NBA Free Agency: Want to end super teams? Pay super players MORE

Over the past few years, NBA Free Agency has brought on ‘the age of the super team’. If you want to end it, you’ll need to start playing players more – here’s why…

Funny thing about economics; when you actively try to manipulate it in order to control it, it often ends up doing the exact thing you’re trying to avoid. Such is the case here with today’s NBA. This NBA free agency period, we’ve seen superstar after superstar join forces to form super teams, leaving in their wake, roughly 26 teams devoid of legitimate postseason hope.

The poetic thing is, those teams have no one to blame but themselves because they designed the system meant to manipulate the market. But even in a micro economy like the NBA, economics have a way of fighting back.

This week we’ve seen a disturbing trend from the past few years, continue. We’ve seen the biggest names in NBA free agency, link up and join/create super teams. Just last night, arguably the best center in the NBA joined the best super team in the NBA.

The already dominant Warriors need only wait for their new prize to recover from injury, and they will be all-but-guaranteed another championship. Sure, injury could strike and one other team (Houston) could challenge them, but the truth is, this upcoming season is absolutely futile for about 26 teams in the league.

Pay players…MORE?

If you lift the cap on max contracts, you take the power of the endorsement deal away. Or at the least, reduce it.

As crazy as it sounds, paying players more may be the best solution. As it stands, the NBA has capped the amount of money a team can spend on superstar players. Hoops Hype broke it down nicely a while back, but basically it sets the maximum amount of money a player can earn relative to their years of service in the NBA, and whether they stay or leave their current team.

The intentions are fairly noble. By paying players more to stay, they encourage parity around the league, subsequently discouraging a free agent exodus. But this manipulation of the market fell out of touch and ended up doing the opposite.

NBA players make just as much (if not more) through endorsement deals than they make with their NBA salary. If going to a bigger market brings more endorsement dollars, then that extra salary incentive means nothing. Additionally, if playing on a super team equates to success (and it usually does), it will help give exposure to the player, thus increasing their capacity for endorsement dollars even more.

Winning isn’t just a noble endeavor. It’s also profitable. That’s why Boogie Cousins is at Golden State, so he can gain more exposure, dive up his marketability, and cash in down the road. That’s why Kevin Durant paved the way to Golden State. Sure he left money on the table at OKC, but he more than made up for it in exposure and endorsement money.

If you lift the cap on max contracts, you take the power of the endorsement deal away. Or at the least, reduce it.

More from Dallas Mavericks

Consider this: Everyone knows if you add LeBron James to a team of average guys you have yourself a playoff team. So what if one team decided they would like to offer James $70 million per year (roughly ¾ of their payroll)? That’s a salary the endorsement dollars can’t compete with. Now what if every team did something like that? Durant would be offered $60M, James Harden $55M, etc…

I’ll tell you what you’ll see – You’ll see a lot fewer super teams and a lot more evenly dispersed superstars.

The buyers and the sellers would find harmony and real market value would be achieved. Some teams would screw up and overpay a player – leaving them with a terrible supporting cast. And some teams would sit back and feast on the “scraps” left over after the super stars dry up.

But it would be real. Not manipulated. Every team would have a chance and every player could make what they’re actually worth. It’s just like how you bid on Ebay. You want something really bad, but only to a certain amount. If it goes higher than that, you’re perfectly content with a lesser version at 20 percent less in cost.

The Great Con: Price Controls

Price controls inevitably obscure value. Whether it’s on the buying or selling side – subsidy or incentive – it’s taking the market out of the market place. The result is that goods and services are no longer traded according to their true worth, hurting both the buyers and the sellers. As time goes on these two sides only move further and further apart.

The NBA convinced us price controls existed to bring parity to the league. But the reality is they were created to keep overzealous owners from driving up their own operating costs. By colluding, they could cap their spending – on the roster as a whole and on individual players.

If it wasn’t for Baltimore Federal Baseball Club v. Nation League 1922, this would all be massively illegal, of course. But since professional sports have found a way to operate outside of typical anti-trust rules, some collusion is deemed necessary for the good of the game. But I think we know what they’re really trying to protect.

Unless they’re located by a beach, talent starved teams have little hope for the future. Since they can’t offer more money than the next guy, what NBA free agent super star would want to play for them? It’s no wonder teams tank every year. They keep costs low, and hope to hit jackpot on a young player. Maybe then they could lure a premium NBA free agent to their franchise. But the odds are still stacked against them.

Next: Can Mavericks fans really forgive DeAndre Jordan?

Allowing teams to bid on players, according to what they actually think that player is worth, is not only the cure, but it’s the right thing to do. That’s how this whole buyer-seller thing works, after all. And that’s how you use NBA free agency to put an end to super teams.

Home/Dallas Mavericks