PDA

View Full Version : Berger: Owners working hard to prevent super-teams



GodsSon
02-17-2011, 02:22 PM
But the next time the league gathers for its signature midseason event -- if there is one -- the power and control may very well have been wrestled away from the players. In a stunning backlash, their bold efforts to seek bigger markets and more desirable teammates have contributed as much to the owners' inflexible bargaining stance as the money itself.

Case in point: When was the last time you heard someone at the NFL's Pro Bowl complaining that his team needs to get him some more Pro Bowlers?

If the owners get what they want, the NBA as we've come to know it for the past 15 years will no longer exist. No more superteams. No more superstars forcing their way to bigger markets or forming alliances among All-Stars. No more owners being pressured to spend foolishly and take outlandish risks to keep their best players happy.

No more general managers forced to conduct public firesales for franchise players who want to get out of Denver or Dodge and dictate the terms of their departure.

"It will be like a different sport," one management source said.


To NBA owners and executives who spend more time dealing with disgruntled stars than trying to make the playoffs, this is the kind of nirvana they are seeking.

"Of course right now there's a lot of talk about guys wanting to play with other good players in certain cities to get our best opportunity to win championships," Wade told CBSSports.com. "So I'm sure there's going to be some talk about it, some question about it. But our only objective is to make sure our game continues to prosper and that we'll be able to continue to play for our fans."

But the consequences of Wade's brilliant ploy to recruit James and Bosh to South Beach could have crippling consequences for the groups that stand to lose the most from a lockout -- the rank-and-file players and the fans.


Fining players for making trade requests somewhat chilled the torrent of public complaining, but didn't solve the underlying problem. The first two-thirds of the NBA season is focused on player movement, instead of the players' movements on the floor. The feeding frenzy has gotten exponentially more widespread, to the point where last season's conference finals, and to a degree the Finals and the draft, were overshadowed by James' free-agent decision -- just as All-Star weekend will be overshadowed by Melo.

"I'm not sure a year's worth of talk is good for our game, whether it's Melo, Chris Paul, or Dwight Howard," a team executive said. "If this is just the new game, that might not be good. ... You get not only the silliness Denver is dealing with now, but you get the silliness of the last few years in Cleveland before [James] left, where you had one bad signing after another trying to please him or maximize him before he could walk."

The death knell for this era of the all-powerful NBA superstar, some owners believe, cannot be achieved with Band-Aids, dress codes, or technical fouls. It can only come from altering the landscape of the sport. It's not simply about a new labor agreement, but what that agreement will be intended to do.

If the playing field is equalized with a substantially better revenue-sharing system, and star players no longer have the power to dictate where they play and with whom, "There won't be a whole lot to complain about," one executive said.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/14698573/upcoming-allstar-weekend-might-be-last-of-its-kind

Bring on the lock-out and a hard cap, the way things are going if neither is instituted then the NBA might as well contract to only having 6 teams.

tdunk21
02-17-2011, 02:26 PM
no owner could have stopped the 3 stooges in miami to team up....

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 02:30 PM
no owner could have stopped the 3 stooges in miami to team up....

If a hard cap is implemented then the big 3 won't be the big 3 for much longer. Look at what happened to the NHL after the lock-out, teams had to frantically reduce salary to get under the cap.

The Jokemaker
02-17-2011, 02:31 PM
Little late to prevent that. They gotta figure out a way to fix it somehow to prevent the best 10 guys in the league playing on only 3 or 4 different teams.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 02:35 PM
Little late to prevent that. They gotta figure out a way to fix it somehow to prevent the best 10 guys in the league playing on only 3 or 4 different teams.

Like I said, if a hard cap is put in place, teams will have to reduce payroll in order to fit under the cap. So unless players are willing to play for peanuts, that would greatly reduce the chance for any team to have multiple superstars.

thekmp211
02-17-2011, 02:36 PM
revenue sharing has more to do with maintaining profitability than it does creating super teams...new york will always be new york, la will always be la, florida will always have no taxes ect.

footballs system might be working better, but the nfl is not the same as the nba. i actually think we're seeing an influx of talent...98-2003 was lackluster in large part due to teams loading up on terribly overrated high schoolers and foreign players. now, even the worst teams have some promise.

you're not just supposed to have a star because you're an nba franchise. you acquire one, develop one, draft one ect. i'm not sure how they plan on changing market appeal and teammate preference.

the nba's biggest problem is bad salaries. the way the market works, smaller market teams basically have to overpay for middling talent if they want a shot at keeping their best players around. sometimes it works out, if the front office is run well (san antonio, dallas), sometimes not so well (cleveland, clippers, orlando to some extent). everyone knocks the cavs for signing larry hughes to that absurd contract, but the simple facts were a. they had to appease lebron and b. if they didn't someone else would, and they'd look silly. michael redd, rashard lewis, eric dampier, the list goes on and on and on.

even this season, take a look at the top 30 contracts in the nba (as provided by ballerwives.com).

rashard lewis, mike redd, kirilenko, yao and gilbert in the TOP TEN salaries. joe johnons, elton brand, kenyon martin, peja stojakovic in the top 20.

the spectrum from joe johnson (overpaid but effective) to michael redd (literally hasn't played in two years) is pretty big, but none of these guys are bringing in the money that has been invested in them. that, at the end of the day, falls on the shoulders of the owners that make up the market (yao is an anomaly in the regard). evaluate talent better, maybe tune out impatient fans a bit more, and you make less mistakes.

the two things i think should be done are a much smaller maximum years for contracts (say 3) and an end to restricted free agency. beyond that, there isn't a whole lot that can be done.

Sly Guy
02-17-2011, 02:39 PM
stop the star calls. Without 10 FTA per game, LBJ and DWade won't be scoring 25+ppg. That'll drop their salaries, and maybe their egos.

justinnum1
02-17-2011, 02:40 PM
stop the star calls. Without 10 FTA per game, LBJ and DWade won't be scoring 25+ppg. That'll drop their salaries, and maybe their egos.

:facepalm:

godolphins
02-17-2011, 02:44 PM
stop the star calls. Without 10 FTA per game, LBJ and DWade won't be scoring 25+ppg. That'll drop their salaries, and maybe their egos.

I guess the same thing goes for Kevin Durant :laugh2:

Tulanehockey
02-17-2011, 02:47 PM
There are 12 dressed players on every NBA team (some more). How can the owners possibly say that the stars don't drive the league? The NBA has been this way its entire existence. Superstars are rare and deserve the control they have. They are not products, they are people.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 02:48 PM
revenue sharing has more to do with maintaining profitability than it does creating super teams...new york will always be new york, la will always be la, florida will always have no taxes ect.

footballs system might be working better, but the nfl is not the same as the nba. i actually think we're seeing an influx of talent...98-2003 was lackluster in large part due to teams loading up on terribly overrated high schoolers and foreign players. now, even the worst teams have some promise.

you're not just supposed to have a star because you're an nba franchise. you acquire one, develop one, draft one ect. i'm not sure how they plan on changing market appeal and teammate preference.

Again, HARD CAP.

If teams only have 58 million to fill a 13-15 man roster, what players are you going to be signing if you have 32-35 million tied up in 2 players?? Unless players want to play for peanuts and join their friends then it would greatly reduce the chance of players holding teams hostage to meet their demands. At that point, FO's would have to use even more discretion on overpaying for certain players and decide if they could afford young talent once their rookie contracts expired.

Market appeal would obviously still exist, but it would be next to impossible to form a superteam without contracts being drastically reduced. The way the system is currently set up is that players want to have their cake and eat it too (that is, get paid a heap of money and decide where they want to play), implementing a hard cap means they would have to choose one or the other ONLY.

hugepatsfan
02-17-2011, 02:50 PM
stop the star calls. Without 10 FTA per game, LBJ and DWade won't be scoring 25+ppg. That'll drop their salaries, and maybe their egos.









I know that I just left a large blank area. That's where I wanted to respond to your post, but I was just at a loss for words so couldn't write anything.

AntiG
02-17-2011, 02:53 PM
There needs to be less teams. Superstar teams are GREAT for the league.

Mudvayne91
02-17-2011, 02:54 PM
If a hard cap is implemented then the big 3 won't be the big 3 for much longer. Look at what happened to the NHL after the lock-out, teams had to frantically reduce salary to get under the cap.

My team is still balling

Mudvayne91
02-17-2011, 02:58 PM
There needs to be less teams. Superstar teams are GREAT for the league.

Yeah, just remove every team that isn't in Mass., Boston, NY, or LA.... Right?

torontosports10
02-17-2011, 03:01 PM
There needs to be less teams. Superstar teams are GREAT for the league.

If the team your a fan of is one, then yes it is. But for 25 other teams and their fans the league is a joke.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 03:02 PM
There needs to be less teams. Superstar teams are GREAT for the league.

What legitimacy would the league have if their were only 6-8 teams in the NBA? They would officially be in the realm of CFL football.

Albrecht Duerer
02-17-2011, 03:03 PM
Little late to prevent that. They gotta figure out a way to fix it somehow to prevent the best 10 guys in the league playing on only 3 or 4 different teams.

Ironically, its kind of too late for that. Doing so now would only make it easier for Miami in the immediate future. The genie is already out of the bottle.

tdunk21
02-17-2011, 03:10 PM
league contraction is a stupid idea and i was hearing collin cowherd supporting the idea of contracting some teams....

seems like GodsSon has a good point...hard cap is the way to prevent from more players quitting on their teams and joining forces with other superstars....that way it keeps the league more competitive and we wont have teams losing 26 games in a row....

JARVIS123
02-17-2011, 03:12 PM
it wasn't a problem when k.g. and ray allen joined forces with the truth in boston then it should'nt be a problem now.the old school ballers had no reason to asked for help ,help was aready on the team.not just regular help but hall of famer help...

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 03:19 PM
it wasn't a problem when k.g. and ray allen joined forces with the truth in boston then it should'nt be a problem now.the old school ballers had no reason to asked for help ,help was aready on the team.not just regular help but hall of famer help...

Totally different situation.

Boston gave up Delonte West who was a talented young combo guard with potential plus the 5th pick (Jeff Green) for Ray Allen.

For KG they gave up a young swingman with potential in Gerald Green, Ryan Gomes (who was pretty productive at the time) and a big man with legit All-Star potential in Al Jeff.

What did Miami give up for Bosh and LeBron?? Two TPE's that weren't even an asset to them, and a couple of draft picks that will be of little consequence late in the first round. Oh, and Beasley who was really necessary after having your top 3 options already cemented :rolleyes:.

Point is, after Miami did what they did, you started to hear further grumblings of a superteam being created in NY with Stat, Melo and Paul. Then you hear of D Will being frustrated with Utah and a legendary coach in Sloan stepping down because of it. It's time to stop this diva show the NBA has become before it gets even more ridiculous.

Giantwarrior
02-17-2011, 03:20 PM
things to consider in the new CBA:

remove 2-4 teams in the NBA
Hard Cap
Franchise tags
1 max contract per team

tdunk21
02-17-2011, 03:23 PM
things to consider in the new CBA:

1 MLE, 2LLE or 2MLE
Hard Cap
Franchise tags
1 max contract per team

done

The BodyGuard
02-17-2011, 03:28 PM
things to consider in the new CBA:

remove 2-4 teams in the NBA
Hard Cap
Franchise tags
1 max contract per team

I think whether teams like it or not Their are gonna be a lot of super teams

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 03:31 PM
things to consider in the new CBA:

remove 2-4 teams in the NBA
Hard Cap
Franchise tags
1 max contract per team

Ya, I don't think contraction is really necessary man. What the league needs to do is instill some parity into the league so that EVERY fan base has the hope that their team can compete and eventually win a title; rather than worrying about how to keep their franchise players/attract FA's.

Lloyd Christmas
02-17-2011, 03:35 PM
things to consider in the new CBA:

remove 2-4 teams in the NBA
Hard Cap
Franchise tags
1 max contract per team

That would be perfect. The Players Union would never agree though.

tangent12
02-17-2011, 03:39 PM
I like the way things work now, I honestly don't mind super teams because Miami has proved it doesn't work as it was thought out to. Miami has arguably 3 of the best players in the league and they still don't have the best record, heck, they can barely beat the Pacers. People thought they would be destroying everyone in their path and beating the Bulls season record.

They proved that you won't succeed with 2 stars and a half good player with a bunch of scrubs filling up the roster. Plus having super teams brings more excitement to the league, it's entertaining to see them struggle and have a public enemy.

RZZZA
02-17-2011, 03:40 PM
Why don't we just blow up the Heat and tell Carmelo that he's going to the Raptors, problem solved.

because that's what this is all about, right?

serrano275
02-17-2011, 03:43 PM
Hard cap is the way to go. Every one who thinks having mega teams is great for the league don't remember the early 90s when the NBA was at its highest rating. Bird, Johnson, Jordan, Ewing, Barkley, etc. etc. They were superstars on their own teams.

Johnson was drafted to the lakers when they Abdul. Their wasn't these crazy deals that left the grizzlies woundering how they got duped out of Kobe and Gasol for peanuts.

I think that cap should be big enough to get 2 superstars to play for your team with a supporting group.

My team is the biggest offender of the non hard cap tiems, and I still think we need it. All these moves we have made out of fear to kep up with the big 3 in Boston and the big 3 in miami has left us with horrible contracts.

A hard Cap will not completely solve the problem, but it will stop the bleeding. There should be no reason to reduce the teams in the NBA. If you can get a franchise player in each team to just stay for their career, then the money is there to be made by everyone.

dhopisthename
02-17-2011, 03:46 PM
If a hard cap is implemented then the big 3 won't be the big 3 for much longer. Look at what happened to the NHL after the lock-out, teams had to frantically reduce salary to get under the cap.

the heat would not be in trouble for the hard cap for a few years. However the lakers, celtics, mavericks, and magic would be screwed

The BodyGuard
02-17-2011, 03:48 PM
I think whether teams like it or not Their are gonna be a lot of super teams

Like for an example Okc might get D.Howard in 2012..
That would be the end of it all :D

central2003
02-17-2011, 03:49 PM
They def need to change many of the other league rules, not just the creation of superstar teams which I am against. If you have built through the draft and your lottery pics some how become superstars that is totally different but to intentionally want to go join another team because you planned to join 2 or 3 other superstar player and take the easy way out that is just plain wrong.

They also need to make a rule where outside entourages can not interfere with NBA matters and influencing young superstar players to go play here or there.. AHEM! World wide wes.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 03:53 PM
Why don't we just blow up the Heat and tell Carmelo that he's going to the Raptors, problem solved.

because that's what this is all about, right?

Where was that said or implied anywhere in this thread?

Chronz
02-17-2011, 03:54 PM
What did Miami give up for Bosh and LeBron?? Two TPE's that weren't even an asset to them, and a couple of draft picks that will be of little consequence late in the first round. Oh, and Beasley who was really necessary after having your top 3 options already cemented :rolleyes:.
They forfeited 2 years of cap space and bailed on their chances to improve Wades core in order to wait for this moment to sign FA and Beasley+Picks. Your excuse that he wasnt necessary could be said for the other deals.


Point is, after Miami did what they did, you started to hear further grumblings of a superteam being created in NY with Stat, Melo and Paul. Then you hear of D Will being frustrated with Utah and a legendary coach in Sloan stepping down because of it. It's time to stop this diva show the NBA has become before it gets even more ridiculous.
Im just wondering how it solves anything, guys like Bron are entitled to more money and shouldnt let his management dictate his legacy (winning).

Chronz
02-17-2011, 03:57 PM
They def need to change many of the other league rules, not just the creation of superstar teams which I am against. If you have built through the draft and your lottery pics some how become superstars that is totally different but to intentionally want to go join another team because you planned to join 2 or 3 other superstar player and take the easy way out that is just plain wrong.

They also need to make a rule where outside entourages can not interfere with NBA matters and influencing young superstar players to go play here or there.. AHEM! World wide wes.

Why though? Why should players rely on luck to win titles rather than their own ambitions? Its not taking the easy way out, if all the stars want is the same benefit every other title team won.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 04:00 PM
They forfeited 2 years of cap space in order to wait for this moment to sign FA and Beasley+Picks. Your excuse that he wasnt necessary could be said for the other deals.

And that's where the conspiracy theorists would say the Heat had mapped out the 2010 plan since the 2008 Olympics. I'm not going to get into that though.


Im just wondering how it solves anything, guys like Bron are entitled to more money and shouldnt let his management dictate his legacy (winning).

So are you suggesting that a free market system would work best? I think that would make the state of the league even worse than it is now. Look at European soccer leagues, only 4-5 teams in most leagues have any realistic chance at ever winning the league title, while the remaining 15ish teams just continue to churn out talent before selling them off due to a lack of funds.

Like I said earlier, you might as well just contract the league to only 6-8 teams in "desirable" markets. What legitimacy would the NBA have at that point?

Trace
02-17-2011, 04:00 PM
There are 12 dressed players on every NBA team (some more). How can the owners possibly say that the stars don't drive the league? The NBA has been this way its entire existence. Superstars are rare and deserve the control they have. They are not products, they are people.

Really morals/ethics?

Playing in the NBA is a privilege not a right. When you agree to work for a corporation, you deal with their rules and ethics. Why would a superstar have a "right" to control a product they're not responsible for. Superstars don't even market their talent. The league/organization does. The NBA and the organization themselves are responsible for nearly everything that drives the league.

It really doesn't matter since the players need this league much more than the owners of whom are mostly billionaires just toying around with their money. At the end of the day, owners will win 9/10 times.

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Chronz
02-17-2011, 04:03 PM
Hard cap is the way to go. Every one who thinks having mega teams is great for the league don't remember the early 90s when the NBA was at its highest rating. Bird, Johnson, Jordan, Ewing, Barkley, etc. etc. They were superstars on their own teams.
Umm MJ pretty much had a superteam for his era. The rest of the guys were stuck by themselves.


Johnson was drafted to the lakers when they Abdul. Their wasn't these crazy deals that left the grizzlies woundering how they got duped out of Kobe and Gasol for peanuts.

Under the old rules if your team lost a FA it forced the other team to give up compensation. Do you think its fair that Utah lost out on Magic Johnson because of it? There were always crazy deals throughout NBA history. Players will find a way around anything. All a hard cap will do is make GM's less accountable for their failures and underpay the guys who drive the sport.


I think that cap should be big enough to get 2 superstars to play for your team with a supporting group.

Which is?


A hard Cap will not completely solve the problem, but it will stop the bleeding. There should be no reason to reduce the teams in the NBA. If you can get a franchise player in each team to just stay for their career, then the money is there to be made by everyone.

Why should we force ANY player to stay somewhere where they dont want to?

Dade County
02-17-2011, 04:04 PM
Why don't we just blow up the Heat and tell Carmelo that he's going to the Raptors, problem solved.

because that's what this is all about, right?

LMAO!

Why the Raptors?


And some of you guys aren't realizing but if the owners do half the stuff that they what to do, they would be actually helping the HEAT; now their can be no more stars teaming up; so in 2yrs miami will sit on top, with no one coming close to them.

It's to late, for the people that are trying to blame the HEAT. Anything that the owners have planed, PAT has already thought of and informed mr D Wade. The HEAT players will cut their pay down (they will go public and say we don't care, and they will laugh about it behind close doors)

THE END.

serrano275
02-17-2011, 04:07 PM
Why don't we just blow up the Heat and tell Carmelo that he's going to the Raptors, problem solved.

because that's what this is all about, right?

I like how you think you can put an over exagerated statement here and think you have every one stumped.

This is not about the present, this about the future. When Melo does go to NY, when Howard decides to head west to play with Kobe. When CP3 becomes a FA and goes to NY. When the celtics blow up and Rondo heads to Miami, When Love goes to LA as well. When Griffin goes to OKC to be closer to home and play with Durant. When Williams leaves Utah to go play in LA. When Wallace leave Charlotte to play in Chicago. Then for the next 5 years you'll have LA vs OKC or Dallas (cause you know Cubans gotta get his.) on the west and NY vs CHI or Miami on the East with a bunch of teams that have new kids waiting for there chance to try out for the lakers and the knicks, and old over paid players everywhere else who has there chance 5 years earlier like Gasol, Artest, Davis, Garnett, Arenas, Peirce, Dirk, etc.

When only 6 teams matter then everything else just looses money. Then reducing teams by 10 to 15 will come into place. It will be so small that it leaves competition for a new league to come into place and possibly take over because if you arent a top 3 PG then whats the point of playing in the NBA.

Football is water. I consume it every day. With out it I get delerious. After a while of not having it I don't care if its Disani or tap water. I just need it. Football is an unexplainable phenominom. It's like soccer in Europe. It just is what America wants. It doesn't matter if you team is playing on monday night or not. Most Americans will watch it anyways. If you don't believe me check out the numbers. More people watches the eagles/redskins game on Monday night then the amount of people who watched the world series.

The thing about the NBA is its not Water, it's Milk. It's great to have when you got cookies in your house but if not then I can go with out it. If Orlando looses Howard and we become an 8th seed team or worse then I'll just do something else till the Magic become segnificant again. No big deal right? But now I am not spending money on it. My 300 dollars I spend on tickes hats and jerseys annually is not big deal right? Now imagin 2 millions people doing the same thing to the Magic, and imagine that happeing to 20 different teams at the same time because only ten teams count. Millions of dollars will be lost because the top 20 players want to play on the same teams. By deluting the product you actually make more profit.

I could care less about what needs to be done about the current rosters. But everything seems to be headed to this storm, and inless steps are taken now to prevent this, then you'll see things get back to being worse then they were ten years ago when the Lakers could not be stopped. I know people don't want to hear it, but look at the numbers. The NBA was making less money then compared to any time in the last 40 years. A superteam was created and less people watched.

Chronz
02-17-2011, 04:07 PM
I like the way things work now, I honestly don't mind super teams because Miami has proved it doesn't work as it was thought out to. Miami has arguably 3 of the best players in the league and they still don't have the best record, heck, they can barely beat the Pacers. People thought they would be destroying everyone in their path and beating the Bulls season record.

They proved that you won't succeed with 2 stars and a half good player with a bunch of scrubs filling up the roster. Plus having super teams brings more excitement to the league, it's entertaining to see them struggle and have a public enemy.
Yup, we have 6 legit contenders this year, whens the last time thats happened? But once Miami gets the cast in place around their big3 we might be singing a different tune. Thats why they should abolish the MLE and prevent superteams from getting stronger. We dont need a hard cap, a for sure fix would be to get rid of guaranteed deals but that will never happen so just make it so that teams over the cap dont have bird rights to resign their own players nor the MLE to spend.

Trace
02-17-2011, 04:08 PM
Why though? Why should players rely on luck to win titles rather than their own ambitions? Its not taking the easy way out, if all the stars want is the same benefit every other title team won.

It takes the competition and fun out of the sport. Imagine if MJ teamed up with Larry Bird and Magic Johnson because he just wanted championships.

I understand Bron, Bosh, Wade and their intentions but the method of conception was unfair to all the other teams in the league. If the league were to allow instances of this to happen from here on out there would be very few teams left that could compete let alone contend.

Franchise players are rare but to compound them all on the same team with little or zero compensation for the team that helped develop and surround the superstar with talent is just wrong.

AddiX
02-17-2011, 04:10 PM
The NBA is in a terrible position right now, you could easily take away 4-5 teams and no one would care or barely notice. Not only are they bad teams, but they lack superstars, no top free agents want to go there, and they don't even have rivalries or strong history.

We just witnessed one a NBA HOF coach in jerry sloan get the boot over a player who will leave them anyway.

And when you hear a list of teams a player wants to go to, its the same 5-6 teams every time.

Another thing that won't happen but needs to is the NBA needs to shorten the season and the playoffs. You want to know why the Lakers lose to bad teams? Because there bored and tired. The only thing a long season and long playoffs has done is create a atmosphere where no one cares about the regular season.

And Can anyone argue that most the teams in the playoffs after the first 2 months of basketball won't make playoffs when its all said and done. Maybe 1 or 2 teams sneak it by the end of it.

Want to know why Mikes system got so many wins with the Suns? Because no one else plays defense either.

Chronz
02-17-2011, 04:10 PM
And that's where the conspiracy theorists would say the Heat had mapped out the 2010 plan since the 2008 Olympics. I'm not going to get into that though.
Yes, Wade was faking all the anger he directed towards Riley for not getting him help, either way it cost them both something to wait.


So are you suggesting that a free market system would work best? I think that would make the state of the league even worse than it is now. Look at European soccer leagues, only 4-5 teams in most leagues have any realistic chance at ever winning the league title, while the remaining 15ish teams just continue to churn out talent before selling them off due to a lack of funds.

Like I said earlier, you might as well just contract the league to only 6-8 teams in "desirable" markets. What legitimacy would the NBA have at that point?

I just dont see how a hard cap would ensure that every team in the league has an equal opportunity to win. What exactly do you think happens to the top teams of now under these guidelines ?

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 04:12 PM
Get rid of early opt out clauses.

If players want guaranteed contracts then opt outs need to go, they cant have it both ways.

Players should stay for the duration of their contracts.

No team or owner should decide what a player does when his contract is up and they are unrestricted.

If you cannot put a team together that is good enough to compete that is the owners fault.

If you cant keep your players by giving them more money then they dont want to be there to begin with.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 04:14 PM
LMAO!

Why the Raptors?


And some of you guys aren't realizing but if the owners do half the stuff that they what to do, they would be actually helping the HEAT; now their can be no more stars teaming up; so in 2yrs miami will sit on top, with no one coming close to them.

It's to late, for the people that are trying to blame the HEAT. Anything that the owners have planed, PAT has already thought of and informed mr D Wade. The HEAT players will cut their pay down (they will go public and say we don't care, and they will laugh about it behind close doors)

THE END.

You aren't realizing that if a hard cap is put in place at say 58 million, in two years the big 3 will be earning over 52 million with only 6 million left to fill 9 roster spots. How will you get around that? You'll be forced to reduce salary somehow.

Trace
02-17-2011, 04:15 PM
Get rid of early opt out clauses.

If players want guaranteed contracts then opt outs need to go, they cant have it both ways.

Players should stay for the duration of their contracts.

No team or owner should decide what a player does when his contract is up and they are unrestricted.

If you cannot put a team together that is good enough to compete that is the owners fault.

If you cant keep your players by giving them more money then they dont want to be there to begin with.

Explain Lebron? An organization that tried to surround him with all the best free agents out there and yet he left them in a storm with nothing...not even a draft pick to make up for his loss.

SpeedyRecovery
02-17-2011, 04:16 PM
Bring on the lock-out and a hard cap, the way things are going if neither is instituted then the NBA might as well contract to only having 6 teams.

right on brotha.. basketball has gone wayyy too hollywood and something needs to be done. nobody wants to watch the same 6 teams be powerhouses and no underdogs to win. it's pointless and makes the players look selfish and the league a joke.

Trace
02-17-2011, 04:17 PM
You aren't realizing that if a hard cap is put in place at say 58 million, in two years the big 3 will be earning over 52 million with only 6 million left to fill 9 roster spots. How will you get around that? You'll be forced to reduce salary somehow.

Rupaul will give everyone under the counter blow jobs. Duh. :rolleyes:

abe_froman
02-17-2011, 04:17 PM
thats kind of impossible to prevent

serrano275
02-17-2011, 04:18 PM
Umm MJ pretty much had a superteam for his era. The rest of the guys were stuck by themselves.
to?

Why, because you knew all there names? You really think that if MJ never played there that Pippen and Kerr would of rocked the 90s like they did?

News flash. Pippen is no Dwayne Wade. No one is against great players playing together. People are against super stars teaming up like this is the olympics.

The Bulls would have been great. The may have made the finals. But 6 rings would of never happened.

Chronz
02-17-2011, 04:18 PM
It takes the competition and fun out of the sport. Imagine if MJ teamed up with Larry Bird and Magic Johnson because he just wanted championships.
Theres plenty of fun and competition going on right now. Imagine if MJ were stuck on a team without Pippen and Horace/Rodman. I had even more fun when Drexler and Barkley teamed up in Houston.


I understand Bron, Bosh, Wade and their intentions but the method of conception was unfair to all the other teams in the league. If the league were to allow instances of this to happen from here on out there would be very few teams left that could compete let alone contend.

You need to hit the refresh button bro, look at the leagues history this is the way its always been. All the 3 amigos did was ensure that management and luck didnt dictate their destiny and gave themselves the same thing every other contender has.


Franchise players are rare but to compound them all on the same team with little or zero compensation for the team that helped develop and surround the superstar with talent is just wrong.

I dont see what makes it wrong. Its called FREE AGENCY for a reason. If the team had done a better job of surrounding them with talent they would still be there. Its hard I know but thats exactly the point, players dont want to play russian roulette with their careers.

JPHX
02-17-2011, 04:22 PM
Hard cap sounds good. Do away with guaranteed contracts also. Its time to negate the big market teams advantage.

Chronz
02-17-2011, 04:22 PM
Why, because you knew all there names?
Have no idea what this means


You really think that if MJ never played there that Pippen and Kerr would of rocked the 90s like they did?

HUH?


New flash. Pippen is no Dwayne Wade. No one is againts great players playing together. People are against super stars team up like this is the olympics.

So your in agreement that there is no problem.


The Bulls would have been great. The may have made the finals. But 6 rings would of never happened.

Yea thats kind of the point, before they all teamed up together the big3 were carrying the kind of teams that MJ never won with. Take MJ off the Bulls and they are still a 50 Win team, take Bosh/Bron off their teams and we can see how bad they were, take Wade off of last years Heat and its even worse. All these guys did is surround themselves with the pieces necessary to win. They didnt let management dictate their futures anymore

Dade County
02-17-2011, 04:25 PM
You aren't realizing that if a hard cap is put in place at say 58 million, in two years the big 3 will be earning over 52 million with only 6 million left to fill 9 roster spots. How will you get around that? You'll be forced to reduce salary somehow.

And I said that they will just reduce their contracts (these guys really don't care man!).

They just want to win rings (a bunch of them!!!).

I am in favor of a hard camp, and no mid-level, and only 1 max player on a team.

I am just saying that it will not break this team up (Miami HEAT), thats all.

Chronz
02-17-2011, 04:29 PM
You aren't realizing that if a hard cap is put in place at say 58 million, in two years the big 3 will be earning over 52 million with only 6 million left to fill 9 roster spots. How will you get around that? You'll be forced to reduce salary somehow.

Your not realizing that you will have to do this for every team in the league and Miami will STILL have the Big3 and a better core than anyone else. If anything a hard cap will make it easier for the current trio to win.

Think about it, Miamis biggest weakness is their lack of depth outside the BIG3 with a hard cap you force their competitors to cut down on their depth and thus mask their biggest weakness.

serrano275
02-17-2011, 04:30 PM
Under the old rules if your team lost a FA it forced the other team to give up compensation. Do you think its fair that Utah lost out on Magic Johnson because of it? There were always crazy deals throughout NBA history. Players will find a way around anything. All a hard cap will do is make GM's less accountable for their failures and underpay the guys who drive the sport.

Don't know as much about that but if it cause Utah to hit a 5 year slump then yes i do.


Which is?

No idea what you are asking here, but teams like Toronto and New Jersey should not have to sufer the loss of profits because 4 to 5 players want to play for the same team.


Why should we force ANY player to stay somewhere where they dont want to?

Why not? I have had a corporate job for ten years and just now got to a city I want to be at. I hate Texas and spent 3 years there. But it's my job. The make more in one game the I make in years (talking about super stars)
You're not gonna get a sympethetic ear here. It's not forcing players to play where they don't want to. It forces those who want money to go to cities with bigger cap space, and those look to chase rings to take a salary hit to play for teams with more potential. Stoudmire may have gone to Indiana if they offered him a max deal and had the money for it. Giving them a chance to make more profit. The big three in Miami may be forced to make 10 millioon each instead of 16 + million a year to play together to get rings. Would Bosh still been willing to play in Miami for 8 million? or go to Sacramento for 15 million? Just saying.

What could also be done is franchise players may be allowed to get exeptions to policy if they stay with a team for a certain time. Like 5+ year then only have your salary would count towards the hard cap. So you can make double the amount of money if you stay with your original team if it's about the money. Just an idea, but this league needs more parody.

AddiX
02-17-2011, 04:30 PM
Get rid of early opt out clauses.

If players want guaranteed contracts then opt outs need to go, they cant have it both ways.

Players should stay for the duration of their contracts.

No team or owner should decide what a player does when his contract is up and they are unrestricted.

If you cannot put a team together that is good enough to compete that is the owners fault.

If you cant keep your players by giving them more money then they dont want to be there to begin with.

In a perfect world that sounds great, unfortunately one or two bad contracts can hold a franchise and its fan hostage for years.

You of all people should know that. It seems every year multiple teams sign a guy, get him, and than all of a sudden that player doesn't do half of what they did to earn the contract.

When you give a guy 60 million $, its hard to motivate him afterward.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 04:30 PM
I just dont see how a hard cap would ensure that every team in the league has an equal opportunity to win. What exactly do you think happens to the top teams of now under these guidelines ?

It puts them in the same boat as the remaining 25 or so teams, at which point we truly get to see just how good/creative their FO is at assembling teams within a set monetary threshold. Location suddenly wouldn't matter as it does now, since only a certain number of teams would have the means to pay the players want they want. It will essentially force players to choose between making a boatload of money, or teaming up with other stars; which, under the current CBA they have the option of doing both.

I'll once again revert back to using an example from the NHL. The Toronto Maple Leafs are worth the most money in the NHL and are in the biggest hockey market in the world, yet they have sucked for the past decade. Why? Because smaller markets have the exact same chance to win as they do under a hard cap, rather than a free market system where deeper pockets rule all.

Dade County
02-17-2011, 04:31 PM
Your not realizing that you will have to do this for every team in the league and Miami will STILL have the Big3 and a better core than anyone else. If anything a hard cap will make it easier for the current trio to win.

Think about it, Miamis biggest weakness is their lack of depth outside the BIG3 with a hard cap you force their competitors to cut down on their depth and thus mask their biggest weakness.

You said what I said better... NOW say it again! lol :D

jim51990
02-17-2011, 04:37 PM
i agree that its dumb how players are teaming up but forcing teams to get ride of good players due to hard cap is a terrible idea
i wouldnt advise the nba to do anything the nhl did/does

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 04:39 PM
Explain Lebron? An organization that tried to surround him with all the best free agents out there and yet he left them in a storm with nothing...not even a draft pick to make up for his loss.

please point out all these "best free agents out there"

The best player they ever had not named Lebron was who? Mo? Andy? Jamison? Boobie? Delonte?

They had 7 years to get him a sidekick and they didnt.

His leaving them while scummy the way he did it was justified on his part.

How many years should a player have to wait before management gets it right?

And it was the Cavs naivety that got them nothing in return.

camador22
02-17-2011, 04:40 PM
It's nearly impossible with the current CBA to keep superstars. I think full guarenteed contracts needs to go away. I think home teams should be the only ones to offer more guareented money on top of pay. Losing teams should also be able to get a higher scale exception then playoff teams. It's not about rewarding losing teams but creating an opportunity for smaller markets. I think a hard cap is going over board when they're is many other options for smaller market teams to succeed.

Atticus Finch
02-17-2011, 04:41 PM
Explain Lebron? An organization that tried to surround him with all the best free agents out there and yet he left them in a storm with nothing...not even a draft pick to make up for his loss.

Cleveland gained more from Lebron than Lebron gained from Cleveland. They got him for 7 years at an under-market value contract, he turned the franchise around going from one of the worst to one of the best teams, he put fans in the seats every night, he put the city back on the map, and frankly made that team an @$$load of money. They won 17 games the year before Lebron showed up, hadn't made the playoffs since 92, and by the end of his 3rd year the Cavs were playing in the NBA finals. I'd say Cleveland got a lot just for getting lucky enough to land the #1 pick.

serrano275
02-17-2011, 04:43 PM
Have no idea what this means

It means the other player on this team were not super stars with out Jordan/




Yea thats kind of the point, before they all teamed up together the big3 were carrying the kind of teams that MJ never won with. Take MJ off the Bulls and they are still a 50 Win team, take Bosh/Bron off their teams and we can see how bad they were, take Wade off of last years Heat and its even worse. All these guys did is surround themselves with the pieces necessary to win. They didnt let management dictate their futures anymore


What the arguement is that if this continues then the profit margin for the leauge will be greatly reduced. Millions will not care because the teams they care for are not part of the hot spots. It is not necessary to win. It has become necessary to win because the current CBA allows it. I am here right now because the Magic are contenders, but a few years back when we lost Shaq and pretty much any chance of winning because the Lakers over there were just killing it, then there was no point. I stopped watching it. Tickets were thrown away every night the magic didn't play the lakers. If the game is set up for 5 teams to win out of 30, then it reduces the amount of the people who watch un like the NFL were poeple will just watch to watch. If Orlando starts to suck, or even get moved, I would not become a Miami fan, I , like many people, will just stop watching, they'll get the high lights on ESPN.

jetsforever
02-17-2011, 04:43 PM
Well this is stupid... How are you going to stop people/general managers from getting whoever they want.

New Rule Announced: If you are a top 5 player at your position in David Stern's opinion, you can't sign with a team that already has another top 5 player... :confused:

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 04:44 PM
Your not realizing that you will have to do this for every team in the league and Miami will STILL have the Big3 and a better core than anyone else. If anything a hard cap will make it easier for the current trio to win.

Think about it, Miamis biggest weakness is their lack of depth outside the BIG3 with a hard cap you force their competitors to cut down on their depth and thus mask their biggest weakness.

In 2012/2013 the Heat's salary is at $65.72 mil, of which, the big 3 take up slightly over 52 million of that, with the remaining money being distributed between Miller, Haslem and Anthony. For arguments sake and to remain consistent, let's say the hard cap is set at $58 mil, that means they would have to trim $7 mil off their payroll in order to get under the cap.

Trading away Miller, Haslem and Anthony would still give them only $6 mil to fill out 9 remaining roster spots which isn't possible to do. The next logical step would be to jettison one of the big 3 (probably Bosh) to really alleviate themselves and to try and provide a better core around LeBron and Wade. Either way, a hard cap would affect their team and current core.

cantstopthee
02-17-2011, 04:50 PM
20 teams. max 22. Same for the NHL. 10 or 11 usa/canada teams. It would be so exciting.

tr3ymill3r
02-17-2011, 04:54 PM
I think this is called collusion, so I say good luck to the billionaire owners who are too big of penny pinchers to open their wallets. If they got rid of 3-5 teams and expanded the rosters the league would be much more competitive.

abe_froman
02-17-2011, 04:57 PM
Well this is stupid... How are you going to stop people/general managers from getting whoever they want.

New Rule Announced: If you are a top 5 player at your position in David Stern's opinion, you can't sign with a team that already has another top 5 player... :confused:

haha exactly.what now.the clips have griffen and gordon,they'll have another high pick again...so will they be banned from drafting because given time that'll be a big 3.new rule the thunder already have rus and kd so they cant trade from anyone on a list?

everyone is so focused and afraid of miami(dunno why),and breaking it up that they have lost sight of everything else.are fans that support this going to demand a breaking up of their team for "being too good" if its their team thats the one with 3 stars next?

Trace
02-17-2011, 05:03 PM
please point out all these "best free agents out there"

The best player they ever had not named Lebron was who? Mo? Andy? Jamison? Boobie? Delonte?

They had 7 years to get him a sidekick and they didnt.

His leaving them while scummy the way he did it was justified on his part.

How many years should a player have to wait before management gets it right?

And it was the Cavs naivety that got them nothing in return.

How were they naive? Lebron led they to believe that he was staying. he made a commitment during the season stating this. Without hindsight, it's kind of hard to fault them.

If you look at the free agent market from 2005-2010 there weren't a whole lot of players that could have been a worthy "sidekick".

If you were management what reasonable moves would you have done barring hindsight that would have made them better?

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 05:07 PM
Hard cap sounds good. Do away with guaranteed contracts also. Its time to negate the big market teams advantage.

what advantage?

Knicks have sucked for 10 years and havent won in 40

Bulls sucked for a few years until Rose

Chicago Cubs havent won in 100 years

NY JETS havent won in 40 years

NY METS win every 30 years

NY RANGERS won once in 54 years

Dodgers havent won in like 20 years

Does LA still have a Hockey team?

Chicago Bears havent won since 85

Chicago white sox won once in like 60 years or more

LA clippers have never won a thing

WHERE IS THIS ADVANTAGE YOU SPEAK OF?

The fact of the matter is it isnt big money clubs, it dumb *** owners. You can have all the money in the world and not win a ****ing thing. This whole nonsense about not being able to compete with the big markets is a built in excuse for dumb *** GMs who ruin their teams.

Then they want to blame big market teams because they cant field a team.

Oakland A's arent a big market team but they manage to compete with the leagues smallest payroll.

Oklahoma City isnt a big market but they have a great young cheap team.

Detroit isnt a big market but yet the Red Wings and Pistons have won how many championships in the last 30 years? Like 7-8?

So cut the ******** already. Its not about big markets, its about small markets and there delusion that they can spend like big ones. Big markets can spend more money and they usually are the ones who make the biggest market mistakes. When are small markets gonna learn scouting and solid player development departments are what makes a good franchise good.

Not how much money you can spend.

Philadelphia isnt a big market yet they field 3 top teams in their respective sports.

You can field a good team youre just too stupid to know how to do it. Go ask Billy Beane how he fields a competitive product year in and year out.

When are people gonna understand this? Star players dont want to play in Milwaukee, they dont want to play in Charlotte that has nothing to do with money and everything to do with location.

Dont blame big markets because your city has a population of 800,000.

Green Bay is one of the smallest markets in history yet they just won the Super Bowl and the damn trophy is named after their coach.

Pittsburgh is a tiny market yet the Penguins won 4 cups and the Steelers are one of the most successful franchises in history.

Next you'll want a team in French Lick Indiana and then cry when you cant get any good players to play there.

Big Markets are just a excuse for small markets when they are too ****ing stupid to field a good team and fail to use all available resources to do so.

Heres some advice for small markets, learn to scout, learn to draft, stop giving out contracts you cant afford, stop putting teams in cities where you cant financially sustain the team.

Go read MONEY BALL by BILLY BEANE and maybe you'll learn how to do it.

Rangers give AROD 275 million and its the fault of the big markets? Its their own ****ing stupidity why they cant compete and its convenient to blame big markets

NUFF SAID!

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 05:11 PM
^ But you do agree that the current direction of the NBA is not a good thing?

faridk89
02-17-2011, 05:12 PM
If a hard cap is implemented then the big 3 won't be the big 3 for much longer. Look at what happened to the NHL after the lock-out, teams had to frantically reduce salary to get under the cap.

can't compare nba and nhl man, in the nba you can have 2 good players and alright fillers and be decent...in the nhl you need a lot more then that

hdxstunts1
02-17-2011, 05:14 PM
I hate super teams! I really think the NBA should be about 40 teams, with no more then 1 superstar per team, and the teams that dont get a superstar can only have 2 all-stars max...talent would be spread out evenly and the game of basketball would become a TEAM sport again!

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 05:16 PM
How were they naive? Lebron led they to believe that he was staying. he made a commitment during the season stating this. Without hindsight, it's kind of hard to fault them.

If you look at the free agent market from 2005-2010 there weren't a whole lot of players that could have been a worthy "sidekick".

If you were management what reasonable moves would you have done barring hindsight that would have made them better?

So youre saying he ****ed them?

So how does a new CBA stop players from purposely misleading a team?

And if I was management I would have had a extension on the table, and like Denver, if he didnt sign it then I know hes hesitant to come back and I trade him before he ****s me.

And if you think they didnt offer him one then you are naive. You dont let a plyer like James enter a walk year without trying to tie him up long term.

Which again is on the Cavs. If they offered one and he didnt take it they should of traded him.

If they let their franchise player go into his last year without an extension again thats their fault.

The Cavs were naive and they got played and they deserved it for being so stupid.

What idiot lets the best player on the planet go on the free market without offering to extend him? Dan Gilbert.

So while I didnt like how he mislead them they are just as responsible for being mislead.

The BodyGuard
02-17-2011, 05:17 PM
what advantage?

Knicks have sucked for 10 years and havent won in 40

Bulls sucked for a few years until Rose

Chicago Cubs havent won in 100 years

NY JETS havent won in 40 years

NY METS win every 30 years

NY RANGERS won once in 54 years

Dodgers havent won in like 20 years

Does LA still have a Hockey team?

Chicago Bears havent won since 85

Chicago white sox won once in like 60 years or more

LA clippers have never won a thing

WHERE IS THIS ADVANTAGE YOU SPEAK OF?

The fact of the matter is it isnt big money clubs, it dumb *** owners. You can have all the money in the world and not win a ****ing thing. This whole nonsense about not being able to compete with the big markets is a built in excuse for dumb *** GMs who ruin their teams.

Then they want to blame big market teams because they cant field a team.

Oakland A's arent a big market team but they manage to compete with the leagues smallest payroll.

Oklahoma City isnt a big market but they have a great young cheap team.

Detroit isnt a big market but yet the Red Wings and Pistons have won how many championships in the last 30 years? Like 7-8?

So cut the ******** already. Its not about big markets, its about small markets and there delusion that they can spend like big ones. Big markets can spend more money and they usually are the ones who make the biggest market mistakes. When are small markets gonna learn scouting and solid player development departments are what makes a good franchise good.

Not how much money you can spend.

Philadelphia isnt a big market yet they field 3 top teams in their respective sports.

You can field a good team youre just too stupid to know how to do it. Go ask Billy Beane how he fields a competitive product year in and year out.

When are people gonna understand this? Star players dont want to play in Milwaukee, they dont want to play in Charlotte that has nothing to do with money and everything to do with location.

Dont blame big markets because your city has a population of 800,000.

Green Bay is one of the smallest markets in history yet they just won the Super Bowl and the damn trophy is named after their coach.

Pittsburgh is a tiny market yet the Penguins won 4 cups and the Steelers are one of the most successful franchises in history.

Next you'll want a team in French Lick Indiana and then cry when you cant get any good players to play there.

Big Markets are just a excuse for small markets when they are too ****ing stupid to field a good team and fail to use all available resources to do so.

Heres some advice for small markets, learn to scout, learn to draft, stop giving out contracts you cant afford, stop putting teams in cities where you cant financially sustain the team.

Go read MONEY BALL by BILLY BEANE and maybe you'll learn how to do it.

Rangers give AROD 275 million and its the fault of the big markets? Its their own ****ing stupidity why they cant compete and its convenient to blame big markets

NUFF SAID!


Wow, how long it took you to write all this lol

But you do got a point tho

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 05:18 PM
In 2012/2013 the Heat's salary is at $65.72 mil, of which, the big 3 take up slightly over 52 million of that, with the remaining money being distributed between Miller, Haslem and Anthony. For arguments sake and to remain consistent, let's say the hard cap is set at $58 mil, that means they would have to trim $7 mil off their payroll in order to get under the cap.

Trading away Miller, Haslem and Anthony would still give them only $6 mil to fill out 9 remaining roster spots which isn't possible to do. The next logical step would be to jettison one of the big 3 (probably Bosh) to really alleviate themselves and to try and provide a better core around LeBron and Wade. Either way, a hard cap would affect their team and current core.

which would serve them right for being so stupid to begin with. They didnt need Bosh. Wade and James and a full roster and they would be the best team in the NBA right now by far.

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 05:19 PM
Wow, how long it took you to write all this lol

But you do got a point tho

Ive been known to write mini bibles.

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 05:20 PM
I still cant believe that guy actually said

"The best free agents"

WOW

7 years and the best they could get was Jamison? I would ****ing leave too.

Arch Stanton
02-17-2011, 05:21 PM
please point out all these "best free agents out there"

The best player they ever had not named Lebron was who? Mo? Andy? Jamison? Boobie? Delonte?

They had 7 years to get him a sidekick and they didnt.

His leaving them while scummy the way he did it was justified on his part.

How many years should a player have to wait before management gets it right?

And it was the Cavs naivety that got them nothing in return.

I don't think it's so one-sided. It was a combination of both. Yes, the Cavs organization made some mistakes like the drafting of Luke Jackson. However, letting Boozer walk and the signing of Larry Hughes happened pre-Gilbert, and pre-Ferry. Then, we just got too good and were unable to obtain any decent draft picks. Also LeBron didn't exactly help. He never tried to recruit players or give any sort of commitment so we could entice other Free Agents. He knew he was leaving. And free agents like Trevor Ariza didn't want to sign on without knowing if LeBron was staying or not. And it's not like it didn't stop the Cavs. They tried to get Amar'e. But the Suns realistically weren't going to make that deal. So they went after the next best thing in Jamison.
Like I said. The blame falls on both sides.

biglord
02-17-2011, 05:23 PM
this is all talk there is no way owners can stop whats going on now because if they do they will give some teams a unfair advantage. once they let the heat get three top players last year how can they tell another team they cant compete by matching what the heat was able to do.as bad as it is they cant change things now if they wanted to do something they should have done it last year.

The Jokemaker
02-17-2011, 05:25 PM
I don't think it's so one-sided. It was a combination of both. Yes, the Cavs organization made some mistakes like the drafting of Luke Jackson. However, letting Boozer walk and the signing of Larry Hughes happened pre-Gilbert, and pre-Ferry. Then, we just got too good and were unable to obtain any decent draft picks. Also LeBron didn't exactly help. He never tried to recruit players or give any sort of commitment so we could entice other Free Agents. He knew he was leaving. And free agents like Trevor Ariza didn't want to sign on without knowing if LeBron was staying or not. And it's not like it didn't stop the Cavs. They tried to get Amar'e. But the Suns realistically weren't going to make that deal. So they went after the next best thing in Jamison.
Like I said. The blame falls on both sides.

Not to mention they were on a short leash to begin with. They were in win now mode for several seasons and that isnt the way to build a team. They were desperately trying to bring in anybody to help the man. They just had the bad luck of having their moves backfire. But Lebron was pressuring them itno this mood and lord forbid someone displease the "king." This hate that "they never surround him with talent" is foolish. Given the situation they did the best they could to please him.

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 05:35 PM
The reality is he ****ed them and they bent over and let him do it.

So because a player promises hes gonna come back Im not gonna offer an extension? My multi million dollar business rides on the shoulders of this guy and im gonna risk it over his word?

That alone is reason enough to be in the position they are in today. Obviously his word wasnt good and it costs you a ton. There is no loyalty when money is involved and if the Cavs thought that then they were foolish.

Risk millions on spit and a handshake and now they want a new CBA. Unbelieveable.

What ever happened to good business sense? They are the model of stupidity and thats why we need a new CBA. So teams dont end up getting ****ed like them when it was their own fault it happened.

Clearly he turned down a extension and gave them his word...hahahahaha.

I mean how stupid can you be? And if you tell me it was never reported that they offerd a extension then that doesnt say a whole lot either, its says they were stupid enough to go into a walk year without a contract.

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 05:37 PM
Contraction is the only alternative.

If you cant sustain a team in your market then you shouldnt have one and its that simple.

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 05:40 PM
At least Kronke wasnt dumb enough to let Melo enter a opt out year without a extension on the table.

And since there is one and Melo hasnt signed it in 8 months Kronke can now make the moves he needs to. He didnt risk it on a spit handshake deal. He took the proper precautions and know hes in position to get something in return.

beasted86
02-17-2011, 05:44 PM
I've been reading too many fans with this asinine logic that they feel the owners and NBA management has all the control in dictating the next CBA, and we won't have this, and players won't be able to do this, and... and...

Hello... It's called a "collective" bargaining "agreement". :rolleyes:

If the players want to keep a mid-level, and keep a soft cap, and keep flexibility to leave as free agents, they don't have to agree to terms that say otherwise. Duh!

Arch Stanton
02-17-2011, 05:44 PM
The reality is he ****ed them and they bent over and let him do it.

So because a player promises hes gonna come back Im not gonna offer an extension? My multi million dollar business rides on the shoulders of this guy and im gonna risk it over his word?

That alone is reason enough to be in the position they are in today. Obviously his word wasnt good and it costs you a ton. There is no loyalty when money is involved and if the Cavs thought that then they were foolish.

Risk millions on spit and a handshake and now they want a new CBA. Unbelieveable.

What ever happened to good business sense? They are the model of stupidity and thats why we need a new CBA. So teams dont end up getting ****ed like them when it was their own fault it happened.

Clearly he turned down a extension and gave them his word...hahahahaha.

I mean how stupid can you be? And if you tell me it was never reported that they offerd a extension then that doesnt say a whole lot either, its says they were stupid enough to go into a walk year without a contract.

Well, I think the situation was unique because LeBron was from NE Ohio. They didn't think that he would want to leave his hometown. Was Gilbert Naive? Yes. He probably should've taken it as a clue if LeBron wasn't signing any extension or returning any of his phone calls after the dreaded Celtics series. Gilbert probably should've pursued other free agents. But I wouldn't call him stupid. LeBron was immature. And Gilbert was Naive. They tried to make it happen but in the end they failed. It doesn't matter anymore. Once this season is over the Cavs can properly start to rebuild. As of now they're in limbo.

Jonathan2323
02-17-2011, 05:47 PM
No way there is a hard cap and make the HEAT cut players. Thats just a dream by you haters.

There are alot more teams with higher salaries than the HEAT.

justinnum1
02-17-2011, 05:51 PM
No way there is a hard cap and make the HEAT cut players. Thats just a dream by you haters.

There are alot more teams with higher salaries than the HEAT.

This.

beasted86
02-17-2011, 05:58 PM
No way there is a hard cap and make the HEAT cut players. Thats just a dream by you haters.

There are alot more teams with higher salaries than the HEAT.

Just a couple teams that have higher salaries than the Heat, and will pay luxury tax while the Heat won't :

Lakers
Celtics
Magic
Mavericks
Nuggets
Rockets
Blazers
Jazz

Notice a trend of mostly playoff teams here?

Chronz
02-17-2011, 05:59 PM
Don't know as much about that but if it cause Utah to hit a 5 year slump then yes i do.
So if Utah suffers then its fair?


No idea what you are asking here, but teams like Toronto and New Jersey should not have to sufer the loss of profits because 4 to 5 players want to play for the same team.
Im saying what is your ideal salary scale.



Why not? I have had a corporate job for ten years and just now got to a city I want to be at. I hate Texas and spent 3 years there. But it's my job. The make more in one game the I make in years (talking about super stars)
You're not gonna get a sympethetic ear here.
Horrible comparison, YOU do NOT drive the business. If you were a commodity that was sought after then you have the right to pick and choose your suitors.


It's not forcing players to play where they don't want to. It forces those who want money to go to cities with bigger cap space, and those look to chase rings to take a salary hit to play for teams with more potential. Stoudmire may have gone to Indiana if they offered him a max deal and had the money for it. Giving them a chance to make more profit. The big three in Miami may be forced to make 10 millioon each instead of 16 + million a year to play together to get rings. Would Bosh still been willing to play in Miami for 8 million? or go to Sacramento for 15 million? Just saying.

So this has nothing to do with competitive balance you would just rather see the people responsible for the NBA's success make more money and the people responsible for its failures (the owners) have less accountability and turn a higher profit.


What could also be done is franchise players may be allowed to get ex eptions to policy if they stay with a team for a certain time. Like 5+ year then only have your salary would count towards the hard cap. So you can make double the amount of money if you stay with your original team if it's about the money. Just an idea, but this league needs more parody.
I dont see how this fixes anything, players will still come together for the sake of winning, all this will do is make the super rich (the owners) richer and take away money from those that truly deserve it.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 06:01 PM
I've been reading too many fans with this asinine logic that they feel the owners and NBA management has all the control in dictating the next CBA, and we won't have this, and players won't be able to do this, and... and...

Hello... It's called a "collective" bargaining "agreement". :rolleyes:

If the players want to keep a mid-level, and keep a soft cap, and keep flexibility to leave as free agents, they don't have to agree to terms that say otherwise. Duh!

Then we'll see how much the players like getting paid only union dues from the PA instead of their full salaries for a year. Hopefully they can support their families with that money.


No way there is a hard cap and make the HEAT cut players. Thats just a dream by you haters.

There are alot more teams with higher salaries than the HEAT.

Is there something you're failing to understand here? EVERY team in the league would have to reduce salary to below the set cap. Hate on that.


this. ^That

Jonathan2323
02-17-2011, 06:05 PM
Then we'll see how much the players like getting paid only union dues from the FA instead of their full salaries for a year. Hopefully they can support their families with that money.



Is there something you're failing to understand here? EVERY team in the league would have to reduce salary to below the set cap. Hate on that.

^That

and you really think that's realistic? C'mon man!

How many good players would have to take the league min just to play in the league. They would probably start going overseas to get there money.

Chronz
02-17-2011, 06:06 PM
It puts them in the same boat as the remaining 25 or so teams, at which point we truly get to see just how good/creative their FO is at assembling teams within a set monetary threshold. Location suddenly wouldn't matter as it does now, since only a certain number of teams would have the means to pay the players want they want. It will essentially force players to choose between making a boatload of money, or teaming up with other stars; which, under the current CBA they have the option of doing both.
I dont agree with any of this, location will always matter and the option of making alot of money and teaming up will still exist, all this will really do is lower the salary of the role players. Instead of seeing guys like Mike Miller and Udonis get MLE type deals they will make pittance. Guys like Bron and Wade are worth so much than what they make, you really think they will take significantly less than that?


I'll once again revert back to using an example from the NHL. The Toronto Maple Leafs are worth the most money in the NHL and are in the biggest hockey market in the world, yet they have sucked for the past decade. Why? Because smaller markets have the exact same chance to win as they do under a hard cap, rather than a free market system where deeper pockets rule all.
I dont know jack about the NHL. Deeper pockets dont rule here, once your over the cap you cant spend money that isnt already tied up. If you want to keep the good teams from improving then abolishing the MLE will suffice. A hard cap will change nothing because it would have to be set high to begin with considering all the max deals in the league. They dont just vanish.

AddiX
02-17-2011, 06:07 PM
I've been reading too many fans with this asinine logic that they feel the owners and NBA management has all the control in dictating the next CBA, and we won't have this, and players won't be able to do this, and... and...

Hello... It's called a "collective" bargaining "agreement". :rolleyes:

If the players want to keep a mid-level, and keep a soft cap, and keep flexibility to leave as free agents, they don't have to agree to terms that say otherwise. Duh!

Heat fans really are clueless about everything.

This is nothing like the NFL problems. NBA is more than happy to show there books which clearly show a lot of NBA teams suffering financially and operating at a loss.

Obviously the union has pull also, but when the league shows a loss in profit, Unions have no place for demands.

Superstars will still get paid, everyone else is will be taking a pay cut though.

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 06:09 PM
Well, I think the situation was unique because LeBron was from NE Ohio. They didn't think that he would want to leave his hometown. Was Gilbert Naive? Yes. He probably should've taken it as a clue if LeBron wasn't signing any extension or returning any of his phone calls after the dreaded Celtics series. Gilbert probably should've pursued other free agents. But I wouldn't call him stupid. LeBron was immature. And Gilbert was Naive. They tried to make it happen but in the end they failed. It doesn't matter anymore. Once this season is over the Cavs can properly start to rebuild. As of now they're in limbo.

Which i understand but I cant let people say we need this and that because of a immature liar and a naive owner.

Whos a bigger fool? The fool or the fool that follows?

And it still doesnt explain to me why Gilbert didnt offer to extend him a year before his contract was up.

The owners cant stop collusion. And the James situation was exactly that. Gilbert being a billionaire owner should have known this. He didnt cover his bases and he got burned.

I doubt any owner going forward makes this mistake again. If you offer an extension and the player doesnt sign it within a reasonable time frame to think about it then trade his ***.

Chronz
02-17-2011, 06:10 PM
In 2012/2013 the Heat's salary is at $65.72 mil, of which, the big 3 take up slightly over 52 million of that, with the remaining money being distributed between Miller, Haslem and Anthony. For arguments sake and to remain consistent, let's say the hard cap is set at $58 mil, that means they would have to trim $7 mil off their payroll in order to get under the cap.
An impossible figure, the average NBA teams salary is exponentially larger than that, it would be like removing the NBA's talent base and forcing them out of a job. Where do these existing contracts go? And again you would have to do this for every team in the league, the Heat are among the bottom 10 in league in terms of payroll, they would keep their BIG3 and watch all the other contenders lose more significant pieces.


Trading away Miller, Haslem and Anthony would still give them only $6 mil to fill out 9 remaining roster spots which isn't possible to do.
Sure it is, you fill out the rest of the team with minimum contracts of which, thanks to your new rule would comprise of a deep pool of players who would have to be dropped.


The next logical step would be to jettison one of the big 3 (probably Bosh) to really alleviate themselves and to try and provide a better core around LeBron and Wade. Either way, a hard cap would affect their team and current core.

It would definitely affect their team, problem is it would be for the better, they would keep the 3 together and see their biggest weakness masked/improved.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 06:11 PM
and you really think that's realistic? C'mon man!

How many good players would have to take the league min just to play in the league. They would probably start going overseas to get there money.

The whole idea of a soft-cap is just stupid, the Lakers salary is at $91.5 mil, which is almost $34 million over the set cap. How is a team like Minnesota (just for an example) ever supposed to compete with that kind of money? Let alone, already being at a disadvantage for not being a "desirable" location.

beasted86
02-17-2011, 06:12 PM
Heat fans really are clueless about everything.

This is nothing like the NFL problems. NBA is more than happy to show there books which clearly show a lot of NBA teams suffering financially and operating at a loss.

Obviously the union has pull also, but when the league shows a loss in profit, Unions have no place for demands.

Superstars will still get paid, everyone else is will be taking a pay cut though.

Yes, I'm clueless. :facepalm:

Having a mid-level, having a soft cap, and having flexibility in free agency has NOTHING to do with the problems in the current CBA of teams losing money. You should really read up on the CBA and what exactly David Stern says before opening your mouth and calling someone else clueless. I'll even give you a hint: Profit sharing.

Thanks, K, bye.

beasted86
02-17-2011, 06:15 PM
The whole idea of a soft-cap is just stupid, the Lakers salary is at $91.5 mil, which is almost $34 million over the set cap. How is a team like Minnesota (just for an example) ever supposed to compete with that kind of money? Let alone, already being at a disadvantage for not being a "desirable" location.

Smart ownership. decision making, coaching, and scouting.

The Spurs are the best team in the NBA and they aren't in the luxury tax... and they don't have a bunch of guys on rookie contracts like the Thunder or etc... who have an artificially low salary.

Bornknick73
02-17-2011, 06:15 PM
The NBA and its quest to make more profits are at fault for awarding teams to cities that cant sustain them.

They expanded in places that dont have much money. Las Vegas has money wheres that team? San Diego has money wheres that team? San Francisco has money where is the NBA team there? Seattle has big computer money and they moved the team to a smaller market.

4 markets where a team can have success financially and they move teams to oklahoma or charlotte or memphis or milwaukee.

daboywonder2002
02-17-2011, 06:17 PM
while i dont like the idea of superteams. what do you do if say a top 10 player like dwight howard is willing to take a paycut to win a championship? lets face it, there are some competitive guys out there who would be willing to take a paycut to joion forces to win a ship. then what do you do to stop it??

Chronz
02-17-2011, 06:19 PM
Dude learn how to use the quote button, I dont want to edit all my posts for this.


It means the other player on this team were not super stars with out Jordan
With MJ Kerr wasnt a superstar so why bring him up. And my statement still stands regardless of your definitions. The Bulls were essentially a superteam of their era. Without MJ they were SIGNIFICANTLY more stacked than any other team minus their star.


What the arguement is that if this continues then the profit margin for the leauge will be greatly reduced. Millions will not care because the teams they care for are not part of the hot spots. It is not necessary to win. It has become necessary to win because the current CBA allows it. I am here right now because the Magic are contenders, but a few years back when we lost Shaq and pretty much any chance of winning because the Lakers over there were just killing it, then there was no point. I stopped watching it. Tickets were thrown away every night the magic didn't play the lakers. If the game is set up for 5 teams to win out of 30, then it reduces the amount of the people who watch un like the NFL were poeple will just watch to watch. If Orlando starts to suck, or even get moved, I would not become a Miami fan, I , like many people, will just stop watching, they'll get the high lights on ESPN.
Its probably because your a fairweather fan that you do not know this but the league has always been like this. I dont see how the new system would fix anything. Sorry to disappoint you but the NFL is a completely different league, the NBA will NEVER be so inconsistent under any set up.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 06:26 PM
Smart ownership. decision making, coaching, and scouting.

The Spurs are the best team in the NBA and they aren't in the luxury tax... and they don't have a bunch of guys on rookie contracts like the Thunder or etc... who have an artificially low salary.

The Spurs are an anomaly in the sense that they have star players who don't have the now commonplace diva mentality. Duncan, Manu and Parker buy into the team game/system and that is their main reason for sustained success. Obviously their scouting is a big part if their success as well.

I'll use the Carmelo and Denver example. He's trying to force his way out while under contract for what reason? Simply because he wants to go play in NY. What more could Denver have done to appease him? They surrounded him with a plethora of talent and went to the WCF just two years ago, yet that isn't good enough. He wants to team up to form yet another superteam in NY with Stat and Paul, further reducing the parity in the league.

The Heat were the first to complete this superteam blueprint via FA, so let us ensure that it's the last time it takes place before the league loses even more credibility. I look at a team like the Chicago Bulls as a good example of how to correctly build a team, through the draft, smart trades and key FA signings. There's simply no point in having 30 NBA teams if it's major stars want to team up together in only NY, LA or Miami.

beasted86
02-17-2011, 06:33 PM
I look at a team like the Chicago Bulls as a good example of how to correctly build a team, through the draft, smart trades and key FA signings.

First things first, the Bulls lucked into the 1st overall pick. I don't feel like spelling out a history lesson of the last time a team slated to take the 9th pick moved into the top 3, let alone got the #1 pick.

2nd, their salary is also artificially low. When Rose & Noah get their extension, the Bulls will have 4 guys making double figures per year with Boozer & Deng in that group, and they still need a SG, so will want to spend the full mid-level on one.

The Bulls 2 years from now will have a $75M+ payroll which in all likelihood will be luxury tax territory.

Chronz
02-17-2011, 06:35 PM
LOL @ the Bulls being how to build a team, in other words you better be lucky. Thats precisely why stars have taken matters into their own hands.

AddiX
02-17-2011, 06:36 PM
Yes, I'm clueless. :facepalm:

Having a mid-level, having a soft cap, and having flexibility in free agency has NOTHING to do with the problems in the current CBA of teams losing money. You should really read up on the CBA and what exactly David Stern says before opening your mouth and calling someone else clueless. I'll even give you a hint: Profit sharing.

Thanks, K, bye.

Are you even capable of sticking to one subject for longer than one sentence?

SteBO
02-17-2011, 06:36 PM
First things first, the Bulls lucked into the 1st overall pick. I don't feel like spelling out a history lesson of the last time a team slated to take the #12 pick moved into the top 3, let alone got the #1 pick.

2nd, their salary is also artificially low. When Rose & Noah get their extension, the Bulls will have 4 guys making double figures per year with Boozer & Deng in that group, and they still need a SG, so will want to spend the full mid-level on one.

The Bulls 2 years from now will have a $75M+ payroll which in all likelihood will be luxury tax territory.
I don't get why people fail to recognize this. BTW, Noah already got his extension. Rose hasn't gotten his yet, and Deng still has 3 years left on his deal making 11 million anually, not to mention Boozer. So they'll be in a similar financial state the Heat's in currently, maybe worse.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 06:41 PM
LOL @ the Bulls being how to build a team, in other words you better be lucky. Thats precisely why stars have taken matters into their own hands.

I guess the Spurs dynasty of the last 13 years is based on luck too since they won the lottery in 1997.

Or Seattle/OKC getting lucky for the Trailblazers passing on Durant in favour of Oden.

Or the Heat getting lucky that all 3 FA's just so happened to choose Miami once July rolled around.

Right?

Chronz
02-17-2011, 06:43 PM
The Spurs are an anomaly in the sense that they have star players who don't have the now commonplace diva mentality. Duncan, Manu and Parker buy into the team game/system and that is their main reason for sustained success. Obviously their scouting is a big part if their success as well.
They have talent PERIOD. Thats why they are good, that theyve been able to keep adding pieces over the years is due to their ability to scout and the MLE.


I'll use the Carmelo and Denver example. He's trying to force his way out while under contract for what reason? Simply because he wants to go play in NY. What more could Denver have done to appease him? They surrounded him with a plethora of talent and went to the WCF just two years ago, yet that isn't good enough. He wants to team up to form yet another superteam in NY with Stat and Paul, further reducing the parity in the league.
First of all, Melo is dead set on leaving despite his teams success. These kind of players will always exist, the new system would not change this from happening.
Secondly under the current system how do they add CP3 to go with Melo?


The Heat were the first to complete this superteam blueprint via FA, so let us ensure that it's the last time it takes place before the league loses even more credibility. I look at a team like the Chicago Bulls as a good example of how to correctly build a team, through the draft, smart trades and key FA signings. There's simply no point in having 30 NBA teams if it's major stars want to team up together in only NY, LA or Miami.

In other words LUCK. So the starting place is you have to have a playoff caliber team who happens to slide out for a year and hope your microscopic chance of landing the #1 pick gos right, then after that sign a star. Genius

Why not just point to the Orlando Magic the year they got Shaq then Penny. That was all drafting and trading skills.

beasted86
02-17-2011, 06:45 PM
I guess the Spurs dynasty of the last 13 years is based on luck too since they won the lottery in 1997.
No. A little luck to move up 2 spots, but nonetheless, Spurs had the 3rd worst record, Bulls had the 9th worst record. Huge difference.



Or Seattle/OKC getting lucky for the Trailblazers passing on Durant in favour of Oden.
No luck. They took the best player available at the pick they had.


Or the Heat getting lucky that all 3 FA's just so happened to choose Miami once July rolled around.

Right?
Again, no luck. Do you understand what luck is? Luck is having a 1.7% chance of getting the number one pick in the lottery and beating the odds. That's luck.

Bruno
02-17-2011, 06:47 PM
I agree with the general consensus here; it's a bit late for that.

KingPosey
02-17-2011, 06:47 PM
I dont know if i like a hard cap, or think it adequately solves the problem. I am a King's fan, and i dont want to become semi competitive, because no other team is capable of being a great team. I want to be comp because we are good, not because no one can be.

Chronz
02-17-2011, 06:49 PM
I guess the Spurs dynasty of the last 13 years is based on luck too since they won the lottery in 1997.
Lets see, they were a 50+ win team that lost their franchise center (whom they kept out to ensure many pingpong bolls) then the following year essentially added two dominant Bigs. Yea that happens every year


Or Seattle/OKC getting lucky for the Trailblazers passing on Durant in favour of Oden.

Dont see how this compares to the Bulls. Personally I think OKC is screwing up their chances by not pursuing a top flight player with their cap space window. That the Blazers passed on Durant was based on them taking conventional wisdom over advanced analytics that said Durant was the no brainer and a once every 6 years type of player.


Or the Heat getting lucky that all 3 FA's just so happened to choose Miami once July rolled around.

How is that luck and not the BIG3 agreeing to come together?


Right?
Can you explain how showing me these instances disproves that the Bulls were EXTREMELY lucky. If thats your model on how to build a team then your only confirming just how hard it is. Everything has to go right, players should take it into their own hands whenever possible.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 06:57 PM
Can you explain how showing me these instances disproves that the Bulls were EXTREMELY lucky. If thats your model on how to build a team then your only confirming just how hard it is. Everything has to go right, players should take it into their own hands whenever possible.

It's very hard, which is why something like only 8 teams has won the Ship in the last 30 some odd years. With that said, don't you think it will become even harder if primadonna athletes try to dictate who they play with and where they play?

The current path the NBA is on is a complete joke and implementing a hard cap with no exceptions will significantly curtail players making a mockery of the league by holding certain teams hostage. At the end of the day the owners should hold more power because they're taking more risk by investing into a sports franchise, whereas the players will still get paid regardless. A prolonged lockout should help serve as a reality check for these guys, and even more so when the PA has to concede more demands then what they initially thought they would.

A Nut Da 1
02-17-2011, 07:01 PM
That would be perfect. The Players Union would never agree though.

not really so if you aleardy have a max player on you team then you draft a player who becomes a max player then you shouldn't be able to keep them too? makes no sense!

A Nut Da 1
02-17-2011, 07:04 PM
Hard cap is the way to go. Every one who thinks having mega teams is great for the league don't remember the early 90s when the NBA was at its highest rating. Bird, Johnson, Jordan, Ewing, Barkley, etc. etc. They were superstars on their own teams.

Johnson was drafted to the lakers when they Abdul. Their wasn't these crazy deals that left the grizzlies woundering how they got duped out of Kobe and Gasol for peanuts.

I think that cap should be big enough to get 2 superstars to play for your team with a supporting group.

My team is the biggest offender of the non hard cap tiems, and I still think we need it. All these moves we have made out of fear to kep up with the big 3 in Boston and the big 3 in miami has left us with horrible contracts.

A hard Cap will not completely solve the problem, but it will stop the bleeding. There should be no reason to reduce the teams in the NBA. If you can get a franchise player in each team to just stay for their career, then the money is there to be made by everyone.

i agree with your entire post

A Nut Da 1
02-17-2011, 07:13 PM
Why though? Why should players rely on luck to win titles rather than their own ambitions? Its not taking the easy way out, if all the stars want is the same benefit every other title team won.

how do you figure thats not taking the easy way out 2 of the top 3 players on the team and a top 20 player? are you serious?

SteBO
02-17-2011, 07:16 PM
i agree with your entire post
Wrong. He purposely left out the fact that Bird, as a rookie, played with two HOF's right off the bat in Tiny Archibald and Dave Cowens. Then Boston traded for Robert Parish that landed them the #3 overall pick in Kevin McHale. Then in FA, they signed a finals MVP in Dennis Johnson.

The Lakers had won the lottery coin toss, and Magic was drafted by them, and played with Kareem Abdul-Jabar, then James Worthy came in, then Byron Scott, etc.

Why Charles Barkely is even mentioned here is beyond me :facepalm: He played with prime Moses Malone, and Dr. J as a rookie, and when those two guys faded, the sixers didn't win squat.

Everyone who thinks that having mega teams aren't great for the league is completely clueless as a matter of fact. Dynasties have always been great for the NBA, especially when there are multiple stars on a team. Without those stacked teams, who knows where the NBA would be. I'm not saying this because I'm a Heat fan, it's just reality. A hard cap wouldn't solve much of anything, especially if free agency is still around. While some guys are still after money, winning has definitely become a top priority nowadays, and you've already seen the best player in the league take less money to win.

A Nut Da 1
02-17-2011, 07:18 PM
Umm MJ pretty much had a superteam for his era. The rest of the guys were stuck by themselves.


Under the old rules if your team lost a FA it forced the other team to give up compensation. Do you think its fair that Utah lost out on Magic Johnson because of it? There were always crazy deals throughout NBA history. Players will find a way around anything. All a hard cap will do is make GM's less accountable for their failures and underpay the guys who drive the sport.


Which is?


Why should we force ANY player to stay somewhere where they dont want to?

what are you talking about what super team was MJ apart of?

SteBO
02-17-2011, 07:18 PM
how do you figure thats not taking the easy way out 2 of the top 3 players on the team and a top 20 player? are you serious?
Because winning is never easy. You can spin this anyway you want, but the reality is that Miami isn't even a better team than Boston as it stands right now. Hell, noone on PSD even give them a chance against Boston in a playoff series, so why don't you explain to me how that's taking the easy out?

SteBO
02-17-2011, 07:19 PM
what are you talking about what super team was MJ apart of?
Scottie Pippen and the best rebounding forward in the history of the game, in Dennis Rodman. Hell, even Toni Kukoc was a hell of a player then.

justinnum1
02-17-2011, 07:24 PM
what are you talking about what super team was MJ apart of?

:facepalm:

Kakaroach
02-17-2011, 07:25 PM
Of course they would, as they should. It seems more and more that a franchise tag could very well happen.

SteBO
02-17-2011, 07:27 PM
Of course they would, as they should. It seems more and more that a franchise tag could very well happen.
Franchise tags are one thing the players would definitely not go for.

A Nut Da 1
02-17-2011, 07:28 PM
The NBA is in a terrible position right now, you could easily take away 4-5 teams and no one would care or barely notice. Not only are they bad teams, but they lack superstars, no top free agents want to go there, and they don't even have rivalries or strong history.

We just witnessed one a NBA HOF coach in jerry sloan get the boot over a player who will leave them anyway.

And when you hear a list of teams a player wants to go to, its the same 5-6 teams every time.

Another thing that won't happen but needs to is the NBA needs to shorten the season and the playoffs. You want to know why the Lakers lose to bad teams? Because there bored and tired. The only thing a long season and long playoffs has done is create a atmosphere where no one cares about the regular season.

And Can anyone argue that most the teams in the playoffs after the first 2 months of basketball won't make playoffs when its all said and done. Maybe 1 or 2 teams sneak it by the end of it.

Want to know why Mikes system got so many wins with the Suns? Because no one else plays defense either.

thats statement was nonsense honestly you have every team getting at least14,000 fans a night at each game then you have fans who can't afford that watching their teams on tv or purchase team merchandise there isn't one team that if you removed it wouldn't affect some fans

Lindystud36
02-17-2011, 07:31 PM
First Off A Hard Cap Is pointless.
Keep the current structure of a soft cap
Every dollar over the cap, the team has to pay 1.1 dollars to a revenue system sharing process
Keep the MLE, but all MLE contracts have to also be paid into the revenue sharing system at 1.2 dollars to contract value ( though MLE contract does not count on the main salary structure) therefore a MLE being 6 mil, 7.2 million would have to be paid into a revenue sharing system.
Give the advantage to the smaller market teams using bird rights, but make a max contract 4 years unless they are resigning with their teams then allow it to be at 6 years

daleja424
02-17-2011, 07:32 PM
based on the proposals I am hearing we want to dismantel al the super teams and we want to prevent the up an coming teams from resigning key guys (like no d-rose in chicago, no melo in denver, etc). so you are proposing that we dont allow teams the chance to keep their stars?

bc if there is a hard cap then there can be no rose on the bulls, no melo on the nuggets, no dwight on the magic, etc. All those FAs will have to go elsewhere. How is it good for the league to rip superstars away from their respective cities by force?

Raph12
02-17-2011, 07:34 PM
Heat owner is probably 100% in favor of this lol...

daboywonder2002
02-17-2011, 07:44 PM
Because winning is never easy. You can spin this anyway you want, but the reality is that Miami isn't even a better team than Boston as it stands right now. Hell, noone on PSD even give them a chance against Boston in a playoff series, so why don't you explain to me how that's taking the easy out?

boston is just one team. everyone expected miami to have issues coming in. but you cant tell me this team is not set up to win multiple rings in the upcoming years. even if its not this year. its gonna happen.

SteBO
02-17-2011, 07:54 PM
boston is just one team. everyone expected miami to have issues coming in. but you cant tell me this team is not set up to win multiple rings in the upcoming years. even if its not this year. its gonna happen.
Miami could use more interior help and PG is an issue unless something changes, but otherwise. you're correct. But that doesn't mean Miami will win rings easily. People say Miami is taking the easy way out, when that's clearly flawed logic. I didn't hear anyone saying this when the Lakers pretty much made arguably the most one-sided traded in the history of the NBA in getting Pau Gasol, and they didn't even win until they got a full year together. Bottom line is that you need adersity and heartbrake most of the time to reach to where you want to reach. The Celtics are the only team in the league that contradicts this statement.

JARVIS123
02-17-2011, 07:57 PM
first of all those guys were free agents.they had the right to do what was best for them.pat was smart enough to cash in on 3 superstars.and still keep the heat salary at $65,356,624 which is 20 on the nba salary list.the 76ers # 10 at $69,360,246/the raptors # 13 $67,698,088.if you're going to spend the money spend it on players that going to lead you to the promise land.dallas for an example they paid brendan haywood 55 mil to play 17.1 mins a game.is it worth it?no.......

SteBO
02-17-2011, 08:06 PM
first of all those guys were free agents.they had the right to do what was best for them.pat was smart enough to cash in on 3 superstars.and still keep the heat salary at $65,356,624 which is 20 on the nba salary list.the 76ers # 10 at $69,360,246/the raptors # 13 $67,698,088.if you're going to spend the money spend it on players that going to lead you to the promise land.dallas for an example they paid brendan haywood 55 mil to play 17.1 mins a game.is it worth it?no.......
My point exactly. Tyson Chandler is a guy the Mavs need to re-sign, but why would Dallas tie in so much cash to two centers?

sf-fanatic
02-17-2011, 08:36 PM
And I said that they will just reduce their contracts (these guys really don't care man!).

They just want to win rings (a bunch of them!!!).

I am in favor of a hard camp, and no mid-level, and only 1 max player on a team.

I am just saying that it will not break this team up (Miami HEAT), thats all.

You know that the players union is highly against and won't allow restructure of contracts right? The NBA is the sport that restructuring of contracts least likely occurs. It's not that easy. If the NBA announces a hard cap at 58 mil and removes the MLE making it count against the cap and gives all teams 1-2 offseasons to get under it , the Heat would have to trade 1 or 2 of Bosh/Wade/Lebron. It will be impossible to keep the big 3.

BALLER R
02-17-2011, 08:38 PM
would the nba be alot better if every team had one superstar..are there even 30 legit superstars

sf-fanatic
02-17-2011, 08:43 PM
I've been reading too many fans with this asinine logic that they feel the owners and NBA management has all the control in dictating the next CBA, and we won't have this, and players won't be able to do this, and... and...

Hello... It's called a "collective" bargaining "agreement". :rolleyes:

If the players want to keep a mid-level, and keep a soft cap, and keep flexibility to leave as free agents, they don't have to agree to terms that say otherwise. Duh!

If theres no agreement than theres no basketball next year.

GodsSon
02-17-2011, 08:46 PM
You know that the players union is highly against and won't allow restructure of contracts right? The NBA is the sport that restructuring of contracts least likely occurs. It's not that easy. If the NBA announces a hard cap at 58 mil and removes the MLE making it count against the cap and gives all teams 1-2 offseasons to get under it , the Heat would have to trade 1 or 2 of Bosh/Wade/Lebron. It will be impossible to keep the big 3.

Exactly what I said and a few Heat fans kept refuting it. It's called a hard cap for a reason.

SteBO
02-17-2011, 08:51 PM
would the nba be alot better if every team had one superstar..are there even 30 legit superstars
History has proven otherwise.

daleja424
02-17-2011, 08:52 PM
We are refuting it b/c there are 20 teams with a bigger salary figure than the HEAT. It will hurt teams like the Lakers, Celtics, Mavs, and Bulls a lot more than Miami if a hard cap is put in place.

SteBO
02-17-2011, 08:58 PM
We are refuting it b/c there are 20 teams with a bigger salary figure than the HEAT. It will hurt teams like the Lakers, Celtics, Mavs, and Bulls a lot more than Miami if a hard cap is put in place.
The Mavs will have even worse because of the contracts of Dirk and Haywood, and who knows what Cuban's willing to pay Chandler. The Bulls will be in more danger because they haven't paid Rose yet, right?

beasted86
02-17-2011, 09:19 PM
You know that the players union is highly against and won't allow restructure of contracts right? The NBA is the sport that restructuring of contracts least likely occurs. It's not that easy. If the NBA announces a hard cap at 58 mil and removes the MLE making it count against the cap and gives all teams 1-2 offseasons to get under it , the Heat would have to trade 1 or 2 of Bosh/Wade/Lebron. It will be impossible to keep the big 3.

1st, do you really think both the players and teams would agree to a hard cap set at $58M? If you did not know, currently there are only like 3 teams in the entire NBA with a salary at $58M or below.

2nd, do you really think a hard cap would help teams struggling for a profit who are currently benefiting from revenue sharing due to luxury tax, and would not under a hard cap scenario?

Because that's all this boils down to. Despite what this article says, I'm 100% sure owners care very little about parity.... but a lot about profit. The only reason for a hard cap or any of this discussion about implementing one is to affect profits. Teams who were paying $90M in payroll to keep themselves contenders (LA, BOS) will still be profitable with a $58M hard cap, just more than before. Teams like the Grizzlies, Pacers, and Bobcats will still be UNprofitable with a hard cap at $58M.

This is part of what I was trying to explain earlier that a mid-level, a soft cap, and free agent flexibility has very little to do with the problems of teams not making profits. Revenue sharing is the biggest problem right now. Teams in struggling markets is the problem right now.

Dade County
02-17-2011, 09:22 PM
You know that the players union is highly against and won't allow restructure of contracts right? The NBA is the sport that restructuring of contracts least likely occurs. It's not that easy. If the NBA announces a hard cap at 58 mil and removes the MLE making it count against the cap and gives all teams 1-2 offseasons to get under it , the Heat would have to trade 1 or 2 of Bosh/Wade/Lebron. It will be impossible to keep the big 3.

I believe they would restructure their contracts to play together... (for the 10,000 time). And I think the union under a new hard cap/no mid-level, will have to change their stance. Because of the (maybe) new salary camp.

Then all the other teams in the league will be at a disadvantage.

sf-fanatic
02-17-2011, 09:50 PM
I believe they would restructure their contracts to play together... (for the 10,000 time). And I think the union under a new hard cap/no mid-level, will have to change their stance. Because of the (maybe) new salary camp.

Then all the other teams in the league will be at a disadvantage.

You act like its a piece of cake to restructure the contract. How often do we see it in the NBA AFTER a contract is signed? Just because a player wants it doesn't mean it's going to happen. The players union won't allow it because their goal is to allow the players to make as much money as possible...

It really doesn't matter what you believe, because the rules won't allow it. They haven't come out to say anything about it yet, so we can all assume or believe what we want.

sf-fanatic
02-17-2011, 09:51 PM
1st, do you really think both the players and teams would agree to a hard cap set at $58M? If you did not know, currently there are only like 3 teams in the entire NBA with a salary at $58M or below.

2nd, do you really think a hard cap would help teams struggling for a profit who are currently benefiting from revenue sharing due to luxury tax, and would not under a hard cap scenario?

Because that's all this boils down to. Despite what this article says, I'm 100% sure owners care very little about parity.... but a lot about profit. The only reason for a hard cap or any of this discussion about implementing one is to affect profits. Teams who were paying $90M in payroll to keep themselves contenders (LA, BOS) will still be profitable with a $58M hard cap, just more than before. Teams like the Grizzlies, Pacers, and Bobcats will still be UNprofitable with a hard cap at $58M.

This is part of what I was trying to explain earlier that a mid-level, a soft cap, and free agent flexibility has very little to do with the problems of teams not making profits. Revenue sharing is the biggest problem right now. Teams in struggling markets is the problem right now.

I was just using the 58 as an example cause someone used it earlier. Its more likely to be 65-70 imo.

Chronz
02-17-2011, 09:52 PM
Even if there is a hard cap what makes you guys think it will be so low? What happens to all those other players under contracts? They dont just disappear and if they do the league becomes incredibly weak, the only way a hard cap that low is implemented is if there is a league wide shift in salary proportions (which I doubt) and if that occurs the Big3 in Miami still exist except everyone else around them gets weaker. And in the end it will not fix any of the so called problems associated with teaming up. All it will do is make the fat cats richer and save them from themselves while the players who fuel this business suffer.


how do you figure thats not taking the easy way out 2 of the top 3 players on the team and a top 20 player? are you serious?
Yes Im serious and I dont know wat your asking for


what are you talking about what super team was MJ apart of?
Brush up on some history

Crackadalic
02-17-2011, 09:54 PM
Stop what. Look at the 80's and 90's and tell me that super teams didnt exist back then which they did. Its no different from today except now super teams are now being made

Chronz
02-17-2011, 09:56 PM
I was just using the 58 as an example cause someone used it earlier. Its more likely to be 65-70 imo.

That would be worse than what we have now, teams wont be able to go over it but they get to keep everyone else and not have to worry about the luxury tax.

Im telling you the best way to keep the stacked teams from overstacking is to get rid of the MLE and bird rights. Thats how teams over the cap improve or they consist of some of the worst contracts ever handed out. WIN WIN

beasted86
02-17-2011, 10:04 PM
That would be worse than what we have now, teams wont be able to go over it but they get to keep everyone else and not have to worry about the luxury tax.

Im telling you the best way to keep the stacked teams from overstacking is to get rid of the MLE and bird rights. Thats how teams over the cap improve or they consist of some of the worst contracts ever handed out. WIN WIN

If there are no bird rights, why would I stay with a crap team I was drafted to?

If all money is equal, I'm still going to LA, MIA, NY, etc...

jscotty8
02-17-2011, 10:18 PM
:confused:
:facepalm:

:facepalm::facepalm:

Chronz
02-17-2011, 10:29 PM
It's very hard, which is why something like only 8 teams has won the Ship in the last 30 some odd years. With that said, don't you think it will become even harder if primadonna athletes try to dictate who they play with and where they play?
Id rather the players decide their fate than management. Then again Im not a fan of any one team, I am above all a fan of the NBA.


The current path the NBA is on is a complete joke and implementing a hard cap with no exceptions will significantly curtail players making a mockery of the league by holding certain teams hostage.
Opinion and a flawed one at that IMO of course


At the end of the day the owners should hold more power because they're taking more risk by investing into a sports franchise, whereas the players will still get paid regardless.
If this were just about money Id agree, but this is about legacy. The owners will turn a profit if they run a smart business and stop overpaying guys, players have to worry about more than just money.


A prolonged lockout should help serve as a reality check for these guys, and even more so when the PA has to concede more demands then what they initially thought they would.
We'll see

ElMarroAfamado
02-17-2011, 10:30 PM
funny the guys wit hthe "super team" (and they are not really because they wont win a title) are the ones complaining and getting all defensive
how comical

Chronz
02-17-2011, 10:32 PM
If there are no bird rights, why would I stay with a crap team I was drafted to?

If all money is equal, I'm still going to LA, MIA, NY, etc...
I know it sounds absurd but the vast majority of deals where bird rights come into play are actually what prevent teams from winning in the long haul. Having the right to overpay for your player doesnt sound like something conducive to winning. Im trying to establish an environment where everyone gets paid closer to their actual worth.

beasted86
02-17-2011, 10:42 PM
I know it sounds absurd but the vast majority of deals where bird rights come into play are actually what prevent teams from winning in the long haul. Having the right to overpay for your player doesnt sound like something conducive to winning. Im trying to establish an environment where everyone gets paid closer to their actual worth.

I don't think that helps any. Owners still have no brains when they choose and will still have freedom to overpay players and handicap themselves.

Owners seem to be looking for a way to either stupid-proof themselves, and/or rape the player's pockets the way they did when guys like Jordan, Barkley, Ewing, and such were making $3M a season.

I think the only way is if owners wake up and all come to realization that Mark Blount is not worth $9M a season. Nobody was going to pay him that if you chose not to. And if some other owner makes that poor decision, let him and his team's profits suffer. But overall to help stupid proof themselves, limit max contracts to 4 years, add in provisions for being able to waive players with constant off the court issues and conditioning problems, and come to some new agreement on insurance coverage for injury prone players. Other than that, the NBA shouldn't continue to let themselves get weighed down by teams in poor markets and should really consider relocating some teams.

fadedmario
02-17-2011, 10:53 PM
If a hard cap is implemented then the big 3 won't be the big 3 for much longer. Look at what happened to the NHL after the lock-out, teams had to frantically reduce salary to get under the cap.

Good point

desertlakeshow
02-17-2011, 11:08 PM
If the NBA turns into the NFL with lots of parity I will not watch. I have not watched a football game in years.


I never want to see the Clippers and the Raptors in the finals.

Parity sucks for rivalry's, which is what I was raised on and what made me love the NBA.

Kill that and kill the love.

sf-fanatic
02-17-2011, 11:21 PM
That would be worse than what we have now, teams wont be able to go over it but they get to keep everyone else and not have to worry about the luxury tax.

Im telling you the best way to keep the stacked teams from overstacking is to get rid of the MLE and bird rights. Thats how teams over the cap improve or they consist of some of the worst contracts ever handed out. WIN WIN

I definitely agree with getting rid of the MLE as I never understood why it existed at first. I'm not sure about bird rights though. Just wondering, why do you think it will help? Isn't the bird rights the only reason why a player can make more if they remain with their team and they can go over the cap ?

beasted86
02-17-2011, 11:33 PM
I definitely agree with getting rid of the MLE as I never understood why it existed at first. I'm not sure about bird rights though. Just wondering, why do you think it will help? Isn't the bird rights the only reason why a player can make more if they remain with their team and they can go over the cap ?

The mid-level is there to maintain competition in the market and prevent teams from screwing over rookies & free agents in general. Let me give you an example... there are a few teams usually under the cap and the beginning of each summer, but sometimes there is none or very few.

Say there are only 3 teams with cap space next summer... okay. For discussion sake all 3 of them are loaded at the wings for whatever reason. Jamaal Crawford being a free agent of the Hawks for a team in a weaker market, and an ownership group that plays it cheap and stays allergic to the luxury tax doesn't want to offer him more than $1.5M because that's all that they have before hitting the luxury.

What competition is there in the market to allow Crawford to get his true value? Everybody here with sane logic knows Crawford is worth more than $1.5M, but there would be nobody who could offer him that amount other than the Hawks or those 3 teams with cap space. There would be no free agent market without a mid-level, because teams rarely use cap space to sign outside free agents other than big-time all-stars.

bulldog312
02-18-2011, 12:25 AM
I think a hard cap would be a horrible idea. You don't want to prevent teams from signing their own players. It just wouldn't be a good thing. Here is what I think would be good:

Get rid of the MLE and other cap exceptions. Teams over the cap are allowed to sign players 2 ways. First, they can always sign any of their draft picks or undrafted rookies. Second, they get an exception for each player who leaves during the offseason via free agency or retirement. This is equal to the players salary from last season but is limited to $5 million (this keeps teams from trading for huge expiring salaries just to get a large exception).

In order to get the exception you must offer the player at least a 1 year qualifying offer based on their previous salary. Also, exceptions cannot be combined. So if you are over the cap and have players leave making $3 and $4 million, you can't sign a player worth $7 million. You can sign 1 player up to $3 and another up to $4.

I'm sure there are flaws, because it is just something I came up with quickly. But it attempts to put more restrictions on teams over the cap without completely handicapping them and not allowing them to replace players who leave via free agency.

Chronz
02-18-2011, 12:21 PM
I don't think that helps any. Owners still have no brains when they choose and will still have freedom to overpay players and handicap themselves.

Owners seem to be looking for a way to either stupid-proof themselves, and/or rape the player's pockets the way they did when guys like Jordan, Barkley, Ewing, and such were making $3M a season.

I think the only way is if owners wake up and all come to realization that Mark Blount is not worth $9M a season. Nobody was going to pay him that if you chose not to. And if some other owner makes that poor decision, let him and his team's profits suffer. But overall to help stupid proof themselves, limit max contracts to 4 years, add in provisions for being able to waive players with constant off the court issues and conditioning problems, and come to some new agreement on insurance coverage for injury prone players. Other than that, the NBA shouldn't continue to let themselves get weighed down by teams in poor markets and should really consider relocating some teams.
Theres a much larger cap figure to prevent that from happening now. Whether GM's stay stupid or not, wouldnt you think twice before signing a player if you knew this cap space is all you had? Its the option of the MLE that leads to some of the worst deals out there and if your already over the CAP you shouldnt be able to continue adding salary. Your point about market value is a fair one, lessening the max years available is the better option. I think there should be some kind of waiver for injured players where teams still pay for the salary (50-70% of it would be ideal) but it would stop counting against their cap space.

If theres a buyout agreement the salary that counts against the CAP should be reflected as well.

Chronz
02-18-2011, 12:27 PM
I definitely agree with getting rid of the MLE as I never understood why it existed at first. I'm not sure about bird rights though. Just wondering, why do you think it will help? Isn't the bird rights the only reason why a player can make more if they remain with their team and they can go over the cap ?
The way I see it working out is if you get rid of all the ways teams can go beyond their cap figure you will eliminate the problems associated with overspending. While it would lead to smarter deals it would probably lead to some players making less than their worth and thats worse than letting the NBA businesses bleed out I suppose.

NYKSpiritBomb
02-18-2011, 12:43 PM
the nba will balance itself out in 5 years new stars will continue goin to the worst teams from the draft so everyone should just suck it up and enjoy the 6 dominant teams duke it out in the playoffs, i mean the playoffs are the most enjoyable part of the year, its better when you have great matchups in the later rounds

beasted86
02-18-2011, 01:08 PM
The way I see it working out is if you get rid of all the ways teams can go beyond their cap figure you will eliminate the problems associated with overspending. While it would lead to smarter deals it would probably lead to some players making less than their worth and thats worse than letting the NBA businesses bleed out I suppose.

It will be far worse.

If players aren't making their proper market value because of no competition, they'll start signing 1 year deals and jumping ship every chance they get just going to the highest bidder. Nobody wants an NBA full of mercenaries, and the players won't agree to that anyway. They don't want a market where they are forced to move and uproot their family every season just to make a decent salary.

It all falls back on the owners smartening up on contracts. I don't feel like doing the research, but going back to the example I gave earlier, I can pretty much guarantee you there was no more than 3 teams with cap space that summer Mark Blount got $9M a season. GMs need to realize that free agent's options are limited most of the time, and nobody else was willing to pay the player the amount they signed for. Your only competition is a $5M mid-level and 3-4 teams with cap space most of the time. That's kind of why I like restricted free agency. It allows teams to truly test the market value of a player. Basically... "You say you are worth $9M a season... prove it!"

Also GMs in general need to come to an "inside agreement" that all new contracts they are starting to give out are non-guaranteed in the final year of the deal. Max contract length of 4 years, and only 3 years guaranteed out of that would have saved the NBA so much money over the past 5 years.

Crab Dribble!
02-18-2011, 03:31 PM
stop the star calls. Without 10 FTA per game, LBJ and DWade won't be scoring 25+ppg. That'll drop their salaries, and maybe their egos.

I'm not a Heat fan, and to top it off I actively dislike Lebron James, but I have to ask: are you joking? They both get too many favorable calls, it's true, but go watch some Youtube video of either driving to the hoop; note the hangtime, body control and soft hands. Trust me, fouls or not, these guys can score.

Lindystud36
02-19-2011, 08:53 AM
Seriously, People have always had this idea that salary caps and such do work so well in major sports. Let me take a minute to prove you are wrong. if a salary is structure based off of two parameters, than society is wrong. First a player gets paid as to how well they perform based off statistical categories. Second a player is paid off how much money they can generate for a team. If Shaq wanted to sign for 5 mill this season a team would have paid it because Shaq puts people in the seats.

Now what the NBA should do is encourage spending on wise contracts.
I propose a plan that creates revenue sharing, but allows teams making money, putting a strong product on the court to continue with higher salaries.

Soft Cap starting at 62 million and under. If a teams payroll is under 62 million there are no penalties.
For every dollar that contracts exceed over 62 million, those values get taxed by 1.1. This means that if a team has a salary of 70 million, they will pay (8 * 1.1 = 8.8) 8.8 million in luxury tax. Therefore a team like Boston who makes a ton of money can go over the cap, but has to pay.
Next is the MLE-- Keep it because it is going to cost teams and thus create more revenue sharing. the MLE shal be set to seven (7) million dollars. But all MLE no matter what the teams salary will count as 1.2 in luxury tax. There for is a team extends a free agent a 7 mil MLE contract they will have to pay (7 *1.2= 8.4) 8.4 million in taxes

Next to wise up the NBA, Bird rights can still apply to teams trying to resign a player. Allow a max contract for a bird rights player to still be 6 years with the 6th year being non guarantee. All other max contracts will be on a 4 year basis with a non guaranteed fifth year.

To further guarantee that the NBA can continue to be profitable, all of the money that will be obtained from revenue tax shal be counted and put into a pot. The money will be divided by two ways. First Half of the money every year will be set into an account. After ten years, the money will be divided up evenly amongst all of the teams, this way all teams have to figure out their structure, if a team cannot survive ten years without the money, then relocate them or delete them.
Second the remaining money will be divided up among the teams with the lowest revenue, as long as the owners have a hard time paying salary and maintenance on the building. All of those teams wil have to open their books up to the NBA and any owner who is just taking the money for his or her pocket shal have his team deleted.

