PDA

View Full Version : NBA players are the highest paid on average



Stuckey#3
08-05-2011, 02:37 AM
I was pro NBAPA before I read this article... now I am starting to think they are demanding a little too much. This is mostly about the Jazz; but towards the end you read that the average NBA salary is 4.6mil compared to the NFL at 2.2mil. Also all 30 of the NBA's teams rank within worlds 70 most expensive salaries. 7 in the top 20.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/52289988-77/average-com-harris-jazz.html.csp

I'm starting to think the players are asking for too much... especially if they are after a raise.

Toxeryll
08-05-2011, 03:02 AM
obviously thats why they need a new CBA

Hellcrooner
08-05-2011, 03:06 AM
obviously.

the rosters are 15 men depth.

How deep is a Football roster? 50?
a soccer roster? 30

you are obviously going to pay more in average..
And go figure, soccer teams top the list EVEN with their depths

-Kobe24-TJ19-
08-05-2011, 09:55 AM
Isn't the MLE the average nba salary, 5.6 Mil:confused:

todu82
08-05-2011, 10:41 AM
This is the reason we're in a lockout right now. Salaries in the NBA are out of control and until the NBAPA finds a solution to fix that there'll still be a lockout.

jezzyman05
08-05-2011, 10:48 AM
NBA player are not worth 15 million plus a year, and tickets to a basket are almost as much as football thats not good, Im sorry but the players need paycuts and they need them now!

Shmontaine
08-05-2011, 11:05 AM
end the guaranteed contracts!! teams would save a ton of money... redd, arenas, etc...


i also think that players contracts should be voidable if they are caught doing PEDs... eq, rashard lewis had an amazing 'contract year', got that huge contract, then got caught for PEDs and suspended by the league, but he still got all that dough... bs IMO... he cheated still got paid even after he was caught...

sep11ie
08-05-2011, 11:13 AM
I guess you didn't notice the lockout we are in???

NYKalltheway
08-05-2011, 02:03 PM
it's the only GLOBAL American sport... not really news

Stuckey#3
08-05-2011, 02:40 PM
obviously.

the rosters are 15 men depth.

How deep is a Football roster? 50?
a soccer roster? 30

you are obviously going to pay more in average..
And go figure, soccer teams top the list EVEN with their depths

15 yes. But if you go to a hospital that has a staff of 3,000 and a hospital that has a staff of 300 you are going to find that the doctors and nurses make the same amount of money because they are doing the same job. The fact that NBA players think they deserve more money than other professional athletes is rediculous... Basketball isn't even the most popular sport in America.

I used to think the players deserved more... mainly because I hate Stern and don't trust the league. But now I realize that both sides are flawed.

Trace
08-05-2011, 02:45 PM
It's funny cause NBA has a lower market cap than most sports too.

LeGacy is Music
08-05-2011, 03:03 PM
NBA player are not worth 15 million plus a year, and tickets to a basket are almost as much as football thats not good, Im sorry but the players need paycuts and they need them now!

oh so the video games, the marketing, the merchandise that the teams make their money off of is too much as well so the teams should take a pay cut. I am sorry The NBA owners made that CBA and were considered the victor back in 98 so now its like hey, you know what I want more money you guys take a cut matter of fact if we could pay you guys the legal minimum wage that would be better

Trace
08-05-2011, 03:16 PM
oh so the video games, the marketing, the merchandise that the teams make their money off of is too much as well so the teams should take a pay cut. I am sorry The NBA owners made that CBA and were considered the victor back in 98 so now its like hey, you know what I want more money you guys take a cut matter of fact if we could pay you guys the legal minimum wage that would be better

The economic situation in 1998 is different than the one of today. You cannot compare both situations.

Brooklyn Mets
08-05-2011, 03:17 PM
end the guaranteed contracts!! teams would save a ton of money... redd, arenas, etc...


i also think that players contracts should be voidable if they are caught doing PEDs... eq, rashard lewis had an amazing 'contract year', got that huge contract, then got caught for PEDs and suspended by the league, but he still got all that dough... bs IMO... he cheated still got paid even after he was caught...


this..

every contract should have a small guaranteed portion and have the majority of the contract be performance based..

Hellcrooner
08-05-2011, 03:25 PM
do people realize than no guaranted contracts its the way to ensure ONLY knicks, lakers, bulls win titles?
whenever they are not doing good they would just fire everybody and have the capspace for fa.
for example last summer, half of the playerw in nba rosters would have been fired to make room to add lebron or wade.

llemon
08-05-2011, 03:31 PM
this..

every contract should have a small guaranteed portion and have the majority of the contract be performance based..

All of management should have the same conditions in their contracts.

llemon
08-05-2011, 03:33 PM
The economic situation in 1998 is different than the one of today. You cannot compare both situations.

True.

The very rich are much richer now.

Hellcrooner
08-05-2011, 03:55 PM
True.

The very rich are much richer now.

yep and complaining that they are not getting even richer fast enough.

Thats what "crisis" is about.

Duddy
08-05-2011, 03:56 PM
And why do WE have to suffer because teams like the Jazz are stupid?

Trace
08-05-2011, 04:47 PM
True.

