PDA

View Full Version : How the Owners can save the game and make the league better for years to come



RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 05:53 PM
This is pretty legnthy, so read at your own risk:

As most of you know by now, i was against the players making the obscene percentage amount of BRI that they were getting under the last CBA, and i felt that anything other than a BRI split of 50-50 was unfair. but after some convincing, by Steve Nash, i have reconsidered this to a point, but, i still donot believe the players hsould be taking home 57%.

http://www.iamagm.com/news/2011/10/26/steve.nash.uses.lil.wayne.business.example.describ e.nba.lockout

Basically Nash broke the BRI thing down in terms that would be more understandable, say the music business. he was talking about that if Lil Wayne(you know the rapper that claims he is gangsta,gets caught with assault rifles, goes to jail, now hops on skate boards, and wears leggings while performing now :eyebrow:) has a concert that he would come out with 97% of the profits, and the talent in the industry gets the majority of the money, and the company takes the rest.

But, you still have to respect that without the medium, you wouldnt be doing what your doing! without the NBA, you would still be in the hood, playing pickup games! Without the music industry, you would be on a corner distributing your little mixtapes!

so in my opinion, should the players come out with the majority of the money? Yes. But should there be such a wide gap between the people that allow these people to play, and the players? NO!

People forget all the other costs the owners have to deal with to provide these players with the opportunity, who finances the stadium? who pays for all the equipment, the jerseys, travel expences, the coaches and Gms that build the teams so that you can succeed at your profession?

do i see the players opening their pockets to pay for all that? i dont think so.

with that said, the players need to respect the Game, and make sacrifices for not just themselves, but for the league, and its fans.

i cannot tell you how sick and tired i have been of watching my teams play crap teams like the twolves,knicks, nets, bobcats, 76ers,raptors, bucks, and so many others over the past 11 years! IVE HAD ENOUGH! these days, i dont even watch half of the games unless its a marquee matchup, or my team is playing.

and the fans of these crap teams? all they do is sit around, make imaginary situations of their team signing player X and player Y, and when they are free agents, some big market team signs that player.

Face it, under the current system, The Los Angeles Clippers are slated to be the next superteam!

under the current CBA, if the cap stays the same, the clippers not only have enough money to sign Dwight Howard for a max deal, but sign chris paul for slightly lower than the max! and they still would have enough money to give Eric Gordon a contract extention, and with the luxary tax structure, and the Bird exception, the following year, they would have griffin resigned, and have the MLE!

we would have possibly seen a starting lineup like this in the western conference for the next 5-6 years:

Paul
Gordon
random piece of MLE crap
Griffin
Howard

Does this excite you?? would you be hype to see a roster like this face off against anyone in the league?

they would CHEW MIAMI, CHICAGO, AND OKC ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!

but the owners of these small market teams look at this and say NO! we cannot take this, we are losing money, people aren't coming to our games because we have to sit around and suck for years to acquire enough top picks to build a competitive roster

That system will not fly anymore!!!

As a fan, and as a supporter of the owners, im telling you im tired! I live in NY, i do not watch knicks games, even after they acquired melo, becaus im disgusted with the way these players are beginning to force their wat to other teams, the only time i watch a knicks or nets game is when they face my bulls or nuggets

i donot watch Miami heat games unless they are facing a team with a chance of beating them. i only watched the okc thunder 1st round matchup, the all the bulls playoff games, some of the mavs WCF games. and of the nba finals,i mostly just watched the 2nd half of most of the games

i used to be sooooooo excited for the finals, but now, over the last few years, its a series of who can trade for the most stars over the summer, and now its who can pile as much stars they can get through free agency.

i love homegrown teams that come out and make the occasional trade, or sign a player to put them over the hump, but most of their roster, they drafted

I love the Bulls, i love OKC, i love the Bucks, i love the Clippers. their stars, THEY DRAFTED

look at half of these damn teams ot there, i would love to see the percentage of players on Miami, NY, Boston,Dallas, and some of these other teams, that they have drafted them selves and have stayed with the team! i bet its less than 5%

i mean who havent the celtics signed over the past 4 years? who havent the mavs traded for? are there any players the knicks can honestly say they drafted still on the roster outside of fields?

the system needs to change

a lower BRI would stop or atleast slow down this super team trend, by making some of these teams that believe they have a ton of cap for 2012, have consideribaly less, to the point, they may only be able to sign one star, some, would be considered lucky to get a free agent for under 10 million.

