Did Durant just ensure there will be a lockout?

[Denis998]

I think there should be a soft cap, to resign your own players to a certain extant. And a hard cap so teams cant go overboard with it.

[KGs Knee]

The NBA is at it's most popular and profitable when there are super teams.  Having a lockout now would be stupid.  Which means it will probably happen.

Trying to prevent the top players from teaming up is misguided, at least the way the owners always try to go about it.  Doing away with max contracts would be the best way, along with far more robust revenue sharing between teams, but the owners and union don't want that.  It's rather ironic.

And honestly, I like when there are super teams.  Of course, it's better when it's "your" team.

[KGs Knee]

And the thing is, the only way this particular circumstance (Durant to GSW) could have been avoided was with a complex "cap smoothing", which distributed the substantial increase in revenue across several years, instead of all at once (well, twice).

But the owners tried to get greedy when they proposed it, and the players would have received a smaller share of the overall profit instead of staying neutral with regards to total money.  They rightfully declined.

[celticsclay]

The NBA is at it's most popular and profitable when there are super teams.  Having a lockout now would be stupid.  Which means it will probably happen.

Trying to prevent the top players from teaming up is misguided, at least the way the owners always try to go about it.  Doing away with max contracts would be the best way, along with far more robust revenue sharing between teams, but the owners and union don't want that.  It's rather ironic.

And honestly, I like when there are super teams.  Of course, it's better when it's "your" team.

I think super teams can be fun to a degree. It was obviously exciting when the Celtics had three stars in KG, Allen and Pierce. There was still a certain amount of excitement when the Heat signed off because there was still this novelty of the stars in their prime playing together. That being said there is a tipping point. To me, when a team crosses a line of having 4 of the top 20 players in the game (some would say top 15) it is no longer intriguing or exciting. I can tell you watching the Warriors last season living in the bay area you knew that only about 12-15 of their games were going to be competitive interesting games where the outcome was in doubt. Picture them playing the magic, bucks etc at home. The novelty of those beat down wears off after a while and it is just boring. You now add a top 3 player to their team, and decimate one of the few teams that provided exciting basketball for them. Now who are your prime time matchups you get excited to see the Warriors play. Probably just the spurs, cleveland and clippers can be competitive games where the Warriors are not 10 point favorites. You then throw in our two games against them. That is about 10 games out of 82, who else do you want to see them play? That is awful for the league to have 70 boring non-competitive games.

[celticsclay]

I believe there was a chance of a lockout, I think this move cements it. Teams won't fold as the TV money will keep them alive, however I think the NBA as a whole. People will tune in for to watch the warriors the 1st year as a novelty and will watch the Lebron/GSW part 3 match-up. But it will get old fast.

TP this is pretty much what i just said in my reply above. Teams dominating the competition is not that exciting. Even the warriors without KD were boring at times and that was with the novelty of them chasing the all time wins record. Winning games by 15-25 points against the inferior teams in the league makes for pretty boring games. Something like 15 of their games last year it was all the bench in the 4th quarter. People turn that off.

[TheBig3]

I think there should be a soft cap, to resign your own players to a certain extant. And a hard cap so teams cant go overboard with it.

This is why I feel the NBA is F%$ked. No way the players are going to vote to give back what they now have. Guys averages 8 points a game are pulling down 15+ Mil per year. Not sure how you fix that with the players union.

[Denis998]

I think there should be a soft cap, to resign your own players to a certain extant. And a hard cap so teams cant go overboard with it.

This is why I feel the NBA is F%$ked. No way the players are going to vote to give back what they now have. Guys averages 8 points a game are pulling down 15+ Mil per year. Not sure how you fix that with the players union.

well those contracts will still be possible, just the 4 superstars on one team wont be.

[Big333223]

I think it would be stupid to throw a fit over something that is unlikely to ever happen again. The reason KD could go to GS was purely because of the huge leap the cap has made these last two seasons. It'll jump again next season but then likely stabalize for a while.

Why is the league going to fight to change a rule based on an event that might never happen again? Or, at least, won't happen until the NBA gets a comparably huge influx of cash.

[D Dub]

One max per team.   Simple as that.

[meangreenmachine]

One max per team.   Simple as that.

Can be subverted by someone taking a contract in the amount of a max deal less one dollar.

I think if you want superstars to gravitate away from one another and increase league parity, you introduce a "super max": Each team has one super max and his amount does not count towards the cap. There is also no limit on how much a team can offer their super max. For example, if a team wants to spend $100 million/year on a player, they can do it. But only one player on each team can get a super max contract.

This is a sure-fire way to prevent super teams. No way Durant joins Curry under this scenario.

An alternative approach: Copy the NFL's salary cap, including franchise tag designation, while keeping the union happy with guaranteed contracts. I would change the franchise tag, though: Allow any team to sign away a franchise tag, but if they do so they have to forfeit their next three first-round picks to the team that loses their franchise player.

[CelticsBR]

I don't think KD move was one of a kind. Let's look at Unibrow or Cousins' cases. They've extended their contracts in hopes of their teams getting good players to allow them to contend. If they were about to have to chose about it, their Front Offices could not give them any opportunity of contending against Clippers, Spurs and Warriors (who have been getting the main free agents and/or very cheap vets) in a 3, 4 years period. They would probably go elsewhere, like to the East or to a place where there are alredy stars.

[nickagneta]

A lockout this year was inevitable once the new CBA was ratified and then the new television deal went through. As soon as the owners saw just how much total dollars the players were going to earn off this new television deal, the lockout was a foregone conclusion.

I don't think the players or the owners give a dang about game excitement or super teams. The owners care about profit and the players care about money that makes all their members millionaires multiple times over. The current structure of the NBA is not the current problem and I think both sides would agree with that. The problem is the percentage of the BRI that the players are getting and that is why the owners are going to lock out the players.

[LooseCannon]

And the thing is, the only way this particular circumstance (Durant to GSW) could have been avoided was with a complex "cap smoothing", which distributed the substantial increase in revenue across several years, instead of all at once (well, twice).

With cap smoothing, the Warriors probably salary dump Iguodala in addition to Bogut and still sign Durant.

[MetroGlobe]

The problem is the percentage of the BRI that the players are getting and that is why the owners are going to lock out the players.

What percentage do you think they'll ask for?  It's 51-49.  That's about as fair as it gets.

[nickagneta]

The problem is the percentage of the BRI that the players are getting and that is why the owners are going to lock out the players.

What percentage do you think they'll ask for?  It's 51-49.  That's about as fair as it gets.

I think the owners will ask for 45% and settle for less and the concession will be changes to the veteran minimum salary and an increase in the rookie scale. The players might also ask for max salaries to go up