The very rich are much richer now.


yep and complaining that they are not getting even richer fast enough.

Thats what "crisis" is about.


The very rich also own and employ hundreds of employees. Even slight decreases in value or operating income, could change the entire dynamic of the organization. Even James Dolan experienced decreases in base salary.

LakersMaster24
08-05-2011, 04:52 PM
Dont forget that, the players are not just paid to play. They are getting paid, because they also bring cash to the teams, the league and even the government. Think about all the jerseys sold, all the shoes, all the fans. The teams are the ones picking how much you pay a player. Thats why you see popular players with big contracts, and the bench warmers with small salaries compared to the stars.

Example: Kobe. He gets paid like around 23mill a year. Now think about how many people pay to come and see Kobe play, that money goes to the team. Think about all the shoes he sells, part of that money goes to Nike, making them richer. (Nike in return pays taxes to the government). Don't forget about jersey sales, most of that money goes to the team. So, now do you see how much profit a player brings to the team? The team can DOUBLE the money they pay to the player.

However, there are horrible and ridiculous contracts, such as Luke Walton who gets paid 5million for....well... nothing. But that is the GM's fault, and the teams ownership. THEY choose to pay that money, they offer those contracts. Do you really expect the player, to say; "Oh no, I dont think I deserve that...I rather take the vets minimum...". Imagine YOU were the player, would YOU be willing to take a multi million dollar pay cut, when you know for fact that the owner's are richer than you are?

The owners got themselves into this hole, and now they blame the players. We dont need non guaranteed contracts, or anything like that. All we need, is smart GM's and owners, who KNOW how to spend their money (Like the Spurs).

llemon
08-05-2011, 04:56 PM
The very rich also own and employ hundreds of employees. Even slight decreases in value or operating income, could change the entire dynamic of the organization.

In that case, owners should spend their money wisely, not idiotically, which has been the case for like the last two decades.

Trace
08-05-2011, 05:07 PM
In that case, owners should spend their money wisely, not idiotically, which has been the case for like the last two decades.

They can't help it.

In order to make money in the NBA you have to win games and in order to do that you have to pay for talent which is a rarity during free agency, so it's not exactly their fault when there's a bidding war. By creating a new CBA, we're able to address such problems and minimize further losses. Even the finance industry has certain regulations to prevent the idiots from ****ing up, I don't see why a little regulation in the NBA would be a problem?

Too bad players would never agree to an incentive laden contract (base salary with performance bonus).

llemon
08-05-2011, 05:12 PM
They can't help it.

In order to make money in the NBA you have to win games and in order to do that you have to pay for talent which is a rarity during free agency, so it's not exactly their fault when there's a bidding war. By creating a new CBA, we're able to address such problems and minimize further losses. Even the finance industry has certain regulations to prevent the idiots from ****ing up, I don't see why a little regulation in the NBA would be a problem?

Too bad players would never agree to an incentive laden contract (base salary with performance bonus).

Clippers made money with crappy teams for years because Sterling wouldn't spend money.

And players would never agree to an incentive laden contract because then coaches and the rest of upper management would see to it that the incentives weren't met by the players.

And this isn't industry, it's sports.

gwrighter
08-05-2011, 05:12 PM
The owners got themselves into this hole, and now they blame the players. We dont need non guaranteed contracts, or anything like that. All we need, is smart GM's and owners, who KNOW how to spend their money (Like the Spurs).

it's very complicated but....

only a handful of owners are willing to bid up prices for certain players that they covet. Most owners can't compete & therefore lose out to teams with owners that will spend to win & don't care about breaking even.

By & large these owners & GM's are smart & good at what they do. But what the NBA needs is stricter cap rules that will stop deep-pocket owners from spending excessively & therefore upping the equilibrium price for players & affecting all NBA markets not just there own.

Trace
08-05-2011, 05:21 PM
Clippers made money with crappy teams for years because Sterling wouldn't spend money.

And players would never agree to an incentive laden contract because then coaches and the rest of upper management would see to it that the incentives weren't met by the players.

And this isn't industry, it's sports.


Sports is not an industry?

Sterling, also has one of the cheapest leasing contracts with his arena, the team also trained at a local gym for years before Sterling agreed to build a training facility for them. He's not exactly a great role model. Put Sterling on a team like Sacramento, and we'll see if he'll be able to keep maximizing profit.

Almost every occupation in finance has an incentive laden contract, I don't know where this paranoia (see bolded) comes from.

Fresno
08-05-2011, 05:21 PM
This thread is ridiculous. Stuckey#3 heres some food for thought.

- NBA rosters are on average 13 man rosters. Teams can expand to 15, but keep 2 players assigned to their NBDL affiliate. Each team must spend within a salary floor and the "Elite" players on a team are going to be paid much more than role players. The problem people have with the NBA is teams who pay role players like "Elite" players.

- NBA put a cap on the amount of salaries handed out in the 1998 CBA after Michael Jordan signed the first and last $30 Million per year contract. The highest contracts are MLB contracts because there isnt a salary cap, are you complaining about them? Lets keep in mind the gap between MLB contracts is huge with several players making $10+ million while 15-20 players are making $500K or less. In the NBA the minimum salaries for 1st Rd rookies are around $1 Million per year, while 2nd round picks are around $800K. That money was slotted in 1995.

- Average NBA salaries are higher due to NBA players reaching Free Agency between 2-5 seasons. Unlike with the MLB, there isnt a "clock" you're trying to wait on before a player reached Unrestricted Free Agency. The best 2nd round steals are able to score big-time contracts after just 2-3 seasons while the best 1st Rd picks are able to score big-time contracts after their 4th season.


Now that that is out of the way. The NBA players are trying to protect their own salaries after small market owners are trying to force each player to sacrifice 33% of their salary in order to create a Hard Cap. The purpose of a Hard Cap would lower "Max contracts" to $11 Million at the most, in an attempt for cheap small market teams to be able to play on a level playing field with teams with invested owners who care about winning NBA games.

The players demand for a pay raise comes with the gradual rise in salaries that has gone on every year, which is something that the NBA owners do not want to uphold. Instead of a pay raise, the NBA owners want to make the NBA players take a paycut. The common ground would be for the NBA player salaries to not expect a pay raise and to go into the 2011-2012 season with their salaries the same as they were for 2010-2011.


Why are NBA players paid so much?

Because although many people love to say that the talent in the league has been strained due to the number of teams now. There is still an emphasis on good talent that just can't be replaced with NBDL scrubs or marginal college talent that goes undrafted. Yes, there are the occasional guy who goes under the radar and proves to be a quality role player in the NBA but a majority of guys cant replace the overpaid NBA players. Although Rashard Lewis makes $20 Million, the Wizards can't pull some 6'5 SF from Eastern Kentucky who went undrafted 5 years ago and expect him to be better than Shard'. Would they like to clear Rashard Lewis' salary? Yes. Would they want to replace Rashard Lewis with a marginal talent player? No.

That is the sole reason why NBA contracts are guaranteed. Its because unlike the NFL, the level of talent needed to be a NBA player is so vast between cheap options(undrafted/NBDL/streetball players) and the current overpaid NBA players. In the NFL you can find a cheap undrafted Free Agent or a 6th Round Pick who after 1-3 years is capable of replacing an underperforming veteran and becoming a starter. That just isnt possible in the NBA. You're drafting a rookie in Round 1 to replace an underperforming veteran and after 4 years you are going to end up paying that rookie just as much money. Thats the cycle of the NBA.


The only way to fix this is to lower the guarantee in each contract to 66%. Add in the extra 1/3 as performance bonuses. This saves teams a lot of money, and gives players an incentive to go above and beyond for their paycheck.

llemon
08-05-2011, 05:24 PM
it's very complicated but....

only a handful of owners are willing to bid up prices for certain players that they covet. Most owners can't compete & therefore lose out to teams with owners that will spend to win & don't care about breaking even.

By & large these owners & GM's are smart & good at what they do. But what the NBA needs is stricter cap rules that will stop deep-pocket owners from spending excessively & therefore upping the equilibrium price for players & affecting all NBA markets not just there own.

These smart GMs, they are the guys that signed Arenas, Rashard Lewis, Drew Gooden, Charlie Villanueva, Ben Gordon, Carlos Boozer, Vince Carter, Okur, Hedo, Jamison, Mike Miller, Travis Outlaw, Matt Carroll, Josh Childress, Joe Johnson, Rip Hamilton, Corey Maggette, Baron Davis, etc. to their latest contracts?

Fresno
08-05-2011, 05:33 PM
By & large these owners & GM's are smart & good at what they do. But what the NBA needs is stricter cap rules that will stop deep-pocket owners from spending excessively & therefore upping the equilibrium price for players & affecting all NBA markets not just there own.

No.

You're punishing the likes of the Lakers, Mavericks, Spurs, Bulls, Heat, Celtics, Knicks, etc from actually investing into putting the best product out on the court. If there weren't a salary cap, those teams would be even more stacked as they'd be looking to acquire the "bad contracts" from those cheap small market teams who cant afford to keep paying them.

You're rewarding teams like Sacramento, Indiana, Milwaukee, etc who have made poor decisions in building their teams and as a result have watched their attendance drop, revenue dip, & their results follow the same path.

Why create a "level playing field" for the owners themselves who are ruining the NBA product? Do you not watch a Lakers/Pistons game and wonder why in the world are the Pistons so horrible? You look at the NBA ratings and they reflect what fans want to see. Fans want to watch the best teams with the best players play each other. A "hard cap" would keep teams from becoming great by restricting who they can keep. A prime example of this would be Oklahoma City who would end up having to choose just 1 of Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka, & Maynor. Well thats nice, you just destroyed a potential dynasty in order for a worthless cheap team like Minnesota to acquire 1 of them and still struggle.

Trace
08-05-2011, 05:34 PM
These smart GMs, they are the guys that signed Arenas, Rashard Lewis, Drew Gooden, Charlie Villanueva, Ben Gordon, Carlos Boozer, Vince Carter, Okur, Hedo, Jamison, Mike Miller, Travis Outlaw, Matt Carroll, Josh Childress, Joe Johnson, Rip Hamilton, Corey Maggette, Baron Davis, etc. to their latest contracts?

