Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 41 of 41
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    19,768
    It's that Ball boy!

    Had to do it.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Drink All Day, Play All Night, Let's Get It Poppin
    Posts
    4,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The point is that the cord cutters will reduce NBA viewership by casual viewers because it is no longer casual to watch.
    How do you define casual viewer?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    25,078
    I think a lot of people now days watch NBA for free with streaming. Not sure if they keep track of that at all.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20,239
    Quote Originally Posted by MILLERHIGHLIFE View Post
    I think a lot of people now days watch NBA for free with streaming. Not sure if they keep track of that at all.
    Legally?
    MacLean's Law: Everywhere you go there will be a jerk. Corrolary: If you go somewhere by yourself you become a jerk.

    I don't care where anyone chooses to go in free agency. I really don't. Yes, KD "broke" the NBA for a year or two, but I can't blame him for going to the team that fit what he wanted.

    The worst part about the Warriors winning is that now I can't have an opinion without being a "homer" or a "hater". It used to be that dialogue had merit independent of accusations.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Actually, I think getting rid of the cap is what would balance out the leagues talent.

    If LeBron was making $80 million a year, that team isn't going to also be able to sign top tiered talent around him.

    Even if some guys are willing to take a discount, it won't be much, and the union would fight against players taking discounts.

    Baseball is capless, and that's why the talent is so spread out in the league. Every players chases top dollars, and it spreads the talent out.

    The Warriors would be running a $300ish million dollar payroll to keep those four key players together, who would be each making 40-60M a year. And they can't afford a $300M payroll, so the team wouldn't be like they are.


    The Knicks and Lakers have the most revenue (estimated at around $350M, with Warriors just behind them at $300M - according to Forbes).

    Teams could support about 50% of their revenue into payroll.

    Sure, LeBron would probably be on the Lakers, and they'd likely have a few other good players there. But stars wouldn't be taking discounts to play in one town any longer, and the union wouldn't let it happen just like they didn't let A-Rod renegotiate his contract to go to the Red Sox or let players take discounts to go to different places. They always expect players to get their max money available.

    Get rid of the complicated cap, increase the parity across the league.
    Like it. Instead of limiting the amount of money paid around the league with hard cap, just get rid of it altogether. Not too familiar with soccer management, but I do think they have no limit a player can be paid as well

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    16,453
    Quote Originally Posted by HandsOnTheWheel View Post
    Like it. Instead of limiting the amount of money paid around the league with hard cap, just get rid of it altogether. Not too familiar with soccer management, but I do think they have no limit a player can be paid as well
    If you were familiar with the soccer model in Europe ( I didnít read the previous post carefully, but I assume that is the type of system being suggested) every soccer league in the world is incredibly top heavy and basically a competition between 2 teams if not a single team). I donít see how that would solve the suggested problem (but again, not a problem imo)

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    19,768
    Quote Originally Posted by rhino17 View Post
    If you were familiar with the soccer model in Europe ( I didnít read the previous post carefully, but I assume that is the type of system being suggested) every soccer league in the world is incredibly top heavy and basically a competition between 2 teams if not a single team). I donít see how that would solve the suggested problem (but again, not a problem imo)
    They also have a relegation system to keep the bottom teams as competitive as possible. Imagine that in the NBA!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Drink All Day, Play All Night, Let's Get It Poppin
    Posts
    4,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Lakers + Giants View Post
    They also have a relegation system to keep the bottom teams as competitive as possible. Imagine that in the NBA!
    That could be added without removing the cap. Would be comical in some instances.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    14,662
    The rise of daily fantasy sports plays a huge role in the viewership spike. DraftKings, FanDuel, etc. The NBA embraced it and capitalized on it well. Random DFS players across the country have a reason to watch a Suns-Mavs game on a weeknight because Devin Booker and Harrison Barnes are in their tournament or cash lineups.

    Itís the same effect that legalized gambling will now have. Casual sports betting fans watch about 300% more games than casual non-betting fans. More people are gonna be betting now. It will generate more interest/reasons to watch games across the league. Viewership is gonna explode.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    12,735
    Quote Originally Posted by rhino17 View Post
    If you were familiar with the soccer model in Europe ( I didnít read the previous post carefully, but I assume that is the type of system being suggested) every soccer league in the world is incredibly top heavy and basically a competition between 2 teams if not a single team). I donít see how that would solve the suggested problem (but again, not a problem imo)
    It's not comparable really.

    It's like splitting the NBA to state championships. Sure, the NY state will be 'top heavy' and the Knicks would win almost every year. The California and Texas states would have more parity but it would still be the same 3-4 teams per state competing. But when all these state champions compete with each other, it's hard to guess who the best is. And of course, some of them will have more money and usually the best of teams, but that used to not be a problem when there was a quota on imported players, that is foreigners. It's been scrapped in and now the rich teams can basically field 2 great teams using their depth while the rest can barely keep up with a roster enough for 1 good team, but you do not have that economic asymmetry in the USA, so it's not a worry. And baskteball is different, especially the one played in the US.

    You cannot have a team that consists of Curry, Beal, Lebron, Durant, Cousins with De Rozan, Porzingis, Melo, Lowry and a few others in the NBA. No one can afford all of them, some of these players wouldn't accept a limited role and even if they could afford them, they can find a similar salary with an enhanced role somewhere else. Sure, some rich teams may have 3-4 star players but they can do that now as well. This just adds flexibility to the team and the players.

    Also, teams 'buy' the rights of a player, not the contract. So every time you sign a player off another team, you renegotiate a contract with him. He may refuse. Most deals are money driven with exchanges being extremely rare.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    51,901
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    It's not comparable really.

    It's like splitting the NBA to state championships. Sure, the NY state will be 'top heavy' and the Knicks would win almost every year. The California and Texas states would have more parity but it would still be the same 3-4 teams per state competing. But when all these state champions compete with each other, it's hard to guess who the best is. And of course, some of them will have more money and usually the best of teams, but that used to not be a problem when there was a quota on imported players, that is foreigners. It's been scrapped in and now the rich teams can basically field 2 great teams using their depth while the rest can barely keep up with a roster enough for 1 good team, but you do not have that economic asymmetry in the USA, so it's not a worry. And baskteball is different, especially the one played in the US.

    You cannot have a team that consists of Curry, Beal, Lebron, Durant, Cousins with De Rozan, Porzingis, Melo, Lowry and a few others in the NBA. No one can afford all of them, some of these players wouldn't accept a limited role and even if they could afford them, they can find a similar salary with an enhanced role somewhere else. Sure, some rich teams may have 3-4 star players but they can do that now as well. This just adds flexibility to the team and the players.

    Also, teams 'buy' the rights of a player, not the contract. So every time you sign a player off another team, you renegotiate a contract with him. He may refuse. Most deals are money driven with exchanges being extremely rare.
    If you do all of this, just expand the time of rookie control for drafted players, so teams that draft a stud like Embiid, LeBron, Durant, etc get 6-8 years of initial control over the player. Plenty of time to build around the guy. Then, the big market teams that can afford big named guys will inevitably have to accept regression time with the contract.

    Example, Vince Carter:

    Let's say Toronto drafts him and gets to control him under a predesignated rookie contract for 7 years

    That's years 1998-99 (age 22 season) through 2004-05 (age 28 season)
    Then summer of 2005, he would be free to get a huge contract

    Let's call that rookie scale for the 5th overall pick like $3M, $4M, $5M, $6M, $7M, $8M, $9M (random numbers).

    The Raptors have a huge window of controlled pay to build around the guy. Drafting Carter and McGrady in back to back years would give them a duo for six full seasons under cheap control. Add in a top free agent or two, and that's a legit squad.

    Then if Carter wants to jump to the Knicks in the summer of 05, you better believe he's asking for a 8-10 year deal. Maybe the Knicks give him 10/$300M.

    They would enjoy another 4 years of prime Carter, then 4 years of good Carter, and 2 years of role playing Carter. At the beginning, they'd love the deal. At the end, they'd be ready to be done with him.

    Top market teams couldn't afford to carry 3 or even 4 top tiered guys. Even if they time it all just right, you are only going to see a few years of loaded success with no draft picks, then a forced rebuild for the second half of those deals.

    It rewards teams that do a great job in the draft, balances out of the league and mid market and small market teams can still afford to sign/lock up top priced free agents. Giannis could remain a Buck, but still get paid handsomely. They just wouldn't be able to give him 2-3 huge stars. But they can retain him, and lock up several very good players to roll around him. They'd still have him another 2 years under his awesome rookie deal, and they could easily add a top tiered free agent this off-season.

    Forbes says the Bucks make around $180-200M in revenue. Meaning they can support $100-110M in payroll. If Giannis is on his rookie deal making $6-7M per year right now, they can easily add a marquee guy and front load the deal the first two years, and then extend Giannis, extending their competitive window.

    And no team can just load up on super stars.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •