Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 102
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    17,906
    1-16 makes the most sense as far as quality of play and putting the best product together when it matters....the playoffs. There’s no way around it. The best teams should be competing in the playoffs it’s a no brainer. The eastern conference playoffs are a joke...nobody cares. Putting the top 16 teams in would actually make the playoffs interesting (which they’re not) and make the nba not a complete joke.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    32,708
    if you went just top 16 last year DEN would maybe make it over the 8 seed in the East but other than that the bracket would be the same IMO. It wouldn’t really make a different in the team that gets in.

    The problem to me is that the West is just better across the board if you compare seed by seed. We’re past the days of the 10 seed in the West being better than the 6 seed in the East. Is MIN really that much better than WAS? Once you get over the respect for Pop factor are the Kawhi-less Spurs really much better than the Bucks?

    Just go seed by seed and the West is a little stronger at each spot. So all-in it’s a big difference but in terms of who gets in it wouldnt really be much different if you go top 16 in terms of who gets in.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    17,243
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    if you went just top 16 last year DEN would maybe make it over the 8 seed in the East but other than that the bracket would be the same IMO. It wouldn’t really make a different in the team that gets in.

    The problem to me is that the West is just better across the board if you compare seed by seed. We’re past the days of the 10 seed in the West being better than the 6 seed in the East. Is MIN really that much better than WAS? Once you get over the respect for Pop factor are the Kawhi-less Spurs really much better than the Bucks?

    Just go seed by seed and the West is a little stronger at each spot. So all-in it’s a big difference but in terms of who gets in it wouldnt really be much different if you go top 16 in terms of who gets in.
    Strangely enough, the East vs West regular seasons for all teams was 390-390. Kinda debunks the narrative that West has been significantly better. It's still better but people act like these Eastern Conference teams are going to show up to the game looking scared of their Western Conference opponents. These are NBA players at the end of the day.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    48,564
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashBolt View Post
    Strangely enough, the East vs West regular seasons for all teams was 390-390. Kinda debunks the narrative that West has been significantly better. It's still better but people act like these Eastern Conference teams are going to show up to the game looking scared of their Western Conference opponents. These are NBA players at the end of the day.
    Yea.

    I've sat at for awhile that the mid-range of the east is bigger. A larger range of teams in that .500 range. On the flip the west has a better top, and going towards to bottom wheres a few more.

    I think that there's a few things that could be done:
    ~ Contract values all pre-tax, so that there's no saving in certain states.
    ~ Trading over the soft cap harder, trading over the luxury tax even harder unless you straight up cut cap.
    ~ Over the tax at the previous year can't buy draft picks.

    Obviously the super-max and the 5th year aren't really helping in keeping players put, so there needs to be a bird rights and non-bird rights max.

    I'd like to see:
    ~Rookie Max: 20%
    ~4-8 years of service non-bird max: 20%
    ~4-8 years of service bird max: 25%
    ~4-8 years of service bird supermax: 30%
    ~8+ years of service non-bird max: 25%
    ~8+ years of service bird max: 30%
    ~8+ years of service bird supermax: 35%

    Players really gonna give up ~$5-10mil in year 1 without counting the increases?

    PROCESSING

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    19,629
    They should raise luxury tax but get rid of cap space so teams like LA NY and Chicago can stop tanking and pay talent at the same time all super team have to pay steep price to keep their roster intact. Once the Big Markets get back to competing there will be less teams tanking allowing small markets to collect cheap young talents.

    Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    74,487
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Yea.

    I've sat at for awhile that the mid-range of the east is bigger. A larger range of teams in that .500 range. On the flip the west has a better top, and going towards to bottom wheres a few more.

    I think that there's a few things that could be done:
    ~ Contract values all pre-tax, so that there's no saving in certain states.
    ~ Trading over the soft cap harder, trading over the luxury tax even harder unless you straight up cut cap.
    ~ Over the tax at the previous year can't buy draft picks.

    Obviously the super-max and the 5th year aren't really helping in keeping players put, so there needs to be a bird rights and non-bird rights max.

    I'd like to see:
    ~Rookie Max: 20%
    ~4-8 years of service non-bird max: 20%
    ~4-8 years of service bird max: 25%
    ~4-8 years of service bird supermax: 30%
    ~8+ years of service non-bird max: 25%
    ~8+ years of service bird max: 30%
    ~8+ years of service bird supermax: 35%

    Players really gonna give up ~$5-10mil in year 1 without counting the increases?
    Yeah, the east has always had a ton of mediocre teams, and end up sending 1-2 of them to the playoffs every year. Where the west, if you aren't going to win 45 games or more, you are better of tanking, so you have had 3-4 just terrible teams out west every year. My Wolves, Sac, and the Suns have been regulars, with some other teams taking turns in/out. So weird too, my Wolves were 34-18 against the west this year, and 13-17 against the east, so you get those odd years that make no sense..

    The contenders are out west, minus a LeBron team in the east the last 10 years. None of this will change much, except LeBron is out west now. Boston/Philly maybe, but its still GS/Houston ahead of everyone.

    The west is way stronger seeds 1-8, has been for nearly 25 years, will be for at least another 5-6. Re-alingment may help, but seeding 1-16 is the easiest way.

    I would also like to see them get rid of max deals, and then set a hard cap. Average out where teams are right now with the cap, and set that number as a hard cap you can't go over, then re-adjust the cap depending on revenue each year. Like the NFL. Teams will really have to make decisions on who to keep, and who to let go, and it will create more parity.
    Last edited by Hawkeye15; 07-12-2018 at 09:28 AM.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    48,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    Yeah, the east has always had a ton of mediocre teams, and end up sending 1-2 of them to the playoffs every year. Where the west, if you aren't going to win 45 games or more, you are better of tanking, so you have had 3-4 just terrible teams out west every year. My Wolves, Sac, and the Suns have been regulars, with some other teams taking turns in/out. So weird too, my Wolves were 34-18 against the west this year, and 13-17 against the east, so you get those odd years that make no sense..

    The contenders are out west, minus a LeBron team in the east the last 10 years. None of this will change much, except LeBron is out west now. Boston/Philly maybe, but its still GS/Houston ahead of everyone.

    The west is way stronger seeds 1-8, has been for nearly 25 years, will be for at least another 5-6. Re-alingment may help, but seeding 1-16 is the easiest way.
    I don't disagree with anything you just said TBH. Which is why I've stood by that. East has more teams around .500; so it skews that E v W numbers some.

    I've gone through the year by year playoffs for 30 years, and really on average it's .81 teams that switch per year. When you look over a prolonged time not enough changes happen in terms of in/out to really effect much. The actual seeding is effected sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    I would also like to see them get rid of max deals, and then set a hard cap. Average out where teams are right now with the cap, and set that number as a hard cap you can't go over, then re-adjust the cap depending on revenue each year. Like the NFL. Teams will really have to make decisions on who to keep, and who to let go, and it will create more parity.
    Hard cap is so so hard to implement because of the guaranteed contracts.

    The best things you are going to be able to do is continually tilt the playing field with contracts. Make the price for leaving even steeper like I went with. Keep making the tax harder and harder to operate within. Make the money you could take by changing teams even steeper. Introduce multiple max contract taxes (like more than 2 maxes make you lose an exemption). Reduce the number of exemptions.

    PROCESSING

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    74,487
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    I don't disagree with anything you just said TBH. Which is why I've stood by that. East has more teams around .500; so it skews that E v W numbers some.

    I've gone through the year by year playoffs for 30 years, and really on average it's .81 teams that switch per year. When you look over a prolonged time not enough changes happen in terms of in/out to really effect much. The actual seeding is effected sure.



    Hard cap is so so hard to implement because of the guaranteed contracts.

    The best things you are going to be able to do is continually tilt the playing field with contracts. Make the price for leaving even steeper like I went with. Keep making the tax harder and harder to operate within. Make the money you could take by changing teams even steeper. Introduce multiple max contract taxes (like more than 2 maxes make you lose an exemption). Reduce the number of exemptions
    .
    great point. I guess there is just SO much money now, that while it might be more enticing to stay for an extra $50 million, when the "lesser" deal is still worth $20-30 million per year, what motivation is there? That is enough money for 5 lifetimes in a single year.

    I like your penalties suggestions though. It would restrict adding more talent after you hit certain milestones or contracts..

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    19,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    great point. I guess there is just SO much money now, that while it might be more enticing to stay for an extra $50 million, when the "lesser" deal is still worth $20-30 million per year, what motivation is there? That is enough money for 5 lifetimes in a single year.

    I like your penalties suggestions though. It would restrict adding more talent after you hit certain milestones or contracts..
    If you restricted teams from spending there will be more tanking which is bad for the league.

    Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    48,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    great point. I guess there is just SO much money now, that while it might be more enticing to stay for an extra $50 million, when the "lesser" deal is still worth $20-30 million per year, what motivation is there? That is enough money for 5 lifetimes in a single year.

    I like your penalties suggestions though. It would restrict adding more talent after you hit certain milestones or contracts..
    Yea that's my basic idea. I've been slow evolving this.

    So step one is huge changes to max structures. Can't just put more money on the supermax thing and a 5% difference. On a $100mil contract you're talking about $5mil. It's got to widen to 10%-15%. How many players would leave $10-15mil A SEASON on the table. Put in a partial for traded players. But leacing your current team for another team should really hurt.

    My tax idea is to level the playing field. Some states have much higher tax rates than others. Taking away that advantage can really change it.

    Much more taxing luxury tax. Making it so difficult to stay there multiple years.

    No more exemptions for being in the tax other than bird rights level exemptions.

    Cannot take on salary at all in the tax.

    I've recently came up with this multiple max penalty. I dunno what exactly you could do, but either lose an exemption or you could do something like a 3rd or 4th max gets treated as a luxury tax contract.

    PROCESSING

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    48,564
    Quote Originally Posted by cheetos185 View Post
    If you restricted teams from spending there will be more tanking which is bad for the league.

    Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk
    Or when teams can't spend as much it means there are more players to move to teams with the space.

    PROCESSING

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,936
    I don’t get the obsession with state tax rates. The two best players in the league have left their respective teams in the past 5 years, and both went to the state with the worst tax laws for someone in their income bracket.

    There really doesn’t seem to be mich evidence that players actually go to places with more favorable tax laws. If anything, it actually seems to be the opposite.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,936
    I’m all for changing the playoffs to 1-16. Doesn’t really change a ton in who gets in, but should make for more compelling late series. This year we got 2 pretty good conference finals, but an awful finals. 1-16 should almost guarantee a decent finals at least, and most likely some decent conference finals. And it may make teams jockeying for position late in the season a little more interesting as well. Instead of fighting for 1 or 2 spots, you theoretically could see teams with potential to jump 4 or more spots late in the season.

    And I hate the NBAs financial system. But at the end of the day, is the best solution just to wait out golden state? I mean, they hit the lottery on two specific things that partially allowed them to be great. I don’t mean to disparage them as a team. They did draft incredibly well.

    But they ended up being fortunate that Curry was a late bloomer due to injuries. If curry stays healthy and breaks out early in his career, his 2nd contract wouldn’t have been as much of a bargain, meaning less money for Durant. And they got Durant in an offseason where a crazy cap jump freed up a bunch of cash. It was the perfect storm for them to create a super team. The likelihood of that situation happening again is pretty slim. If you were to take GS completely out of the equation, you are looking at a little more balanced league.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    74,487
    Quote Originally Posted by cheetos185 View Post
    If you restricted teams from spending there will be more tanking which is bad for the league.

    Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk
    I don't agree with that. If you restrict spending, it evens the playing field more. The NFL is a perfect model imo. Though I understand the worth of a single player is far greater in the NBA, but its also 12-15 players, not 53.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    74,487
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Or when teams can't spend as much it means there are more players to move to teams with the space.
    bingo

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •