Does the NBA Care Too Much About Parity? | The Bill Simmons Podcast
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лип 2024
- The Ringer’s Bill Simmons and Ryen Russillo discuss whether or not the NBA cares too much about parity.
For more from The Ringer:
Shop: theringer.com/shop
Website: theringer.com
Twitter: / ringer
Facebook: / ringer
Instagram: / ringer - Спорт
I appreciate Russillo for not buying a single thing Bill was trying to sell.
Agreed. Is Simmons arguing against free agency, which players fought for, in court, across 3 sports, for 25 years? Sounds like it.
@@cecilboyd1692 Bill was Speaking from a slanted Bias view once again and Russillo was like " Dude What Are You Talking about"
@@MrBimirud dude literally just wants the NBA to be the bird magic NBA forever.
Bill wanted to split up LeTatum and Brown
@@Gidd3yUp Wow! So he is just another Fool with a Podcast Platform with no facts
*Celtics start winning due to packed roster*
Bill: Does NBA care too much about parity
They won nothing with just their homegrown players. They needed Porzingis, White and Jrue to finally win a title. All 3 were acquired via trade so his whole point is BS.
@@dis6900new rules with 2nd apron restrictions start this upcoming year. All those guys on the team besides Tatum and brown will be shipped out. Every team can only have 2 max players now going forward since a max contract is like 50/60 million for each player. 2 players equals roughly 100 -120 million. Leaving only 50 to 70 million for rest of roster.
Why can't Celtics win the next 10 years? Bill Simmons be like
@@dis6900 If Porzingis could stay healthy, you might be able to keep all three of those players, trade brown & still be a contender under the 2nd apron.
@dis6900 all of those moves were trades, so I don't believe that defeats Bill's point
Bill is acting like he's worried about Tatum/Brown being split, but actually, he's crying about not being able to keep the starting 5
Exactly my thoughts. He didn’t care about any of the other previous champions keeping their teams together.
Bingo
THIS
The fact that he says "it wasn't a Celtics discussion" 20 seconds after saying "do you think Jalen Brown is gonna be on the Celtics in 4 years" is absolutely hilarious. It's clearly a Celtics discussion for Bill and that's why he uses them as an example. Bill's thoughts are extremely transparent and his worries are for his team, not the league.
Bill crying, again.
Ryen being here to call out Bill’s hypocrisy is great
Welcome to the life of a fan of a small market team.
Amen!
It's sad the owners also don't want to pony up the money . Alot of the small market teams choose not to pay guys . It's baffling. But in America some people don't buy sports teams to win anything except their bank account . If I was a small market fan and the team I liked refused to retain talent I would hope the fan base would boycott it. The reason they do it is because they still make money so who cares
Spend to the luxury tax. Exactly zero NBA teams are incapable of that. Market size is completely irrelevant. Cry more.
@@j2398 They choose not to pay guys because their revenue is less. That's like saying A24 chooses not to make blockbuster films.
Market size is not irrelevant. Make a list of all the free agents that WENT to Indiana then tell me your conclusion.
"its depressing" Bro has 100 championships between the Celtics, Redsox, Bruins and patriots. Im still living off that cool second round matchup between the knicks and pacers.
Bill cares about Bill.
The celtics won 0 rings between 1987 and 2007 and 2009 to 2023....the pats won 0 rings from 1960 to 2001...the bruins went 28 and then another 39 years between titles...have won 1 since 1973....the red sox went 86 years before winning a title...86+ 41+21+39 is 187 years of losing....
@@razkable aww. I triggered a Boston fan. The Knicks have won 0 since 1973. They have two since Moses parted the red sea up until 1973. The Mets have 0 since 1986. They have 2 since since 1969. I'm not a hockey fan but the rangers and sabres have a combined 1 championship since 1994. Before that it was decades. Jets 0 since 1969. You don't get to win everything. Noone feels sorry for you for having droughts. It's easy to go through droughts In one when you have others to fall back on. For example Boston had the Celtics in the sixties. Then Bruins in 70s won. Then Celtics again in the 80s. Drought in 90s. Patriots for 100 years in 2000s. Red Sox start winning in 2000s. Few years of drought now Celtics are winning again. They have two since then. It's easy to manufacturer what you said. Especially if you're counting the red Sox for 100 years. We have 51 years Knicks 38 years Mets. 30 years rangers 55 years jets. That's 174 years of drought. And that's not even cheating by using 100 years before you were even born like you did for the red Sox. That's going on right now. Boston is spoiled. Not to mention you've seen dynasties in 3 of the big 4 sports. Multiple times. The 60s Celtics. The 80s Celtics to a degree. The Patriots in 2000s. The red Sox to a degree in 2000s. You poor thing. How do you manage only have a few championships every decade?
@@razkablemy warriors had a 40 year drought. We were bad before we won in 2015. Bill is reverting back to Page 2 Bill Simmons. Insane boston homerism.
@@razkableRaptors won ONE championship, Maple Leafs haven't won since 1967 and the Blue Jays have a back to back from over 30 years ago..yea cry me a river 😢
Bill is so full of it. It's nice when Ryen calls him out, when he was clearly talking about the Cetlics.
