PDA

View Full Version : UPDATE: NBA insists Cuban did not propose elimination of salary cap



Wade>You
10-24-2011, 04:33 PM
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/7491/b-s-report-billy-hunter
(Billy Hunter) seemed enthusiastic about Mark Cuban’s plan to create a better economic model — dubbed “The Game-changer” by Cuban, it eliminates the salary cap completely — and admitted that they had some quality brainstorming before some of the smaller-market owners derailed that momentum.


A deeper explanation of why no-cap would work, from an NBA GM:
http://blogs.bettor.com/NBA-General-Manager-sticks-up-for-Miami-Heat-guard-Dwyane-Wade-a102702
Sports, such as Baseball, that do not have a salary cap have seen salaries of super star players reach astronomical figures, and an NBA GM agrees with Wade that the same thing would happen in the NBA if it were not for the salary cap.

“There’s absolutely no doubt that the top NBA stars are the most underpaid in sports,” the GM told Yahoo news.

He also went on to discuss how the salary cap can sometimes work against the very owners that created it to control the players. Quoting the example of the Miami Heat, where three of the biggest stars in the league joined hands to make them an irresistible force, and therefore a problem for the rest of the NBA, the GM said it wouldn’t have happened if not for the salary cap.

“The max salaries created the Heat. The owners have only themselves to blame if they don’t like what happened with the Heat. There’s no way (Heat owner) Micky Arison could afford the $140 million to pay those three (Wade, LeBron James and Chris Bosh) in a free market situation—and that’s $140 million annually.”

This is perhaps the reason the NBPA is hell bent on resisting any move by the league towards a hard cap in the new CBA. Billy Hunter, Executive Director of the NBPA, has already called the salary cap a “blood issue” because the players know they are being sold short as it is.

The real stars of the league, throughout the modern era, like Michael Jordan, Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant, would command much higher salaries than they ever got if it weren’t for the salary cap system. The reason is that it is these big names that draw the crowds to the games, they fill out the arenas and it is they who have made basketball and the NBA the global phenomenon that it is today.

Wade was therefore absolutely right when he said you cannot put a dollar value on what these top athletes have given to the game.

For an example, Los Angeles Lakers owner admits privately that Kobe Bryant probably brings in $70 million dollar for the franchise every year, yet he will earn only $25 million next season.

Cub_StuckinSTL
10-24-2011, 04:36 PM
Of course he did. Can you imagine the super teams we'd have then?

greg_ory_2005
10-24-2011, 04:37 PM
Cuban failed.

Wade>You
10-24-2011, 04:38 PM
The thinking behind this is, if you allow players to earn their true market value, it would be nearly impossible to keep a super team together.

jetsfan28
10-24-2011, 04:39 PM
Of course he did. Can you imagine the super teams we'd have then?

Probably 0 (unless you consider the current Heat a super team, I don't). Cuban isn't dumb. Such an idea almost definitely came with a strong revenue sharing system to ensure that a team like the Knicks doesn't have enough money to just go out and sign CP3 and Howard. And even without revenue sharing, no team is going to pay $300 million to get James, Wade, Howard, Paul, and Dirk (estimated the value, might even be a bit low).

Sactown
10-24-2011, 04:44 PM
Oh Jesus...:facepalm:

VinceCarter
10-24-2011, 04:46 PM
Proky would buy us a ring!! :laugh2:

Wade>You
10-24-2011, 04:48 PM
Combined Championships and Finals appearances by fans' teams who oppose this: 0.

Dade County
10-24-2011, 04:50 PM
Cuban.. No salary cap :laugh::laugh: ...............:no:

He would love that right.... HEAT vs Dallas final every year (L.A , NY, Nj too)

Shmontaine
10-24-2011, 04:51 PM
The thinking behind this is, if you allow players to earn their true market value, it would be nearly impossible to keep a super team together.

and nearly impossible to turn a profit as well... teams would pay out the *** for one guy and not be able to surround them with quality players...

Avenged
10-24-2011, 04:52 PM
I say do it! :D

SteBO
10-24-2011, 04:53 PM
I'm down....:)

But seriously, this could eliminate almost every small market in the league. jetsfan28 brings up a great point though.

llemon
10-24-2011, 04:54 PM
Another reason to love and hate Cuban simultaneously

Hellcrooner
10-24-2011, 04:54 PM
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FREE MARKET; like in EUROPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1-800-STFU
10-24-2011, 04:56 PM
Cool now the small markets can continue to lose money and only 4-5 teams will remain profitable.....like exactly how it is now.....which is exactly the reason this lockout is happening.

Stupid.

Hellcrooner
10-24-2011, 04:58 PM
I'm down....:)

But seriously, this could eliminate almost every small market in the league. jetsfan28 brings up a great point though.


Not if its done the RIGHT WAY.

1 keep the draft , in order that teams have some sort of compensation and acces to good players when they are down. aLSO , PLAYERS ON ROOKIE CONTRACT CANT BE SOLD TO OTHER TEAMS.

2 Revenew shares between teams , in order that big markets dont have too much of an advantage.

3 Get rid of trades of PLayer for Player as it happens now an INSTEAD substitute it with a MONEY OFFER ( with no limit) for player like in europe.

What does this mean? Knicks for example dont have to wait for Pauls contract to expire instead they offer Hornets 50 Millions dollar for him.
This way, Knicks get their piece and Hornets get 50 millions wich means that
A) they have benefits even if an small market.
B) they can use part of that money to make offers to other teams for players and fill the void.

Wade>You
10-24-2011, 04:59 PM
Here's a good read:

A deeper explanation of why no-cap would work, from an NBA GM:
http://blogs.bettor.com/NBA-General-Manager-sticks-up-for-Miami-Heat-guard-Dwyane-Wade-a102702
Sports, such as Baseball, that do not have a salary cap have seen salaries of super star players reach astronomical figures, and an NBA GM agrees with Wade that the same thing would happen in the NBA if it were not for the salary cap.

“There’s absolutely no doubt that the top NBA stars are the most underpaid in sports,” the GM told Yahoo news.

He also went on to discuss how the salary cap can sometimes work against the very owners that created it to control the players. Quoting the example of the Miami Heat, where three of the biggest stars in the league joined hands to make them an irresistible force, and therefore a problem for the rest of the NBA, the GM said it wouldn’t have happened if not for the salary cap.

“The max salaries created the Heat. The owners have only themselves to blame if they don’t like what happened with the Heat. There’s no way (Heat owner) Micky Arison could afford the $140 million to pay those three (Wade, LeBron James and Chris Bosh) in a free market situation—and that’s $140 million annually.”

This is perhaps the reason the NBPA is hell bent on resisting any move by the league towards a hard cap in the new CBA. Billy Hunter, Executive Director of the NBPA, has already called the salary cap a “blood issue” because the players know they are being sold short as it is.

The real stars of the league, throughout the modern era, like Michael Jordan, Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant, would command much higher salaries than they ever got if it weren’t for the salary cap system. The reason is that it is these big names that draw the crowds to the games, they fill out the arenas and it is they who have made basketball and the NBA the global phenomenon that it is today.

Wade was therefore absolutely right when he said you cannot put a dollar value on what these top athletes have given to the game.

For an example, Los Angeles Lakers owner admits privately that Kobe Bryant probably brings in $70 million dollar for the franchise every year, yet he will earn only $25 million next season.

gotoHcarolina52
10-24-2011, 05:00 PM
If the Yankees are spending $200 million + on a 25+ man roster, can you imagine the Lakers, Knicks, or Heat spending that much on a 15-man one? :speechless:

GShack44
10-24-2011, 05:00 PM
Cuban lost...

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8184/bushlaugh.png

llemon
10-24-2011, 05:01 PM
Cool now the small markets can continue to lose money and only 4-5 teams will remain profitable.....like exactly how it is now.....which is exactly the reason this lockout is happening.

Stupid.

Plan would have to include contraction, which might not be a bad idea.

SteBO
10-24-2011, 05:04 PM
Not if its done the RIGHT WAY.

1 keep the draft , in order that teams have some sort of compensation and acces to good players when they are down. aLSO , PLAYERS ON ROOKIE CONTRACT CANT BE SOLD TO OTHER TEAMS.

2 Revenew shares between teams , in order that big markets dont have too much of an advantage.

3 Get rid of trades of PLayer for Player as it happens now an INSTEAD substitute it with a MONEY OFFER ( with no limit) for player like in europe.

What does this mean? Knicks for example dont have to wait for Pauls contract to expire instead they offer Hornets 50 Millions dollar for him.
This way, Knicks get their piece and Hornets get 50 millions wich means that
A) they have benefits even if an small market.
B) they can use part of that money to make offers to other teams for players and fill the void.
I agree completely actually, but of course I'm in the minority there.

Shmontaine
10-24-2011, 05:04 PM
Not if its done the RIGHT WAY.

1 keep the draft , in order that teams have some sort of compensation and acces to good players when they are down. aLSO , PLAYERS ON ROOKIE CONTRACT CANT BE SOLD TO OTHER TEAMS.

2 Revenew shares between teams , in order that big markets dont have too much of an advantage.

3 Get rid of trades of PLayer for Player as it happens now an INSTEAD substitute it with a MONEY OFFER ( with no limit) for player like in europe.

What does this mean? Knicks for example dont have to wait for Pauls contract to expire instead they offer Hornets 50 Millions dollar for him.
This way, Knicks get their piece and Hornets get 50 millions wich means that
A) they have benefits even if an small market.
B) they can use part of that money to make offers to other teams for players and fill the void.

lol... really???

so, now you're in favor of the draft after you spent a week or so labeling it a 'slave rule' and it should be done away with... no european countries have drafts, so on and so on... okay... hypocrite... not surprised, though...

Hellcrooner
10-24-2011, 05:12 PM
lol... really???

so, now you're in favor of the draft after you spent a week or so labeling it a 'slave rule' and it should be done away with... no european countries have drafts, so on and so on... okay... hypocrite... not surprised, though...

I would eventually eliminate the draft if i had my way, and make it totally euro style.

BUT

you cant deny that there is something called REALITY and TRADITION.

Eliminating the cap would already be a big turmoil for American fans, so is not wise to eliminate the draft TOO , right away.

Second, there is this thing CALLED NCAA that makes it IMPOSIBLE to use the european system right away.

Also theres a third reality wall, wich is Nba is a closed league with a limited numbers of teams ( 30 right now) as opposed to europe where there is something tha tis called, VERTICAL DIVISIONS, you have to fight to get to the top division and if you fail you are goind down to a minor division.
This means that EVERY CITY HAS one or more teams competing .

You cant stablish this system in usa without Removing NCAA ( altough it has its benefits).


Oddly enough if a FULLY european system with FREE MARKET; NO DRAFT,NO NCAA and VERTICAL DIVISIONS was implemented a ton of things fans dont like from current nba would be mended

like for example.

No nEED FOR RELOCATION because every city has its team.

No lose of profit, you adjust your budget to what you can generate, and you play in the division that your budget allows you to.

If you are in risk to fall down to a lower division you DONT TANK

League is no longer only about 1 team winning and 30 losing, there is also a ton of interest on seeing wich teams stays and wich team goes down, or wich team goes up to a superior league, this will keep FANS loyal to their HOME team and packing the arenas.

Players when they are kids are signed to the young teams of their cities, some of them of course will accept offers from other citys but 90% of them will still stay in their place and spent his Youth from ages 7 or 8 until they are 18-20 and debut with their Home team in the league.
This means they have been litterlay been RAISED in their home team, wich makes it a HIGHER chance that they stay in their team forever.


But as i said all of this CANT BE set up right away.

Robbw241
10-24-2011, 05:15 PM
Yes Please. Prokhorov making it rain would be lovely.

Teeboy1487
10-24-2011, 05:18 PM
I say do it! :D

I would love this too. Salary cap is such a downer :D.

Shick
10-24-2011, 05:36 PM
lol

Bishnoff
10-24-2011, 05:37 PM
Not if its done the RIGHT WAY.

1 keep the draft , in order that teams have some sort of compensation and acces to good players when they are down. aLSO , PLAYERS ON ROOKIE CONTRACT CANT BE SOLD TO OTHER TEAMS.

2 Revenew shares between teams , in order that big markets dont have too much of an advantage.

3 Get rid of trades of PLayer for Player as it happens now an INSTEAD substitute it with a MONEY OFFER ( with no limit) for player like in europe.

What does this mean? Knicks for example dont have to wait for Pauls contract to expire instead they offer Hornets 50 Millions dollar for him.
This way, Knicks get their piece and Hornets get 50 millions wich means that
A) they have benefits even if an small market.
B) they can use part of that money to make offers to other teams for players and fill the void.

If a "no cap" system is going to work, ^ this is the basis.

It's either got to be no cap, or a hard cap; a soft cap does nothing for league parity.

da ThRONe
10-24-2011, 05:40 PM
LOL at some of the terrible example they used.

1st the Mia situation. These guys already took less than market value to play together. I'm sure they would take the similiar pay cut in a completely open market.

2nd Baseball out of all team sports is impacted the least by individual players. You can always pitch around a great hitter or you will only face a great pitcher every so often. You can't pitch around Tom Brady, Micheal Vick, LeBron James, Sydney Crosby, Cristiano Ronaldo etc.. So putting a superteam together doesn't kill parity(although it clearly doesn't help it).

What they are trying to accomplish can be done by doing what I suggested a while back and just get rid of max contracts. The money would natural find it's way to the guys who put butts in seats and glue eyes to tv's.

Bravo95
10-24-2011, 05:44 PM
So players get whatever they want, and teams with bad contracts (ahem) could still fill out their roster without having to stay within a line.

On behalf of the Hawks' delegation: I might be in favor of this. :laugh2:

JWO35
10-24-2011, 05:49 PM
Yeah right, the NBA is already in the crapper for having a too lenient Cap...Having No Cap will ultimately ruin the League in a matter of 1 offseason.

JasonJohnHorn
10-24-2011, 06:04 PM
The Lakers and the Knicks would jsut spend disgusting amounts of money and we'd all have to watch NY/LA finals match-ups every year.

Tony_Starks
10-24-2011, 06:06 PM
With intelligent owners a no cap system would be great but with the current cast of clowns it would probably become a nightmare.....

NYKalltheway
10-24-2011, 06:08 PM
I don't think Dolan would really invest that much for the Knicks

naps
10-24-2011, 06:23 PM
**** NO!! LeBron would get paid $70-$80 million a year. How much a neurosurgeon or a cardiovascular surgeon (who saves countless lives) gets paid again? Yeah, that's right!

C-Style
10-24-2011, 06:25 PM
This would actually work. The only reason some owners disagreed was because they are greedy and think that a hard cap means less money out of there pocket. Specially if there is a revnue share, teams like the lakers, knicks and nets wont have the money to invest in other teams

jetsfan28
10-24-2011, 06:26 PM
**** NO!! LeBron would get paid $70-$80 million a year. How much a neurosurgeon or a cardiovascular surgeon (who saves countless lives) gets paid again? Yeah, that's right!

This is such a bad argument that it legitimately makes me want to hurt myself to dull the pain of having read it

jetsfan28
10-24-2011, 06:27 PM
The Lakers and the Knicks would jsut spend disgusting amounts of money and we'd all have to watch NY/LA finals match-ups every year.

Yeah, just like all of those times the Knicks made the finals in the mid-2000's with the highest payrolls in the league.

Bishnoff
10-24-2011, 06:28 PM
Yeah right, the NBA is already in the crapper for having a too lenient Cap...Having No Cap will ultimately ruin the League in a matter of 1 offseason.

That's the problem. It's either got to be a hard cap or no cap at all. Soft caps don't work.

Hawkeye15
10-24-2011, 06:31 PM
how ironic. The man who has had a payroll $20-30 million over the cap for year is in favor of no cap at all!

WEIRD!

WVNowitzki
10-24-2011, 06:32 PM
I'd love that, only cause my boy Cuban got plennntyyy monnneeeyyyy

Bishnoff
10-24-2011, 06:38 PM
**** NO!! LeBron would get paid $70-$80 million a year. How much a neurosurgeon or a cardiovascular surgeon (who saves countless lives) gets paid again? Yeah, that's right!

How much do Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi earn a year? How much do Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson earn a year?

The top NBA players earn a lot less than other top sports stars.

naps
10-24-2011, 06:47 PM
How much do Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi earn a year? How much do Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson earn a year?

The top NBA players earn a lot less than other top sports stars.

I was talking about all the athletes around the world. It just doesn't sound fair. People have plenty of options for entertainment but there is no alternative for a life.

Pierzynski4Prez
10-24-2011, 06:47 PM
So after 3 years, we have LA vs NY in the finals every year. Yea, this is a good idea. Or NJ vs. Dal.

Eventually owners shelling out big bucks will realize they just can't compete with the huge markets, so they'll just give up, sell of players, and turn big profit year after year.

Tony_Starks
10-24-2011, 07:01 PM
Dallas has been going over the cap for the entire Mark Cuban era and I believe they have 2 finals appearances out of it. New York was one of the biggest spenders around for years before they tanked to get Amare and they haven't been to the finals since the last lockout. Otis Smith in Orlando has been big spending over the cap for years with no hardware to show for it. On and on......

People act like there is a 1:1 when it comes to spending money and winning chips but thats not the case......

daleja424
10-24-2011, 07:04 PM
This just goes to show you how screwed up this negotiation is...

You have a handful of owners demanding a hard cap at 35% for the players... and another subset advocating for a free market. Good lord!

da ThRONe
10-24-2011, 07:05 PM
Dallas has been going over the cap for the entire Mark Cuban era and I believe they have 2 finals appearances out of it. New York was one of the biggest spenders around for years before they tanked to get Amare and they haven't been to the finals since the last lockout. Otis Smith in Orlando has been big spending over the cap for years with no hardware to show for it. On and on......

People act like there is a 1:1 when it comes to spending money and winning chips but thats not the case......

This would be a valid point if the teams they were losing too weren't spending just as much if not more any most cases.

Tony_Starks
10-24-2011, 07:05 PM
This is such a bad argument that it legitimately makes me want to hurt myself to dull the pain of having read it


Kind of reminds me of the classic argument from that disgruntled Cleveland radio host when Lebron left about "What about gas prices, and the people that are losing their homes? What is Lebron doing for THEM!"

Gotta love the logic!

gotoHcarolina52
10-24-2011, 07:13 PM
This just goes to show you how screwed up this negotiation is...

You have a handful of owners demanding a hard cap at 35% for the players... and another subset advocating for a free market. Good lord!

And yet, somehow, cooler heads will prevail, the result will be rational, there will be basketball, and world order will be restored.

Tony_Starks
10-24-2011, 07:19 PM
And yet, somehow, cooler heads will prevail, the result will be rational, there will be basketball, and world order will be restored.




Everything will work out for the best man. Didn't you hear what Billy Hunter said Dan Gilbert told him at he last meeting? "You just have to trust my gut."

We're in good hands like allstate!!

king4day
10-24-2011, 07:19 PM
I'm ok with this as long as they contract 2/3rd's of the league.
You won't see Sacramento, Phoenix, Charlotte, Milwaukee, etc. paying this kinda money. Baseball, there are so many positions to fill so when you have teams like the Yanks and Sox doing what they do, you still don't see them win a lot because there are so many other positions that you have to have to fill to balance it out. In basketball you have 5-10 that are important. Pretty simple with endless resources.

Cuban is basically saying he wants to be able to buy a team to have a competitive advantage.
So let's say Dallas keeps all their current free agents. Resign Chandler for 4 years 80 mil, Barea for 4 years 50mil (you see it's because he can), and o why not add Howard next year for 6 years 250mil. Maybe throw in a Steve Nash for 2 years 40mil.

Now you are pretty much unstoppable.

Just do away with 20 teams and it'll be fun to watch.
Hockey would move up to the 3rd most watched sport behind the NFL and MLB with the NBA moving to 4th.

Cosmic_Canon
10-24-2011, 07:24 PM
Dallas has been going over the cap for the entire Mark Cuban era and I believe they have 2 finals appearances out of it. New York was one of the biggest spenders around for years before they tanked to get Amare and they haven't been to the finals since the last lockout. Otis Smith in Orlando has been big spending over the cap for years with no hardware to show for it. On and on......

People act like there is a 1:1 when it comes to spending money and winning chips but thats not the case......

You stating too many facts, people hate facts. :laugh2:

king4day
10-24-2011, 07:25 PM
Not if its done the RIGHT WAY.

1 keep the draft , in order that teams have some sort of compensation and acces to good players when they are down. aLSO , PLAYERS ON ROOKIE CONTRACT CANT BE SOLD TO OTHER TEAMS.

2 Revenew shares between teams , in order that big markets dont have too much of an advantage.

3 Get rid of trades of PLayer for Player as it happens now an INSTEAD substitute it with a MONEY OFFER ( with no limit) for player like in europe.

What does this mean? Knicks for example dont have to wait for Pauls contract to expire instead they offer Hornets 50 Millions dollar for him.
This way, Knicks get their piece and Hornets get 50 millions wich means that
A) they have benefits even if an small market.
B) they can use part of that money to make offers to other teams for players and fill the void.

Fantastic idea man

Bruno
10-24-2011, 07:39 PM
He has an interesting point. Afterall, this is America :)

ink
10-24-2011, 07:44 PM
Cool now the small markets can continue to lose money and only 4-5 teams will remain profitable.....like exactly how it is now.....which is exactly the reason this lockout is happening.

Stupid.

This and dozens of other posts already nailed it. Cuban. :facepalm: The man who made his money on the dot com boom.

MrfadeawayJB
10-24-2011, 07:46 PM
this doesnt suprise me coming from cuban

Zetterberg40
10-24-2011, 07:50 PM
Thats basically what they have now I bet Cuban would like that I am not a fan of the no salary cap as there is hardly any parity in the league now with the so called "salary cap" they have now this would just be crippling to the already 20-25 teams that have little to no shot at competing now. What they need is a hard cap maybe allowing a max of being allow 5 mil or a MLE contract over the cap nothing more.

I've had little interest in the NBA over the last few year due to the fact that there are only a handful of teams that have a shot to win the championship anyway. If they were to get a hard cap and more teams were able to get involved in the mix I think I could easily be drawn back in but lately I have no interest and really don't care if they have a season or not

llemon
10-24-2011, 07:51 PM
With intelligent owners a no cap system would be great but with the current cast of clowns it would probably become a nightmare.....

Right now, can't imagine who a group of intelligent owners might be, as money seems to trump intelligence at every point for the owners.

Paul Allen is worried about his franchise not producing a profit? I believe that says it all, as far as owners are concerned.

SeoulBeatz
10-24-2011, 07:53 PM
Another reason to love and hate Cuban simultaneously

yup. I respect Mark Cuban because he's an owner who actually LOVES basketball (i have a problem believing that most owners do at this point) and he'll do anything to help his team win.

da ThRONe
10-24-2011, 07:56 PM
You stating too many facts, people hate facts. :laugh2:

How many teams in the last 9 years have made it to the Conference title series at or under the luxury tax? Only one team can win a title per year, but more than a handful can be competitive every year.

Anilyzer
10-24-2011, 07:56 PM
Cool now the small markets can continue to lose money and only 4-5 teams will remain profitable.....like exactly how it is now.....which is exactly the reason this lockout is happening.

Stupid.

Look... whoever started this whole idea of enforcing "parity" in the league through financial means are the stupid ones.

I'm not going into all the reasons... but let's start with the fact that payroll or high salaries doesn't equal talent or a good team.

The small market/tea party/crap owners are talking on one side of their mouth, whining about all these long term bad contracts that THEY, the owners, have voluntarily given to unproductive players, but then on the other side of their mouth they are saying that there should be a hard cap, which would mean that those same bad deals would "cap them out" and lock them into an even worse team.

Then they are also angling for revenue sharing and reducing the overall player revenue share--what they really want is to eliminate free agency, but, yeah, unfortunately the constitution and various anti-trust regulations get in the way of that. So they seek to "cut down all the tall trees" (the big market teams) and make the league more of a dime-store cheapo league... surely hoping that then the "bad" teams (Clippers, Cavs, Blazers, Denver, etc) could force big name players to stay stuck on their teams.

Unfortunately, the good players will still go to the best teams if they are free to do so, and the bad teams will just cap themselves out with bad players. Watch. Denver will cap itself out with a bunch of bad contracts for all the players it got in the Carmelo deal.

And, to go along with all of this, if you "cheap-down" the league, then you leave yourself completely vulnerable to high-rent, high-dollar competitors who may soon emerge--you've guaranteed that teams in your OWN LEAGUE can't out-compete you, but you've set the bar so low that international teams and others can just easily pilfer top players.

For instance, if you give the small owners everything they want, then Dwight can probably get a better bid from China or some Euro team. Or maybe just work for a website where he plays one on one against naked chicks or something like that, and easily makes more than the $12M max deal he may be offered.

etc, etc, etc.

Face it--the small owners aren't trying to "fix" the league, they're just trying to reduce costs temporarily so they can sell out and bail on the league. If they can trash Stern and Madison avenue on the way out, I'm sure they'll do that as well.

Honestly... the "no cap" plan sounds good. Include with that a "franchise contraction" amnesty lottery, where teams who want "out" can register for a lottery, and the "lucky 8" who win the lottery can be removed from the league, and receive current market value + 10%, and then can all stfu.

The extra $$ can be contributed by some of the "revenue sharing" dollars the actual good teams would otherwise have to shell out to subsidize the welfare teams.

NYman15
10-24-2011, 08:03 PM
I'd do it, especially since I'm a Knicks fan. The big market teams would love it, the small market ones would hate it. But teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Heat, Mavs, Bulls, Nets among others would grab all the best players to all the biggest deals.

Anilyzer
10-24-2011, 08:06 PM
actually I think the players don't need a new league... at least not the top ones. They could easily do a series of pay-per-view events:

think about it, would you buy, this Saturday, a two game pay per view package of lebron/wade/bosh vs Kobe/Dirk/cp3, 3 on 3, fullcourt, with flawless refereeing and innovative HD and slow motion close up camera work?

+ sexy cheeerleaders and pro-wrestling style promos

For $35?

Think maybe... uh.... 2 million other people might want to buy that too? And the only overhead is player salaries, camera and broadcast techs, broadcasting fees, advertising and that's it. Heck... you can even sell tickets to the live venue.

that's just one possibility. The NBA might've created these monsters, who are more famous than any other athletes on the planet and super-humanly hyped, but if they are set free, the NBA won't make a DIME off of them.

So go ahead, trash the season... prove to Lebron that you got the "upper hand." See if some people will buy tickets to see Stern, Allen, Gilbert and Holt out there wearing short pants and t-shirts shooting baskets.

3XDouble
10-24-2011, 08:08 PM
How much do Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi earn a year? How much do Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson earn a year?

The top NBA players earn a lot less than other top sports stars.

Three players earned more than $5M this year on the PGA tour. Phil and Tiger have earn the majority of their income from endorsements.

The average salary for MLB players in 2011 was $3.3M There is a total of 18 players making the equivalent or more than a max NBA contract.

The NHA salary cap for 2011 was $59.4M and $11.88 for any single player. With a 23 player roster that equates to $2.58M per player

The average NFL salary is $1.9M

Anilyzer
10-24-2011, 08:10 PM
Thats basically what they have now I bet Cuban would like that I am not a fan of the no salary cap as there is hardly any parity in the league now with the so called "salary cap" they have now this would just be crippling to the already 20-25 teams that have little to no shot at competing now. What they need is a hard cap maybe allowing a max of being allow 5 mil or a MLE contract over the cap nothing more.

I've had little interest in the NBA over the last few year due to the fact that there are only a handful of teams that have a shot to win the championship anyway. If they were to get a hard cap and more teams were able to get involved in the mix I think I could easily be drawn back in but lately I have no interest and really don't care if they have a season or not

That's just not true. In the NBA, you can only put five players on the court at once. AND the worst teams get the best draft picks.

What more do you want? If you can't be competitive, if you require all this small market welfare and revenue "sharing" from the good teams, if you want to cheapen the whole league, you're just in the wrong business.

llemon
10-24-2011, 08:11 PM
yup. I respect Mark Cuban because he's an owner who actually LOVES basketball (i have a problem believing that most owners do at this point) and he'll do anything to help his team win.

But does Cuban's spending money to make his team a more desirable destination for players count towards the BRI?

da ThRONe
10-24-2011, 08:21 PM
Look... whoever started this whole idea of enforcing "parity" in the league through financial means are the stupid ones.

I'm not going into all the reasons... but let's start with the fact that payroll or high salaries doesn't equal talent or a good team.

The small market/tea party/crap owners are talking on one side of their mouth, whining about all these long term bad contracts that THEY, the owners, have voluntarily given to unproductive players, but then on the other side of their mouth they are saying that there should be a hard cap, which would mean that those same bad deals would "cap them out" and lock them into an even worse team.

Then they are also angling for revenue sharing and reducing the overall player revenue share--what they really want is to eliminate free agency, but, yeah, unfortunately the constitution and various anti-trust regulations get in the way of that. So they seek to "cut down all the tall trees" (the big market teams) and make the league more of a dime-store cheapo league... surely hoping that then the "bad" teams (Clippers, Cavs, Blazers, Denver, etc) could force big name players to stay stuck on their teams.

Unfortunately, the good players will still go to the best teams if they are free to do so, and the bad teams will just cap themselves out with bad players. Watch. Denver will cap itself out with a bunch of bad contracts for all the players it got in the Carmelo deal.

And, to go along with all of this, if you "cheap-down" the league, then you leave yourself completely vulnerable to high-rent, high-dollar competitors who may soon emerge--you've guaranteed that teams in your OWN LEAGUE can't out-compete you, but you've set the bar so low that international teams and others can just easily pilfer top players.

For instance, if you give the small owners everything they want, then Dwight can probably get a better bid from China or some Euro team. Or maybe just work for a website where he plays one on one against naked chicks or something like that, and easily makes more than the $12M max deal he may be offered.

etc, etc, etc.

Face it--the small owners aren't trying to "fix" the league, they're just trying to reduce costs temporarily so they can sell out and bail on the league. If they can trash Stern and Madison avenue on the way out, I'm sure they'll do that as well.

Honestly... the "no cap" plan sounds good. Include with that a "franchise contraction" amnesty lottery, where teams who want "out" can register for a lottery, and the "lucky 8" who win the lottery can be removed from the league, and receive current market value + 10%, and then can all stfu.

The extra $$ can be contributed by some of the "revenue sharing" dollars the actual good teams would otherwise have to shell out to subsidize the welfare teams.

This simply isn't true.

A hard cap eliminates the financial advantage large revenue teams have over lesser revenue teams. The concept is about as elementary as it gets.

The reasons why small market teams overpay their stars or FA is because it's the only way they can convince their fanbase they're committed to winning. Can't imagine what the Hawks fans would have felt if Joe Johnson left. No right or smart business persa, but you can't alienate your fanbase so it becomes a lose-lose for smaller markets.

drew_ellis_23
10-24-2011, 08:27 PM
If you actually read what Cuban proposed, it isn't a bad idea. A hard cap would be bad for the league and the players. Problem is you have half of the league owned by guys with deep pockets that will blow money, and then you have guys that try and spend as little as possible so they can turn a profit, but they don't cause there team sucks and nobody watches. They will need a hard cap though cause this lockout is going to turn a lot of fans off and it will take time to get the sport back to where it was. If there is no season this year people will start to forget about the NBA. Stern is a douche and let my team leave and I hope this whole thing blows up in his face. **** the NBA.

Bishnoff
10-24-2011, 08:28 PM
I was talking about all the athletes around the world. It just doesn't sound fair. People have plenty of options for entertainment but there is no alternative for a life.

Yep, that's the way the world works. It may not seem right, but top entertainers will always earn more than top surgeons, physicians etc.

drew_ellis_23
10-24-2011, 08:34 PM
actually I think the players don't need a new league... at least not the top ones. They could easily do a series of pay-per-view events:

think about it, would you buy, this Saturday, a two game pay per view package of lebron/wade/bosh vs Kobe/Dirk/cp3, 3 on 3, fullcourt, with flawless refereeing and innovative HD and slow motion close up camera work?

+ sexy cheeerleaders and pro-wrestling style promos

For $35?

Think maybe... uh.... 2 million other people might want to buy that too? And the only overhead is player salaries, camera and broadcast techs, broadcasting fees, advertising and that's it. Heck... you can even sell tickets to the live venue.

that's just one possibility. The NBA might've created these monsters, who are more famous than any other athletes on the planet and super-humanly hyped, but if they are set free, the NBA won't make a DIME off of them.

So go ahead, trash the season... prove to Lebron that you got the "upper hand." See if some people will buy tickets to see Stern, Allen, Gilbert and Holt out there wearing short pants and t-shirts shooting baskets.

I would buy that. The players don't need owners. Get a entire league of superstars and let them run there own league. Rather see it stay as a 5 on 5, with 10 minute quarters and smaller benches so you don't have watered down talent. Fewer teams too. Do we really need 3 teams in Texas, 4 in Cali? Put one team in the major markets of most states. If it is a good show people will travel. Maybe a 20 team league.

llemon
10-24-2011, 08:39 PM
Right now, can't imagine who a group of intelligent owners might be, as money seems to trump intelligence at every point for the owners.

Paul Allen is worried about his franchise not producing a profit? I believe that says it all, as far as owners are concerned.

No responses?

Zetterberg40
10-24-2011, 08:39 PM
That's just not true. In the NBA, you can only put five players on the court at once. AND the worst teams get the best draft picks.

What more do you want? If you can't be competitive, if you require all this small market welfare and revenue "sharing" from the good teams, if you want to cheapen the whole league, you're just in the wrong business.

Yeah the smaller market teams do get the high draft picks for a few years and they end up leaving for other teams because you have teams like New York Los Angeles Dallas and others just able to outbid everyone and because of this it is causing players now to ban together and form super teams. These same teams every year are ending up in the lottery and they still have no chance at winning the championship. New York will have one soon as will Chicago and Los Angeles will stock back up. For the last 10-12 years its just been the same teams that have been able to compete.

I like what the NHL has done it has made the entire league competitive and every team has a chance at winning. I just find its the same thing every year in the NBA the same few teams that have a shot at the title and the rest of the guys just filling the league. I just think it's not fair to have a salary cap and then have teams that are 30-40 million over it what's the point in even having one. Sure its great if your a fan of these big market teams but for some say in Indiana and New Orleans they just don't have a chance. The basketball playoffs are the most predictable in all over sports and even a 5th seed beating out a 4th seed doesn't happen very often you just don't see the lower seeds winning playoff series very often. I mean when you have teams that are below .500 making the playoffs it just shows how dominant the better teams are.

I know alot of people will disagree with my opinion but I just don't have any interest in watching until its the finals because you can almost call every series before they start although I will admit this years playoffs were more exciting with Memphis and Dallas going on unexpected runs. Also Atlanta pulling off the upset. It was enjoyable but in the end most of the time the teams that were expected to win did so with relative ease.

Once again when the NBA season starts you know that its going to be Los Angeles Dallas Miami Chicago fighting for the title with a small chance one of New York (if they add another player) or Oklahoma City winning the title other than those teams the other ones will not have a chance. Orlando likely with lose Howard to one of these teams sending them back to the lottery and Boston is a little too old as is San Antonio.

Asides from San Antonio its been the spenders who have been winning the championship the last few years not the teams who have been able to draft the best and that is fact over the last 10 years. If you look at the teams who have won Boston LA Dallas Detroit they all were teams that were bought for the most part even the Miami team went out and added Shaq who could not be afforded by a smaller market team but I won't put them on the list of team I say "bought" the title and then you have San Antonio who did draft the core of their teams so I give them credit but it just doesn't happen very often 8 different teams have won a championship in the last 20 years which isn't comparable to any other sport at this time. In all honesty we are likely going to see Miami take a few titles over the next few years with maybe Los Angeles or New York getting in their with one.

I don't know maybe people think I'm crazy but I know myself and a couple of my friends have just no interest in the NBA because like I said the last few years there are only a handful of teams that have a realistic shot at a championship

beliges
10-24-2011, 08:45 PM
No responses?

Most of these owners are self made billionaires. I think these guys are a bit more intelligent than you want to give them credit for. I understand your viewpoint on this topic because its very easy to put the blame on the owners and see the players as some sort of victims in this. But you need to understand that the players get paid very well for their services to their teams. NBA contracts are the most lucrative and beneficial to the players than any other professional American sport. On top of that the players want a larger chunk of the BRI than the owners get? I dont think so. Not only is that not fair but its extremely selfish and greedy of them to oppose a 50/50 split. I have no problem with you having your own opinion on this but its no surprise that everyone involved in the game have a general consensus that the players have been out of line throughout this entire negotiation process.

llemon
10-24-2011, 09:04 PM
Most of these owners are self made billionaires. I think these guys are a bit more intelligent than you want to give them credit for. I understand your viewpoint on this topic because its very easy to put the blame on the owners and see the players as some sort of victims in this. But you need to understand that the players get paid very well for their services to their teams. NBA contracts are the most lucrative and beneficial to the players than any other professional American sport. On top of that the players want a larger chunk of the BRI than the owners get? I dont think so. Not only is that not fair but its extremely selfish and greedy of them to oppose a 50/50 split. I have no problem with you having your own opinion on this but its no surprise that everyone involved in the game have a general consensus that the players have been out of line throughout this entire negotiation process.

Who could possibly disagree with you, Paul A.?

Your response is so sad.

ink
10-24-2011, 09:19 PM
No responses?

But didn't you see? Someone above you thinks the players don't need owners at all. lol. Right. Just like there is no major investor bankrolling the international tour the players are about to embark on.

Someone has to organize and structure the finances.

---

Back to Cuban, he made his fortune on a historical fluke, the dot com boom. So he believes in magic. :cool:

ink
10-24-2011, 09:21 PM
Most of these owners are self made billionaires. I think these guys are a bit more intelligent than you want to give them credit for.

Absolutely right. I made the point several times last week that for every athlete loaded with TALENT, there is an owner loaded with an equivalent organizational/financial TALENT. Some fans completely underestimate the talent it takes to amass the wealth needed to own and operate a pro sports team.

llemon
10-24-2011, 09:30 PM
But didn't you see? Someone above you thinks the players don't need owners at all. lol. Right. Just like there is no major investor bankrolling the international tour the players are about to embark on.

Someone has to organize and structure the finances.

---

Back to Cuban, he made his fortune on a historical fluke, the dot com boom. So he believes in magic. :cool:

I understand.

You want to be as rich as Mark Cuban.

People below you (if you were Mark Cuban) are insignificant.

You want to bring back slavery, as that is what what made America great.

I don't agree with you, but everyone is what they are, and what they profess to believe, although I don't think that is what you believe, but it is what would benefit you personally, as it is is with all rich people that have no conscious or what is believed to be a soul.

SteBO
10-24-2011, 09:37 PM
Most of these owners are self made billionaires. I think these guys are a bit more intelligent than you want to give them credit for. I understand your viewpoint on this topic because its very easy to put the blame on the owners and see the players as some sort of victims in this. But you need to understand that the players get paid very well for their services to their teams. NBA contracts are the most lucrative and beneficial to the players than any other professional American sport. On top of that the players want a larger chunk of the BRI than the owners get? I dont think so. Not only is that not fair but its extremely selfish and greedy of them to oppose a 50/50 split. I have no problem with you having your own opinion on this but its no surprise that everyone involved in the game have a general consensus that the players have been out of line throughout this entire negotiation process.


Absolutely right. I made the point several times last week that for every athlete loaded with TALENT, there is an owner loaded with an equivalent organizational/financial TALENT. Some fans completely underestimate the talent it takes to amass the wealth needed to own and operate a pro sports team.
The system needed a change. That's all fine and dandy. But how are the players being greedy when they've made all the concessions? :shrug: 50-50 wasn't the actual offer anyway, the BRI split is a dependant variable really if you think about it. And last I checked, players go out there, sacrifice their bodies everyday to serve owners' teams, maybe get injured then their contracts get voided? Then what? Sorry, but when you're asking players to take an 7-10% paycut, after the previous one at 57%, you're asking for way too much especially to solve a problem the owners themselves created. The owners haven't been fair here, but the small market team fans don't want to even think about this for obvious reasons. I understand it, but you have to look at the facts here.

And since owners are so wealthy, why do they need to more of the BRI than the players? I know: they're so self-righteous and disgustingly greedy and power-hungry that they want to extort and cripple these players. That's not right man. At all.

Soxsnation4life
10-24-2011, 09:46 PM
All of this nba lockout **** is irrelevant to me. Neither I or you can do anything about it, the nba doesn't give a **** about the fans, we are just paying customers. If the NBA gets back to playing then I'll be right back watching but it's just waste of time to discuss all this stupid *** labor talks. I'll be fine with NFL, NCAAF, and NCAAB for now.

Cal827
10-24-2011, 09:48 PM
Whether you are for it or against it, this proves somewhat that Stern is lying... He said that every owner is on the same page for a hard cap. Why would Cuban suggest this? I mean, if he's on the side of the Milwaukee's, the Bobcats, and some of the other smaller markets, why would he even consider bringing this up? It's a damn shame we'll be locked out for the year because the owners cant stop fighting from within.

ink
10-24-2011, 09:51 PM
I understand.
You want to be as rich as Mark Cuban.

People below you (if you were Mark Cuban) are insignificant.

You want to bring back slavery, as that is what what made America great.

Not sure whether that deserves a :laugh: or a :facepalm: or a :eyebrow:.


I don't agree with you, but everyone is what they are, and what they profess to believe, although I don't think that is what you believe, but it is what would benefit you personally, as it is is with all rich people that have no conscious or what is believed to be a soul.

Really not sure what you're on about there.

SwatTeam
10-24-2011, 09:52 PM
i find it funny when people beg for parity in sports. I'll say this again there is no parity in any sport. There is ALWAYS a dominant team. ALWAYS.

In the NBA the Lakers, Heat, Mavs, OKC, and Bulls look like the contenders.
In the NFL (the league with "parity") its either the Pats, Packers, Ravens, Pittsburgh, and maybe New Orleans (highly unlikely). Tell me who else has a "real shot" to win the super bowl? These have been roughly the same teams the past decade!

I really don't understand it when people b***h about parity in other sports and how the NBA lacks it. Look around, and I mean really look around, there is no parity. The best teams are always on top because they run their teams wisely as a business consistently. Just like in real life, you have people good at business and people that are bad at business. If you want to have all the businesses succeed and be on the same level, well, that's just communism.

beliges
10-24-2011, 09:54 PM
The system needed a change. That's all fine and dandy. But how are the players being greedy when they've made all the concessions? :shrug: 50-50 wasn't the actual offer anyway, the BRI split is a dependant variable really if you think about it. And last I checked, players go out there, sacrifice their bodies everyday to serve owners' teams, maybe get injured then their contracts get voided? Then what? Sorry, but when you're asking players to take an 7-10% paycut, after the previous one at 57%, you're asking for way too much especially to solve a problem the owners themselves created. The owners haven't been fair here, but the small market team fans don't want to even think about this for obvious reasons. I understand it, but you have to look at the facts here.

And since owners are so wealthy, why do they need to more of the BRI than the players? I know: they're so self-righteous and disgustingly greedy and power-hungry that they want to extort and cripple these players. That's not right man. At all.

Because its their investment and their own capital from their own pockets that makes it possible for the team to exist and for the players to get their contract money. I think its ridiculous that the players were making 57% of the BRI to begin with. The players get what they are worth through the contracts they sign. Teams will pay a certain player the amount of money they are worth at the time. I have no problem with this. But ON TOP OF THAT, the players are also making a majority of the league's revenue? Thats not right. Yes the players sacrifice their bodies and all that to play in the league but dude, if it wasnt for the league, more than half of these players would be on the street or in jail. The majority of them are not educated, they had no future outside of sports and they werent given the opportunities that other kids were blessed with having, such as the ability to attain an education or work for their daddies. There is no reason why the players and owners should not split the BRI evenly especially since the players are making their millions from their contracts. And another thing, there is no voiding a contract once a player gets hurt for their team. That player will still get paid what they signed for. NBA contracts are the most beneficial, player friendly contracts there are in American professional sports. The amount you sign for is guaranteed. Its just too much that the players get the majority of the BRI as well. I blame this lockout and continuous cancellation of games on the players' greed. But thats just my opinion.

beasted86
10-24-2011, 09:55 PM
I think the NBAPA would agree to a hard cap like the NFL... but when Billy Hunter suggested that, David Stern said no.

ink
10-24-2011, 09:55 PM
The system needed a change. That's all fine and dandy. But how are the players being greedy when they've made all the concessions?

You're getting sucked into the rhetoric. Neither the owners or players care about you/me/us. Discussing this concessions nonsense only serves them. It doesn't serve us. Don't buy into the dysfunctionality of millionaires or billionaires.

The fact is that the players at this point in NBA history, control the league. And that is creating some of the worst conditions for the league we've ever seen. Their greed with the previous CBA is the problem. It needs to end.

Cal827
10-24-2011, 10:00 PM
The reality is, it's alot harder for parity in the NBA over the NHL, NFL, hell even the MLB... In basketball, you rely on so few players; 15 at max, and usually 1-3 of them are really difficult to replace because of their output, and usually like about 8 of them see constant time. In the NFL, there are 24 starters that need to pull their weight in order for a team to be successful, NHL needs 18, baseball needs at least 9. Your never going to have it as a team could win it all from day one like in the other sports b/c the talent differential is too huge, and you honestly need 1-3 guys in order to win games. Really, I just want to see revenue sharing in order to protect the smaller teams. in this league, teams will have to go a few years before back into contention.... but they need to survive lol

NY007
10-24-2011, 10:14 PM
I would love this, it works for baseball because of the yanks. With Miami Knicks lakers mavs spending big money it would help the smaller market teams.

ink
10-24-2011, 10:21 PM
I would love this, it works for baseball because of the yanks. With Miami Knicks lakers mavs spending big money it would help the smaller market teams.

Yeah because it helps all those MLB small market teams pick up top level talent. :cool:

Bishnoff
10-24-2011, 11:07 PM
i find it funny when people beg for parity in sports. I'll say this again there is no parity in any sport. There is ALWAYS a dominant team. ALWAYS.

In the NBA the Lakers, Heat, Mavs, OKC, and Bulls look like the contenders.
In the NFL (the league with "parity") its either the Pats, Packers, Ravens, Pittsburgh, and maybe New Orleans (highly unlikely). Tell me who else has a "real shot" to win the super bowl? These have been roughly the same teams the past decade!

I really don't understand it when people b***h about parity in other sports and how the NBA lacks it. Look around, and I mean really look around, there is no parity. The best teams are always on top because they run their teams wisely as a business consistently. Just like in real life, you have people good at business and people that are bad at business. If you want to have all the businesses succeed and be on the same level, well, that's just communism.

Contenders don't always win Championships. Parity across multiple decades shouldn't be too much to ask for. Only 8 different organisations have won an NBA Championship since the soft cap was introduced in 1984. Less than a third of the league in the last 27 years. If you are a fan of one of the teams from the other 2/3rds of the NBA (like me - Suns) it can be pretty frustrating.

Punk
10-24-2011, 11:22 PM
I'm really lol-ing at these posts. With all due respect guys, are you seriously nuts to say that it would only be super teams?

No salary cap means teams like Memphis can sign more guys and retain their players. OKC will have to pay Westbrook, Harden. They could also go out and sign Kevin Love if the opportunity presented itself.

There would be a competitive balance across the board. But there would be a ton of misused contracts signed by teams like the Bucks.

Not surprised smaller markets shot it down. They all are just trying to screw the league up for their own greed.

Raps08-09 Champ
10-24-2011, 11:25 PM
Is this guy joking?

NY007
10-24-2011, 11:28 PM
Yeah because it helps all those MLB small market teams pick up top level talent. :cool:

It works in baseball and it will work with the nba, what is the cards and rangers payroll? What was San frans last year?

