Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 159
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    12,108
    Even though he has been underwhelming...his take is spot on.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    12,108
    Quote Originally Posted by TakeYourL View Post
    That's a weak copout.

    If fiscally responsibility mattered to you, you would of told Minny to pack their bags and close their doors a long time ago.

    Because they have been on the revenue sharing welfare program longer than anyone in the NBA.
    The only diff between MN and the Lakers is Lebron James. If Minn had beaches instead of -50 windchill factor, they would all of a sudden be fiscally responsible. If all you get is draft picks and no free agents, you gotta just get extremely lucky...itís not all about the front office at that point.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    43,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    nearly as fun as being a Clips fan

    I mean, dude, it sucks. But outside something wiping my memory clean, what the eff am I going to do?

    Hey at least all the other MN mens teams are good, right? (sarcasm-we suck at everything except chick sports)
    Yeah but we're the butt of the joke because we reside in the place of your states former team. Its one thing to be a second fiddle clippers fan in la, quite another to be a fan of a team that lost that same team and still struggles to make footing. Its how I know people who want the clippers to relocate don't get the picture.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    77,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Yeah but we're the butt of the joke because we reside in the place of your states former team. Its one thing to be a second fiddle clippers fan in la, quite another to be a fan of a team that lost that same team and still struggles to make footing. Its how I know people who want the clippers to relocate don't get the picture.
    Well I am not 75 years old so the MN history isn't important. If we want to rank teams on how ****** it is to be a fan of, be my guest. I don't evsn care enough about the NBA anymore to get involved in that one. MN sports are a joke unless the athletes have a vagina. Is what it is.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You don't seem to foresee that wealthy teams will be able to sign, amnesty, then sign other players far more than the smaller market teams.

    Minnesota has a finite amount of money. They are currently spending $120 million on their cap. If they amnesty Wiggins $25 million off their cap and could hypothetically bid on another Free Agent they'd still have to pay that money, it just wouldn't count towards the cap.

    So now they're paying $145 million and if they sign a Free Agent for say Wiggins amount, now they're paying $170 million in salary (of which only $145 million would be on the cap). The Timberwolves cannot afford to pay that much money on player salary.

    But you know who could afford it? Large market teams. So New York could be paying $120 million right now, Amnesty $40 million of it and then use that $40 million to get another $40 million player. They could afford to pay the $200 million in total salary to make that worth it.

    Small market teams could not.

    All your plan does is give more opportunity for large market teams to get more good players.
    I do understand all of that, but larger market teams will always have an advantage no matter what.

    It has nothing to do with larger markets or money or salary cap space, it has to do with the fact no one wants to live in dumpy crap hole boring cities.

    Nothing is ever going to change that, you are never going to build a system where players are willingly going to live in Cleveland or Memphis, it's not happening.




    Making the entire NBA, the most popular teams, most popular players, the fans, general managers, coaches, and tv networks bend over backwards to help never ending failing small market teams has been a complete failure and it needs to be scrapped.

    The current system demands that NBA teams tank, and operate at a loss for years, to even have a slight chance at any success in the future.

    If you knew this was going to happen before you created the salary cap system, you would NEVER agree to this, no one would, it's a complete failure.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    The only diff between MN and the Lakers is Lebron James. If Minn had beaches instead of -50 windchill factor, they would all of a sudden be fiscally responsible. If all you get is draft picks and no free agents, you gotta just get extremely lucky...itís not all about the front office at that point.
    Agreed, that's kind of my point, why the hell is the entire league bending over backwards to help teams that are located in failing markets.

    Pretty much 90% of what's wrong with the NBA is the fact they try to prop up franchises that operate in the red.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    77,147
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You don't seem to foresee that wealthy teams will be able to sign, amnesty, then sign other players far more than the smaller market teams.

    Minnesota has a finite amount of money. They are currently spending $120 million on their cap. If they amnesty Wiggins $25 million off their cap and could hypothetically bid on another Free Agent they'd still have to pay that money, it just wouldn't count towards the cap.

    So now they're paying $145 million and if they sign a Free Agent for say Wiggins amount, now they're paying $170 million in salary (of which only $145 million would be on the cap). The Timberwolves cannot afford to pay that much money on player salary.

    But you know who could afford it? Large market teams. So New York could be paying $120 million right now, Amnesty $40 million of it and then use that $40 million to get another $40 million player. They could afford to pay the $200 million in total salary to make that worth it.

    Small market teams could not.

    All your plan does is give more opportunity for large market teams to get more good players.
    I mean, I am not really sure how he doesn't understand this. The Knicks or Lakers could amnesty a player a year and fill that spot, and continue to make money hand over fist while paying luxury tax out their eyeballs.

    His plan give large markets advantages. Period. So damn straight I am not for it.

    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.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    77,147
    Quote Originally Posted by TakeYourL View Post
    I do understand all of that, but larger market teams will always have an advantage no matter what.

    It has nothing to do with larger markets or money or salary cap space, it has to do with the fact no one wants to live in dumpy crap hole boring cities.

    Nothing is ever going to change that, you are never going to build a system where players are willingly going to live in Cleveland or Memphis, it's not happening.




    Making the entire NBA, the most popular teams, most popular players, the fans, general managers, coaches, and tv networks bend over backwards to help never ending failing small market teams has been a complete failure and it needs to be scrapped.

    The current system demands that NBA teams tank, and operate at a loss for years, to even have a slight chance at any success in the future.

    If you knew this was going to happen before you created the salary cap system, you would NEVER agree to this, no one would, it's a complete failure.
    and now you want to give them a much larger one. No thanks.

    If you want to fix it, cool. But the suggestions you are making don't do that. At all.

    You do realize the NBA is a business, correct? Getting rid of teams because of the way you are laying it out (this would happen) isn't helping the NBA.

    I mean the Lakers made money hand over fist while tanking. The business model itself is working and then some, the NBA makes more money by the year.
    Last edited by Hawkeye15; 01-07-2019 at 11:53 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.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    and now you want to give them a much larger one. No thanks.

    If you want to fix it, cool. But the suggestions you are making don't do that. At all.

    You do realize the NBA is a business, correct? Getting rid of teams because of the way you are laying it out (this would happen) isn't helping the NBA.

    I mean the Lakers made money hand over fist while tanking. The business model itself is working and then some, the NBA makes more money by the year.
    This is all nonsense, the NBA model is completely broken, small market teams are now demanding MORE money because they can't even pull a profit.

    A few years ago, half the NBA teams lost money, after revenue sharing 9 teams still remained unprofitable.

    Small market teams still crying about being victims of large market teams is a joke, we could cut those teams out of the NBA and profits, entertainment value, competitiveness, would all go up.

    The NBA has completely castrated their product to help small market teams and the effect is obvious.

    -Lack of talent to go around
    -Coaches players and fans know NBA regular season is pointless
    -top heavy league
    -5 year rebuilds

    All of this for what? To help Minnesota? I remember you could buy tickets to wolves games for 5$ and the arena was still empty.

    You know what you do when a business performs bad, in a bad market? You shut down shop.

    But not in the NBA. In the NBA you make the entire league bending over backwards to help a franchise that hasn't been relevant or profitable barely in the last 20 years.

    What benefit does the NBA get out of this again.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    26,574
    Quote Originally Posted by TakeYourL View Post
    I do understand all of that, but larger market teams will always have an advantage no matter what.

    It has nothing to do with larger markets or money or salary cap space, it has to do with the fact no one wants to live in dumpy crap hole boring cities.

    Nothing is ever going to change that, you are never going to build a system where players are willingly going to live in Cleveland or Memphis, it's not happening.




    Making the entire NBA, the most popular teams, most popular players, the fans, general managers, coaches, and tv networks bend over backwards to help never ending failing small market teams has been a complete failure and it needs to be scrapped.

    The current system demands that NBA teams tank, and operate at a loss for years, to even have a slight chance at any success in the future.

    If you knew this was going to happen before you created the salary cap system, you would NEVER agree to this, no one would, it's a complete failure.
    First you admit that no NBA stars want to play for small market teams and then call the small market teams failures. But they are not failing because of their bad decisions, they're failing because of circumstances.

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    77,147
    Quote Originally Posted by TakeYourL View Post
    This is all nonsense, the NBA model is completely broken, small market teams are now demanding MORE money because they can't even pull a profit.

    A few years ago, half the NBA teams lost money, after revenue sharing 9 teams still remained unprofitable.

    Small market teams still crying about being victims of large market teams is a joke, we could cut those teams out of the NBA and profits, entertainment value, competitiveness, would all go up.

    The NBA has completely castrated their product to help small market teams and the effect is obvious.

    -Lack of talent to go around
    -Coaches players and fans know NBA regular season is pointless
    -top heavy league
    -5 year rebuilds

    All of this for what? To help Minnesota? I remember you could buy tickets to wolves games for 5$ and the arena was still empty.

    You know what you do when a business performs bad, in a bad market? You shut down shop.

    But not in the NBA. In the NBA you make the entire league bending over backwards to help a franchise that hasn't been relevant or profitable barely in the last 20 years.

    What benefit does the NBA get out of this again.
    so you prefer to downsize a business plan that has kicked out increasing profits over the last decade like the sport has never seen before.

    Got it. Well, I hope you don't run your own business. It won't work out if so.

    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.

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    First you admit that no NBA stars want to play for small market teams and then call the small market teams failures. But they are not failing because of their bad decisions, they're failing because of circumstances.
    They are failing because of both.

    If you put a McDonald's in the middle of no where, and no one wants to work there or eat there, you wouldn't use that as proof as to why McDonald's is profitable, you would say that is a bad market holding down the entire business.

    A bad market is a bad market. A good business plan won't change that.

    Players don't want to go to these markets and the fans in these towns barely support them. Hence why they need revenue sharing to exist.

    The problem is small market teams have taken way too much advantage of the system, revenue sharing was never intended to be a free revenue stream for teams tanking for 5 years.

    The NBA has basically created an endless bailout program for NBA teams trying to purposely lose, this is ********.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    so you prefer to downsize a business plan that has kicked out increasing profits over the last decade like the sport has never seen before.

    Got it. Well, I hope you don't run your own business. It won't work out if so.
    Lol I do run my own my business.

    And it's common sense to focus on profitable markets instead of allowing a few bad markets to drag down the entire business.

    Show me one shred of proof the newer insanely strict salary cap has helped anyone in the nba. Please, show me this evidence, when reports show almost half the league is unprofitable even after revenue sharing. Where's your proof?

    I can easily argue that the lesser strict salary cap not long ago benefited small market teams WAY more because teams with cap space had no hesitation of trading for players who were overpaid, because they had cap flexibility and the option to eventually buy the player out.

    This allowed smaller and large market teams to rebuild quicker, it also allowed them to take chances on over paid players.

    That is completely dead now. And where has this benefited anyone?

    Trading overpriced players happened all the time before this abomination of a salary cap system.

    With stricter cap space and an inability to buyout contracts, NO ONE will trade for these contracts anymore, which has lead to the 5 year rebuilding process we see today.

    The pointless salary cap system we have today caused this, I never in my entire life remember a team taking 5 years to rebuild before the current cap system went into play.
    Last edited by TakeYourL; 01-07-2019 at 06:13 PM.

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    26,574
    Quote Originally Posted by TakeYourL View Post
    They are failing because of both.

    If you put a McDonald's in the middle of no where, and no one wants to work there or eat there, you wouldn't use that as proof as to why McDonald's is profitable, you would say that is a bad market holding down the entire business.

    A bad market is a bad market. A good business plan won't change that.

    Players don't want to go to these markets and the fans in these towns barely support them. Hence why they need revenue sharing to exist.

    The problem is small market teams have taken way too much advantage of the system, revenue sharing was never intended to be a free revenue stream for teams tanking for 5 years.

    The NBA has basically created an endless bailout program for NBA teams trying to purposely lose, this is ********.
    http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2...eason-now-what

    14 NBA teams lost revenue before Revenue sharing. If your solution is these bad teams in bad markets should fold you're talking about a 16 team league. That is bad for the NBA. Contrary to the belief of the large market earners, having less teams to share the revenue with would be a bad thing because there'd be less revenue overall.

    A 16 team league would not be nearly as profitable as a 30 team league. So the Lakers could get to keep all of their $250 million in revenue in a 16 team league or keep $300 million of part of their revenue and give the rest to revenue sharing.


    Not to mention you still haven't addressed the inherent problem of bad teams in good markets. The most profitable team was the New York Knicks. They are terrible and have been terrible for some time.

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2...eason-now-what

    14 NBA teams lost revenue before Revenue sharing. If your solution is these bad teams in bad markets should fold you're talking about a 16 team league. That is bad for the NBA. Contrary to the belief of the large market earners, having less teams to share the revenue with would be a bad thing because there'd be less revenue overall.

    A 16 team league would not be nearly as profitable as a 30 team league. So the Lakers could get to keep all of their $250 million in revenue in a 16 team league or keep $300 million of part of their revenue and give the rest to revenue sharing.


    Not to mention you still haven't addressed the inherent problem of bad teams in good markets. The most profitable team was the New York Knicks. They are terrible and have been terrible for some time.
    I'm not saying we should absolutely cut bad small market teams, I'm saying we need to end the nonsense of trying to create the most complicated strict salary cap system in sports history, with the only goal of helping small market teams.

    Because it's not working and it's hurting the entire league.

    Not only has the system been a complete failire but it's hurting all teams, small and large markets alike.

    Smaller less desirable markets had WAY MORE success under the older less strict caps, because they had more cap flexibility.

    Do you remember how often overpriced players were traded back in the day? How often teams traded away their draft picks?

    The new cap system has killed that. No one even gave a crap about draft picks back than. They preferred established players because the cap allowed that.

    Yes smaller market teams had to be smarter than larger market teams to achieve success, but that hasn't changed under the new system at all.

    Now it's even harder for small market teams because you have taken away cap flexibility from the entire NBA.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    26,574
    Quote Originally Posted by TakeYourL View Post
    I'm not saying we should absolutely cut bad small market teams, I'm saying we need to end the nonsense of trying to create the most complicated strict salary cap system in sports history, with the only goal of helping small market teams.

    Because it's not working and it's hurting the entire league.

    Not only has the system been a complete failire but it's hurting all teams, small and large markets alike.

    Smaller less desirable markets had WAY MORE success under the older less strict caps, because they had more cap flexibility.

    Do you remember how often overpriced players were traded back in the day? How often teams traded away their draft picks?

    The new cap system has killed that. No one even gave a crap about draft picks back than. They preferred established players because the cap allowed that.

    Yes smaller market teams had to be smarter than larger market teams to achieve success, but that hasn't changed under the new system at all.

    Now it's even harder for small market teams because you have taken away cap flexibility from the entire NBA.
    What less strict caps are you talking about that smaller market teams had more success under? I don't see how allowing large market teams the ability to spend even more money on players will help small market teams?

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •