Some random thoughts/questions on the subject:I agree with the folks who feel that building a homegrown powerhouse is more acceptable than the mercenary route. I would also add that making legitimate trades is another route to success that I have no issue with. Rooting for the Knicks, or any team I like, is difficult if their best players are big FA signings.
I would have liked to see how the OKC team with Harden played out over time. In some way they were penalized because they drafted too well, although Harden probably felt he had to be the man, and wanted to get out no matter what.
How good could the Knicks have been if they had not made of those bonehead trades and signing during the 2000's and drafted wisely?
I like the NFL model, but basketball only allows 5 men on the court at one time, so one or two players can really turn a franchise around. The value of a QB might be equal to a BB superstar in some ways, but even then, you have had many successful teams with average/OK QBs who were on great teams in which they only needed to manage an offense, and not carry a team.
Two great stars with decent complimentary players can get you well into the playoffs in the NBA. That is not true in the NFL and MLB. This changes greatly the financial dynamics in the respective leagues and how you go about building teams.
The significances of any single player is also magnified if you give them a big contract and they fail to perform as anticipated. This is less of an issue in the NFL because contracts are not entirely guaranteed for the most part. NBA contracts can be killers for a team that signs a player for big $ who underperforms for one reason or another. The other issue is that NBA draftees, for the most part, don't have the kind of track records an NFL draftee has. I would up the age restrictions for players who want to come into the league, and if they are not college material they should have to go overseas or compete in the DLeague.
Would people prefer a system where NBA contracts are not completely guaranteed or included incentive bonuses?
Perhaps NBA teams should have an Amnesty system which allows them to dump a bad contract every 3 (4?5?) years if they chose to, except for the balloon contracts that are used to game the system. For instance, Houston should not be able to Amnesty Lin's contract.
Find it hard to believe that a player who has never won a championship would take $100M over 5 years to be on a team with little or no chance to win a title, instead of taking $80M over 4 years to be on a team that can compete for a championship, unless he was drafted by the team offering more and felt loyalty toward them. People talk about the $20M you would not be getting, without looking at the $80M you are getting.
I understand that the players union would not accept a decrease in guaranteed $$ and an expanded amnesty provision. Not sure how they feel about increasing the age you can enter into the draft.
