The CBA That Saved Pittsburgh
OK, so maybe that was a fish and maybe it's not Pittsburgh, but rather Los Angeles...
But that's not important right now. What IS important is that the new CBA that was designed to keep players at home is doing the opposite - it's putting them on the move.
Consider this:
1) Sacramento dumps Cousins rather than give him a $200m contract
2) Brooklyn accepts a bad contract in Mozgov because it includes a cost-controlled one in Russell
3) JJ Reddick leaves the Clippers to sign a 1-year deal for $23m -- not because Reddick is worth $23m, but because it protects 2018 cap space. The Lakers appear to be looking for the same.
4) Andre Iguodala appears poised to jump to the Rockets because Golden State - who will probably go over to re-sign Durant as it is, probably won't be able to match.
5) Kevin Durant and Chris Paul turn down their teams to go to contenders, making moves/agreements along the way that allow their new teams to maximize cap space.
In other words, it's too much money to commit long-term unless you're absolutely CERTAIN about the player AND it's too much money to match short-term unless you're lucky enough to have the extra cap space (or willing to pay the luxury tax).
In addition, the money that was supposed to give the incumbent the advantage doesn't really matter - players can still retain their salary structure by forcing trades and they can structure their contracts (or delay signing them) for cap flexibility. It's also likely that contracts are SO big now that some guys have decided that just filthy rich is good enough -- they willing to give up disgustingly rich for a chance at a ring.
And that's a good thing - this has been one of the most active off-seasons in recent memory: MN, OKC, and HOU all made huge statements with aggressive moves. As a result, the Western Conference now has 15 of SI's top-20 players for 2017....which makes for a very competitive season.
Most would think, "yeah, but it sucks for small market teams who will now lose the players they develop" -- yes, but that's always been the case. They now have the opportunity to acquire talent for little in trade OR for a short-term deal if they have the cap space and that has NOT always been the case.
Just look at MN and NO - they get an elite players for a pack of and a bag of chips because their primary teams either couldn't or wouldn't re-sign them. If they're willing to (and have the space) to go "all-in", they can acquire an impact free agent on a huge, 1-year deal. Similarly, they could gut a team of talent or picks by moving their homegrown star....like the Pacers SHOULD HAVE done to Boston (WTF were they thinking???).
So what's the point of it all? Simple: this all bodes well for the Lakers, who have market power, cap space, and cost-controlled talent to build around -- they're still a ways away, but that 3-5 year reality is starting to look more like a 2-3 year opportunity.