These are the figures:

http://www.hoopsworld.com/bri-reduction-what-could-it-mean/

BRI Player % Cap Number

57% 58 Million(current structure)

53% 53 Million

51.5% 52 Million

50% 50 Million

46% 46 Million

What percentage do you feel is both fair to the players, and fair to the game?

im for any percentage between 53 and 51, that should be enough to help the game out a considerable bit.

i will gladly lose 1 or 2 seasons if it means the BRI would be lowered and increased competition would happen

daleja424
10-26-2011, 05:58 PM
51.5 is a fair number for both sides IMO.

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 06:11 PM
51.5 is a fair number for both sides IMO.

yea, i believe there was a discussion of somewhere between a 49 percent on a normal year, and a 52% on a year in which the league has increased revenue or something to that effect

so much people claim its the owners fault and want the season to start immediately, but haven't taken the time to see what wld really happen if the players got their way

PhillyFaninLA
10-26-2011, 06:12 PM
No one call a 50/50 split unfair or unreasonable.

imagesrdecievin
10-26-2011, 06:13 PM
Sliding scale is "most" fair to both sides - but it seems to me like BRI and competitive balance are mutually exclusive. The current system(soft cap) is what screws up competitive balance regardless of the money split. Some owners will reinvest any extra money they get through the split and others will just pocket it.

One of the smartest things the owners have done through out this lockout is to make it appear as if they need a bigger part of the BRI to "save" the league. That is BS. If the owners were making a hardline stance regarding the system itself then I would believe they were truly invested in creating competitive balance. They aren't though which shows me this is strictly about money.

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 06:14 PM
No one call a 50/50 split unfair or unreasonable.

imagine you are a music artist, and you come out with an album, but ur record company and you split the profits?

does it seem a little less unfair now?

thats how i arrived at my conclusion

daleja424
10-26-2011, 06:14 PM
I think the ideal sliding scale is 50-52... with 51 the likeliest outcome (Like it would have to be a really bad or really good year to move off of 51)

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 06:16 PM
Sliding scale is "most" fair to both sides - but it seems to me like BRI and competitive balance are mutually exclusive. The current system(soft cap) is what screws up competitive balance regardless of the money split. Some owners will reinvest any extra money they get through the split and others will just pocket it.

One of the smartest things the owners have done through out this lockout is to make it appear as if they need a bigger part of the BRI to "save" the league. That is BS. If the owners were making a hardline stance regarding the system itself then I would believe they were truly invested in creating competitive balance. They aren't though which shows me this is strictly about money.

what more could the owners do to increase competition? vote on whether trades and signings are fair?

the BRI is their only weapon

and i sure dont see the players being interested in competition, they just wanna team up to win

daleja424
10-26-2011, 06:16 PM
imagine you are a music artist, and you come out with an album, but ur record company and you split the profits?

does it seem a little less unfair now?

thats how i arrived at my conclusion

I am on the players side... I am... but that is a really really bad analogy. Like epically bad.

The overhead required to run a team means that the owners are actually walking out of there losing money. And if you were a music producer losing money on a guy...you would drop his ***...no matter how talented he is.

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 06:16 PM
I think the ideal sliding scale is 50-52... with 51 the likeliest outcome (Like it would have to be a really bad or really good year to move off of 51)

yea, sliding scale seems best after hearing about it

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 06:18 PM
I am on the players side... I am... but that is a really really bad analogy. Like epically bad.

The overhead required to run a team means that the owners are actually walking out of there losing money. And if you were a music producer losing money on a guy...you would drop his ***...no matter how talented he is.

lol, sorry, its just a way that helped me to understand it, i guess it wont work for everyone else,lol

PhillyFaninLA
10-26-2011, 06:19 PM
imagine you are a music artist, and you come out with an album, but ur record company and you split the profits?

does it seem a little less unfair now?

thats how i arrived at my conclusion


Very fair point.

I meant in terms of this situation 50/50 in completely fair, so no it does not seem less unfair now.

daleja424
10-26-2011, 06:20 PM
lol, sorry, its just a way that helped me to understand it, i guess it wont work for everyone else,lol

I understand the connection... but the difference is that it is a lot more expensive to run an nba team than it is to run a studio and produce music. In this case... even though the owners get 43% currently... none of that money is pocketed....it is all spent on the product (in one way or another).

imagesrdecievin
10-26-2011, 06:21 PM
what more could the owners do to increase competition? vote on whether trades and signings are fair?

the BRI is their only weapon

and i sure dont see the players being interested in competition, they just wanna team up to win

Something I haven't seen mentioned but just though of - why not end the transferrence of Bird's Rights?

Seems like that would be a big step towards limiting "Star" movement. Then superteams become less likely as there is less pressure to trade your star because then only teams under the salary cap are a threat to sign them away from you.

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 06:22 PM
I understand the connection... but the difference is that it is a lot more expensive to run an nba team than it is to run a studio and produce music. In this case... even though the owners get 43% currently... none of that money is pocketed....it is all spent on the product (in one way or another).

and honestly, we cant call the owners and players greed, caus if we were in that situation, we wld want our money too,lol

they have to do whats best for the game

daleja424
10-26-2011, 06:23 PM
Something I haven't seen mentioned but just though of - why not end the transferrence of Bird's Rights?

Seems like that would be a big step towards limiting "Star" movement. Then superteams become less likely as there is less pressure to trade your star because then only teams under the salary cap are a threat to sign them away from you.

Doesn't solve much TBH... just means that a guy has to sign his extension or resign (depending on the situation) prior to being traded.

Not a bad idea...but there are multiple ways around that.

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 06:23 PM
Something I haven't seen mentioned but just though of - why not end the transferrence of Bird's Rights?

Seems like that would be a big step towards limiting "Star" movement. Then superteams become less likely as there is less pressure to trade your star because then only teams under the salary cap are a threat to sign them away from you.

i think they need to do that, and limit the number of players on a roster that can be resigned due to the bird rights thing

i heard a limit of 3 players per team was previously discussed

da ThRONe
10-26-2011, 06:25 PM
So is the OP supporting contracting teams? And against a hard cap?

da ThRONe
10-26-2011, 06:27 PM
The recording artist example is a really bad one. Generally artists make their money on tour because the record label screw them on the record sells.

imagesrdecievin
10-26-2011, 06:28 PM
Doesn't solve much TBH... just means that a guy has to sign his extension or resign (depending on the situation) prior to being traded.

Not a bad idea...but there are multiple ways around that.

A player signing a Bird's Rights contract cannot be traded until half of the contract length has expired?

Lil Rhody
10-26-2011, 06:41 PM
I am on the players side... I am... but that is a really really bad analogy. Like epically bad.

The overhead required to run a team means that the owners are actually walking out of there losing money. And if you were a music producer losing money on a guy...you would drop his ***...no matter how talented he is.

If only they could cut a player for not living up to his pay then we prob would not be in this situation cause the owners are paying a ton of sub par players a **** ton of money

da ThRONe
10-26-2011, 06:46 PM
The salary rules have gotten way too complex. Just bring in a flex cap, no Bird rules, no exceptions. Every penny counts against the cap. A cap ceiling 10-15% above the salary cap and a cap floor 10-15% below the salary cap.

If guys are willing to take significant pay cuts to fit under the cap to form superteams so be it.

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 06:46 PM
So is the OP supporting contracting teams? And against a hard cap?

wait what???

who the heck said anything about contracting teams??? my name isnt Lebron James, its Creed

Nice try tho, try putting words in someone elses mouth next time

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 06:47 PM
If only they could cut a player for not living up to his pay then we prob would not be in this situation cause the owners are paying a ton of sub par players a **** ton of money

thats exactly why i believe there is a 60% chance there will be an amnsety clause

da ThRONe
10-26-2011, 06:48 PM
wait what???

who the heck said anything about contracting teams??? my name isnt Lebron James, its Creed

Nice try tho, try putting words in someone elses mouth next time

You do know what ---> ? means right? It was a question. So how is that putting words anywhere?

da ThRONe
10-26-2011, 06:51 PM
I would like to see ETO's half way thorough all contract's. Give both parties the option to part way's if the current contract isn't "market value" for the player anymore.

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 06:53 PM
You do know what ---> ? means right? It was a question. So how is that putting words anywhere?

to answer your question: No

as far as this hard cap vs soft cap stuff

i dont get too much into that, i feel the salary cap should be about 52 million, and the max a team should have as a payroll is 65-66million, meaning, the only reason teams should be around the 60's is for the money they use to resign their own players, and MLE money

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 06:55 PM
anyone notice that there are no heat or bulls or celtics fans in here?

coincidence? i think not

da ThRONe
10-26-2011, 07:02 PM
to answer your question: No

as far as this hard cap vs soft cap stuff

i dont get too much into that, i feel the salary cap should be about 52 million, and the max a team should have as a payroll is 65-66million, meaning, the only reason teams should be around the 60's is for the money they use to resign their own players, and MLE money

Ok cool I agree with this pretty much. Outside of MLE's and Bird rules.

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 07:13 PM
Ok cool I agree with this pretty much. Outside of MLE's and Bird rules.

would you do away with the MLE? and whats ur position on bird rights?

Tom Stone
10-26-2011, 07:14 PM
I was reading an article about the laker's and sac difference in payroll and dude was stating that with a Savoy GM and good moves, you can compeate......it is the dumbest argument ever......the spurs are run so well ,if you make the big markets spend they same as them they would never compete with the spurs.......I think it's funny that all the big Market teams had the system to favor them.....And if the small market owners win, they are all going to get a taste of reality.........THE RISE OF THE SMALL MARKET TEAMS !

RekeHavoc
10-26-2011, 07:19 PM
I was reading an article about the laker's and sac difference in payroll and dude was stating that with a Savoy GM and good moves, you can compeate......it is the dumbest argument ever......the spurs are run so well ,if you make the big markets spend they same as them they would never compete with the spurs.......I think it's funny that all the big Market teams had the system to favor them.....And if the small market owners win, they are all going to get a taste of reality.........THE RISE OF THE SMALL MARKET TEAMS !

i agree and my fav team is a big market team, and im supporting the small market teams!

RekeHavoc
10-27-2011, 05:33 AM
A player signing a Bird's Rights contract cannot be traded until half of the contract length has expired?

i dont think i heard of that one

todu82
10-27-2011, 09:33 AM
50%. Make it equal for both sides.

daleja424
10-27-2011, 10:33 AM
Owners want a 49-51 band... players want a 50-53 band. The obvious compromise is something like a 50-52 band (one up from the owners low range...and one down from the players high range).

mttwlsn16
10-27-2011, 10:56 AM
imagine you are a music artist, and you come out with an album, but ur record company and you split the profits?

does it seem a little less unfair now?

thats how i arrived at my conclusion

touche, but at the same time, without the record company the record doesnt get produced.

RekeHavoc
10-27-2011, 12:29 PM
touche, but at the same time, without the record company the record doesnt get produced.

and without the record, the company wont make as much money ;)

RekeHavoc
10-27-2011, 12:30 PM
Owners want a 49-51 band... players want a 50-53 band. The obvious compromise is something like a 50-52 band (one up from the owners low range...and one down from the players high range).

anything under 53 i will gladly take

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-27-2011, 12:43 PM
I was reading an article about the laker's and sac difference in payroll and dude was stating that with a Savoy GM and good moves, you can compeate......it is the dumbest argument ever......the spurs are run so well ,if you make the big markets spend they same as them they would never compete with the spurs.......I think it's funny that all the big Market teams had the system to favor them.....And if the small market owners win, they are all going to get a taste of reality.........THE RISE OF THE SMALL MARKET TEAMS !

So do you think Toronto will be a contender after the lockout in a few years??/

RekeHavoc
10-27-2011, 12:49 PM
So do you think Toronto will be a contender after the lockout in a few years??/

that will never happen, they somehow believe that if they draft every european and african player they can find that they will magically make the playoffs

isnt derozen the only american player on that team,lol?

Hellcrooner
10-27-2011, 01:04 PM
Now you have really touched my balls.

Im a musician and i can tell you that the ****ing music industry is a ****ing bunch of thieve motehr****er crooks from the ****ing hell.

RekeHavoc
10-27-2011, 01:10 PM
Now you have really touched my balls.

Im a musician and i can tell you that the ****ing music industry is a ****ing bunch of thieve motehr****er crooks from the ****ing hell.

how bout trying to make better music :violin:

imagesrdecievin
10-27-2011, 01:17 PM
i dont think i heard of that one

It was an idea thrown out there to ensure that the limiting of Bird's rights would have teeth. Hopefully the owners and players are getting creative about ways to solve the problems beyond BRI.


And the reason why no other analogy holds up in comparison to the NBA is because none of them are monopolies. Recording artists get a better cut because there is competition amongst record companies. The NBA owners have no competition and thus can take a bigger cut then they'd be entitled to in a free market.

Hellcrooner
10-27-2011, 01:26 PM
how bout trying to make better music :violin:

good or bad music is an opinion.

but they are crooks and ****ing stealers to EVERY MUSICIAN.

they are not only robbing me, they rob Metallica too or Ricky martin, or Jay Z or whoever you think its good.

the artists ends up receiving like 5% of the incometheir music generates, and now they are also starting to rob you money from the concerts, wich is the greatest B.S ever.

Hellcrooner
10-27-2011, 01:29 PM
I was reading an article about the laker's and sac difference in payroll and dude was stating that with a Savoy GM and good moves, you can compeate......it is the dumbest argument ever......the spurs are run so well ,if you make the big markets spend they same as them they would never compete with the spurs.......I think it's funny that all the big Market teams had the system to favor them.....And if the small market owners win, they are all going to get a taste of reality.........THE RISE OF THE SMALL MARKET TEAMS !

No something funny, a hard cap will make life for toronto even more miserable.

If you had problems retaining players with bird rights, and had to overypay a ton to get FA ( see Pizzaguygoglu) imagine when you cant offer too much because of a hard cap.

The ONLY way raptros can compete is if Salary cap is completely removed, because THEN since you can overpay all you can , you can take advantage of being a top 5 largest market in the league, i mean toronto is big enough but you alos are the only team in a whole country.
Blue Jays have won some championships havent they? no cap in mlb right?

Tmath
10-27-2011, 01:37 PM
that will never happen, they somehow believe that if they draft every european and african player they can find that they will magically make the playoffs

isnt derozen the only american player on that team,lol?

Demar Derozan
Jerryd Bayless
Amir Johnson
James Johnson
Ed Davis

Tmath
10-27-2011, 01:41 PM
No something funny, a hard cap will make life for toronto even more miserable.

If you had problems retaining players with bird rights, and had to overypay a ton to get FA ( see Pizzaguygoglu) imagine when you cant offer too much because of a hard cap.

The ONLY way raptros can compete is if Salary cap is completely removed, because THEN since you can overpay all you can , you can take advantage of being a top 5 largest market in the league, i mean toronto is big enough but you alos are the only team in a whole country.
Blue Jays have won some championships havent they? no cap in mlb right?

They won back to back in 92 & 93 and haven't sniffed the playoffs ever since :cry:

RekeHavoc
10-27-2011, 01:44 PM
Demar Derozan
Jerryd Bayless
Amir Johnson
James Johnson
Ed Davis

and only davis, and demarr look like they have good futures

Tmath
10-27-2011, 01:53 PM
and only davis, and demarr look like they have good futures

Your opinion.

Bayless, Amir & JJ can be solid contributers.

RekeHavoc
10-27-2011, 01:54 PM
Your opinion.

Bayless, Amir & JJ can be solid contributers.

amir had PLENTY of chances to prove himself imo

Tmath
10-27-2011, 02:04 PM
amir had PLENTY of chances to prove himself imo

He was probably one of our best players last season and is still only 24. You obviously don't know what your talking about since you thought Derozan was our only american player. :facepalm:

RekeHavoc
10-27-2011, 02:08 PM
He was probably one of our best players last season and is still only 24. You obviously don't know what your talking about since you thought Derozan was our only american player. :facepalm:

im sorry, i try not to watch crap teams too much, u kno?

all i kno is dat amir has been in the league for a good while now, and now hes finally averaging 9 and 6,lol

ON THE RAPTORS

Tmath
10-27-2011, 02:36 PM
^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0LKE4Onoks

da ThRONe
10-27-2011, 02:58 PM
No something funny, a hard cap will make life for toronto even more miserable.

If you had problems retaining players with bird rights, and had to overypay a ton to get FA ( see Pizzaguygoglu) imagine when you cant offer too much because of a hard cap.

The ONLY way raptros can compete is if Salary cap is completely removed, because THEN since you can overpay all you can , you can take advantage of being a top 5 largest market in the league, i mean toronto is big enough but you alos are the only team in a whole country.
Blue Jays have won some championships havent they? no cap in mlb right?

A hard cap doesn't limit the amount of money small rev teams skill spend. Small rev teams don't exceed the salary cap anyways. It limits the large rev teams that double and almost triple the salary cap.

If your a player that's worth 8 figures and Toronto is the only city with cap space to give you 12million per season. A player can either sign with the Raptors for market value or take a significantly less than market value and sign somewhere else. Does a hard cap guarantee less desirable market team land star power. No. However it gives them the chance to offer something big market teams may not be able to offer depending on their financial situation.

I really don't understand why this concept is so difficult to digest. If the NYK can offer 4 max deals a year than that's 4 stars that can play for them. Conversely if they can only offer 2 max deals that's 2 less players that less likely to take less money. I guarantee players won't flock to large rev teams if it means less money for them. In football the only sport with a hard cap teams have no problem signing FA no matter what market they are in. It's based on two things title contention and money. Hoops could be the same way.

The notion that a hard cap adds parity is just common sense.

RekeHavoc
10-27-2011, 05:20 PM
why does toronto even have a NBA team anyway? are they paying us with oil to participate in our league or what?

:rimshot:

Tony_Starks
10-27-2011, 05:39 PM
A hard cap doesn't limit the amount of money small rev teams skill spend. Small rev teams don't exceed the salary cap anyways. It limits the large rev teams that double and almost triple the salary cap.

If your a player that's worth 8 figures and Toronto is the only city with cap space to give you 12million per season. A player can either sign with the Raptors for market value or take a significantly less than market value and sign somewhere else. Does a hard cap guarantee less desirable market team land star power. No. However it gives them the chance to offer something big market teams may not be able to offer depending on their financial situation.

I really don't understand why this concept is so difficult to digest. If the NYK can offer 4 max deals a year than that's 4 stars that can play for them. Conversely if they can only offer 2 max deals that's 2 less players that less likely to take less money. I guarantee players won't flock to large rev teams if it means less money for them. In football the only sport with a hard cap teams have no problem signing FA no matter what market they are in. It's based on two things title contention and money. Hoops could be the same way.

The notion that a hard cap adds parity is just common sense.


Except that you're forgetting the amount of money a player misses in salary he can easily make in endorsements playing in a big market. The only thing that a hard cap ensures is that owners now are forced to use some sort of discretion now with these contracts. Has nothing to do with parity because the players are always going to want to go to a desirable destination. That will never change.

There is no such thing as leveling the playing field for the small markets, they will always have to work harder and are better served by drafting/trading smart and building from the bottom up.....

imagesrdecievin
10-27-2011, 05:53 PM
Except that you're forgetting the amount of money a player misses in salary he can easily make in endorsements playing in a big market. The only thing that a hard cap ensures is that owners now are forced to use some sort of discretion now with these contracts. Has nothing to do with parity because the players are always going to want to go to a desirable destination. That will never change.

There is no such thing as leveling the playing field for the small markets, they will always have to work harder and are better served by drafting/trading smart and building from the bottom up.....

The bolded is true - but a hard cap should definitely help to level the playing field. With no MLE players looking to join a great team would really have to sacrifice money to do so.

As pointed out before - under the current conditions undesireable markets really have to overpay for the mid level talent because players evaluate the situation as "Do I want to play for Minny for 6 even 7 mill a year - or do I want to join the Lakers/Heat etc. for 5 mill on a MLE".

A hard cap obviously won't cure all ills - as all things being equal players will gravitate towards the better markets. But with a strict hard cap the gap between the haves and havenots becomes slimmer.

Hellcrooner
10-27-2011, 06:16 PM
you knwo what the hard cap means?

that the kobes still get paid 20 million a year

that the paus still get paid 17 million a year.


but then the odoms go down to 4 million a year

the fishers go down to minimum contracts.


it also mean the contracts offered will be shorter in order to HAVE CAP SPACE to offer almost yearly to teh stars that finish contracts.


