The Lockout has arrived.
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
That's not what I meant. Obviously the players aren't asking for more than the 57% of BRI they got in the last CBA. What I meant is that they want more money than the owners want to give them. The owners have shown a willingness to go to 50%. The players obviously want more than 50% but might be convinced to take 50% if they get the system they want. Anyway, what I meant was, in a hypothetical league where the owners were making bank, I would support the players trying to up their percentage. I probably should have said "an" instead of "their" in that sentence.
Well, I have long been a supporter of the system in general wherein the amount of money players make is related to how much value they bring in to the game. Both of my parents, though coming from very different political points of view, find it ridiculous how much money professional athletes are paid. Yet I have always defended high salaries for professional athletes, entertainers, etc. based on the fact that large numbers of the public are willing to pay to see them perform. My fundamental stance hasn't changed. I don't believe I've ever called the players "greedy" (you fight against the "greed" argument about four times in this comment, but I've never said that). I simply think that, while they ought to be entitled to major compensation (way outside of the realm of, say, my salary) their salaries have gotten to the point where they are no longer sustainable for the business, and as such, they need to be adjusted downwards. I don't expect the players to like it, and I'm not surprised that the players don't like it. But what does cause me consternation in the whole thing is that I feel like the players don't recognize two things that seem obvious to me:
1) The offer really isn't going to get any better, because the league insists on becoming profitable. Sitting out a season isn't going to change that (ask the NHL players how much better their offer got after missing a year).
2) Had the players taken the 50/50 offer and played a 72-game season, they'd have gotten more money over a ten-year CBA than they'd have gotten after one missed season and then nine years at 52.5%, which seems to be their target. They're missing a season, and they'll make less over a whole decade even if they get what they want (which, I believe, they won't).
It seems to me that the owners are trying to rescue themselves from themselves here. Unfortunately, it looks to me like there are fundamental, competition-based reasons why player salaries get over-inflated, and which the soft cap as currently constructed can't address. The owners want to fix it, but they need to agree amongst themselves on a system that fixes it and give the system teeth; they can't just individually try to be fiscally responsible because that individual determination to be fiscally responsible gets thrown out of the window in the face of competition from somebody else that might not be equally constrained. But if the owners agree amongst themselves on this, it's "collusion" unless it's a part of the CBA. The players have to agree. And the players aren't buying it, despite the fact that the system the owners are trying to put into place would not reduce their overall compensation. The players seem to argue that hard-cap systems cause two things to happen. First, they restrict movement, in that a 34-year-old vet free agent who wants to go to the Lakers and win a title can't sign for his real value (say, the MLE) if the Lakers have already overspent. Second, they claim it will wipe out the "middle class".
Well, I don't believe the second argument is true, and I further believe that the best way to guarantee that there IS a middle class is to put greater restrictions on maximum contracts. (I don't see the players going for that, but that's how you save the middle class, not via exceptions, which lead to escrow, which lead to every player's salary being knocked down for each exception contract signed). And as for the first argument, I guess I just don't care. I don't see why John Doe is entitled to play for the Lakers if they've already spent to the tax level. I want a more competitive league, and that fundamentally means that star players must not be allowed to get together and pull a "South Beach". I see their point on that one, I simply disagree.
Well, I have long been a supporter of the system in general wherein the amount of money players make is related to how much value they bring in to the game. Both of my parents, though coming from very different political points of view, find it ridiculous how much money professional athletes are paid. Yet I have always defended high salaries for professional athletes, entertainers, etc. based on the fact that large numbers of the public are willing to pay to see them perform. My fundamental stance hasn't changed. I don't believe I've ever called the players "greedy" (you fight against the "greed" argument about four times in this comment, but I've never said that). I simply think that, while they ought to be entitled to major compensation (way outside of the realm of, say, my salary) their salaries have gotten to the point where they are no longer sustainable for the business, and as such, they need to be adjusted downwards. I don't expect the players to like it, and I'm not surprised that the players don't like it. But what does cause me consternation in the whole thing is that I feel like the players don't recognize two things that seem obvious to me:
1) The offer really isn't going to get any better, because the league insists on becoming profitable. Sitting out a season isn't going to change that (ask the NHL players how much better their offer got after missing a year).
2) Had the players taken the 50/50 offer and played a 72-game season, they'd have gotten more money over a ten-year CBA than they'd have gotten after one missed season and then nine years at 52.5%, which seems to be their target. They're missing a season, and they'll make less over a whole decade even if they get what they want (which, I believe, they won't).
It seems to me that the owners are trying to rescue themselves from themselves here. Unfortunately, it looks to me like there are fundamental, competition-based reasons why player salaries get over-inflated, and which the soft cap as currently constructed can't address. The owners want to fix it, but they need to agree amongst themselves on a system that fixes it and give the system teeth; they can't just individually try to be fiscally responsible because that individual determination to be fiscally responsible gets thrown out of the window in the face of competition from somebody else that might not be equally constrained. But if the owners agree amongst themselves on this, it's "collusion" unless it's a part of the CBA. The players have to agree. And the players aren't buying it, despite the fact that the system the owners are trying to put into place would not reduce their overall compensation. The players seem to argue that hard-cap systems cause two things to happen. First, they restrict movement, in that a 34-year-old vet free agent who wants to go to the Lakers and win a title can't sign for his real value (say, the MLE) if the Lakers have already overspent. Second, they claim it will wipe out the "middle class".
Well, I don't believe the second argument is true, and I further believe that the best way to guarantee that there IS a middle class is to put greater restrictions on maximum contracts. (I don't see the players going for that, but that's how you save the middle class, not via exceptions, which lead to escrow, which lead to every player's salary being knocked down for each exception contract signed). And as for the first argument, I guess I just don't care. I don't see why John Doe is entitled to play for the Lakers if they've already spent to the tax level. I want a more competitive league, and that fundamentally means that star players must not be allowed to get together and pull a "South Beach". I see their point on that one, I simply disagree.
I get you. In that case, it doesn't really have any bearing on what's actually going on. The players want more than what the owners are offering them, and I don't necessarily begrudge them for that. If they were completely unwilling to move off of 57%, that would be a different story. As it stands, we're talking about negotiating. You offer me X, I say I want Z, we meet at Y, and that's a deal. Some people think the players should just take X and kiss the owners rings while they're doing it. I don't. Not saying you do, either.
I mentioned the greed issue because you were responding to a poster who was responding to the greed issue, and I think maybe you missed part of his point. Either way, we agree that the players deserve to share in the profits and the growth, even if they're obscenely overpaid for what amounts to playing a game 82 nights a year. They generate revenue, they should get a percentage of that revenue.
We also agree on the two points, to a degree. I'm not convinced that the league as a whole is losing money. Certain teams are losing money, and certain teams are making money at the same time. I don't think the teams making money should be required to subsidize teams that are losing money, so there should be some adjustments to the compensation model. Again I say, I don't care what the BRI split is. It doesn't matter to me. Much more important than that is the restrictions that promote some semblance of competitive balance. The league must be profitable; at the same time, the owners need to look inward when it comes to balancing out the haves and the have-nots. They can't simply look to the players to make everyone profitable. Which brings me to this...
We agree for the most part. The system doesn't work to promote competitive balance. It allows teams to spend without regard for BRI limitations, and it allows teams over the salary cap and luxury tax to continue to add salary in various ways. This has to be fixed. The big money/market teams shouldn't be allowed to keep adding salary just because a certain player is willing to go there for less money. You mentioned earlier that the players are hesitant to accept an overhaul to this system because they don't want to lose money, but they're already losing money due to the overages.
Where we don't see eye to eye is that I don't see what this has to do with what happened with Miami. People keep pointing to Miami as the problem with the system, and it's really not. The Heat signed three players that they created cap space to be able to sign. The extraneous additions were really not that big of an issue, and as a matter of fact, one of the add-ons took less to go there, which people got mad about as well. I know people don't like what the Heat did, but they didn't circumvent the rules. They actually played by the rules more than most teams that build "super teams" do.
For instance, back in 2004, the Lakers added Gary Payton and Karl Malone for far less than their market value to get themselves back to the top of the Western conference. They were already well over the salary cap, having two of the best and highest paid players in the league on their team from the previous season. The Celtics in 2008 were able to add Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, despite not having the cap space to do so. The Lakers responded by adding Pau Gasol, despite being over the cap. Both teams (and several others in their situation over the years) have continued to add salary by giving their players extensions, adding players with exceptions, etc. These moves are in direct opposition to the purpose and spirit of having a salary cap. And these teams can make a determination that they're willing to pay a dollar-for-dollar tax if it means a chance at winning a championship, because, in the Lakers case, a contending team turns into a $3 billion TV deal.
Going back to the Heat, the salary cap should make it necessary for them to strip back down as time goes on to stay under a predetermined level. So, if you sign three max level players, in two or three years time, you have to get rid of at least one of them because you'll be over the threshold. I don't care if three players who have earned free agency get together and sign with one team. I just think the system ought to automatically blow that team up in a couple years.
I mentioned the greed issue because you were responding to a poster who was responding to the greed issue, and I think maybe you missed part of his point. Either way, we agree that the players deserve to share in the profits and the growth, even if they're obscenely overpaid for what amounts to playing a game 82 nights a year. They generate revenue, they should get a percentage of that revenue.
We also agree on the two points, to a degree. I'm not convinced that the league as a whole is losing money. Certain teams are losing money, and certain teams are making money at the same time. I don't think the teams making money should be required to subsidize teams that are losing money, so there should be some adjustments to the compensation model. Again I say, I don't care what the BRI split is. It doesn't matter to me. Much more important than that is the restrictions that promote some semblance of competitive balance. The league must be profitable; at the same time, the owners need to look inward when it comes to balancing out the haves and the have-nots. They can't simply look to the players to make everyone profitable. Which brings me to this...
We agree for the most part. The system doesn't work to promote competitive balance. It allows teams to spend without regard for BRI limitations, and it allows teams over the salary cap and luxury tax to continue to add salary in various ways. This has to be fixed. The big money/market teams shouldn't be allowed to keep adding salary just because a certain player is willing to go there for less money. You mentioned earlier that the players are hesitant to accept an overhaul to this system because they don't want to lose money, but they're already losing money due to the overages.
Where we don't see eye to eye is that I don't see what this has to do with what happened with Miami. People keep pointing to Miami as the problem with the system, and it's really not. The Heat signed three players that they created cap space to be able to sign. The extraneous additions were really not that big of an issue, and as a matter of fact, one of the add-ons took less to go there, which people got mad about as well. I know people don't like what the Heat did, but they didn't circumvent the rules. They actually played by the rules more than most teams that build "super teams" do.
For instance, back in 2004, the Lakers added Gary Payton and Karl Malone for far less than their market value to get themselves back to the top of the Western conference. They were already well over the salary cap, having two of the best and highest paid players in the league on their team from the previous season. The Celtics in 2008 were able to add Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, despite not having the cap space to do so. The Lakers responded by adding Pau Gasol, despite being over the cap. Both teams (and several others in their situation over the years) have continued to add salary by giving their players extensions, adding players with exceptions, etc. These moves are in direct opposition to the purpose and spirit of having a salary cap. And these teams can make a determination that they're willing to pay a dollar-for-dollar tax if it means a chance at winning a championship, because, in the Lakers case, a contending team turns into a $3 billion TV deal.
Going back to the Heat, the salary cap should make it necessary for them to strip back down as time goes on to stay under a predetermined level. So, if you sign three max level players, in two or three years time, you have to get rid of at least one of them because you'll be over the threshold. I don't care if three players who have earned free agency get together and sign with one team. I just think the system ought to automatically blow that team up in a couple years.
Again, what does that have to do with anything?
Thing about BRI that just registered with me a couple months ago is that that is the absolute limit, regardless of committed salaries. So when committed salaries exceed their BRI split, whether by 1% or 10%, the players have to give that extra money back. In effect, every exception contract signed reduces each player's salary.
Going back to the players wanting to sign together in big cities, nothing that the owners are suggesting would prevent that from happening. A new CBA isn't going to keep LeBron, Wade and Bosh from signing with a team that's far enough under the cap to sign them all. That's not even on the radar at this point. A new CBA will keep the Lakers from being able to add Dwight Howard or Chris Paul, and what makes you think Jerry Buss doesn't want that to happen as much as the star players do?
Thing about BRI that just registered with me a couple months ago is that that is the absolute limit, regardless of committed salaries. So when committed salaries exceed their BRI split, whether by 1% or 10%, the players have to give that extra money back. In effect, every exception contract signed reduces each player's salary.
Going back to the players wanting to sign together in big cities, nothing that the owners are suggesting would prevent that from happening. A new CBA isn't going to keep LeBron, Wade and Bosh from signing with a team that's far enough under the cap to sign them all. That's not even on the radar at this point. A new CBA will keep the Lakers from being able to add Dwight Howard or Chris Paul, and what makes you think Jerry Buss doesn't want that to happen as much as the star players do?
You're right, I don't think it should be a "kiss the ring" scenario. But of course, there was negotiation. The owners started at 47% (or perhaps lower, I'm not sure), the players did start at 57%, and they came close to meeting at 50%. That may not be directly in the middle, but I do get the impression that it's a number that neither side is particularly happy with but which both sides were close to reluctantly agreeing to. The way I see it, negotiation happened. But to get so close to an agreement only to see the players scuttle it, especially when scuttling it will cost the players more over the next decade than I think they can hope to gain in leverage - that does frustrate me.
You're right that the Heat didn't break the rules by signing the big three, but I do think that they planned it with full expectation of being able to use the MLE every year for the next 4-5 years. LeBron/Wade/Bosh/Miller becomes LeBron/Wade/Bosh/Miller/Dalembert, becomes LeBron/Wade/Bosh/Miller/Dalembert/George Hill, etc.
Still, I wasn't using it as a literal example of system abuse, but as more of a general example of what high-level players seem to want to do - move where they want to the teams they want to without the system having enough teeth to stop it. A harder cap would have probably stopped Miami, simply because there would have been no flexibility later on down the road.
That's actually probably more extreme than my take. I certainly don't expect the new CBA to blow up the Heat, and I kind of assume that they'll find a way to grandfather them in. I don't know if I would support or oppose a deal that would necessarily dismantle any team over the cap - I guess I'd have to see the details.
You're right that the Heat didn't break the rules by signing the big three, but I do think that they planned it with full expectation of being able to use the MLE every year for the next 4-5 years. LeBron/Wade/Bosh/Miller becomes LeBron/Wade/Bosh/Miller/Dalembert, becomes LeBron/Wade/Bosh/Miller/Dalembert/George Hill, etc.
Still, I wasn't using it as a literal example of system abuse, but as more of a general example of what high-level players seem to want to do - move where they want to the teams they want to without the system having enough teeth to stop it. A harder cap would have probably stopped Miami, simply because there would have been no flexibility later on down the road.
That's actually probably more extreme than my take. I certainly don't expect the new CBA to blow up the Heat, and I kind of assume that they'll find a way to grandfather them in. I don't know if I would support or oppose a deal that would necessarily dismantle any team over the cap - I guess I'd have to see the details.
Your missing my point! This isn't about what I think, its about what the judge is going to think when they ask for a summary judgement. Before he can rule on a summary judgement, he has to take up whether the union filing a disclaimer of interest is a legitimate filing, or is it just a ploy being used by the union to get the league to settle. If he decides its just a ploy being used, then he won't even consider the summary judgement. At that point, the whole process comes to a halt. One of the things he'll consider in making that judgement, is did either side not negotiate in good faith, and which side broke off the negotiations.
The players will say that Stern gave them an ultimatum, and therefore that is considered breaking off negotiations. Of course the league will argue that giving ultimatums is common in negotiations and it was just one of several. Thats why I said the players should have come back to the league with an amended offer like they said they were going to do. They made it easy for the league to paint them as the side that broke off negotiations. It also doesn't look good to have Hunter as part of the legal team. If I were a judge, and your the head of the union, and now your part of the legal team going forward, it would look to me that your using the courts as a ploy to get the league to agree to your demands as a union. I just don't think this was very well thought out.
The players will say that Stern gave them an ultimatum, and therefore that is considered breaking off negotiations. Of course the league will argue that giving ultimatums is common in negotiations and it was just one of several. Thats why I said the players should have come back to the league with an amended offer like they said they were going to do. They made it easy for the league to paint them as the side that broke off negotiations. It also doesn't look good to have Hunter as part of the legal team. If I were a judge, and your the head of the union, and now your part of the legal team going forward, it would look to me that your using the courts as a ploy to get the league to agree to your demands as a union. I just don't think this was very well thought out.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to arguing against yourself. On one hand, you agree that the system needs to be fixed. But on the other hand, you don't see to agree with anything the owners are trying to do to fix it. Yes, the owners are trying to install a system that limits player movement, along with shorter contracts as protection against teams getting stuck with a big contract for 4 or 5 years for a player thats won't, or is unable to live up to the teams expectations.
The players have every right to disagree with the owners and go for as much money as they can get. But, the owners have every right to argue the opposite. Because the players got 57% last time, doesn't mean they're entitled to now. What they're entitled to, is whatever they can negotiate the owners out of. I find it amusing that if the owners get together and decide the worth of a player on the market, its colusion. But if three players get together and decide to go to one team, its fine. Now I don't blame the players for that, and I don't blame Miami for that. They played within the rules. And therein lies the rub. The owners are trying to change the rules so it can't happen again.
If you really want some parity in the league, then there has to be a way for the small market teams to attract the top players. And one of the ways, is for the small market teams to be the only option from time to time, other than the player resigning with his current team. It won't disturb me one bit, if when Evans or Cousins contracts are up, the Lakers, Knicks, Bulls, Mav's, Heat etc. are all at, or over the cap, and have no ability to bid for their services.
The players have every right to disagree with the owners and go for as much money as they can get. But, the owners have every right to argue the opposite. Because the players got 57% last time, doesn't mean they're entitled to now. What they're entitled to, is whatever they can negotiate the owners out of. I find it amusing that if the owners get together and decide the worth of a player on the market, its colusion. But if three players get together and decide to go to one team, its fine. Now I don't blame the players for that, and I don't blame Miami for that. They played within the rules. And therein lies the rub. The owners are trying to change the rules so it can't happen again.
If you really want some parity in the league, then there has to be a way for the small market teams to attract the top players. And one of the ways, is for the small market teams to be the only option from time to time, other than the player resigning with his current team. It won't disturb me one bit, if when Evans or Cousins contracts are up, the Lakers, Knicks, Bulls, Mav's, Heat etc. are all at, or over the cap, and have no ability to bid for their services.
There was negotiation. And then the owners said "take it or we make it even worse." At that point, it was no longer a negotiation. Not that the players didn't do a bunch of stupid stuff along the way; both sides showed zero urgency over the course of three months after the CBA expired. I blame the players just as much as the owners for where we are right now. I just don't think the players should be thrilled just to get whatever the owners are willing to let go of. We agree there, like you say.
Absolutely, and that's the same Lakers/Celtics issue that I mention. It has to stop. Still, what they did last summer isn't the problem. What they can do moving forward is.
I don't care if they go to the teams they want to go to, honestly. I know I'm in the minority there, but I don't understand why people think free agents shouldn't be able to go wherever they want to go. That's what free agency is. But if you give the salary cap some real influence, as opposed to what it is now, then you can have a "super team" for a couple of seasons, three at the most, and then you have to break back down and make changes. This works in football, albeit with a hard cap and non-guaranteed contracts.
But that's the thing. The Eagles just paid a whole bunch of players and put together a so-called "super team," but they'll have to strip that down within a couple years and make significant changes. They probably won't be able to pay their running back when he's a free agent. They'll have to get rid of some defensive players. No way does Vick play out that contract. It's really not that radical, and it makes sense. It's the reason you can rebuild a team in one or two years, because the system is set up to penalize the best teams and benefit the worst teams, from a competitive standpoint.
I don't expect the NBA to go nearly as far as the NFL has, but they can neuter the exceptions, restrict teams from adding salary when they're already over a threshold (cap, tax, whatever), and essentially force them to get rid of highly paid players in order to conform. You can also give Bird teams a little more advantage when it comes to keeping their own players. You can also give them compensatory draft picks, which would reduce a team's willingness to do a sign and trade, seeing as how they'll get some compensation anyways. Set up a scale, and if you lose a player to another team on a max contract, you get an extra first round pick in next year's draft, right after the lottery picks. And so on. That's part of the reason you don't see S&Ts in the NFL, because teams get awarded compensatory draft picks if they lose notable players to free agency. There's a ton of things you can do to reduce the impact a team's real money can have on their player payroll. If you're not willing to do that, then why have a salary cap to begin with?
You can grandfather everyone in for a two or three year period or something like that. But there needs to be real changes.
Absolutely, and that's the same Lakers/Celtics issue that I mention. It has to stop. Still, what they did last summer isn't the problem. What they can do moving forward is.
I don't care if they go to the teams they want to go to, honestly. I know I'm in the minority there, but I don't understand why people think free agents shouldn't be able to go wherever they want to go. That's what free agency is. But if you give the salary cap some real influence, as opposed to what it is now, then you can have a "super team" for a couple of seasons, three at the most, and then you have to break back down and make changes. This works in football, albeit with a hard cap and non-guaranteed contracts.
But that's the thing. The Eagles just paid a whole bunch of players and put together a so-called "super team," but they'll have to strip that down within a couple years and make significant changes. They probably won't be able to pay their running back when he's a free agent. They'll have to get rid of some defensive players. No way does Vick play out that contract. It's really not that radical, and it makes sense. It's the reason you can rebuild a team in one or two years, because the system is set up to penalize the best teams and benefit the worst teams, from a competitive standpoint.
I don't expect the NBA to go nearly as far as the NFL has, but they can neuter the exceptions, restrict teams from adding salary when they're already over a threshold (cap, tax, whatever), and essentially force them to get rid of highly paid players in order to conform. You can also give Bird teams a little more advantage when it comes to keeping their own players. You can also give them compensatory draft picks, which would reduce a team's willingness to do a sign and trade, seeing as how they'll get some compensation anyways. Set up a scale, and if you lose a player to another team on a max contract, you get an extra first round pick in next year's draft, right after the lottery picks. And so on. That's part of the reason you don't see S&Ts in the NFL, because teams get awarded compensatory draft picks if they lose notable players to free agency. There's a ton of things you can do to reduce the impact a team's real money can have on their player payroll. If you're not willing to do that, then why have a salary cap to begin with?
You can grandfather everyone in for a two or three year period or something like that. But there needs to be real changes.
You know the funny thing about what the Heat did, is that they might have actually been a better team if they had just signed one of either James or Bosh. If they had, they would have more money left over to sign better support players, and perhaps less a clash of ego's. The big three worked for the Celts, but its rare to put three so called superstars together and have everything be hunky dorey. Especially when one of them is Garnett. I've always felt that Garnett is a very very talented idiot. But hey, it worked. So far it hasn't worked in Miami. Tick tock!
You can go back and read my comments over the past year or so and see that I've been a primary advocate of what some would call radical changes to the system. Even overly ambitious. I don't think the owners are trying to prevent three marquee free agents from signing with one team at the same time. I think they're trying to keep teams that are already over the salary cap and luxury tax from adding even more players and going to the Finals every year. They're trying to keep the Lakers from adding Pau Gasol, and then extending him, extending Bynum, extending Kobe, resigning Odom, adding Artest, and then flipping Bynum for Dwight Howard in a sign-and-trade. Completely different from The Three signing with Miami. And what I don't get is why people practically pulled out the torches and pitchforks over Miami, but stand by and say nothing while the Lakers violate the spirit of every CBA restriction over the past three four seasons. What Miami did isn't the problem. What they want to do going forward (which is exactly what the Lakers did from 2008-2011 and would have done beyond) is the problem.
Like I said, I don't see the owners' proposed changes preventing that type of situation. Nor do I understand the need to do so.
As to collusion, the word has a meaning, and by definition, three free agents saying that they want to play together isn't collusion. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Pat Riley was aware of the plan back in 2008, but until there's evidence to suggest that, there's nothing to complain about. Overall, what The Three did was unorthodox and it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but it's nothing compared with what the Lakers did with Gary Payton and Karl Malone. It's three guys saying "wouldn't it be amazing if we could all play together?" and then making it happen once they hit free agency. I don't see the problem.
That's how I see it as well. I'd hate if we lost our guys, but free agency is free agency. I just wouldn't want to see them going to a big market team via S&T. I think the most effective way to promote some semblance of parity and allow small market teams to compete is to restrict big market teams from spending all their money on player compensation. I've been saying it over and over again: I don't care how much money the Lakers make; I only care that they can spend all that money on players. Fix that, and you fix the league. The Kings, Pacers, Bucks, Grizzlies, Bobcats, etc., all have a more reasonable shot at being competitive and turning a profit. Sacramento will never be LA; Indianapolis will never be Chicago. But if the big money/market teams can't add payroll because they're over the cap or tax, then all of a sudden the max level player has to come to the smaller cities by default.
Like I said, I don't see the owners' proposed changes preventing that type of situation. Nor do I understand the need to do so.
As to collusion, the word has a meaning, and by definition, three free agents saying that they want to play together isn't collusion. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Pat Riley was aware of the plan back in 2008, but until there's evidence to suggest that, there's nothing to complain about. Overall, what The Three did was unorthodox and it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but it's nothing compared with what the Lakers did with Gary Payton and Karl Malone. It's three guys saying "wouldn't it be amazing if we could all play together?" and then making it happen once they hit free agency. I don't see the problem.
That's how I see it as well. I'd hate if we lost our guys, but free agency is free agency. I just wouldn't want to see them going to a big market team via S&T. I think the most effective way to promote some semblance of parity and allow small market teams to compete is to restrict big market teams from spending all their money on player compensation. I've been saying it over and over again: I don't care how much money the Lakers make; I only care that they can spend all that money on players. Fix that, and you fix the league. The Kings, Pacers, Bucks, Grizzlies, Bobcats, etc., all have a more reasonable shot at being competitive and turning a profit. Sacramento will never be LA; Indianapolis will never be Chicago. But if the big money/market teams can't add payroll because they're over the cap or tax, then all of a sudden the max level player has to come to the smaller cities by default.
They took three ball-dominant players and tried to put them together. All three of them are talented and athletic, and it was obvious from the way they played and how far they got. Defensively, it reaped immediate benefits. But on offense, it just can't work. You have three players that are at their best with the ball in their hand, which means that 1/3 of the time they're not being used effectively.
The difference with Boston is that Garnett can contribute without the ball much better than Bosh can, offensively and defensively. He helped transform that team into a defensive juggernaut. He sets screens, moves without the ball, etc. Nothing that Bosh is incapable of, but Garnett slid into the off-the-ball role without any problem. Bosh disappeared at times. Ray Allen was at a point in his career where he was ready to be off the ball the majority of the time anyways, because then he's coming off screens and getting his shot off, he's curling down and getting layups, etc. Pierce could do whatever you wanted him to do, but he could be the crunch-time, slow the game down, go-to guy, and still do other things. Now, as those three have gotten older, it's become The Rondo Show, and the team will only go as far as he takes them. Completely different dynamic all the way around from Miami, where you tried to put three ball-dominant players in their primes on the floor together and make them figure it out.
