PDA

View Full Version : OPINION: So Once "Competitive Balance" is Restored, Then What?



Tony_Starks
11-11-2011, 05:55 PM
Considering you buy the farce of the smaller teams having been hindered by a system which made it virtually impossible for them to compete, what now? If you're seriously drinking the koolaid and believe somehow this new system will deliver competitive balance to one and all who will benefit from this? Technically that means that we would have multiple teams winning championships in the next few years right?

Five years from now with their system are we to believe at the start of the season the Bobcats and TWolves will have just as good a shot at winning a chip as the Lakers and Celtics? Given their track record of management?Thats the idea that the owners are selling.

Sactown
11-11-2011, 06:06 PM
I think the league just wants competitive balance in preseason. Teams over the cap can't overly over spend and all teams should be making enough money to spend money

Hawkeye15
11-11-2011, 06:16 PM
Wolves were legit title contenders 7 years ago, so of course they could be again if managed correctly.

The only way for a small market team to compete is wise front office management. Good investment in scouting, and coaching staffs. The Spurs and Thunder were/are great teams because of their drafting ability. Small markets, NO MATTER WHAT, are not going to draw big time free agents. So even a hard cap won't solve the problem.

The 50/50 split, revenue sharing, shrinkage of years in MLE and $$, and higher penalties for teams constantly going way over the cap will not stop Cuban from spending. It will not stop Buss from spending. But it will offer a bigger piece of the pie to the small market owners, and they can now CHOOSE to stay in the game, and build a competitive team, or be conservative and rake in profits.

Tony_Starks
11-11-2011, 06:53 PM
Wolves were legit title contenders 7 years ago, so of course they could be again if managed correctly.

The only way for a small market team to compete is wise front office management. Good investment in scouting, and coaching staffs. The Spurs and Thunder were/are great teams because of their drafting ability. Small markets, NO MATTER WHAT, are not going to draw big time free agents. So even a hard cap won't solve the problem.

The 50/50 split, revenue sharing, shrinkage of years in MLE and $$, and higher penalties for teams constantly going way over the cap will not stop Cuban from spending. It will not stop Buss from spending. But it will offer a bigger piece of the pie to the small market owners, and they can now CHOOSE to stay in the game, and build a competitive team, or be conservative and rake in profits.

So that being said in a few years with the playing field leveled and the young talent you guys have to build around do you see your Wolves as a competitive team in the new system? I mean supposedly thats where all these changes are headed.....

kjoke
11-11-2011, 07:01 PM
all teams will be 41-41.

Evolution23
11-11-2011, 07:05 PM
Is it over yet? :sleep:

Cosmic_Canon
11-11-2011, 07:06 PM
All jokes aside, the Wolves will be a threat in the WC 1-3 years from now. The Wolves along w/ the Thunder and Kings(if Demarcus pans out) will run the West.
The Wolves finally got a legit coach in Adelman and a proven play-maker in Rubio. The first full season they have, the Wolves will be .500 at worst.

Dade County
11-11-2011, 07:09 PM
I see no real "Competitive Balance" in the next five years... Heat are going to win the next 4 out of 5 (just wanted to make people mad)

I can see these changes making a big difference, in year 6 and moving forward.

But the next 5 years are on lock ... Go HEAT!

Sactown
11-11-2011, 07:38 PM
I see no real "Competitive Balance" in the next five years... Heat are going to win the next 4 out of 5 (just wanted to make people mad)

I can see these changes making a big difference, in year 6 and moving forward.

But the next 5 years are on lock ... Go HEAT!

I think the heat are going to have competition for the next 5 years, and I think competitive balance will be effective shortly after the CBA is applied.

Kevj77
11-11-2011, 08:17 PM
Competitive balance will not be achieved in the next few years. Teams like the Celtics, Lakers and Dallas are older, they know their window only has 2-3 years before it closes and will stay in the tax. This would have happened regardless of this new system.

It will be interesting to see how it effects younger teams like the Bulls, Heat, OKC and possibly the Knicks that their window should just be opening.

The teams that claimed the system was holding them back will still have to make good decisions or they will fail. Look at MJ as a GM/owner no system will help him be competitive if he keeps drafting bums like Kwame and Morrison. The Bobcats still won't be a prime destination for top free agents.

Cal827
11-11-2011, 08:20 PM
all teams will be 41-41.

:laugh2: and then the smaller market teams will complain when a big market .500 team wins the draft lottery.

Hawkeye15
11-11-2011, 08:39 PM
So that being said in a few years with the playing field leveled and the young talent you guys have to build around do you see your Wolves as a competitive team in the new system? I mean supposedly thats where all these changes are headed.....

They have a better chance of being, yes. Because now our owner can still spend more in down years when revenue isn't coming in, because salaries are lower, and more league revenue sharing is coming in.

The Sterlings and Sarvers will just use this to maximize profits. Believe it or not, there are plenty of small market owners who would spend if they thought they could compete.

Sactown
11-11-2011, 08:43 PM
They have a better chance of being, yes. Because now our owner can still spend more in down years when revenue isn't coming in, because salaries are lower, and more league revenue sharing is coming in.

The Sterlings and Sarvers will just use this to maximize profits. Believe it or not, there are plenty of small market owners who would spend if they thought they could compete.

And be able to compete because they can spend because they're making money :D

Hawkeye15
11-11-2011, 08:49 PM
And be able to compete because they can spend because they're making money :D

everyone here has the memory of a goldfish at times. Um, the Kings may be a pathetic team and a small market now (ie, the evil owners in this CBA), but weren't they a contender for a few years, and spending a ton of money doing so?

If you make teams capable of making more money, the majority will spend more. There will NEVER be full competitive balance in sports, that is not possible. This is about giving the owners a choice to be competitive, or make money, or hell, even doing both.

Dade County
11-11-2011, 09:14 PM
And be able to compete because they can spend because they're making money :D


Their billionaires... their always making MONEY.



And teams may seem to be competitive, at first sight; but the same teams will always win the playoff series, and move on to the finals.

The next 5yrs have been spoken for already... HEAT/OKC/NY "with CP3"/ who ever Howard decides to sign with and Dallas for the next 2yrs and maybe the bulls, if they can sign another all star type player.

Hawkeye15
11-11-2011, 09:22 PM
Their billionaires... their always making MONEY.

not as NBA owners. Its easy for us to think that these guys all have side jobs where they make their income. But at some point, think of it this way.

The NBA is an investment, right? Why would anyone invest in a business where they know they have a 72% chance of losing money?

ManRam
11-11-2011, 09:29 PM
Explain how it's a farce.

Sactown
11-11-2011, 09:29 PM
everyone here has the memory of a goldfish at times. Um, the Kings may be a pathetic team and a small market now (ie, the evil owners in this CBA), but weren't they a contender for a few years, and spending a ton of money doing so?

If you make teams capable of making more money, the majority will spend more. There will NEVER be full competitive balance in sports, that is not possible. This is about giving the owners a choice to be competitive, or make money, or hell, even doing both.

That's what I'm saying, the Maloofs were once the owners that every team dreamed about. They had a ton of money and were willing to spend, and trust me they did. The Maloofs were the ones who put millions into the practice facility and were willing to spend the max, But even when we were winning we weren't making money, and over time there comes a point where the money train runs out and with a new CBA hopefully things will change.

I don't think there is ever going to be absolute competitive balance, but I believe that the balance should be in the spending limits and the making of the money IE using revenue sharing and cutting salaries, so the small market teams don't turn into farms for the bigger markets

Kevj77
11-11-2011, 09:31 PM
not as NBA owners. Its easy for us to think that these guys all have side jobs where they make their income. But at some point, think of it this way.

The NBA is an investment, right? Why would anyone invest in a business where they know they have a 72% chance of losing money?Buying a sports franchise will never be the best investment they can make with their money. It does come with more prestige than much better investment opportunities, which is why there will always be billionaires willing to buy franchises.

Tony_Starks
11-11-2011, 09:46 PM
What makes me not take what the nba is saying about balance and spreading the wealth seriously is that they have consistently refused to disclose to the players what plan if any they have about profit sharing. A BIG part of this mess could be solved with better profit sharing on their end. You would think that should've been the first step to remedy at least some of their "losses" but the way they are repesenting themselves seems to basically be they want all their money back from the players and profit sharing is something they'll just get to later.......

Sactown
11-11-2011, 09:53 PM
Buying a sports franchise will never be the best investment they can make with their money. It does come with more prestige than much better investment opportunities, which is why there will always be billionaires willing to buy franchises.

And because of its "prestige" it's okay for 72% of the teams to lose money?

Law25
11-11-2011, 10:05 PM
Dont know if this has been said or not but..... these owners are full of crap and they know it. What their doin is overvaluing the player and undervaluing or placing no value on the coaches so people will feel sad and say the teams are not fair becuase theirs to much talent on one squad.If this finals has shown anything its the Mavs were better prepared to win each game becuase they were better coached. Hell look back at the past decades championship team coaches.

2000 - Phil
2001 - Phil
2002 - Phil
2003 - Pop
2004 - Larry Brown
2005 - Pop
2006 - Pat Riley
2007 - Pop
2008 - Doc
2009 - Phil
2010 - Phil

I'm sure its nice for marketing to have an star athlete, but its the coaches that give you your teams success. Look at Miami if any one of the coaches I listed coached that team an idiot would be the only one who thinks Miami wouldnt have won. This is something everyone knows, so why are we falling into this parity no parity crap when its proven team when rings. Another example is 98 Lakers had four legit young and talented allstars just to end the season with nothing. Input Phil they lose two allstars and they when 3 straight. 2004 they now have four hall of famers and get embarassed by the Pistons with maybe one future hall of famer. Get my point. Parity is not the problem its managemnet becuase instead of building a team that fit the coachs schemes and plans, they draft and trade for the best talent and cater to him so he'll stay instead which takes the coaches power to control the team away.Now players are trying to be buddy buddy with the players in hopes for job security instead of bussing their *** for the coach and winning games. Until owners put the power back in the coaches hands ther will be no parity, because their will always be a shortage of great coaches becuase thers a shortage of franchises with balls to tell players to play the game like he says or ride the bench until your a free agent.

kblo247
11-11-2011, 10:15 PM
everyone here has the memory of a goldfish at times. Um, the Kings may be a pathetic team and a small market now (ie, the evil owners in this CBA), but weren't they a contender for a few years, and spending a ton of money doing so?

If you make teams capable of making more money, the majority will spend more. There will NEVER be full competitive balance in sports, that is not possible. This is about giving the owners a choice to be competitive, or make money, or hell, even doing both.

Vegas stopped the Maloofs from spending not the Kings. They made bad non-Kings related business deals and it impacted their franchise and salary. Let's not act like it happened otherwise and the Kings started bleeding them out their cash beforehand.

As for the Wolves, Indy, and Bobcats or teams like them, in general, cry me a river if you are their owners. You made the mistakes with dealing away talent and names for scrubs because of public image, doing an buddy a solid, or not being able to afford the silly deals you gave out when you acted like guys like Pau, Lewis, Johnson, and so on were max players. The notion of revenue sharing increasing is silly to me. The fact is the same teams with their handout trying to collect a welfare check from LA, NYK, MIA, and so on are the same ones who you don't see saying let me give those teams their cut for selling out my arena when they come to town because we sure don't on a normal day.

This isn't 1-800-Save-A-cheap-losing-bastard. Jordan said it years ago, if you can't pay to compete and field a winning product on the floor, sell your damn team. That or be contracted so the talent pool, revenue, and chance of parity would actually improve when the really competent managements, owners, basketball teams, and franchises get more talent readily available to them instead of wasting away in death traps both for basketball and business

You aren't entitled to a profit when you run a business. You aren't guaranteed one. You might not even make more than your employees as a whole most likely. If you want security for your money buy a government bond because business and the stock market isn't for you. The idea that these hard line small market owners deserve a profit is laughable because it isn't guaranteed in any other business either, just like people say the money nba players make isn't viable in other fields.

Hawkeye15
11-12-2011, 01:20 AM
Vegas stopped the Maloofs from spending not the Kings. They made bad non-Kings related business deals and it impacted their franchise and salary. Let's not act like it happened otherwise and the Kings started bleeding them out their cash beforehand.

As for the Wolves, Indy, and Bobcats or teams like them, in general, cry me a river if you are their owners. You made the mistakes with dealing away talent and names for scrubs because of public image, doing an buddy a solid, or not being able to afford the silly deals you gave out when you acted like guys like Pau, Lewis, Johnson, and so on were max players. The notion of revenue sharing increasing is silly to me. The fact is the same teams with their handout trying to collect a welfare check from LA, NYK, MIA, and so on are the same ones who you don't see saying let me give those teams their cut for selling out my arena when they come to town because we sure don't on a normal day.

This isn't 1-800-Save-A-cheap-losing-bastard. Jordan said it years ago, if you can't pay to compete and field a winning product on the floor, sell your damn team. That or be contracted so the talent pool, revenue, and chance of parity would actually improve when the really competent managements, owners, basketball teams, and franchises get more talent readily available to them instead of wasting away in death traps both for basketball and business

You aren't entitled to a profit when you run a business. You aren't guaranteed one. You might not even make more than your employees as a whole most likely. If you want security for your money buy a government bond because business and the stock market isn't for you. The idea that these hard line small market owners deserve a profit is laughable because it isn't guaranteed in any other business either, just like people say the money nba players make isn't viable in other fields.

spoken like a true large market fan. Sorry, small market teams can't churn out **** for 10 years and still make a profit and exist. Don't lecture me on how to run a business. I am well aware of how to succeed in the private sector, but when a business MODEL is a 72% failure, its broken. Entitled? Nah, I am not a communist.

Very simple.

kblo247
11-12-2011, 02:22 AM
Then they need to die like the neighborhood corner store who can't compete and closes down.

You can't honestly say there is a reason for 30 teams. There are a handful of teams which are pointless, bleed money, and hurt the league because their games don't get watched or attended.

You cut off 6, take their top talent and place them in an expansion draft, and make each division have 4 teams.

Minny, Charlotte, New Orleans, Clippers (make money but I can't stand Sterling), Atlanta (the fans don't care), and Toronto (they aren't part of the nation anyhow) can all die. Just take their players and spread hem throughout.

Don't give me the excuse of you can afford 10 bad years because of a market. The best teams can handle lapses because of management, history, and creating a fantasy that isn't fair weather or cheap.

So what Minny hasn't rebounded from KG or Indy from JO/Reggie/Ron/Tinsley/Jackson? They should have gotten more. Minny sold him for scrubs. The Pacers outright, there is no nice way of putting this that is pc,mwhitened up their team to get rid of a thug image instead of focusing on getting talent back in return. They deserve the hole they dug. No one forced the Bucks to pay out the behind for Salmons and Gooden when better players were on the market, not should any team finance them a new arena through revenue sharing. No one held a gun to the heads of Holt and Buford to make them give Jefferson a massive extension for underachieving and selling Scola for pennies. No one told Memphis to give Pau a max contract years ago knowing that e couldn't lead them on the court or in the box office, same for Joe Johnson in Atlanta. No one told Jordan hey you better waste years of lottery picks and let Felton, Chandler, Jackson, and Wallace go so you can make another terrible pick and get a handout.

The thing is it all comeback to the fact the teams who struggle screwed themselves. In the case of San Antonio they abused the system, they took advantage of trade and buyout loop holes and amnesties, but now they are hurt by three straight terrible extensions and lack of bigs. You have the Clippers, Raptors, and Suns who don't try to be good, just make a profit. You have the Kings who only lost fans, talent, and money after the Maloofs outside ventures failed and forced them to hurt their product. You have Jordan who is the polar opposite of what he was as a player, the WOAT in the front office. you have inept management like Denver who alienate their top player and play it cheap when they were 2 wins from the finals. Gilbert made is own bed by being Lebrons ***** for years

The fact is LA earned every penny, every fan, and every rating the get. Buss only has that one venture and he balances it as a team and franchise, not oneof the other. Cuban poured money into a laughing stock and made them contenders and champions, and he ate and chalked up every bad trade and signing he made. You have Miami, Chicago, New Jersey, and New York who made plans and rebuilt just like that. Heck you even have Phili who we all know has the most heated fans on the world, but will flock back anytime the team is good, just like Detorit.

Don't tell me LA needs to cut Minny or these other crap teams who don't care about winning, misuse picks, and keep salary at the bare minimum to get a luxury tax check deserve parity or mer revenue sharing. They didnt market themselves, they didn't sell their product as a franchise and team, let alone try to make winning moves. Why should LA gauge them a piece of 3 billion, but they not give LA or other drawing team 80% of the ticket sales for when they visit on the road and sell out their arenas which are usually bare and get their regional sports network high ratings when people don't normally watch?

Also where does the logic that parity in the nba comes from? The league has always been based on dynasties, they marketed them and stars from way back to Mikan and it worked as the league still generates the most revenue per player in sports. The fact is expansion teams like the Wolves and Bobcats watered down the product and popularity because it spread talent too thin for the casual fan to care as much as the enthusiast. You cut that dead weight and you get more competitive teams, higher ratings, more profits, a bigger piece of the pie for owners and players as there would be less scum and scrubs among both groups.

CousinsEvansDUO
11-12-2011, 04:24 AM
All jokes aside, the Wolves will be a threat in the WC 1-3 years from now. The Wolves along w/ the Thunder and Kings(if Demarcus pans out) will run the West.
The Wolves finally got a legit coach in Adelman and a proven play-maker in Rubio. The first full season they have, the Wolves will be .500 at worst.

Finally. Someone who can use his brain. Well said. Lakers and mavs aren't winning any more championship in the next 5~ years or so. The NBA is about rotation. No single team stays on top consistently. Teams get good picks in the draft, they rise, then they age and they fall. So on and so forth.

Tony_Starks
11-12-2011, 12:43 PM
Finally. Someone who can use his brain. Well said. Lakers and mavs aren't winning any more championship in the next 5~ years or so. The NBA is about rotation. No single team stays on top consistently. Teams get good picks in the draft, they rise, then they age and they fall. So on and so forth.


Are Kobe and Dirk retiring during the lockout or something?

ink
11-12-2011, 03:56 PM
Explain how it's a farce.

This (like the hard cap disguise thread) is pretty clearly just an opinion thread. It has no source and it has a very heavy bias. It's pretty obvious that competitive balance is not a farce. Whether this compromised deal actually achieves it is anyone's guess, but there is nothing farcical at all about working towards competitive balance.

The nearest NBA franchise to me is Portland, over 6 hours drive away. If I'm going to drive there, pay $125 to see a game, stay in a hotel, then drive back 6 hours, I damn well don't want to see an imbalanced game. I also don't want to see a game between two complete also-rans who aren't really even in the same league (in terms of talent) as the big spenders. Tell me that there aren't hundreds of thousands of fans who wouldn't feel the same way about the way they spend their time and money. The NBA knows this and wants to make more games actually count, it wants to improve the product (which of course is not the players, but the team and the game experience).

BigCityofDreams
11-12-2011, 04:03 PM
Are Kobe and Dirk retiring during the lockout or something?

Yes that is a rule in the new CBA. They have to hang up the jerseys immediately.

Tony_Starks
11-12-2011, 04:59 PM
Yes that is a rule in the new CBA. They have to hang up the jerseys immediately.



No I think you're thinking about the new "fairness to the league" rule they're trying to implement. Teams are now allowed to have only two allstars on a team at any given time. If by chance some third player improves his game and becomes an allstar he is then to be immediately traded to a small market team, starting with the team with the worst record.

They wanted to implement something similar for having multiple all defense players on the same team but the league thought that would be a bit much.........

ink
11-12-2011, 06:42 PM
No I think you're thinking about the new "fairness to the league" rule they're trying to implement. Teams are now allowed to have only two allstars on a team at any given time. If by chance some third player improves his game and becomes an allstar he is then to be immediately traded to a small market team, starting with the team with the worst record.

They wanted to implement something similar for having multiple all defense players on the same team but the league thought that would be a bit much.........

Sounds like sour grapes. :shrug:

Tony_Starks
11-12-2011, 06:54 PM
^How? I think that accomplishes the goal of having a star in every nba city without the need of having to be good at that pesky draft thing or trades......

Im all for it:clap:

Wade>You
11-12-2011, 06:55 PM
Look at NHL and NFL. There's still bad teams, bad owners, and bad front office.

Owners want to make money and they play the fans emotions by telling them what they want to believe: it'll help your team improve. :rolleyes:

Once people admit that their being lied to, then the onus will be on the owner's to end their lockout.

ink
11-12-2011, 07:08 PM
Look at NHL and NFL. There's still bad teams, bad owners, and bad front office.

Owners want to make money and they play the fans emotions by telling them what they want to believe: it'll help your team improve. :rolleyes:

Once people admit that their being lied to, then the onus will be on the owner's to end their lockout.

You will see what you want to see. It's funny how it always comes down to the comic book, good-guy, bad-guy level.

Fortunately none of the people in denial here about the dysfuction of the NBA have any holdings in the league.

Tony_Starks
11-12-2011, 07:10 PM
Look at NHL and NFL. There's still bad teams, bad owners, and bad front office.

Owners want to make money and they play the fans emotions by telling them what they want to believe: it'll help your team improve. :rolleyes:

Once people admit that their being lied to, then the onus will be on the owner's to end their lockout.


But the owners have the peoples best interest at heart! Im sure the countless arena workers and surrounding vendors that are unemployed are sleeping good at night knowing that the Bobcats will soon be competing for a ring!! :rolleyes:

ink
11-12-2011, 07:14 PM
But the owners have the peoples best interest at heart! Im sure the countless arena workers and surrounding vendors that are unemployed are sleeping good at night knowing that the Bobcats will soon be competing for a ring!! :rolleyes:

That doesn't even make sense. The arena workers and vendors get paid right through the season regardless of their final place in the standings. Since they haven't ever been a playoff calibre team it's not like anything will have changed.

And btw, both sides have played the "we're on the side of all the arena workers". Derek Fisher had it in every speech he made to the media ...

THE MTL
11-12-2011, 07:14 PM
Bobcats and Wolves SUCK because theu are poorly managed. It has NOTHING to do with the system!

Wade>You
11-12-2011, 09:17 PM
You will see what you want to see. It's funny how it always comes down to the comic book, good-guy, bad-guy level.

Fortunately none of the people in denial here about the dysfuction of the NBA have any holdings in the league.Red herring. And I didn't say anything that wasn't true.

futureman
11-12-2011, 09:25 PM
I see no real "Competitive Balance" in the next five years... Heat are going to win the next 4 out of 5 (just wanted to make people mad)

I can see these changes making a big difference, in year 6 and moving forward.

But the next 5 years are on lock ... Go HEAT!

Hardly a lock. If they can't pay player more than vet minimum to play for them then they could be screwed or forced to trade one of their "big 3" for some depth.

king4day
11-12-2011, 09:25 PM
This is for the future. If it were for right now then there would be a complete draft do-over.
The point is to make superstars think twice before simply signing with a big market team.

Since the lockout in hockey, the diversity of champions has been great. Big names are scattered throughout the league including small markets and a good variety of markets have been winning the cup.

futureman
11-12-2011, 09:26 PM
Looks like teams will have to draft better.

futureman
11-12-2011, 09:26 PM
If teams draft a big 3 like the spurs did, they have my full support.

Wade>You
11-12-2011, 09:28 PM
This is for the future. If it were for right now then there would be a complete draft do-over.
The point is to make superstars think twice before simply signing with a big market team.

Since the lockout in hockey, the diversity of champions has been great. Big names are scattered throughout the league including small markets and a good variety of markets have been winning the cup.I hope you're not referring to Miami. Attractive city with good basketball program =/= big market. We're a joke compared to real big markets like LA, NY, Dallas, Boston, and Chicago.

DoMeFavors
11-12-2011, 09:33 PM
nazr mohammad knows nothing about this and is telling Durant to speak out also.

smith&wesson
11-12-2011, 09:46 PM
Bobcats and Wolves SUCK because theu are poorly managed. It has NOTHING to do with the system!

really ? how bout the raptors ? clippers ? cavs ? golden state ? i guess only large market teams are managed well :rolleyes:

Wade>You
11-12-2011, 09:49 PM
really ? how bout the raptors ? clippers ? cavs ? golden state ? i guess only large market teams are managed well :rolleyes:I don't think those teams help your argument. They have a history of bad decision making.

smith&wesson
11-12-2011, 09:50 PM
But the owners have the peoples best interest at heart! Im sure the countless arena workers and surrounding vendors that are unemployed are sleeping good at night knowing that the Bobcats will soon be competing for a ring!! :rolleyes:

arena workers work for the arena not the franchise. do you really think these arenas dont have other venues during off season ? your talking about franchise employees. and in that case what makes you think the players care about them ? or the owners ?

smith&wesson
11-12-2011, 09:56 PM
I don't think those teams help your argument. They have a history of bad decision making.

LOL your gonna say that about every small market team ?

small market teams who have no chance at luring big name free agents and have a very slim chance at retaining the good players they draft were forced to take risks under the old cba. those risk turned out to be bad decisions.

Kevj77
11-12-2011, 10:05 PM
I hope you're not referring to Miami. Attractive city with good basketball program =/= big market. We're a joke compared to real big markets like LA, NY, Dallas, Boston, and Chicago.Of course he is talking about Miami, the only other team he could be talking about is LA in 1996 signing Shaq. There are no other examples of superstars in their prime leaving the team that drafted them as free agents. Perhaps Grant Hill signing with Orlando, but he was coming off a very serious injury. Out of those teams only LA would be considered a big market by NBA standards.

However, IMO it doesn't matter how a team is put together, Miami did nothing wrong they planned ahead cleared cap space and signed two top free agents. It's not like Miami was a luxury tax team when they got James and Bosh. These types of players aren't going to luxury tax teams for the MLE, it is the biggest myth perpetuated by small market fans.

ink
11-13-2011, 12:31 AM
This is for the future. If it were for right now then there would be a complete draft do-over.
The point is to make superstars think twice before simply signing with a big market team.

Since the lockout in hockey, the diversity of champions has been great. Big names are scattered throughout the league including small markets and a good variety of markets have been winning the cup.

Fair assessment. 100% agree.

Sactown
11-13-2011, 12:51 AM
Then they need to die like the neighborhood corner store who can't compete and closes down.

You can't honestly say there is a reason for 30 teams. There are a handful of teams which are pointless, bleed money, and hurt the league because their games don't get watched or attended.

You cut off 6, take their top talent and place them in an expansion draft, and make each division have 4 teams.

Minny, Charlotte, New Orleans, Clippers (make money but I can't stand Sterling), Atlanta (the fans don't care), and Toronto (they aren't part of the nation anyhow) can all die. Just take their players and spread hem throughout.

Don't give me the excuse of you can afford 10 bad years because of a market. The best teams can handle lapses because of management, history, and creating a fantasy that isn't fair weather or cheap.

So what Minny hasn't rebounded from KG or Indy from JO/Reggie/Ron/Tinsley/Jackson? They should have gotten more. Minny sold him for scrubs. The Pacers outright, there is no nice way of putting this that is pc,mwhitened up their team to get rid of a thug image instead of focusing on getting talent back in return. They deserve the hole they dug. No one forced the Bucks to pay out the behind for Salmons and Gooden when better players were on the market, not should any team finance them a new arena through revenue sharing. No one held a gun to the heads of Holt and Buford to make them give Jefferson a massive extension for underachieving and selling Scola for pennies. No one told Memphis to give Pau a max contract years ago knowing that e couldn't lead them on the court or in the box office, same for Joe Johnson in Atlanta. No one told Jordan hey you better waste years of lottery picks and let Felton, Chandler, Jackson, and Wallace go so you can make another terrible pick and get a handout.

The thing is it all comeback to the fact the teams who struggle screwed themselves. In the case of San Antonio they abused the system, they took advantage of trade and buyout loop holes and amnesties, but now they are hurt by three straight terrible extensions and lack of bigs. You have the Clippers, Raptors, and Suns who don't try to be good, just make a profit. You have the Kings who only lost fans, talent, and money after the Maloofs outside ventures failed and forced them to hurt their product. You have Jordan who is the polar opposite of what he was as a player, the WOAT in the front office. you have inept management like Denver who alienate their top player and play it cheap when they were 2 wins from the finals. Gilbert made is own bed by being Lebrons ***** for years

The fact is LA earned every penny, every fan, and every rating the get. Buss only has that one venture and he balances it as a team and franchise, not oneof the other. Cuban poured money into a laughing stock and made them contenders and champions, and he ate and chalked up every bad trade and signing he made. You have Miami, Chicago, New Jersey, and New York who made plans and rebuilt just like that. Heck you even have Phili who we all know has the most heated fans on the world, but will flock back anytime the team is good, just like Detorit.

Don't tell me LA needs to cut Minny or these other crap teams who don't care about winning, misuse picks, and keep salary at the bare minimum to get a luxury tax check deserve parity or mer revenue sharing. They didnt market themselves, they didn't sell their product as a franchise and team, let alone try to make winning moves. Why should LA gauge them a piece of 3 billion, but they not give LA or other drawing team 80% of the ticket sales for when they visit on the road and sell out their arenas which are usually bare and get their regional sports network high ratings when people don't normally watch?

Also where does the logic that parity in the nba comes from? The league has always been based on dynasties, they marketed them and stars from way back to Mikan and it worked as the league still generates the most revenue per player in sports. The fact is expansion teams like the Wolves and Bobcats watered down the product and popularity because it spread talent too thin for the casual fan to care as much as the enthusiast. You cut that dead weight and you get more competitive teams, higher ratings, more profits, a bigger piece of the pie for owners and players as there would be less scum and scrubs among both groups.

What about teams like OKC? they're the model team to replicate when you refer to small market teams. CHECK LIST, championship caliber team.. Check!, Under the cap.. CHECK!, A team that makes money.. CHECK!, Oh wait.. never mind.. they lost money last season along with the other 21 teams... It's not all about making the correct business moves, as the kings were still not profitable in 02... the problem is the system.. the Kings have had a sell out crowed almost every year the Maloofs have been majority owners.. It's not the owners it's the system.. I think it's pretty obvious at this point :eyebrow:

Knicks21
11-13-2011, 01:03 AM
The t wolves sneak into the 8th sport with 38 wins. The Lakers finish no 1 overall with 48 wins.

nate2usmc
11-13-2011, 01:03 AM
What about teams like OKC? they're the model team to replicate when you refer to small market teams. CHECK LIST, championship caliber team.. Check!, Under the cap.. CHECK!, A team that makes money.. CHECK!, Oh wait.. never mind.. they lost money last season along with the other 21 teams... It's not all about making the correct business moves, as the kings were still not profitable in 02... the problem is the system.. the Kings have had a sell out crowed almost every year the Maloofs have been majority owners.. It's not the owners it's the system.. I think it's pretty obvious at this point :eyebrow:

Yes! I didn't see the hardline owners being the Maloofs and Clay bennett clamoring for a change reported by media though.

Sactown
11-13-2011, 01:09 AM
Yes! I didn't see the hardline owners being the Maloofs and Clay bennett clamoring for a change reported by media though.

Yes, but I think both teams believe the can be profitable with a 50/50 split, but I don't think those are the two teams in the worst position either, also both teams have had fairly recent success and I believe both of smart GM's. There are teams with far more issues than those teams

Sactown
11-13-2011, 01:13 AM
Yes! I didn't see the hardline owners being the Maloofs and Clay bennett clamoring for a change reported by media though.
Also my main point was, it wasn't the GM's that put those teams in the toilet, neither team is highly over the cap, one team is very successful, and the other has exciting young talent while being at the minimum salary cap.. Both teams should be profitable with these intangibles, and his argument is to either sell the team or contract.. neither is going to lead to profit so neither is a reasonable expectation.. clearly the system is what is flawed, and I'm not talking about superstars or mega stars joining together. I'm talking purely about money

masTOR_shake1
11-13-2011, 01:20 AM
you're "drinking the kool-aid" if you honestly think the nba is competitive with the status-quo. what a joke. big market teams and their bandwagon fans like yourself i assume, always bring up the spurs in a "if small market teams are run the right way they can succeed" way. You don't even stop to consider they lucked out with drafting the best pf of all time and drafting two legit stars (parker and manu) with the 28th and 57th picks in different years which is unbelievable. i just wish big market hypocrite fans would take some of their own medicine and support a system in which they can win championships if they are "run well". :puke:

Kevj77
11-13-2011, 01:21 AM
What about teams like OKC? they're the model team to replicate when you refer to small market teams. CHECK LIST, championship caliber team.. Check!, Under the cap.. CHECK!, A team that makes money.. CHECK!, Oh wait.. never mind.. they lost money last season along with the other 21 teams... It's not all about making the correct business moves, as the kings were still not profitable in 02... the problem is the system.. the Kings have had a sell out crowed almost every year the Maloofs have been majority owners.. It's not the owners it's the system.. I think it's pretty obvious at this point :eyebrow:50/50 split and revenue sharing takes care of teams losing money. The system issues never held back OKC or any team that made good decisions basketball wise only the BRI split and lack of revenue sharing. I live in Chico and have seen a lot of games at Arco that were sell outs the Kings need a new arena. Luxury boxes bring in big money and Arco is really lacking in this department.

With a 50/50 split, revenue sharing and a new arena the Kings would be good to go in Sac. They have some nice young talent to build around and cap space. Sacramento can support an NBA team, but you need to replace Arco badly.

Sactown
11-13-2011, 01:42 AM
50/50 split and revenue sharing takes care of teams losing money. The system issues never held back OKC or any team that made good decisions basketball wise only the BRI split and lack of revenue sharing. I live in Chico and have seen a lot of games at Arco that were sell outs the Kings need a new arena. Luxury boxes bring in big money and Arco is really lacking in this department.

With a 50/50 split, revenue sharing and a new arena the Kings would be good to go in Sac. They have some nice young talent to build around and cap space. Sacramento can support an NBA team, but you need to replace Arco badly.

Like I said, I'm only looking at the money issues as I believe they play the biggest roll in being competitive. If you are making money, you can spend money consistently, if you don't make money, you're going to run out eventually. The League needs to have more profitable teams than just 28%

Or the outcome is going to be, fans wishing their team is sold to a richer owner who is willing to spend to win.

topdog
11-13-2011, 02:15 AM
Bobcats and Wolves SUCK because theu are poorly managed. It has NOTHING to do with the system!

Umm... so what was going on with the Wolves when they had the league's best record a while back? Every other team just sucked that much more?

I love all the criticism teams like the Wolves and Kings get (and they both were Western Conference powers and spenders not too terribly long ago) yet crappy large market teams like the Knicks get a free pass on truly horrendous management. New York's strategy was literally throwing money at their problems.

Oh, and let's not forget the "Baby Bulls" who were nothing post-MJ. Before we blame "cheap owners" and "poor management" let's consider fluctuations in talent based on rise and decline and contracts that prohibit acquisition of new talent by being too long and too expensive

mkdo
11-13-2011, 02:24 AM
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19750980&posted=1#post19750980

ink
11-13-2011, 02:52 AM
Red herring. And I didn't say anything that wasn't true.

Truth and opinion are two different things. All you offered was opinions based on a skewed view of what the owners actually mean when they are talking about competitive balance.

If you want to talk about red herrings, the true red herring is the insistence that anyone is saying that with a hard cap all teams will be able to win championships and all teams will be well managed.

They won't and no one said they would so you can spare us the strawman arguments.

All that has been said is that a decent CBA would eliminate exceptions that are not working for all teams, try to curtail spending from the habitual abusers, and most of all, level the playing field.

PrettyBoyJ
11-13-2011, 03:01 AM
To be honest the NBA is never going to have competitive balance never did never will.. In the last 13 years the most competitive conference (west) has been represented by 3 teams in the Finals, Lakers, Spurs, and Mavericks.. While the East had 9.. Even with the disparities between the upper tier teams (1-4) and the bottom half of the conference the east has managed to have different teams represent their conference in the finals.. It's just how the NBA is.. In the 90s the east was Represented by 4 Teams, Pistons, Bulls, Magics, Knicks, While the west had 7 even tho the East was the most competitive conference at the time..
Basically the NBA will prob never have competitive balance just a shift in power between conference that's about it..

Kevj77
11-13-2011, 03:04 AM
Like I said, I'm only looking at the money issues as I believe they play the biggest roll in being competitive. If you are making money, you can spend money consistently, if you don't make money, you're going to run out eventually. The League needs to have more profitable teams than just 28%

Or the outcome is going to be, fans wishing their team is sold to a richer owner who is willing to spend to win.I believe people are too focused on the money. There is nothing wrong with the system if the BRI split and revenue sharing allows all teams to afford their players and profit.

I'll use the Kings as an example. It wasn't money that closed thier championship window. Cwebb injured his knee and Divac was approaching the end of his career. You traded Peja for Artest, which was a fair deal, Artest for Donte Green and a future first that ended up being Omri, then traded him and a future pick for JJ Hickson. The Kings drafted Evans, Cousins and Jimmer. You have one of the youngest teams with a lot of cap space, what happens if it all comes together the Kings sign a veteran free agent with cap space and you need to extend this young core past their rookie contracts because they all produce under a hard cap? The Kings wouldn't be able to do that even if they made a profit that is the problem with a hard cap.

Sactown
11-13-2011, 03:06 AM
Umm... so what was going on with the Wolves when they had the league's best record a while back? Every other team just sucked that much more?

I love all the criticism teams like the Wolves and Kings get (and they both were Western Conference powers and spenders not too terribly long ago) yet crappy large market teams like the Knicks get a free pass on truly horrendous management. New York's strategy was literally throwing money at their problems.

Oh, and let's not forget the "Baby Bulls" who were nothing post-MJ. Before we blame "cheap owners" and "poor management" let's consider fluctuations in talent based on rise and decline and contracts that prohibit acquisition of new talent by being too long and too expensive
The reason teams use the Kings and the T-wolves is because they were once great teams who have taken a turn for the worst.. even though honestly they have rebounded quite well.. they both are on the rise.. while the Knicks still are stuck being the Knicks.. the difference is the Kings and Wolves won't make a profit throwing money at **** like the Knicks will

ink
11-13-2011, 03:14 AM
I believe people are too focused on the money. There is nothing wrong with the system if the BRI split and revenue sharing allows all teams to afford their players and profit.

I don't understand this. In the first sentence you're saying that it's not all about money but in the second sentence you suggest that it's about BRI and revenue. Aren't those two just money?

abe_froman
11-13-2011, 03:19 AM
there wont be competitive balance.the same things that succeeded before will still determine it(being lucky as hell and drafting well)and the teams that'll be down when the cba is up will be whining how its the systems fault,other markets,a conspiracy by stern...anyone other then management

Kevj77
11-13-2011, 03:45 AM
Let me try to explain. People are focused on big market teams out spending, when they don't win without good management. Most teams with huge payrolls are veteran teams that have extended their own players. Dallas, Boston, San Antonio and LA all fit in this category. So does Orlando, but they made some bad moves to put themselves in their situation. These teams acquired most of their players by draft or trade NOT free agency and extended them. Not one of them acquired a major free agent. There is nothing wrong with the system IF all teams can afford to pay their players going rates and make a profit.

If players leave teams to get more playing time, be a number one option, or because they haven't been surrounded by enough talent to win that is NOT the systems fault it is the franchises fault as long as they can afford to give that player the same money, surround him with talent and still profit.

Basicly people act as if the teams that win only win because of money and blame the system for their teams management. Even if their teams had all the money in the world they wouldn't win without good management. If all teams had equal money or at least enough money to spend all they wanted and still profit, it still wouldn't help poorly managed teams.

I think you know this deep down.

Chronz
11-13-2011, 07:50 AM
All I want to know is how could you ever hope to control competitive balance? Even if Stern rigged it so every team started at .500 this year, the well managed teams will eventually rise to the top and we're right back at square 1.

YoungOne
11-13-2011, 08:12 AM
there still will be very good and bad GM's

Tom Stone
11-13-2011, 09:40 AM
Once completive balance is restored.......our league will thrive.....Just knowing you have a chance to win...Will stir-up excitement in all the small markets....creating more fans all over world, more jerseys being bought more fan support for the league...the big market fans won't go anywhere, they are all ready established and hooked...And when you win a championship under the new system, you would have actually earned it, because you beat them on a even playing Field, instead of the broken system that supports greed and un-fairness.....it will great for our sport.

Cosmic_Canon
11-13-2011, 10:25 AM
Once completive balance is restored.......our league will thrive.....Just knowing you have a chance to win...Will stir-up excitement in all the small markets....creating more fans all over world, more jerseys being bought more fan support for the league...the big market fans won't go anywhere, they are all ready established and hooked...And when you win a championship under the new system, you would have actually earned it, because you beat them on a even playing Field, instead of the broken system that supports greed and un-fairness.....it will great for our sport.

Did you laugh while typing this?
So what the Lakers and Heat did is illegal?
Yep, West and Riley are the scum of the earth. :rolleyes:

BigCityofDreams
11-13-2011, 10:25 AM
This is for the future. If it were for right now then there would be a complete draft do-over.
The point is to make superstars think twice before simply signing with a big market team.

Since the lockout in hockey, the diversity of champions has been great. Big names are scattered throughout the league including small markets and a good variety of markets have been winning the cup.

No disrespect but does the public even care about Hockey?

BigCityofDreams
11-13-2011, 10:31 AM
No I think you're thinking about the new "fairness to the league" rule they're trying to implement. Teams are now allowed to have only two allstars on a team at any given time. If by chance some third player improves his game and becomes an allstar he is then to be immediately traded to a small market team, starting with the team with the worst record.

They wanted to implement something similar for having multiple all defense players on the same team but the league thought that would be a bit much.........

Classic post Tony funny as hell lol

Hawkeye15
11-13-2011, 11:38 AM
Bobcats and Wolves SUCK because theu are poorly managed. It has NOTHING to do with the system!

and the Knicks absolutely stunk the league up for years, despite being the largest market in the U.S.

You are right, it doesn't have to do so much with the system. The same system where 72% of the league loses money. Not all of us can be an embarrassment and still rake it in....

Hawkeye15
11-13-2011, 11:42 AM
All I want to know is how could you ever hope to control competitive balance? Even if Stern rigged it so every team started at .500 this year, the well managed teams will eventually rise to the top and we're right back at square 1.

exactly. The only purpose of this new CBA is so that every team has the choice to be profitable, competitive, or possibly both. But the teams that will continue to dominate are those with the best front offices.

LanceUpperCut
11-13-2011, 11:58 AM
It's not a quick fix but it's headed in the right direction. Well managed teams will succeed to certain degree but lets not act like these big market teams that simple clear cap space and have cool night clubs are well managed, well small market teams that draft good use up all there resources but still loss money, have no chance on signing a decent FA to a fair contact and there superstar jets are poorly managed.
Everyone has there opinion but is it just a coincidence that all NY and Miami fans are on one side. Seems a bit biased if you ask me. Personally I think the players gave up a lot but it has to be done, the I want everything now attitude these stars have was just getting worse and worse.
I realize no CBA can provide us with more Steve Nash types but that is what the league needs for sure.

ink
11-13-2011, 12:19 PM
exactly. The only purpose of this new CBA is so that every team has the choice to be profitable, competitive, or possibly both. But the teams that will continue to dominate are those with the best front offices.

And unlike the red herring discussion that happened earlier in the thread, NO ONE is suggesting otherwise. NO ONE thinks that a hard cap will magically fix everything for a poorly run franchise and NO ONE is contending that. We're talking about a level playing field, that's all. What happens from the point at which all franchises have a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD can't be controlled and is not controlled by the CBA. Hopefully we can dispense with that strawman argument at some point.

I agree completely that it's about every team having the opportunity to be profitable, competitive, or possibly both.

How people started talking about some sort of guaranteed championships for every team I have no idea.

PrettyBoyJ
11-13-2011, 12:23 PM
Once completive balance is restored.......our league will thrive.....Just knowing you have a chance to win...Will stir-up excitement in all the small markets....creating more fans all over world, more jerseys being bought more fan support for the league...the big market fans won't go anywhere, they are all ready established and hooked...And when you win a championship under the new system, you would have actually earned it, because you beat them on a even playing Field, instead of the broken system that supports greed and un-fairness.....it will great for our sport.

The NBA never had competitive Balance so they wouldn't be restoring it.. Every team that won a championship did it fair and square they followed the rules of the current CBA and won.. No un-fairness just playing better basketball then the opposing team.

Hawkeye15
11-13-2011, 12:24 PM
And unlike the red herring discussion that happened earlier in the thread, NO ONE is suggesting otherwise. NO ONE thinks that a hard cap will magically fix everything for a poorly run franchise and NO ONE is contending that. We're talking about a level playing field, that's all. What happens from the point at which all franchises have a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD can't be controlled and is not controlled by the CBA. Hopefully we can dispense with that strawman argument at some point.

at some point we will. What is happening, is large market fans are now getting very frustrated with the small market teams that are holding this agreement up, so to speak. So they are taking their frustrations out.

In all reality, nothing will change for the large markets. Free agents will still want to flock there if possible, especially if they are competent. This is just simply making it easier for every team in the league to compete, if they choose to do so, and have a front office capable of reaching that goal. Nothing more.

I am a Yankees fan, so I understand what its like being a fan of a huge market team that buys its success. But I also am very happy when the league gives the ability for more parity. Its much more entertaining that way.

ink
11-13-2011, 12:27 PM
at some point we will. What is happening, is large market fans are now getting very frustrated with the small market teams that are holding this agreement up, so to speak. So they are taking their frustrations out.

In all reality, nothing will change for the large markets. Free agents will still want to flock there if possible, especially if they are competent. This is just simply making it easier for every team in the league to compete, if they choose to do so, and have a front office capable of reaching that goal. Nothing more.

I am a Yankees fan, so I understand what its like being a fan of a huge market team that buys its success. But I also am very happy when the league gives the ability for more parity. Its much more entertaining that way.

I wish more people could see this. Well put.

ChiSoxJuan
11-13-2011, 12:42 PM
There is no magic fix for any league. All you can do is design a system so that teams can rebuild quickly when draft picks or FA signings don't pan out. The NFL has such a system & that's why most teams are hovering near the .500 mark . The quality of play is such that most games are in doubt up until the final 5 min of play. That should be the goal for any league.

The biggest loss for the NFL players in their fight is Judge Nelson's decision. The last thing they wanted was a court decision blessing the owner's right to use tags. Her words have destroyed much of their leverage to weaken or remove those tags in future negotiations.

Wrt to the NBA, they desperately need mechanisms to allow teams to use cash for cap. When picks or FA signings don't pan out the FAN suffers most for these players lingering in the NBA. It weakens the quality of play. Teams need to be able to demote these players to gain cap space. The rich teams can afford to continue to pay those salaries in full. The poor teams need the ability to sell that cap space to recoup that financial loss. In addition poor teams need help to pay for the high draft picks they get from their place in the standings. The rich LT's need to put up the cash there. These mechanisms would greatly help the ability for teams to compete.

What shocks me most about the NBA negotiations is the owners never pushed for a Franchise Tag. After Judge Nelson blessed this usage in the NFL it was a no-brainer provision for the owners to push in the NBA. Because the NBA has max deals, there would be no top 5-25% formula. To keep your best expiring contract player, you must offer a max $ deal. That's near $25M right now. I imagine this will be part of the next CBA.

Tom Stone
11-13-2011, 12:55 PM
The NBA never had competitive Balance so they wouldn't be restoring it.. Every team that won a championship did it fair and square they followed the rules of the current CBA and won.. No un-fairness just playing better basketball then the opposing team.

The only reason I used the word Restored... is because that is what the thread is called......I know the league has always been un fair..... and it's time for a change.....they followed the rules... of an un fair system

Hawkeye15
11-13-2011, 01:15 PM
There is no magic fix for any league. All you can do is design a system so that teams can rebuild quickly when draft picks or FA signings don't pan out.

Pretty much man. This whole thing is simply about trying to level the playing field at the basic level. What happens after that is dependent on a team's intentions, and execution.

ink
11-13-2011, 01:17 PM
What I should have written before was: the CBA controls opportunity, not success.

With a functional system you have the OPPORTUNITY for success. With a dysfunctional system you do not. In the case of the previous NBA CBAs, not all teams had equal opportunities for success, they did not have the same opportunity to acquire and retain talent as the big spenders did. A good system gives more OPPORTUNITY.

Now, it remains to be seen whether this CBA will create a good enough system. Many owners and fans wanted a complete overhaul of the old CBAs. What we got was a compromise with more asterisks and exceptions than ever before.

It should be clear to everyone that the CBA cannot control success. It simply gives each franchise a greater chance, a greater opportunity, than they had before when teams could freely siphon off the best talent every single year because of their bigger budgets. All this CBA has done is attempt to remove that financial advantage. I'm pretty doubtful that a convoluted document like this will function well for the league though.

I guess it's good for capologist employment and that may be about all.

ink
11-13-2011, 01:20 PM
Pretty much man. This whole thing is simply about trying to level the playing field at the basic level. What happens after that is dependent on a team's intentions, and execution.

If the players had accepted this simple concept without all the accusation, paranoia, and talk about plantations and rights, we might have actually seen a better CBA.

All it's about is opportunity and a level playing field for each of the 30 franchises.

Tony_Starks
11-13-2011, 01:40 PM
exactly. The only purpose of this new CBA is so that every team has the choice to be profitable, competitive, or possibly both. But the teams that will continue to dominate are those with the best front offices.


In all fairness though the 7% giveback of profits is enough make the teams that have been managed well and still losing money profitable. If you've been runninng a good business, selling out the arena, and still losing money then that give back alone covers that. Thats why this situation is so frustrating because that seemed to be the major issue the owners had but once that was addressed its just becoming one thing after another.

And the reason Im so tongue in cheek about the whole competitive balance issue is that whenever Adam Silver is pressed about since the players are compromising so much on the money why can't the owners compromise more on the system issues his standard answer is "they want a league where every fan can root for their team and feel they can be competitive." To me thats a copout. We all know the playing field will never be level but a competent owner always finds ways to stay competitive. And if he's making a profit he should be in even a better position to do so.0

At the end of the day they're going to make a profit, discourage the big spenders, and tighten the strings on player movement no matter what deal the players eventually take. When is enough enough? Throw the players a bone so they can at least feel like they fought the good fight and lets be done with this already......

Hawkeye15
11-13-2011, 01:43 PM
In all fairness though the 7% giveback of profits is enough make the teams that have been managed well and still losing money profitable. If you've been runninng a good business, selling out the arena, and still losing money then that give back alone covers that. Thats why this situation is so frustrating because that seemed to be the major issue the owners had but once that was addressed its just becoming one thing after another.

And the reason Im so tongue in cheek about the whole competitive balance issue is that whenever Adam Silver is pressed about since the players are compromising so much on the money why can't the owners compromise more on the system issues his standard answer is "they want a league where every fan can root for their team and feel they can be competitive." To me thats a copout. We all know the playing field will never be level but a competent owner always finds ways to stay competitive. And if he's making a profit he should be in even a better position to do so.0

At the end of the day they're going to make a profit, discourage the big spenders, and tighten the strings on player movement no matter what deal the players eventually take. When is enough enough? Throw the players a bone so they can at least feel like they fought the good fight and lets be done with this already......