He thinks his takes matter more right now cause the Celtics won the chip. So he is putting out more content the last few days. 🤣🤣😂
8z8
He specifically names the Celtics players as an example then claims that the conversation isn't about the Celtics. It's so ridiculous that he tries to pretend that's not what he's talking about. He couldn't be more transparent.
I always take what Bill says with a grain of salt because of his blatant fanboyism of his hometown teams.
Old fool he’s become 😂
Bill mentions a couple times "This is the league we've stumbled into." I feel like he's forgetting the league we stumbled out of had the same two teams in the finals four years in a row. Which was way less fun to watch imo.
Bill is biased so it’s hard to take his word for anything. If the Celtics were middle of pack and couldn’t get FAs, he’d be saying how the league needs to ensure other teams get a chance at players. Now Boston is the juggernaut with 5 guys on 9 figure deals and now it “isn’t fair” cause they can’t edit the team cause they are deadlocked in the 2nd apron
Lol the last 2 NBA finals have been trash and even the viewing numbers show that, the numbers are down like 30% from the Cleveland vs Golden State era
@@insomatic420Exactly, the league likes dynasties.
On top of that it’s going to affect future players legacies. How will they stack up to the Lebrons and Kobes of the past if the best players of the next generation can’t break 2 titles due to the NBA’s obsession with parity.
The NBA did not "stumble" on to the new CBA. It wanted parity.
@@kevinc8955gonna require sacrifice lebron took pay cuts for two chips in Miami Duncan took paycuts Kobe gave some back. Mahomes don’t take it all. This dudes are taking the bag and I don’t blame them.
Jrue, Porzingus and White fell in their fucking laps for roll players and Bill acts this team is homegrown and he personally drafted those guys in the 20s.
Bill is arguing something that rarely ever happened in the NBA anyway. Reggie, Stockton, etc guys like that stayed. But majority of guys move at the end or retired early. Klay has already played more than Bird and Magic. Like Dirk and Kobe are the outliers. More guys have moved more often in the history of the game then not. That's up to the organizations. Look at the spurs it took guys taking pay cuts, the coach the structure. Like thats not happening at any point in the game. This has always been the league.
Kobe is only an outlier because he was actively incentivized by the Lakers. Everyone wants to talk about his loyalty, but no one mentions the fact that he was OPEN about wanting to be traded at various points of his career, unless he got certain things. Shit, in that interview he did with Shaq, he outright said he was ready to go to Chicago at the end of their tenure together, until the Lakers pulled the trigger on the Shaq trade and were willing to make Kobe the central piece.
@@thedefinitionisthis He still stayed. His beef was mostly w Shaq. Completely blind loyalty would be stupid.
@@josereyes1148 no cause Kobe went on national radio and demanded a trade lol. Everyone talks about loyalty but he wanted out. He was looking at homes in Chicago and Detroit lol he was ready to go.
@@ddalwy110 Yea because of his beef w shaq. Stars these days like KD have bounced on 3 teams. I don't count it against Kobe because he was mad for an off-season. He ended up staying. He didn't leave. Jerry West ended up talking to him and telling him it was a mistake.
@@josereyes1148 no cause that was done after Shaq left. That 3 year stretch after Shaq left he alienated his teammates and took the shots.
He is mythologizing a past that never existed. Most players play for more than one team. NBA careers are long and having a competitive team for 15 years is unsustainable. Also we look at everything with nostalgia but 95% of games from 2016-2019 had no stakes really
holy shit I stopped watching after KD joined the Warriors. I know the casual fan is different than me, but you gotta know that team was terrible in almost every possible angle besides the great basketball they played.
Well free agency wasn't even truly free until the 80s so that past very much existed for decades
Cousy 13 years all in Boston
Russell 13 years all in Boston
Havlicek 16 years all in Boston
Cowens 10.5 years 10 in Boston
Bird 13 years all in Boston
McHale 13 years all in Boston
Parish 14 years in Boston
Pierce first 15 years in Boston
Magic all 12.5 in LA
Kareem last 14 in LA
Worthy all 12 in LA
Isiah all 13 in Detroit
Dumars all 14 in Detroit
Duncan all 19 years in SA
Dirk all 20 years in Dallas
Kobe all 20 years in LA
If you're young it might seem like it never existed but before LeBron, stars just didn't move around that much and you would spend a decade with the same core guys
@@augustosarmentodeoliveira3023 what are you on about
And yet. That was when the viewership numbers where the best. By a long shot.
Turns out casual fans loves dynasties.
Mythologizing is a stretch. They began switching teams when FOs stopped prioritizing winning. Go look at post 2010-2011 lockout. Once players held owners to the fire for using Franchises as laundry mats for cash. That’s when the switch happened.
Bill is super mad this celtics team won't be able to stay together after next season
They're going to stay together until Al retires and then Jrue anyway
They will age out before it's an issue. They will only be a second apron team this year and next.
@@michaelahurtjrue looks like he can go for another 5 atleast so unless they trade him idk
@@michaelahurt oh so they won't start losing good players the same way Denver did? OK lol
@@Jovaughnbey123 So did CP. By the end of this deal Jrue will be going into his age 38 season. He will not be a $37m player by then
But my point is by the time Jrue's deal is over, the window is over. They don't have to ever deal with losing guys one by one because of the salary cap like most title teams.
