PDA

View Full Version : Wizards owner Leonsis expects hard cap in NBA



Mile High Champ
09-29-2010, 03:49 PM
Washington Wizards majority owner Ted Leonsis told local business leaders Wednesday that he expects the NBA soon will have a hard salary cap similar to the NHL's model.

Leonsis, who also owns the Washington Capitals, spoke to a group of Northern Virginia business leaders before the Wizards' daily training camp session. He told them that the more fans a team has, the more they spend on the team, and the more the team has a chance to get and keep good players.

"In a salary-cap era -- and soon a hard-salary cap in the NBA like it is in the NHL -- if everyone can pay the same amount to the same amount of players, it's the small nuanced differences that matter," he said.

Asked after the speech to clarify his remarks, Leonsis pulled back from the comment, saying he was not authorized to speak about the ongoing NBA labor negotiations, but said he believed the NHL's system "is a good one."

"It's working," he said. "The teams are very, very competitive. There is no way that big markets teams can outspend small market teams. So when the season starts everyone thinks their team can compete for the Stanley Cup."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5629666

What do you think? Good Idea?

dnewguy
09-29-2010, 03:51 PM
bad idea.....just watch the Lakers go mediocre along with the Celtics, Bulls and Knicks in the same season, and no one will be left to watch the NBA.

Bellz
09-29-2010, 03:55 PM
bad idea.....just watch the Lakers go mediocre along with the Celtics, Bulls and Knicks in the same season, and no one will be left to watch the NBA.

So with a hard cap the heat will still be great? I suppose they wont have to spilt up james-wade-bosh?

Hawkeye15
09-29-2010, 03:56 PM
its a good idea in principal. Even playing ground, and small market cities will explode in fan base if their team has a realistic chance at being even with big markets, offsetting any small amount of fans who simply go away because their team can't outspend.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
09-29-2010, 03:57 PM
Not gonna happen in Stern - Era

And it is a terrible idea

Hawkeye15
09-29-2010, 03:59 PM
I will be interested to see the various answers, depending on fans loyalty to which teams here. I would expect a Lakers fan, or Magic fan, to call this stupid. A Minnesota or Milwaukee fan will call it a good idea.

TheTakeOver24
09-29-2010, 04:02 PM
I like the idea in principle but i dont see how it would happen.
Btw to answer someone else I believe I read somewhere the Heat have the 21st highest payroll in the league...

Hawkeye15
09-29-2010, 04:03 PM
I like the idea in principle but i dont see how it would happen.
Btw to answer someone else I believe I read somewhere the Heat have the 21st highest payroll in the league...

well, there are a few players missing from their recorded numbers at this point, but they won't break the top 8 even when they are done.

Knowledge
09-29-2010, 04:04 PM
I wouldnt have a problem with a hard cap. It would make the League more competitive.

Lloyd Christmas
09-29-2010, 04:05 PM
Not gonna happen in Stern - Era

And it is a terrible idea

Lakers fan afraid of better competition?

ttam68
09-29-2010, 04:08 PM
One of the league main downfalls is its inability to balance out the winning.

The beauty of baseball or football is you don't really know who the final four teams will be, here we almost always do, due in part to lack of a cap.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
09-29-2010, 04:08 PM
Lakers fan afraid of better competition?

No

hard cap would suck, teams can't even hold their franchise players when they are near the cap, what a joke.

Soft cap work well, why to fix it, if it ain't broken?

SouthSideRookie
09-29-2010, 04:09 PM
I like the idea, it's going to be very intresting next offseason.

TheTakeOver24
09-29-2010, 04:13 PM
No

hard cap would suck, teams can't even hold their franchise players when they are near the cap, what a joke.

Soft cap work well, why to fix it, if it ain't broken?

Because some teams have an unfair advantage over others?
I know payroll doesnt always equal wins but you cant deny that the Lakers having twice the pay roll as some teams is unfair. So from the standpoint of fair competition its a broken system.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
09-29-2010, 04:15 PM
Because some teams have an unfair advantage over others?
I know payroll doesnt always equal wins but you cant deny that the Lakers having twice the pay roll as some teams is unfair. So from the standpoint of fair competition its a broken system.

cause they're rebuilding and the lakers are contending

HiphopRelated
09-29-2010, 04:16 PM
So with a hard cap the heat will still be great? I suppose they wont have to spilt up james-wade-bosh?
yep, Heat will still be great, LA's payroll is 40 mil more than Miami

Miami is the contender affected the least by cap issues

Mile High Champ
09-29-2010, 04:17 PM
I would love it to be honest. I think it really forces teams to think twice about offering some of the terrible contracts they already hand out (this is under the assumption that contracts are still guranteed under the new CBA). I would like to see all the teams on even par with each other, it would certainly avoid future intsances of a repreat of this summer when the heat signed the best 3 free agents to one team. A hard cap would also put greater importance back on drafting good players instead of free agency and trading.

Finally as hawkeye said, I think it does nothing but expand the game to other markets that are struggling right now.

king4day
09-29-2010, 04:17 PM
bad idea.....just watch the Lakers go mediocre along with the Celtics, Bulls and Knicks in the same season, and no one will be left to watch the NBA.

I think it creates new teams for the average fan to like. Merch sales go up.
I'd much rather see teams like the Clippers and Grizzlies succeed.
It's what makes the NHL special. When you know that on any given year, you can win.
It also forces players to reconsider going to big market teams for max dollar since they won't have money to spend a bunch of role players.

dtmagnet
09-29-2010, 04:18 PM
Toronto fan, good idea.

Lloyd Christmas
09-29-2010, 04:20 PM
No

hard cap would suck, teams can't even hold their franchise players when they are near the cap, what a joke.

Soft cap work well, why to fix it, if it ain't broken?

Many teams in the NBA have trouble affording the luxury tax so they plan in advance having enough cap space to sign their franchise player. I know that concept seems way out there for a Lakers fan but it is possible.

Kevj77
09-29-2010, 04:21 PM
Would the players union ever go for this? It might be good for small market teams, but it would mean less money for players. It would make endorsements even more important and teams in LA, Chi, and NY will still be prefered destinations because of this. Would it also mean no guaranteed contracts. How does a team improve if they make a mistake on a player overpay and get stuck with a guaranteed contract that takes up too much of the hard cap? This is the reason contracts aren't guaranteed in the NFL.

Bad idea for the NBA.

ChiSox219
09-29-2010, 04:21 PM
I like the soft cap, it allows teams to keep their homegrown players if they choose.


I will be interested to see the various answers, depending on fans loyalty to which teams here. I would expect a Lakers fan, or Magic fan, to call this stupid. A Minnesota or Milwaukee fan will call it a good idea.

I'd say a San Antonio fan would disagree. I'd bet an OKC see fan would vehemently disagree with a move towards a hard cap.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
09-29-2010, 04:21 PM
hard cap should be at least 75 mils

king4day
09-29-2010, 04:21 PM
No

hard cap would suck, teams can't even hold their franchise players when they are near the cap, what a joke.

Soft cap work well, why to fix it, if it ain't broken?

I sense fans of small market clubs won't agree with this. It might impact LA, Miami, Boston, and the other big cities, but you can't tell me that Indiana, Memphis, and Toronto fans won't get renewed optimism.
Big market teams will still have the lure of...well....being a big market. But it makes it more balanced and worth watching.

TheTakeOver24
09-29-2010, 04:21 PM
Anyone know how this would come into effect?
Would teams have to cut players, and if so does it make sense to
make 1 team cut Gasol and another Eddy Curry?

Hawkeye15
09-29-2010, 04:23 PM
I like the soft cap, it allows teams to keep their homegrown players if they choose.



I'd say a San Antonio fan would disagree. I'd bet an OKC see fan would vehemently disagree with a move towards a hard cap.

well, you are taking the two teams that have small markets with great management haha. That is a rarity. And OKC's salaries will go way up in a few years when all these young players get extensions

ChiSox219
09-29-2010, 04:23 PM
Would the players union ever go for this? It might be good for small market teams, but it would mean less money for players. It would make endorsements even more important and teams in LA, Chi, and NY will still be prefered destinations because of this. Would it also mean no guaranteed contracts. How does a team improve if they make a mistake on a player overpay and get stuck with a guaranteed contract that takes up too much of the hard cap? This is the reason contracts aren't guaranteed in the NFL.

Bad idea for the NBA.

The league would still split revenue at a similar rate with players so a hard cap would see a number closer to the luxury tax line than to the current soft cap.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
09-29-2010, 04:24 PM
Anyone know how this would come into effect?
Would teams have to cut players, and if so does it make sense to
make 1 team cut Gasol and another Eddy Curry?

That would be ridicilous, maybe new contracts and the old ones would be terminated lol

Hawkeye15
09-29-2010, 04:25 PM
Would the players union ever go for this? It might be good for small market teams, but it would mean less money for players. It would make endorsements even more important and teams in LA, Chi, and NY will still be prefered destinations because of this. Would it also mean no guaranteed contracts. How does a team improve if they make a mistake on a player overpay and get stuck with a guaranteed contract that takes up too much of the hard cap? This is the reason contracts aren't guaranteed in the NFL.

Bad idea for the NBA.

bad idea for players maybe. Sorry, but the salaries in the NBA are ridiculous. They are so much more than any of the other major sports its not even funny. $20 million to play basketball? Baseball has a number of high dollar deals, but the average salary in the NBA blows away the average salary in the NFL, MLB, and NHL. The players can live with less money. All the other athletes do

ChiSox219
09-29-2010, 04:28 PM
well, you are taking the two teams that have small markets with great management haha. That is a rarity. And OKC's salaries will go way up in a few years when all these young players get extensions

So, because a few teams are inept (not that Milwaukee is) the rest of the league should have to play down to them or the playing field should be level out. I don't buy that.


OKC is a prime example. They've drafted very well and will soon have to pay out if they want to keep those players. A hard cap may make that difficult.

king4day
09-29-2010, 04:28 PM
Anyone know how this would come into effect?
Would teams have to cut players, and if so does it make sense to
make 1 team cut Gasol and another Eddy Curry?

Perhaps there's a 3 year rule of some sort where if you're over the cap, you are stuck with what you have and can't change it. It forces you to either deal what you have within 3 years to get back under or as contracts expire, you won't be able to add players until you're back under the cap.

stfN
09-29-2010, 04:29 PM
Average salary from 2006

NBA: $4,900,000
MLB: $2,866,544
NHL: $1,460,000 (used to be $1,830,000)
NFL: $1,250,000
WNBA: $55,000

ChiSox219
09-29-2010, 04:29 PM
bad idea for players maybe. Sorry, but the salaries in the NBA are ridiculous. They are so much more than any of the other major sports its not even funny. $20 million to play basketball? Baseball has a number of high dollar deals, but the average salary in the NBA blows away the average salary in the NFL, MLB, and NHL. The players can live with less money. All the other athletes do

There are far fewer players in the NBA to split revenue with than in MLB.


Why you don't want the players to get their fair share of the pie? They are doing the most important work anyway.

TheTakeOver24
09-29-2010, 04:30 PM
Perhaps there's a 3 year rule of some sort where if you're over the cap, you are stuck with what you have and can't change it. It forces you to either deal what you have within 3 years to get back under or as contracts expire, you won't be able to add players until you're back under the cap.

Teams wouldnt have enough players then!?

ShaqShoes
09-29-2010, 04:31 PM
Good idea. The way the NHL is, every team that gets into the playoffs has a legitimate chance of making it to the finals. Look at the NBA. Seeds 5-8 don't have such a good chance.

Bob_at_york
09-29-2010, 04:32 PM
bad idea.....just watch the Lakers go mediocre along with the Celtics, Bulls and Knicks in the same season, and no one will be left to watch the NBA.

What? They are bandwagon fans. The fans will still exist and the front offices will find ways to spend their money more wisely.

News24/7
09-29-2010, 04:34 PM
bad idea for players maybe. Sorry, but the salaries in the NBA are ridiculous.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

Pay rolls beg to differ. the 12th highest pay roll team in baseball is higher then the first pay roll team in basketball.

king4day
09-29-2010, 04:35 PM
Teams wouldnt have enough players then!?

Then the Dleague will get ravaged....
or....or they can build robots :)

oak2455
09-29-2010, 04:37 PM
this will never happen, never!! IMO:D

TheTakeOver24
09-29-2010, 04:38 PM
Then the Dleague will get ravaged....
or....or they can build robots :)

Lol even minimum contracts would count in a hard cap so it would be impossible to fill a roster.
Best way is to just press the reset button and do a fantasy draft lol!

News24/7
09-29-2010, 04:38 PM
That and the NBA, just like the NFL, are pretty close to a lockout, having this put in will make it inevitable. Is it a good idea? Perhaps, but the players union won't like it, not one bit. That's a guarantee.

News24/7
09-29-2010, 04:41 PM
Lol even minimum contracts would count in a hard cap so it would be impossible to fill a roster.
Best way is to just press the reset button and do a fantasy draft lol!

as long as teams get to keep at least one of their players from going into the fantasy draft, then I'm all for it. Example, Lakers keep Kobe, Heat keep Wade, Celtics keep Rondo, Magic keep Dwight, etc.

Hawkeye15
09-29-2010, 04:43 PM
So, because a few teams are inept (not that Milwaukee is) the rest of the league should have to play down to them or the playing field should be level out. I don't buy that.


OKC is a prime example. They've drafted very well and will soon have to pay out if they want to keep those players. A hard cap may make that difficult.

well, you set the hard cap at around 70-75. It would make it so teams can pay outrageous deals to their star player, or in many cases, their perceived star player, and still fill around it. These player salaries are out of control

Hawkeye15
09-29-2010, 04:45 PM
There are far fewer players in the NBA to split revenue with than in MLB.


Why you don't want the players to get their fair share of the pie? They are doing the most important work anyway.

percentage wise, the players should make what they do. But ticket prices should drop with the hard cap and decrease in player pay. Make it more affordable for bad teams to attract fans to the games. Nobody in their right mind would want to pay $200 for a ticket to a Wolves game.

Hawkeye15
09-29-2010, 04:46 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

Pay rolls beg to differ. the 12th highest pay roll team in baseball is higher then the first pay roll team in basketball.

# of players on a roster dude. On top of that, there is no salary cap in the least. The NBA teams like the Lakers or Magic or Knicks would go well over $100 million a year if they had not luxury tax to deal with, only some revenue sharing

TheTakeOver24
09-29-2010, 04:47 PM
as long as teams get to keep at least one of their players from going into the fantasy draft, then I'm all for it. Example, Lakers keep Kobe, Heat keep Wade, Celtics keep Rondo, Magic keep Dwight, etc.

Sounds good to me. Lets figure out the draft order and get it done lol!

Hawkeye15
09-29-2010, 04:48 PM
baseball is about the worst example. There are a handful of teams that completely skew the payroll averages in the MLB, etc.

THE MTL
09-29-2010, 04:50 PM
How much money has the NBA made for this coming season and it hasnt even begun yet! DO YOU KNOW WHY??? Cause the big market teams are finally starting to compete. (Knicks with Amare, Chi w/ Rose and Boozer, Miami w/ trio) The NBA needs its big markets to do well cause its good for the league. NBA had already made over 100 million in season tickets sales, Boston vs LAL was most watched basketball game since Michael Jordan played.

A hard cap would make it impossible for teams to resign its own free agents. Hard caps are stupid and thats why the NFL got rid of it.

king4day
09-29-2010, 04:54 PM
Lol even minimum contracts would count in a hard cap so it would be impossible to fill a roster.
Best way is to just press the reset button and do a fantasy draft lol!

That would be so cool. I'm willing to be most Laker, Heat, Bulls, and Magic fans would just love that :D.

..But for real, I think players might have a strike on this. If they do, let's get the Dleague to be the players for now.
Ultimately, they probably will have to raise the cap to 80mil. That gives flexibility to sign some long or bad contracts. Lower the max contract to maybe 13-15 per year / non escalating.

ChiSox219
09-29-2010, 04:56 PM
percentage wise, the players should make what they do. But ticket prices should drop with the hard cap and decrease in player pay. Make it more affordable for bad teams to attract fans to the games. Nobody in their right mind would want to pay $200 for a ticket to a Wolves game.

People are more than willing pay $200 to see NBA games, so no reason to drop the prices. In fact, after failing to get tickets this morning in the section I desired, I wish the Bulls would raise ticket prices so I won't be forced to go to a third party website just to sit in the section I prefer.

You don't have to pay $200, plenty of sets available at $30 or so.


well, you set the hard cap at around 70-75. It would make it so teams can pay outrageous deals to their star player, or in many cases, their perceived star player, and still fill around it. These player salaries are out of control

How does that get salaries under control? Teams will push to their cap limit when they see fit and sometimes those moves will not work out. Only now, they won't even be able to keep that emerging star they drafted a few years ago.

Say, hypothetically teams manage the cap well, that creates more bidders come Free Agency and you are still going to get some bad contracts.

Raidaz4Life
09-29-2010, 04:57 PM
I don't see how this would make things more competitive, yes teams would have the same playing field but all the big names will still take less money to play in the bigger markets. If it comes down to taking 14 mil a year to play in minnesota or 11 mil a year to play in LA/NY then I guarantee they will take the deal for NY. The only advantage that it will give the smaller markets is signing role players. So they will end up over paying for a bunch of role players. Plus you have got to imagine guys like Kobe, Lebron, Gasol, KG, Duncan will take less money to keep their teams together. Its just an overall stupid idea because it won't solve anything. I think the NBA has the perfect cap situation as is and a hard cap would make it far less interesting. People want to watch the best teams... not a bunch of "competitive" mediocre teams.

The grizzlies are about 2 years away from being serious western conference contenders, the pistons are one of the worst teams in the league, The Thunder are already in discussion as a potential candidate to knock off the Lakers, The Clippers have been the laughing stock of the league since their inception. Market doesn't play nearly as big of a role as people like to make it out. There are plenty of small market teams that are extremely competitive and plenty of large market teams that bomb year after year. The Knicks are the perfect example of this.

Caps1989
09-29-2010, 05:01 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

Pay rolls beg to differ. the 12th highest pay roll team in baseball is higher then the first pay roll team in basketball.

:facepalm: 27 players on the major leauge roster + minor leauge teams vs 12-15 players in the nba. Gosh.

THE MTL
09-29-2010, 05:10 PM
:facepalm: 27 players on the major leauge roster + minor leauge teams vs 12-15 players in the nba. Gosh.

Minor league teams are included on payroll? I beg to differ. Anyway, if you add in the fact that baseball is double the amount of games and bigger stadiums it evens out.

THE MTL
09-29-2010, 05:13 PM
MLB makes money cause of no cap. Yankees increase revenue for the whole league. Same with other teams.

NFL got rid of cap.

NBA made hella money for this decade already cause NYC, Chi, Bos, LAL, and Miami are competing. NBA loss alot of money last couple seasons due to the lack of competing from the big market teams.

abe_froman
09-29-2010, 05:21 PM
MLB makes money cause of no cap. Yankees increase revenue for the whole league. Same with other teams.

NFL got rid of cap.

NBA made hella money for this decade already cause NYC, Chi, Bos, LAL, and Miami are competing. NBA loss alot of money last couple seasons due to the lack of competing from the big market teams.

does mlb make money because there's no cap? or are there other factors involved.its quite a leap to point to it as the reason baseball is popular.

not get rid of it,it will be back,this season is being played because they couldnt reach an agreement.it wasnt because of a sudden change of mind on the idea of cap being good/bad

there is a disparity in the revenue,its bad.yes lakers did well...lakers always do well.the name of the game isnt "lets help the lakers",its indy,det,ect are bankrupt we need to do something.and yeah 5 or so teams are benefiting and working under the current system,but there are 30 teams in the league.yes,as a fan of one of those 5,you love the idea that a smaller team sacrifices itself for you...but that team,its owner,and its fanbase doesnt.and there are more of them,then there are of those big money teams

jimbobjarree
09-29-2010, 05:24 PM
should be good. Something has to be done about teams like the Lakers being able to spend 6 million on new players, and endless millions on their own players despite being miles over the cap. Fingers crossed makes things more competitive.

king4day
09-29-2010, 05:35 PM
MLB makes money cause of no cap. Yankees increase revenue for the whole league. Same with other teams.

NFL got rid of cap.

NBA made hella money for this decade already cause NYC, Chi, Bos, LAL, and Miami are competing. NBA loss alot of money last couple seasons due to the lack of competing from the big market teams.

When stars are forced to spread out, there will be new money making teams in the league.

SteveNash
09-29-2010, 05:37 PM
One of the league main downfalls is its inability to balance out the winning.

The beauty of baseball or football is you don't really know who the final four teams will be, here we almost always do, due in part to lack of a cap.

Baseball has no salary cap and the disparity between team spending is much bigger.


bad idea for players maybe. Sorry, but the salaries in the NBA are ridiculous. They are so much more than any of the other major sports its not even funny. $20 million to play basketball? Baseball has a number of high dollar deals, but the average salary in the NBA blows away the average salary in the NFL, MLB, and NHL. The players can live with less money. All the other athletes do

12 man rosters vs 25 man rosters vs 53 man rosters


Good idea. The way the NHL is, every team that gets into the playoffs has a legitimate chance of making it to the finals. Look at the NBA. Seeds 5-8 don't have such a good chance.

Low scoring = greater chance of an upset

Da Knicks
09-29-2010, 05:39 PM
should be good. Something has to be done about teams like the Lakers being able to spend 6 million on new players, and endless millions on their own players despite being miles over the cap. Fingers crossed makes things more competitive.

Are the other teams not named Lakers, Celtics, Knicks getting viewed worldwide? :confused: The nba will always help the lakers and celtics since most countries only know about these teams. The nba has tried hard to get people to like basketball worldwide and you need a team that keeps on winning to promote it. Every sport has to do it besides football because american football is only big in the states therefore they need all the teams to be competitive. Basketball is different the big market teams attract more people because the fans have something to do after the games.

If the Nba was ran like the nfl would L.A. have two teams? I doubt it in the nfl the rams and raiders left because they were not winning and had a poor attendance because L.A. only has fans when they are winning...:(

desertlakeshow
09-29-2010, 05:43 PM
The beauty of baseball or football is you don't really know who the final four teams will be, here we almost always do, due in part to lack of a cap.

This is the reason I don't watch football or baseball. Parity has ruined these sports.

Give me rivalry's and historic battles.

I never want to watch the Clipper's play the Raptor's.

Unwatchable

commonsense12
09-29-2010, 05:47 PM
Easiest way to fix the competitive imbalance which there is a huge imbalance is to eliminate the MLE.

This has allowed teams to sign good players to deals and then in a few years resign those same players to big money contracts. By eliminating that you are basically making them home grow their own talent and thus cutting out the opportunity to spend a 100 mill. Well unless you draft incredibly well.

Think of the Lakers without Odom and Artest. The MLE just makes good teams even better, because all things the same, players are going to sign with better teams and they are usually the big market teams.

NO MLE will make more competition.

mjt20mik
09-29-2010, 05:50 PM
I sense fans of small market clubs won't agree with this. It might impact LA, Miami, Boston, and the other big cities, but you can't tell me that Indiana, Memphis, and Toronto fans won't get renewed optimism.
Big market teams will still have the lure of...well....being a big market. But it makes it more balanced and worth watching.

Toronto is actually ranked 11th in NBA teams that bring in the most Revenue. So you can't consider Toronto a small market. It may be an undesirable place to play ball, but definitely not a small market.

LINK:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/135512

commonsense12
09-29-2010, 05:51 PM
The beauty of baseball or football is you don't really know who the final four teams will be, here we almost always do, due in part to lack of a cap.

This is the reason I don't watch football or baseball. Parity has ruined these sports.

Give me rivalry's and historic battles.

I never want to watch the Clipper's play the Raptor's.

Unwatchable

You dont know who the teams in baseball are going to be? Are you serious? Sure there is usually one or 2 surprises a year and injuries can kill a team but almost every year you can pencil the same few teams in the playoffs.

Baseball is terrible you can eliminate at least half of the teams on day 1.

Also if the world series ends up Phils vs Yanks again would anyone be surprised? Because the Yanks can spend 200 mill it almost makes them a guarantee for the playoffs every year. If they dont make the playoffs they will spend 500 mill to make it the following year. Sorry baseball is a joke.

Raps08-09 Champ
09-29-2010, 05:58 PM
No

hard cap would suck, teams can't even hold their franchise players when they are near the cap, what a joke.

Soft cap work well, why to fix it, if it ain't broken?

It is broken though.

There are so much loopholes. Hell what's the point of having a cap when you have teams like the Lakers, Mavs, etc having a $100 mil payroll when the cap is suppose to be $58 mil.

sep11ie
09-29-2010, 06:15 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

Pay rolls beg to differ. the 12th highest pay roll team in baseball is higher then the first pay roll team in basketball.

NBA has fewer players on their rosters.

ChiSox219
09-29-2010, 06:26 PM
It is broken though.

There are so much loopholes. Hell what's the point of having a cap when you have teams like the Lakers, Mavs, etc having a $100 mil payroll when the cap is suppose to be $58 mil.

All those teams spending over $70m have to pay $ for $ tax that goes to the other teams.

So, if your $29m over the luxury tax (~$100m payroll) that means you are paying out that same money to each team in the league that is under the luxury tax threshold.

BOSTON617
09-29-2010, 06:49 PM
I will be interested to see the various answers, depending on fans loyalty to which teams here. I would expect a Lakers fan, or Magic fan, to call this stupid. A Minnesota or Milwaukee fan will call it a good idea.

i liek it more competion every year you can kind of predict who will make the top 8 seeds sometimes a surprise but most of the time not really


football and hockey even baseball are more random and mixed up a lot of upsets you know

and my celtics will be done in like 2 yrs so it would be good for us lmao

Wade>You
09-29-2010, 07:27 PM
It is broken though.

There are so much loopholes. Hell what's the point of having a cap when you have teams like the Lakers, Mavs, etc having a $100 mil payroll when the cap is suppose to be $58 mil.Because those teams are paying to stay competitive, not because they're splurging on FAs like the Yankees every season.

I like the owners' comment by the way. He's not saying "it helps us small markets compete with bigger markets" as much as he's saying "we don't wanna spend money to compete (period)."

camador22
09-29-2010, 07:28 PM
A hard cap would ruin good team that took the time and great management to make a good team. The fact that a team is in a little market has nothing to do with being good or bad. A hard cap would ruin the sport for good in so many ways. They need to keep the soft cap but reduce the maximum and mid level contracts. Guarenteed contracts should be only in the first couple years as well.

Wade>You
09-29-2010, 07:39 PM
The 1983 CBA introduced the modern salary cap, and with it the provision allowing teams to exceed the cap to re-sign their own players

People need to do their research and understand that the salary cap became a soft cap when the NBA blew up.

Now just imagine all the players today that we associate with teams that would not be part of their teams if it weren't for the soft cap.

For all those people that think a hard cap is a good thing, please learn the history of the sport and understand why it's fine just the way it is. Quit supporting garbage owners and GMs that sign players to bad deals. They're the reason your team sucks, not the players or the CBA.

This is what it ultimately comes down to. Owners/GMs that don't want to take responsibility and think that the reason they suck is due to external factors.

Gators123
09-29-2010, 07:57 PM
http://twitter.com/#!/STEIN_LINE_HQ

STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein
NBA announces $100,000 fine for Wizards owner Ted Leonsis for his comments about potential hard salary cap in league's next labor pact

Chacarron
09-29-2010, 07:59 PM
I like the idea of a hard cap. More competitiveness is always good.

camador22
09-29-2010, 08:45 PM
I like the idea of a hard cap. More competitiveness is always good.

Buddy if your a Laker fans you will literally have tears in your eyes if it happens. You will likely be able to afford only Kobe and Odom. Gasol, Artest and Bynum wouldn't fit under a hard cap.

daleja424
09-29-2010, 08:49 PM
First of all... the MAJORITY of the leagues money comes from the top markets. All of those large markets are currently over the soft cap considerably... so you are going to tell the Knicks, Heat, Lakers, Magic, Celtics, etc that they have to cut people to get under a hard cap... NO

Second of all... guys are just now signing 5-6 year max deals that are garanteed. You can not suddenly change their contracts to make them unguaranteed. That means that the soonest you could implement a hard cap is 2015+.

Third of all... why would the major markets let this happen!?! They control the money...they make the dcecisions... why would they give up one of their advantages

Fourth of all... in reality, it still doesn't matter... guys are still going to flock to the big markets

Fifth of all... whats wrong with the current system. The smaller markets have the same rules as the larger ones. They too can spend up to the cap number and have the same cap exceptions.

Sixth of all... this means that you could/would lose franchise players...

anyways... I don't see any logic to a hard cap. It won't happen.

daleja424
09-29-2010, 08:52 PM
The current system is PERFECT. You cannot spend money unless you are resigning your FA or you are using one of two cap exceptions that every team gets. And if you do exceed the cap as a means of getting ahead, you have to pay the rest of the teams ion the league....thus giving those teams money to do the same.

Even if you change the rules the best players are still going to want to play in the big markets.

daleja424
09-29-2010, 08:56 PM
My final thought is this:

The current system provides enough parody without getting out of hand. Obviously baseball sucks with teams like the Yanks being able to spend 10x some small market teams without restriction. But the NBA doesn't have that. Everyone plays by the same rules in the NBA and everyone COULD/WOULD spend the money if given the chance. The problem with small market teams isn't related to money. Its that players don't want to play there. You think that teams like the Kings wouldn't have ponied up the cash to get Lebron...problem is why would he want to go there!?!

THE MTL
09-29-2010, 08:59 PM
When stars are forced to spread out, there will be new money making teams in the league.

Thats not true at all! Look at Miami Heat.....there are all kinds of crazy numbers since those three joined up. In this case the sum is MUCH BETTER than the 3 parts.

This past decade we had the small markets coming up. Look at Miami (back in 06 was small market), San Antonio, Portland, Phoenix, etc. Yes, it makes the league a little more competitive but it LOOSES alot of money!!! NBA loss money every year...now look at the league now that NYC and CHI are back. And Miami is now a big market.

It messed up for competition but sports need their big markets to do well

THE MTL
09-29-2010, 09:10 PM
does mlb make money because there's no cap? or are there other factors involved.its quite a leap to point to it as the reason baseball is popular.

not get rid of it,it will be back,this season is being played because they couldnt reach an agreement.it wasnt because of a sudden change of mind on the idea of cap being good/bad

there is a disparity in the revenue,its bad.yes lakers did well...lakers always do well.the name of the game isnt "lets help the lakers",its indy,det,ect are bankrupt we need to do something.and yeah 5 or so teams are benefiting and working under the current system,but there are 30 teams in the league.yes,as a fan of one of those 5,you love the idea that a smaller team sacrifices itself for you...but that team,its owner,and its fanbase doesnt.and there are more of them,then there are of those big money teams

While baseball is more popular than basketball. It is NOT by much. NBA Finals ratings and World Series ratings are about the same. However the MLB's TOP MARKETS are always always competitive!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yankees and Soxs spend over 200 million

While NFL had a hard cap....there was HUGE loophole of "sign-on/end-of-year bonuses" where players get most of their salary which doesnt count against the cap.

WolvesJagsOs
09-29-2010, 09:16 PM
My final thought is this:

The current system provides enough parody without getting out of hand. Obviously baseball sucks with teams like the Yanks being able to spend 10x some small market teams without restriction. But the NBA doesn't have that. Everyone plays by the same rules in the NBA and everyone COULD/WOULD spend the money if given the chance. The problem with small market teams isn't related to money. Its that players don't want to play there. You think that teams like the Kings wouldn't have ponied up the cash to get Lebron...problem is why would he want to go there!?!

This, and i know about this being a Wolves fan...

IBleedPurple
09-29-2010, 09:26 PM
A hard cap would ruin good team that took the time and great management to make a good team. The fact that a team is in a little market has nothing to do with being good or bad. A hard cap would ruin the sport for good in so many ways. They need to keep the soft cap but reduce the maximum and mid level contracts. Guarenteed contracts should be only in the first couple years as well.

How would a hard cap ruin the sport? It would likely make it more competitive

SugeKnight
09-29-2010, 09:54 PM
dont like hard cap. Just get rid of the MLE.

TylerSL
09-29-2010, 10:29 PM
wow :facepalm: it will be like baseball. The Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, and Bulls will have the most money. In baseball only the big market teams get better and the small market teams get nothing. Its like the trickle down effect, it doesnt trickle down, the teams in the big cities get all the players and everyone else gets the leftovers :facepalm: I will stop watching basketball if this happens, its why I quit watching baseball :facepalm:

Wade>You
09-30-2010, 12:04 AM
I think one of the problems is the owners are suggesting that most money spent = wins/playoff success and I think we all know that's far from the truth.

And for the record, I don't think you're gonna see any winning franchise with a beef in the current CBA (maybe they hate paying the luxury tax, but that's to help them make smarter money management decisions). It's mostly these losing teams that blame the world for their problems causing all the fuss. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure even winning franchises want to save money, but they know the hard cap will hurt their chances of putting a title contender together in the future. Example, Kobe and Pau get paid nearly half the Lakers' salary cap. The BIG3 in Boston eat up almost their entire cap space. Miami not as much as the other two, but they're close. Lakers and Celtics will be heavily affected by a hard cap.

kArSoN RyDaH
09-30-2010, 01:19 AM
what is funny about this is all teams started off as small markets. the way they got into big markets is by winning. it happens everywhere in every sport. your market will expand if you win. and if the market is still small move to a big market area. i dont see why the league should have to compensate for these "small" market teams. draft good players, spend money and get big name players. the secret to winning a championship is not a secret at all. everyone knows how to win a championship and what it takes. if you are not willing to do what it takes for your organization to win a championship then you shouldnt be an NBA owner.

soundjunkies2
09-30-2010, 01:40 AM
The current system is PERFECT. You cannot spend money unless you are resigning your FA or you are using one of two cap exceptions that every team gets. And if you do exceed the cap as a means of getting ahead, you have to pay the rest of the teams ion the league....thus giving those teams money to do the same.

Even if you change the rules the best players are still going to want to play in the big markets.

You'd think even more so since they won't be making as much as they usually would in salary so they might try to make up for that off the court.

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 01:46 AM
what is funny about this is all teams started off as small markets. the way they got into big markets is by winning. it happens everywhere in every sport. your market will expand if you win. and if the market is still small move to a big market area. i dont see why the league should have to compensate for these "small" market teams. draft good players, spend money and get big name players. the secret to winning a championship is not a secret at all. everyone knows how to win a championship and what it takes. if you are not willing to do what it takes for your organization to win a championship then you shouldnt be an NBA owner.

No offense dude but there is no way a team like the Bucks can have the market that the Knicks have. I don't care if Mil wins 5 championships in a row, the population will still never be high enough to be considered a major market.

kArSoN RyDaH
09-30-2010, 01:50 AM
No offense dude but there is no way a team like the Bucks can have the market that the Knicks have. I don't care if Mil wins 5 championships in a row, the population will still never be high enough to be considered a major market.

which is why i said ifit is still a small market move to a big market. a place like las vegas doesnt need a team? what about st louis? im sure they could do it.

abe_froman
09-30-2010, 02:01 AM
which is why i said ifit is still a small market move to a big market. a place like las vegas doesnt need a team? what about st louis? im sure they could do it.

and the other teams,what are they suppose to do? there arent enough major cities in the us that dont have an nba franchise that can take on all the mid/lower markets...and you cant put them 2 or 3 to the city because that major market gets divided up between them

JiffyMix88
09-30-2010, 02:05 AM
its true they need to do something i'm tired of seeing all these big city markets continuously lure players in with money instead of actually using draft strategies in order to build their championship teams

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 02:08 AM
But those cities will still never be a big market like NY or LA. Those teams pay the huge luxery tax numbers AND still make more money then most franchises. That is an obvious advantage over most teams don't you think? Look at San Antonio. They win, draft well, operate well, and are still a small market team who can't spend what the Lakers or Knicks spend.

Kevj77
09-30-2010, 02:56 AM
dont like hard cap. Just get rid of the MLE.Just vet min players to round out a roster, but the ability to keep homegrown talent. Bird rights won't go away. They want teams that draft well and make sound FA pickups to do well not be punished.

A hard cap would almost have to be at or above the luxury tax level. Cheap owners don't even want to spend that now. It won't change inept management.

Wade>You
09-30-2010, 03:18 AM
But those cities will still never be a big market like NY or LA. Those teams pay the huge luxery tax numbers AND still make more money then most franchises. That is an obvious advantage over most teams don't you think? Look at San Antonio. They win, draft well, operate well, and are still a small market team who can't spend what the Lakers or Knicks spend.Fan base and ownership have a lot to do with that. They shouldn't be penalized for it.

Also, if you can't afford the team, why buy a team or just sell it? Don't hold the franchise hostage like that.

Last, there are such things as sh.tty owners in sports.

Miami is the perfect example of a small market city that has had success in sports.

Bausman
09-30-2010, 03:25 AM
Anyone that thinks its a good idea is a communist.

Go Raptors.

IBleedPurple
09-30-2010, 03:34 AM
Miami is the perfect example of a small market city that has had success in sports.

Not sure I'd call Miami small market. You have most of Florida, part of some surrounding states, and all of Cuba supporting your team.

Not to mention, Miami hasn't been that successful as far as winning goes.

daleja424
09-30-2010, 08:57 AM
Still havent seen anyone give a thought out reason that supports a hard cap...

Instead of 50 people just sticking their head in here to say yay or nay...how about someone actually try to discuss it. Does anyone have a good reason why the NBA should go to a hard cap?

Wade>You
09-30-2010, 09:13 AM
Not sure I'd call Miami small market. You have most of Florida, part of some surrounding states, and all of Cuba supporting your team.

Not to mention, Miami hasn't been that successful as far as winning goes.Cities like Boston, LA, New York, and Dallas dwarf us in every aspect of being a major market. It may not seem like it, but Miami is a small market city. Maybe that changes after this offseason, but that remains to be seen.

Heater4life
09-30-2010, 09:36 AM
I honestly do not believe that a hard cap is needed, i will actually go as far as saying it hill hinder and possibly HURT this league. The major argument in favor of a hard cap that i see here is "it will make FA an even playing field", as mentioned above, it is a beautiful idea in concept but i do not think it will work.


The "even playing field argument", IMO, is naive. The soft cap is implemented so that, well, teams can have an even playing field! Making the cap resolute will only make great teams deconstruct, thus lowering their revenue. As much as i would like to see talent more wide-spread around the league, you have to realize that there is only so much talent out there to spread. The hard cap concept (if it works to fans liking, and spreads talent) will only gives us a diluted league. Teams with possibly one star and mediocre nobodies, hardly the buisness plan i would want to draw new fans. It also shackles teams to those unreasonable contracts that we all dispise (just because theres a hard cap doesnt mean you wont have competition and you wont over pay).

It wont give a smaller market team "a better chance" at success.

A better solution IMO, would be to limit the amount of exception money a team can use.

Raidaz4Life
09-30-2010, 09:51 AM
But those cities will still never be a big market like NY or LA. Those teams pay the huge luxery tax numbers AND still make more money then most franchises. That is an obvious advantage over most teams don't you think? Look at San Antonio. They win, draft well, operate well, and are still a small market team who can't spend what the Lakers or Knicks spend.

And yet the Spurs are immensely more successful than the Knicks. Market has very little to do with success on the court.


I really don't see what the argument for the hard cap is.... people keep saying "even playing field" but last time I checked San Antonio, Utah, Portland, Milwaukee, Denver, Charlotte, Cleveland and OKC were all playoff teams last year while The Clippers, Knicks, Nets, Wizards, 76ers, Pistons, Raptors, and Rockets were all sitting at home.


The competition is pretty evenly spread out between big and small market teams so I really don't see the point trying to be made.

Heater4life
09-30-2010, 09:54 AM
And yet the Spurs are immensely more successful than the Knicks. Market has very little to do with success on the court.


I really don't see what the argument for the hard cap is.... people keep saying "even playing field" but last time I checked San Antonio, Utah, Portland, Milwaukee, Denver, Charlotte, Cleveland and OKC were all playoff teams last year while The Clippers, Knicks, Nets, Wizards, 76ers, Pistons, Raptors, and Rockets were all sitting at home.

The competition is pretty evenly spread out between big and small market teams so I really don't see the point trying to be made.

Was going to edit but this is it^

OBredskin
09-30-2010, 10:22 AM
Still havent seen anyone give a thought out reason that supports a hard cap...

Instead of 50 people just sticking their head in here to say yay or nay...how about someone actually try to discuss it. Does anyone have a good reason why the NBA should go to a hard cap?

I can say that there needs to be a 'rethinking' of the current system. Because if things continue the way they are currently, there won't be as many teams in the NBA as there is now.

The smaller markets aren't trying to take away from the big markets, Kobe can have Gasol etc, the fat guys always think they will lose weight seeing someone eat more.....and the divide seems to be that some believe creating a hard cap only helps the smaller markets while attacking the big markets, that people is just not true.

An equaling of the playing field per say, actually makes big markets stand out more than the current system, simply because of the endorsement prospect and also some markets have high tradition of success (Boston, Lakers, Chicago)...but even some big markets (as stated earlier) aren't even the better teams...NY for example, who by the way shoveled money to a countless bunch of half-*****, do you think thats good for the NBA? While other teams pinch nickels never to have a shot to give Kwame Brown or Luke Walton a contract to stink it up on their bench.

I'm half jokingly stating my point, because I can go down the list of all the big markets teams over-spending just to hinder smaller market teams in their divisions from matching offers for players, NY again comes to mind.

I live here in Portland now and consider the Blazers to be a small market team that even with a extremely wealthy owner can't compete with LA when it comes to getting FA's to consider, just for the fact of living here in the Northwest.....could that ever be different, I don't think so. But it would be great to switch NY's or LA's payroll/luxury expense and give to the Blazers and maybe a team like Minnesota and see how loose they are with the money, I doubt it's the same as what we see from some of our current big market teams, maybe not though.

Honestly just look at what NY has done with the current cap and work your way up, do you think it's good for the NBA if all teams aren't given a chance to wreck as bad as they have (Looking at the glass half full)? But like I said earlier, if this keeps up, eventually there will only be 8 teams in the NBA.

Shmontaine
09-30-2010, 11:27 AM
As much as it may make things more competitive, the money is in the major markets... if the NBA claims to be broke, instituting a hard cap won't make life any easier... How much money will the NBA make with the Twolves and sixers in the finals???

Big markets make the NBA what it is... Just lower the luxury tax threshold to 60 mil and let the teams decide what to do... the teams under the tax would get a pretty nice added revenue...

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 02:29 PM
Someone brought up earlier limiting the amount a team is able to go over the cap. So putting in a hard cap over a soft cap. That seems like a reasonable start. I'm sure the players association would never agree to it but it does make sense.

daleja424
09-30-2010, 02:29 PM
I think this is what will happen:
Salary cap % will drop slightly, along with max contracts.
Lux tax number will also drop, but the penalty will remain dollar for dollar.

and thats it... we will not see some huge overhaul in this cba I dont think...

daleja424
09-30-2010, 02:30 PM
Someone brought up earlier limiting the amount a team is able to go over the cap. So putting in a hard cap over a soft cap. That seems like a reasonable start. I'm sure the players association would never agree to it but it does make sense.

That doesn't make sense b/c it still has the problem where you cant resign your own guys and/or improve your team if you are near the "hard cap"

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 02:52 PM
That doesn't make sense b/c it still has the problem where you cant resign your own guys and/or improve your team if you are near the "hard cap"

Which seems like a pretty fair compromise. Most teams wouldn't beable to afford the luxury tax around the hard cap, but the teams that can afford it would have to be a little more judicious on the money they spend. Basically a completely stacked Laker team wouldn't be able to bring back Odom unless they cleared cap space.

daleja424
09-30-2010, 03:21 PM
but that is the example you are using. But the same thing could happen to Chicago for example trying to resign Rose. Or Utah trying to resign Deron Williams. etc etc etc

the nba adopted the rules it has now to give the home team the advantage in resigning players...

and what about teams that have spent their cap space poorly. Your are going to relegate them to 5 years of irrelevancy until contracts expire...

the luxury tax is the perfect system. it rewards teams for staying under it and helps redistribute money in the nba.

and there isn't a single team in the nba that can't afford the luxury tax...we are talking about billion dollar owners man... if the team is good it is making more money and thus can afford more.

the mle is very important and many teams (not just the Lakers) use it every year. It allows the cap teams to try to improve...whats wrong with that?

daleja424
09-30-2010, 03:24 PM
and keep this in mind... when the lakers spend money over the lux tax... small market teams MAKE money... why would they want that to stop?

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 03:51 PM
but that is the example you are using. But the same thing could happen to Chicago for example trying to resign Rose. Or Utah trying to resign Deron Williams. etc etc etc

the nba adopted the rules it has now to give the home team the advantage in resigning players...

and what about teams that have spent their cap space poorly. Your are going to relegate them to 5 years of irrelevancy until contracts expire...

the luxury tax is the perfect system. it rewards teams for staying under it and helps redistribute money in the nba.

and there isn't a single team in the nba that can't afford the luxury tax...we are talking about billion dollar owners man... if the team is good it is making more money and thus can afford more.

the mle is very important and many teams (not just the Lakers) use it every year. It allows the cap teams to try to improve...whats wrong with that?

Well the cap rule wouldn't beable to kick in until 2016 or there would have to be contracts that are grandfathered in. The hard cap number would still be high enough that most teams will beable to use their MLE. It would just effect teams that are so high over they have an obvious unfair advantage.

It would be like putting a 150 million hard cap in the MLB. Only 2 or 3 teams would be effected but it would even out the field a little bit. Are you going to argue that it is unfair that the Yankees couldn't resign Cano if they are over the cap when they have All stars at 6 other positions? Come on man. This would force them to plan in advance for Cano's pay raise.

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 04:03 PM
As for the billion dollar owners, most of them made their billions by making wise business decisions. A small market business owner paying 30 mil in luxery taxes to keep up with the Lakers is not a smart business decision. These big market owners make enough to easily cover the luxury tax so they aren't really effected by it. You would have to get an obsessed sports fanatic with billions of dollars who would be alright with losing that much money to be the kind of small market owner you are talking about. The only guy I can think of like that is Mark Cuban. It would be great for the league if every owner was like Cuban, but that's unfortunately not the way it is.

Also small market owners would still be making money off of the Luxury taxes that other teams pay. They would make just a little bit less which would probably even out if they had a better chance to compete with these big market teams.

Kevj77
09-30-2010, 04:14 PM
Which seems like a pretty fair compromise. Most teams wouldn't beable to afford the luxury tax around the hard cap, but the teams that can afford it would have to be a little more judicious on the money they spend. Basically a completely stacked Laker team wouldn't be able to bring back Odom unless they cleared cap space.Why should a team not be able to bring back players it acquired through trade or draft just to help out small markets? I can possible go along with eliminating the MLE and BAE only allowing them to sign vet min players over the cap. Why shouldn't they be able to resign Odom who was part of the Shaq trade. An even better example would be Ariza the Lakers traded for him and he blossomed they let him go because he wanted the same amount of money as Artest, but without the MLE they would have resigned Ariza with his Bird rights. Lakers without the MLE would look a lot different Fish, Artest, Blake and Barnes would all not be Lakers, but you want to take it even further and force them to let players they drafted or trade for leave for nothing so they wouldn't have Odom or Ariza either.

Seems like it would be punishment for making sound decisions to help out inept management. Small market teams that are run well are doing just fine ask the Spurs, OKC, Utah, Portland and others that do well. There are small market teams that have made terrible decisions like the Twolves. Mchale ruined that teams chance to compete by making under the table deals that cost them multiple first round picks and gave bad contracts to players. Knicks under Thomas spent tons of money and still ended up a lottery team almost every year. A cap won't change management. Sure the Lakers have money, but they made very good decisions to put together their roster. Why punish that?

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 04:27 PM
Why should a team not be able to bring back players it acquired through trade or draft just to help out small markets? I can possible go along with eliminating the MLE and BAE only allowing them to sign vet min players over the cap. Why shouldn't they be able to resign Odom who was part of the Shaq trade. An even better example would be Ariza the Lakers traded for him and he blossomed they let him go because he wanted the same amount of money as Artest, but without the MLE they would have resigned Ariza with his Bird rights. Lakers without the MLE would look a lot different Fish, Artest, Blake and Barnes would all not be Lakers, but you want to take it even further and force them to let players they drafted or trade for leave for nothing so they wouldn't have Odom or Ariza either.

Seems like it would be punishment for making sound decisions to help out inept management. Small market teams that are run well are doing just fine ask the Spurs, OKC, Utah, Portland and others that do well. There are small market teams that have made terrible decisions like the Twolves. Mchale ruined that teams chance to compete by making under the table deals that cost them multiple first round picks and gave bad contracts to players. Knicks under Thomas spent tons of money and still ended up a lottery team almost every year. A cap won't change management. Sure the Lakers have money, but they made very good decisions to put together their roster. Why punish that?

See I see it the opposite way you see it. Small market teams have to be perfect on signing guys to the right deals where a team like the Lakers can have a few swings and misses on bad deals since they are able to spend 30 million more then some teams. This allows the big market teams to make mistakes and still be as good as a small market team with perfect contracts across the board. How is that fair? The Knicks just happened to miss on almost every contract under Isiah.

Heater4life
09-30-2010, 04:30 PM
Which seems like a pretty fair compromise. Most teams wouldn't beable to afford the luxury tax around the hard cap, but the teams that can afford it would have to be a little more judicious on the money they spend. Basically a completely stacked Laker team wouldn't be able to bring back Odom unless they cleared cap space.

A hard cap is not a solution. For reasons i stated in previous posts....

1) Talent dilution- There is only so much established talent in the NBA, therefore if we had stars spread throughout the league we'd have great players throughout the league but not necessarily great teams because they would not be able to retain/obtain decent talent to surround them with.

2) Player retention- A team which spends carefully and stumbles upon what we like to call a hidden gem, would likely be cash strapped and unable to offer an acceptable contract. they would be forced to either dismantle their current roster in advance or lose said player. (both undesireable moves if it is a well established team)

3) Draft limitations- Unlike the NFL (which has a hard cap), the NBA does not have a large draft. NBA talent is difficult to come by, maybe 15 rookies making solid contributions in their careers in a solid draft class. It becomes that much more difficult to replace premium expensive talent with cheaper effective labor.

4) Guaranteed contracts- This is the biggest hindrance to a hard cap, if one of your star players with a large contract were to become injury prone, he would cripple your franchise for many years from aquiring replacement talent. (think orlando magic with grant hil, but with further salary constraints)

its a bad idea throughout.....

Heater4life
09-30-2010, 04:38 PM
See I see it the opposite way you see it. Small market teams have to be perfect on signing guys to the right deals where a team like the Lakers can have a few swings and misses on bad deals since they are able to spend 30 million more then some teams. This allows the big market teams to make mistakes and still be as good as a small market team with perfect contracts across the board. How is that fair? The Knicks just happened to miss on almost every contract under Isiah.

Your argument would only make sense given an instance where a said team was unable to retain a star/quality player due to the fact that they did not have the capital to do so. So how has the current system failed the small market team? Better yet, look at the above post to see how a hard cap would fail a small market team even further. ^

rawz
09-30-2010, 04:58 PM
is the nhl hard cap similar to what the nfl had ?

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 05:28 PM
A hard cap is not a solution. For reasons i stated in previous posts....

1) Talent dilution- There is only so much established talent in the NBA, therefore if we had stars spread throughout the league we'd have great players throughout the league but not necessarily great teams because they would not be able to retain/obtain decent talent to surround them with.

2) Player retention- A team which spends carefully and stumbles upon what we like to call a hidden gem, would likely be cash strapped and unable to offer an acceptable contract. they would be forced to either dismantle their current roster in advance or lose said player. (both undesireable moves if it is a well established team)

3) Draft limitations- Unlike the NFL (which has a hard cap), the NBA does not have a large draft. NBA talent is difficult to come by, maybe 15 rookies making solid contributions in their careers in a solid draft class. It becomes that much more difficult to replace premium expensive talent with cheaper effective labor.

4) Guaranteed contracts- This is the biggest hindrance to a hard cap, if one of your star players with a large contract were to become injury prone, he would cripple your franchise for many years from aquiring replacement talent. (think orlando magic with grant hil, but with further salary constraints)

its a bad idea throughout.....

My thoughts which you quoted were under the circumstance which there would be a soft cap like there is today but a hardcap over that which would limit a team like the Lakers from going so far over the cap they have an unfair advantage. I will assume you read that when you posted. With that said:

1. Everyone keeps talking about talent dilution like its a bad thing. Remember when the NFL had no salary cap and we saw the same teams winning every single year? Then the cap came in and the star players were diluted around the NFL. Now the NFL has new teams in the playoffs every year with a few exceptions. This would happen in the NBA also and I don't believe for one second it would hurt the league. The NFL is doing alright even with the dilution the last time I checked.

2. If a team has already used their cap space and can't afford their "hidden gem" then that said team will already be around the hard cap but still well into the luxery tax. So this said team will already have a greater payroll then your small market teams and will either have spent their money wisely to the point where even without this "hidden gem" they are still a top team, or they haven't spent their money wisely and a foolish contract or 2 will prevent them from resigning him. So this team either need to leave some room incase they find a "hidden gem" or roll the dice on spending so much more then everyone else they couldn't resign him.

3. Once again this would only effect the teams which can afford to be around the hard cap. This is something that small market teams have been having to deal with for years to avoid paying the luxury tax. I'm sure the big spending teams will beable to figure this one out.

4. How is this any different then what happens today? Any team with a major injury to a guy who makes a substantial amount of money will be crippled. A hard cap would just even that playing field with the big market teams who could previously afford to lose one of these players since they still had paid for more talent then small market teams.

Heater4life
09-30-2010, 06:01 PM
My thoughts which you quoted were under the circumstance which there would be a soft cap like there is today but a hardcap over that which would limit a team like the Lakers from going so far over the cap they have an unfair advantage. I will assume you read that when you posted. With that said:

1. Everyone keeps talking about talent dilution like its a bad thing. Remember when the NFL had no salary cap and we saw the same teams winning every single year? Then the cap came in and the star players were diluted around the NFL. Now the NFL has new teams in the playoffs every year with a few exceptions. This would happen in the NBA also and I don't believe for one second it would hurt the league. The NFL is doing alright even with the dilution the last time I checked.

2. If a team has already used their cap space and can't afford their "hidden gem" then that said team will already be around the hard cap but still well into the luxery tax. So this said team will already have a greater payroll then your small market teams and will either have spent their money wisely to the point where even without this "hidden gem" they are still a top team, or they haven't spent their money wisely and a foolish contract or 2 will prevent them from resigning him. So this team either need to leave some room incase they find a "hidden gem" or roll the dice on spending so much more then everyone else they couldn't resign him.

3. Once again this would only effect the teams which can afford to be around the hard cap. This is something that small market teams have been having to deal with for years to avoid paying the luxury tax. I'm sure the big spending teams will beable to figure this one out.

4. How is this any different then what happens today? Any team with a major injury to a guy who makes a substantial amount of money will be crippled. A hard cap would just even that playing field with the big market teams who could previously afford to lose one of these players since they still had paid for more talent then small market teams.

Although i see the advantages in being a proponent for benefits for smaller market teams, your idea of implementing soft and hard caps does not only hinder large market teams but the smaller market teams as well.

Case and point the Milwaukee Bucks, currently have Michael Redd's 18.3 million salary on the books as well as Andrew Bogut's 11 million. Roughly 30 million on two players who have had injury issues. For arguments sake lets say Brandon Jennings who is the franchises cornerstone is due a contract at the max and Milwaukee cannot exceed a hard cap. The revenue hit Milwaukee will incur will put them at a huge loss! More so than with the current CBA.

Now if the hard cap is high enough so that it only affects really BIG spending teams, then the only the effects of spreading talent throughout the league would be minimal and limited to players such as Steve Blake, Matt Barnes, Keyon Dooling, etc. (thus no real benefit for anyone, small markets can already draw role players)

*NOTE: This also may inflate players contracts. I.E Udonis Haslem signing with Heat for 3 million, instead of 6 million offered my smaller market Denver. Its not as cut and dry as you might think it is.

netsgiantsyanks
09-30-2010, 06:06 PM
lol. he got fined 100,000 bucks for this. thats just david stern's way of saying, "yeah, not happening."

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 06:19 PM
Although i see the advantages in being a proponent for benefits for smaller market teams, your idea of implementing soft and hard caps does not only hinder large market teams but the smaller market teams as well.

Case and point the Milwaukee Bucks, currently have Michael Redd's 18.3 million salary on the books as well as Andrew Bogut's 11 million. Roughly 30 million on two players who have had injury issues. For arguments sake lets say Brandon Jennings who is the franchises cornerstone is due a contract at the max and Milwaukee cannot exceed a hard cap. The revenue hit Milwaukee will incur will put them at a huge loss! More so than with the current CBA.

Now if the hard cap is high enough so that it only affects really BIG spending teams, then the only the effects of spreading talent throughout the league would be minimal and limited to players such as Steve Blake, Matt Barnes, Keyon Dooling, etc. (thus no real benefit for anyone, small markets can already draw role players)

*NOTE: This also may inflate players contracts. I.E Udonis Haslem signing with Heat for 3 million, instead of 6 million offered my smaller market Denver. Its not as cut and dry as you might think it is.

Well the Bucks wouldn't be near the hard cap so that wouldn't be a good example. Yes the hard cap would only effect a few teams, but I don't think this means less role players for them. I think this would mean one less big contract IE Odom. Every team has to get the right amount of role players to fill out a roster.

As far as your Haslem point, I think that will even itself out. Say Denver signed Haslem, maybe Harrington wouldn't have signed there for 9 mil a year and would have had to take less money somewhere else.

daleja424
09-30-2010, 06:30 PM
but what you seem to fail to grasp is that the Lakers have the same rules as everyone else. EVERYONE is allowed to exceed the cap and go into the luxury tax... the only advantage they have is that they have more income b/c they are a good team. The Lakers contribute more than 1/30th to the leagues revenue... so they in turn have more to spend. What is wrong with that?!?!

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 06:54 PM
but what you seem to fail to grasp is that the Lakers have the same rules as everyone else. EVERYONE is allowed to exceed the cap and go into the luxury tax... the only advantage they have is that they have more income b/c they are a good team. The Lakers contribute more than 1/30th to the leagues revenue... so they in turn have more to spend. What is wrong with that?!?!

You must have missed my post earlier. I said:

"As for the billion dollar owners, most of them made their billions by making wise business decisions. A small market business owner paying 30 mil in luxery taxes to keep up with the Lakers is not a smart business decision. These big market owners make enough to easily cover the luxury tax so they aren't really effected by it. You would have to get an obsessed sports fanatic with billions of dollars who would be alright with losing that much money to be the kind of small market owner you are talking about. The only guy I can think of like that is Mark Cuban. It would be great for the league if every owner was like Cuban, but that's unfortunately not the way it is.

Also small market owners would still be making money off of the Luxury taxes that other teams pay. They would make just a little bit less which would probably even out if they had a better chance to compete with these big market teams."

Do you honestly believe it is in the league's best interest to allow teams like the Lakers to go that far over the cap?

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 06:57 PM
The Lakers also have a much higher fanbase then a team like San Antonio because of the population of LA. This in turn gives them more revenue. Should the population of the city where a team plays really constitute how much a team is able to spend on players? I don't really think you believe that.

daleja424
09-30-2010, 06:59 PM
yes it believe it is... when has there EVER been this much interest leading into basketball season before? When???

also, why should a team that makes more money not be allowed to spend more... this is America buddy...

Kakaroach
09-30-2010, 07:00 PM
He just bought the team so I guess he didn't know the rules. Still funny he got fined though.

Kevj77
09-30-2010, 07:02 PM
My thoughts which you quoted were under the circumstance which there would be a soft cap like there is today but a hardcap over that which would limit a team like the Lakers from going so far over the cap they have an unfair advantage. I will assume you read that when you posted.You keep using the Lakers as an example of whats wrong with the system, but look at their roster. There are only five players that were acquired via FA Blake, Barnes (split last years MLE), Fisher (orginally a Lakers draft pick signed with MLE), Artest (signed for MLE after Ariza asked for the same amount of money, Ariza was acquired by trade), and Ratliff (vet min). Not a single max type player in the bunch just some really nice role players. I can only think of one max type FA the Lakers have ever signed Shaq.

All the other Laker greats have been drafted or traded for. Those are great decisions made by one of the best front offices in the NBA. All they did was pay the cost to keep those championship caliber teams together and add the occasional role player with the MLE. So teams that put together championship contending teams because they know how to draft and make smart trades should have to break up their teams because they have too much talent. They should be a model of sound judgement for all struggling franchises. Other teams might not have their money, but it all starts with making the right decision.

Are you saying some of these small market teams wouldn't be able to afford or their owners would be to cheap to keep together a championship caliber team? Assuming they could actually make the right decisions to put one together.

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 07:04 PM
yes it believe it is... when has there EVER been this much interest leading into basketball season before? When???

also, why should a team that makes more money not be allowed to spend more... this is America buddy...

So you probably like the way the salary cap in the MLB is set up also. Hey the Yankees aren't really at an advantage over the Royals, they just spend their money wisely and are following the rules so lets not change a thing. It's perfect.

Kevj77
09-30-2010, 07:08 PM
The Lakers also have a much higher fanbase then a team like San Antonio because of the population of LA. This in turn gives them more revenue. Should the population of the city where a team plays really constitute how much a team is able to spend on players? I don't really think you believe that.It goes both ways. When teams like the Lakers, Heat or Celtics come to small markets that usually don't sell out it's a sell out. They put butts in the seats even when they are on the road. Maybe if these teams put together a quality team they would sell out too.

Heater4life
09-30-2010, 07:18 PM
So you probably like the way the salary cap in the MLB is set up also. Hey the Yankees aren't really at an advantage over the Royals, they just spend their money wisely and are following the rules so lets not change a thing. It's perfect.

Yet the Marlins have won two championships in 14 years with the lowest payroll in the league because they have a great farm system. I do not support MLB's lack of cap, but it was merely an example of smart decision with little money.

Now given that example, there is a cap in basketball that limits FA signing to MLE's once your over the cap. Its a fair system.

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 07:19 PM
You keep using the Lakers as an example of whats wrong with the system, but look at their roster. There are only five players that were acquired via FA Blake, Barnes (split last years MLE), Fisher (orginally a Lakers draft pick signed with MLE), Artest (signed for MLE after Ariza asked for the same amount of money, Ariza was acquired by trade), and Ratliff (vet min). Not a single max type player in the bunch just some really nice role players. I can only think of one max type FA the Lakers have ever signed Shaq.

