It's more about the structure of the league than the Celtics

[CelticPride2016]

Danny is a visionary, but as a human being, he makes mistakes just like anyone else. There is an adage about putting on pants one leg at a time.

He went all in with the Brooklyn trade and got lucky. Like a professional poker player, he took the best odds he could for a rebuild with no guarantee of success. The card player can do everything right and still get ripped off because luck is part of the game. Skill cannot overcome chance in many aspects of life.

Jae Crowder said, "It never ends."

This is true. There is something fundamentally broken with how basketball operates. Why do good to great players always have to receive the maximum or expect it? What ever happened to management and players working out the best deal for both sides?

Look at Portland. How can anyone justify giving Evan Turner $17 million per year?

Look at Al Horford. Did he really need to be paid that much money? It's the same topic year after year. Before Bradley made several leaps, there were complaints about handing him out $8 million back when the cap was a lot lower. That one worked out well. The Crowder contract was also visionary.

A few weeks ago, I checked out some of the team budgets and many teams are already over $100 million and some people might be surprised how much is being dished out.

Cleveland is up to $128 million.

That might be okay considering they won the title. I am not an accountant and CBA expert.

But then I look at the next two and wonder how the Clippers at $116 million and especially Portland at $112 million can be in healthy positions.

And it gets even crazier if you continue down the list.

Dallas and Memphis are at $110 million...

Detroit $108 million.

San Antonio and Toronto are both around $107 million, but as top teams, they don't seem crazy like Portland, Detroit, Dallas and Memphis.

We are down the list at #22. And everyone knows Danny has it set up for flexibility.

Let's face it. There is a negative to having too many good players at the wrong time. The game is about team, not divas, at least it should be, and that's why most people complain about the refs. Oh, the league has apologized for ripping off Marcus Smart against Portland? Are they going to replay the game or give us the win? I didn't think so.

How many phantom calls can they give Kelly Olynyk? Maybe that is a needed stat. But we know how the NBA operates. There is nothing to see here, move along!

The new CBA was a good opportunity for the NBA to have a fresh start and move beyond the possibility of future lockouts and lost games over money.

The structure of the league ends up tying Danny's hands. He couldn't bring Posey back in 2009. In hindsight that was okay, as Posey's game seemed to fall apart soon after. But you'd like to be able to bring back a title team.

I hope Evan Turner is happy with his money, or I don't really care, but would Danny have resigned him for say four years at $10 million per year? Why did Paul Pierce need $16 million per year for his last Celtics contract?

I'm not saying let's have the owners fleece the players. They cried poverty during the last stoppage and then Milwaukee sold for big money and it became obvious the owners were milking the league for their own pockets.

Is Isaiah happy in Boston? Why does he need $30 million per year?

So I am forced to take this into account when watching him. It is all well and good he can crank out offense at will for the most part, but that does not mean giving him a maximum contract is good for the team.

It becomes a catch-22. You have to keep your guys to maintain contention. But the more you have to dish out for core players, the less remains for future contracts. Then injuries happen. Players age. Then it's hello treadmill and then eventually back to tankathon.

The cheapest players are young. Quantity can be better than quality. Some quality, say Carmelo Anthony, can be counterproductive. What has he ever won?

I don't mind Horford as much because at least he is a team player and confident yet humble.

So, Danny could sell the farm for Cousins or Butler and resign maybe one of Bradley and Thomas or he could ride it out and see what develops with the top picks. We should have four top picks on the team in about a year and a half if he doesn't go for fireworks.

That seems common sense. Why bet the farm when you already own it?

Maybe in a couple years if the slow and steady strategy seems to be headed nowhere, maybe then go for fireworks?

But as it is, if one would rather have the chance for a decade of success rather than a quick window such as with Paul, Ray and KG, you avoid fireworks.

Because once you make such a move, there is no going back and you are stuck with the results. And there is no guarantee having three max players is good enough considering non-max players end up in the max money club and guys like Turner make close to 20% of a team's salary cap.

This is a very complex situation. It is a serial or soap opera. Yes Jae, it apparently never ends. There will always be doubts and speculation because that is how the league is structured.