Most of these players were signed by small market teams...hmm I wonder why? /s

Fresno
08-05-2011, 05:36 PM
These smart GMs, they are the guys that signed Arenas, Rashard Lewis, Drew Gooden, Charlie Villanueva, Ben Gordon, Carlos Boozer, Vince Carter, Okur, Hedo, Jamison, Mike Miller, Travis Outlaw, Matt Carroll, Josh Childress, Joe Johnson, Rip Hamilton, Corey Maggette, Baron Davis, etc. to their latest contracts?

This.

gwrighter
08-05-2011, 05:38 PM
These smart GMs, they are the guys that signed Arenas, Rashard Lewis, Drew Gooden, Charlie Villanueva, Ben Gordon, Carlos Boozer, Vince Carter, Okur, Hedo, Jamison, Mike Miller, Travis Outlaw, Matt Carroll, Josh Childress, Joe Johnson, Rip Hamilton, Corey Maggette, Baron Davis, etc. to their latest contracts?

yes, because at the time they were all coveted FA's in the market. & if those respective owners didn't pay them X amount of $$, then there would have been someone else right behind them that will pay X-1 to get em. welcome to capitalism & the free market.

Fresno
08-05-2011, 05:41 PM
Most of these players were signed by small market teams...hmm I wonder why? /s
So why should we institute a Hard Cap to give them a level playing field to overpay players? That process is still going to go on with or without a Hard Cap. These small market teams just want to keep the big market teams from being able to re-sign their own "good" players.

Why not put the blame on the small market teams who dug their own hole? Instead someone has to find a way to blame the players.

Every year we do Free Agency and you have 3-4 pages on some of these contract signings with fans saying they overpaid.

Fresno
08-05-2011, 05:43 PM
yes, because at the time they were all coveted FA's in the market. & if those respective owners didn't pay them X amount of $$, then there would have been someone else right behind them that will pay X-1 to get em. welcome to capitalism & the free market.

Then why are you in support of a Hard Cap?

Trace
08-05-2011, 05:43 PM
On another note, if the NBA didn't have a cap, I wonder how much $$ Lebron would have earned.

llemon
08-05-2011, 05:43 PM
yes, because at the time they were all coveted FA's in the market. & if those respective owners didn't pay them X amount of $$, then there would have been someone else right behind them that will pay X-1 to get em. welcome to capitalism & the free market.

So you are saying it was smart of those GMs to make those stupid signings?

And this is somehow the players' fault?

Sorry, can't agree with you.

Trace
08-05-2011, 05:46 PM
So why should we institute a Hard Cap to give them a level playing field to overpay players? That process is still going to go on with or without a Hard Cap. These small market teams just want to keep the big market teams from being able to re-sign their own "good" players.

Why not put the blame on the small market teams who dug their own hole? Instead someone has to find a way to blame the players.

Every year we do Free Agency and you have 3-4 pages on some of these contract signings with fans saying they overpaid.

They won't because large market teams won't be able to create these ridiculous super teams thus the even playing field.

And it's a complicated issue with problems on both sides, it's not simply just a black-white issue that you've prescribed.

llemon
08-05-2011, 05:49 PM
They won't because large market teams won't be able to create these ridiculous super teams thus the even playing field.

And it's a complicated issue with problems on both sides, it's not simply just a black-white issue that you've prescribed.

Are the Heat a large market team?

TheGsw
08-05-2011, 05:52 PM
At this point, ******* the NBA, but mostly ******* David Stern. Nuff said.

gwrighter
08-05-2011, 05:52 PM
Then why are you in support of a Hard Cap?

because it fosters more competitiveness among all teams. so then stacked teams like the Lakers can't re-sign great players(Kobe) for obscene money (24 mil) despite being at/over the cap.(this is just an example)

Hard Cap means talent will be distributed more evenly among all teams instead of top-heavy teams like Celtics, Lakers, Heat, Knicks.

Trace
08-05-2011, 05:54 PM
Are the Heat a large market team?

According to their current market capitalization , yes.

gwrighter
08-05-2011, 05:58 PM
So you are saying it was smart of those GMs to make those stupid signings?

And this is somehow the players' fault?

Sorry, can't agree with you.

1. At the time those GM's were acting in ways that they thought were good for the org so yes. how can we as outsiders judge those past moves? hindsight is 20/20. & if they didn't sign em there would have been someone right behind to sign for X-1 dollars.

2. It's not the players fault. it's the leagues fault for not instituting good rules during the last CBA negotiations & letting this system get out of hand.

3. im sorry to hear that.

at the end of the day you can't blame the GM's or players as they are operating within a market set up & regulated by the NBA.

llemon
08-05-2011, 06:03 PM
1. At the time those GM's were acting in ways that they thought were good for the org so yes. how can we as outsiders judge those past moves? hindsight is 20/20. & if they didn't sign em there would have been someone right behind to sign for X-1 dollars.

2. It's not the players fault. it's the leagues fault for not instituting good rules during the last CBA negotiations & letting this system get out of hand.

3. im sorry to hear that.

