Backlash against NBA superteams – the CBA implications

The existence of superteams in the NBA is becoming a major problem. Stacked teams may be fun for a few cities, but it leaves a whole bunch more with little hope.

The 2016-17 version of the Raptors will be building on the franchise’s most successful season and playoffs ever. Four of the five starters are returning, and the power forward position will surely be stronger than it was.

So why aren’t we predicting a triumphant motorcade wending its joyful way down Yonge Street? Because one would have to be a purblind fantasist to believe the Raptors can defeat first the Cleveland Cavaliers, then the Golden State Warriors, to claim the Larry O’Brien Trophy (memo to “the commish” Adam Silver: Please get a new name for that thing!)

This problem is not reserved for Raptors fans. In 28 franchises, there must be consternation at the idea of challenging the NBA’s superteams. For many squads, it’s not a present problem. Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Minnesota: these teams are years away from contention. But for the Raptors, Celtics, Clippers, Spurs and others, the strength of Golden State and Cleveland represents a massive roadblock.

In fact, we’re being played for suckers. There’s no other professional sports endeavor in which the outcome seems so pre-ordained. What’s the point in shelling out good money to watch games when our chances of glory are so slim? The last two NBA finals have featured (who else?) the Warriors and Cavs. Golden State lured Kevin Durant away from Oklahoma City. This situation is beyond ridiculous.

This isn’t just my rant

Sports Illustrated takes a look at the matter of competitive imbalance in a provocative video. The beat writers who are speaking raise the possibility of superteams being so contentious as to form part of the negotiations between the league and the players. While the topic is a latecomer to the issues already under consideration for inclusion in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), it deserves to be on the table.

The Players Association is philosophically opposed to any clause which restricts players freedom to choose where they play (and restrictions on money, too, but that’s outside this discussion) once they have reached a certain number of years of service. PA boss Michelle Roberts will certainly battle hard against any proposed wording which renders KD unable to sign with GS if that’s where he wants to go.

My solution is both simple and contentious. In 2011, Silver’s predecessor, David Stern, disallowed a trade, to the consternation of all concerned. Stern ruled that New Orleans could not move Chris Paul to the Lakers, and so the deal became null and void. While the Commissioner did not claim the need to maintain competitive balance as the basis for his unprecedented decision (I can’t find a precedent anyway – if you do, please mention in Comments), there were reports of small-market owners who wanted the deal quashed.

If you believe Stern, therefore, the notion of using the maintenance of competitive balance as a reason to quash a deal (like a free-agent signing), has never occurred. Yet maybe this is an idea whose time has come.

Silver moved quickly and decisively to deal with the disturbing Donald Sterling situation when it came to light, and was universally praised for doing so. I call on Silver to take seriously the issue of competitive imbalance. Last year, the best regular-season team (GSW) posted a 73-9 record, while the worst (Philly) was 10-72. If that’s not imbalance, what is?

Time to Intervene, Mr. Silver

The Commissioner has a virtually limitless purview to act in the best interests of the game. He’s already been credited for his backchannel work to push Sam Hinkie and his “process” out of Philadelphia, after years of appalling 76ers teams.

Perhaps the Philly situation was a one-off. Regardless, the Commissioner needs to get out in front of this matter, because it’s not going away.

Everybody who touches the NBA is making insane money, all of which is provided by us fans. It’s time we got thrown a bone, by making superteams impossible through Commissioner intervention. If the players don’t like it, too bad. I suspect they will survive.