Basically, the things WONT CHANGE A BIT, except for the owners paying less money to the players , ( but still making the fans pay the same amount or more for tickets).


o well, they might actually change, because the ODOMS may decided that if they get more money offered from europe or china may be better for them to accept that offers .

And dont come with the **** of "euros cant offer so much" , Marc gasol has just been offered the equivalent of a MAX NBA CONTRACT By real madrid.


If this happens nba may end up being

30 teams with 1 allstar liek player and 14 nbdl like roster fillers that change of team every year

imagesrdecievin
10-27-2011, 06:47 PM
you knwo what the hard cap means?

that the kobes still get paid 20 million a year

that the paus still get paid 17 million a year.


but then the odoms go down to 4 million a year

the fishers go down to minimum contracts.


it also mean the contracts offered will be shorter in order to HAVE CAP SPACE to offer almost yearly to teh stars that finish contracts.


Basically, the things WONT CHANGE A BIT, except for the owners paying less money to the players , ( but still making the fans pay the same amount or more for tickets).


o well, they might actually change, because the ODOMS may decided that if they get more money offered from europe or china may be better for them to accept that offers .

And dont come with the **** of "euros cant offer so much" , Marc gasol has just been offered the equivalent of a MAX NBA CONTRACT By real madrid.


If this happens nba may end up being

30 teams with 1 allstar liek player and 14 nbdl like roster fillers that change of team every year

I thought the amount of money going to the players was stagnant and tied to BRI? I didn't realize that hard cap/soft cap would affect that?

I thought that a hard cap just sets up a system where big market teams will be forced to account for 'mistake' contracts because they would be able add to their talent level on yearly basis thanks to salary cap exceptions.

This would indeed drive down the price level for mid level free agents. That right there would help the competitive balance situation because small markets don't have to price mid level FA's against a MLE.

If players want to go to Europe to play - that is fine. I believe that players for the most part will still want to compete against the best, at home in the NBA. Sure a few more might go overseas for a bigger payday but I don't believe it's as doomsday as you say with your "If this happens nba may end up being 30 teams with 1 allstar liek player and 14 nbdl like roster fillers that change of team every year" comment.




I am anti-owner in negotiations - but I believe I am being realistic when I say that a straight hard cap would HELP to bring more competitive balance between the big and small markets.

PrettyBoyJ
10-27-2011, 07:05 PM
I think a 50/50 split is fair.. The Players have been cashing in on big contracts and been getting away with a lot.. If the Brand (NBA) is supposedly losing money why not structure a deal where the revenue would be split in half while basketball is at its peak in popularity since the Jordan Era.. Owners are playing hardball and won't give in to the players.. Players might as well agree to 50/50 split then get nothing which is what they will get if they dont agree on something.. Plus I
m gonna need someting to watch when the football season is over

da ThRONe
10-28-2011, 01:35 AM
Except that you're forgetting the amount of money a player misses in salary he can easily make in endorsements playing in a big market. The only thing that a hard cap ensures is that owners now are forced to use some sort of discretion now with these contracts. Has nothing to do with parity because the players are always going to want to go to a desirable destination. That will never change.

There is no such thing as leveling the playing field for the small markets, they will always have to work harder and are better served by drafting/trading smart and building from the bottom up.....

Guys aren't making millions of dollars in endorsements in large rev city more than in small rev cities.

Theyhateme459
10-28-2011, 09:21 AM
....
In football the only sport with a hard cap teams have no problem signing FA no matter what market they are in. It's based on two things title contention and money. Hoops could be the same way.

The notion that a hard cap adds parity is just common sense.

I don't know why everyone keeps looking at the NFL and wanthing the NBA to follow the same model. The NBA is not the NFL and the NFL's model will not work for them.

1) The NFL has ALWAYS been a team drivin game. It's all about the jersey you wear. Fans are fans of teams first... then players second.

The NBA has always been a player drivin league. Casual and normal fans are fans of players and the particular make up of a team. That's why there were a lot of Jordan/Bull fans, Kobe/Lakers Fans, ect ect.

NBA is very player personal, they want to see the stars dominate, highlights, cluth performances ect... NFL is all about the team, and team bragging right... They onlt care about the W... not if their runningback made a highlight real play on Sunday.

So hoops can't be the same way because it is player driven and there is not enough talent to go around in the nba, like in the NFL.


A hard cap obviously won't cure all ills - as all things being equal players will gravitate towards the better markets. But with a strict hard cap the gap between the haves and havenots becomes slimmer.

If there ever comes a hard salary cap, and there is true parity in the NBA a promise you A LOT of fans will leave the sport in a few years. We don't need the gap smaller, and I am a bobcats fan!

Who watched Ray Allen when he was alone on the sonics? Who watched Pierce alone in Boston? KG alone in minnestoa? Hell those game barely came on tv, and when they did very few watched... why???? Because WE did not want to watche mediocre play. But what happened when they got together... all of a sudden they are must watch tv again.

Bosh in toronto? Who cared... Wade struggling in Miami, very little attention... put them together and now they are a must watch for everyone and their mamas. There is a reason the NBA is coming off of one of it's best years.... You had great teams... with great stories... and in good markets. Fair or unfair thats what we like... and ratings have proved this time after time....

Anyone find me high ratings for games not loaded with star talent? You won't. If we get back to a point when teams can only afford 1 star and can only surround them by mediocre talent... People will not tune in.... only hardcore fans of their repective teams. Not casual NBA fans like a lot of people because it is no longer exciting... we're back to Bosh in toronto, wade alone in miami, ect ect....

Plus parity means NBA championships without many stars... just whatever team has the must luck, whatever in the playoffs to get through... We're watching a nba finals with maybe 3 at most household type names in the finals... Sorry, but that just isn;t exciting.

The NBA got boring for awhile, but in recent years I have came back... I pay for league pass, travel to games, buy merchandise because honestly the last couple of seasons of the NBA has been some of the best sports I've watched in my life regular season to finals... and that includes me watching my bobcats.

Hellcrooner
10-28-2011, 12:15 PM
^wich is a pity because back then nba was about the team too.

I mean, i bragged bout how my TEAM ( lakers) won the ring vs my friends TEAM ( celtics)


and never in my whole life did i ever said Magic WON this or Magic Won that, LAKERS won, and my friends never told Bird won this or Isiaiah won this or that, Celtics and Pistons were the ones that won this or that.


This changed with the bald dude, Thanks Michael Jeffrey Mcdonalds, Gatorade, WB, cocacola, easports, espn Jordan.

da ThRONe
10-28-2011, 02:46 PM
I don't know why everyone keeps looking at the NFL and wanthing the NBA to follow the same model. The NBA is not the NFL and the NFL's model will not work for them.

1) The NFL has ALWAYS been a team drivin game. It's all about the jersey you wear. Fans are fans of teams first... then players second.

The NBA has always been a player drivin league. Casual and normal fans are fans of players and the particular make up of a team. That's why there were a lot of Jordan/Bull fans, Kobe/Lakers Fans, ect ect.

NBA is very player personal, they want to see the stars dominate, highlights, cluth performances ect... NFL is all about the team, and team bragging right... They onlt care about the W... not if their runningback made a highlight real play on Sunday.

So hoops can't be the same way because it is player driven and there is not enough talent to go around in the nba, like in the NFL.

I never said the NBA and NFL are even across the board, but there are some common things in all pro sports industry.

Basketball is a sport that is more designed to be star driven. Stern took advantage of it and used Bird vs Magic then MJ to sell the league. However that may have worked with the salaries being where they were in the late 70's early 90's. Growing the sport now is more about causal fans. The US has more sports to choose from than most country/contient. So if your basketball teams is consisently unwatchable you can follow baseball, hockey or football. Today's fans attention are a lot more unstable. They're quick to hop on bandwagons and even quickier to hop off of them. So casual fans of a certain region in which their teams start every season with a grave disadvantage are less likely to support that franchise.

Parity leaves more watchable teams. Example of this is with Carmelo and LeBron. Cleveland was a watchable product with LeBron with little help same with Denver and Melo(even though he had a lot more help). Now with both leaving there's two more NBA franchises that will not be watchable which makes those franchise a liability. Although it makes both Miami and NYK more entertaining it's at the expense of killing two franchises entertainment value.