A team with a 82+7(MLE)+ 89 million dollar payroll:
62 mil in cap filled
20 mil over cap= 22 in fees
7 mil MLE = 8.2
This team will to pay out 89 million in salaries plus an additional 30.4 million in taxes.
Will it pay to go over the cap and basically be paying almost 120 million in salary, If a team can win a championship and draw interest then yes.

There are ways to build the NBA, you just need the right people owning it.

I for one also think no team should be subsidized but some markets are smaller, and those small market teams being around is what allows the large teams to thrive.

In-conclusion if a team has 30 million in fee's for ten years then 150 million will be shared and 150 million will be saved for ten years, gaining interest, and in ten years allowing the league to update stadiums, and teams to have free cash for league monitored projects.

IBleedPurple
02-19-2011, 09:10 AM
About time they work at this, but there will always be good players willing to take less money to go to a contender. Very difficult to stop that.

djkurtz92
02-19-2011, 09:16 AM
Many kids think they can be NBA superstars. If you take away the lifestyle then you take away the motivation to play pro ball. This will in turn take away the talent pool to choose from. Fastforward 10 years into the future,pro basketball sucks and nobody is buying tickets, jerseys, sneakers, etc. I'm for one, for the player in that the owners of these teams are so wealthy, and it's these players making money for them. I don't think the athletes are being paid enough. Rooting for these owners is like rooting for the government to have all your money in taxes, while you do all the work.

djkurtz92
02-19-2011, 09:20 AM
Besides no one was complaining when the Celtics built their super team. It wasn't until the Heat did it that is was blasphemous.

_Supreme_
02-19-2011, 09:25 AM
If a hard cap is implemented.

Some people keep saying this, but the simple fact of the matter is that this will never happen.

0 chance. Period.

I have read about all these issues a short while ago, and all these extreme plans are only supported by a group of team owners who you can consider the 'jealous little brothers' of the NBA family. They are the owners of the teams that are one tier beneath the big spenders and richest owners like LA, Miami, NY, Dallas, Orlando, etc.

Bottom line is that the NBA doesn't want it, the players don't want it, and perhaps most importantly the group of most influential owners don't want it. They all have way too much to lose. The only ones who want it are a certain numer of owners of teams who are trying to hang on with the top teams, but can't quite manage.

In other words: absolutely no way this happens.

_Supreme_
02-19-2011, 09:35 AM
Besides no one was complaining when the Celtics built their super team. It wasn't until the Heat did it that is was blasphemous.

Exactly.

Funny fact also is that Miami currently only has the #20 highest payroll in the NBA, yet most of these ignorant fartknockers spew their hating as if only the HEAT would be screwed over by this.

JARVIS123
02-19-2011, 09:52 AM
teams like boston/l.a./dallas/orlando.kicked out bookoo $$$ trying to win rings.the heat big 3 left bookoo $$$ on the table so it wont hurt the team $$$ wise. the heat have 3 players & 2 weak spots in the starting line up.boston/l.a./dallas/orlando, have a starting 5 with players that can start on other teams coming of their bench .so who really have a super team? it sure aint the heat.

mike_noodles
02-19-2011, 10:51 AM
The biggest problem IMO is the owners/GM's themselves. How many players in the NBA actually are worth max contracts? But how many actually get max contracts? And it's not just max deals, how many Adonal Foyle or Austin Croshere type players get way overpaid? The answer is simple, way too many overpaid players in the league, solution, hard cap. The cap of course would have to be slightly higher then the current soft cap, but still lower then the current luxury tax.

marlinsfan24
02-19-2011, 11:46 AM
Exactly.

Funny fact also is that Miami currently only has the #20 highest payroll in the NBA, yet most of these ignorant fartknockers spew their hating as if only the HEAT would be screwed over by this.

Yeah, the hard cap would screw over 19 teams and then get to the Heat. The hard cap will be horrible for the NBA.

And if the owners have such a problem with stars switching teams, then maybe they should just eliminate Free Agency and contracts. Because that's kind of the point of it.

Heater4life
02-19-2011, 12:05 PM
Yeah, the hard cap would screw over 19 teams and then get to the Heat. The hard cap will be horrible for the NBA.

And if the owners have such a problem with stars switching teams, then maybe they should just eliminate Free Agency and contracts. Because that's kind of the point of it.

Its gets even better IMO, everyone talks about other teams "doing what Miami did". I dont know many teams that are willing to have two contracts under there books for a given off-season, let alone have the management capable of making such a scenerio possible.

Its easier said than done, and extremely risky none the less. Regardless of a hard cap, Miami wouldnt have to blow up anything.

Wade>You
02-19-2011, 12:11 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/14698573/upcoming-allstar-weekend-might-be-last-of-its-kind

A bad GM would say:
"If Melo can force his way to New York on the cheap, then I think that's going to shake a lot of owners in Memphis, San Antonio, Utah, and Sacramento," one of the team executives said. "You're going to say, 'Even if I draft one of these guys, I won't even be able to keep him because the power dynamic is such that you can just run to desirable location.'" The power dynamic that GM is referring to is called cap space and free agency... :facepalm:

Wade>You
02-19-2011, 12:13 PM
Besides no one was complaining when the Celtics built their super team. It wasn't until the Heat did it that is was blasphemous.What's the Guinness Book of Records for most hated?

daleja424
02-19-2011, 12:17 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/14698573/upcoming-allstar-weekend-might-be-last-of-its-kind

A bad GM would say: The power dynamic that GM is referring to is called cap space and free agency... :facepalm:

yup...you get what you pay for...

if you are a owner of a team in Memphis (for example) you were cheap and bought a low priced team... and that comes with the expectation that no one goes flocking to the Grizzlies and you probably won't be playing for a title. The big markets are desirable b/c they are big markets. The reason that an owner bought a cheap team is the same reason it ill stay a cheap team.

PhillyFaninLA
02-19-2011, 12:59 PM
The orginal Lakers and Celtics teams, the Sixers team of the late 70's and early 80's, the Lakers, and Celtics teams of the 80's, Pistons of the late 80's, the Bulls of the 90's, the Rockets of the 90's, Spurs of the 00's (up to today), Lakes of the the late 90's and early 00's, the current Heat, Celtics, and Lakers are all super teams. They are superstar and really good role player teams with the right coaches. The super team is normal and you can't do anything about them.

To try and not allow the superstar laden teams with good supporting players is like say you can't higher the best employees and use the equipment to make your company and product the best it can be. In business your supposed do everything you can to make a company as successful, profitable, and consumer friendly as possible. To not allow a well run NBA franchise (or business) to higher the right people and put together the best possible product inexcusable. The fact is every team in the league has access to the same people and players, some teams just know how to get them. The only teams that are upset about the super teams are the teams than can't get the right front office, right scouts, and right players. If you want a good team you need a great owner, the right front office, the ability to grind through the bad times, and the skill to get and stay good. That is why the Lakers and Celtics are as iconic as they are and why my Sixers are not. Business is business and this is a multi billion dollar business.

Kakaroach
02-19-2011, 01:10 PM
Besides no one was complaining when the Celtics built their super team. It wasn't until the Heat did it that is was blasphemous. Thats cuz the Celtics TRADED for their team. Just like the Pau Gasol trade was looked down on as well, but thats totally different than signing the guys outright without giving up anything of value.

Dade County
02-19-2011, 01:11 PM
You act like its a piece of cake to restructure the contract. How often do we see it in the NBA AFTER a contract is signed? Just because a player wants it doesn't mean it's going to happen. The players union won't allow it because their goal is to allow the players to make as much money as possible...

It really doesn't matter what you believe, because the rules won't allow it. They haven't come out to say anything about it yet, so we can all assume or believe what we want.

Ummm... If the owners get their way and have a hard cap and etc... wouldn't they have to restructure contracts or change the rules? Because, most teams wouldn't be able to keep their stars and key role players. (They would really have to start over or restructure new contracts, because of the new CBA, if that happens of-course).

And yes you are right, it is just my opinion like everything you say is yours.

This new CBA will not hurt the heat as of right now, but it might in 3yrs. But Pat will do his job and get everything right unlike other GM's.

justinnum1
02-19-2011, 01:12 PM
Thats cuz the Celtics TRADED for their team. Just like the Pau Gasol trade was looked down on as well, but thats totally different than signing the guys outright without giving up anything of value.

:facepalm:

SteBO
02-19-2011, 01:24 PM
Thats cuz the Celtics TRADED for their team. Just like the Pau Gasol trade was looked down on as well, but thats totally different than signing the guys outright without giving up anything of value.
Calling what the Heat blasphamus is the dumbest thing you can say. The aim of basketball to win. Who cares what you deem is "the right way to win". Why can't other GM's just do there jobs properly? Why not look on that side of the fence instead of just hating? Miami gutted their entire damn roster. BOS didn't, so in actuality they got to keep more valuable players. MIA didn't have that luxury, soooo.

Wade>You
02-19-2011, 01:36 PM
Thats cuz the Celtics TRADED for their team. Just like the Pau Gasol trade was looked down on as well, but thats totally different than signing the guys outright without giving up anything of value.I don't know if you support the way LAL and BOS built their teams, but most people don't think it's ok for teams like LA and Boston to have ties with personnel in Memphis and Minnesota so they can collude in order to rebuild their former franchises back to title contenders. At least with Free Agency, there's a risk factor involved for the team with cap space. Miami, the small market city, beat out the big market cities like Chicago, New York, and even NJ. So it's not like players are going to the big markets. Players are going to the team that can help them win.

THE MTL
02-19-2011, 02:44 PM
Why is the NBA turning into communism.

Seriously, NFL doesnt have dynasties only because of single elimination playoffs.

MLB has no cap so Yankees spend 8 figures every summer for a championship.

Its sports deal with it

hugepatsfan
02-19-2011, 02:59 PM
Honestly, I think that MIA is probably set up better than every other team if a hard cap is implemented. They already have Miller, UD, Wade, Bosh, and LBJ locked up. Those players signed GUARANTEED contracts, so the NBA can't just let MIA get rid of them. That's a great core. The NBA will have to give some of the higher teams wiggle room by letting them sign vet min deals. And a lot of those vets are still going to go to MIA.

GodsSon
02-19-2011, 03:08 PM
Why is the NBA turning into communism.

Seriously, NFL doesnt have dynasties only because of single elimination playoffs.

MLB has no cap so Yankees spend 8 figures every summer for a championship.

Its sports deal with it

I guess you belong to that group of people who still thinks Medicare is a better system than socialized medicine lol

It's about parity, what's the point of having a 30 team league if 25 of those teams will NEVER have a chance to win?

BULLSFAN0810
02-19-2011, 04:07 PM
Ive read a few post,idk much about mle or hard cap but i do know its simple as this....


No franchise tag. It seems noble at 1st in the NFL but like all things they find a way to abuse it by keeping a player that they do not want after next year,and knowingly keeping him and throwing him the next.

They need to put a system in place whereas the player has the option of leaving but the team he leaves only can offer him more to stay,wheras if he leaves,he leaves more money on the table,and the draft picks are automatically redistributed to the team left for 2-3 years. There is no opt out clause...there is no hardline veto by players,and if player leaves via free agency his value auotmatically depreciates...IE if LBJ was able to make 151mil by staying in Clev. by leaving he can only make up to 70% of that going into next team. And if he leaves again it further decreases by a %. And for a player in Melo's situtation if said player cannot be traded by deadline due to his deciding not to resign, he can only gain 70% also. By doing so i forces players to either stick it out or go after the rings.

As far as the owners they should have a spending limit that alows 1 max contract and one contract up to 70% of max contract. And all players who fall lower than the pecentage or lesser player(s) make up the diffrence within the total cap room. And for a case like Melo's he should not have a say where he lands while under contract,so if he is traded to GS and his contract ends that same year a team like GS who took him on should be given more money from the new team he signed with up to 50% of his market worth.
And there should be a clause where if you draft a player and the team doesnt achieve a certain status within 5 years of having player the player is then free to bypass certain limits such as Percentage of money to be made,and or where to be traded...IE if Melo stayed in Den and they made the Playoffs 2/5 seasons, he then is free to use the leverage he is using now and get paid 75-80% percent of amount that is deemable.


And if a player wants to be free of all of this they must sign close but below the Max he can make, whereas it still allows him to roam as a typical free agent

Jazz Bear
02-19-2011, 04:20 PM
I am tired of all the super teams. Hard for teams with low salary to get players like that. Worse being a utah fan because no one wants to come play for utah.

BULLSFAN0810
02-19-2011, 04:26 PM
I am tired of all the super teams. Hard for teams with low salary to get players like that. Worse being a utah fan because no one wants to come play for utah.


I understand you, i to believe that UTah gets it bad because they are small market...there is no reason for you guys to have had Sloan and not have a ship due to not being able to afford the same as other franchises.

daleja424
02-19-2011, 07:24 PM
lol... it isnt a matter of money...

do whatever you want with the money and players are still going to prefer to play in big markets.

in fact if you put restrictions on what they can be paid they will be even more likely to chase the endorsements that are far more abundant in bigger markets.

daleja424
02-19-2011, 07:24 PM
try as hard as you want, but you can't make people want to play in crappy cities...

Dade County
02-19-2011, 08:18 PM
And for a case like Melo's he should not have a say where he lands while under contract,so if he is traded to GS and his contract ends that same year a team like GS who took him on should be given more money from the new team he signed with up to 50% of his market worth.


WHY!!! Because GS crazy *** traded for him without him sining an extension. It is their gamble so if they strike out, their fault.

The rest of your post was ok, but that took the cake.^^^^^

Anilyzer
02-19-2011, 09:12 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/14698573/upcoming-allstar-weekend-might-be-last-of-its-kind

Bring on the lock-out and a hard cap, the way things are going if neither is instituted then the NBA might as well contract to only having 6 teams.

until we see the actual negotiations, I'm going to go ahead and assume that this is all more made up bull**** and speculation.

Anilyzer
02-19-2011, 09:13 PM
also notice that if Miami, NY and LA have their "super teams" locked in, and then you outlaw all future super teams, then Miami, NY and LA will just reign unchallenged for 10 years

Anilyzer
02-19-2011, 09:14 PM
errr, include Boston, San Antonio and Chicago... although Boston and San Antonio slightly aging, and Chicago kind of *meh*

Stroke
02-19-2011, 09:28 PM
Well they should.