All the other Laker greats have been drafted or traded for. Those are great decisions made by one of the best front offices in the NBA. All they did was pay the cost to keep those championship caliber teams together and add the occasional role player with the MLE. So teams that put together championship contending teams because they know how to draft and make smart trades should have to break up their teams because they have too much talent. They should be a model of sound judgement for all struggling franchises. Other teams might not have their money, but it all starts with making the right decision.

Are you saying some of these small market teams wouldn't be able to afford or their owners would be to cheap to keep together a championship caliber team? Assuming they could actually make the right decisions to put one together.

I understand that the Lakers built their Championship through trades and their draft, but imagine if they weren't able to resign every star they develop. This is what almost every other team goes through in the league. Could the Suns resign Joe Johnson? No but if they were the Lakers they would have been able too. Would the Lakers have been able to win a championship without Odom last year? Maybe, but most likely not.

As for your question at the end of your post: I am saying both. The owners would beable to afford losing tens of millions every year, but no business man would make that decision. The 2 of us probably would if we were billionaires, but we are also sports fanatics.

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 07:21 PM
It goes both ways. When teams like the Lakers, Heat or Celtics come to small markets that usually don't sell out it's a sell out. They put butts in the seats even when they are on the road. Maybe if these teams put together a quality team they would sell out too.

And maybe with a hard Cap more teams will end up "a quality team."

daleja424
09-30-2010, 07:25 PM
See the Marlins, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Angels, Cardinals, Rays, Tigers, Astros, etc... all of whome have made the WS in the past decade

then there is the fact that the Cubs and Redsox are 2nd and 3rd in salaries and arent even in the playoffs...

money alone does not buy rings...

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 07:30 PM
Yet the Marlins have won two championships in 14 years with the lowest payroll in the league because they have a great farm system. I do not support MLB's lack of cap, but it was merely an example of smart decision with little money.

Now given that example, there is a cap in basketball that limits FA signing to MLE's once your over the cap. Its a fair system.

Right just like the Spurs have won a few championships. But for the most part the Lakers are the best team in the West. Do you agree?

The Lakers have a payroll at 92.5 million. The Spurs are at 70.3. Imagine if San Antonio could pay an extra 22 mil. The Thunder are at 50.7. Once its time to give Westbrook, Green, Hardin, and Durant a pay raise they will have to let someone go.

Yes the difference in payrolls isn't as large in the NBA, but an extra 22 mil for the Lakers is fair?

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 07:34 PM
See the Marlins, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Angels, Cardinals, Rays, Tigers, Astros, etc... all of whome have made the WS in the past decade

then there is the fact that the Cubs and Redsox are 2nd and 3rd in salaries and arent even in the playoffs...

money alone does not buy rings...

Agreed. But look at the Rays. They have a 2 year window at winning a WS before their young players are due raises. Then the team has to let some go, slips back into mediocrity, and then starts the 10 year cycle again. Seems fair.

daleja424
09-30-2010, 07:34 PM
Right just like the Spurs have won a few championships. But for the most part the Lakers are the best team in the West. Do you agree?

The Lakers have a payroll at 92.5 million. The Spurs are at 70.3. Imagine if San Antonio could pay an extra 22 mil. The Thunder are at 50.7. Once its time to give Westbrook, Green, Hardin, and Durant a pay raise they will have to let someone go.

Yes the difference in payrolls isn't as large in the NBA, but an extra 22 mil for the Lakers is fair?

Yes.... it is fair... b/c they play with the same rules.

When the Thunder lock up their young guys their payroll will skyrocket.... why should they lose out on talent that they legally acquired?

The rules are the same for everyone. The Lakers are high up b/c they acquied talent over time and have a lot of vets who are on extensions... making crazy money. For example... Kobe makes over 20 mil.... wayyyyyy more than Durant...even though they produce similarly... why is it the Lakers fault that Kobe is older?

daleja424
09-30-2010, 07:35 PM
Agreed. But look at the Rays. They have a 2 year window at winning a WS before their young players are due raises. Then the team has to let some go, slips back into mediocrity, and then starts the 10 year cycle again. Seems fair.

They have to let people go b/c they have the WORST fans in baseball. The fans of Tampa Bay DESERVE a crappy team b/c they dont support them.

carlo
09-30-2010, 07:37 PM
Not enough people are thinking about the fan. Ticket prices must come down for the average fan inorder for the NBA to be profitable again imo. The NBA can talk about future international revenue all they want, but the facts are the revenue is small as of today. The NBA's business model of continued expansion driving more revenues has come to a bump in the road with the global and domestic recession. The NBA must look inward again and that means looking at Joe Six Pack and making the game more affordable to him.

Now I understand this is not an easy problem to resolve when franchises already have very high fixed costs and dwindling revenue, but they must start somewhere and labor costs are the 800 lb gorrilla in the room. We all know we can't have just 8 teams in the NBA and be successful. We need to do what's right for the sport and let the chips fall where they may on the 8 or so teams that have a larger and wealthier fan base to draw from.

Going to Knick games the last few years has been great. All you have to do is wait closer to game time and you can score tickets at remarkably low prices. Granted the Knicks have sucked for a while now and that is definetely part of the reason for lower prices but not the only reason. I look around the NBA and see a lot of empty seats lately. And just think about how many of those occupied seats were sold by the franchise for peanuts to an outfit like Stub Hub to sell at a steep discount for the profit of Stub Hub and at a loss to the franchise.

The NBA will always have a smile on their face and tell you how great things are while certain franchises may be teetering on bankruptcy. They'll fudge numbers and tell you how attendance always increases year over year w/o explaining the accounting fraud behind the scenes. I see the playbook played out every day in the world of big business. The reality is getting more difficult to hide though. The NBA must change their CBA substantially to the benefit of the ALLTHE OWNERS. The players have enjoyed a parabolic increase in salaries over the last decade ...... the balance of power must shift decisively in this upcoming CBA. And hopefully the owners will use their cost savings and pass them on to their customer base for everyones benefit down the road.

The bottom line ........ THE PLAYERS MUST GIVE BACK. And we all know if push comes to shove the players will fold like a cheap tent to avoid a lockout. I mean really ..... who in their right mind would go on strike and forfeit an average salary of $4 mil in today's world ? My guess is only an idiot would, no ?

daleja424
09-30-2010, 07:41 PM
That may be true in some places... but teams like the Lakers, Celtics, and HEAT UNDER charge for tickets. You know how I know??? b/c tickets for those teams get resold for at least twice face value. That means these teams havent even pushed the limits of what people will spend to see a championship.

Heater4life
09-30-2010, 07:45 PM
Right just like the Spurs have won a few championships. But for the most part the Lakers are the best team in the West. Do you agree?

The Lakers have a payroll at 92.5 million. The Spurs are at 70.3. Imagine if San Antonio could pay an extra 22 mil. The Thunder are at 50.7. Once its time to give Westbrook, Green, Hardin, and Durant a pay raise they will have to let someone go.

Yes the difference in payrolls isn't as large in the NBA, but an extra 22 mil for the Lakers is fair?

Just because they can and willingly choose to OVER-PAY does not mean its unfair. If the Spurs had a valid reason to pay that extra 22 million to a player on there team they would. Because they would make it up in revenue. Look at the Cavs, they had great revenue in a small market with Bron. What team has let a player go because they really couldnt afford him? As opposed to not wanting to over-pay the player?

daleja424
09-30-2010, 07:51 PM
And thats the point... players don't move to big markets for more salary... they do it b.c. they want to play in great NBA cities and they can make more in endorsements. The small market is just as capable of paying a max player as anyone else... but the good players don't want to be there. That fact doesn't change with a hard cap.

Sure LA gets guys like LO and Artest...but lets be honest...those guys are great role players for a champion...but would the Kings suddenly contend for a title if they had those guys?

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 07:53 PM
And thats the point... players don't move to big markets for more salary... they do it b.c. they want to play in great NBA cities and they can make more in endorsements. The small market is just as capable of paying a max player as anyone else... but the good players don't want to be there. That fact doesn't change with a hard cap.

Sure LA gets guys like LO and Artest...but lets be honest...those guys are great role players for a champion...but would the Kings suddenly contend for a title if they had those guys?

I'm off of work dudes. To be continued.

Wade>You
09-30-2010, 07:53 PM
That may be true in some places... but teams like the Lakers, Celtics, and HEAT UNDER charge for tickets. You know how I know??? b/c tickets for those teams get resold for at least twice face value. That means these teams havent even pushed the limits of what people will spend to see a championship.Interesting comment and very true.


See the Marlins, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Angels, Cardinals, Rays, Tigers, Astros, etc... all of whome have made the WS in the past decade

then there is the fact that the Cubs and Redsox are 2nd and 3rd in salaries and arent even in the playoffs...

money alone does not buy rings...This.

I hate when (bad) owners suggest that most money spent = wins/playoff success when it's been proven time and time again that it's just not true.

lowdown32
09-30-2010, 08:05 PM
lakers fan afraid of better competition?

never

Kevj77
09-30-2010, 08:05 PM
I understand that the Lakers built their Championship through trades and their draft, but imagine if they weren't able to resign every star they develop. This is what almost every other team goes through in the league. Could the Suns resign Joe Johnson? No but if they were the Lakers they would have been able too. Would the Lakers have been able to win a championship without Odom last year? Maybe, but most likely not.

As for your question at the end of your post: I am saying both. The owners would beable to afford losing tens of millions every year, but no business man would make that decision. The 2 of us probably would if we were billionaires, but we are also sports fanatics.I understand about the Suns example. Their owner not only didn't resign JJ, but he traded some really high draft picks away too. The Lakers wouldn't have done that. Dr. Buss would have paid to keep the team together and even improve. Still why should teams that make good draft picks and smart trades be a developemental team for the rest of the NBA and not get to reep the rewards of their decisions? That doesn't seem fair.

carlo
09-30-2010, 08:07 PM
That may be true in some places... but teams like the Lakers, Celtics, and HEAT UNDER charge for tickets. You know how I know??? b/c tickets for those teams get resold for at least twice face value. That means these teams havent even pushed the limits of what people will spend to see a championship.

Yes some get resold for twice the face value, no doubt. For the people that can afford them and want tickets in their hand well before the event, they will buy them. But like I said if you wait till near game time (a day before, an hour before) you can get incredible deals for many NBA games.

