PDA

View Full Version : Has Anything Changed?



sixer04fan
11-30-2011, 05:47 PM
With reports that Chris Paul won't sign an extension in Boston and Dwight wanting to basically only sign with LA and Dallas, etc, even before there have been any actual offers reported or any legitimate rumors... After all of that lockout nonsense, are we still in a league that will allow the star players to essentially dictate where they go, leading to the once again feared 6-8 superstar teams with the rest of the league being worthless garbage?

I guess we'll have to see how it all plays out, and if the new CBA will affect how owners can or can't work around the salary cap to stack their teams. But I must say, with the way the rumors are flying around, and with your typical NY, Miami, LA, Dallas, etc being the only teams being mentioned as FA/trade destinations, I'm a little worried that it might be more of the same.

Thoughts?

Wade>You
11-30-2011, 05:49 PM
Breaking news: the owners never cared about competitive balance!

They only cared about the money --- which they got.

People need to stop being a tool for greedy owners already.

Shmontaine
11-30-2011, 05:51 PM
With reports that Chris Paul won't sign an extension in Boston and Dwight not wanting to sign with NJ, etc, even before there have been any actual offers reported or any legitimate rumors... After all of that lockout nonsense, are we still in a league that will allow the star players to essentially dictate where they go, leading to the once again feared 6-8 superstar teams with the rest of the league being worthless garbage?

I guess we'll have to see how it all plays out, and if the new CBA will affect how owners can or can't work around the salary cap to stack their teams. But I must say, with the way the rumors are flying around, I'm a little worried that it might be more of the same.

Thoughts?
.

ink
11-30-2011, 05:52 PM
Breaking news: the owners never cared competitive balance!

They only cared about the money --- which they got.

People need to stop being a tool for greedy owners already.

That's like saying the Bulls or Thunder didn't care about playing in the finals because they got beaten. Sometimes you only get what you get, not what you want.

Chill_Will_24
11-30-2011, 05:52 PM
There has been absolutely no reports of Dwight not willing to sign with NJ. In fact its the opposite. Its been widely reported NJ is ONE of the teams he would be willing to sign with. LA, DAL, NY, NJ are the teams he is reportedly interested in.

My bet is LAC

However dont put false things out there without links

sixer04fan
11-30-2011, 05:54 PM
There has been absolutely no reports of Dwight not willing to sign with NJ. In fact its the opposite. Its been widely reported NJ is ONE of the teams he would be willing to sign with. LA, DAL, NY, NJ are the teams he is reportedly interested in.

My bet is LAC

However dont put false things out there without links

My bad, I thought there was a thread on that somewhere, I'll edit that. But either way, there was definitely a report that the Lakers and Mavs are on his very very short list.

ink
11-30-2011, 05:54 PM
With reports that Chris Paul won't sign an extension in Boston and Dwight not wanting to sign with NJ, etc, even before there have been any actual offers reported or any legitimate rumors... After all of that lockout nonsense, are we still in a league that will allow the star players to essentially dictate where they go, leading to the once again feared 6-8 superstar teams with the rest of the league being worthless garbage?

I guess we'll have to see how it all plays out, and if the new CBA will affect how owners can or can't work around the salary cap to stack their teams. But I must say, with the way the rumors are flying around, and with your typical NY, Miami, LA, Dallas, etc being the only teams being mentioned as FA/trade destinations, I'm a little worried that it might be more of the same.

Thoughts?

The media definitely contribute a huge amount to the stupidity in the way the league runs with all their hype. They don't even have a CBA ratified yet and all the usual BS rumours are right back out there, probably even more panicked and frenetic than ever.

ee
11-30-2011, 05:55 PM
With reports that Chris Paul won't sign an extension in Boston and Dwight not wanting to sign with NJ, etc, even before there have been any actual offers reported or any legitimate rumors... After all of that lockout nonsense, are we still in a league that will allow the star players to essentially dictate where they go, leading to the once again feared 6-8 superstar teams with the rest of the league being worthless garbage?

I guess we'll have to see how it all plays out, and if the new CBA will affect how owners can or can't work around the salary cap to stack their teams. But I must say, with the way the rumors are flying around, and with your typical NY, Miami, LA, Dallas, etc being the only teams being mentioned as FA/trade destinations, I'm a little worried that it might be more of the same.

Thoughts?

yea, where did this come from? At least he's been quoted that he wanted to play with Deron Williams and Morrow, there's actually a video of hims saying this.....

sixer04fan
11-30-2011, 05:59 PM
yea, where did this come from? At least he's been quoted that he wanted to play with Deron Williams and Morrow, there's actually a video of hims saying this.....

Again, my bad, I edited that to change it to another report (I think Hollinger or Broussard about LA/Dallas?). Really was not trying to mislead people about a false rumor.

But that's not even the point of my thread, because either way, it looks like Dwight is going to be able to dictate to the Magic where he wants to go (which includes the Nets, you happy?). The point is to see if you all think the league is actually going to change, or if it's going to be more of the same.

beliges
11-30-2011, 05:59 PM
Breaking news: the owners never cared competitive balance!

They only cared about the money --- which they got.

People need to stop being a tool for greedy owners already.

Breaking news, the NBA is a business. The players dont care about competitive balance either, they just care about putting themselves in the best position for their own personal gains. The difference however is that the owners put up all the money and take up ALL the financial risk to have the NBA. The players just play the game and try to earn their paycheck. Nothing greedy about wanting a return on your huge investment. Furthermore, the players will always be able to dictate where they want to go and who they want to play with. They are free to sign with whatever team they choose and if they get traded somewhere they dont want to play for, they can simply get out of the league. Nobody is forcing the players to do anything they dont want. Their is no law that forces players to do what they dont want or play somewhere they dont want to play. The owners just got what they deserved in a 50/50 split of the revenue. Everyone knew this was gonna happen it just took the players a month of missing paychecks before they realized the owners were serious. Time to move on and get back to work.

ee
11-30-2011, 06:08 PM
Again, my bad, I edited that to change it to another report (I think Hollinger or Broussard about LA/Dallas?). Really was not trying to mislead people about a false rumor.

But that's not even the point of my thread, because either way, it looks like Dwight is going to be able to dictate to the Magic where he wants to go (which includes the Nets, you happy?). The point is to see if you all think the league is actually going to change, or if it's going to be more of the same.

I'm not sure how they can change it, if the player doesn't want to sign an extention to the team he's going to, then it's either no trade or lose the player in the FA.....The pressure will always be on the team to put around the right supporting cast to keep their players happy. Before, there were many wasted supertar talent in the NBA who rotted by staying with one team most of their career and did not win. Do you really want to keep teams doing the same to players today? 3-4 years is enough, if the team doesn't deliver, the player should have the power to dictate the outcome. it goes both ways, if the team wanna keep their star, give him the players he needs to win, if not, let him go....

Hellcrooner
11-30-2011, 06:12 PM
it means in the end players " won" and that owners NEVER GAVE A DAMM BOUT COMPETITIVE BALANCE.

As i said if players had told the owners to make it 20 for players 80 for owners in bri split in exchange for ditching the draft, the rfa, and acting like a free market like in the rest of the world, owners would have happily accepted.

smith&wesson
11-30-2011, 06:12 PM
With reports that Chris Paul won't sign an extension in Boston and Dwight wanting to basically only sign with LA and Dallas, etc, even before there have been any actual offers reported or any legitimate rumors... After all of that lockout nonsense, are we still in a league that will allow the star players to essentially dictate where they go, leading to the once again feared 6-8 superstar teams with the rest of the league being worthless garbage?

I guess we'll have to see how it all plays out, and if the new CBA will affect how owners can or can't work around the salary cap to stack their teams. But I must say, with the way the rumors are flying around, and with your typical NY, Miami, LA, Dallas, etc being the only teams being mentioned as FA/trade destinations, I'm a little worried that it might be more of the same.

Thoughts?

It is the same. the owners won on the bri split and thats about it. they wanted a hard cap and it was a "blood" issue for the players. now you know why. because they like playing for 6 teams. they dont care about golden state, or toronto or the kings etc. nothing was changed in order for there to be more parity. nothing! the owners did try though. the players dont care whats best for the sport, they care about whats best for them in the short term.

smith&wesson
11-30-2011, 06:14 PM
honestly the lock out is done. i personally dont now why you guys ride the players like they pay your bills... but whatever the lock outs done and this bickering about the owners and players is really stale. get over it guys.

davids22
11-30-2011, 06:18 PM
That's because nowadays it's about a players "brand" and marketing himself. To do that, you need to put yourself in the best possible position. Being on a winning team helps that, especially in a big market. Big market = more exposure to sell your shoes, shirts, and persona. Winning team means more TV airtime to further spread that message.

Some players are happy being "the man" on a losing team because they're still getting a max contract. Most don't.

Will the NBA ever have the same type of competition as college ball? Probably not. Which is unfortunate.

Celticsfan2007
11-30-2011, 06:19 PM
Competitive balance will never exist in the NBA. One player can dramatically change a franchises image (ala Lebron + Cleveland). Until there is contraction or barriers put on teams for signing multiple superstars the NBA will never be as balanced as say... the NFL?

sixer04fan
11-30-2011, 06:20 PM
i personally dont now why you guys ride the players like they pay your bills...

Always wondered this too. Some fans on here care so much about how much the players get paid. Personally I don't care at all how much they get paid, they get more than enough either way.

All I care about as a fan is seeing good, competitive basketball, which comes with an increase in competitive balance.

PlezPlayDKnicks
11-30-2011, 06:34 PM
Breaking news, the NBA is a business. The players dont care about competitive balance either, they just care about putting themselves in the best position for their own personal gains. The difference however is that the owners put up all the money and take up ALL the financial risk to have the NBA. The players just play the game and try to earn their paycheck. Nothing greedy about wanting a return on your huge investment. Furthermore, the players will always be able to dictate where they want to go and who they want to play with. They are free to sign with whatever team they choose and if they get traded somewhere they dont want to play for, they can simply get out of the league. Nobody is forcing the players to do anything they dont want. Their is no law that forces players to do what they dont want or play somewhere they dont want to play. The owners just got what they deserved in a 50/50 split of the revenue. Everyone knew this was gonna happen it just took the players a month of missing paychecks before they realized the owners were serious. Time to move on and get back to work.

Actually the players will get 51.2 and fought for the system which allows them to move around which if the owners didn't want. The players gave up the money bcuz owners were serious but used it to get the hard cap / luxury tax which acts like a cap. I can care less what the players get but it's obvious who won the Cba if this thread was made already . Owners got very little out of the parity concessions they were supposedly fighting for. They got a few things but nothing they put in deterrs stars more than the last Cba. Glad u feel the owners got the best of the deal. Owners ran right back to the table like the players after making empty lose the season and 47BRI threats and flex cap after the ultimatum.

Vinylman
11-30-2011, 06:38 PM
Nothing has changed because they didn't deal with the main problems of the NBA. All they did was shift more of the inefficiency of the league to the players by reducing their share of the BRI... the middle of the road player loses again...

the fundamental things not fixed are...

1. Needed Contraction of at least 4 teams (bottom 50 players suck)
2. Elimination of Guaranteed contracts (ie NFL Model)
3. Did not add ability to renegotiate contracts (NFL Model)
4. Did not add franchise tag (NFL Model)

The benefits of implementing the above 4 items is obvious

1. NBDL would actually thrive and become relevant expanding basketballs reach
2. Contracts would mirror quality of current contributions rather than rewarding career years.
3. Provide better competitive balance as there would be fewer teams chasing more players, eliminate the need for DRASTIC rebuilding programs, and most importantly let teams get a return on the marketing investments they have made in players.
4. The mechanics of the CBA and lack of competitive balance drive the perception that players are spoiled. Some are but what really is wrong with players is not CP3 and D12 wanting to win but rather contracts like arenas's, turkeyglues, rashard lewis and many many others.

So to answer the question... nothings changed... just more of the pain has been shifted to the players. I am not siding with the players but it is the reality.

Vinylman
11-30-2011, 06:41 PM
Actually the players will get 51.2 and fought for the system which allows them to move around which if the owners didn't want. The players gave up the money bcuz owners were serious but used it to get the hard cap / luxury tax which acts like a cap. I can care less what the players get but it's obvious who won the Cba if this thread was made already . Owners got very little out of the parity concessions they were supposedly fighting for. They got a few things but nothing they put in deterrs stars more than the last Cba. Glad u feel the owners got the best of the deal. Owners ran right back to the table like the players after making empty lose the season and 47BRI threats and flex cap after the ultimatum.

The luxury tax is irrelevant to teams like the Lakers... there new tv deal alone will triple their profits in the first year it is in place ... do you think they give a **** about $20 million in incremental taxes? Not hardly

See the Yankees if there is any confusion on this point...

the difference between the NBA and MLB is that one guy can make all the difference in the world

PlezPlayDKnicks
11-30-2011, 06:42 PM
Always wondered this too. Some fans on here care so much about how much the players get paid. Personally I don't care at all how much they get paid, they get more than enough either way.

All I care about as a fan is seeing good, competitive basketball, which comes with an increase in competitive balance.

Smaller market fans have the beef with the system and understandably so. Nba putting a hard cap breaking up the super teams was never gonna happen at least this Cba. My money is it'll happen after the Heat and other newly formed super teams fade after this Cba. It's too much of a money maker. A hard cap would've broken the Heat up for sure and I doubt Stern ever wanted that to happen IMO

Chronz
11-30-2011, 07:46 PM
Controlling where players go was never in the plans because it was never possible. Never has been, never will be. The system was always about giving the home team financial advantages, which is why so many stars extend with their teams before finally leaving.

ink
12-01-2011, 01:09 AM
Always wondered this too. Some fans on here care so much about how much the players get paid. Personally I don't care at all how much they get paid, they get more than enough either way.

All I care about as a fan is seeing good, competitive basketball, which comes with an increase in competitive balance.

This. I'm hoping there's enough in the new CBA that talent will be spread better throughout the league.

BKLYNpigeon
12-01-2011, 01:16 AM
um.. if you're a player in the NBA you have rights. you cant tell anyone where to play or how plan their career. if cp3 wants to ply in NY and LA, you cant stop that. you cant stop him because he wants to play with friends our if he wants to take 1 million and play in Miami.

Obviously everyone will always want to play in NY and LA. thats where the marketing is. thats where the money is. Its just how the NBA is, because its so player driven.

BKLYNpigeon
12-01-2011, 01:23 AM
The new CBA is about money. PERIOD.

you cant spread talent around the league but you can control it. HARD SALARY CAP.

I hope it is in the new CBA. The reason why teams dont care if the dumbass Kicks, Mavs, Lakers, Heat, etc. go over the salary cap and pay Luxury tax is because that money is dispensed around the other teams.

ink
12-01-2011, 01:28 AM
Controlling where players go was never in the plans because it was never possible. Never has been, never will be. The system was always about giving the home team financial advantages, which is why so many stars extend with their teams before finally leaving.

Depends what you regard as control. There are all kinds of new hindrances from the team side because you're right, you can't hinder the player. But with the beginnings of a good LT system, you can control the LT teams, which is a de facto way of controlling the players. No matter who you are, you can't sign a player if you're into luxury territory. At least you won't be able to build much around them with the other limitations. Still, the best managed teams will work out how to do this and stay on budget. So no one will be punished except the worst run teams, which is exactly how it should be.

PleaseBeNice
12-01-2011, 01:33 AM
the players are SCARED TO COMPETE