It's honestly flawless team building.
(And a lot of luck that all the contracts came up right before a new TV deal.)
@@cptsketch13 Basically yes
Like Denver, Milwaukee, GS, 2011 Dallas, 2008 Boston, 2004 Detroit. Even going back MJ's Bulls
“Idk if we can keep this core together!”
…
Tatum and Brown are literally inked right now for 11 and 12 straight seasons as Celtics.
Yeah but that was before this new CBA was signed. That isn’t going to be the case anymore with the new CBA.
@@reptilelicks9796 no. They will be able to keep both through the rest of their careers if they want. He says himself that a core is a two-some or three-some, and Tatum and Brown won’t be forced to separate if them and the celtics don’t want that to happen.
@@Colinkrauss1 No because they had Hayward and Kemba on massive contracts in 2020. They would have already had to make a decision on Brown or Tatum knowing they can’t pay them all if this CBA existed in 2020.
@@reptilelicks9796 why would we apply rules that didn’t exist to decisions of 4 years ago? Obviously all decision making would have been different.
@@Colinkrauss1 Because I’m telling you that the Celtics would have already lost 1 of their stars if this CBA existed 4 years ago…. That’s the whole point of my initial comment lol
This is far from perfect and the NBA might have gone too far with restrictions, but at the same time the current parity is better than watching the Golden State Warriors with 4 all stars in their primes beating teams by 40 at half time every single night.
Right. We watched but also complained the regular season was meaningless. Back then there were 3-4 teams tops to contend. Now there are 6-8 teams that can make a run.
Those were the days. I just wish we occasionally got to see steph and klay play all four quarters and win by 60😂
We all know the only reason for him to say that is that it affects the Celtics chances to stay on top.
Literally the ONLY reason, he can argue against it all he wants 😂
During the Warrios dynasty they complained all season about how who will be in the finals ws a foregone conclusion.
'Bad for the league!' they shouted.
Now we have the opposite - 'bad for the league!'
How dare teams have to consider who they're going to pay instead of just throwing money at everyone for as long as they want 🤦
"old man angry that super teams may not be able to have 4 all stars anymore."
Ever think maybe they shouldn't? Every team having two stars is perfection. I don't want to see the same superteams every year
If they're homegrown they absolutely should have 4 all stars. You shouldn't be punished just for being good at one of the main parts of your job.
@@AceManning18 it's not getting punished, it's players earning their big payday. Hard caps are great. I don't want to see teams being able to afford everyone. Go to Detroit, get that bag. Go to Charlotte, get that bag. I'm over Lakers and Celtics dynasties
That’s not his point though?
The cap rules are counterintuitive. Yes you are able to retain your homegrown talent by going through the luxury tax/aprons but you have to pay such an enormous tax number and face other penalties that it makes it not worth it. I see where Simmons is coming from here.
He's mad because its going to breakup the celtics after this year. He definitely thinks Boston should get a salary cap / luxury tax break for Tatum and Browns contracts, and even if they manage to keep the starting 5 together the bench will be decimated. The NBA is becoming Hockey where anybody can win a series against anybody.
I think the player movement era has been great for the league but I agree with Bill in that you should be rewarded for making good decisions, specifically in the draft
It would really boost the value of draft picks and simultaneously make it easier to trade disgruntled stars because the picks will be worth so much more if you can get cap credits for signing your own guys
I Laugh because Super Teams are Gone forever. Poor Teams can be Champions and that’s very good
these things are cyclical, it'll be reversed in a decade or so once people start getting bored again
@@brock985which is how an entertainment product should evolve
But that’s not true. How is OKC, a “poor team”, ever going to win? They won’t be able to afford all of the guys they drafted and will have to blow it all up probably before they ever get a chance to win anything
Sports dynasties are not bad, they’re actually good for driving interest of the game. The Jordan bulls, Showtime lakers, Kobe/Shaq lakers, KD warriors etc. NBA will loosen up these rules on signings and trades once the viewership starts tanking. It’s already been decreasing YoY. Parity isn’t as good for the league as people think. The intrigue isn’t there for the casual fan.
They could arguably win in 2026 lol.
I don't even think it's about affording those guys, it's the fact that long-long term people don't want to stay in a place like OKC, shit even a Cleveland, if they can't win every year. Getting free agents is hard due to destination more than affordability imo. The only players that don't care too much are foreign born and mid tier guys. Shai is most definitely leaving for Toronto at some point, imo.
The weird thing about the new CBA is the players association chose to structure it such that is stills benefits the elite players, but really helps the minimum players (via raising the salary floor) … but kinda screws all the mid-level players … which accounts for the bulk of players.
Here's to a future where otto porter doesnt get a max contract.
These guys aren't exactly road scholars, lol.
Simmons point is that it is too expensive for teams to stay together now in the NBA because so much money goes to one/two/three players even when they were drafted by that team. Steph, Tatum, Jokic, Ant and Kat but to keep a team together you have to pay the max or supermax to keep them and that makes each apron more impactful because the prices are going up each year. If you get lucky like Steph or Shai and get a first extension cheap - you are going to spend the remainder on the other 2/3 players to max your roster out
But if you look at the winner. The drafted star is the way to go.
Cba should have reduced the amount of max players to 1 drafted and 1 free agent max.. then tier down everything after that greatly... you have too many 3rd, 4th, 5th guys making too much money and that's why teams don't stay together..
@@janssonsamuel8005 100% you definitely draft of franchise player every single time but his argument is those shouldn't count as much against the cap as free agent signings or as much against the cap as free agent signings or traded signings as much against the cap as free agent signings or sign and trades
Nice
@@joshuafruth6420 That's because they decided quite a while ago that that they prefer the 51% over everyone receiving their market value so the outcome is Max's and super maxes even though players who received them shouldn't and people like Jokic are actually probably underpaid
So you want a new version of the Larry Bird exception where a player re-signing with the team who drafted him gets partial relief from the luxury tax.
Sounds sensical to me
I don't think Bill even realizes that he's basically talking about how he wants the Boston Celtics to be left alone so they can have a nice long run. This is like the third time that I've caught him doing that. That poor team that is spending more than any other team in the NBA, won't be able to keep all of their stars locked in because of the way the league puts in a salary cap. It will become too expensive to keep all the guys in Boston and Bill hates that.
World's smallest violin.😊
For real 😂 Sorry you’ll have to move off of 36 year old Jrue’s 30AAV contract in a couple years or have to hit on some late picks to fill a rotation spot
Teams that draft well and make great trades should be rewarded for doing so. Not teams like Miami or Golden State that have the best players in the league just fall into their laps.
@@jesselatham7610 they are so lucky they just stumbled into drafting tatum and brown; its going to be fun seeing this team absolutely collapse over the next few years.
Is impossible to develop cheap young talent while winning championships? Couldn't you have someone younger and cheaper ready to go when the starters get old and expensive?
It's not possible that Bill doesn't know he's talking about the Celtics. He knows. He mentions them by name. He just wants to pretend that's not the reason he's saying these things.
San Antonio had Tim, Tony, and Manu for a decade plus because Manu and Duncan took less to keep the core together. This is the reality for small market teams.
Nothing is stopping a super team from forming except players greed. Why can’t 4 max level players all decide to sacrifice pay to form a super team?
agreed, and only a little % really deserve the max.
I think the 2nd apron is leading to expansion. Teams cannot spend as much on players that aren't max players, but if there are more teams, there is more cap space and more max contracts to go around.
Simmons panicking and they just won a ship😂 thank you Adam Silver😂😂
Won a ship? The Spendor Of The Seas? The Titanic?
I'm nodding my head like yeah... moving my hips like yeah...
yee-aah it's parity in the NBA
Bill's example of GSW is a bad example. The reason Klay isn't there anymore is not because of GSW. It's because Klay's ego is too big. Had Klay accepted the extension last year or accepted the very reasonable offer this offseason, he'd probably retire there. Instead, Klay isn't there because of Klay, not because of GSW. You can't keep a team together when one teammate feels he's bigger than the team than he really is.
What if Klay wants a better opportunity to win? There are obvious basketball reasons why Dallas is a better fit than GSW.
Klay felt disrespected
@@imsoicy87For being benched? He need to realise it's a man's game. If you slow down then come of the bench.
@@imsoicy87 because of his delusional ego lol. 0-10 Klay isn't Game 6 Klay anymore
Dude been injured twice and ain’t the same player no more
The Squawak Box reference was legendary. Listen to uncle Ryen become financially literate. Research compound interest learn it backwards and forwards. Have a good life.
Bill Simmons wants the rules of the NBA to be engineered in an exact precise way in order to get the celtics to win championships.
Players always moved. LeBron (7/4/4/6) and KD (9/3/4) have stayed at teams as long as Charles Barkley (8/4/4) and Shaq (4/8/4) did, 5.25 and 5.33 to 5.33 and 5.33 years on average respectively.
The NFL doesn't have parity, what is has is parity of opportunity. Teams in tiny, cold ass markets like the Packers or Bills have an equal opportunity to build a championship team compared to incredibly fun, warm weather cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, Miami etc.
NBA's problem is it's a winter league and the players have too much power, so naturally they don't want to be in Indianapolis or Milwaukee especially when it's super cold. People in small markets feel they are at a disadvantage compared to big market (especially big markets in the south) in building championship contender. Until you fix this, middle America won't take the NBA seriously.
Toronto, Milwaukee, Denver, and Boston all won championships in the last half decade or so and would be considered “cold weather” cities. And Minnesota just made the conference Finals. Paul George just signed with Philadelphia- not exactly a balmy winter destination. Donovan Mitchell just resigned with the rust belt Cavs. The Thunder and Spurs are small market franchises with futures as bright as any in the league.
I don’t think playing for the glamour destinations matters as much as it used to in the era of league pass, social media, and national broadcast schedules. The bag, competitiveness, franchise competency, and roster quality all matter.
