PDA

View Full Version : NBA proposed as high as 10:1 Luxury Tax Penalty



daleja424
10-11-2011, 05:19 PM
In case anyone out there still believes the owners are "negotiating"... there is this:


• The tax would start at $1.75 in penalty payments for every dollar a team is over the tax threshold. Say goodbye to the dollar-for-dollar hit, which was the maximum penalty a team could pay under the old system.

• That $1.75-1 ratio would last for the first $5 million a team is over the tax threshold. For every $5 million increment after that, the penalty would jump by 50 cents per dollar. So, for spending over the threshold between $5 million and $10 million, the penalty would be $2.25-to-1. For spending between $10 million and $15 million, it would be $2.75-to-1. And so on.

• The tax threshold would begin near where it did last season, when the cap was set at $58 million in player salaries and teams crossed into luxury-tax territory at the $70 million mark.

Let’s use the Lakers as an example, since they spent almost exactly $20 million above the tax line last season. Under the old system, they would (and eventually will) pay $20 million in tax penalties, and lose out on the slice of money every non-taxpaying team receives. We don’t know what that slice will be for the 2010-11 season, but it was about $3.7 million the year before, and it won’t change much. (To learn how that is calculated, go here.) Total losses under the old system were about $23.7 million.

Under the new system, the Lakers’ tax penalty would be about $53.7 million based on these calculations:

$5 million x $1.75 = $8.75 million

$5 million x $2.25 = $11.25 million

$5 million x $2.75 = $13.75 million

$5 million x $3.25 = $16.25 million

Toss in the $3.7 million and their taxes/losses end up at $53.7 million. That’s a lot. It might not be enough on its own to keep the Lakers from spending, but as SI.com has reported before, the league has also proposed rules that would prohibit teams over the tax from using the mid-level exception, Bird Rights and other mechanisms that allow big spenders to spend more.

And while the Lakers, who are about to enter into a massive new local TV deal, may spend right through the financial hits, teams that approached the old tax line a bit more cautiously might look at this one like a red-hot poker.

And the poker gets even hotter. As Yahoo! Sports’ Adrian Wojnarowski reported late Monday, the proposal would penalize teams that pay the tax in more than two seasons during any five-season stretch. That penalty is harsh, according to a source familiar with the matter. If a team has gotten into tax territory, say, twice over the preceding four seasons and finds itself over the tax line a third time, each penalty ratio triples. In other words, that $1.75-1 ratio that kicks off the tax in Year 1 would jump to $5.25-to-1 for a team paying the tax a third time. Do the math, and you could get to 10-to-1 or higher pretty quickly, and whether you’re the Lakers or the Knicks or the Bill Gates Billionaires (based in Seattle!), you are going to blink at paying $100 million-plus in tax penalties alone. Fine, maybe Gates wouldn’t blink, but he doesn’t own an NBA tea
Full article: http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/10/11/exclusive-details-of-owners-tax-proposal/

SteBO
10-11-2011, 05:25 PM
Negotiating :laugh2: What a joke they are....

GodsSon
10-11-2011, 05:31 PM
Mehhhh, I don't really see a problem with this...if teams want to grossly overspend, they'll have to pay for it.

Randy West
10-11-2011, 05:35 PM
Sounds like it would help even the playing field for franchises if you ask me. This is a fine the owners/organizations would have to pay so I am not sure how they are "not negotiating".

The salary cap issue has to be negotiated through the NBA and team owners

THE GIPPER
10-11-2011, 05:39 PM
wouldn't this basically be a hard cap?

Bravo95
10-11-2011, 05:42 PM
No chance the union agrees to this.

Randy West
10-11-2011, 05:44 PM
Well I would believe a "hard cap" would be a number no team would be able to go over. This is basically punishing the teams that want to go over the cap a penalty.

I believe in the past it was one dollar of penalty for every dollar you spent over the cap.

Basically 20 mil over the cap 20 mil in fines for being over the cap.

Sounds like they are taking that to the next level with a sliding scale for those that want to spend over a certain amount.

GodsSon
10-11-2011, 05:44 PM
wouldn't this basically be a hard cap?

Not at all. A hard cap means you can't go over the salary cap under any circumstances.

What this model is proposing is to heavily tax teams, with rates going higher year by year. Pretty much it forces teams to really THINK about entering luxury tax territory, and will essentially be used solely by either the uber rich, or those on the brink of contention trying to add more pieces.

Jonathan2323
10-11-2011, 05:46 PM
This will never pass... I see at the most a $4 mil for every $1 mil over the tax.

Randy West
10-11-2011, 05:47 PM
Does anyone think the league would be less competitive with an actual hard cap??

I believe a hard cap would help balance the league out a little bit.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-11-2011, 05:56 PM
Hard cap sounds good in theory.. Minny, NY, MIA, Toronto all offer the same money to a free agent. Small market teams will lose out no matter what they try. This lockout is all about the ego of Stern who promised new & old owners he would slaughter ther players in a new deal.

topdog
10-11-2011, 06:00 PM
I don't like the increas over years part, but I have no problem with harsher luxury tax.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-11-2011, 06:08 PM
I don't like the increas over years part, but I have no problem with harsher luxury tax.

U might when it comes time to resign Love,Rubio,& Williams if they pan out the way Minny Fans hope. You won't have players on rookie deals forever

topdog
10-11-2011, 06:13 PM
U might when it comes time to resign Love,Rubio,& Williams if they pan out the way Minny Fans hope. You won't have players on rookie deals forever

Who will be spending to steal them away though? If there is a harsh penalty, few teams can offer the ridiculous deals that lure guys away.

Even at $50M, you can offer those 3 a combined $30M+ and still have $20M for other guys. I think $8-12M is fair for the better players on teams.

Dade County
10-11-2011, 06:20 PM
I agree with the owners on this one...

The Players don't want a hard cap, hit them over the head with this.

I am for a hard cap, as long as teams can restructure contracts.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-11-2011, 06:22 PM
Who will be spending to steal them away though? If there is a harsh penalty, few teams can offer the ridiculous deals that lure guys away.

Even at $50M, you can offer those 3 a combined $30M+ and still have $20M for other guys. I think $8-12M is fair for the better players on teams.

Teams clearing cap for the big names. Increases which are part of the discussions have been rumored to not be that great for Bird right players. So if another team can offer similar money and better location/ possible better tv exposure what stops Love from leaving for example.

Bishnoff
10-11-2011, 06:29 PM
If there's not going to be a hard cap, then harsh penalties like this need to be implemented.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-11-2011, 06:30 PM
I actually love this.

**** the Lakers, Mavs, and other teams that overpay like a *****.

Randy West
10-11-2011, 06:35 PM
I think leagues need to get out of that whole hey I will just outspend everyone else attitude because of my TV deal or whatever

In theory if every team could only spend 50 million the NBA would become more competitive imo.......teams that can only spend up to the cap are at a huge disadvantage over ones that could careless what the cap number is.

Dade County
10-11-2011, 06:37 PM
I actually love this.

**** the Lakers, Mavs, and other teams that overpay like a *****.

Yeah F them!!! Down with the billionaires :p lol


I really like the idea too.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-11-2011, 06:43 PM
In my opinion I think its horrible. Controlled spending aka a hard cap will prob encourage more super teams since most teams will not go over the cap. Players will prob play with their friends since they can no longer get those huge paydays in FA. And those teams prob still wont be in the small markets. The dream of small markets actually having a legit chance as big markets bcuz of a hard cap is a dream Stern is selling. OKC, San Antonio, Mia (b4 Lebron) and other small market teams have built teams without a hard cap. Dumb Gms cripple their franchises more than the system. GS had a great team and then ripped it apart for what reason. They eliminated the Maveriks and split the team up. The Bobcats have made countless dumb decisions. Every team makes mistakes. Bad GMs keep making them.

DMasta718
10-11-2011, 06:56 PM
Does anyone think the league would be less competitive with an actual hard cap??

I believe a hard cap would help balance the league out a little bit.

A hard cap would not help at all.

Randy West
10-11-2011, 07:01 PM
A hard cap would not help at all.

well that flies in the face of your basic economic structure

would not help who exactly??

Dade County
10-11-2011, 07:10 PM
A hard cap would not help at all.

You should explain why a hard cap wouldn't work.



For the players that are looking to get paid, they would quickly cross teams of their list no matter if that team had their friends on it or not. Look at Bosh for example, he joined his friends in Dade county and got paid.

Bosh did an interview back when he was a free agent ( Out of the entire interview, these words stayed in my head ) Why can't I have the best of both worlds, he was talking about getting paid and playing with his friends in a beautiful city; we didn't know that at the time, but he did :D

Long story short, most of these players still want to get paid. But I think, I know why you said a hard cap wouldn't work, but you should still explain it.

Bishnoff
10-11-2011, 07:13 PM
In my opinion I think its horrible. Controlled spending aka a hard cap will prob encourage more super teams since most teams will not go over the cap. Players will prob play with their friends since they can no longer get those huge paydays in FA. And those teams prob still wont be in the small markets. The dream of small markets actually having a legit chance as big markets bcuz of a hard cap is a dream Stern is selling. OKC, San Antonio, Mia (b4 Lebron) and other small market teams have built teams without a hard cap. Dumb Gms cripple their franchises more than the system. GS had a great team and then ripped it apart for what reason. They eliminated the Maveriks and split the team up. The Bobcats have made countless dumb decisions. Every team makes mistakes. Bad GMs keep making them.

Since the NBA first introduced a soft cap back in 1984, only 8 different organisations have won the NBA Finals. None of these organisations can be described as “small market”; in fact, the majority are the biggest market organisations in the NBA. A hard cap, or at least a harder soft cap will definitely improve parity in the NBA and give small and medium market organisations a much better chance of winning a ring.

These “mistakes” you speak of could be due to a number of reasons, but more often than not they are financially driven. It’s hard for an owner to continue to spend over the cap without seeing results (championships). High spending small and medium market teams can usually make it to their Conference Semi’s or Finals, sometimes even the NBA Finals, but none (or few, depending on your view of what a medium market team is) have been able to win a ring since the soft cap was introduced.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-11-2011, 07:14 PM
well that flies in the face of your basic economic structure

would not help who exactly??

The Knicks.

They just got 2 stars and want 1 more.

The Knicks homeboy doesn't want that to be over so quickly.

Randy West
10-11-2011, 07:18 PM
Ah I see........a hard cap now would hinder that third star

got it

ink
10-11-2011, 07:21 PM
In case anyone out there still believes the owners are "negotiating"... there is this:


Full article: http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/10/11/exclusive-details-of-owners-tax-proposal/

I have no idea what anyone would find objectionable about that. It's not a hard cap. It's a soft cap, which the players insist on, with a very harsh luxury tax. That keeps the playing field as level as possible within a soft cap system, which is EXACTLY what the league needs, and at least partially what the players have asked for.

Obviously the owners aren't going to give in to a soft cap with no limitations on spending. They are trying to curtail costs. Why is that so hard to understand? They own the league and they are set on cutting costs to make the league more stable and equal.

Of course this is negotiation. They are representing their interests just like the players are by turning it down. Stalemate ... games cancelled. Predictable.

daleja424
10-11-2011, 07:25 PM
I have no idea what anyone would find objectionable about that. It's not a hard cap. It's a soft cap, which the players insist on, with a very harsh luxury tax. That keeps the playing field as level as possible within a soft cap system, which is EXACTLY what the league needs, and at least partially what the players have asked for.

Obviously the owners aren't going to give in to a soft cap with no limitations on spending. They are trying to curtail costs. Why is that so hard to understand? They own the league and they are set on cutting costs to make the league more stable and equal.

Of course this is negotiation. They are representing their interests just like the players are by turning it down. Stalemate ... games cancelled. Predictable.

The concept is not objectionable... the fact that they proclaim this is some kind of compromise is what is objectionable. How can you stand there and say you are making concessions and then try to roll out a system that does the exact same thing a hard cap does? That is not even spinning...that is flat out lying.

I have a problem with the owners claiming they have made a ton of concessions and yet you can't find a single one if you actually take the time to look.

topdog
10-11-2011, 07:28 PM
Teams clearing cap for the big names. Increases which are part of the discussions have been rumored to not be that great for Bird right players. So if another team can offer similar money and better location/ possible better tv exposure what stops Love from leaving for example.

I guess your argument is "what's keeping them from leaving" and mine is "what is encouraging them to leave?" If money is equal, players are faced with decisions of do I join some other "stars" (assuming that team can afford it)? Do I go somewhere with better weather/marketing? Do I stay loyal and play with the guys who I chemistry with?

BUT money is not equal because discussions still include Bird Rights and have centered around preventing teams from signing and trading.

Finally, "superteams" would simply pour money into the other teams' pocketbooks with penalties like these. The players are not going to take smaller contracts and thus if you (as a franchise) want to PLAY BIG you PAY BIG.

daleja424
10-11-2011, 07:29 PM
I guess your argument is "what's keeping them from leaving" and mine is "what is encouraging them to leave?" If money is equal, players are faced with decisions of do I join some other "stars" (assuming that team can afford it)? Do I go somewhere with better weather/marketing? Do I stay loyal and play with the guys who I chemistry with?

BUT money is not equal because discussions still include Bird Rights and have centered around preventing teams from signing and trading.

Finally, "superteams" would simply pour money into the other teams' pocketbooks with penalties like these. The players are not going to take smaller contracts and thus if you (as a franchise) want to PLAY BIG you PAY BIG.

There is no such thing as bird rights with a hard cap...

ink
10-11-2011, 07:31 PM
The concept is not objectionable... the fact that they proclaim this is some kind of compromise is what is objectionable. How can you stand there and say you are making concessions and then try to roll out a system that does the exact same thing a hard cap does? That is not even spinning...that is flat out lying.

I have a problem with the owners claiming they have made a ton of concessions and yet you can't find a single one if you actually take the time to look.

From the owners POV it is a compromise. They want a hard cap. This, FOR THEM, is a manageable soft cap alternative.

It isn't their desired position right? I mean, they wanted a hard cap. So they have moved from that position and compromised.

I have no idea why anyone is taking a side in this nonsense between millionaires and billionaires.

daleja424
10-11-2011, 07:35 PM
From the owners POV it is a compromise. They want a hard cap. This, FOR THEM, is a manageable soft cap alternative.

It isn't their desired position right? I mean, they wanted a hard cap. So they have moved from that position and compromised.

I have no idea why anyone is taking a side in this nonsense between millionaires and billionaires.

This goes back to the car example earlier though. I want to pay 5k for a Porsche, but th dealership won't sell...so then I offer 10k... can I claim that is a concession on my part really if I am still undervaluing the Porsche?

If you make an initial offer that is artificially low just so you can make a small "concession," I'm not sure you are negotiating in good faith.

ink
10-11-2011, 07:41 PM
This goes back to the car example earlier though. I want to pay 5k for a Porsche, but th dealership won't sell...so then I offer 10k... can I claim that is a concession on my part really if I am still undervaluing the Porsche?

If you make an initial offer that is artificially low just so you can make a small "concession," I'm not sure you are negotiating in good faith.

But the price analogy doesn't work. They aren't lowballing. They wanted a hard cap. A hard cap isn't a value or a price. It's a system. They didn't get it but that's what they felt they needed to run the league. Since they didn't get that they are compromising by allowing for a soft cap which will inevitably have loopholes exploited like all soft caps do. That's how we got all the trade exceptions we now have right?

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-11-2011, 07:44 PM
The NBA has always been a David n Goliath league. Finals like the Cavs vs Spurs & Detroit vs Spurs are boring Tv wise in watching Detriot Vs Lakers and Orlando vs Lakers. It's always exciting with underdog vs big market or big market showdowns. The NBA is not the NFL where 1 game takes all. It's messed up but a Minny Milwaukee finals will prob Neva happen

ChiSox219
10-11-2011, 07:46 PM
This goes back to the car example earlier though. I want to pay 5k for a Porsche, but th dealership won't sell...so then I offer 10k... can I claim that is a concession on my part really if I am still undervaluing the Porsche?

If you make an initial offer that is artificially low just so you can make a small "concession," I'm not sure you are negotiating in good faith.

Except in this case there is no one around willing to pay 60k for that porsche. Only a bunch of tire kickers in europe and china, with low ball offers.

daleja424
10-11-2011, 07:46 PM
But the price analogy doesn't work. They aren't lowballing. They wanted a hard cap. A hard cap isn't a value or a price. It's a system. They didn't get it but that's what they felt they needed to run the league. Since they didn't get that they are compromising by allowing for a soft cap which will inevitably have loopholes exploited like all soft caps do. That's how we got all the trade exceptions we now have right?

I guess that depends if you believe that they actually think they need that. IMO the entire proposal they made several months ago was a lowball offer. This is strictly opinion here, but I think the whole offer was lowballed to create a point where they could look like the good guys.

It is almost like as if the players came to the table with their starting position being 65% fee market... I am sure that is what the WANT... But they didn't. They came to the table with an agreement that the owners claimed to have been the winners in 10 years ago... They came to the table with the product of a previous bargaining session.

daleja424
10-11-2011, 07:47 PM
Except in this case there is no one around willing to pay 60k for that porsche. Only a bunch of tire kickers in europe and china, with low ball offers.

That is true.. and that is why the owners have leverage... doesn't make it right though... and it surely isn't negotiating in the best of faith.

ink
10-11-2011, 07:54 PM
I guess that depends if you believe that they actually think they need that. IMO the entire proposal they made several months ago was a lowball offer. This is strictly opinion here, but I think the whole offer was lowballed to create a point where they could look like the good guys.

It is almost like as if the players came to the table with their starting position being 65% fee market... I am sure that is what the WANT... But they didn't. They came to the table with an agreement that the owners claimed to have been the winners in 10 years ago... They came to the table with the product of a previous bargaining session.

They want to change the system and eliminate loopholes to the best of their ability. That's been pretty clear from the start. The players don't want that because all the loopholes their agents have discovered and exploited over the years made them a lot of money. Stalemate because the owners' purpose in the lockout was to change the system and the players don't want that to happen. I'm not surprised the owners are reluctant to just return to a slightly modified version of the system they wanted to get rid of. That would make no sense on their part.

daleja424
10-11-2011, 08:04 PM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree... I fail to see how a system that has created the most popular basketball in NBA history needs to be completely revamped...

gwrighter
10-11-2011, 08:19 PM
Mehhhh, I don't really see a problem with this...if teams want to grossly overspend, they'll have to pay for it.

exactly this. GM's will think twice before dishing out MASSIVE contracts. Players will be held more accountable for their performance. as every $$ counts.

ink
10-11-2011, 08:23 PM
exactly this. GM's will think twice before dishing out MASSIVE contracts. Players will be held more accountable for their performance. as every $$ counts.

Personally I like the proposal and hope we don't lose too much of the season waiting for changes like this to go through.

da ThRONe
10-11-2011, 08:33 PM
This is better than what we have now, but it still gives big spending owners a big advantage.

smith&wesson
10-11-2011, 08:39 PM
In other words it will be super hard for teams like the lakers, celtics, heat, etc to over pay and have multiple stars on the squad. this kind of evens things out for the minority owners.

big market owners want to over spend but not at these rates. small market owners dont want to overs spend but still want an even playing fields in terms of free agency... isnt this an owners vs owners issue though ?

Wade>You
10-11-2011, 08:41 PM
This is just more ammo for the owners to b-tch when they cry about losing money. And then they'll ignore the fact that they were the ones who thought of this idea.

Kevj77
10-11-2011, 08:42 PM
I think leagues need to get out of that whole hey I will just outspend everyone else attitude because of my TV deal or whatever

In theory if every team could only spend 50 million the NBA would become more competitive imo.......teams that can only spend up to the cap are at a huge disadvantage over ones that could careless what the cap number is.I'm not sure it would be more competitive if every team could only spend 50 million if contracts are still guaranteed. Bad contracts would kill teams even more than they do now and the best run teams would still come out on top. Some teams will always be preferred destinations and teams that aren't would still have to overpay for free agents.

Wade>You
10-11-2011, 08:46 PM
This is better than what we have now, but it still gives big spending owners a big advantage.What we need is a league of Dan Gilberts and Robert Sarvers. Their teams are the only reason we watch the NBA.

topdog
10-11-2011, 08:51 PM
There is no such thing as bird rights with a hard cap...

And that relates to my post how?

This thread is about a punitive luxury tax, not a hard cap. So, there is such a thing as bird rights in what I'm talking about.

daleja424
10-11-2011, 09:00 PM
And that relates to my post how?

This thread is about a punitive luxury tax, not a hard cap. So, there is such a thing as bird rights in what I'm talking about.

Okay. The topic shifted to hard caps in there for a bit and I thought your post was a response to that. My apologies.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-11-2011, 09:00 PM
This system isn't designed for parity. It's designed to just lower overall salary to gain profit. The players will never approve a luxury tax that acts like a hard cap as mentioned by the OP. Cheap owners will still be cheap just trying to make profit and dumb GMs will still overpay for players. Same ish smaller budget. Does any1 think Minny and La will be on level playin fields. NY and Milwaukee will never be on equal terms in FA. It's a farce made up to drum up hope. This is a pure business move plain n simple

Kevj77
10-11-2011, 09:06 PM
In other words it will be super hard for teams like the lakers, celtics, heat, etc to over pay and have multiple stars on the squad. this kind of evens things out for the minority owners.

big market owners want to over spend but not at these rates. small market owners dont want to overs spend but still want an even playing fields in terms of free agency... isnt this an owners vs owners issue though ?I always hear people talk about small market teams needing an even playing field for free agents, but over the cap teams can only use exceptions and vet minimums. Wouldn't eliminating the MLE have the same effect? It would still allow teams to retain all the players they drafted or traded for, which I'm in favor of.

KnicksR4Real
10-11-2011, 09:08 PM
Fml

roshan3ai
10-11-2011, 09:12 PM
This is f'ing blows The first time the Knicks are good in ten freaking years and there's a lockout. Screw this man. The owners are a bunch of pricks. Players have actually made concessions but the owners are a bunch of ***-wipes

llemon
10-11-2011, 09:14 PM
My thought is that teams can re-sign their own FAs at the luxury tax as it exists now. $2 for every $1 dollar over the luxury cap.

Teams over the luxury tax signing players to the MLE would mean $3-$5 dollars (depending on how far into luxury tax land they are into) for every dollar spent.

And teams wouldn't be allowed to work around that by signing players to the MLE first. and then signing there own FAs.

This all may too complicated for the people doing the negotiating.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-11-2011, 09:18 PM
Part of me hopes this passes so all these small market fans will see it hinders them as well. I dint care about players salaries or the owners greed. I'm annoyed when we are being fed BS like we are stupid. If Stern was really worried about parity they'd fix the draft process. The worst teams are guaranteed nothing but a chance @ the first pick. How about a bigger salary exemptions for small market teams. Or a lower salary tax to even out the scale. There are plenty of ideas to level the field. Like I said , this is just about guaranteed profit regardless of a good or bad team

NYman15
10-11-2011, 09:20 PM
I seriously doubt the players would go for this. It might not be a official hard cap, but it would basically do the same as a hard cap. It would stop most if not all teams from going over the salary cap, I doubt these new rules are this strict.

THE MTL
10-11-2011, 09:25 PM
Small market teams really want the bank. I say if u go over the tax line make it an even 2 for 1 ratio. Currently, it is 1:1. How do u go from 1:1 to such a DRAMATIC leap within one year. If its 2:1 ur still winning.

Btw, I dont understand how the owners are united in this.....Seriously, Boston, NYC, LA, Chi, Mia, Orl must be flipping *****s.

ink
10-11-2011, 09:25 PM
In other words it will be super hard for teams like the lakers, celtics, heat, etc to over pay and have multiple stars on the squad. this kind of evens things out for the minority owners.

big market owners want to over spend but not at these rates. small market owners dont want to overs spend but still want an even playing fields in terms of free agency... isnt this an owners vs owners issue though ?

That's a great point that I hadn't seen much before. That's why I think they're going to dig in for the long haul. I bet it took a few years for all the owners to agree to push hard for a tougher approach to over-spending. I mean, the rich franchises don't HAVE TO care about parity in the league. They probably had to be convinced by the smaller market clubs not to just out spend them every time. So, once they reached agreement among themselves I doubt they're going to cave in right away. I'm prepared for them to force this issue at least until January. This is going to be a long lockout boys, especially if the owners are committed to systemic change. If they were satisfied with tinkering with the old CBA I could have seen them averting the cancellation of games altogether, but they haven't done that. Makes me think they've prepared themselves for a longer standoff.

Bishnoff
10-11-2011, 09:33 PM
This system isn't designed for parity. It's designed to just lower overall salary to gain profit. The players will never approve a luxury tax that acts like a hard cap as mentioned by the OP. Cheap owners will still be cheap just trying to make profit and dumb GMs will still overpay for players. Same ish smaller budget. Does any1 think Minny and La will be on level playin fields. NY and Milwaukee will never be on equal terms in FA. It's a farce made up to drum up hope. This is a pure business move plain n simple

The point is that the league should be more even. Am I the only person who finds it ridiculous that only 8 different organisations (all large or medium-to-large market organisations) have won the NBA Finals since a soft cap was introduced in 1984? If it takes a situation such as the present to force an overhaul of the disparate system then the opportunity should be acted upon.

Furthermore, not all small market owners are cheap. No reasonable business continues to pay out more than it receives in revenue and survives. Small market organisations get less revenue from ticket sales, merchandise, and more importantly TV rights; therefore they have less to spend on player salaries (without making a loss) than large market organisations. Small market teams can’t afford to pay the salaries required to win a ring. Orlando (not a small market organisation by any means) have had one of the highest player payrolls over the last few years and have nothing to show for it; do you think that a small market owner is going to be able to compete with the likes of the Lakers, Heat, Boston, Chicago, Orlando etc. when they bring in only a fraction of the revenue and would therefore suffer much greater losses? By introducing a hard cap it would improve parity since it would lower the maximum amount all owners can spend on player salaries, and the richer, large market teams can’t get away with going way over the cap in order to be a contender. I have no idea what the happy medium is in terms of a figure for the salary cap which allows all teams to be profitable (assuming average to good management), but a hard cap would put a ceiling on the bottomless pockets of the large market owners.

Evolution23
10-11-2011, 09:36 PM
**** David Stern and the owners

ink
10-11-2011, 09:38 PM
The point is that the league should be more even. Am I the only person who finds it ridiculous that only 8 different organisations (all large or medium-to-large market organisations) have won the NBA Finals since a soft cap was introduced in 1984? If it takes a situation such as the present to force an overhaul of the disparate system then the opportunity should be acted upon.

100% agreed.

Wade>You
10-11-2011, 09:39 PM
This is f'ing blows The first time the Knicks are good in ten freaking years and there's a lockout. Screw this man. The owners are a bunch of pricks. Players have actually made concessions but the owners are a bunch of ***-wipesThat's exactly what this new CBA is about. This lockout is led by the likes of the Cavs, Suns, Clippers, Wizards, and other perennial losers. It's about crippling the teams that are close to competing for a title like the Mavs, Lakers, Spurs, Heat, Knicks, Bulls, etc.

This league desperately needs to contract and get rid of the celler dwellars with chitty owners. Only then will we get back our beloved basketball.

beasted86
10-11-2011, 09:43 PM
Will never get passed.

Just more posturing by the owners so they can say "Look, we backed off the 10:1 luxury tax. We are the only ones making concessions" later on. :rolleyes:

ink
10-11-2011, 09:47 PM
That's exactly what this new CBA is about. This lockout is led by the likes of the Cavs, Suns, Clippers, Wizards, and other perennial losers. It's about crippling the teams that are close to competing for a title like the Mavs, Lakers, Spurs, Heat, Knicks, Bulls, etc.

Not crippling but leveling the playing field so there is a better chance for all 30 teams to compete.

I don't want to throw this off-topic but imposing a new salary cap (a soft cap system) has paid dividends for another sports league, the NHL.


Although the Detroit Red Wings won more games, piled up more points, enjoyed more playoff series celebrations than any other NHL team, parity has prevailed in the first five seasons since the lockout ended.

There have been five different Stanley Cup winners since the lockout and an assortment of eight clubs have advanced to the final. The Red Wings also have made the most final-four appearances at three, and 12 of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference final at least once since the lockout.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2010/10/06/spf-wharnsby-five-season-review.html

All of that parity happened within a 5 year period. The NBA owners are undoubtedly looking at that. There has to be incentive for teams to buy in to a business. Winning is that incentive. If a championship is priced way beyond people's means they won't be able to field a competitive league. They don't want to continue along this direction and it's understandable.

Wade>You
10-11-2011, 09:48 PM
Will never get passed.

Just more posturing by the owners so they can say "Look, we backed off the 10:1 luxury tax. We are the only ones making concessions" later on. :rolleyes:lol true. I think you had a word for that. What was it? Like "imaginary concessions" or something.

Kevj77
10-11-2011, 09:52 PM
The point is that the league should be more even. Am I the only person who finds it ridiculous that only 8 different organisations (all large or medium-to-large market organisations) have won the NBA Finals since a soft cap was introduced in 1984? If it takes a situation such as the present to force an overhaul of the disparate system then the opportunity should be acted upon.I see it differently the NBA like no other sport is a star driven league. The Bulls won 6 championships with Jordan, Lakers 5 with Magic, Celtics 3 with Bird, Spurs 4 with Tim Duncan, Lakers 3 more with Shaq and Kobe. Does anyone here think Dwight and Lebron will retire ringless?

People talk about how much parity there is in the NFL, but how many teams have won without a franchise QB in the last 20 years? It is the same concept in my opinion although it is harder to repeat in the NFL.

ink
10-11-2011, 09:53 PM
lol true. I think you had a word for that. What was it? Like "imaginary concessions" or something.

They're not trading player cards right? They don't just randomly trade off concessions if they have a purpose to what they're doing, and clearly they have a purpose. They're running a business and the working model needs repairing.

Why do you feel the need to take the players' side in this? Why take any side? None of them are actually "right". They're just trying to work out THEIR financial problems. They're not our financial problems, and we can easily live life without NBA ball. Easily. Let them both rot until they work out their own ****.

beasted86
10-11-2011, 10:11 PM
All of that parity happened within a 5 year period.

It's easy to create imaginary parity over a short span of time. Let's do the same thing for the NBA from 2004-2009:


There have been five different Stanley Cup winners since the lockout

There have been five difference NBA Finals winners (Pistons, Spurs, Heat, Celtics, Lakers) from 2004-2009.

and an assortment of eight clubs have advanced to the final.

and an assortment of eight clubs have advanced to the final (Pistons, Lakers, Spurs, Heat, Mavericks, Cavaliers, Celtics, Magic).


The Red Wings also have made the most final-four appearances at three The Lakers also made the most final-four appearances at three


and 12 of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference final at least once since the lockout.

and 13 out of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference final at least once in this span. (Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Los Angeles Lakers, Minnesota Timberwolves, Miami Heat, Phoenix Suns, San Antonio Spurs, Dallas Mavericks, Utah Jazz, Cleveland Cavaliers, Boston Celtics, Orlando Magic, Denver Nuggets)

See what I did there? Those occurrences don't mean much in the grand scheme. We need at least a 20 year sample to see what trend is happening.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-11-2011, 10:12 PM
And how many large market teams were terrible for years. It all comes down to management. Knicks horrible for 10 years. Boston got an assist for KG and ray Allen . Two small market teams giving up star players for young talent instead of star players in return. Orlando horrible until HOward came along and they started spending money. It takes money to build a contender no matter how you slice it. Even if u lower the overall budget which this is all about the small market teams aren't that far behind. Sarver robbed Nash n company by constantly selling picks. The Bulls with all the young talent they had with Gordon and Chandler , Curry didn't go anywhere either. The only successful Big Market team IMO is the Lakers. All other teams did themselves in someway or the other. This parity crap is a joke. Not because I don't want it as a Knicks fan. I'd love it. It's being used as an excuse to fatten the owners pocket. That's my issue.



The point is that the league should be more even. Am I the only person who finds it ridiculous that only 8 different organisations (all large or medium-to-large market organisations) have won the NBA Finals since a soft cap was introduced in 1984? If it takes a situation such as the present to force an overhaul of the disparate system then the opportunity should be acted upon.

Furthermore, not all small market owners are cheap. No reasonable business continues to pay out more than it receives in revenue and survives. Small market organisations get less revenue from ticket sales, merchandise, and more importantly TV rights; therefore they have less to spend on player salaries (without making a loss) than large market organisations. Small market teams can’t afford to pay the salaries required to win a ring. Orlando (not a small market organisation by any means) have had one of the highest player payrolls over the last few years and have nothing to show for it; do you think that a small market owner is going to be able to compete with the likes of the Lakers, Heat, Boston, Chicago, Orlando etc. when they bring in only a fraction of the revenue and would therefore suffer much greater losses? By introducing a hard cap it would improve parity since it would lower the maximum amount all owners can spend on player salaries, and the richer, large market teams can’t get away with going way over the cap in order to be a contender. I have no idea what the happy medium is in terms of a figure for the salary cap which allows all teams to be profitable (assuming average to good management), but a hard cap would put a ceiling on the bottomless pockets of the large market owners.

Bishnoff
10-11-2011, 10:14 PM
I see it differently the NBA like no other sport is a star driven league. The Bulls won 6 championships with Jordan, Lakers 5 with Magic, Celtics 3 with Bird, Spurs 4 with Tim Duncan, Lakers 3 more with Shaq and Kobe. Does anyone here think Dwight and Lebron will retire ringless?

People talk about how much parity there is in the NFL, but how many teams have won without a franchise QB in the last 20 years? It is the same concept in my opinion although it is harder to repeat in the NFL.

You're not giving any credit to the supporting casts. Where were the Bulls in Jordan's first 6 seasons when he was still a star but didn't have the likes of Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Harper, Kukoc etc. to support him? Those Lakers and Celtics teams were stacked with talent, and the Spurs were deep too and had their own Big 3. Hakeem had solid support, the Pistons were stacked in the Isiah days and the recent team had a great team chemisty, great complimentary skillsets and brilliant team defense.

My point is that you need a great team to win it all, not just one or two stars. Otherwise why doesn't Melo, Lebron, Dwight, CP3, Deron Williams etc. (to name current established stars) have rings? It's mostly because they haven't had good enough support around them, and great teams means higher player payrolls (as opposed to one or two stars and a bunch of role players - the cheaper option).

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-11-2011, 10:16 PM
This... Stern and the owners are feeding the masses this fake parity crap in order to put the pressure on the players to take a crappy deal like the NHL. Let's paint the picture of greedy players to mask our own greed


It's easy to create imaginary parity over a short span of time. Let's do the same thing for the NBA from 2004-2009:



There have been five difference NBA Finals winners (Pistons, Spurs, Heat, Celtics, Lakers) from 2004-2009.


and an assortment of eight clubs have advanced to the final (Pistons, Lakers, Spurs, Heat, Mavericks, Cavaliers, Celtics, Magic).

The Lakers also made the most final-four appearances at three



and 13 out of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference final at least once in this span. (Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Los Angeles Lakers, Minnesota Timberwolves, Miami Heat, Phoenix Suns, San Antonio Spurs, Dallas Mavericks, Utah Jazz, Cleveland Cavaliers, Boston Celtics, Orlando Magic, Denver Nuggets)

See what I did there? Those occurrences don't mean much in the grand scheme. We need at least a 20 year sample to see what trend is happening.

Bishnoff
10-11-2011, 10:20 PM
And how many large market teams were terrible for years. It all comes down to management. Knicks horrible for 10 years. Boston got an assist for KG and ray Allen . Two small market teams giving up star players for young talent instead of star players in return. Orlando horrible until HOward came along and they started spending money. It takes money to build a contender no matter how you slice it. Even if u lower the overall budget which this is all about the small market teams aren't that far behind. Sarver robbed Nash n company by constantly selling picks. The Bulls with all the young talent they had with Gordon and Chandler , Curry didn't go anywhere either. The only successful Big Market team IMO is the Lakers. All other teams did themselves in someway or the other. This parity crap is a joke. Not because I don't want it as a Knicks fan. I'd love it. It's being used as an excuse to fatten the owners pocket. That's my issue.

Of course you have to manage a team well and make good decisions to have a shot, but it's almost impossible for small market teams to compete when the big market teams have player payrolls 50% greater than most of the league.

I'm not saying that bigger payrolls assure success, but it certainly does make it impossible for small market teams to compete. When 5 or 6 big market teams can spend this way, it doesn't matter if 1 or 2 make bad decisions and suck for a few years; there's still another 3-4 who won't suck and one will end up champions.

beasted86
10-11-2011, 10:23 PM
I've been against a hard cap for 3 main reasons all along.

1) The NBA has been profitable without a hard cap. Isn't profitability the reason for the lockout? Not some chase for arbitrary parity.
2) Teams have operated with a very low cap number and lost money. Kings were at like $44M last season, and they lost money.
3) I don't get how hard cap = parity, because last I checked it's the same set of teams in contention for a Superbowl every year.

Wade>You
10-11-2011, 10:26 PM
I've been against a hard cap for 3 main reasons all along.

1) The NBA has been profitable without a hard cap. Isn't profitability the reason for the lockout? Not some chase for arbitrary parity.
2) Teams have operated with a very low cap number and lost money. Kings were at like $44M last season, and they lost money.
3) I don't get how hard cap = parity, because last I checked it's the same set of teams in contention for a Superbowl every year.I like the parity in NFL argument. People think it's due to a hard cap, and not the fact that they play 16 games in one regular season and every game is an elimination game in the playoffs. Any sport that has that kind of format will surely have parity.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-11-2011, 10:29 PM
Of course you have to manage a team well and make good decisions to have a shot, but it's almost impossible for small market teams to compete when the big market teams have player payrolls 50% greater than most of the league.

I'm not saying that bigger payrolls assure success, but it certainly does make it impossible for small market teams to compete. When 5 or 6 big market teams can spend this way, it doesn't matter if 1 or 2 make bad decisions and suck for a few years; there's still another 3-4 who won't suck and one will end up champions.

Who are your small market teams? Because outside of the lakers and celtics no big markets have won. Celtics got help by that horrible deal by Minny and Lakers by the horrible deal by Memphis that ended up working out in the end. Small market teams have a slight disadvantage , I agree. But this hard cap/ luxury tax isn't being built to help that. It's all about the cash. The league will complain about losing money in tv revenue when we supposedly have a Milwaukee vs Sacramento finals .. I can imagine all the revenue that drums up.

Kevj77
10-11-2011, 10:47 PM
You're not giving any credit to the supporting casts. Where were the Bulls in Jordan's first 6 seasons when he was still a star but didn't have the likes of Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Harper, Kukoc etc. to support him? Those Lakers and Celtics teams were stacked with talent, and the Spurs were deep too and had their own Big 3. Hakeem had solid support, the Pistons were stacked in the Isiah days and the recent team had a great team chemisty, great complimentary skillsets and brilliant team defense.

My point is that you need a great team to win it all, not just one or two stars. Otherwise why doesn't Melo, Lebron, Dwight, CP3, Deron Williams etc. (to name current established stars) have rings? It's mostly because they haven't had good enough support around them, and great teams means higher player payrolls (as opposed to one or two stars and a bunch of role players - the cheaper option).All those teams used that formula and drafted or traded for their two stars and only used free agency for their role players. That is good management at work and the luck of drafting an MJ, Magic, Duncan, Dream, Kobe, ect... Role players are easy to get once you have a shot at the title players want to win if they can't get close to max money. Honestly I can only think of two players that have ever changed team via free agency in their prime that were the type that could win it all for a team Shaq and Lebron.

llemon
10-11-2011, 10:52 PM
They're not trading player cards right? They don't just randomly trade off concessions if they have a purpose to what they're doing, and clearly they have a purpose. They're running a business and the working model needs repairing.

Why do you feel the need to take the players' side in this? Why take any side? None of them are actually "right". They're just trying to work out THEIR financial problems. They're not our financial problems, and we can easily live life without NBA ball. Easily. Let them both rot until they work out their own ****.

Sorry, but as for me, I'm a Union man.

When a business, or organization is not functioning properly, it is more than likely because of bad management.

How some of you don't understand this is quite mystifying.

blahblahyoutoo
10-11-2011, 11:02 PM
Mehhhh, I don't really see a problem with this...if teams want to grossly overspend, they'll have to pay for it.

yeah, I don't see a problem.
rewards teams for keeping within budget and not buying championships (ahem yankees).

and this is a fine for the team/owner right? i see how it indirectly hurts player salaries, but it hurts the owners just as much, if not more.

blahblahyoutoo
10-11-2011, 11:07 PM
Hard cap sounds good in theory.. Minny, NY, MIA, Toronto all offer the same money to a free agent. Small market teams will lose out no matter what they try. This lockout is all about the ego of Stern who promised new & old owners he would slaughter ther players in a new deal.

...until the big market teams are at their hard cap and unable to spend anymore.

then the players really have to choose between a bigger contract in a small market or a much lower contract to play in a big market, or play where ever the chances to win are greatest.

the biggest threat to all of this is euro leagues and others overseas.

The goods
10-11-2011, 11:18 PM
I agree with the owners on this one...

The Players don't want a hard cap, hit them over the head with this.

I am for a hard cap, as long as teams can restructure contracts.

Pretty much this.
It'll help balance the star power around the league and make it more competitve which is what I want to see.

blahblahyoutoo
10-11-2011, 11:18 PM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree... I fail to see how a system that has created the most popular basketball in NBA history needs to be completely revamped...

the "system" didn't create anything.
you had lebron, wade, kobe, etc. playing at or near their peak in the same season.
you had upcoming stars like westbrook, durant, griffin rising to stardom. you have international players like dirk, gasol, ginobli drawing interest from around the globe.

the talent and some additional drama created this season, not the system.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-11-2011, 11:22 PM
It's easy to create imaginary parity over a short span of time. Let's do the same thing for the NBA from 2004-2009:



There have been five difference NBA Finals winners (Pistons, Spurs, Heat, Celtics, Lakers) from 2004-2009.


and an assortment of eight clubs have advanced to the final (Pistons, Lakers, Spurs, Heat, Mavericks, Cavaliers, Celtics, Magic).

The Lakers also made the most final-four appearances at three



and 13 out of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference final at least once in this span. (Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Los Angeles Lakers, Minnesota Timberwolves, Miami Heat, Phoenix Suns, San Antonio Spurs, Dallas Mavericks, Utah Jazz, Cleveland Cavaliers, Boston Celtics, Orlando Magic, Denver Nuggets)

See what I did there? Those occurrences don't mean much in the grand scheme. We need at least a 20 year sample to see what trend is happening.

Yea but only in the NHL do you have the 7th and 8th seed in the conference finals since there's so much parity in the league.

blahblahyoutoo
10-11-2011, 11:26 PM
1) The NBA has been profitable without a hard cap. Isn't profitability the reason for the lockout? Not some chase for arbitrary parity.


no that's not the only reason for the lockout.
small market teams want the league to be more competitive.

blahblahyoutoo
10-11-2011, 11:36 PM
This system isn't designed for parity. It's designed to just lower overall salary to gain profit. The players will never approve a luxury tax that acts like a hard cap as mentioned by the OP. Cheap owners will still be cheap just trying to make profit and dumb GMs will still overpay for players. Same ish smaller budget. Does any1 think Minny and La will be on level playin fields. NY and Milwaukee will never be on equal terms in FA. It's a farce made up to drum up hope. This is a pure business move plain n simple

Please explain why it won't work.

have you ever played a bball video game where you were able to design your own player, and you were given 100 points to distribute into stats like agility, speed, shooting, dribbling, defense, rebounding, shot blocking, etc.?

if one person is given say 200 points, would he be able to create a better player than the guy that only has 100?
now if everyone is locked in at 100, you'd have to start thinking harder about where you want to allocate those points.
overspend in this area, and another will suffer.

this is the same principle. i don't see why its so hard to follow.

ink
10-11-2011, 11:38 PM
Sorry, but as for me, I'm a Union man.

When a business, or organization is not functioning properly, it is more than likely because of bad management.

How some of you don't understand this is quite mystifying.

Thank you for setting up the next logical step. If it's bad management (in this case, ridiculous salaries driven higher through loopholes to the past CBA) the natural next step is to make the systemic change to control those loopholes and rising costs.

I'm a union member myself because of the organization I have a contract with. But the living issues and salary issues we have to face have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the rich beyond reason athletes and agents we're talking about. None of this money is NEEDED by them as it would be by the usual unionized employee. This is just driven by a desire for more and more money. The league is crippled by bad contracts given out to loophole exceptions to the previous flawed CBA. That's all we're talking about here.

blahblahyoutoo
10-11-2011, 11:42 PM
This is f'ing blows The first time the Knicks are good in ten freaking years and there's a lockout. Screw this man. The owners are a bunch of pricks. Players have actually made concessions but the owners are a bunch of ***-wipes

the owners are pricks because they want more parity in the league, which hurts your teams chances of winning.
riiiight.... selfish much?

da ThRONe
10-12-2011, 12:05 AM
IMO every fan should have equal opportunity to have a quailty team to support. The more markets you can give hope to the more money you will make. I know many people hate comparing the NFL to the NBA, but I believe this is the main reason pigskin dominates hoops in income. Football is team over players sport. Also it gives the preception of every year every team has a chance to compete and even if you are rebuilding it doesn't take forever to get a team competitive if it's run properly.

llemon
10-12-2011, 12:06 AM
None of this money is NEEDED by them as it would be by the usual unionized employee. This is just driven by a desire for more and more money. The league is crippled by bad contracts given out to loophole exceptions to the previous flawed CBA. That's all we're talking about here.

Next 2 logical steps are...

If NONE of the money is need by the players, how much is needed by the owners, who are, at minimum, 50x richer than the best of players? Minimum.

Who gave out these ridiculous contracts through loophole exceptions because of a previously negotiated and agreed to flawed CBA? The players?

By your analysis, the players actually deserve more money, because you have now given the the responsibilities of being employees, the actual sellable product, AND you want them to do the jobs of NBA management organizations also.

Now THAT is multitasking, and worthy of every cent the players can squeeze out of lowlife, inefficient and incompetent owners.

As a union member, I'm sure you agree.

ink
10-12-2011, 12:18 AM
Next 2 logical steps are...

If NONE of the money is need by the players, how much is needed by the owners, who are, at minimum, 50x richer than the best of players? Minimum.

The owners OWN the league. They can make as much money as they like. It's how capitalism works. If the players don't like that they should start their own team/league. That would fail quickly because the one factor that everyone ignores in the discussion is the TALENT level of the people who own these leagues. It takes talent to run an organization too right?


Who gave out these ridiculous contracts through loophole exceptions because of a previously negotiated and agreed to flawed CBA? The players?

That's the whole point: the owners want to find ways to prevent the cycle from continuing. No one is blaming anyone, just saying that it has gotten out of hand and needs systemic change. The lockout will have been a bust if the change is only cosmetic as the players essentially want.

llemon
10-12-2011, 12:48 AM
The owners OWN the league. They can make as much money as they like. It's how capitalism works. If the players don't like that they should start their own team/league. That would fail quickly because the one factor that everyone ignores in the discussion is the TALENT level of the people who own these leagues. It takes talent to run an organization too right?



That's the whole point: the owners want to find ways to prevent the cycle from continuing. No one is blaming anyone, just saying that it has gotten out of hand and needs systemic change. The lockout will have been a bust if the change is only cosmetic as the players essentially want.

The owners own their teams. They DO NOT OWN the players. And this talent you say it takes to run these organizations, they 'supposedly' lost $1.5 Bil since the last CBA. I guess that does take a certain amount of talent.

The owners need to run their organizations more efficiently, and they need to make a united effort to keep this league afloat.

Now, if the Knicks or the Lakers don't want to participate in a revenue sharing plan, that is not on the players or the union. That is on the greed of the owners.

Sorry, you lost that argument.

ink
10-12-2011, 01:08 AM
The owners own their teams. They DO NOT OWN the players. And this talent you say it takes to run these organizations, they 'supposedly' lost $1.5 Bil since the last CBA. I guess that does take a certain amount of talent.

Be serious. Most of the owners have phenomenal holdings based on organizational and financial skill. The fact that they're losing money on an entertainment property is not that surprising. Again, that's why they want to improve the business conditions.

Besides, that's only one aspect. The other aspect is that the small markets are seeing this as an opportunity to restore some sanity to the costs and to level the playing field. The league can set itself up so that more teams can retain their talent. Having a competitive league with some degree of parity will only benefit the league in the end.


The owners need to run their organizations more efficiently, and they need to make a united effort to keep this league afloat.

That's the whole idea: they are putting up a united effort to keep the league afloat. And others have demonstrated how the owners actually run their operations quite efficiently already.


Now, if the Knicks or the Lakers don't want to participate in a revenue sharing plan, that is not on the players or the union. That is on the greed of the owners.

Sorry, you lost that argument.

Whatever. Your point didn't even really make any sense. You talk about two owners and generalize to say that all the owners are greedy. Not very persuasive.

llemon
10-12-2011, 01:15 AM
Be serious. Most of the owners have phenomenal holdings based on organizational and financial skill. The fact that they're losing money on an entertainment property is not that surprising. Again, that's why they want to improve the business conditions.

Besides, that's only one aspect. The other aspect is that the small markets are seeing this as an opportunity to restore some sanity to the costs and to level the playing field. The league can set itself up so that more teams can retain their talent. Having a competitive league with some degree of parity will only benefit the league in the end.



That's the whole idea: they are putting up a united effort to keep the league afloat. And others have demonstrated how the owners actually run their operations quite efficiently already.



Whatever. Your point didn't even really make any sense. You talk about two owners and generalize to say that all the owners are greedy. Not very persuasive.

Oh, I can understand that you weren't persuaded.

You think all the owners aren't greedy. That speaks for itself.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-12-2011, 01:40 AM
The owners own their teams. They DO NOT OWN the players. And this talent you say it takes to run these organizations, they 'supposedly' lost $1.5 Bil since the last CBA. I guess that does take a certain amount of talent.

The owners need to run their organizations more efficiently, and they need to make a united effort to keep this league afloat.

Now, if the Knicks or the Lakers don't want to participate in a revenue sharing plan, that is not on the players or the union. That is on the greed of the owners.

Sorry, you lost that argument.

They can't if people get greedy.

Why do you think companies with unions have problems. Because every time, they ask for outrageous raises or better benefits when they make more than they deserve.

Wade>You
10-12-2011, 01:42 AM
They can't if people get greedy.

Why do you think companies with unions have problems. Because every time, they ask for outrageous raises or better benefits when they make more than they deserve.players asking for more money is EXACTLY what the lockout is about :laugh:

ink
10-12-2011, 01:47 AM
Oh, I can understand that you weren't persuaded.

You think all the owners aren't greedy. That speaks for itself.

They're frigging capitalists what do you expect?? lol. They're in it for the money.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-12-2011, 01:51 AM
players asking for more money is EXACTLY what the lockout is about :laugh:

Where did I say that the NBA were specifically asking for a raise? I said the NBA players were being greedy.

Then I said in general, companies with unions get problems because people get greedy. I just said the raise part because that shows greediness most companies with unions.

I didn't think it was that hard to read.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 09:12 AM
Funny thing is that if the players agreed to 47 percent the owners would lay off these penalties and the hard cap. The owners hardly care about this so called parity. I understand it pretty damn well. Show the public one thing when ur really after what's in front of ur face. If small market teams pull in profit they could care less about winning... In 2010 a few small market teams had cap space and they were not even close to being thought of possible destinations..

daleja424
10-12-2011, 10:25 AM
IMO every fan should have equal opportunity to have a quailty team to support. The more markets you can give hope to the more money you will make. I know many people hate comparing the NFL to the NBA, but I believe this is the main reason pigskin dominates hoops in income. Football is team over players sport. Also it gives the preception of every year every team has a chance to compete and even if you are rebuilding it doesn't take forever to get a team competitive if it's run properly.

Wrong. The league is boring and loses casual fans when there aren't "great teams" in the league. EVERY so called "golden age" of basketball was an era dominated by one or two teams.

The NBA, from a profit standpoint, makes a lot more money when NY, LA, Chicago, etc have elite teams than it would with every team being leveled.

The pairing up up the big 3, while much maligned, was a HUGE CATALYST for the NBA last year. And guess what... the league sells infinitly more merchandise on superstars when they change teams. Lebron James sold more jerseys last year than any other player in the league... when was the last time that happened? His rookie year!

I understand the impulse to "level the playing field" but that is simple not in the best financial interest of the league. There are probably more Bulls, Lakers, and Knicks fans in the world than there are fans of the other 27 teams combined.

Lets look at some unscientific numbers here:

According to PSD-

There have been about 2 million posts made in the Lakers+Bulls+Knicks forum...

There have been less than 2 million posts made in the other 27 forums combined.

If you throw the Nets, Raptors, and HEAT in there (the next three biggest markets)... The big 6 have nearly 2.8 million posts... while the other 24 have less than HALF of THAT.

The league does better when the biggest markets are most engaged.

daleja424
10-12-2011, 10:36 AM
Parity sounds fan-friggin-tastic....until you get Milwaukee playing Minnesota in the Finals and all of about 8 people tune in to see it...

sixer04fan
10-12-2011, 10:48 AM
mehhhh, i don't really see a problem with this...if teams want to grossly overspend, they'll have to pay for it.

+1

Jay
10-12-2011, 11:30 AM
****. This is almost better than a hard cap.

Shmontaine
10-12-2011, 11:33 AM
Funny thing is that if the players agreed to 47 percent the owners would lay off these penalties and the hard cap.

i was thinking the same thing...

da ThRONe
10-12-2011, 11:41 AM
Wrong. The league is boring and loses casual fans when there aren't "great teams" in the league. EVERY so called "golden age" of basketball was an era dominated by one or two teams.

The NBA, from a profit standpoint, makes a lot more money when NY, LA, Chicago, etc have elite teams than it would with every team being leveled.

The pairing up up the big 3, while much maligned, was a HUGE CATALYST for the NBA last year. And guess what... the league sells infinitly more merchandise on superstars when they change teams. Lebron James sold more jerseys last year than any other player in the league... when was the last time that happened? His rookie year!

I understand the impulse to "level the playing field" but that is simple not in the best financial interest of the league. There are probably more Bulls, Lakers, and Knicks fans in the world than there are fans of the other 27 teams combined.

Lets look at some unscientific numbers here:

According to PSD-

There have been about 2 million posts made in the Lakers+Bulls+Knicks forum...

There have been less than 2 million posts made in the other 27 forums combined.

If you throw the Nets, Raptors, and HEAT in there (the next three biggest markets)... The big 6 have nearly 2.8 million posts... while the other 24 have less than HALF of THAT.

The league does better when the biggest markets are most engaged.

This is because all casual fans know is the large market teams the league has given unfair advantages to and have pushed on people for years. I always say a league built on large markets is a broken league.

The quality of a game doesn't matter where it's played it's who's playing in it. If Minnesota gets the proper media coverage it won't matter their market size or where the arena is. The league has gotten lazy because promoting the large market teams is the easy way out. The NFL can put any two teams in the Superbowl and do great numbers because they have the prefect setup. Some of which are exclusive to the sport of football, but most just comes down to marketing your league properly and parity is apart of that.

ink
10-12-2011, 11:56 AM
According to PSD-

There have been about 2 million posts made in the Lakers+Bulls+Knicks forum...

There have been less than 2 million posts made in the other 27 forums combined.

If you throw the Nets, Raptors, and HEAT in there (the next three biggest markets)... The big 6 have nearly 2.8 million posts... while the other 24 have less than HALF of THAT.

The league does better when the biggest markets are most engaged.

Only problem with that is that several of those forums were huge even when the teams weren't stacked or weren't that good. Lakers (pre-Gasol) forum was bigger than it is now; Raptors has always been big and they've rarely had a contending team; Knicks and Bulls have both been OK or weak, yet their forums were huge; etc. I remember the Heat forum exploding leading up to the Beasley draft because I remember exactly what the post numbers were before that happened. They were tied with PHX and about double the number of posts that SA had. Fans in large areas tend to love their basketball, and that has little to nothing to do with the financial structure of the league.

beasted86
10-12-2011, 12:22 PM
Only problem with that is that several of those forums were huge even when the teams weren't stacked or weren't that good. Lakers (pre-Gasol) forum was bigger than it is now; Raptors has always been big and they've rarely had a contending team; Knicks and Bulls have both been OK or weak, yet their forums were huge; etc. I remember the Heat forum exploding leading up to the Beasley draft because I remember exactly what the post numbers were before that happened. They were tied with PHX and about double the number of posts that SA had. Fans in large areas tend to love their basketball, and that has little to nothing to do with the financial structure of the league.

But his point about playoff ratings will stand correct... Playoff and Final ratings suffer when small market teams advance. Aside from that as many active fans the big cities already have, they have twice as many fairweather fans who crawl out of the woodwork once the team is good.

Miami is consistently in the top half of teams in attendance anyway even when the team is mediocre, but during these big 3 years and the Shaq years we skyrocket to top 3 in attendance just like the snap of a finger. Doesn't matter how good Indiana or Memphis gets they don't have that volume of fans to do the same even if they pulled a blockbuster trade and instantly become a top team.

Just by a numbers standpoint, it's better business to have the bigger cities relevant.

Southsideheat
10-12-2011, 12:28 PM
This new luxury tax system has nothing to due with parity. What it does is ensure lower market teams from losing money. Stern and company love that LA, NY, Miami, Chicago, Dallas are the best teams in the league.

I'm not really sure why the players have issues with this. The union is being headed by big stars who not only want to make the most money, but dictate on what teams they want to go to. That's why they don't want a hard cap. Meanwhile, the rest of the league has to suffer because they won't have those same luxuries. A hard cap for he regular player really has no affect on them. The union needs to wake up and smell the coffee. They want it all.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 12:30 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/sports/basketball/owners-and-players-divided-by-push-to-restructure-the-nba.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=basketball

i DONT KNOW IF THIS IS ALLOWED BUT ITS A GOOD READ..

beasted86
10-12-2011, 12:31 PM
My biggest thing is I truly believe a lot of this is still posturing because it doesnt make sense for many of the bigger market teams to allow some of this stuff to get passed thru. If what they speculate about luxury tax did indeed go through, I can't imagine the Buss family enjoying paying all that money, and still revenue sharing on top of that, and not getting an MLE and so forth. Cripples the whole point in owning the Lakers if thats the case... makes more sense to sell and buy a mid market team like Philly or Atlanta.

ink
10-12-2011, 12:32 PM
But his point about playoff ratings will stand correct... Playoff and Final ratings suffer when small market teams advance. Aside from that as many active fans the big cities already have, they have twice as many fairweather fans who crawl out of the woodwork once the team is good.

Miami is consistently in the top half of teams in attendance anyway even when the team is mediocre, but during these big 3 years and the Shaq years we skyrocket to top 3 in attendance just like the snap of a finger. Doesn't matter how good Indiana or Memphis gets they don't have that volume of fans to do the same even if they pulled a blockbuster trade and instantly become a top team.

Just by a numbers standpoint, it's better business to have the bigger cities relevant.

You must realize that everyone including the owners knows that big market teams in playoff series are better business. I mean it gets talked about every time in every pro sports league in the world when a small market team gets into the playoffs. You're talking about the profitability of the end of the season while the small market (and even many large market) teams are talking about the profitability of the entire season. They are suggesting, and I think they're right, that the big franchises in the league will always draw a bigger gate wherever and whenever they play and they can afford not to have megabucks finals every single year between the Celtics and Lakers or whoever has stacked their roster in this year or this generation. Entire league/season over limited window in the playoffs. Health of the whole league over health of the league only in the final weeks.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 12:33 PM
But again, the union views the parity issue as a red herring, an excuse to shift hundreds of millions of dollars from players to owners. Many economists are unconvinced that payroll controls do much to promote competitive balance.

“The statistical correlation between payroll and win percentage is practically nonexistent,” said Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College, who has studied the issue.

Despite apparent trends in the N.B.A., Mr. Zimbalist said the league did not have a competitive balance problem. He cited the Heat, who have made the league’s championship finals twice in six years despite playing in the nation’s 16th-largest television market. He also cited the Knicks, who have not won a playoff game in 10 years despite having one of the highest payrolls.

ink
10-12-2011, 12:35 PM
My biggest thing is I truly believe a lot of this is still posturing because it doesnt make sense for many of the bigger market teams to allow some of this stuff to get passed thru. If what they speculate about luxury tax did indeed go through, I can't imagine the Buss family enjoying paying all that money, and still revenue sharing on top of that, and not getting an MLE and so forth. Cripples the whole point in owning the Lakers if thats the case... makes more sense to sell and buy a mid market team like Philly or Atlanta.

I hear what you're saying and I've made the same point somewhere else. My take on it is that if the bigger market teams have finally come on board with these measures, they must really feel that it's justified. As you say, they stand to make more profit with the old system. But they understand that they need to support a stronger overall league so they are willing to accept the limitations imposed on their seemingly infinite budgets.

Southsideheat
10-12-2011, 12:43 PM
The fact is, the 8 teams that made money, was partly because of the 22 that didn't. If that wasn't the case, the 8 teams would just have they're own league.

ink
10-12-2011, 12:51 PM
But again, the union views the parity issue as a red herring, an excuse to shift hundreds of millions of dollars from players to owners. Many economists are unconvinced that payroll controls do much to promote competitive balance.

“The statistical correlation between payroll and win percentage is practically nonexistent,” said Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College, who has studied the issue.

Despite apparent trends in the N.B.A., Mr. Zimbalist said the league did not have a competitive balance problem. He cited the Heat, who have made the league’s championship finals twice in six years despite playing in the nation’s 16th-largest television market. He also cited the Knicks, who have not won a playoff game in 10 years despite having one of the highest payrolls.

To put it bluntly the issue is about having access to talent. If the big teams are capped out, they can't stockpile talent. That's mainly what small market teams want to control. They're talking about a better chance at winning where a few markets don't always pull in all the top talent through loopholes in the collective bargaining agreement. They're talking about the beginning of the equation, the acquisition of talent. In pro sport everyone believes they can win or they wouldn't even try right? But the incentive to even try is killed when big market teams stack the odds against small market teams.

Of course players want absolute freedom. They want to make as much money or get to play with the team that has stacked itself to win a championship. One of the by-products of free agency is that there is almost no team loyalty anymore. Most of the best are as mercenary as possible in this generation. Players like Durant or TD are the rare exceptions that think of their team as their career long team like Jordan (almost 1,000 games with the same team) and Hakeem (1177) and Stockton (1504) and others did. I think that was why there was so much outrage about the 2010 free agency period, and they're trying to put in measures to make it much harder for that kind of FA frenzy from happening in the future. I know there are a lot of people that would support that.

Hellcrooner
10-12-2011, 01:04 PM
MMMMMMMMMM, WHY ARE NBA owners so cheap?

there are SEVERAL soccer teams with budgets of 500+ million dollars out there.

llemon
10-12-2011, 01:06 PM
Where did I say that the NBA were specifically asking for a raise? I said the NBA players were being greedy.

Then I said in general, companies with unions get problems because people get greedy. I just said the raise part because that shows greediness most companies with unions.

I didn't think it was that hard to read.

And the reason there are unions is because owners were greedy, and often inhuman.

blahblahyoutoo
10-12-2011, 01:50 PM
Miami is consistently in the top half of teams in attendance anyway even when the team is mediocre, but during these big 3 years and the Shaq years we skyrocket to top 3 in attendance just like the snap of a finger. Doesn't matter how good Indiana or Memphis gets they don't have that volume of fans to do the same even if they pulled a blockbuster trade and instantly become a top team.


can't compare FL sports teams when half of those in attendance here are transplants.
:mad:

blahblahyoutoo
10-12-2011, 01:51 PM
MMMMMMMMMM, WHY ARE NBA owners so cheap?

there are SEVERAL soccer teams with budgets of 500+ million dollars out there.

please go take an arithmetic course before commenting again, thanks.

blahblahyoutoo
10-12-2011, 01:59 PM
Despite apparent trends in the N.B.A., Mr. Zimbalist said the league did not have a competitive balance problem. He cited the Heat, who have made the league’s championship finals twice in six years despite playing in the nation’s 16th-largest television market. He also cited the Knicks, who have not won a playoff game in 10 years despite having one of the highest payrolls.

stark difference when you spend $20M or whatever amount for marbury and curry vs $16M for LBJ/Bosh/Wade.
one team was mismanaged, the other was not.

not apples to apples.

daleja424
10-12-2011, 05:13 PM
stark difference when you spend $20M or whatever amount for marbury and curry vs $16M for LBJ/Bosh/Wade.
one team was mismanaged, the other was not.

not apples to apples.

That is the point...it is not just about money...it is about how you spend it...

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 05:21 PM
That is the point...it is not just about money...it is about how you spend it...

EXACTLY. Long b4 Marbury we had a bloated payroll. 10 years of misery and we had a high payroll. Plenty of smaller market team succeeded in that time frame.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 05:22 PM
stark difference when you spend $20M or whatever amount for marbury and curry vs $16M for LBJ/Bosh/Wade.
one team was mismanaged, the other was not.

not apples to apples.

exactly.With a lower budget who's to say the same wont happen with another trio. Its never been about parity. Its about the money for the owners.

daleja424
10-12-2011, 05:42 PM
I am not going to say market/money do not matter... obviously they do... but there have been high payroll teams that have been awful and low payroll teams that have done well. It is not as simple as being able to buy titles... it requires a FO that knows what it is doing.

ink
10-12-2011, 06:09 PM
I am not going to say market/money do not matter... obviously they do... but there have been high payroll teams that have been awful and low payroll teams that have done well. It is not as simple as being able to buy titles... it requires a FO that knows what it is doing.

There's no doubt. There's no guarantee that with prohibitive luxury taxes or a hard cap that the small market teams are going to win. The point is that they want a fair shot at the first stage of building a winner: talent acquisition.

In other words, don't prejudge the outcome based on winning when the small market teams are focusing on the first step.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-13-2011, 12:16 AM
And the reason there are unions is because owners were greedy, and often inhuman.

Oh I'm not saying unions are bad.

But in most cases, employees get greedy when they have unions because they think they'll be saving their ***** every time. We had the unions of the garbage men here asking to be paid the same as a fire fighter and police men. Greedy **** if you ask me to pick up garbage.

In this case, while the players would be making less, they'd still be making a lot more money that people actually working.

llemon
10-13-2011, 02:13 PM
Oh I'm not saying unions are bad.

But in most cases, employees get greedy when they have unions because they think they'll be saving their ***** every time. We had the unions of the garbage men here asking to be paid the same as a fire fighter and police men. Greedy **** if you ask me to pick up garbage.

In this case, while the players would be making less, they'd still be making a lot more money that people actually working.

Picking other people's garbage everyday sounds like something you want to do?

Firefighters get the women, Cops get the payoffs.

It all evens out.

uprightciti
10-13-2011, 02:43 PM
screw the nba

Tom Stone
10-13-2011, 03:12 PM
I am not going to say market/money do not matter... obviously they do... but there have been high payroll teams that have been awful and low payroll teams that have done well. It is not as simple as being able to buy titles... it requires a FO that knows what it is doing.




Your missing the big piture.....the high payroll teams don't have to be carefully as much as the small market teams....if they make a mistake....they just grab another player thus creating many bad contracts....If the big market teams had a hard cap, you wouldn't see bad contract after bad contract, they would have to make smarter deals.......Derrick fisher recently made a comment about the fairness of the current system, saying something along the lines of, it's not our problem about the equality of a fair league....it's a super star driven league.....and they couldn't care less about a fair system....in other words...haveing a broken system that will eventually turn into a Yankee situation is better for the players money and were good with that........I hate Derrick Fisher and anyone who supports the players in this fight !

llemon
10-13-2011, 03:25 PM
Your missing the big piture.....the high payroll teams don't have to be carefully as much as the small market teams....if they make a mistake....they just grab another player thus creating many bad contracts....If the big market teams had a hard cap, you wouldn't see bad contract after bad contract, they would have to make smarter deals.......Derrick fisher recently made a comment about the fairness of the current system, saying something along the lines of, it's not our problem about the equality of a fair league....it's a super star driven league.....and they couldn't care less about a fair system....in other words...haveing a broken system that will eventually turn into a Yankee situation is better for the players money and were good with that........I hate Derrick Fisher and anyone who supports the players in this fight !

In that case, I hate you too.

blahblahyoutoo
10-13-2011, 06:07 PM
exactly.With a lower budget who's to say the same wont happen with another trio. Its never been about parity. Its about the money for the owners.

That's not what I'm saying at all.
I don't claim to know what's in the owners mind and their intentions.
I don't even know how labor negotiations work, what provisions are in place and allowed for.

All I know is mathematics and some logic, and a cap evens the playing ground.

daleja424
10-13-2011, 06:10 PM
Your missing the big piture.....the high payroll teams don't have to be carefully as much as the small market teams....if they make a mistake....they just grab another player thus creating many bad contracts....If the big market teams had a hard cap, you wouldn't see bad contract after bad contract, they would have to make smarter deals.......Derrick fisher recently made a comment about the fairness of the current system, saying something along the lines of, it's not our problem about the equality of a fair league....it's a super star driven league.....and they couldn't care less about a fair system....in other words...haveing a broken system that will eventually turn into a Yankee situation is better for the players money and were good with that........I hate Derrick Fisher and anyone who supports the players in this fight !

Think about the 5 greatest eras of NBA basketball you can come up with. How many of those great eras of NBA basketball were great b/c everyone had a shot to win? How many of those eras were great b/c of superteams?

Chew on that and get back to me...

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 06:13 PM
That's not what I'm saying at all.
I don't claim to know what's in the owners mind and their intentions.
I don't even know how labor negotiations work, what provisions are in place and allowed for.

All I know is mathematics and some logic, and a cap evens the playing ground.

I agree but a totally restrictive cap wont even it out as much as you think if it comes down to 2 or 3 mil per year when its Minny vs Ny in a FA battle. And they want shorter contracts. Who do you think wins? This is all BRI split tactics

arkanian215
10-13-2011, 06:51 PM
Just eyeballing it, teams paid about $90 million in luxury taxes to the league. Now they want to increase the payment from owners to the league. Owning larger market teams under the new scenario will theoretically be less profitable.

Anilyzer
10-13-2011, 07:19 PM
Mehhhh, I don't really see a problem with this...if teams want to grossly overspend, they'll have to pay for it.

What small market teams don't realize is, they'll be getting the harsher end of the stick.

While it kind of protects small market owners against themselves, and seems to level the playing field, what will happen is that every team can offer the same (smaller) contract to valued free agents.

And since more and more of the pie will be in ENDORSEMENTS, in big market exposure and stardom, and a smaller and smaller amount will come from actual player contracts, what chance will a Toronto or an Oklahoma city have to hang on to a Lebron or other top notch player?

Anyways... I'm somewhat pissed about all of this. I feel like the small market teams are messing it up for the rest of us who live in cities with glamorous, high revenue, big market teams. The league just HAD to expand, and keep on expanding. And all these pizza moguls or whatever just HAD to buy a team for $400M and move it to some small country town somewhere.

And NOW they're going to break the system by dragging everybody else down, not allowing teams to bid on top players and woo them, and on top of that they're threatening to cancel the season.

These "Tea Party" owners should really just sell their teams and get into another type of business, other than NBA. Or just face facts that Stern has swindled you, and live with it.

goodnight now

daleja424
10-13-2011, 07:23 PM
What small market teams don't realize is, they'll be getting the harsher end of the stick.

While it kind of protects small market owners against themselves, and seems to level the playing field, what will happen is that every team can offer the same (smaller) contract to valued free agents.

And since more and more of the pie will be in ENDORSEMENTS, in big market exposure and stardom, and a smaller and smaller amount will come from actual player contracts, what chance will a Toronto or an Oklahoma city have to hang on to a Lebron or other top notch player?

Anyways... I'm somewhat pissed about all of this. I feel like the small market teams are messing it up for the rest of us who live in cities with glamorous, high revenue, big market teams. The league just HAD to expand, and keep on expanding. And all these pizza moguls or whatever just HAD to buy a team for $400M and move it to some small country town somewhere.

And NOW they're going to break the system by dragging everybody else down, not allowing teams to bid on top players and woo them, and on top of that they're threatening to cancel the season.

These "Tea Party" owners should really just sell their teams and get into another type of business, other than NBA. Or just face facts that Stern has swindled you, and live with it.

goodnight now

I actually agree with this to a certain degree. Once this new system finds its feet you are going to end up with a majority of teams up against the cap with not much to offer...and guys are going to chose the good cities with lots more endorsement opps.

ink
10-13-2011, 08:40 PM
What small market teams don't realize is, they'll be getting the harsher end of the stick.

While it kind of protects small market owners against themselves, and seems to level the playing field, what will happen is that every team can offer the same (smaller) contract to valued free agents.

What you're forgetting is that those owners used to running up a huge luxury tax bill may not be very good at operating within the new system so they will find THEMSELVES unable to offer much to FAs. They may also not be able to resign their own FAs because of poor cap management, but mainly they will not be able to bloat their payroll with big MLE signings. They will have no more financial advantages than any other team unless they want to go into the luxury tax. And that loophole is exactly why I think the proposed luxury tax may end up making this systemic change too small to be effective enough.


These "Tea Party" owners should really just sell their teams and get into another type of business, other than NBA.

Haha. I've seen the "tea party" parallels elsewhere and they absolutely do not fit. There is nothing at all political about any of this and these athletes are by no means hard done by. These operations are big business and these "workers" have by far the best working conditions of any "worker" anywhere. These players are spoiled millionaires themselves and hardly suffering. The parallel just doesn't work.

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 09:15 PM
Think about the 5 greatest eras of NBA basketball you can come up with. How many of those great eras of NBA basketball were great b/c everyone had a shot to win? How many of those eras were great b/c of superteams?

Chew on that and get back to me...

The owners don't think in those terms. They simply want a return on their investment. Abstractions like "great eras" mean nothing to them.

daleja424
10-13-2011, 09:21 PM
The owners don't think in those terms. They simply want a return on their investment. Abstractions like "great eras" mean nothing to them.

Return on investment makes sense to me... competitive balance is a separate issue though...

blahblahyoutoo
10-13-2011, 10:02 PM
I agree but a totally restrictive cap wont even it out as much as you think if it comes down to 2 or 3 mil per year when its Minny vs Ny in a FA battle. And they want shorter contracts. Who do you think wins? This is all BRI split tactics

lets see if you agree with this scenario. lets use the knicks as an example.

current cap is roughly $60M.
here are your player salaries. next season, stat is making $20M, melo is making $19.5M.

you want to add cp3 to the roster by then as well right? he's deserving of at least $15M based on his talent level.

that's $55M tied up by 3 guys and you still need to sign another 9 guys for $5M total in a hard cap scenario.
think you can find 9 quality guys that will each play for $500k a year?

currently, rich owners or big market team owners just laugh at the luxury tax because they can either afford it, or they're in a big enough market where they can recoup the cost by selling more tickets, merchandise, advertising, etc.
small market teams don't have that luxury.
agree so far?

with a hard cap, owners and GM's will have to play by the same rules as the "lesser" owners, which means they have to think twice before offering huge contracts for players.
(a positive side effect, no overpaying for scrubs)

ultimately what I think will happen is overall salaries are going to decrease. star players will still get hefty contracts, not quite as big as before but still head and shoulders above the rest, and they'll build around him... sort of like a franchise player type of deal.

another possible scenario is what lbj/wade/bosh did, which is to agree to take a lower than market value contract in an attempt to stack a team to win a ring. i think this is a less likely scenario. egos are too big in the NBA.
as we all witnessed last season, it wasn't as easy as they thought. not to mention they're well above the cap with that roster. with a hard cap in place, it will be even more difficult.

players are really going to have to chose between winning and money.

so how does this improve parity?
well, obviously the knicks won't be able to get all 3 mega stars and fill a 12 man roster with quality players.
so basically they'll be a big 2 which means the guy left out will seek another team that isn't capped.
he'll get picked up by another team and have 11 very good players alongside him.
less stacked teams, more parity.

to answer your NY vs MIN question, sure CP3 might be willing to take $3M less to join NY, but now that leaves them with nothing to sign other quality guys because they can't go over the cap. sure, they'll have a really good big 3, but they won't be winning any championships with fields, rautins, walker, douglas, balkman (just picked 5 guys off the roster that sum up to $5M).
meanwhile, even if shunned by superstars, MIN has a lot of cap space to sign a good starting 5 + bench.

i thought this was all pretty logical, but apparently i'm wrong.

blahblahyoutoo
10-13-2011, 10:31 PM
What small market teams don't realize is, they'll be getting the harsher end of the stick.

While it kind of protects small market owners against themselves, and seems to level the playing field, what will happen is that every team can offer the same (smaller) contract to valued free agents.

And since more and more of the pie will be in ENDORSEMENTS, in big market exposure and stardom, and a smaller and smaller amount will come from actual player contracts, what chance will a Toronto or an Oklahoma city have to hang on to a Lebron or other top notch player?

Anyways... I'm somewhat pissed about all of this. I feel like the small market teams are messing it up for the rest of us who live in cities with glamorous, high revenue, big market teams. The league just HAD to expand, and keep on expanding. And all these pizza moguls or whatever just HAD to buy a team for $400M and move it to some small country town somewhere.

And NOW they're going to break the system by dragging everybody else down, not allowing teams to bid on top players and woo them, and on top of that they're threatening to cancel the season.

These "Tea Party" owners should really just sell their teams and get into another type of business, other than NBA. Or just face facts that Stern has swindled you, and live with it.

goodnight now

leave the politics out of it.
:rolleyes:

i don't disagree. big cities are more lucrative with more opportunity for other sources of income.

but only the marketable mega stars like lebron, kobe, etc. make a substantial amount of money through endorsements. if you're at that level, you'll be sought after by Nike whether you're in NY or CLE.

so you propose that nothing be done to close the gap and continue to allow larger markets to run away with all the advantages?

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 10:48 PM
Detroit and San Antonio have won championships, and OKC is in great shape while NY and NJ continue to flounder. So there's no automatic correlation between market size/wealth of market and success.

On the other hand, smaller market teams have less room for error. Their local tv deals will be smaller and they'll either sell fewer tickets and/or sell them at lower prices, on average.

To put it more simply, any mistake a small market team makes has much more severe consequences for them relative to a large market team.

BigCityofDreams
10-13-2011, 10:49 PM
Your missing the big piture.....the high payroll teams don't have to be carefully as much as the small market teams....if they make a mistake....they just grab another player thus creating many bad contracts....If the big market teams had a hard cap, you wouldn't see bad contract after bad contract, they would have to make smarter deals.......Derrick fisher recently made a comment about the fairness of the current system, saying something along the lines of, it's not our problem about the equality of a fair league....it's a super star driven league.....and they couldn't care less about a fair system....in other words...haveing a broken system that will eventually turn into a Yankee situation is better for the players money and were good with that........I hate Derrick Fisher and anyone who supports the players in this fight !

You hate a man you don't know and never met before because he's looking out for the players in the league WTF.

BigCityofDreams
10-13-2011, 10:54 PM
leave the politics out of it.
:rolleyes:

i don't disagree. big cities are more lucrative with more opportunity for other sources of income.

but only the marketable mega stars like lebron, kobe, etc. make a substantial amount of money through endorsements. if you're at that level, you'll be sought after by Nike whether you're in NY or CLE.

so you propose that nothing be done to close the gap and continue to allow larger markets to run away with all the advantages?

I'm for revenue sharing and things along those lines but completely against a hard cap.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-14-2011, 09:29 AM
I understand perfectly bro. That system still won't keep stars in smaller markets . Owwners will lowball role players for stars everyday of the week. with shorter contracts with an eye on future FA they will get the low end of the deal. The middle men of the NBA players get screwed. That's y they are against a hard cap. Mid tier players make up most of the league and they will get shafted. They will get low short contracts and the stars will still get payed. Still no parity. It's a stars league when it comes to contenders. And under a hard cap u still can't guarantee that a Minny can even have a duo like Amare n Melo. So they are still at the bottom of the food chain


lets see if you agree with this scenario. lets use the knicks as an example.

current cap is roughly $60M.
here are your player salaries. next season, stat is making $20M, melo is making $19.5M.

you want to add cp3 to the roster by then as well right? he's deserving of at least $15M based on his talent level.

that's $55M tied up by 3 guys and you still need to sign another 9 guys for $5M total in a hard cap scenario.
think you can find 9 quality guys that will each play for $500k a year?

currently, rich owners or big market team owners just laugh at the luxury tax because they can either afford it, or they're in a big enough market where they can recoup the cost by selling more tickets, merchandise, advertising, etc.
small market teams don't have that luxury.
agree so far?

with a hard cap, owners and GM's will have to play by the same rules as the "lesser" owners, which means they have to think twice before offering huge contracts for players.
(a positive side effect, no overpaying for scrubs)

ultimately what I think will happen is overall salaries are going to decrease. star players will still get hefty contracts, not quite as big as before but still head and shoulders above the rest, and they'll build around him... sort of like a franchise player type of deal.

another possible scenario is what lbj/wade/bosh did, which is to agree to take a lower than market value contract in an attempt to stack a team to win a ring. i think this is a less likely scenario. egos are too big in the NBA.
as we all witnessed last season, it wasn't as easy as they thought. not to mention they're well above the cap with that roster. with a hard cap in place, it will be even more difficult.

players are really going to have to chose between winning and money.

so how does this improve parity?
well, obviously the knicks won't be able to get all 3 mega stars and fill a 12 man roster with quality players.
so basically they'll be a big 2 which means the guy left out will seek another team that isn't capped.
he'll get picked up by another team and have 11 very good players alongside him.
less stacked teams, more parity.

to answer your NY vs MIN question, sure CP3 might be willing to take $3M less to join NY, but now that leaves them with nothing to sign other quality guys because they can't go over the cap. sure, they'll have a really good big 3, but they won't be winning any championships with fields, rautins, walker, douglas, balkman (just picked 5 guys off the roster that sum up to $5M).
meanwhile, even if shunned by superstars, MIN has a lot of cap space to sign a good starting 5 + bench.

i thought this was all pretty logical, but apparently i'm wrong.

Anilyzer
10-15-2011, 01:51 AM
What you're forgetting is that those owners used to running up a huge luxury tax bill may not be very good at operating within the new system so they will find THEMSELVES unable to offer much to FAs. They may also not be able to resign their own FAs because of poor cap management, but mainly they will not be able to bloat their payroll with big MLE signings. They will have no more financial advantages than any other team unless they want to go into the luxury tax. And that loophole is exactly why I think the proposed luxury tax may end up making this systemic change too small to be effective enough.

You're right, it is just an attempt to mess things up and put teams who try to use their spending power in a bad position. Unfortunately, the bad teams lose AGAIN.

The problem with a hard or semi-hard cap is that the NBA has longterm guaranteed contracts. Even if you shorten them to 4 years max, they are still four years, and they are still guaranteed.

Contracts will accumulate, draft picks will come along (especially for bad teams), players will be signed, etc. The agents are STILL going to put all the pressure on teams to re-sign a top player like a Blake Griffin or a Dwight Howard, so those teams will become top heavy in salary with one or two good players, and maxed out right at the cap. And then the poor teams have to spend a bunch of luxury tax, which they sorely cannot afford.

The fact that a team like the Lakers, then, can afford to pay out $20M in luxury tax then becomes an even huger advantage... the steeper you make the cost, the more jammed up the small teams will be, and the more valuable that extra bit of maneuverability will be.

If the Tea Party teams were on the ball, they'd demand some kind of deal where the luxury tax is based on a percentage of profits or revenue or something, that is, all the profits are shared in a big pool, and divided equally at the end. But *HAH HAH* we don't live in communist Russia so too bad.




Haha. I've seen the "tea party" parallels elsewhere and they absolutely do not fit. There is nothing at all political about any of this and these athletes are by no means hard done by. These operations are big business and these "workers" have by far the best working conditions of any "worker" anywhere. These players are spoiled millionaires themselves and hardly suffering. The parallel just doesn't work.

Naw, they can be likened to Tea Partiers. There is a small group of disruptive owners that have taken issue with the current system, and seek to overthrow it. What they don't realize is that Stern is actually in bed with the players union, the big agents and all the big corporate money.

So... look for things to... NOT change very much. The owners get some more revenue percentage... slightly higher luxury tax... *whatever*

I still say the fact that we always give the best draft picks to the worst teams just sucks value from the league. Blake Griffin would be worth an extra billion to the league on the Celtics or a team like that.

Anilyzer
10-15-2011, 01:54 AM
What we're waiting on now is for the "Tea Party" owners to get scared and **** their pants, so that a deal can be done.

This is what happens:

1. Tuesday, no deal occurs, players don't even try because they're in on the scam.

2. One or two of the owners, probably the Cleveland guy, will *freak out* in the media, saying it is so unfair and trashing the players union.

3. Stern will say "*sigh*, looks like this season is history guys."

4. Owners come back around FAST and deal gets done. *wheeeeeee* basketball at xmas.

Anilyzer
10-15-2011, 02:07 AM
leave the politics out of it.
:rolleyes:

i don't disagree. big cities are more lucrative with more opportunity for other sources of income.

but only the marketable mega stars like lebron, kobe, etc. make a substantial amount of money through endorsements. if you're at that level, you'll be sought after by Nike whether you're in NY or CLE.

so you propose that nothing be done to close the gap and continue to allow larger markets to run away with all the advantages?

Look... ultimately it's about free agency. That's what scares the pants off the small market teams.

After Cleveland left Lebron, the owner there made some very inflammatory comments which led a lot of people to say he was acting like an angry slave owner. He was VERY angry that Lebron had left... and Lebron leaving had nothing to do with money. In fact, Lebron actually took LESS money to leave, and after watching the owner's angry little face, who can blame him?

They can't outlaw free agency... so they're just trying to subvert the system, by changing the economics in such a way that good, quality teams (not big market teams, just quality teams. See: San Antonio) can't make any kind of an offer at all.

If all the teams are "maxed" and the luxury tax is 4x or whatever, then free agency is done and Cleveland can hold onto Lebron for his whole career. THEN the owner is happy. Then the owner doesn't even care about revenue sharing, because he can just cash in on Lebron tee shirts and sold out stadiums.

However, of course, the league is less fun, less entertaining, and their stars become chumped out Marcus Allens, being controlled by angry owners.

LoL, the biggest FU to the small market/poorly or self-run/fantasy GM/no tradition teams was the proposal about no guaranteed contracts.

LoL if there were no guaranteed contracts, the top teams would be able to use free agency to absolutely STACK their teams. And if you add in some kind of a "franchise" tag (you can't tell me they didn't ask for that!!) it's worse, because now you're paying Lebron above the max to say in a town he hates, and you have a hard cap so you can't pay any role players, and it just goes on and on until Lebron sees an opening and then he's gone to a good team.

Heediot
10-15-2011, 11:13 AM
Off topic but for Christ sake Lebron BARELY took less much money ANNUALY when he left Cleveland. I bet he wouldn't take 5 million less ANNUAL AVG. to leave for Miami.

daleja424
10-15-2011, 11:19 AM
Off topic but for Christ sake Lebron BARELY took less much money ANNUALY when he left Cleveland. I bet he wouldn't take 5 million less ANNUAL AVG. to leave for Miami.

1. He committed to the HEAT before he knew how much he would make. They wasn't figured out until later when the HEAT worked out a S/T.

2. Wade/Lebron/Bosh gave up an extra 6+ mil annually combined so that the HEAT could bring in Miller and resign Haslem.

3. The three guys gave up 45 million over 6 years, Lebron himself giving up 15 million over 6 years...(http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5368003)

Vinylman
10-15-2011, 11:29 AM
1. He committed to the HEAT before he knew how much he would make. They wasn't figured out until later when the HEAT worked out a S/T.

2. Wade/Lebron/Bosh gave up an extra 6+ mil annually combined so that the HEAT could bring in Miller and resign Haslem.

3. The three guys gave up 45 million over 6 years, Lebron himself giving up 15 million over 6 years...(http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5368003)

They all have outs after 3 years and also went into the deal knowing a new CBA would be in place after 1 year... so what did they really give up????? We won't know until the new CBA is signed... Also, if you think he didn't believe a S&T would get done you are naive... both he and bosh were S&T because it obviously benefitted their prior teams... it was a foregone conclusion that it would happen.

daleja424
10-15-2011, 11:31 AM
They all have outs after 3 years and also went into the deal knowing a new CBA would be in place after 1 year... so what did they really give up????? We won't know until the new CBA is signed... Also, if you think he didn't believe a S&T would get done you are naive... both he and bosh were S&T because it obviously benefitted their prior teams... it was a foregone conclusion that it would happen.

1. They have outs after 4 years, not 3 years
2. The new CBA is likely to further reduce their salaries, so they probably won't opt out.
3. How could he know a S/T would happen when Gilbert said he wouldn't do a S/T that would get Lebron more money? He may have WANTED a S/T but he agreed to play for the HEAT before he knew whether he would get one or not.

Heediot
10-15-2011, 11:39 AM
1. He committed to the HEAT before he knew how much he would make. They wasn't figured out until later when the HEAT worked out a S/T.

2. Wade/Lebron/Bosh gave up an extra 6+ mil annually combined so that the HEAT could bring in Miller and resign Haslem.

3. The three guys gave up 45 million over 6 years, Lebron himself giving up 15 million over 6 years...(http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5368003)

2.5 mill per year not bad...... More than I thought lol.

beasted86
10-15-2011, 11:44 AM
They all have outs after 3 years and also went into the deal knowing a new CBA would be in place after 1 year... so what did they really give up????? We won't know until the new CBA is signed... Also, if you think he didn't believe a S&T would get done you are naive... both he and bosh were S&T because it obviously benefitted their prior teams... it was a foregone conclusion that it would happen.

Actually research what Bosh said in an interview after committing to the Heat. He said he would commit to the Heat with or without any sign and trade, as Toronto was playing a lot of games in refusing sign & trade deals that were on the table to benefit them.