Hindsight my arse.

Arenas, Rashard, Baron Davis, Joe Johnson, Villanueva and Ben Gordon's signings were know INSTANTLY to be bad signings

And as to point #2, Players' salaries are at the same level as when the last CBA whas put into effect, and league earnings are way up since then.

Do the math.

The Owners troubles (if there are any) aren't due to the players, they're due to the other owners

gwrighter
08-05-2011, 06:16 PM
Hindsight my arse.

Arenas, Rashard, Baron Davis, Joe Johnson, Villanueva and Ben Gordon's signings were know INSTANTLY to be bad signings

ur not getting my point. those guys were going to get paid more or less the same regardless of who signed em. do u have knowledge of how Free Agency works? there are a lot of variables to consider when signing somebody.

select # of good UFA's available. maybe 10 an offseason.
select # of good RFA's available maybe 10 an offseason.

you need to overpay to get the RFA, or at least extend an offer sheet that the other team won't match. = high salary.

or you need to outbid for the UFA's. 30 teams, some can have as high as 10-15 mil to spare for next season. so they can offer 1 player if they so desire 10 million even if he doesnt deserve it as a player. this is because there is somebody right behind them who will offer 9 mil. its how the market works & is what leads to large contracts.

Hard cap would eliminate the bidding wars.

gwrighter
08-05-2011, 06:24 PM
And as to point #2, Players' salaries are at the same level as when the last CBA whas put into effect, and league earnings are way up since then.

Do the math.

The Owners troubles (if there are any) aren't due to the players, they're due to the other owners

It's not so cut & dry. have you taken inflation into account? the previous CBA was put into place thinking that the economy would grow at a certain rate. The American economy has almost stopped growing since 2008 while players salaries have grown meanwhile ticket prices have dropped considerably. Players salaries need to come down. thats the only way out of this.

how can the earnings be up when they've posted back to back 300 million dollar losses?

llemon
08-05-2011, 06:37 PM
how can the earnings be up when they've posted back to back 300 million dollar losses?

Typical corporate bullcrap bookkeeping, or don't you know that accountants can make numbers fly up their own azzez?

llemon
08-05-2011, 06:40 PM
ur not getting my point.

That's because you don't have a point, you have management slanted goat droppings.

CB29
08-05-2011, 06:45 PM
Isn't the MLE the average nba salary, 5.6 Mil:confused:

nah the average nba salary last year was in between 8-9 million.. hence why we have a lockout.

gwrighter
08-05-2011, 07:06 PM
No.

You're punishing the likes of the Lakers, Mavericks, Spurs, Bulls, Heat, Celtics, Knicks, etc from actually investing into putting the best product out on the court. If there weren't a salary cap, those teams would be even more stacked as they'd be looking to acquire the "bad contracts" from those cheap small market teams who cant afford to keep paying them.

there is no punishing of anyone for anything. The teams that benefitted from having good mgmt and history on their side will still benefit in a hard cap situation.

if given the choice 5 mil from Lakers or 5 mil from Raptors. everyone including myself would choose Lakers hands down. Hard cap would stop the Lakers from acquiring that 5 mil player & re-signing Kobe to a max contract all in the same season. this is an extreme example but i hope u get the gist of what im trying to say.

& having no cap at all is obviously a ridiculous idea. we weren't even talking about that lol.


You're rewarding teams like Sacramento, Indiana, Milwaukee, etc who have made poor decisions in building their teams and as a result have watched their attendance drop, revenue dip, & their results follow the same path.

It's harder to build a team in a place that isn't legendary or in a Large market. It's not Sacramento's fault for being in Sacramento, the amendments to the original CBA were made to help stacked teams stay stacked. the MLE & Bird Rights are part of that.


Why create a "level playing field" for the owners themselves who are ruining the NBA product? Do you not watch a Lakers/Pistons game and wonder why in the world are the Pistons so horrible?

A level playing field would make management skill more important as you couldn't just as easily throw money at whoever you want in hopes of swaying them to sign with you.

I want to watch a Lakers vs. Pistons game that is competitive & down to the wire. Not the Lakers or Heat blowing out every 3rd team they face on their schedule. I want to see more close games.

a hard cap would foster more team play as you couldn't have 3 perennial all-stars on 1 team beasting everybody. The role players would now matter more.


You look at the NBA ratings and they reflect what fans want to see. Fans want to watch the best teams with the best players play each other. A "hard cap" would keep teams from becoming great by restricting who they can keep. A prime example of this would be Oklahoma City who would end up having to choose just 1 of Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka, & Maynor. Well thats nice, you just destroyed a potential dynasty in order for a worthless cheap team like Minnesota to acquire 1 of them and still struggle.

what about the other potential fans that aren't currently NBA fans? Not everybody wants to see a Kobe vs. LBJ matchup every night. & what is a great team to you? to me a great team is 1 that works together like the 04 Pistons. other people like the thrill of close games & not a stacked team of talented individuals.

what if every team had to do what OKC would have to do? then Minny wouldn't be so bad anymore cuz they'd have more talented players to choose from.

you want to attract casual fans, Casual fans in each respective city like when their team is competitive.

in theory:

More competitiveness = more fans in each city = higher demand for tickets = higher revenue =greater profits = higher player salaries.

gwrighter
08-05-2011, 07:15 PM
Typical corporate bullcrap bookkeeping, or don't you know that accountants can make numbers fly up their own azzez?

people need to get their salaries paid. the NBA as an entity is losing money.


That's because you don't have a point, you have management slanted goat droppings.

there are times where you can justifiably say **** the man & there are times where you can't. these are one of those times where u can't.

Besides the owners getting paid more is better for the fans anyways. who doesn't want new comfy seats in their arenas?

llemon
08-05-2011, 07:25 PM
people need to get their salaries paid. the NBA as an entity is losing money.

I don't believe that for a second. Pure NBA Corporate lies.

llemon
08-05-2011, 07:27 PM
nah the average nba salary last year was in between 8-9 million.. hence why we have a lockout.

The MLE is the average NBA salary

gwrighter
08-05-2011, 07:31 PM
I don't believe that for a second. Pure NBA Corporate lies.

lol!! do u see the difference though?

Stern is making money, all of the individuals employed under the NBA are making money obviously. But as a whole the NBA isn't making money. when 22 out of 30 teams lose money the system is broke, local fans are losing interest, something needs to be shaken up.

llemon
08-05-2011, 07:41 PM
lol!! do u see the difference though?

Stern is making money, all of the individuals employed under the NBA are making money obviously. But as a whole the NBA isn't making money. when 22 out of 30 teams lose money the system is broke, local fans are losing interest, something needs to be shaken up.

Again, I don't believe the NBA is losing money, and I don't believe 22 NBA teams are losing money.

Trace
08-06-2011, 12:24 AM
Again, I don't believe the NBA is losing money, and I don't believe 22 NBA teams are losing money.

Why? Even if you use the NBPA's numbers, the NBA is STILL losing money.

llemon
08-06-2011, 12:35 AM
Why? Even if you use the NBPA's numbers, the NBA is STILL losing money.

Who are the NBPA getting their numbers from?

realhoops
08-06-2011, 01:20 PM
It might be true that NBA players get paid the most but if Stern is making $23 million a year...
http://www.yardbarker.com/nba/articles/david_stern_salary_what_does_the_nba_commissioner_ get_paid/5873677

THE MTL
08-06-2011, 01:51 PM
I was pro NBAPA before I read this article... now I am starting to think they are demanding a little too much. This is mostly about the Jazz; but towards the end you read that the average NBA salary is 4.6mil compared to the NFL at 2.2mil. Also all 30 of the NBA's teams rank within worlds 70 most expensive salaries. 7 in the top 20.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/52289988-77/average-com-harris-jazz.html.csp

I'm starting to think the players are asking for too much... especially if they are after a raise.

Baseball teams are about double the size of NBA teams, and NFL teams are triple the size.

Superstars deserve their money! Its just these mid guys and allstar vets that really mess things up. Guys like Joakim Noah shouldnt be making 12 million per year, or Joe JOhnson making 20 million per year.

gwrighter
08-06-2011, 07:53 PM
Again, I don't believe the NBA is losing money, and I don't believe 22 NBA teams are losing money.

What do you believe then?

gwrighter
08-06-2011, 08:04 PM
Baseball teams are about double the size of NBA teams, and NFL teams are triple the size.

Superstars deserve their money! Its just these mid guys and allstar vets that really mess things up. Guys like Joakim Noah shouldnt be making 12 million per year, or Joe JOhnson making 20 million per year.

But the stadiums that they play in reflect the difference in roster size.

Basketball: 17000-21000 seats
Baseball: stadiums are anywhere from 35000-50000 seats.
NFL: 60000-100000 seats.

Baseball teams have about double the capacity.
NFL teams have at least triple the capacity.

the size of the roster is more or less proportional to the size of the stadium.

In summary the teams are double & triple in size but the owners can potentially seat double & triple the amount of ppl so the revenue generated per player is proportional in all sports when talking about ticket sales.

In a nutshell the NBA players get paid too much.

Fresno
08-06-2011, 10:03 PM
there is no punishing of anyone for anything. The teams that benefitted from having good mgmt and history on their side will still benefit in a hard cap situation.

if given the choice 5 mil from Lakers or 5 mil from Raptors. everyone including myself would choose Lakers hands down. Hard cap would stop the Lakers from acquiring that 5 mil player & re-signing Kobe to a max contract all in the same season. this is an extreme example but i hope u get the gist of what im trying to say.

& having no cap at all is obviously a ridiculous idea. we weren't even talking about that lol.

- That is absolutely ridiculous.

How exactly did the small market teams end up with the problems they're facing? Good management is what seperates teams like the Spurs & Thunder from teams like the Bucks & Grizzlies. If they couldnt capitalize without cap limitations, they will not capitalize with them. Thus, the talent will still not be spread out because certain teams will still be collecting the talented players.

Your actual belief that the NBA's 2nd most valuable Franchise, the Los Angeles Lakers, should be forced to give up Kobe Bryant makes me question your inteligence towards the business side of basketball. Kobe Bryant isnt going to be taking his talents to Sacramento or Detroit because they've got cap room to sign him.