Bramaca
10-25-2011, 12:03 AM
I really don't understand it when people b***h about parity in other sports and how the NBA lacks it. Look around, and I mean really look around, there is no parity. The best teams are always on top because they run their teams wisely as a business consistently. Just like in real life, you have people good at business and people that are bad at business. If you want to have all the businesses succeed and be on the same level, well, that's just communism.

I find it amusing when people use this argument. People love to lean on it as a crutch thinking that it is the ultimate point. Another popular one is a mom and pop burger joint moving next to a McDonalds and demanding equal opportunity with them.

The reality is that the NBA is a single company with franchises. It's not a McDonalds and its lowly competition, it's just McDonalds. Not communism just a single corporation trying to set what they think is the right for the company as a whole. Will what they are going for be right? Who knows but they have the right to set up the company so that all of their franchises have a reasonalby opportunity to make a profit.

Another common theme among people who support the players is that they deserve the money because they are the product. This is true, they are the product but that is why they are paid 50% plus of the revenue. Most companies try to keep labor costs between 20-30% and not 50+% for a fraction of the employees. The fact that they are the product is priced in and then some.

Something else to consider when calling the players the product is that there is another product of the NBA, competition. Without good competition the NBA becomes closer to the Harlem Globetrotters then a real sport. So any effort by the league or anybody else for that matter to improve competition (parity) among its teams shouldn't be mocked. Thats what true sports is supposed to be about.

Hellcrooner
10-25-2011, 12:26 AM
I find it amusing when people use this argument. People love to lean on it as a crutch thinking that it is the ultimate point. Another popular one is a mom and pop burger joint moving next to a McDonalds and demanding equal opportunity with them.

The reality is that the NBA is a single company with franchises. It's not a McDonalds and its lowly competition, it's just McDonalds. Not communism just a single corporation trying to set what they think is the right for the company as a whole. Will what they are going for be right? Who knows but they have the right to set up the company so that all of their franchises have a reasonalby opportunity to make a profit.

Another common theme among people who support the players is that they deserve the money because they are the product. This is true, they are the product but that is why they are paid 50% plus of the revenue. Most companies try to keep labor costs between 20-30% and not 50+% for a fraction of the employees. The fact that they are the product is priced in and then some.

Something else to consider when calling the players the product is that there is another product of the NBA, competition. Without good competition the NBA becomes closer to the Harlem Globetrotters then a real sport. So any effort by the league or anybody else for that matter to improve competition (parity) among its teams shouldn't be mocked. Thats what true sports is supposed to be about.


Monopoly/trust?

That is also forbidden- :D

ink
10-25-2011, 12:32 AM
Monopoly/trust?

That is also forbidden- :D

No, a single corporation with franchises. Since it's ONE business, it can't be a monopoly. What is it monopolizing? Anyone who wants to set up a competing league is free to do so.

gwrighter
10-25-2011, 12:33 AM
I'm really lol-ing at these posts. With all due respect guys, are you seriously nuts to say that it would only be super teams?

No salary cap means teams like Memphis can sign more guys and retain their players. OKC will have to pay Westbrook, Harden. They could also go out and sign Kevin Love if the opportunity presented itself.

There would be a competitive balance across the board. But there would be a ton of misused contracts signed by teams like the Bucks.

Not surprised smaller markets shot it down. They all are just trying to screw the league up for their own greed.

Nah man free market doesn't work in sports. The richest guy buys up all the talent & that super-team prevails. Could you imagine Dwight, LBJ, Wade, CP3, Gasol all on the same team? possible in a free market. someone could just spend 200 million on payroll for a season irrationally, & buy up all of the best talent. leaving the other markets as a wasteland. you want franchise players each on separate teams, not all on the same team. the equilibrium lvl of talent will be too high to compete for a championship. there are 5000 reasons why it doesn''t work. Mainly because spending is out of hand. Weren't the owners complaining about that in the first place?

Hellcrooner
10-25-2011, 12:34 AM
No, a single corporation with franchises. Since it's ONE business, it can't be a monopoly. What is it monopolizing? Anyone who wants to set up a competing league is free to do so.

that is completely debatable, in fact one of the things lawyers from players are entertaining is put the thing into a federal court with antitrust charges.

Hellcrooner
10-25-2011, 12:36 AM
Nah man free market doesn't work in sports. The richest guy buys up all the talent & that super-team prevails. Could you imagine Dwight, LBJ, Wade, CP3, Gasol all on the same team? possible in a free market. someone could just spend 200 million on payroll for a season irrationally, & buy up all of the best talent. leaving the other markets as a wasteland. you want franchise players each on separate teams, not all on the same team. the equilibrium lvl of talent will be too high to compete for a championship. there are 5000 reasons why it doesn''t work. Mainly because spending is out of hand. Weren't the owners complaining about that in the first place?

really? there have been almost twice the number of euroleague ( basket) or champions league ( soccer) teams winning the "ring" since 1980 than nba teams.
Thats free market.
Yopu are also forgetting that the OWNERS of some small market teams are richer than some owners on big markets.
I mean , Paul Allen is no weako.

ink
10-25-2011, 12:38 AM
that is completely debatable, in fact one of the things lawyers from players are entertaining is put the thing into a federal court with antitrust charges.

The anti-trust stuff is about labour relations WITHIN the league (i.e. the corporation). That doesn't stop anyone who wants to start their own league from doing so right? So that means there is no monopoly. They're just the only top level basketball league. Same thing goes for the NHL, MLB, and NFL in North America. They aren't monopolies, they're just the only leagues that have worked. Others have tried right? And were free to do so.

gwrighter
10-25-2011, 12:44 AM
No, a single corporation with franchises. Since it's ONE business, it can't be a monopoly. What is it monopolizing? Anyone who wants to set up a competing league is free to do so.

The sports teams are a monopoly in every sport market. sure, you can start your own league but there really is no point as u can't compete with the monopolist profits. & also these leagues n what not have to be sanctioned by the government. you can't just build a stadium wherever you want. & more often than not the stadiums are built in part using taxpayer $. so yes they are a monopoly, but nobody really cares because your local MP gets free leafs tickets.

topdog
10-25-2011, 12:45 AM
And if there wasn't a government I wouldn't pay taxes, but that's not going to be the best outcome either.

disgruntledbull
10-25-2011, 12:47 AM
sounds like the premier league

ink
10-25-2011, 12:47 AM
The sports teams are a monopoly in every sport market. sure, you can start your own league but there really is no point as u can't compete with the monopolist profits. & also these leagues n what not have to be sanctioned by the government. you can't just build a stadium wherever you want. & more often than not the stadiums are built in part using taxpayer $. so yes they are a monopoly, but nobody really cares because your local MP gets free leafs tickets.

The thing that is getting lost in all this is that it's a company with 30 franchises. Generally they're not publicly owned and what they do business-wise is up to them, just as what Starbucks or Nike or Apple do is up to them. As long as it doesn't violate any labour relations laws. If their actions do violate labour law, they will have to change course. But the idea of a monopoly is a bit of a red herring ...

NBA-GMaster
10-25-2011, 12:50 AM
Haha!!

abe_froman
10-25-2011, 12:52 AM
The anti-trust stuff is about labour relations WITHIN the league (i.e. the corporation). That doesn't stop anyone who wants to start their own league from doing so right? So that means there is no monopoly. They're just the only top level basketball league. Same thing goes for the NHL, MLB, and NFL in North America. They aren't monopolies, they're just the only leagues that have worked. Others have tried right? And were free to do so.

actually ,by law they are.but they(along with the other major leagues like mlb,nfl,ect.)get an exemption from congress every year to operate

gwrighter
10-25-2011, 12:52 AM
really? there have been almost twice the number of euroleague ( basket) or champions league ( soccer) teams winning the "ring" since 1980 than nba teams.
Thats free market.
Yopu are also forgetting that the OWNERS of some small market teams are richer than some owners on big markets.
I mean , Paul Allen is no weako.

i never said anything about small or large market. I said the richest guy buys up all the talent. still not good for the league as a whole. i hope fans want to have more competition, not have outrageous bidding wars for the best talent. i honestly think people want to see 4 teams with the top 60 best players play each other over & over again. its pretty lame.

CityofTreez
10-25-2011, 12:53 AM
Shut up Cuban!

gwrighter
10-25-2011, 01:03 AM
The thing that is getting lost in all this is that it's a company with 30 franchises. Generally they're not publicly owned and what they do business-wise is up to them, just as what Starbucks or Nike or Apple do is up to them. As long as it doesn't violate any labour relations laws. If their actions do violate labour law, they will have to change course. But the idea of a monopoly is a bit of a red herring ...

its an accepted monopoly. Usually monopolies are classified as having extremely high entry costs so it is almost stupid to even try to enter the market. Unless you are sanctioned by the gov(wind mobile) or have some sort of game changing innovation(Iphone vs Blackberry).

Sports is an interesting market because monopolies are help up quite unanimously. Sure you can dismantle the NBA but what's the point? your only going to cause more harm than good. the infrastructure is there & as long as people are willing to pay then there is no issue. People want the Lakers, so give them the Lakers.

& yeah it doesn't mean anything, its supported by the people, It is what it is. Hobbes would say that its better to let out our competitive drive by watching sports rather than killing each other.

Anilyzer
10-25-2011, 01:16 AM
Yeah the smaller market teams do get the high draft picks for a few years and they end up leaving for other teams because you have teams like New York Los Angeles Dallas and others just able to outbid everyone and because of this it is causing players now to ban together and form super teams. These same teams every year are ending up in the lottery and they still have no chance at winning the championship. New York will have one soon as will Chicago and Los Angeles will stock back up. For the last 10-12 years its just been the same teams that have been able to compete.

I like what the NHL has done it has made the entire league competitive and every team has a chance at winning. I just find its the same thing every year in the NBA the same few teams that have a shot at the title and the rest of the guys just filling the league. I just think it's not fair to have a salary cap and then have teams that are 30-40 million over it what's the point in even having one. Sure its great if your a fan of these big market teams but for some say in Indiana and New Orleans they just don't have a chance. The basketball playoffs are the most predictable in all over sports and even a 5th seed beating out a 4th seed doesn't happen very often you just don't see the lower seeds winning playoff series very often. I mean when you have teams that are below .500 making the playoffs it just shows how dominant the better teams are.

I know alot of people will disagree with my opinion but I just don't have any interest in watching until its the finals because you can almost call every series before they start although I will admit this years playoffs were more exciting with Memphis and Dallas going on unexpected runs. Also Atlanta pulling off the upset. It was enjoyable but in the end most of the time the teams that were expected to win did so with relative ease.

Once again when the NBA season starts you know that its going to be Los Angeles Dallas Miami Chicago fighting for the title with a small chance one of New York (if they add another player) or Oklahoma City winning the title other than those teams the other ones will not have a chance. Orlando likely with lose Howard to one of these teams sending them back to the lottery and Boston is a little too old as is San Antonio.

Asides from San Antonio its been the spenders who have been winning the championship the last few years not the teams who have been able to draft the best and that is fact over the last 10 years. If you look at the teams who have won Boston LA Dallas Detroit they all were teams that were bought for the most part even the Miami team went out and added Shaq who could not be afforded by a smaller market team but I won't put them on the list of team I say "bought" the title and then you have San Antonio who did draft the core of their teams so I give them credit but it just doesn't happen very often 8 different teams have won a championship in the last 20 years which isn't comparable to any other sport at this time. In all honesty we are likely going to see Miami take a few titles over the next few years with maybe Los Angeles or New York getting in their with one.

I don't know maybe people think I'm crazy but I know myself and a couple of my friends have just no interest in the NBA because like I said the last few years there are only a handful of teams that have a realistic shot at a championship

Jeebus, again, it's always with the "blah blah blah Chris Bosh left our team", or "blah blah wah wah, Lebron went to Miami."

For Pete's sake. It's just one guy. Where's the sense of competitiveness. One guy leaves, and you have to shut down the whole league to be "competitive."

People should realize... if there's anything unfair about the league, it's the preferential treatment big teams get. Actually I think that cynical owners like Gilbert understand that, so when they lose Lebron they feel that they also lose the special treatment from the refs and their free ticket to the playoffs.

Anilyzer
10-25-2011, 01:26 AM
This simply isn't true.