I believe one of the Heat's initial offers was Beasley and their own 1st back, and they said no. They ended up settling for their own 1st back and an extra 1st (our 2011 pick), which they ended up trading away for James Johnson from the Bulls. See where their hard headed way led them? Beasley > James Johnson. They could have taken the deal but instead played games and ended up with less.

Vinylman
10-15-2011, 11:45 AM
The real problem in the NBA is simple.... there is not enough talent to warrant the number of teams that exists which exacerbates the have's and have nots. Until the NBA deals with the underlying competitive issues of the league the CBA is irrelevant. How do you create a better product and a more competitive league... easy

1. contraction... eliminate 4 teams... who is going to miss the bottom 50 or so players in the league? This has the side benefit of improving the NBADL's effectiveness.

2. Implement a franchise tag system similar to the NFL so that stars are not able to runaway from franchises that have invested so much of their marketing efforts into them. It is not a salary issue because they would be required to be paid top $$$.

3. Eliminate guaranteed contracts and allow contract to be renegotiated if players are willing. Again, this is similar to the NFL. Ask yourself this, if this provision was in place last year the league would have dumped over $250 million in terrible contracts.

4. Once these items are completed implement a realistic hard salary cap of $70. No MLE, No BAE, NO Vets Min contracts... nothing! In addition, teams would be required to spend 90% of the cap every year.

This would obviously be alot for the players to swallow but it really wouldn't impact them to much as the cap would bring almost as much revenue to the players as was paid last year... it would just be distributed differently. Again, isn't that the point of a UNION :rolleyes:

Vinylman
10-15-2011, 11:49 AM
Actually research what Bosh said in an interview after committing to the Heat. He said he would commit to the Heat with or without any sign and trade, as Toronto was playing a lot of games in refusing sign & trade deals that were on the table to benefit them.

I believe one of the Heat's initial offers was Beasley and their own 1st back, and they said no. They ended up settling for their own 1st back and an extra 1st (our 2011 pick), which they ended up trading away for James Johnson from the Bulls. See where their hard headed way led them? Beasley > James Johnson. They could have taken the deal but instead played games and ended up with less.

Again, you don't get it... it has nothing to do with what BOSH was willing to do it had to do with what the two teams would do... a S&T benefitted both teams... There was no way that Toronto wouldn't do a S&T

Do I believe what bosh said.. sure... but in the big picture it is irrelevant. Not to mention that who knew last year where the new CBA would end up which could make the contract he signed irrelevant... why do you think they all have outs?

Vinylman
10-15-2011, 11:53 AM
1. They have outs after 4 years, not 3 years
2. The new CBA is likely to further reduce their salaries, so they probably won't opt out.
3. How could he know a S/T would happen when Gilbert said he wouldn't do a S/T that would get Lebron more money? He may have WANTED a S/T but he agreed to play for the HEAT before he knew whether he would get one or not.

Again,

The S&T benefits both teams... it has nothing to do with the player it has to do with the teams... As for Gilbert, don't confuse posturing with reality.

beasted86
10-15-2011, 12:05 PM
Again, you don't get it... it has nothing to do with what BOSH was willing to do it had to do with what the two teams would do... a S&T benefitted both teams... There was no way that Toronto wouldn't do a S&T

Do I believe what bosh said.. sure... but in the big picture it is irrelevant. Not to mention that who knew last year where the new CBA would end up which could make the contract he signed irrelevant... why do you think they all have outs?

They have outs for a couple reasons...

First, Bosh & LeBron's outs come at 30-31 yrs old... the perfect time to get your last big extension (example: Kobe + Pau Gasol).

Next, for the purpose of possibly opting out if there was a CBA in place (hard cap) that could lead to them not being able to play together, they could restructure for less, but with extended years (example: Pierce, Dirk).

Finally, 3rd, just as business men it's smart because although it seems unlikely, the Heat could very well trade one of these guys to a situation they don't want to continue playing in, or Pat Riley could retire next summer and the Heat could turn to crap, so they have an out.

Vinylman
10-15-2011, 12:36 PM
They have outs for a couple reasons...

First, Bosh & LeBron's outs come at 30-31 yrs old... the perfect time to get your last big extension (example: Kobe + Pau Gasol).

Next, for the purpose of possibly opting out if there was a CBA in place (hard cap) that could lead to them not being able to play together, they could restructure for less, but with extended years (example: Pierce, Dirk).

Finally, 3rd, just as business men it's smart because although it seems unlikely, the Heat could very well trade one of these guys to a situation they don't want to continue playing in, or Pat Riley could retire next summer and the Heat could turn to crap, so they have an out.

All plausible points.. but again the S&T was gonna happen no matter what... it helped both teams... here is a good article on the Cleveland situation and why they did it in spite of Gilbert being emotional about it...

http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2010/07/cleveland_cavaliers_settle_emo.html

bottom line.... the idea that the big three made meaningful sacrifices to play together is just ludicrous... they all got 6 year deals... they all got outs... was there a minor amount of money left on the table... absolutely... why? because they knew the three of them couldn't win without help...

beasted86
10-15-2011, 01:21 PM
All plausible points.. but again the S&T was gonna happen no matter what... it helped both teams... here is a good article on the Cleveland situation and why they did it in spite of Gilbert being emotional about it...

http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2010/07/cleveland_cavaliers_settle_emo.html

bottom line.... the idea that the big three made meaningful sacrifices to play together is just ludicrous... they all got 6 year deals... they all got outs... was there a minor amount of money left on the table... absolutely... why? because they knew the three of them couldn't win without help...

So what is your point exactly?

Aside from a franchise tag, there's nothing precluding players from signing for less if a big market team has cap space. This has happened all the time in history, and players have come with or without the S&T. When Shaq did it with the Lakers, nobody had a problem except Orlando fans. He signed for less years and less money than Orlando was offering. He eventually made way more by playing in a bigger market at the end of the day.

This is going to continue to happen no matter what.

The luxury tax punitive system that's being proposed only limits teams from continuously adding players to an excessive amount of depth. But playing under the same rules of operating in the 60-$75M range (before the proposed tax really takes an upper hike in ratio), teams like the Heat still have more talent than everyone else because those guys took less. One can even insinuate without the depth of a $90M roster, the Mavericks would have lost and the Heat would be the champions.

So who exactly are you helping at the end of the day?

C-Style
10-15-2011, 01:25 PM
players don't want this cause it will be harder for them to find a job in the league.

Vinylman
10-15-2011, 02:08 PM
So what is your point exactly?

Aside from a franchise tag, there's nothing precluding players from signing for less if a big market team has cap space. This has happened all the time in history, and players have come with or without the S&T. When Shaq did it with the Lakers, nobody had a problem except Orlando fans. He signed for less years and less money than Orlando was offering. He eventually made way more by playing in a bigger market at the end of the day.

This is going to continue to happen no matter what.

The luxury tax punitive system that's being proposed only limits teams from continuously adding players to an excessive amount of depth. But playing under the same rules of operating in the 60-$75M range (before the proposed tax really takes an upper hike in ratio), teams like the Heat still have more talent than everyone else because those guys took less. One can even insinuate without the depth of a $90M roster, the Mavericks would have lost and the Heat would be the champions.

So who exactly are you helping at the end of the day?

My point is simple.. the original poster i responded to tried to say that bosh/lebron/wade had all sacrificied... bottom line they didn't

The S&T was a done deal no matter what the player said because it benefitted the prior team and it enabled Miami to sign them for an additional year and give them bigger increases. If you think each of those guys didn't want the extra year and money you are being a homer... additionally, in the article i posted it helped free money up for Miami to sign other free agents that they would not have been able to sign.

Not to get off topic but who are all these other guys that have signed for less? No one has done so in their prime. As far as Shaq, that was under a different CBA and i would ask that you post a reference as to where he took less money signing with LA.

As far as your argument about the Mavs salaries, they played within the rules of the CBA just as Miami did... sounds like sour grapes from a Heat fan.

Also, are you arguing that Miami wouldn't take advantage of the current CBA if they could have? Laughable

Again, the current system is flawed... i have offered my recommendations for changes if you want a more competitive league and not let the big earning franchises dominate...

Finally, you don't seem to understand how a franchise tag works... a player would not be able to go somewhere and sign for less

Tony_Starks
10-15-2011, 03:04 PM
lets see if you agree with this scenario. lets use the knicks as an example.

current cap is roughly $60M.
here are your player salaries. next season, stat is making $20M, melo is making $19.5M.

you want to add cp3 to the roster by then as well right? he's deserving of at least $15M based on his talent level.

that's $55M tied up by 3 guys and you still need to sign another 9 guys for $5M total in a hard cap scenario.
think you can find 9 quality guys that will each play for $500k a year?

currently, rich owners or big market team owners just laugh at the luxury tax because they can either afford it, or they're in a big enough market where they can recoup the cost by selling more tickets, merchandise, advertising, etc.
small market teams don't have that luxury.
agree so far?

with a hard cap, owners and GM's will have to play by the same rules as the "lesser" owners, which means they have to think twice before offering huge contracts for players.
(a positive side effect, no overpaying for scrubs)

ultimately what I think will happen is overall salaries are going to decrease. star players will still get hefty contracts, not quite as big as before but still head and shoulders above the rest, and they'll build around him... sort of like a franchise player type of deal.

another possible scenario is what lbj/wade/bosh did, which is to agree to take a lower than market value contract in an attempt to stack a team to win a ring. i think this is a less likely scenario. egos are too big in the NBA.
as we all witnessed last season, it wasn't as easy as they thought. not to mention they're well above the cap with that roster. with a hard cap in place, it will be even more difficult.

players are really going to have to chose between winning and money.

so how does this improve parity?
well, obviously the knicks won't be able to get all 3 mega stars and fill a 12 man roster with quality players.
so basically they'll be a big 2 which means the guy left out will seek another team that isn't capped.
he'll get picked up by another team and have 11 very good players alongside him.
less stacked teams, more parity.

to answer your NY vs MIN question, sure CP3 might be willing to take $3M less to join NY, but now that leaves them with nothing to sign other quality guys because they can't go over the cap. sure, they'll have a really good big 3, but they won't be winning any championships with fields, rautins, walker, douglas, balkman (just picked 5 guys off the roster that sum up to $5M).
meanwhile, even if shunned by superstars, MIN has a lot of cap space to sign a good starting 5 + bench.

i thought this was all pretty logical, but apparently i'm wrong.


The only problem is you're assuming these gm's are competent enough to sign the right guys. Using you're MIN example and you look at guys they've acquired in the past like Darko and Tolliver I wouldn't be so confident in that.

Whether you have an open pocketbook or not there's no way around making good decisions. You can have all the money in the world but if you don't know what you're doing it doesn't matter, i.e. Isiah Thomas......

eugene
10-15-2011, 04:17 PM
they must be insane..

SportsAndrew25
10-16-2011, 01:05 AM
This is f'ing blows The first time the Knicks are good in ten freaking years and there's a lockout. Screw this man. The owners are a bunch of pricks. Players have actually made concessions but the owners are a bunch of ***-wipesI feel you bro.

NYman15
10-16-2011, 01:34 AM
It really is amazing that the 1st time in about a decade the Knicks are relevant and are good and a lockout happens. Unbelievable.

Anilyzer
10-16-2011, 02:45 AM
It really is amazing that the 1st time in about a decade the Knicks are relevant and are good and a lockout happens. Unbelievable.

Yeah, what's weird too is that for the first time NY can add a Cp3 for a super team, but they might get capped and then the era of usper teams is over.

Also, it does seem like the small mkt owners are battling BOTH the players and especially the large mkt owners.

Like the small mkt owners have hust decided (minly cuz of Lebron wade melo etc) that they just can't compete, financially or competitively. That used to be part of the game, right? The Moneyball game.

Now it's just F it, we give up, it's not fair, make them give us their profits and cap them.

Either man up, or contract the league.

SportsAndrew25
10-16-2011, 01:18 PM
Here is another example of my point. Look at the New York Giants. In order to get under the salary cap in football, they had to cut some good players to get under it. I fear that if a hard cap is introduced into basketball, it will punish success regardless of what market you are in. It will kill any dynasties and kill young and emerging teams like the Thunder. This is why I have spent years and years here and on other forums opposing a salary cap in baseball. In the end, it will do nothing but kill successful teams. Like I said before, you can have a payroll that is the highest in the league. If your owner and GM has the intelligence of a rock, you cannot win.

Hellcrooner
10-16-2011, 01:29 PM
ill say it again, Free mArket !!!!

i mean the nba is from AMERICA.!!!!!!!!!!!

Draft = communism
Shared benefits = COmmunism
Limits of amount for contracts= COummunism
Cap= Communism
Hard cap?= MOre communism.
RFA= COmmunism
Franchise tag= Stalinist slavering Communism.
having to match salarys for trades= COmmunism.


its ironicall to see AMERICAN billionaries fighting to make an already socialist system into a TOTALLy COMMUNIST ONE.

btw, has anyone asked the owners if the got their way if ticket prices woudl go down? me he he hehehehehehehheheheheh


Free Market!!!!!!!!!!!!