So what happens to the Lakers? Are they not able to clear cap space?

Are all contracts still guaranteed?








It's harder to build a team in a place that isn't legendary or in a Large market. It's not Sacramento's fault for being in Sacramento, the amendments to the original CBA were made to help stacked teams stay stacked. the MLE & Bird Rights are part of that.

How soon we forget?



A level playing field would make management skill more important as you couldn't just as easily throw money at whoever you want in hopes of swaying them to sign with you.

Thats completely subjective with 0 proof behind it.

The only sports league that has introduced a "Hard Cap" is the NHL and the same struggling Franchises before the Lockout, are still struggling with management decisions. The talent is still not spread out with the "Elite" teams and bad ones with the seperation between them.



I want to watch a Lakers vs. Pistons game that is competitive & down to the wire. Not the Lakers or Heat blowing out every 3rd team they face on their schedule. I want to see more close games.

a hard cap would foster more team play as you couldn't have 3 perennial all-stars on 1 team beasting everybody. The role players would now matter more.


That isnt how sports works.

Every NBA game is not going to be competitive & down to the wire. It basically seems as if your argument that a "Hard cap" will bring all teams closer together creating "parity", am I right? Parity doesnt mean every NBA game is going to close. Parity means there is a chance for every team to eventually become a winner, it doesnt mean that there wont be "Elite" teams seperated from bad teams. That falls all on the lines of personnel, coaching, management, & a hint of good luck.

Its ludicrious. "Team play" as opposed to what? What esemplifies "Team play" in the NBA? Please tell me you're not going to contradict yourself by using the Dallas Mavericks as your argument.




what about the other potential fans that aren't currently NBA fans? Not everybody wants to see a Kobe vs. LBJ matchup every night. & what is a great team to you? to me a great team is 1 that works together like the 04 Pistons. other people like the thrill of close games & not a stacked team of talented individuals.

The Pistons were a "stacked team". You had 5 All Stars + 1 All Defensive Team player on the court. Are you kidding me? They wouldnt have been able to make that team come together using a Hard Cap.

The whole idea of not everybody wanting to see a Kobe vs LBJ matchup doesn't go along with what the TV ratings proved for the 2010 Christmas Game pulling in 15 Million viewers.

Do you want to see it? No. Does a lot of other people? Yes.

Its not about Kobe vs LeBron. Its about the biggest stars in the sport playing each other, because thats simply what its all about. This is a game with only 10 players on the court, at some point you want to see the best at the game on the court together.



what if every team had to do what OKC would have to do? then Minny wouldn't be so bad anymore cuz they'd have more talented players to choose from.
Well, what happens to guaranteed contracts? Why would bad teams not be re-signing their own players?

llemon
08-06-2011, 11:04 PM
What do you believe then?

I can tell you what I don't believe.

ANYTHING that the corporate world (American or otherwise) nor politicians say.

In case you haven't noticed, the American public is currently suffering from the effects of their lies at this current moment.

Which leads me to believe that you are either an idiot or a corporate shill.

Go share your views with your fellow tea-partiers.

gwrighter
08-07-2011, 03:08 PM
How exactly did the small market teams end up with the problems they're facing? Good management is what seperates teams like the Spurs & Thunder from teams like the Bucks & Grizzlies.

The teams that benefitted from having good mgmt and history on their side will still benefit in a hard cap situation.


If they couldnt capitalize without cap limitations, they will not capitalize with them. Thus, the talent will still not be spread out because certain teams will still be collecting the talented players.

Every player has a team they would prefer to play on. Usually, it's the storied franchises that players dream of playing for. It's just how it is. So some teams will still collect the best talent in the sense of a franchise player. D12, Lebron, Kobe, Wade if given a choice would play for the Lakers over the Raptors.

BUT! it will give small market teams more of a chance to land top tier FA's. fictitious Example:

Lakers have 20 mil in cap space. Kobe is an RFA & Marc Gasol is a UFA. with a hard cap the lakers could only sign 1 of those players, not both. therefore leaving more talent for other teams. instead of using Bird Rights to sign Kobe & then sign Marc on top of that.


Your actual belief that the NBA's 2nd most valuable Franchise, the Los Angeles Lakers, should be forced to give up Kobe Bryant makes me question your inteligence towards the business side of basketball.

The NBA as a business is posting losses so you should be questioning the intelligence of the people that are trying to keep the same rules in place.

This was an example. the example was supposed to illustrate how more talent would be available to other teams within the aforementioned hard cap scenario.

& nobody is forcing the Lakers to do anything. they just have to set up their team to the point where they can retain Kobe without the need of an exception to the fundamental cap rules.


So what happens to the Lakers? Are they not able to clear cap space?

I'm not sure what you are asking here. can you be more specific?


Are all contracts still guaranteed?

Maybe, depends on how they want to structure the player turnover rate. should it be easy to get rid of contracts? or should you make the maximum length shorter? This is another debate in itself so il stop here.



How soon we forget?

forget what?



Thats completely subjective with 0 proof behind it.

