The Price the NBA Pays for a Salary Cap

Throughout sports history the common assessment is that leagues benefit from a salary cap. Caps even the playing field between small and big market cities, create parity, and raise the level of competition. Better competition means higher hopes for fans that wish to see their team win a championship, and more exciting and well played games. The NBA has a salary cap regulated by the policy of the "luxury tax". The luxury tax for the 2009 season is set at 57.7 million dollars, meaning any team that goes over that amount in player salary must match, dollar for dollar. That money is then split evenly to all teams under the tax. In theory this tax should allow for a fairly even playing field, as teams that spend lavishly would be penalized for **** so while teams that are under are rewarded. Unfortunately it has done the exact opposite. The tax has allowed the strongest and biggest markets to grow, while that same tax stunts the growth of smaller teams. Nothing proves this point more than the 2009 off-season. Any intuitive NBA fan can safely say that 10 teams at most have a chance of winning the title this year, and many could argue that only 5 have a real chance. With 30 teams in the NBA, that means at least 20 of the teams are playing for next year. Not exactly good marketing. How are teams like the Memphis Grizzlies supposed to draw fans to their home games, "Come see O.J. Mayo score 30 points in an inevitable loss"? Pending injury, I'd argue that the Lakers, Magic, Celtics, Spurs, Nuggets and Cavs are the only teams that can win a championship this year. I'd bet money on it. That's because these teams are the few that are willing to go over the luxury tax, and because of that they now have the players to go all the way. The Lakers resign Odom to give them the most versatile 6th man, the Celtics bring in 'Sheed as KG insurance, the Magic resign Gortat to give them the most expensive back-up center in the league, the Spurs trade for Jefferson to go for one more title in the Duncan era, and the Cavs bring in Shaq to counter Dwight Howard. The Nuggets have yet to make a major move this off-season and because of that I'd rank them 6th on this list, but they still traded for Billups last year instead of hanging onto Iverson's expiring contract. The tax didn't faze any of these teams from spending in order to improve. On the other hand, teams like Milwaukee gave away Jefferson and Villanueva for a bag of peanuts, New Jersey traded Carter to prepare for the summer of 2010, and Phoenix traded away their starting center for Ben Wallace and Pavlovic, who couldn't carry Shaq's jock strap. These teams are doing what's necessary to cut costs and avoid the luxury tax, even it means forfeiting the season before it begins. Low budget teams also don't win with young and upcoming players by building through the draft. That's why the Bulls were so fun to watch but still fell to the Celtics. That's why the Trail Blazers looked like they still had a lot to learn once they got into the playoffs. The Thunder seem to be the closest to success through the draft but even they have a long way to go. The league is built around high priced veterans and in the short term you get to see stars like Pierce, Bryant, and James duke it out over NBA supremacy, but in the long run what we get is a weak and disproportional league of haves and have-nots. A league where sub .500 teams make the playoffs. That's a heavy price we all have to pay.