I love most of the Celtics and see them as winners. I do think we can win with Isaiah, Avery and Al. But then I look at the numbers and they don't crunch long-term.

I conclude that I think we are better off going young with Smart and Brown as the core. You can push the chips all-in, but a guy like Cousins could tear up his knee like KG did and then we'd really be crying in our oatmeal. Three max guys will take up pretty much the whole of the salary cap base, then good luck filling in the pieces.

You can't win a championship with only three guys.

Sure, put together Horford, Cousins and Isaiah. But where will the money be left to find Perk, Rondo, House, Posey, Eddie, Leon and PJ Brown? Because the 2008 Celtics would have won nothing without the quality filler.

Most teams usually tank once and get a sweet draft pick. We have Brown and two more to go along with the improving Smart.

What would be the best way to go forward? I think it's slow and steady. Maybe Danny will get lucky and draft the next great point guard. Then Isaiah's contract runs out and he is signed by Portland or some other stupid team.

Isaiah has made leaps, but he has more to go to deserve the biggest of bucks. He is great at offense, but he still has to prove he can make teammates better at it and that we can beat top teams with him.

Unfortunately, the money part ruins the game. Isaiah at $15 million/year would leave Danny with plenty of wiggle room to create a super team including Thomas. But he won't take that. With so much poverty in the world and people hurting, sometimes I am very repulsed by all that is the NBA. But I am an addict and keep coming back.

You'd think it wouldn't be that difficult to be an NBA GM considering rosters only run 15 players. But you end up with complex, excruciating difficult decisions to make. They are not always as easy as recognizing Sully is too fat or no way in hell is Turner worth that much money.

Think of Horford. If he wasn't such a greedy guy, there wouldn't be so much pressure on him. But he had to be given the boatload of cash. Now we expect much more because he is such a drain on the team budget.

[clevelandceltic]

I had to skim this post but two things I will say. 1) Never count another man's money. 2) What you are saying is based on fandom and not reality. Would you go to your boss and say I know the market value for my job is 60k but I want to work out a deal that works best for the both of us so I will take 35 so you can hear another person to do some of the work that I dont like to do.

[droopdog7]

Frankly, the NBA is more socialist than capitalist, at least from the player perspective.  Their agreement put in place caps on teams AND players to control what money is given to players.  If that was not in place, they would be making a WHOLE LOT more than they do now.

And yeah, I want to make what I am worth.  Everyone does and it's unfair to expect the players to behave differently.

[CelticGuardian]

Danny is a visionary, but as a human being, he makes mistakes just like anyone else. There is an adage about putting on pants one leg at a time.

He went all in with the Brooklyn trade and got lucky. Like a professional poker player, he took the best odds he could for a rebuild with no guarantee of success. The card player can do everything right and still get ripped off because luck is part of the game. Skill cannot overcome chance in many aspects of life.

Jae Crowder said, "It never ends."

This is true. There is something fundamentally broken with how basketball operates. Why do good to great players always have to receive the maximum or expect it? What ever happened to management and players working out the best deal for both sides?

Look at Portland. How can anyone justify giving Evan Turner $17 million per year?

Look at Al Horford. Did he really need to be paid that much money? It's the same topic year after year. Before Bradley made several leaps, there were complaints about handing him out $8 million back when the cap was a lot lower. That one worked out well. The Crowder contract was also visionary.

A few weeks ago, I checked out some of the team budgets and many teams are already over $100 million and some people might be surprised how much is being dished out.

Cleveland is up to $128 million.

That might be okay considering they won the title. I am not an accountant and CBA expert.

But then I look at the next two and wonder how the Clippers at $116 million and especially Portland at $112 million can be in healthy positions.

And it gets even crazier if you continue down the list.

Dallas and Memphis are at $110 million...

Detroit $108 million.

San Antonio and Toronto are both around $107 million, but as top teams, they don't seem crazy like Portland, Detroit, Dallas and Memphis.

We are down the list at #22. And everyone knows Danny has it set up for flexibility.

Let's face it. There is a negative to having too many good players at the wrong time. The game is about team, not divas, at least it should be, and that's why most people complain about the refs. Oh, the league has apologized for ripping off Marcus Smart against Portland? Are they going to replay the game or give us the win? I didn't think so.

How many phantom calls can they give Kelly Olynyk? Maybe that is a needed stat. But we know how the NBA operates. There is nothing to see here, move along!

The new CBA was a good opportunity for the NBA to have a fresh start and move beyond the possibility of future lockouts and lost games over money.

The structure of the league ends up tying Danny's hands. He couldn't bring Posey back in 2009. In hindsight that was okay, as Posey's game seemed to fall apart soon after. But you'd like to be able to bring back a title team.

I hope Evan Turner is happy with his money, or I don't really care, but would Danny have resigned him for say four years at $10 million per year? Why did Paul Pierce need $16 million per year for his last Celtics contract?

I'm not saying let's have the owners fleece the players. They cried poverty during the last stoppage and then Milwaukee sold for big money and it became obvious the owners were milking the league for their own pockets.

Is Isaiah happy in Boston? Why does he need $30 million per year?

So I am forced to take this into account when watching him. It is all well and good he can crank out offense at will for the most part, but that does not mean giving him a maximum contract is good for the team.

It becomes a catch-22. You have to keep your guys to maintain contention. But the more you have to dish out for core players, the less remains for future contracts. Then injuries happen. Players age. Then it's hello treadmill and then eventually back to tankathon.

The cheapest players are young. Quantity can be better than quality. Some quality, say Carmelo Anthony, can be counterproductive. What has he ever won?

I don't mind Horford as much because at least he is a team player and confident yet humble.

So, Danny could sell the farm for Cousins or Butler and resign maybe one of Bradley and Thomas or he could ride it out and see what develops with the top picks. We should have four top picks on the team in about a year and a half if he doesn't go for fireworks.

That seems common sense. Why bet the farm when you already own it?

Maybe in a couple years if the slow and steady strategy seems to be headed nowhere, maybe then go for fireworks?

But as it is, if one would rather have the chance for a decade of success rather than a quick window such as with Paul, Ray and KG, you avoid fireworks.

Because once you make such a move, there is no going back and you are stuck with the results. And there is no guarantee having three max players is good enough considering non-max players end up in the max money club and guys like Turner make close to 20% of a team's salary cap.

This is a very complex situation. It is a serial or soap opera. Yes Jae, it apparently never ends. There will always be doubts and speculation because that is how the league is structured.

I love most of the Celtics and see them as winners. I do think we can win with Isaiah, Avery and Al. But then I look at the numbers and they don't crunch long-term.

I conclude that I think we are better off going young with Smart and Brown as the core. You can push the chips all-in, but a guy like Cousins could tear up his knee like KG did and then we'd really be crying in our oatmeal. Three max guys will take up pretty much the whole of the salary cap base, then good luck filling in the pieces.

You can't win a championship with only three guys.

Sure, put together Horford, Cousins and Isaiah. But where will the money be left to find Perk, Rondo, House, Posey, Eddie, Leon and PJ Brown? Because the 2008 Celtics would have won nothing without the quality filler.

Most teams usually tank once and get a sweet draft pick. We have Brown and two more to go along with the improving Smart.

What would be the best way to go forward? I think it's slow and steady. Maybe Danny will get lucky and draft the next great point guard. Then Isaiah's contract runs out and he is signed by Portland or some other stupid team.

Isaiah has made leaps, but he has more to go to deserve the biggest of bucks. He is great at offense, but he still has to prove he can make teammates better at it and that we can beat top teams with him.

Unfortunately, the money part ruins the game. Isaiah at $15 million/year would leave Danny with plenty of wiggle room to create a super team including Thomas. But he won't take that. With so much poverty in the world and people hurting, sometimes I am very repulsed by all that is the NBA. But I am an addict and keep coming back.

You'd think it wouldn't be that difficult to be an NBA GM considering rosters only run 15 players. But you end up with complex, excruciating difficult decisions to make. They are not always as easy as recognizing Sully is too fat or no way in hell is Turner worth that much money.

Think of Horford. If he wasn't such a greedy guy, there wouldn't be so much pressure on him. But he had to be given the boatload of cash. Now we expect much more because he is such a drain on the team budget.

I do see the problem with overpaying a 5'9" STARTING point guard who hasn't won a playoff series, but we are short on stars (ha!) and the way he's been carrying this team during his tenure, Celtics got no choice but to "break out the Brinks trucks" for their most valuable player.

NBA is a harsh world and he has been dealt a terrible hand from the start. So I don't expect him to stop playing for himself first and put the organization ahead of his personal goals. If we are lucky and Danny is at least an average drafter, we should have IT on the bench in 2 years, overpaid, and letting a cheap young stud (Fultz) carry him into the sunset since I don't see IT being this good at age 31.

Also, if Danny Ainge is thirst enough to give 30-year-old Horford that contract is not Al's fault for not declining and asking Ainge to give him less... Ainge is at fault there.

[Chris22]

Frankly, the NBA is more socialist than capitalist, at least from the player perspective.  Their agreement put in place caps on teams AND players to control what money is given to players.  If that was not in place, they would be making a WHOLE LOT more than they do now.

And yeah, I want to make what I am worth.  Everyone does and it's unfair to expect the players to behave differently.

There is nothing socialist about the NBA.

[CelticPride2016]

The socialism aspect is interesting. In a sense that is true. The players seem to receive close to half of the revenue. Perhaps the NCAA is akin to indentured servitude.

Two or three max contracts would gobble up a lot of the budget. 

For the 2016–17 season, the salary cap will be set at $94.14 million and the luxury tax limit will be $113.29 million.

Al rises up to $30 million.

It's Horford's fault. He is not inspiring confidence of late. I see Isaiah as worth $20 million per year. I need at least one more leap out of him becoming more of a team player on offense. Picture a Rondo who could shoot. We are good, but we are still not where we could be for team offense. That ties in directly with Isaiah, and unfortunately, with his contract running out. But he has time. His contract's not up this year.

The inequality is to be found within rosters.

Jae Crowder takes up 7% of the salary cap. Al Horford for this year is 28%!

It'd be nice to pick at Ainge's brain and see how he feels. He tends to be lucky, so Jaylen Brown will probably bust out soon, and then focus will shift towards him and the second of three Brooklyn picks.

This could take a while.

[GRADYCOLNON]

I, like many NBA fans, am addicted to the sport, the thrills, and particularly the Celtics.  I grew up a Celtics fan and will likely be for many years to come.  And that is as far as I will take it.  I despise everything else about the sport.  The NBA head offices, the Player's Association, the Referee's Association, and the Media, they all ruin the integrity of competition for the sake of money.  Their greed cheapens the product, and the fans are the ones that lose out.  Look, to create such a large commercial product, it requires these nasty motivations.  And I get that it's the reality.
The implementation of the salary cap has undoubtedly started a never ending cyclical cesspool of greed. A back and forth compromising negotiations are creating more demanding regulations.  Regulations that penalize teams ability to compete, so it truly penalizes the fans. How can that be a solution? My solution amends where the players get their money.  This simple change definitely alters the league.
The current system pays the players from the respective franchise's pockets. It drives this league's emphasis on superstars. Because each team is vying for the right to employ players.  And with such a small pool of talent, it creates what many economic majors recognize as the superstar effect. The effect of overpaying for the slightest increases in ability. By removing the financial incentives to acquire talent for franchises and getting paid directly from the league revenue instead of the individual franchise, all the issues of free agency and retaining a player's services would dissolve. Teams and players wouldn't have unnecessary break-ups that leave fans the biggest losers. Although this system takes away the ludicrous money awarded to players at the top echelon, it means fairer compensation across the league and better competition in games as teams will be built under the correct values of sports.
Now, this isn't a perfect system for everyone, like certain players that create vast fortunes for being extremely gifted will no longer be paid so handsomely and the average lengths of NBA careers might be shortened (though it's still more money than most fans can imagine).  But it is inherently better for fans and the game of basketball. It takes away my anxiety that we will lose Isaiah Thomas because he wants a Brinks Truck or that we overpaid Al Horford (so we have a harder time acquiring talent) or that we have to worry the new CBA will prevent us from being able to compete for players.  It gives me the peace of mind that watching a team striving for perfection on the court is not tainted by greed.

[trickybilly]

I, like many NBA fans, am addicted to the sport, the thrills, and particularly the Celtics.  I grew up a Celtics fan and will likely be for many years to come.  And that is as far as I will take it.  I despise everything else about the sport.  The NBA head offices, the Player's Association, the Referee's Association, and the Media, they all ruin the integrity of competition for the sake of money.  Their greed cheapens the product, and the fans are the ones that lose out.  Look, to create such a large commercial product, it requires these nasty motivations.  And I get that it's the reality.
The implementation of the salary cap has undoubtedly started a never ending cyclical cesspool of greed. A back and forth compromising negotiations are creating more demanding regulations.  Regulations that penalize teams ability to compete, so it truly penalizes the fans. How can that be a solution? My solution amends where the players get their money.  This simple change definitely alters the league.
The current system pays the players from the respective franchise's pockets. It drives this league's emphasis on superstars. Because each team is vying for the right to employ players.  And with such a small pool of talent, it creates what many economic majors recognize as the superstar effect. The effect of overpaying for the slightest increases in ability. By removing the financial incentives to acquire talent for franchises and getting paid directly from the league revenue instead of the individual franchise, all the issues of free agency and retaining a player's services would dissolve. Teams and players wouldn't have unnecessary break-ups that leave fans the biggest losers. Although this system takes away the ludicrous money awarded to players at the top echelon, it means fairer compensation across the league and better competition in games as teams will be built under the correct values of sports.
Now, this isn't a perfect system for everyone, like certain players that create vast fortunes for being extremely gifted will no longer be paid so handsomely and the average lengths of NBA careers might be shortened (though it's still more money than most fans can imagine).  But it is inherently better for fans and the game of basketball. It takes away my anxiety that we will lose Isaiah Thomas because he wants a Brinks Truck or that we overpaid Al Horford (so we have a harder time acquiring talent) or that we have to worry the new CBA will prevent us from being able to compete for players.  It gives me the peace of mind that watching a team striving for perfection on the court is not tainted by greed.

Yeah, I'm not that bummed missing a game or two. Much more annoyed if saltlover fails to answer a query about Bird Rights.

Also, I assume you are talking about Miami when you talk about "unnecessary breakups", but that was actually a situation where everyone (Wade) took a paycut, or maybe the Harden situation. Curious what other examples you have of players leaving for superstar money because their team didn't want to pay them max money or fit them under the cap (which  is why the NBA allows teams to go over the cap).

[CelticPride2016]

Thanks, GRADYCOLNON. That is exactly what I've been trying to say. There is no way around the money and officiating problem. It's as if the NBA is structured to fail.

Evan Turner was in the perfect situation. Unfortunately, you can only have so many good players until you start losing them.

And even if say you have a great coach who can develop and bring out the best in guys like Olynyk, Smart, Jaylen Brown, it never ends, those guys will not be officiated fairly until they have been ordained a king or in the top 50 or so for players.

It really does look like a vicious cycle which defeats the purity part of it that hardcore fans enjoy the most.

The Evan Turner from last year was a player I could believe in. A good team needs guys like Turner, Crowder and Smart.

Isaiah is basically in the same boat as Evan Turner, just add $10 million.

You can only overpay so much before that's it, there's no money left.

If you get rid of the star and "rookie" calls and make the NBA refs the best refs anywhere in any league, then more of the average players can develop and make plays that win games.

Turner is worth $7 million and Isaiah about $17 million, when I look at what the salary cap actually is. But Turner makes $17 million and Isaiah is going to probably cost around $27 million.

Turner doesn't even start and Isaiah can be a liability for defense.

Say Horford signed with us for $20 million instead of close to $30 million.

Danny would have extra wiggle room to grow the roster and Horford wouldn't be hearing any complaints from bitter fans.

I have been aware of this problem for decades, but Danny got us out of Dodge City just in time and generated the hope of top draft picks.

But unfortunately, it could turn out to just be another disappointing cycle that consumes big chunks of our lives.

Celtics fans are hooked by the history, of being the New York Yankees of basketball. The 2008 title gave us a little more breathing room over the Lakers. The Brooklyn Nets have completely fallen apart. We seem to be a guaranteed top 3 seed this year unless the injuries don't stop.

Washington was in our slot until this year. Or a lot of teams were bunched up including Miami, Atlanta and the usual crowd. The 48 win crowd.

Toronto has made some separation, but the Celtics look poised to leapfrog them by this time next year, if not this year if Danny makes a move or two in the next month.

I think the officiating is the #1 problem. Get rid of all star, rookie and scrub calls, and then we might see some true parity and competition where finally the best teams win.

I don't mind one or two missed calls. It is a fast sport and perhaps the most difficult to officiate. But bad calls happen so often and seemingly based on a star system, that it seems 100% truth too often the NBA deserves the professional wrestling label.

[Csfan1984]

One thing to consider is the talent pool and the buisness part of things. There are 20 to 25 impact players in the league. Guys capable of carrying a team. These guys are worth the max especially if you factor in that there are 30 teams and the max is roughly just 30% of the cap. With teams needing to draw fans to see the team these impact players are a must to win games and draw so worth every penny. Now at 30% of the cap for a max guy every team is able to afford a big three but its less than 1 star per team if we spread out that talent pool. That is a big problem so teams have no choice but to over pay for mediocre talent  and market that talent as big impact guys or stars (enter Horford). Any team that is lucky to have a legit star is actually under paying him based on the pool and demand. IMO the super max is ten years late and may have too many limitations to fix things. The NBA should be paying the top talent more and thus less spending for mediocre players and role players as well as a better spreading of top talent. The whole reason why teams wanted to limit max contract totals was because the deals are guaranteed. Too many times teams were burnt (mostly by injuries) so they thought if they paid the top guys less then they could have more $ to add depth or another star. (And the players accpeted it because all the players would be wealthy not just the stars.) Problem for the teams is the talent isn't there and guys are free to go where they want when the $ between staying or leaving per year was too close. This lead to our current NBA setup. There are only two teams in championship contention due to them able to fit so many stars under the cap. 90% of the teams are over paying half their roster.

So with that said when it comes to the C's they had no draw/impact player till they acquired and enabled IT. AB wasn't a top 50 guy when he signed his deal it was at market while he was restricted so it was an over pay but he then became a top 50 player. Crowder was only a bench energy type player when he signed his deal despite that he got decent money for just showing that. Now Crowder is a legit starter. Those deals are very lucky. The team's good cap fortunes, the league max rules and talent pool made it an acceptable to max pay Horford. Well acceptable if you believe Horford is a top 40 player which I feel most would say. The signing  doesn't hurt the team in the short term but it may be an issue when both IT and AB are up is my only concern. This team can easily join the glut of teams that have borderline stars on big money if they go crazy with their deals in the next two off seasons.

[CelticPride2016]

Thanks. I completely agree.

The good thing is it seems Danny Ainge has taken professional leaps as a GM. I have confidence in him.

He is letting contracts run out such as Humphries, Bass, Sully, Turner and I forget who else who simply left, and I don't see any bad current contracts unless Horford lets us down.

That's an exceptional point about how good GM's need to sign guys like Bradley and Crowder the way Ainge did. Isaiah came here with the same kind of deal. But we are very close. We are one more lucky Ainge move away. Maybe it will be Zizic next year. Maybe Smart just all of a sudden starts shooting well. That could be it. Perhaps Amir will suddenly look fresh, bring back memories of his Toronto days and look like a bargain at $12 million.

I am fully engaged in green goggle rooting and hoping for the best.