@@jdankerdake He resigned with Cleveland because the Knicks were taken over by Villanova guys. And I bet he'll demand a trade to Miami. I'm well aware of who won the titles, but that doesn't change the fact that star players gravitate to warmer weather and big market cities. Stuff like that doesn't sit well with middle America. If the NFL was like the NBA, Josh Allen would have demanded a trade and been sent to the Dolphins. But it isn't, and that's why it's more popular. The sport of basketball is the most popular sport in America, but the NBA is poorly run compared to the NFL.
@@deepvoicedude4749 The team that just won the title is a cold weather city (they also have the most titles in NBA history), the best player in the NBA plays in a cold weather city, 3/4 of the teams in the conference finals were from cold weather cities. This is incredibly stupid
I just want to clarify, phoenix isn't warm, it's a blistering concrete pad in the desert.
@@cptsketch13 When people say warm, they just mean places with no snow.
Bill pushing this save the Celtics from the tax narrative so hard now🤣
What about; The longer your tenure for a team, the less your salary counts toward the salary cap. Let's say 50% Steph Curry's salary counts toward the cap cause he's been there 10+seasons. But, 100% of Kyle Anderson's contract will count towards the cap.
I'm thinking along the same lines as you, but I would make the discount smaller. Something like 2 to 3%, per year. So a player who has been with the same team for 10 years has only 70 to 80% of their salary count against the cap.
We want players to get paid, we want players to stay in one place when it makes sense, but we don't want teams to be able to just buy. All the best players. I think this is a good way to do it
Just be prepared for the top 1-2 tenured players on each team to hold teams hostage and pretty much hold out like Harden
Watching Ryan to understand Bill is funny and Bill just ran in circles and didn’t make a single point that made sense
Even the Warriors, so many things helped keep them together. Curry, who was only the seventh pick of his draft, becomes this transformative player five years into this career after it looked liked he was going to be a what if because of his early injuries
“ONLY the seventh pick” as if that’s tantamount to being found in the gutter
@@ObiAmajoyiSrMD Wow, I really have to explain this? 🙄 You wouldn't think the greatest shooter ever, probably top ten players ever, a guy who changed how the game is played would have dropped to seventh.
@@MrOctober44 do I have to explain this: he was not all those things when he got drafted. You seem to not realize that being drafted where he was meant to be that he was viewed at that time as one of the top 10 collegiate players out of more than 1,000.
Your frame of reference is so odd and you don’t even realize it.
Absolutely love Bill for always being himself. Celts build basically a 5 all star team, win a championship, and his thought is:
“The new rules mean we have to choose between keeping our second all star or all stars 3-5. It’s bad for the league!”
I’d say that providing no incentive for teams to draft and trade well decidedly _is_ bad for the league.
"The NBA does not care enough about parity." -Sincerely, the Detroit Pistons
The solution that is the most fair and equitable would be to cap what a max player counts against the salary cap, but allow the team to pay the player more than the max based on the number of years of service with the same team. Maybe cap a players maximum amount against the salary cap as 1/3 of the cap, but allow the team to pay the player more.
Then the cap ceases to be the cap, as it would be bastardized. The solution is for the top players to take LESS MONEY, to keep the players around them happy and paid so that they can grow and win together. The problem is, top players don't take less money, take the max, and then expect the front office to "figure it out". They figure it out by cutting or trading the players who helped those "great" players be great. Then the top players will complain that the team around them isn't great and they are frustrated. And then the cycle continues.
It's all about the player and his willingness to win.
Why are max contracts such a high % of the cap, they need to lower it and allow for more max contract players on a team and spread the money out more
Counter point, if 3 max players can easily slot onto one team, wouldn't the league devolve into 3-6 contenders by a mile and everyone else?
A big thing that we’re going to lose is memorable role players on championship teams. Guys are not going to get to have a long runs on rosters because it’s not going to be feasible with the cap. There aren’t going to be as many Andre Iguodalas or Robert Horrys. Bruce Brown and KCP are some of the first victims of this.
The CBA screws teams that draft well. Teams that have homegrown talent should not be punished by going into the tax. I get the point of making money, but not to the point where it hurts the product. The NBA is getting less and exposure and viewership is going down every season. The players don't care about basketball like they used to and you can tell. They just want to promote their "brand" and that hurts the game imo
The homegrown stars get paid regardless of the CBA system. No team is getting punished by keeping one $60 million superstar, they’re getting punished for having 5-6 elite players on one super team. This new CBA does not prevent teams from keeping their 1-3 superstars.
Acting like the players are the only ones who want to make money, like the only reason 99% of owners own teams isn't to eventually turn a profit down the line. The NBA (and every major sport leauge) is, at the end of the day, a commodity to sell, so I'd rather that money the league already makes go to the players who actually make the product on the court
But the NBA is also getting more media money than ever.
Dude read the room. The nba is shooting up every chart.
League tried to nuke the Warriors and it has cost the overall pool tens of billions of dollars. Nobody watches the NBA now compared to when they were at their peak. Stupidity and jealousy was the NBA’s downfall
Who believes that OKC was ever spending deep enough into the tax to hit the 2nd apron even under the old rules?
It isn't like teams didn't cheap out before.
But now it makes teams have to be smart earlier and make hard choices on players and it makes trades to get out of the tax harder and it makes winning a title less productive and less sustainable or even competing for one less desirable for most owners.....
This is extremely random, but how does Bill’s channel only have 150k subs? His videos do great numbers and he’s been at it for 5 years. It seems more like a 500K sub channel
Celtics bias
True Parity only exists in individual sports. No way when you add new cap ramifications every 5-8 years you punish every team that attempts to build the natural way.
i love the parody it makes a dynasty more special if some1 can do it
Weird Al Yankovic is my favorite parity artist
@@Anonymous-ju9bg my bad professor lol
I think the idea of a player counting Less against the cap the longer they play on a team is actually quite brilliant. Teams could afford to keep their cores together for years instead of deciding who to keep. I think it would work in most sports. Tyreke and Mahomes could still be playing together. OKC could've kept Harden together with KD and Westbrook. They could've won a couple of they could've stayed together. Right?
I really like the Cap discount for home grown players. If you've had a player for 3+ years you should be able to discount 10% of one players salary off your cap, maybe 5% for a second player. Players leave bc the franchise won't be competitive and that gives teams more flexibility to build around stars, like PG in IND
good job russilo for not letting hypocrite bill turn everything into hypothetical celtic situations
I’m starting to suspect a lot of NBA fans actually hate NBA players🤔
Got a game for al listeners/viewers of the pod: Everytime either Bill or Ryen say "I don't know" take a shot.
About 8 shots during this 18 min. clip
The NBA has parity, from a certain POV. It's Boston in tier 1, and about a dozen teams in tier 2.
I agree with Simmons, which is pretty rare these days.
In both football and basketball, a solution would be to charge only a percentage of the salary of a homegrown player (definition - you drafted him) against the cap - to incentivize him staying with his original club. You could also charge only a percentage of a player's salary against the cap if the player were with your club five years or more - again, to incentivize team continuity.
The problem with these percentage deals is that the final cap number, after the percentages were applied, would end up with very different effective or net cap numbers. Which, I presume, is why they don't do it.
Totally agree with Bill here. The illusion of parity being a net positive is exactly what's holding back the NBA, relegating them to second fiddle domestically to the NFL and internationally to European Football. People want dynasties and powerhouses to root against so the stakes feel that much higher when they ultimately get beaten. The NBA right now has no great team nor a clear cut transcendent american talent under the age of 35. All the best guys are foreigners but they all come from countries where basketball is not the first sport. Bad situation all around, they better hope Cooper Flagg turns out to be the next Bird, otherwise they will become the ultimate niche sport
big thing that wasnt discussed here is that the owners like the apron because it limits their own spending on players. this move wasnt as much a counter to lack of parity but was more a counter to ballooning salaries. some owners might be fine with spending a ton and it counting less towards the luxury (gsw) but most would rather artificially lower the bidding inflation.
as for the homegrown talent piece, the nfl has anti-player empowerment rules like the franchise tag that just can't be implemented in the nba this late in the game. the prevalence of player movement is due to the power players have over their own careers. you can view it similarly to college sports with the transfer portal. ethically, it makes more sense because the players make the game. however, from a fan perspective, enjoyment is probably higher when the players have less control.
Parity is a good thing because it makes the season more unpredictable and exciting
Big ups, Ryan, for mentioning the Maple Leafs because they and the Rangers and Wings got screwed by that new CBA and have had their faces down and asses up ever since-save for Detroit, who were already partnering the part of running a top team in a cap system with spending big loot-elite drafting and developing. Still, the point is big markets that love the games in question are punished (again, the markets not the owners). Players needed to accept the cap to gain certainty and a defined share of revenues, but even then they suffer because they can’t earn as much as they otherwise could’ve. The NHL is a great exemplar of leagues that prioritize parity over dynasty. If teams were able to keep their own drafted players as cap discounts it would better reward good draft and development.
Bill 100% only has a gripe with this because he understands that inevitably, Boston will lose either Jaylen or Jason, and that ruins his fantasy of some 6-year dynasty run for them.
Parity in NFL = Good
Parity in NBA= Bad product?
I want Parity, but the 2nd apron rules are a little extreme…
They have to be. NBA owners are so rich now, they don’t care about any tax implications. They’ll just pay it. When you start moving picks to the end of the round, reviving exceptions, and making trade more strict, they pay attention.
@@snarkmark2806 I get that, but what’s the price. We like player movement in the NBA, but are we ready for a whole new level of it ?
I agree with Bill, just as a fan. The Warriors were forced to trade Klay in order to compete. That SUCKS. As a fan, I want to be able to keep my homegrown talent. I'd like to see a player's contract count 5% less towards the cap for every year they've been on that team. So if someone has been on your team for 10 years, they only count 50% towards the cap. Which incentivizes clubs to keep players, if they want to and can.
The second apron doesn't hurt the Thunder as much as you'd think, because they have a track record of making late 1st and 2nd round picks into real contributors, and they have the bank or picks to manipulate the draft when they need to.
They really do not. That's why the Westbrook/KD teams always had a crappy supporting cast. The only guy they hit on was Reggie Jackson.
Terrance Ferguson. Mitch McGary. Josh Huestis. Alex Abrines. Perry Jones
They've traded away more good players than they gave hit on (Bledsoe, Brandon Clarke, Quickley, Sengun, Miles McBride, Peyton Watson)
They have 3 years but once SGA's extension kicks that's three players taking up over 90% of the cap
@@michaelahurt Aaron Wiggins, Jaylin Williams, Tre Mann. Lu Dort and Joe acquired for nothing. Any other questions?
@@benluschen4771 Let's see it when it matters
@@michaelahurt I mean, they would not have been the one seed without the recent success in scouting and development. I’d throw out the history pre-PG trade, new a Presti approach and new CBA make it apples and oranges. Will they slow down picking up the hidden gems in years to come? Idk, maybe. But the recent run of players suggests something more than luck.
@@benluschen4771 It's luck. It's always luck. That's why no one in any sport has ever been able to do it consistently.
The kinds of guys he drafts hasn't changed. What has though is skill development is way better now which dovetails nicely with his philosophy. Of course he's still had big misses even during this stretch (Giddey, Poku, and it looks like Dieng so far)
They were the 1 seed because they were forced into making a trade that gave an MVP caliber guard and because they got the #2 pick in a year with Chet Holmgren. Hitting around the edges is nice but you win with top 40 players.
Hopefully they don't try to get cute like last time and just pay the money to keep the three guys together. But Presti is definitely doing a better job this time around
Bill, I'm sorry but you were not cooking with this one.
This is a funny topic to talk about since Bill is a Celtics fan😂
Bill is all over the place
I agree , When a team has a Star like Wemby they need to be able to keep him forever but also be able to build around him. Franchise tags need to be like Baseball where you can sign for 8-10 years .
I think that the best way to “fix” the problem is that the extra money paid to a player for retaining them (super max contracts and whatnot) doesn’t hit the cap. Have a ceiling on how much an individual player can affect the salary cap. Maybe if the player is traded that extra money kicks in.
NFL should definitely subsidize certain player salaries. They should probably do it for vets that have 8+yr tenure where their cap his is only 90% of their actual salary. Incentivize teams to sign older veteran players and not replace em so quickly for the late your draft pick. Maybe legacy discounts too, but I feel like the QBs stay w/ a single franchise enough already in the NFL. We don’t really need to incentivize em to do so
SGA - supermax
Chet/Dub. - Max deals
Joe/Wiggins - 4 year cheap deals
That is a great core that can be locked down
Cason probably gone doe
2nd apron just ups the level of execution you need to win consistently. celtics will be 2nd apron for 2 yrs and then restructure when kp expires. jrue will be older but they'll have the jays dwhite n a bunch of picks and theyre a great fa destination.
The moment the c's win suddenly "we don't need parity"
It’s better for people who are actually fans of a team, maybe not so much other casual fans
The Knicks not being able to keep IHeart is truly stupid for the NBA. It penalized the Knicks for building him up and not being able to bid for him fairly. Okc just blew his whole salary up causing further salary inflation. SMH 🤦♂️
How many pods did Bill dedicate to a hypothetical Brown trade? He loves the trade machine. Lol
Bill mentions at the end that he doesn't like that a team has to not make mistakes with their roster building if they want to win championships. I would argue that the entire point of a competitive league, from a roster building perspective, is to create a landscape where the team that has the least roster building mistakes also has the greatest chance to win a championship. It ensures that teams have to hire competent FO staff to compete with the best teams, thereby making the league more competitive and a higher quality product. I would argue that a league where you can use money to cover roster building mistakes is a worse product/league.
All these trade hypotheticals never talk about what the team might acquire in return. I cant think of any direct examples but I think the return keeps the wheels spinning.
There are deals where a collection of smaller assets gel and outperform the larger asset that initiated the trade. Or "gave up too much" deals.
@@OH_MY_DOGGG one could argue this happened in Utah post Mitchell to the Cavs and in Boston after the Nets trade (both done by the same GM oddly enough lmao)
It's a fair point. He's saying once you solve the puzzle and have the main 5 you want, you'll hardly be able to keep it together beyond 3 or 4 years. It's a different kind of parity from the NFL where age declines force retoolings. That's a little slower than this looks. Even great teams will have to constantly let go of proven players they like outside of their 2 main guys. It's parity through volatility, and is that what we want?
The league is constructing toward a more pavlovian relationship with its customers. Remember under Pavlov the most addictive structure is random output
More 3pt shooting = greater variance from game-to-game, more comebacks, and also more awful losses
2nd apron and player mobility = harder to keep a good team together longer, players change teams more often, rosters are reshuffled every season
Fans don't know what to expect from game-to-game or season-to-season and that keeps eyeballs glued
Pavlov’s theory only really works when you’re not averse to the stimulus. If you find the team reshuffling averse to begin with, it becomes far less likely or not likely at all that you will become “addicted” to it
@@ObiAmajoyiSrMD It's an excellent point, but are most fans averse to it? Or put another way, are fans tired of "woj bombs", or do they still find them exciting? If it's the latter, the conditions seem ripe to me for Pavlov
Random side comment but it’s hilarious he pegs giannis as the next star who will want to leave. A guy who has never made any comments or had any desire to leave Milwaukee yet the media continuously tells us he wants out
Great discussion...nice to have intelligent give and take.
