs being favorites year after year just because they lucked into Lebron. 

[indeedproceed]

I want to see that 11ft or 12 foot rim or whatever.

[Cman]

I may be exaggerating, and it may be the Hennessey talking, but I am not crazy about the whole super team concept that is perpetuating throughout the NBA.

Probably partly the booze, but I appreciate what you are saying.

I want to see that 11ft or 12 foot rim or whatever.

Sure, I hear you  -- some sort of change to mix things up.

Personally, I get sick watching a team so poorly ran like the Cavs being favorites year after year just because they lucked into Lebron. 

Amen.

[QuinielaBox]

Hasn't the NBA always been centered around the Superstars?

From Mikan to Russell to Kareem to Bird to Magic to Jordan to Duncan to Kobe to Lebron - well you get the picture.

Yes, getting the top league player greatly enhances your chances of winning a title and it has been that way for 60 years. I do not see how rule changes will impact the fact that superstars will always dominate.

All you can do is impose a hard cap and non-guarenteed deals and use the NFL check and balance system to strive for some semblance of league parity.

[cdif911]

This may be the crystal lite talking (it's so yummy) but

#1 - close the loophole that allows a traded and waived player to come back to a team he was waived from 30 days later

#2 - eliminate the lottery, or make it a true lottery where every team gets an even shot

#3 - have a governing body with one rep from each team that can veto trades, 75% that see it as a salary dump or creates an unfair situation

#4 - hard cap

#5 - franchise players - but it has to be done in a way that doesn't end up making the franchised guy mad at the team, as is the case often in the NFL

[dlpin]

Hasn't the NBA always been centered around the Superstars?

From Mikan to Russell to Kareem to Bird to Magic to Jordan to Duncan to Kobe to Lebron - well you get the picture.

Yes, getting the top league player greatly enhances your chances of winning a title and it has been that way for 60 years. I do not see how rule changes will impact the fact that superstars will always dominate.

All you can do is impose a hard cap and non-guarenteed deals and use the NFL check and balance system to strive for some semblance of league parity.

TP, because it is exactly true.

At any point in NBA's history, no more than 3 or 4 teams had a realistic shot at winning it all, and everybody else was rebuilding.

And while you can point to Barkley playing for a 76ers team with no shot, now you can point to a Wade in a team with no shot, a Bosh, a Chris Paul, and so on.

[QuinielaBox]

Occasionally, you get can get by with three great players, two great vetran role players, a young and eager C and PG, and two young and hungry bench players all buying into ubuntu and great things can result 

[wdleehi]

Hasn't the NBA always been centered around the Superstars?

From Mikan to Russell to Kareem to Bird to Magic to Jordan to Duncan to Kobe to Lebron - well you get the picture.

Yes, getting the top league player greatly enhances your chances of winning a title and it has been that way for 60 years. I do not see how rule changes will impact the fact that superstars will always dominate.

All you can do is impose a hard cap and non-guarenteed deals and use the NFL check and balance system to strive for some semblance of league parity.

TP, because it is exactly true.

At any point in NBA's history, no more than 3 or 4 teams had a realistic shot at winning it all, and everybody else was rebuilding.

And while you can point to Barkley playing for a 76ers team with no shot, now you can point to a Wade in a team with no shot, a Bosh, a Chris Paul, and so on.

Not true.  Before Stern took over with the emergance of Magic and Bird, good teams won more often vs. the best player. 


In today's NBA, it would likely have been Wilt winning a ton of titles vs. Russell because Wilt played the superstar game while Russell played the team game. 

Again, changing the rules to support team play over superstars will not remove Superstars from the championship.  It will remove the team that has terrible management/coaching the lucked into that one star from being contenders. 

[MMacOH]

I didn't see a lot of people on this board having an issue with the 'superstar' team when the Celtics were on their way to a championship with 3 superstars on their team.  Now, since the stars are showing their age you want change?  Just give the Celtics some time and they will turn it around.  It's not time to rework the league quite yet.

Anyone who wants a hard cap may want to recosnider.  Think about what the hard cap did to Willie McGinest with the Patriots.  The Patriots were at their cap and had to let him go when he should have been with the Patriots to finish his career.

Bird Rights are a very good thing.  It allows players to stay with the team they have an image with, which is not true in the other leagues.

Teams like PHX planned poorly and put themselves way over the cap which is killing them now.  That is not the NBA's fault.

[sk7326]

The sports is fine - if anything the superstars should be paid much more.  Nobody is paying to watch Rasheed Wallace throw up threes indiscriminately.  You need luck to build a great team - obviously.  HOWEVER, to think that good management is not required is just silly:

The Cavaliers have built a perfect team for LeBron - they can improve it more, but they figured out they needed to surround him with shooters, and they made the Wally trade to facilitate that.  Granted any team with LeBron is a 50 win team but still - they are very very good.

The Spurs are extraordinarily well run - and they are not exactly a large market.  Obviously they rely on Duncan being there - but they are built to not be in trouble when Duncan retires.  They will be below the cap - and have some way to grow.

[Chief]

The NBA right now, reminds me of the NFL in the 90's. Cowboys, Broncos, and 49ers were superteams and very few other had a chance. You could bet your house, almost every year, that one of those teams were going to win.

98 Celtic reminds me of the 96/97 Packers. Reggie White and others join Favre to finally knock off the superteams.

[wdleehi]

The NBA right now, reminds me of the NFL in the 90's. Cowboys, Broncos, and 49ers were superteams and very few other had a chance. You could bet your house, almost every year, that one of those teams were going to win.

98 Celtic reminds me of the 96/97 Packers. Reggie White and others join Favre to finally knock off the superteams.

Except the Giants, Redskins...

Buffalo had enough talent to win.

Eagles were almost good enough (much like now)

[PosImpos]

I didn't see a lot of people on this board having an issue with the 'superstar' team when the Celtics were on their way to a championship with 3 superstars on their team.  Now, since the stars are showing their age you want change?  Just give the Celtics some time and they will turn it around.  It's not time to rework the league quite yet.

I think the point is the league is geared towards teams led by one or two superstars who just dominate the game instead of teams with lots of all around talent who work together:

Lakers with Kobe + Shaq / Gasol or Cavs with LeBron or Heat with Wade + Shaq
VS
Spurs with Duncan + Ginobili + Parker or Pistons with Billups + Hamilton + Prince + Wallace + Wallace

The Celtics were much more a team with a lot of talent that worked together than a team built around 1 or 2 superstars.

I agree that the league has been this way for a long time, though.  It just so happens that once in awhile a team that plays like a team actually wins (Spurs, Pistons, Celtics)