A hard cap eliminates the financial advantage large revenue teams have over lesser revenue teams. The concept is about as elementary as it gets.

The reasons why small market teams overpay their stars or FA is because it's the only way they can convince their fanbase they're committed to winning. Can't imagine what the Hawks fans would have felt if Joe Johnson left. No right or smart business persa, but you can't alienate your fanbase so it becomes a lose-lose for smaller markets.

Yeah... it's so elementary it's stupid. Think about it: what if you put a salary cap on, say, the movie industry. ALSO an entertainment industry.

Little "small market" movie producers want to be competitive. Why should Sony and Disney have all the big hits? Let's all band together and impose a max salary for stars and directors, and an upper limit for movie budgets.

But then... if Cameron doesn't pay $300M to make Avatar, then they don't make a billion in profit. Etc. People aren't going to spend billions for some crap watered down movie.

Furthermore, it's been totally demonstrated that owners such as Gilbert and Allen, who are the leading Tea Party small market owners, are actually super rich, and coming out FAR ahead with all their NBA related investments.

ALLEN has given out more max contracts to bad players than anyone. And GILBERT had a higher payroll than any team in the league, including Los Angeles, New York and Boston, in 2010.

This whole idea that if, say, Los Angeles can only pay $22M to Kobe instead of $25M, or that Miami wouldn't have cap room to sign Lebron if only there were a hard cap, and that therefore "Cleveland" would be more competitive, is just bunk.

A free agent is a free agent is a free agent.

Actually, the point about the top nba stars being the most underpaid is absolutely correct. The point that if Lebron, Wade and Bosh could make market value in an unrestricted free market, the price tag would be $140M total, is totally true.

It is in fact true that the salary cap allowed Miami to build the big 3... because they ALL have to sign under the cap, they're ALL underpaid, so, wth, why not all sign together somewhere for their $15M max deals, and make a ton off of marketing.

You can't tell me that if there were no cap, Giblert wouldn't have offered $40-$50M a year for Lebron. He was already paying $100M + for a team of scrubs plus Lebron!!

anyways, the whole competitiveness thing is a scam. They just want to sell their teams and escape from under David Stern.

Anilyzer
10-25-2011, 01:34 AM
I find it amusing when people use this argument. People love to lean on it as a crutch thinking that it is the ultimate point. Another popular one is a mom and pop burger joint moving next to a McDonalds and demanding equal opportunity with them.

The reality is that the NBA is a single company with franchises. It's not a McDonalds and its lowly competition, it's just McDonalds. Not communism just a single corporation trying to set what they think is the right for the company as a whole. Will what they are going for be right? Who knows but they have the right to set up the company so that all of their franchises have a reasonalby opportunity to make a profit.

Another common theme among people who support the players is that they deserve the money because they are the product. This is true, they are the product but that is why they are paid 50% plus of the revenue. Most companies try to keep labor costs between 20-30% and not 50+% for a fraction of the employees. The fact that they are the product is priced in and then some.

Something else to consider when calling the players the product is that there is another product of the NBA, competition. Without good competition the NBA becomes closer to the Harlem Globetrotters then a real sport. So any effort by the league or anybody else for that matter to improve competition (parity) among its teams shouldn't be mocked. Thats what true sports is supposed to be about.

Yeah, how about we cap the owner's profit then, while we're at it. If the owners make more than $400B total profit, a "profit tax" kicks in, redirecting a portion of that money to the players.

so, like when the new NBA TV deal gets signed for a gazillion (2011) dollars, the players cash in on that bigtime.

actually it's so funny... the owners are crying unfairness... but if they get the deal they want they'll immediatelly be bragging about how they "totally won" and how much awesome profit they're making.

Look... I've *kind of* run the numbers on this... and if you ask me, the owners are screwing themselves royally on this whole deal.

The owners will HAVE TO cave within the next ten days, otherwise it is a complete disaster. David Stern will be crawling on his knees begging the small market owners to sign a deal.

PREDICTION: Strike solved within 10 days. New system not that different than the old system.

You can't front on that. Talk to me in 10 days. Owners can suck it.

gwrighter
10-25-2011, 01:37 AM
Yeah... it's so elementary it's stupid. Think about it: what if you put a salary cap on, say, the movie industry. ALSO an entertainment industry.

Little "small market" movie producers want to be competitive. Why should Sony and Disney have all the big hits? Let's all band together and impose a max salary for stars and directors, and an upper limit for movie budgets.

But then... if Cameron doesn't pay $300M to make Avatar, then they don't make a billion in profit. Etc. People aren't going to spend billions for some crap watered down movie.

Furthermore, it's been totally demonstrated that owners such as Gilbert and Allen, who are the leading Tea Party small market owners, are actually super rich, and coming out FAR ahead with all their NBA related investments.

ALLEN has given out more max contracts to bad players than anyone. And GILBERT had a higher payroll than any team in the league, including Los Angeles, New York and Boston, in 2010.

This whole idea that if, say, Los Angeles can only pay $22M to Kobe instead of $25M, or that Miami wouldn't have cap room to sign Lebron if only there were a hard cap, and that therefore "Cleveland" would be more competitive, is just bunk.

A free agent is a free agent is a free agent.

Actually, the point about the top nba stars being the most underpaid is absolutely correct. The point that if Lebron, Wade and Bosh could make market value in an unrestricted free market, the price tag would be $140M total, is totally true.

It is in fact true that the salary cap allowed Miami to build the big 3... because they ALL have to sign under the cap, they're ALL underpaid, so, wth, why not all sign together somewhere for their $15M max deals, and make a ton off of marketing.

You can't tell me that if there were no cap, Giblert wouldn't have offered $40-$50M a year for Lebron. He was already paying $100M + for a team of scrubs plus Lebron!!

anyways, the whole competitiveness thing is a scam. They just want to sell their teams and escape from under David Stern.

you are forgetting that the NBA is one company.

hard cap doesn't = parity. it accounts for player preferences by regulating the amount of money a team has to spend on acquiring players.

Anilyzer
10-25-2011, 01:42 AM
The reality is, it's alot harder for parity in the NBA over the NHL, NFL, hell even the MLB... In basketball, you rely on so few players; 15 at max, and usually 1-3 of them are really difficult to replace because of their output, and usually like about 8 of them see constant time. In the NFL, there are 24 starters that need to pull their weight in order for a team to be successful, NHL needs 18, baseball needs at least 9. Your never going to have it as a team could win it all from day one like in the other sports b/c the talent differential is too huge, and you honestly need 1-3 guys in order to win games. Really, I just want to see revenue sharing in order to protect the smaller teams. in this league, teams will have to go a few years before back into contention.... but they need to survive lol

Yes ^^^ true true true

Basketball is actually closer to Tennis than anything else.

Like, Federer and Nadal dominant the league, because there are only two of them.

While all the other "small market" players can just eat it, and "revenue share" what's left of the winnings pool amongst themselves

Anilyzer
10-25-2011, 01:43 AM
you are forgetting that the NBA is one company.

hard cap doesn't = parity. it accounts for player preferences by regulating the amount of money a team has to spend on acquiring players.

Those two sentences don't make any sense.

I already STATED that hard cap doesn't = parity, that's my whole point.

And the other part about player preferences, I have no idea what you meant to say

HouRealCoach
10-25-2011, 01:59 AM
Heat would have Dwight, Bosh, LeBron, Wade, CP3 with Deron as the 6th man lol

RevisIsland
10-25-2011, 02:35 AM
I think with the right revenue sharing model and the right restrictions in place to make sure the money actually goes into the team, this could work very well.

YungDaSensai
10-25-2011, 03:21 AM
Yes Please. Prokhorov making it rain would be lovely.

Haha hell yeah, his money is too long.

YungDaSensai
10-25-2011, 03:23 AM
Cuban's idea = A player auction basically, it'll just be a bidding war.

LA_Raiders
10-25-2011, 04:03 AM
He is a dumbass...

da ThRONe
10-25-2011, 04:09 AM
Sports are weird in a way that you want to beat your competition, but not run them out of business. McDonald, Apple, Starbucks don't rely on competiton to make money. The Lakers can't play themselves. The more teams the league have in markets the more money the NBA generates the better for everybody.

If there's no cap teams with spending owners would drive a lot of teams out of business. Shinking the NBA market and the earning pool in the process.

da ThRONe
10-25-2011, 04:24 AM
Yeah... it's so elementary it's stupid. Think about it: what if you put a salary cap on, say, the movie industry. ALSO an entertainment industry.

Little "small market" movie producers want to be competitive. Why should Sony and Disney have all the big hits? Let's all band together and impose a max salary for stars and directors, and an upper limit for movie budgets.

But then... if Cameron doesn't pay $300M to make Avatar, then they don't make a billion in profit. Etc. People aren't going to spend billions for some crap watered down movie.

Furthermore, it's been totally demonstrated that owners such as Gilbert and Allen, who are the leading Tea Party small market owners, are actually super rich, and coming out FAR ahead with all their NBA related investments.

ALLEN has given out more max contracts to bad players than anyone. And GILBERT had a higher payroll than any team in the league, including Los Angeles, New York and Boston, in 2010.

This whole idea that if, say, Los Angeles can only pay $22M to Kobe instead of $25M, or that Miami wouldn't have cap room to sign Lebron if only there were a hard cap, and that therefore "Cleveland" would be more competitive, is just bunk.

A free agent is a free agent is a free agent.

Actually, the point about the top nba stars being the most underpaid is absolutely correct. The point that if Lebron, Wade and Bosh could make market value in an unrestricted free market, the price tag would be $140M total, is totally true.

It is in fact true that the salary cap allowed Miami to build the big 3... because they ALL have to sign under the cap, they're ALL underpaid, so, wth, why not all sign together somewhere for their $15M max deals, and make a ton off of marketing.

You can't tell me that if there were no cap, Giblert wouldn't have offered $40-$50M a year for Lebron. He was already paying $100M + for a team of scrubs plus Lebron!!

anyways, the whole competitiveness thing is a scam. They just want to sell their teams and escape from under David Stern.


I would compare sports to poker. Sure having the most money at the table doesn't ensure that you'll win, but it gives you a great advantage. If everybody starts out with the same amount it would come down to how the team is managed.

Anilyzer
10-25-2011, 04:32 AM
Heat would have Dwight, Bosh, LeBron, Wade, CP3 with Deron as the 6th man lol

No... because without caps Lebron is worth $35M a year, easy. That's the whole point--if you leave it to the free market, no team will be willing to run up a $220M payroll.

But a Cleveland or an Indiana or a Toronto can all afford to pay out $35M to keep their lone superstar.

= parity

Anilyzer
10-25-2011, 04:42 AM
I would compare sports to poker. Sure having the most money at the table doesn't ensure that you'll win, but it gives you a great advantage. If everybody starts out with the same amount it would come down to how the team is managed.

You're saying it yourself. The most money doesn't ensure that you'll win.

Again... think of the NBA like pro tennis. There are only a few top, top level players, a few Federers and Nadals.

These are the Lebrons, Dwight Howards, Kobes.

Just a handful of guys!! Like 7 or 8 ultra-elite players in the entire league!!

So, even if you make everything totally equal, it will ALWAYS come down to the handful of teams that have those handful of superstars, and the other 22 teams are second-rate. *done*

And then when you consider crappy teams like the Clippers, who have bad, half-hearted management, no tradition, mediocre coaching, no history of winning and dorky uniforms... even IF such a team lucks into a top tier superstar, it's still extremely unlikely that they will go into the playoffs and even more improbable that they'd ever win.

So... when the teams cap themselves (say, to $50M) and cap the max salaries (say, to $17M), then the Miami Heat can happen: 3 players say "wtf" and just join forces for $14M each on a super team.

But if there were NO cap, that could never happen.

This proves right there (Cuban's idea) that the salary cap "competitiveness" excuse the owners are using is based on faulty logic, and is just a fake excuse to put Lebron in his place, stick it to the players, and drastically cut costs ahead of those owners bailing out.

Again... highly likely that the owners crack within 10 days.

Nobody is saying this right now, but I don't see how it can't happen. If 10 days from now the owners haven't cracked, I will totally admit that I was wrong.

Bramaca
10-25-2011, 07:44 AM
Yeah, how about we cap the owner's profit then, while we're at it. If the owners make more than $400B total profit, a "profit tax" kicks in, redirecting a portion of that money to the players.

so, like when the new NBA TV deal gets signed for a gazillion (2011) dollars, the players cash in on that bigtime.

actually it's so funny... the owners are crying unfairness... but if they get the deal they want they'll immediatelly be bragging about how they "totally won" and how much awesome profit they're making.

Look... I've *kind of* run the numbers on this... and if you ask me, the owners are screwing themselves royally on this whole deal.

The owners will HAVE TO cave within the next ten days, otherwise it is a complete disaster. David Stern will be crawling on his knees begging the small market owners to sign a deal.

PREDICTION: Strike solved within 10 days. New system not that different than the old system.

You can't front on that. Talk to me in 10 days. Owners can suck it.

Sorry, that rant really lacked any type of point to address what I said.

Tom Stone
10-25-2011, 07:55 AM
The thinking behind this is, if you allow players to earn their true market value, it would be nearly impossible to keep a super team together.

Cuban is an idiot.....basketball would end up just like baseball........In my opinion baseball shouldn't be watched because of there system.....bluejays can't even get to playoffs, there system is pathic......no true fan of sports should support this.......And you people are wrong the super teams wouldn't be built, the teams with the most money load up on talent....the very issue the lock out is about.......I don't understand your thinking, that super teams wouldn't be created under that system.......a three year old could see that wouldn't work.:cool:

SportsAndrew25
10-25-2011, 07:55 AM
I so support this. Get rid of this stupid salary cap nonsense. The team who makes the right decisions, play by the rules, and plays the game the right way, wins.

Tom Stone
10-25-2011, 08:12 AM
The max NBA contract should be ten million, plus they get there endorsements.....the other 300 players in the league would benefit, from one or two players, not taking up all the money......if the stars actually cared about the league and it's players, they would agree to a more fair system for everyone.....this lockout is about ....max contract players wanting a broken system to benefit them....vs An Honorable system where every team can compeate......it really is good vs evil......Stay strong Stern, good can defeat evil.

daleja424
10-25-2011, 08:48 AM
The max NBA contract should be ten million, plus they get there endorsements.....the other 300 players in the league would benefit, from one or two players, not taking up all the money......if the stars actually cared about the league and it's players, they would agree to a more fair system for everyone.....this lockout is about ....max contract players wanting a broken system to benefit them....vs An Honorable system where every team can compeate......it really is good vs evil......Stay strong Stern, good can defeat evil.

this is america though my friend... capitalism... not socialism.

Sinestro
10-25-2011, 09:01 AM
Scrap the whole system! Free Market rules! They should try to set up the NBA like the UEFA Champions League! <-----that has some awesome competition but I doubt it would ever work for basketball

SteBO
10-25-2011, 09:28 AM
You're getting sucked into the rhetoric. Neither the owners or players care about you/me/us. Discussing this concessions nonsense only serves them. It doesn't serve us. Don't buy into the dysfunctionality of millionaires or billionaires.

The fact is that the players at this point in NBA history, control the league. And that is creating some of the worst conditions for the league we've ever seen. Their greed with the previous CBA is the problem. It needs to end.
I understand. But the fact remains that the players are trying to negotiate, the owners aren't. I'm with you though, the lockout is silly. Millionaires and Billionaires arguing over money is frustrating for guys like us to listen to and follow.

gwrighter
10-25-2011, 09:47 AM
this is america though my friend... capitalism... not socialism.

don't gimme this BS. America is not a pure capitalist nation. The USA is only capitalist when it benefits them, then they employ socialist policies when it benefits them.

A union by design is a socialist concept. The NBAPA is fighting for every player, not only the ones at the top.

n don't forget there is 1 team in Canada:)

gwrighter
10-25-2011, 09:58 AM
Those two sentences don't make any sense.

I already STATED that hard cap doesn't = parity, that's my whole point.

And the other part about player preferences, I have no idea what you meant to say

it's not black & white. Hard Cap doesn't = parity. But it stops teams from loading up on talent while still paying elevated prices for players. It leaves good players available for other teams in the league. it creates more competition.

players prefer to play on historically good teams, or teams with a winning culture, or in big markets. Not solely because they like those places better(even tho they do). But because they know those teams are willing to spend over the cap to win. By eliminating this, the difference between playing in LA vs. Minny wouldn't have anything to do with the owners willingness to spend on players, but more concrete things that you can see on paper more easily.

Sinestro
10-25-2011, 10:17 AM
I disagree with the idea that a hard cap will help smaller markets keep their players or attract them in free agency. Simply put if I was a free agent and the Boston Celtics are offering $17 million and the Charlotte Bobcats are offering me $17 million I would head over to the Celtics. In order for Smaller Markets to have a chance you would have to place a HUGE incentive to the players in order for them stay with they drafted.

Also Basketball is much different than any other sport one player can make a HUGE difference look at what happen to the Cavaliers after LeBron or what may happen to the Magic or Hornets after CP3 and Howard leave. If there are truly only 8-10 "Elite" players isn't it funny how it seems to be their teams which are the main contenders at the start of the season?

Southsideheat
10-25-2011, 11:08 AM
I like the idea but if its implemented immediately, you can basically give the Heat their 6 titles now because they'll be able to add at no limit while their top 3 players will make less than a few of the players they'll bring in.

Sinestro
10-25-2011, 11:20 AM
I like the idea but if its implemented immediately, you can basically give the Heat their 6 titles now because they'll be able to add at no limit while their top 3 players will make less than a few of the players they'll bring in.

True...Screw it lets void out all contracts and reboot the NBA heck movies get rebooted why not sports

da ThRONe
10-25-2011, 12:10 PM
I disagree with the idea that a hard cap will help smaller markets keep their players or attract them in free agency. Simply put if I was a free agent and the Boston Celtics are offering $17 million and the Charlotte Bobcats are offering me $17 million I would head over to the Celtics. In order for Smaller Markets to have a chance you would have to place a HUGE incentive to the players in order for them stay with they drafted.

Also Basketball is much different than any other sport one player can make a HUGE difference look at what happen to the Cavaliers after LeBron or what may happen to the Magic or Hornets after CP3 and Howard leave. If there are truly only 8-10 "Elite" players isn't it funny how it seems to be their teams which are the main contenders at the start of the season?

What some of you or failing to realize is if we had a hard cap. Boston may not have 17 million to offer you. They may only have room to offer you 7. While Charlotte may have the cap space to offer you 17 million. Now you have to choose between market and history versus money. Some players may choose history/market/team over money, but once again it levels the playing field drasticially.

Sinestro
10-25-2011, 12:25 PM
What some of you or failing to realize is if we had a hard cap. Boston may not have 17 million to offer you. They may only have room to offer you 7. While Charlotte may have the cap space to offer you 17 million. Now you have to choose between market and history versus money. Some players may choose history/market/team over money, but once again it levels the playing field drasticially.

That same situation can happen right now though, if Dwight Howard becomes a free agent sure some teams can offer him the full max contract but the Bulls and Lakers can offer the MLE. I'm just stating that I seriously doubt that there is a way to make large market teams like the Lakers, Knicks, Bulls seem less attractive to players. Again the only way I see this happening is if the new system gives the team that drafted him INSANE advantages.

da ThRONe
10-25-2011, 01:08 PM
That same situation can happen right now though, if Dwight Howard becomes a free agent sure some teams can offer him the full max contract but the Bulls and Lakers can offer the MLE. I'm just stating that I seriously doubt that there is a way to make large market teams like the Lakers, Knicks, Bulls seem less attractive to players. Again the only way I see this happening is if the new system gives the team that drafted him INSANE advantages.

A hard cap doesn't have any MLE that defeats the purpose of having a hard cap. Every contract counts against the cap evenly.

So Dwight would have to either choose money or team/market. That would prevent teams with big money invested in two or three players already out of the market with the exception of trading one of their key players.

That's why I don't see how anybody can say a hard cap doesn't promote parity. Does it ensure parity nothing in sports are guarentee. However as a fan of a small market city I've seen my Saints win a title in a league that promotes parity. While my Hornets are seeking ownership(even though we have great news in that department) and fighting to save the best player the city has ever had.

I rather my teams' success be based on Dell Demps vs Mitch Kupchak. As opposed to George Shinn vs Jerry Buss.

Sinestro
10-25-2011, 01:32 PM
I was stating under the current/old CBA the Lakers could offer Dwight the MLE while another team could offer him the full, I guess were just on different sides to this arguement agree to disagree I suppose

futureman
10-25-2011, 02:15 PM
Yes and we would have only 9 real NBA teams and the rest of the teams would serve as farming teams. That's how it is in the MLB. So heck no.

ink
10-25-2011, 02:17 PM
Yes and we would have only 9 real NBA teams and the rest of the teams would serve as farm teams. That's how it is in the MLB. So heck no.

This.

Anilyzer
10-25-2011, 02:18 PM
What some of you or failing to realize is if we had a hard cap. Boston may not have 17 million to offer you. They may only have room to offer you 7. While Charlotte may have the cap space to offer you 17 million. Now you have to choose between market and history versus money. Some players may choose history/market/team over money, but once again it levels the playing field drasticially.

Maybe... or perhaps Charlotte is the team that caps itself out.

Say, Charlotte and teams like that always get the first round picks. The usual ones, they sign to longterm deals after 3 years. That once every few years "ultra-elite" player (Kobe, Lebron, Dwight) the other teams load up on, and start clearing space to trade for, the day he's drafted.

Then his agents begin forcing the trade as his contract expires.

Then he goes to NY or LA, and Charlotte ends up JUST as capped out, except they have Galliano and Mehmet Okur or whoever.

Also... consider that with a hard cap... consider how much sheer dollars the big market teams will make. Do the fans even want to see the Lakers or Knicks pull down $200M in profit in huge markets, because their payroll is capped at the level of the Charlotte Bobcats?

And why, then, should the Charlotte Bobcats get ANY share of the profits the Lakers make, if they've demanded this hard cap so that they can "compete" and be profitable?

Charlotte probably finds itself in the same boat, either way, but the cap does weaken the whole league.

ink
10-25-2011, 02:37 PM
Also... consider that with a hard cap... consider how much sheer dollars the big market teams will make. Do the fans even want to see the Lakers or Knicks pull down $200M in profit in huge markets, because their payroll is capped at the level of the Charlotte Bobcats?

That inequity exists no matter what system they're under. The big markets will always pull down massive amounts just because they're in big markets. That's not the point. The point is that smaller market teams are needed by any league that wants representation across North America. And they will work out some sort of revenue sharing arrangement to ensure that owners in small markets still have enough incentive to actually be owners. People keep forgetting that the NBA is ONE company consisting of franchises. Any company is going to find a way to make all their franchises as healthy as possible.

RekeHavoc
10-25-2011, 02:49 PM
and the knicks still wldnt play D ,lol

whitemamba33
10-25-2011, 03:15 PM
Between 2000 and 2010, nine different teams won the world series. Only the Yankees and Boston won twice, and they were not in consecutive season.

In the same period, eight different teams won the Stanley Cup. No teams won two years in a row. And this includes the lockout year where no hockey was played.

In the same period, eight different teams won the Super Bowl. Only the Patriots were able to win back to back championships.

In the same period, only FIVE NBA teams won a championship. The Lakers won three in a row, and then two in a row.

There is a problem here.

ManningToTyree
10-25-2011, 03:22 PM
LOL of course Cuban suggested this. I think it is a great idea :D

beliges
10-25-2011, 03:31 PM
Between 2000 and 2010, nine different teams won the world series. Only the Yankees and Boston won twice, and they were not in consecutive season.

In the same period, eight different teams won the Stanley Cup. No teams won two years in a row. And this includes the lockout year where no hockey was played.

In the same period, eight different teams won the Super Bowl. Only the Patriots were able to win back to back championships.

In the same period, only FIVE NBA teams won a championship. The Lakers won three in a row, and then two in a row.

There is a problem here.

Theres no problem. Thats how the NBA is different than these other professional sports. One individual can dominate the basketball court moreso than any one individual can dominate these other sports. The Lakers happened to have Kobe and Shaq in teh early 00s and Kobe in the late 00s so they won 5 titles. Thats the game of basketball. Its not baseball, hockey or football.

nyKnicks126
10-25-2011, 03:35 PM
and the knicks still wldnt play D ,lol

It's okay, we all get you are jealous of the Knicks, the fanbase, and the City..

whitemamba33
10-25-2011, 04:23 PM
Theres no problem. Thats how the NBA is different than these other professional sports. One individual can dominate the basketball court moreso than any one individual can dominate these other sports. The Lakers happened to have Kobe and Shaq in teh early 00s and Kobe in the late 00s so they won 5 titles. Thats the game of basketball. Its not baseball, hockey or football.

But there are a bunch of other teams that have superstars as well. Yes the Lakers had Kobe in the late 00's, but Miami had Wade, Cleveland had LeBron, Dallas had Dirk, Orlando had Howard. Lots of teams have that "one individual that can dominate the basketball court" like you were talking about.

Hellcrooner
10-25-2011, 04:26 PM
But there are a bunch of other teams that have superstars as well. Yes the Lakers had Kobe in the late 00's, but Miami had Wade, Cleveland had LeBron, Dallas had Dirk, Orlando had Howard. Lots of teams have that "one individual that can dominate the basketball court" like you were talking about.

but neither of them had a "pau gasol" or a "manu/parker" "kg/Pierce" ( whoever your consider the second in line) nor did they have superb defensive minded, well rounded fringe all stars filled rosters like pistons 04 and mavs this year.

beliges
10-25-2011, 04:28 PM
But there are a bunch of other teams that have superstars as well. Yes the Lakers had Kobe in the late 00's, but Miami had Wade, Cleveland had LeBron, Dallas had Dirk, Orlando had Howard. Lots of teams have that "one individual that can dominate the basketball court" like you were talking about.

Thats true but none of those other teams had Kobe. The player of the decade won half the championships during that span. Its not a coincidence. The best player in the world will find a way to win titles.

da ThRONe
10-25-2011, 05:32 PM
Maybe... or perhaps Charlotte is the team that caps itself out.

Say, Charlotte and teams like that always get the first round picks. The usual ones, they sign to longterm deals after 3 years. That once every few years "ultra-elite" player (Kobe, Lebron, Dwight) the other teams load up on, and start clearing space to trade for, the day he's drafted.

Then his agents begin forcing the trade as his contract expires.

Then he goes to NY or LA, and Charlotte ends up JUST as capped out, except they have Galliano and Mehmet Okur or whoever.

Also... consider that with a hard cap... consider how much sheer dollars the big market teams will make. Do the fans even want to see the Lakers or Knicks pull down $200M in profit in huge markets, because their payroll is capped at the level of the Charlotte Bobcats?

And why, then, should the Charlotte Bobcats get ANY share of the profits the Lakers make, if they've demanded this hard cap so that they can "compete" and be profitable?

Charlotte probably finds itself in the same boat, either way, but the cap does weaken the whole league.

That's a matter of opinions. I think parity makes the league stronger. Having 60% of the league teams being "good tv rating teams" are better than having 20% of the teams being "great tv rating teams".

The large market teams will still be able to over pay for coaches and GM's. I'm more of a fan of a flex cap with a large luxury tax. That gives large revenue teams just a little something extra.

ink
10-25-2011, 07:46 PM
btw the NBA is adamantly saying that Billy Hunter is BSing about this. They insist that Cuban was talking about a luxury tax modification, not abandoning any salary cap.

Jamiecballer
10-25-2011, 08:21 PM
And since owners are so wealthy, why do they need to more of the BRI than the players? I know: they're so self-righteous and disgustingly greedy and power-hungry that they want to extort and cripple these players. That's not right man. At all.

you have a right to your opinion but i find it disgusting. why should they people who bear all the risk in the investment not be entitled to the largest chunk of the revenues?

Jamiecballer
10-25-2011, 08:25 PM
that is completely debatable, in fact one of the things lawyers from players are entertaining is put the thing into a federal court with antitrust charges.

holy crap i almost pissed myself laughing. can't wait to see how that goes :eyebrow:

SteBO
10-25-2011, 08:35 PM
you have a right to your opinion but i find it disgusting. why should they people who bear all the risk in the investment not be entitled to the largest chunk of the revenues?
And don't players risk injury playing a sport? How is my opinion "disgusting"? The owners put themselves in this hellhole. Why should the player suffer for their mishaps? They make these guys money anyway. It's on the owners to invest their dollars in the right people, and it's been clear for a while now that they haven't. Don't punish the players for your mistakes is what I'm saying. The owners have a right for the "opportunity" to make a profit; they aren't entitled to it.

Anilyzer
10-26-2011, 02:18 AM
But there are a bunch of other teams that have superstars as well. Yes the Lakers had Kobe in the late 00's, but Miami had Wade, Cleveland had LeBron, Dallas had Dirk, Orlando had Howard. Lots of teams have that "one individual that can dominate the basketball court" like you were talking about.

Lots of teams have players that are marketed as superstars, lots of players think they are "the one" and "the next Jordan" and the best player in the league.

That's why they play the games and the playoffs.

Magic and Worthy -- Dominated
Isaiah and Rodman -- Dominated
Jordan and Pippen -- Dominated
Shaq and Kobe -- Dominated
Robinson and Duncan -- Dominated
Kobe and Gasol -- Dominated

Everybody else... *meh*. Not so much. Ultimately it doesn't matter how many Wheaties boxes you're on, or how much bling you got, or how many shoe contracts. Each year, there can be only one.

Look at that list of players. That's ELEVEN players... spanning almost 30 years.

HOLY CRAP it is unbelievable that teams are trying to say that just lowering the salary cap will make every team competitive.

Just like tennis, there are only a few players who are next-level.

While we're on this subject, if we ARE going to hard cap every team, take all the incentive and freedom out of it, then every team should get an equal shot in the draft lottery every year.

This thing about giving the worst teams all the lottery picks is lame.

What is that? Really, WHAT is that? I suppose that's just "redistribution of luck" or we're putting a "luck cap" on the best teams or whatever.

You know, as an athlete and as a competitor, I just always hated when I heard people whine and make excuses. I don't like whiney complainers.

Look, just say you want more money, you want to make more billions off the league, so you want to prevent agents from tricking the owners into bad deals, and you don't want to pay (anywhere near) market value for superstars.

I'll respect that. But this "small market competitiveness" story is weak... and I will keep making fun of it as long as it's out there. Welcome to America. Welcome to Capitalism. Welcome to the big leagues. Oh, and by the way, the NBA isn't "One big company", it is a league of teams, each of which is a separate company. The league is a company, but the teams are members in the league. If all the teams were one company, I hardly think this would be a problem.

And oh yeah... Owners cave before November, or I will admit that I've been wrong about everything.

ink
10-26-2011, 02:41 AM
Oh, and by the way, the NBA isn't "One big company", it is a league of teams, each of which is a separate company. The league is a company, but the teams are members in the league. If all the teams were one company, I hardly think this would be a problem.

Which is it? Is the NBA a company or not? Are the franchises, franchises of that company or not? Thought so. Obviously they are franchises of one company. That's the structure of the league. The reason there is a "problem" is the same "problem" that happens whenever workers unionize to lobby for more rights and better working conditions. Because there is a union, like there is in all pro sports, the owners aren't able to completely dictate without the approval of the union. That's why there's a CBA -- a collective bargaining agreement.

ink
10-26-2011, 02:48 AM
The league says it was the union, not Cuban, who proposed the elimination of the salary cap:


NEW YORK -- The NBA players' association, not Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, proposed the elimination of the salary cap during negotiations aimed at ending months of labour strife, a league official said Tuesday.

NBA senior vice-president Mike Bass said union executive director Billy Hunter made "several misstatements" during an hour-long podcast with ESPN.com on Monday. Among them was the revelation of the salary cap plan, which Bass said was actually an exception to the cap, not the elimination of it.

Hunter said that, during a meeting last week, Cuban proposed what he called a "game changer" -- a plan to replace the salary cap with a heavy tax for teams that spent to a certain level. Hunter said the players were interested in discussing it further and that two or three other owners in the room were really excited about it, but then were told by the owners they wouldn't pursue it.

"On behalf of the league, Mark Cuban proposed adding a new salary cap exception, not eliminating the salary cap," Bass said. "It was the union that, in response, proposed eliminating the salary cap, a proposal that was even worse for the NBA than the union's prior proposals."

http://tsn.ca/nba/story/?id=378897

SteBO
10-26-2011, 08:28 AM
It did sound like something mark Cuban would say, but this doesn't really shock me. Of course the union would want this, but even they should know that it wouldn't fly.

daleja424
10-26-2011, 08:50 AM
Got to tell you ink... the league has lied (or at least manipulated the truth) so many times in the last month that I am inclined to disregard almost everything out of their mouth at this point. Regardless of which side you take in this debate, one thing is abundantly clear: The union has been shooting from the hip in providing the media with information, while the league has made highly contrived and heavily edited accounts of every story. If there is a side to believe in a discrepancy it would seem to be the players account... no?

Shmontaine
10-26-2011, 11:08 AM
Got to tell you ink... the league has lied (or at least manipulated the truth) so many times in the last month that I am inclined to disregard almost everything out of their mouth at this point. Regardless of which side you take in this debate, one thing is abundantly clear: The union has been shooting from the hip in providing the media with information, while the league has made highly contrived and heavily edited accounts of every story. If there is a side to believe in a discrepancy it would seem to be the players account... no?

newsflash... both sides are lying... you're on the side of the players so you want to believe them over the owners...

ink
10-26-2011, 12:12 PM
newsflash... both sides are lying... you're on the side of the players so you want to believe them over the owners...

I would agree with this. I'd call it spinning the facts or spinning the truth.

The way I'm seeing it, this is players/owners vs. us, the ones who watch the game. If we're dumb enough (and believe me I'm including myself) to keep watching the game, buying the merchandise, etc, etc. you can hardly blame them for trying to win support from the fanbase. To do that they need to spin the story their way.

I know what I want: a league that is NOT run by the players. They are not equipped to take care of the game, the franchises, or the league as a whole, and on top of everything else, this crop of players is so into themselves they barely know anyone exists except themselves. They've lost my sympathy years ago because they have no loyalty to me or anyone else in the stands supporting them. So if they have no loyalty to me, I'm damned if I'm going to trust them with ANYTHING.

I'm aware that they are the players and without them there would be no NBA, but they have gone way too far in recent years and shredded the loyalty I might have felt for them. That doesn't mean I have no attachment to any NBA player. I just have zero sympathy for the biggest egos in the game, and I want a CBA that will bring them back into team mode, instead of "me" mode all the time.

Sactown
10-26-2011, 04:16 PM
I would agree with this. I'd call it spinning the facts or spinning the truth.

The way I'm seeing it, this is players/owners vs. us, the ones who watch the game. If we're dumb enough (and believe me I'm including myself) to keep watching the game, buying the merchandise, etc, etc. you can hardly blame them for trying to win support from the fanbase. To do that they need to spin the story their way.

I know what I want: a league that is NOT run by the players. They are not equipped to take care of the game, the franchises, or the league as a whole, and on top of everything else, this crop of players is so into themselves they barely know anyone exists except themselves. They've lost my sympathy years ago because they have no loyalty to me or anyone else in the stands supporting them. So if they have no loyalty to me, I'm damned if I'm going to trust them with ANYTHING.

I'm aware that they are the players and without them there would be no NBA, but they have gone way too far in recent years and shredded the loyalty I might have felt for them. That doesn't mean I have no attachment to any NBA player. I just have zero sympathy for the biggest egos in the game, and I want a CBA that will bring them back into team mode, instead of "me" mode all the time.

This, plus I want a league that is constructed well enough that each team is able to survive in any given location... I honestly know that the league is never going to be an "any given year" type of league due to the impact one player can have on the game, but still having each team make money would allow the competitiveness to go up a little.. look at the Kings.. We spend less than Mark Cubans fines/luxury tax

ewmania
10-26-2011, 07:16 PM
I'm down....:)

But seriously, this could eliminate almost every small market in the league. jetsfan28 brings up a great point though.

false, MLB has no salary cap and texas is in the world series