Who knows, maybe we’ll see a major change in philosophy where the top players accept far less money to keep a contending team together. It’s one thing when an aging player does it, like Tim Duncan, it’s completely different when players in their prime do it. And I’d imagine that all the small market teams would be more than just up in arms if Miami is able to pull it off. If players will give up tens of millions in salary to stay in the big markets, there’s nothing the NBA can do to stop them.

Most people knew it would be very tough for Miami to keep their big 3 together for more than a few years due to the salaries. These guys are going to be getting a big raise next year or the year after. Chances of them staying together are almost impossible. It’s funny to watch some people talk about them as if they will be together for as long as the Spurs nucleus. Not unless they choose to stay there and get paid far less than they’re worth elsewhere.

Scouts and GM positions will become a lot more important in the coming years – and have been extremely important for the smaller market teams for some time now. Hell, look at the money ball story in baseball. There’s never going to be a perfect situation with the big and small market teams. I think this new luxury tax and repeaters tax will help a great deal though. The big market teams won’t want to be paying that much money out in taxes.

Both those teams got incredibly lucky with draft picks that netted them 2 of the best players of all time (I don’t doubt Durant will be that when he retires). Without those picks, neither team smells the 3rd round of the playoffs. And while I admit SA did some great work with drafting Parker and Ginobili, let’s be honest: How many times can you pull off those kinds of picks? SA certainly hasn’t done it since 2002. And no one else in the NBA has drafted a legitimate star outside of the lottery since. So basically, SA has relied on those 3 players for a decade. It’s not like the supposed best management in the NBA is drafting stars in the 2nd round every year, which is what some of the posters on this blog are implying.
The funny thing is, if OKC had gotten the 1rst pick instead of the 2nd 6 years ago, they would also not be anywhere near where they are now. They got lucky; most teams don’t.

The only team I’m actually impressed with is the Memphis Grizzlies. They really built that team from the ground up (i.e. didn’t rely on drafting a mega-superstar) into a possible contender. Possible.

There is very little competitive balance in the NBA. It is practically impossible for any fringe team to build a real competitor, unless they can draft 2 superstars. What are the chances of that?

San Antonio is actually a good example. It’s not a “desirable” market like L.A., New York, Miami, etc., but they have thrived for years because they have an elite basketball operations staff. It goes beyond drafting Duncan (which was, indeed, a no-brainer), and becomes more impressive with grabbing Parker at 28 and Ginobli 57th (57!!!!). Additionally, the Spurs model has thrived under Presti in O.K.C., and I suspect will do so under Demps in New Orleans in due time (neither of which enjoy substantial market advantages). They draft well and they do an outstanding job of developing players. Do they have to analyze cap structure with a more critical eye? Probably. But the logistics remain the same: The really good players make a lot of money.

I know it’s not popular, but if a franchise is located in an area that renders it unable to keep up with the costs of fielding an elite team, then they need to find better ways to generate revenue or find a market that can sustain them.

I actually agree with you. The Indiana Pacers are well run, they really don’t have a legit shot, and that is a shame.

But it isn’t simply an NBA problem- in most professional sports, the leap from good to great is far more difficult than from awful to competitive. If you don’t emerge from your “bad years” with at least one superstar in the NBA, it isn’t going to work. Even taking my Miami Heat, if Wade isn’t in place and a believer, they don’t land LeBron or Bosh. Even the Knicks had to hand Stat a max deal and give up everything else they had to land Melo.

The unfortunate reality for a team like the Pacers is that they would be better off blowing up the whole thing, getting whatever picks and young/low-cost players they can get with their assets, and hope that the lottery results of 2-3 years of stinking up the joint bears fruit.

I don’t like that reality either, but that’s how it works. I think the bigger problem is not enough superstar talent for too many teams. Even if said talent is distributed more evenly , you will just end up with a somewhat larger pool of teams that can contend each year. Fully half the league will still definitively be “have-nots”. I don’t know how compelling a brand of basketball that will be, and teams like Indiana will still be better off tanking and and hoping for lottery magic. Look at the drop off from last year’s all star starters to the resrves. That slope is steep, and simply spreading out those 10 or so superstars among more teams does little to help most teams chances.

Griz deserve a lot of respect. They did it the hard way. Traded their all-star to rebuild. Marc Gasol was a throw in the deal. Randolph was a risk that worked out. Conley and Gay were good draft picks.

There are many teams that can make great draft selections and sign underrated players but it doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things. This still doesnt change the fact that there are 3 small market teams that have even the slightest chance of winning a championship and 2 of them have drafted superstars.

I understand perfectly well. In fact, what you state about “small market teams having to overpay FAs” is precisely why well run “small market” organizations such as OKC and SA eschew that route. I also don’t understand how my point about scouting “isn’t very accurate”, basically because superstars make those around them better. Scouting includes all players- not just “diamond in the rough” types. How did those two temas get their respective superstars? By drafting them after they scouted them! Were they lucky in some cases by having very high lottery picks? Of course, but getting those right isn’t always a slam dunk. And they drafted well in years that they weren’t at the top of the draft as well. Not only that, but the best teams find players who fit their respective systems and develop them as such. Just because role player A on San Antonio wouldn’t play as well on other teams doesn’t mean they didn’t “scout and develop”. Precisely the opposite in fact! A front office’s job is to use the resources at hand- money, market, draft, trade, and FA- to build a winner. Finding players they can afford, who fit with team culture and indentity, is the priority of any well-run organization. That often means identifying players whose value on your team is greater than it would be on other teams.

All else is folly, and just so many excuses.

Then you have to consider the consequence of paying these guys. If a player doesnt work out for the Lakers or Heat, it isnt as big a deal as the Bucks overpaying a player. For one reason they can still find other ways to get someone new. Sometimes players sign for less just to play for them. Bigger teams are also willing to go over the cap because they can afford to. For a team like the Bucks, they cant afford to go over the cap and they dont get the chance to sign valuable players below market price. For example, Ray Allen could easily get more than 3 mil from most teams.

Then the other point about scouting isnt very accurate. Superstar make the players around them better. Spurs and Thunder do a good job recruiting but if those same players played for another team will they actually be just as good? The answer is no.

I’d like to know your evidence for this- perhaps you could cite a year or an era in the NBA when this was the case.

I’d also like to hear more specific thoughts on “the game and how it should be played.”

PLEASE, I need to know these things!!!

It’s true that at the start of any given season more NBA teams are effectively out of it than in the NFL. But reality is so many NBA teams grossly mismanage free agency, often in a desperate attempt to make up for their poor drafting or lack of player development. Conversely, the Knicks and Clippers have all had long stretches of mediocrity in spite of having such apparently overwhelming advantages.

Also, it’s no surprise that a fan whose NBA team is the Bucks and NFL team is the Packers would have a more favorable view of the NFL’s current state of affairs. As a die hard Dolphins and Heat fan, I’d be facetious to say that the NBA doesn’t seem just a tad more compelling to me these days.