BS Report W/ Billy Hunter

[nickagneta]

Faf is right and wrong. The draft is a crap shoot and there aren't enough franchise players to attain competitive balance, especially for small market teams.

But where he is wrong is that crap shoot is the same for big market teams as well. Proof: New York and Chicago.

New York has all sorts on monetary advantages but poor management got hem locked into long term horrid contracts to undeserving players and they traded away first round picks like crazy. result, a decade of horrible teams in a huge market making giant amounts of revenue.

Chicago, another huge market, is going to be great because of wise signings and non signings and trades and because they got lucky and got a franchise player number 1 and won the lottery. Its no different than what Seattle/OKC did. They got lucky in the lottery and have made further sound decisions.

Big or small market, basketball has lost more and more talent to football and soccer over the last couple decades and so fewer franchise players are available. When they become available its luck who gets them. No major system change is going to change that.

I slight system change will allow for teams to manage themselves to prominence, like the Celtics and Dallas and Detroit but you have to have good management. Management has to be held accountable and those who blindly support the owners position here sometimes refuse to acknowledge this.

New York, Philadelphia, and Houston are all huge markets that haven't gotten a sniff of a deep playoff run(conference finals or Finals) in over a decade. San Antonio, Cleveland, Orlando and Oklahoma City have had sustained runs recently because of franchise players they were lucky to get in the lottery.

The NBA elite will always be the teams that have the franchise stars. Smaller markets have to get lucky and draft them same as large markets. What needs to be fixed for competitive balance are ways for all teams to keep their franchise players and when those players want to move on for ways in which small market teams can compete with large market teams to sign them.

Unfortunately, that decision is the player's and there just aren't a lot of free agent franchise players that want to play in small markets or cold weather markets or markets that shut down their night life early. So what does that leave: LA, NY, Miami, Dallas, Phoenix, Chicago, and Boston.(And with Boston even that if kind of iffy).

[StartOrien]

Presti has done a very good job (so far) of managing the cap (we will see how the Perk deal works for them, as they try to sign some of their other young guys), but had he not lucked into the #2 pick, and had Durant fall into his lap, OKC would not be used a positive example for much of anything.  

I think its hard to say. Durant allows them to be a little more conservative, but they've done a great job on not 'reaching' on free agents.

Regardless of whether they would "reach" for FA's or not without Durant there, my point is, if they didn't get Durant there, then they are looking at a team who is at best struggling to get the 8th seed, and likely on the outside looking in out West.  They likely would not have been able to build the fanbase they have around their superstar.  And they may be another examples of a team that can't afford to get any better, rather than a team that was cost conscious.

While they don't have the same fan base, their costs are still relatively minimal. Say the team is Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka, Collison as a starting 5, that's at best a fringe playoff team, but I'd have to think it's financially successful.

[StartOrien]

Great points, Nick.

[greenpride32]

Owning a sports franchise is not a normal business.  It is a sport and a gamble and owners know that going in.  

Yes it is.  Like any business if it fails, it closes.  That's why the NBA's doors are currently closed. 

[Chris]

Presti has done a very good job (so far) of managing the cap (we will see how the Perk deal works for them, as they try to sign some of their other young guys), but had he not lucked into the #2 pick, and had Durant fall into his lap, OKC would not be used a positive example for much of anything.  

I think its hard to say. Durant allows them to be a little more conservative, but they've done a great job on not 'reaching' on free agents.

Regardless of whether they would "reach" for FA's or not without Durant there, my point is, if they didn't get Durant there, then they are looking at a team who is at best struggling to get the 8th seed, and likely on the outside looking in out West.  They likely would not have been able to build the fanbase they have around their superstar.  And they may be another examples of a team that can't afford to get any better, rather than a team that was cost conscious.

While they don't have the same fan base, their costs are still relatively minimal. Say the team is Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka, Collison as a starting 5, that's at best a fringe playoff team, but I'd have to think it's financially successful.

Right, but the reason OKC is used as a positive example is because they are both financially viable AND a contender in a small market.  If they don't have Durant, they are no longer a contender, and therefore no longer a positive example for the players.

[Inside-Out]

Remember just a couple of seasons ago when Portland was the genius franchise, active in the draft, lots of young talent, future contender...Brandon Roy, Aldridge, solid rotation...

One injury to Roy, and the franchise is in cap hell with no escape, not a contender, nothing.

Same could happen to OKC.

To anyone.

But that's a far cry from being the F'ing Clippers or GSW!

Teams, even small market, can be managed well and contend.  It's just hard to do (winning is like that), and there's a smaller margin of error to remain profitable.

[greenpride32]

Part of the reason why Lebron left CLE was he knew nobody else wanted to go there.  Look at Amare and Carmelo last year going to NYK.  The new trend of stacking teams is going to kill the small market teams because they cannot compete for these top players.  They'll just end up losing all of them to the larger markets.  Carmelo is already vouching for CP3 to join him in NY.  DH12 is likely leaving ORL, a small market team that just built a new arena.  Where is that going to leave them?  With a cap in place you can't have Pierce/KG/Allen or LBJ/Wade/Bosh or Carmelo/Amare/???.

Obviously every team can't be competitive each year, it goes in cycles.  But with free agency and no cap it's starting to become the players that pick the teams, not the GM's and teams.

[StartOrien]

Remember just a couple of seasons ago when Portland was the genius franchise, active in the draft, lots of young talent, future contender...Brandon Roy, Aldridge, solid rotation...

One injury to Roy, and the franchise is in cap hell with no escape, not a contender, nothing.

I actually still really like Portland's roster.

[Inside-Out]

Part of the reason why Lebron left CLE was he knew nobody else wanted to go there.  Look at Amare and Carmelo last year going to NYK.  The new trend of stacking teams is going to kill the small market teams because they cannot compete for these top players.  They'll just end up losing all of them to the larger markets.  Carmelo is already vouching for CP3 to join him in NY.  DH12 is likely leaving ORL, a small market team that just built a new arena.  Where is that going to leave them?  With a cap in place you can't have Pierce/KG/Allen or LBJ/Wade/Bosh or Carmelo/Amare/???.

Obviously every team can't be competitive each year, it goes in cycles.  But with free agency and no cap it's starting to become the players that pick the teams, not the GM's and teams.

This is an oft-repeated myth.

Miami cleared the decks to get all the cap space possible.  Any team could do that, regardless of market.

Then, they paid two superstars (and Chris Bosh) most of the money, but not max deals.  The players took less than the max.  Any team could have done that within the current rules, but no other team had THAT much space (though NY was close).

These guys were counting on filling out a roster with minimums and MLE role players, which also any team could do.  

Miami won't have a crazy cap, as far as I know.  They'll just be giving most of it to three guys.

And in basketball, that makes them contenders.

[bdm860]

Remember just a couple of seasons ago when Portland was the genius franchise, active in the draft, lots of young talent, future contender...Brandon Roy, Aldridge, solid rotation...

One injury to Roy, and the franchise is in cap hell with no escape, not a contender, nothing.

Same could happen to OKC.

To anyone.

But that's a far cry from being the F'ing Clippers or GSW!

Teams, even small market, can be managed well and contend.  It's just hard to do (winning is like that), and there's a smaller margin of error to remain profitable.

Some would argue though that investing in Brandon Roy was a mistake.  Knee problems since college, so was him going down with a major knee problem that much of a shocker?

Some injuries are freak that can't be predicted, Blake Griffin and Shaun Livingston come to mind.  Some injuries are more likely to occur: Yao Ming and Grant Hill throughout their careers, Greg Oden going forward.

Portland's GM was Kevin Pritchard (who I actually think is pretty good) signed Roy to a max deal, something most GM's probably would do.  But I do think a few GM's, would have been worried about possible knee issues, and traded Roy at his highest value (maybe like how Danny did with Perk?).  I remember at least one poster made reference a while back to Danny staying away from guys with potential long term knee problems (like not drafting Roy, trading away Perk - although some countered Danny never had a chance at Roy).

Same thing with Gilbert Arenas, Gilbert Arenas had major knee problems BEFORE he got his huge contract.  The fact that he has had serious knee problems since is not that much of a shocker.  Injuries derailing max contract guys like Brandon Roy or Gilbert Arenas aren't unpredictable freak accidents that doom a team.  They are things that should have been taken into consideration before signing them.  Maybe Billy Hunter was on to something he said a lot of GM's don't have the intellectual capital to run successful teams.

[Moranis]

OKC isn't a blueprint for success in anyway shape or form. Their entire success is built on getting multiple top 3 picks and hitting on players who have stayed healthy.

That's a task that plenty of teams have failed.

Because their high draft picks blow out a knee in many cases. Or because the best player in the draft doesn't end up being a star in the NBA.

That's luck and randomness more than a plan.

No that is a plan.  That is how pretty much every team except the Lakers has built their title winning teams (and even the Lakers have drafted well).  The reality is Oklahoma City has done an excellent job, consistently drafting good players.  Sure they got #2 and got Durant, but the rest of their selections (since that draft) were far from givens and have all panned out well (though they certainly could have had better players).

Teams like Minnesota end up drafting players like Rubio and Flynn at 5 and 6 rather then Steph Curry and Brandon Jennings.  They take Wesley Johnson instead of Demarcus Cousins (who by the way seems to be on his way to stardom and who was around at #2 last year).  It is reasons like that that they linger in crapdom for ever.

[Chris]

OKC isn't a blueprint for success in anyway shape or form. Their entire success is built on getting multiple top 3 picks and hitting on players who have stayed healthy.

That's a task that plenty of teams have failed.

Because their high draft picks blow out a knee in many cases. Or because the best player in the draft doesn't end up being a star in the NBA.

That's luck and randomness more than a plan.

No that is a plan.  That is how pretty much every team except the Lakers has built their title winning teams (and even the Lakers have drafted well).  The reality is Oklahoma City has done an excellent job, consistently drafting good players.  Sure they got #2 and got Durant, but the rest of their selections (since that draft) were far from givens and have all panned out well (though they certainly could have had better players).

Teams like Minnesota end up drafting players like Rubio and Flynn at 5 and 6 rather then Steph Curry and Brandon Jennings.  They take Wesley Johnson instead of Demarcus Cousins (who by the way seems to be on his way to stardom and who was around at #2 last year).  It is reasons like that that they linger in crapdom for ever.

Agree completely.  You need a lot of luck, and good decision-making to be a contending team, no matter what market you are in.  The difference is, in the current system, teams who can afford to pay more can make up for mistakes a little easier than small market teams, and therefore have a greater chance to turn things around.

Anyways, a little off topic, but one thing I would love to see killed in the new CBA is the sending of cash in trades for draft picks.  If you want to look at something small, but still significant, that upsets the competitive balance, look at the ability of certain teams to purchase draft picks for a couple million dollars. 

[Moranis]

OKC isn't a blueprint for success in anyway shape or form. Their entire success is built on getting multiple top 3 picks and hitting on players who have stayed healthy.

That's a task that plenty of teams have failed.

Because their high draft picks blow out a knee in many cases. Or because the best player in the draft doesn't end up being a star in the NBA.

That's luck and randomness more than a plan.

No that is a plan.  That is how pretty much every team except the Lakers has built their title winning teams (and even the Lakers have drafted well).  The reality is Oklahoma City has done an excellent job, consistently drafting good players.  Sure they got #2 and got Durant, but the rest of their selections (since that draft) were far from givens and have all panned out well (though they certainly could have had better players).

Teams like Minnesota end up drafting players like Rubio and Flynn at 5 and 6 rather then Steph Curry and Brandon Jennings.  They take Wesley Johnson instead of Demarcus Cousins (who by the way seems to be on his way to stardom and who was around at #2 last year).  It is reasons like that that they linger in crapdom for ever.

Agree completely.  You need a lot of luck, and good decision-making to be a contending team, no matter what market you are in.  The difference is, in the current system, teams who can afford to pay more can make up for mistakes a little easier than small market teams, and therefore have a greater chance to turn things around.

That is baseball, which as I posted on the front page is pretty much the most diverse sport when it comes to teams in the finals out of the four major sports. 

[Roy H.]

The NBA says Mark Cuban proposed a new salary cap exception, not the elimination of the salary cap, during a meeting between owners and players last week.

In a podcast with ESPN.com, players’ association executive director Billy Hunter said Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks’ owner, proposed what he called a “game changer,” which would replace the salary cap with a heavy tax for teams that spent to a certain level. Hunter said the players were interested in discussing the idea, but then were told by the owners they wouldn’t pursue it.

However, NBA spokesman Mike Bass says Tuesday that it was the union, not Cuban, who proposed the elimination of the cap, an idea he says “was even worse for the NBA than the union’s prior proposals.”

Link.

It seems odd that Hunter would say this and have it not be true.

[Moranis]

The NBA says Mark Cuban proposed a new salary cap exception, not the elimination of the salary cap, during a meeting between owners and players last week.

In a podcast with ESPN.com, players’ association executive director Billy Hunter said Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks’ owner, proposed what he called a “game changer,” which would replace the salary cap with a heavy tax for teams that spent to a certain level. Hunter said the players were interested in discussing the idea, but then were told by the owners they wouldn’t pursue it.

However, NBA spokesman Mike Bass says Tuesday that it was the union, not Cuban, who proposed the elimination of the cap, an idea he says “was even worse for the NBA than the union’s prior proposals.”

Link.

It seems odd that Hunter would say this and have it not be true.

Isn't a heavy luxury tax essentially the same thing as a salary cap exception?