I think there is a major problem with the pay structure. The players who are say 1-15 and get "max" contractsare the ones that probably deserve them.
It is the players from about 30-60 that are getting paid near max, and way more than they are worth relative to the higher tier. You have players who are making 1-2M on rookie contracts. Bad teams have to compile young, cheap players, which is the only way for bad teams to compete financially and attempt to have hope for the future. I think teams like Dallas, NY, Miami, LA, Boston, whoever else wants to spend frivolously should be paying a $2 for $1 luxury tax. I also believe that there should be a similar scenario for the owners where they pool their money like the players do and split it according to the health of the league. LA wants to be the swanky destination, make them pay for being swanky. NY has no problem paying out the nose to be high-profile. Miami will be in the LT for years for taking on Lebron and Bosh. Make these teams pay for their decisions. Right now, they are getting a free pass with the extra revenues they get from being competitive, which is a pretty direct result of having a payroll at 80M+.
There needs to be either revenue sharing or contraction. I think it looks horrible for the league to contract. I also think hockey has things right (for them) with a hard cap. Make ours harder. Basketball wants dream teams. Hockey wants better competition. That is why hockey is a much better run sport. The egos in hockey are secondary to winning. Not the NBA. David Stern would love it if was the Lakers versus Celtics every single year. Why even play the games if you know the four teams you want to be competitive every year.
Things like "The D(ouch)ecision" are an anomoly. There is no protection the league should put in place against that. I just think that this might go against something the league has prioritized for years, and that is for teams to have a significant advantage to keeping the players they have. Ironically, the "Bird Rule" comes to mind. Things like the decision will shape the future of player decisions. But in the end, it still comes down to money from both sides.
I just want to know what the platform is coming from the league office. What does Stern think is best for the NBA? Why is David Stern representing the owners? Because they have more money. That's right. The players will spend their money. A few will be mega-wealthy, but most of them won't maintain the welath that the owners will. I want to know from the league, what the ideal situation would be from the standpoint of the health of the league, not a biased negotiating tactic from the owners. Give us leadership Stern. Oh that's right. You aren't capable.
OK Rant over.