The NBA wants what the NFL has which is the illusion of parity, realistically there are at most 8 teams each year that can compete to win the Super Bowl, however we’ve seen enough times a team that shouldn’t be anywhere near a title either win the turnover battle to such a ridiculous degree or a QB play out of his mind for 6 games and suddenly they are holding the Lombardi at the end of the season that it gives fans of other franchises hope, that’s what the NBA wants, even if realistically there are 6 teams that can compete for the title, that 20 fans bases no matter how delusional at least believe “we got a shot”
Is it me or does anyone else here notice Bill Simmons once in a while throws in these sexual double-entendres. About a week or two ago, in regard to an NBA player he said, "I like his stroke," and early in this conversation he throws in "it's two-somes or three-somes." Just a thought. Please feel free to chime in if you have any more examples. I think it's funny😂.
I think it comes down to how good the supporting cast is, not the cap. Is the team at a title level, then it stays together. Team breaks up when it stops winning
Celtics have a great supporting cast and are being punished for it
I do think that teams that draft well should be able to keep their drafted guys longer. I would implement a Cornerstone contract where you of your own draftee's contract counts 100% to the tax level but only 50% to the aprons.
Doesn’t the nba kinda have parity? Since the 17-18 warriors there hasn’t been a repeat champ. Different winner each year
Props for Ryen on navigating Bill's illogical point ahah - Klay moving wasn't a second apron issue, he was never going to make the max money and what the mavericks offered, the warriors could have matched. It was about their approach, and he felt like he wasn't valued on the team. PG was a straight we don't want to pay the luxury tax for this team
Honestly, the entire salary situation is dumb. There needs to be a hard cap and players on their second contract with a team get a 10% discount to their salary cap hit and that's the entirety of the rules. That way, teams have to take the max contract growth into account and manage everybody's salaries well in order to field the same main guys, but you should be able to keep a core together.
The new CBA will make teams re-evaluate who deserves the max salaries and will keep other teams f4om building super teams with 4-5 allstars starting on their team.
I would want to go back and see what Bill was really saying about those Warriors teams. We've been saying it for years that homegrown players should not count towards tax the same way other players do. You would immediately have better scouting, better development, franchises that care about players and players that care about franchises.
Bill is complaining that teams won’t be able to keep the team together, then says teams can keep their top 2, and will have to cycle guys around them….
That’s 100% what is still going to happen.
The supermax for players a team drafted should only count as a regular max against the cap. That would solve a lot of this.
The current CBA set things up to be madness. Not arguing that "back in my day they ran the same team back 5 years straight" but man, Pat Bev has been on a third of the NBA rosters as what would be considered a good role player. It feels like he's on a different team every few months. This free agency, feels like everyone signed for 3 years so 2027 free agency gonna be nuts.
I don’t care if this is at least partially colored by the Celtics being successful - I agree with him about lower cap hits for homegrown guys or long tenures
And he’s been saying this from the moment the new CBA was public knowledge
The biggest reason why Brady was able to stay in SB contention for the most part of his 20 year tenure in NE, other then his "goat" impact at the position, was that he routinely took less money, so that the Patriots could continue to keep good to great players to support him on both sides of the ball. Would superstar guys be willing to take less money then there value and production demands, to keep there title contending core's in tact?
Dude. OKC can keep their 3 for longer than 3-4 provided they are successful and SGA decides to stay. Dub and chet would have to ascend to supermax to change that.
But....that could change if they traded for another all star which is why theyll give their three a chance to do it without that first.
Whatever we have right now is good.
There's roughly 20 good teams, a clear favorite in the Celtics that can be overthrown, a good #2 (OKC right now), and like 6 more legit contenders (Sixers, Mavs, Knicks, Bucks, Nuggets, Wolves) and it's still widen open after that with fans of Lakers, Suns, Pelicans, Grizzlies, Kings, Heat, Warriors, Clippers, etc. think they all could be a top 4 seed.
Celtics resigned all of their big 5 and still have Horford.
Isn't the 2nd apron already enacted, so it clearly didn't stop them from keeping all their guys without pay cuts
Nuggets could've resigned KCP but he's old and not that good. Is that what you're whining about?
We need a Cooper Flagg hype train segment soon 💯😂
A lot of people in the comments talking about Bill being biased here and that being is reason being opposed to this new salary set up. That may be the case, but I do see what he is saying for the whole league. Unless you get a super rich owner who loves basketball and is willing to spend whatever this second apron is going to limit any team from building a super team if we are calling it that. People who love players changing teams are going to love this cap set up. I am on the side of trying to build a great team and keep them together as long as possible so my bias is in that direction. Would love to hear everyone else's thoughts.
Yeah-ey-yeah-ey-yeah-ah, it’s parity in the nba!
I don't think the NFL has more parity because 5 of the last 7 super bowls have been won by Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady. Now, I think part of that is luck, but I feel like it's a safer bet right now to assume Mahomes is winning the super bowl any given year than picking a specific NBA team. And I hate saying that as a niners fan, cause our egotistical head coach gifted Mahomes two rings he honestly shouldn't have, especially the last one