The players will still enjoy plenty of freedoms to move around. It may not be as easy as it has been the past 15 years, but if they want to go somewhere, and that team is willing to spend, they can go.

As I said, this is only about setting things equal at the basic level. After that, nothing has changed. Sorry players, you can't make $16 million a year for being a 4th tier star anymore, but you never should have been in the first place.

ink
11-13-2011, 01:49 PM
And the reason Im so tongue in cheek about the whole competitive balance issue is that whenever Adam Silver is pressed about since the players are compromising so much on the money why can't the owners compromise more on the system issues his standard answer is "they want a league where every fan can root for their team and feel they can be competitive."

The reason is because that's a false parallel.

Compromising on salary and compensating on system are not equatable. You don't compromise the integrity of the system just because athletes who are overpaid (fact, see article posted on salary levels in 4 major sports (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=667777)) feel they have "given back" some of the owners' money.

It doesn't make sense.

ink
11-13-2011, 01:51 PM
The players will still enjoy plenty of freedoms to move around. It may not be as easy as it has been the past 15 years, but if they want to go somewhere, and that team is willing to spend, they can go.

As I said, this is only about setting things equal at the basic level. After that, nothing has changed. Sorry players, you can't make $16 million a year for being a 4th tier star anymore, but you never should have been in the first place.

Yup.

Cosmic_Canon
11-13-2011, 02:44 PM
The reason is because that's a false parallel.

Compromising on salary and compensating on system are not equatable. You don't compromise the integrity of the system just because athletes who are overpaid (fact, see article posted on salary levels in 4 major sports (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=667777)) feel they have "given back" some of the owners' money.

It doesn't make sense.

To be fair, NBA is the only major American sport, where one player can have an incredible impact. Also, you're comparing 12 players per team to 16+(16 for NHL, 25 in MLB), so of course NBA players will get paid on average more. It's no secret, that the average guys in the NBA typically get paid more than they're worth. However, a 7% pay cut should be more than enough for the alleged 300 mil losses.

In addition to that, there are things in place that make the system fair. Do I believe that the system is perfect, and doesn't need some tinkering? No, of course there should be something added to add to the system(revenue sharing). At the end of the day, there's plenty of rules to give small markets a chance and to retain talent. These teams that are "abusing the system", mainly got their stars through draft or trade. They're in the luxury tax, because they resigned they're players.

Chronz
11-14-2011, 12:27 AM
Pretty much man. This whole thing is simply about trying to level the playing field at the basic level. What happens after that is dependent on a team's intentions, and execution.

Its about money first and foremost, no question about it. If they wanted to make it easier to undo past mistakes they could do alot better than this, it would just get too expensive.

Chronz
11-14-2011, 12:30 AM
exactly. The only purpose of this new CBA is so that every team has the choice to be profitable, competitive, or possibly both. But the teams that will continue to dominate are those with the best front offices.
Thats a sweet way of putting it but isnt that the purpose in every CBA?

Chronz
11-14-2011, 01:49 PM
I've been thinking about this all weekend. How the **** does any of this help parity?

Want parity? Lets make the season 40 games long with 1 and done playoffs. Bam, new champ every year.

Hawkeye15
11-14-2011, 02:02 PM
Thats a sweet way of putting it but isnt that the purpose in every CBA?

it isn't, but it should be.

Hawkeye15
11-14-2011, 02:03 PM
Its about money first and foremost, no question about it. If they wanted to make it easier to undo past mistakes they could do alot better than this, it would just get too expensive.

well sure. But they have to find common ground in this deal between the two sides. If the players don't sign the deal now, the owners will get more.

Hawkeye15
11-14-2011, 02:05 PM
I've been thinking about this all weekend. How the **** does any of this help parity?

Want parity? Lets make the season 40 games long with 1 and done playoffs. Bam, new champ every year.

the only way it helps parity is controlling player movement. So players can't just sign on with a contender over the cap like they have been able to. Teams have the means to retain their stars more now.

There will never be the parity in the NBA that the NFL has. Its just not possible.

John Walls Era
11-14-2011, 02:06 PM
Small market teams have been competitive. In the past and now. OKC is considered a small bball market.



I've been thinking about this all weekend. How the **** does any of this help parity?

Want parity? Lets make the season 40 games long with 1 and done playoffs. Bam, new champ every year.

Never happen. Won't make as much money every year.

Sactown
11-14-2011, 02:50 PM
Every team needs to be profitable for every team to remain competitive over the long run, and I know that every business has a risk of losing money, but 72% failure rate? that's unacceptable and needs to change.. the most important thing is to allow teams to spend and they can't do that when they're losing money, so I think money is the biggest issue, fallowed by spending restrictions and FA movement..
and Like Hawkeye said, the NBA is never going to have the parity of the NFL, and I don't honestly think that's the goal. The goal is to give everyone an equal playing field at the beginning of the season, not at the end

Tony_Starks
11-14-2011, 03:30 PM
Every team needs to be profitable for every team to remain competitive over the long run, and I know that every business has a risk of losing money, but 72% failure rate? that's unacceptable and needs to change.. the most important thing is to allow teams to spend and they can't do that when they're losing money, so I think money is the biggest issue, fallowed by spending restrictions and FA movement..
and Like Hawkeye said, the NBA is never going to have the parity of the NFL, and I don't honestly think that's the goal. The goal is to give everyone an equal playing field at the beginning of the season, not at the end


You do realize that some owners are just going to pocket the profits and continue their miserly ways right? All this does is make it possible to have a league full of Donald Sterlings that can put anything on the floor and still stay in the black. So at the end of the day its all about money......

king4day
11-14-2011, 05:20 PM
I hope you're not referring to Miami. Attractive city with good basketball program =/= big market. We're a joke compared to real big markets like LA, NY, Dallas, Boston, and Chicago.

Miami comes to mind of course but I actually wasn't. The thought in my head was players wanting to go to LA, Chicago, & NY.
I just like the idea of seeing a Tim Duncan in San Antonio, or Durant in Seattle/OKC.

You see the Raptors get big star after big star but are unable to keep them there.

I love your sig btw. Something funny about Stern's head on and African American's body makes me giggle :)

Southsideheat
11-14-2011, 06:56 PM
Players have given more than enough to cover the losses by the owners.
The competitive balance argument is pure BS and/or an overreaction to
Lebronís decision. This is all about controlling FA which in effect is
controlling the players. There absolutely no accountability on the
owners to attract their own free agents. Letís use Lebron as example.
He spent 7 years (many in his prime) trying to win a championship.
In those 7 years, what the **** did the Cavs do to help him? Iíll
tell you what they did, Ben Wallace, Shaq at 38, Antawn Jamison at 35,
do I need to go further? At what point do the owners take the blame
for Lebronís decision?

What I don't get is that the players are basically giving a billion
dollars back to the owners (57% to 50%). Can't the small market teams
take that billion, along with revenue sharing AND the luxury tax and
be competitive? Shouldn't that be enough??? Why isnít that enough?
How can that possibly NOT be enough?

Sactown
11-14-2011, 07:19 PM
You do realize that some owners are just going to pocket the profits and continue their miserly ways right? All this does is make it possible to have a league full of Donald Sterlings that can put anything on the floor and still stay in the black. So at the end of the day its all about money......

Yes some will, most won't... So your logic is, 72% of the owners shouldn't make money at the risk that they plan on keeping the money? :confused:
I don't get the logic..