The only sports league that has introduced a "Hard Cap" is the NHL and the same struggling Franchises before the Lockout, are still struggling with management decisions. The talent is still not spread out with the "Elite" teams and bad ones with the seperation between them.

The NHL is completely different in terms of personnel. An individual star player has more of an impact on an NBA team just because of how the sports differ. Hockey has shifts where your star players only play 25mpg or a 1/3 of the game. Where as in the NBA you have players that can literally be on the court for the whole game. so 1 player can have more of an impact in the NBA which would allow talent to shift between teams quicker than in the NHL.


That isnt how sports works.

Every NBA game is not going to be competitive & down to the wire. It basically seems as if your argument that a "Hard cap" will bring all teams closer together creating "parity", am I right? Parity doesnt mean every NBA game is going to close. Parity means there is a chance for every team to eventually become a winner, it doesnt mean that there wont be "Elite" teams seperated from bad teams. That falls all on the lines of personnel, coaching, management, & a hint of good luck.

it's of course not how sports work, but this big 3 bandwagon is getting out of hand. first it was Boston, now it's MIA, next it might be the knicks.

you are spot on in that paragraph. that is the main goal. lvl the playing field by taking away things like MLE & Bird rights which is what iv'e been talking about above in my example.


Its ludicrious. "Team play" as opposed to what? What esemplifies "Team play" in the NBA? Please tell me you're not going to contradict yourself by using the Dallas Mavericks as your argument.

Team play as opposed to LBJ + Bosh + Wade vs. the other team. 3 players scoring 3/4 of the points for their team day in day out.


The Pistons were a "stacked team". You had 5 All Stars + 1 All Defensive Team player on the court. Are you kidding me?

The only All-Star on that great team prior to their championship was Ben Wallace. everybody else made it onto the All-Star team 2 years after they won the ship.

those All-Star appearances were a product of their success as a team. Not because of individual performance. & they were all voted in by the coaches also.

they weren't all-stars until they came together as a TEAM.


They wouldnt have been able to make that team come together using a Hard Cap.

that is true. but im talking about the team play, definitely one of my favourite teams to come along. played stellar team defence, nobody averaged over 18ppg when they won the ship as well.


The whole idea of not everybody wanting to see a Kobe vs LBJ matchup doesn't go along with what the TV ratings proved for the 2010 Christmas Game pulling in 15 Million viewers.

Do you want to see it? No. Does a lot of other people? Yes.

i did want to see it & i watched it. lol. But we gotta get those ppl up from their chairs & plant there ***** in the arena seats. That is what makes the owners money.


Its not about Kobe vs LeBron. Its about the biggest stars in the sport playing each other, because thats simply what its all about. This is a game with only 10 players on the court, at some point you want to see the best at the game on the court together.


This is where our fundamental point of views differ. I believe it's all about the team, i like watching great teams win because of heart, determination & coming together as a unit to rise above the challenge. I dislike watching me-first players coming together as a team to crush the competition & battle similar teams. its the cowards way out in my opinion. Jordan would NEVER have joined teams with Magic or Bird. they were all competitors, they wanted to best the other. All of a sudden, the superstars of today are all love birds & want to team up? It's ruining the sport.

& if you really want to see these guys play together or against each other then watch the olympics & the all-star game.

Edit: correcting spelling mistakes.

gwrighter
08-07-2011, 03:16 PM
I can tell you what I don't believe.

ANYTHING that the corporate world (American or otherwise) nor politicians say.

In case you haven't noticed, the American public is currently suffering from the effects of their lies at this current moment.

Which leads me to believe that you are either an idiot or a corporate shill.

Go share your views with your fellow tea-partiers.

It was the greed of both the public & the banking cartel, both parties must accept responsibility.

I am a Canadian university student of mixed origin white/black.

listen man im not here to bait or troll or any of that stuff. I'm here to have a logical debate on the thread topic. & nothing i have written was intended to be malicious or provocative in any way, so i apologize if you feel jerked around, i know this is a tough topic to understand, hence why nobody really puts in an effort to debate.

llemon
08-07-2011, 03:56 PM
It was the greed of both the public & the banking cartel, both parties must accept responsibility.

I am a Canadian university student of mixed origin white/black.

listen man im not here to bait or troll or any of that stuff. I'm here to have a logical debate on the thread topic. & nothing i have written was intended to be malicious or provocative in any way, so i apologize if you feel jerked around, i know this is a tough topic to understand, hence why nobody really puts in an effort to debate.

"The greed of the public"?

gwrighter
08-07-2011, 04:07 PM
"The greed of the public"?

public is at fault for spending beyond their means. Banks are at fault for lending the money to the public.

llemon
08-07-2011, 04:24 PM
public is at fault for spending beyond their means. Banks are at fault for lending the money to the public.

Public didn't spend beyond their means, they borrowed beyond their means, as they were encouraged to do by their then President, who had a pretty good idea of what the public was about to step into, as he wasn't regulating the bank's loaning practices.

The public was then ALLOWED to borrow beyond their means, being assured that they weren't borrowing beyond their means, with the lenders also knowing what the public was about to step into.

Now, the public can rightfully be accused of being stupid, but to accuse them of being greedy is stupidity.