If Marcus Smart was a good shooter, wouldn't that mean he'd be a superstar or at least an all-star? I see what he is doing on defense.

Maybe we need it timed so Smart doesn't burst out until after his next contract is inked. Maybe we shouldn't root too hard for Olynyk, so we can keep him at a reasonable price. This can become a very cynical process if one considers everything. It never ends.

So we have a grudge match against Washington in a few hours and then more games one after the other. Hopefully the refs don't ruin it. In the game thread, Florida Celtic always puts a section in on the refs. Tommy used to get a lot of flak for exposing their ineptitude and I think one of the Gundy's got into trouble for talking, but those guys' opinions have become the norm. And now they have the replay center.

They should give coaches the option they give in football, the challenges. I know it would slow down the game, but sometimes the call is so obviously wrong.

Olynyk will be a very interesting outcome. I think he will break the current trend and come back. But he is an incomplete. He needs to finish this year strong to instill confidence he should be a key piece. And if someone like Portland goes after him with an overpay similar to Turner's, I have no clue what Danny would do.

I like it when the team plays more often. When the season slows down like this, there is too much time to overthink the big picture.

But now there are four games in five nights to keep busy.

[GRADYCOLNON]

I, like many NBA fans, am addicted to the sport, the thrills, and particularly the Celtics.  I grew up a Celtics fan and will likely be for many years to come.  And that is as far as I will take it.  I despise everything else about the sport.  The NBA head offices, the Player's Association, the Referee's Association, and the Media, they all ruin the integrity of competition for the sake of money.  Their greed cheapens the product, and the fans are the ones that lose out.  Look, to create such a large commercial product, it requires these nasty motivations.  And I get that it's the reality.
The implementation of the salary cap has undoubtedly started a never ending cyclical cesspool of greed. A back and forth compromising negotiations are creating more demanding regulations.  Regulations that penalize teams ability to compete, so it truly penalizes the fans. How can that be a solution? My solution amends where the players get their money.  This simple change definitely alters the league.
The current system pays the players from the respective franchise's pockets. It drives this league's emphasis on superstars. Because each team is vying for the right to employ players.  And with such a small pool of talent, it creates what many economic majors recognize as the superstar effect. The effect of overpaying for the slightest increases in ability. By removing the financial incentives to acquire talent for franchises and getting paid directly from the league revenue instead of the individual franchise, all the issues of free agency and retaining a player's services would dissolve. Teams and players wouldn't have unnecessary break-ups that leave fans the biggest losers. Although this system takes away the ludicrous money awarded to players at the top echelon, it means fairer compensation across the league and better competition in games as teams will be built under the correct values of sports.
Now, this isn't a perfect system for everyone, like certain players that create vast fortunes for being extremely gifted will no longer be paid so handsomely and the average lengths of NBA careers might be shortened (though it's still more money than most fans can imagine).  But it is inherently better for fans and the game of basketball. It takes away my anxiety that we will lose Isaiah Thomas because he wants a Brinks Truck or that we overpaid Al Horford (so we have a harder time acquiring talent) or that we have to worry the new CBA will prevent us from being able to compete for players.  It gives me the peace of mind that watching a team striving for perfection on the court is not tainted by greed.

Yeah, I'm not that bummed missing a game or two. Much more annoyed if saltlover fails to answer a query about Bird Rights.

Also, I assume you are talking about Miami when you talk about "unnecessary breakups", but that was actually a situation where everyone (Wade) took a paycut, or maybe the Harden situation. Curious what other examples you have of players leaving for superstar money because their team didn't want to pay them max money or fit them under the cap (which  is why the NBA allows teams to go over the cap).

No, I was not talking directly about the break up with Wade or Harden or any particular superstar.  I was referring to situations like Posey, Allen and Turner.  But I wasn't just talking about those specific times that hurt the Celtics.  I was generalizing about how money drives players away from places that they would rather stay, and that re-signing some of those players for too much money makes it difficult to manage a contender for the future. I was suggesting that the league change how the players receive their money so each player isn't a private entity (like a contractor) for the league.