Mark Deeks on "Superstar Loyalty"

quote:

---

If he would rather take less to be a sidekick, maybe he just wants that more than any rule change could prohibit.

---

I'm calling bullshite on this until I see it. All indications are he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He's definitely not joining a Big 4, the paycuts are too much. I could see him joining a Big 3 in Houston if he doesn't believe Phil can make him an instant contender in 2015.

quote:

---

If they do all that and still blow it, what more loyalty can be demanded of the player? At what point can a team said to have burned out their loyalty to a player? At what point can the player say, 'you had your chance, sorry, but I need to win while I still can' without being morally tarnished?

---

I completely agree. I don't blame Chris Paul for leaving and I won't blame Kevin Durant. But how you leave does matter. Dwight and LeBron showed how not to do it.

I blame the media for blowing up the hysteria with LeBron and Dwight.

quote:

---

I'm calling bullshite on this until I see it

---

Well of course. That's his point. If Melo takes a severe paycut and makes sacrifices in his game to be on a winner, that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the CBA or competitive balance or whatever.

I really liked his line about people complaining about super teams while glorifying the super teams of yesteryear.

quote:

---

LeBron showed how not to do it.

---

The Decision, even with them donating money to charity, was a massive mistake. Everything else he did was fine by me though.

quote:

---

PrimeTime

---

quote:

---

Miami a less desirable city than New York? I'd much rather be in Miami than NYC...

---

Each his own. But he's talking big market v small market here. If Melo is leaving the biggest market in the country to take a paycut, that is something worth noting.

quote:

---

If Melo takes a severe paycut and makes sacrifices in his game to be on a winner, that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the CBA or competitive balance or whatever.

---

It does weaken the players bargaining stance and the union has to know that. They can't keep fighting for more money and bigger contracts, when all the stars take less than max money.

Plus it hurts the sport. The owners want balance and parity, like the NFL. You can't do that when all the stars keep going to the same teams. It gets great press during the offseason and playoffs, but it devalues the regular season.

quote:

---

I really liked his line about people complaining about super teams while glorifying the super teams of yesteryear.

---

The super teams of the past made more sense, cause there were so many fewer teams. I think there were 8 during the Celtics runs. There are 30 now. Talent has to be evened out.

Adding to your point:

The league has probably the most talent it's had in a very long time(and even more so after this draft).

Teams are getting smarter and the CBA is going to take it's toll on the NYK/BKN/Lakers of the world.

I personally don't believe the NFLs parity is all it's cracked up to be. The NFC has a solid degree of parity but the AFC has had the Pats/Steelers/Peyton teams in the super bowl a combined 11 times over the past 14/15 years.

quote:

---

I vehemently oppose NFL parity in the NBA.

---

The NFL has parity because they have a hard cap and unguaranteed contracts, although most are effectively 3 year deals. It would take at least 3 more hard CBA fights to get there if they wanted to, but they don't want to because teams will not go away from cap loopholes they see as beneficial to them like Bird Rights.

I can see a continued shift towards weakening the players position (shorter guaranteed contracts), but the owners will never do anything that weakens their ability to keep their own star players.

quote:

---

Yep. I'd also add the limited number of games creates a fairly random landscape plus the sheer number of players on the field at once and the specialist nature of the sport limit just how much impact one guy can have. And that's before we even get to talking about the revenue sharing system they have which does not and will not ever exist in the NBA.

To echo Lobos, I don't even really think parity explains the absurd popularity of the sport as much as it's scheduling, perfection as a tv product, and the martial nature of the sport itself.

---

All of that is true. But I'd be interested in hearing more on your objection to "parity" in the NBA. Maybe we should start with our definition of parity. I do like the idea of some equalizing factors that counteract sheer wealth of an owner or wealth/size of a market. Competition makes a league stronger and more interesting, imo.

Interesting word to parse.

Good parity is limiting outside factors such as market size, individual owner's wealth, local wealth to ensure everyone is starting from as close to equal ground as possible. Reward good management and creativity, not anything else.

Bad parity is creating rules to ensure every team is fielding a team of roughly the same quality- watering down. I don't want a league where each team has one "star" and then is surrounded by role players.

What do you think?

quote:

---

A soft cap makes it more difficult it seems to me

---

I think it works much better post CBA. Teams that really want to, can spend to their heart's desire. Yet, there are now stiff penalties in taxes and roster moves that come with that largesse. Miami crippled their chances at a championship because they were afraid of the new tax rules.

Plus a soft cap gives teams a way to grow and keep their cores together longer. I'm very much interested in protecting that. If OKC had to trade not just Harden, but also Ibaka or Westbrook due to a hard cap that would be bad for the sport.

quote:

---

And I'm not a fan of the completely guaranteed contract, honestly.

---

I disagree. I think it's fairly ridiculous that there are no guaranteed contracts in the NFL of all leagues. And again, the CBA fixed some of this by severely reducing player salaries and limiting contract length to no more than 4 years for almost everyone. If we want to reward the good organizations then there should be repercussions for making bad moves. You offer Josh Smith 4/$58 when you already have Monroe and Drummond, you deserve to live with it.

For me, the big issue the NBA has to fix is revenue sharing. The league barely mentioned this during the lockout. They claimed (dubiously) it was a matter for ownership and it was in discussion. I still haven't seen any indication that they did create rules or what they are. It's a problem when the Lakers get ~$200M a YEAR (enough to cover payroll at least 2 times) in tv contracts while the Pelicans are at around $12M.

None of the other stuff I've seen- raising the age minimum, franchise tag, etc- really makes a difference in setting teams on more equal footing.

quote:

---

For me, the big issue the NBA has to fix is revenue sharing. The league barely mentioned this during the lockout. They claimed (dubiously) it was a matter for ownership and it was in discussion. I still haven't seen any indication that they did create rules or what they are. It's a problem when the Lakers get ~$200M a YEAR (enough to cover payroll at least 2 times) in tv contracts while the Pelicans are at around $12M.

---

quote:

---

The CBA also boosted revenue sharing from the NBA’s haves to have-nots. Only $55 million changed hands under the prior CBA, but low revenue teams were supplemented nearly $120 million last season mainly from the league’s top revenue clubs. Close to $200 million is expected to change hands this season based on last season’s financials. Former perennial money losers like the Charlotte Bobcats, Milwaukee Bucks and Memphis Grizzlies all turned a profit last season thanks to at least $10 million each in revenue sharing. Overall, only four teams lost money on an operating basis by our count.

---

LINK /