The name of the game in ticket sales is to create the illusion of strong demand. Show ticket prices above face to create the illusion of demand. Some people will bite others won't. Now don't get me wrong ....... Heat/Lakers will be a sold out game with 100% of tickets selling at a premium. Playoff games will see premiums. A handful of franchises might see premiums for every game. But I'm talking about an overall NBA. Overall, tickets can be had at a discount to face value if you're a wise shopper and don't fall prey to the hype going on behind the scenes.

If you're a Laker fan my guess is there are no discounts for individual games during the season ..... am I right Laker fans ? What's amazing about Laker tickets are they still sell strong at a very high face price, but then again a lot of wealth in the greater LA area. But LA, NY, Chi, Boston, etc are the exceptions I was talking about in my last post. It's the teams below them that must be financially helped through the CBA that are very important to the health of the NBA.

daleja424
09-30-2010, 08:15 PM
There is no discount for HEAT tickets. The only way you are getting in there is at least face value...usually more...

preseason tickets in the 400 section right now are fetching over 50 bucks a seat

godolphins
09-30-2010, 08:32 PM
The hard cap could organize things in the nba.

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 08:36 PM
Yes.... it is fair... b/c they play with the same rules.

When the Thunder lock up their young guys their payroll will skyrocket.... why should they lose out on talent that they legally acquired?

The rules are the same for everyone. The Lakers are high up b/c they acquied talent over time and have a lot of vets who are on extensions... making crazy money. For example... Kobe makes over 20 mil.... wayyyyyy more than Durant...even though they produce similarly... why is it the Lakers fault that Kobe is older?

You missed my point. The Thunder won't beable to bring back all of their players. Even with Durant being paid less then Kobe, the team will have to decide which player to let go. The Lakers on the other hand would beable to resign all of them and bring in role players to fill out their roster. And this is just during these guys first extention. They will then have to let another guy go when it comes to the second extention.

daleja424
09-30-2010, 08:40 PM
You missed my point. The Thunder won't beable to bring back all of their players. Even with Durant being paid less then Kobe, the team will have to decide which player to let go. The Lakers on the other hand would beable to resign all of them and bring in role players to fill out their roster. And this is just during these guys first extention. They will then have to let another guy go when it comes to the second extention.

why wont they be able to resign all their main guys? Who do you really think they let walk? honestly...

Lloyd Christmas
09-30-2010, 08:48 PM
why wont they be able to resign all their main guys? Who do you really think they let walk? honestly...

Yes I honestly think they will let whatever guy they have the best replacement for walk. Or they will resign all of them and have to round out their roster with 2nd round pick rookies to even the money out. Either way they are at a disadvantage.

I can't tell if you truly believe that limiting what a team can spend over the cap is a bad idea if you are just debating for sport. Either way i am enjoying the debate.

OBredskin
09-30-2010, 08:49 PM
Not enough people are thinking about the fan. Ticket prices must come down for the average fan inorder for the NBA to be profitable again imo. The NBA can talk about future international revenue all they want, but the facts are the revenue is small as of today. The NBA's business model of continued expansion driving more revenues has come to a bump in the road with the global and domestic recession. The NBA must look inward again and that means looking at Joe Six Pack and making the game more affordable to him.

Now I understand this is not an easy problem to resolve when franchises already have very high fixed costs and dwindling revenue, but they must start somewhere and labor costs are the 800 lb gorrilla in the room. We all know we can't have just 8 teams in the NBA and be successful. We need to do what's right for the sport and let the chips fall where they may on the 8 or so teams that have a larger and wealthier fan base to draw from.

Going to Knick games the last few years has been great. All you have to do is wait closer to game time and you can score tickets at remarkably low prices. Granted the Knicks have sucked for a while now and that is definetely part of the reason for lower prices but not the only reason. I look around the NBA and see a lot of empty seats lately. And just think about how many of those occupied seats were sold by the franchise for peanuts to an outfit like Stub Hub to sell at a steep discount for the profit of Stub Hub and at a loss to the franchise.

The NBA will always have a smile on their face and tell you how great things are while certain franchises may be teetering on bankruptcy. They'll fudge numbers and tell you how attendance always increases year over year w/o explaining the accounting fraud behind the scenes. I see the playbook played out every day in the world of big business. The reality is getting more difficult to hide though. The NBA must change their CBA substantially to the benefit of the ALLTHE OWNERS. The players have enjoyed a parabolic increase in salaries over the last decade ...... the balance of power must shift decisively in this upcoming CBA. And hopefully the owners will use their cost savings and pass them on to their customer base for everyones benefit down the road.

The bottom line ........ THE PLAYERS MUST GIVE BACK. And we all know if push comes to shove the players will fold like a cheap tent to avoid a lockout. I mean really ..... who in their right mind would go on strike and forfeit an average salary of $4 mil in today's world ? My guess is only an idiot would, no ?

:clap::clap::clap::clap:......what he said.

daleja424
09-30-2010, 08:58 PM
Yes I honestly think they will let whatever guy they have the best replacement for walk. Or they will resign all of them and have to round out their roster with 2nd round pick rookies to even the money out. Either way they are at a disadvantage.

I can't tell if you truly believe that limiting what a team can spend over the cap is a bad idea if you are just debating for sport. Either way i am enjoying the debate.

but all teams have to make that decision... for example... Miami let Dorell Wright walk...LA let Farmar walk...

everyteam has those moments where it lets guys go b/c they want more money than the team wants to pay and the team can get a serviceable replacement.

if money actually won titles I MIGHT agree that placing an absolute cap on spending would be helpful...but it does't. It is all about how you spend the money. For instance... Chicago was hurt in this years FA by the fact that they gave Deng a stupid deal. All to often you see teams impulse spend on big contracts and then immediately regret the way they spent the money. Look at the Knicks. Biggest market in basketball...yet they have sucked for a decade b/c they spent their money wrong. Having more money does not equal titles unless you spend it right.

There are no teams in the NBA that won't spend the money....they all have/do... its just that most of them spend it terribly.

Kevj77
09-30-2010, 09:10 PM
Yes I honestly think they will let whatever guy they have the best replacement for walk. Or they will resign all of them and have to round out their roster with 2nd round pick rookies to even the money out. Either way they are at a disadvantage.

I can't tell if you truly believe that limiting what a team can spend over the cap is a bad idea if you are just debating for sport. Either way i am enjoying the debate.I do. Fans want to see teams keep homegrown talent. The real problem isn't that teams can go over the cap it's what players make. Look at the Lakers 94 million dollar payroll. Kobe makes 24 million and Gasol makes 17 million. That is 44% of the cost for their entire roster and 74% of the salary cap. Teams shouldn't be able to pay 2 stars and fill out the roster with decent players around them? So every team should get one Superstar and no team should be able to afford two all-stars? Sounds boring to me.

Players like Blake who will be a role player on the Lakers make 4 million. That is what superstars like Magic, Bird and Jordan made in their primes in the 80s and early 90s. Of course the players union won't like that. It's the salaries that are out of control. Why should teams that make good moves not be able to keep their team together if they play by the same rules as everyone else?

daleja424
09-30-2010, 09:13 PM
salaries are proportional...they would be even bigger if they weren't restricted to the numbers they are now. The NBA as a business has grown IMMENSELY in the Stern era and these teams can afford these salaries...they wouldnt give them out if they couldn't.

Wade>You
10-01-2010, 07:52 AM
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/20138/hitting-hard-on-a-hard-cap
But doesn’t it diminish the thrill of competing for it if there isn’t a true chance to defend it? The Chicago Blackhawks will have so few of their Stanley Cup champions around on opening night that it will look less like a team ring ceremony and more like a group wedding. To stay under the hard salary cap the Blackhawks had to shed 10 players who got their names inscribed on the Cup, including their goaltender, Antti Niemi and their playoff goals co-leader, Dustin Byfuglien.

The NHL has had seven champions in its past seven seasons. Only three teams (the Montreal Canadiens, New York Islanders and Edmonton Oilers) got to hold the Stanley Cup from 1976-1988, yet that’s when the game occupied a more prominent place in the minds of American sports fans, a time when its powerful teams and great players loomed larger.

The NBA peaked when the Lakers and Celtics alternated possession of the championship in the mid-1980s and again when Michael Jordan and the Bulls locked it down for most of the 1990s. And a primary tool to maintain the dynasties was the soft salary cap, most notably the “Larry Bird Exception” that allowed teams to go over the cap to re-sign their own players.

Stern is the one who always championed superstars staying in place. A hard cap would only lead to more transient players, as we had this past summer.

“It’s the opposite of what we’ve been taught, at least for the 15 years that I’ve been in the NBA,” said Lakers guard Derek Fisher, the president of the National Basketball Players Association, “where the relationship with the community and the fanbase, and the continuity with your team and your teammates and the ability for a core group of guys to grow together, the way Kobe and myself and Shaq and the other guys that got together in ’96 [did]. We grew into being champions. That’s something that NBA guys have been taught for the last two decades ... becoming committed and loyal to the team and the city.

“We don’t view it as a positive if you’re having that much turnover year-in and year-out, which has been said in the meetings. That doesn’t guarantee competitive balance either. There are a lot of variables that go into how teams win. Salary and payroll, that’s not the most resolute or concrete answer as to why somebody wins or loses. There are plenty of examples in the NBA as well as other sports. It’s not always the highest payroll that is the most successful.”

If anything, a hard cap could put small-market teams in less desirable locations in a worse position. Currently they can compensate for the lack of ancillary benefits by overpaying a player. If a hard cap reduces the size of their contract offers, what exactly will they be able to use to counter the lure of warmer weather or a more pulsating nightlife? And any system can be undone as long as players are willing to take less salary, as LeBron James, Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade did and Carmelo Anthony might have to if he wants to get to a bigger market.

It’s not as if smaller markets have been completely denied a shot at the championship because of finances. As Fisher pointed out, a couple of Trail Blazers made shots here, a Robert Horry misfire there and it could have been Portland or Sacramento claiming some of the glory that went to Los Angeles last decade.

As for the negotiations, the union will continue to take a hard stance against a hard cap.

“We’ve been clear that that’s not a direction we’re interested in going,” Fisher said. “That won’t change. We just don’t feel that a hard salary cap is being termed as competitive balance. It’s not surprising that [Leonsis] would say that, coming from the NHL system. And maybe it was good for their sport. For the NBA and our players, as far as I’m concerned, it’s not.”



The Chicago Blackhawks will have so few of their Stanley Cup champions around on opening night that it will look less like a team ring ceremony and more like a group wedding.lmao hilarious if you get it.

Heater4life
10-01-2010, 08:17 AM
awesome post^

daleja424
10-01-2010, 09:21 AM
basically echoes what I have been saying for pages... great find there.