I hate the way the NBA salary cap is set up. Teams get rewarded for making mistakes on big money contracts and get good players in return. Then, now that teams like Memphis and New Jersey have cap space, they are going to end up over paying for someone like Josh Smith, Ben Gordon, or Igoudala. I feel like the whole system is entirely flawed, if a GM makes one mistakes, he's screwed.

How do you feel about guaranteed contracts? I almost always side with the players rather than the owners, but guaranteed contracts are ruining the NBA.

SML, you're slipping off your game! Devean George blocked the trade!!!

Have to say I LOVE the cap system in the NBA right now...it's possible for a team to go over the cap (see Lakers/Mavs) if they deem it necessary - this provides the needed flexibility for trades and such - but the playing field is so much more level that even these teams actively try to avoid it 95% of the time. Also guys like Darko or Kwame who would have had max contract offers based on "potential" alone don't get those anymore. The Jon Koncak's of the world don't get rewarded for size or potential nearly as often or as much. I just know when I'm complaining about a Radmonovic or Walton signing of only 4 or 5 million, something is right with the cap system...

...and it's a heck of a lot better than baseball :)

Rickhouse's question is an awesome one. I was going to prepare a longer post with my response, because it warrants discussion. But in short: I think the NFL's system of non-guaranteed contracts with a cap (only bonuses are guaranteed in the NFL) lends itself to a high turnover, burn-n-churn system of producing players. If I have a second, I'll do more research into the matter, but I'm better that less than 20% of the 2002 NFL rookie class is still in the NFL today; I'm betting that in the NBA that number is higher.

The point is that in the NFL you really are, to paraphrase the Seinfeld bit, just rooting for the laundry or uniform. There's no continuity, except maybe in the key positions - QB, RB, WR. Even then if there is a cheaper alternative, than it will eventually win out (see Cedric Benson over Thomas Jones in Chicago, for example). The Patriots and Colts are deceptive; they are anomalies, products of extreme luck/skill in the selection of talent. Most teams in the NFL are like the 2001 Bucs, 2002 Raiders, 2003 Titans, 2006 Bears, or 2007 Giants - one year successes which will bare no resemblance within 3-5 years.

The NBA, on the other hand - even teams that don't win it all maintain some degree of continuity. The Suns have been The Suns since 2004, even with all their turnover in that time (Q-Rich, Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion all replaced in the starting lineup). The Mavs have been the Mavs pretty much for the same period, too. The Bulls have been Hinrich-Gordon-Deng for about three years now, and while I'm almost positive Gordon will be gone soon (Thabo just looks like a solid replacement for much cheaper), I would be shocked if Hinrich or Deng aren't back next season.

Guaranteed contracts do make the GMing in the NBA much more interesting for fans. That's why trades, and trade speculation, is much greater in the NBA than in the NFL. There's a reason NFL player's careers are much shorter - unless you are really a stud, no one is going to keep you around for more than 3-5 years before cutting you.

It's a great question, and I think I'll try to tackle it in a longer post someday soon....

This trade made me dislike the Mavs and lose a bit of respect for Cuban. Kidd should have only been worth something to a team better than the mavs that didnt have a point guard as good a jason kidd because the mavs adding kidd increased their chances of winning the title from like .3% to 1%. the only teams that had could at all justify trading for him were houton, LA, and Orlando. The nets basically got devin harris, diop, and two first rounders for next to nothing. And the way the west is looking now those picks could easily be in the lottery.