They absolutely would have been better with just LeBron and Wade, and then you fill the big man gaps with the Sam Dalembert/Serge Ibaka-type player. But I don't know that you get LeBron in Miami without Bosh. He might have preferred New York.
The difference with Boston is that Garnett can contribute without the ball much better than Bosh can, offensively and defensively. He helped transform that team into a defensive juggernaut. He sets screens, moves without the ball, etc. Nothing that Bosh is incapable of, but Garnett slid into the off-the-ball role without any problem. Bosh disappeared at times. Ray Allen was at a point in his career where he was ready to be off the ball the majority of the time anyways, because then he's coming off screens and getting his shot off, he's curling down and getting layups, etc. Pierce could do whatever you wanted him to do, but he could be the crunch-time, slow the game down, go-to guy, and still do other things. Now, as those three have gotten older, it's become The Rondo Show, and the team will only go as far as he takes them. Completely different dynamic all the way around from Miami, where you tried to put three ball-dominant players in their primes on the floor together and make them figure it out.
They absolutely would have been better with just LeBron and Wade, and then you fill the big man gaps with the Sam Dalembert/Serge Ibaka-type player. But I don't know that you get LeBron in Miami without Bosh. He might have preferred New York.
Some great back and forth on this thread. Kudos to everyone who has participated in a positive way.
I will say that there's one thing that I've seen over and over in the media and I think they are wrong. It's the notion that the owners were "winning by 40" and kept pouring it on. This just isn't true but unfortunately for us fans, it set the concept of a lawsuit in motion. The players are saying that since they were "giving up too much", they felt it was time to fight back and this was their only option. Had that actually been the case, I would have no problem agreeing with them and I actually started out on their side as this is a lockout as opposed to a strike. But in my mind, the owners made more than enough concessions to the point where it would qualify as negotiating fairly and not running up the score.
The fact of the matter is that they started out asking for the majority of BRI, no more guaranteed contracts, contract length at 3 years, a hard cap and a lot of other things that didn't have much chance.
Slowly but surely, they gave up on those concepts for things like a flex cap, only allowing one bird free agent to re sign per season per team and taking away the MLE from tax payers.
By the time we got to last week, they gave up on all of that and on top of it, starting throwing in concessions to the players on things that didn't even exist in the last cba. The owners were willing to raise the floor from 75% to 90%, add an MLE to teams with cap space that they could use as soon as they capped out, an extra MLE to non taxpayers assuming they could fit one in the $58 to $70 million window and give incentives to players on the rookie scale. On top of that were "win win" mechanisms like the stretch provision and the amnesty clause which allow players to get paid in full AND become free agents all the while creating cap space for other free agents to take advantage of.
Of course, this was countered by a lot of negatives including the stricter tax scale and the taking away of the full MLE for tax payers as well as no S & T's for tax payers. There was also the issue of lessening guaranteed deals by one year but even there, that helps because expected bad contracts would be coming off the books a year earlier which again, creates cap space for free agents.
You can go back and forth arguing whether or not the players were getting a good deal but to say that the owners kept pouring it on is just flat out wrong. The fact that a good chunk of them didn't even want this deal tells me that they are legit concessions even if I'm not a capologist and don't understand the system issues.
Throw in the fact that the union didn't even give a counter offer or take this to a vote would make me even more suspicious. They say that the rank & file would vote emotionally as opposed to knowing the facts isn't a good excuse. They had 3 days to get the rank & file fully up to date on the issues. Media members were predicting that they would vote favorably for the deal so the fact that this didn't get to a vote tells me that the player reps felt the same.
I will say that there's one thing that I've seen over and over in the media and I think they are wrong. It's the notion that the owners were "winning by 40" and kept pouring it on. This just isn't true but unfortunately for us fans, it set the concept of a lawsuit in motion. The players are saying that since they were "giving up too much", they felt it was time to fight back and this was their only option. Had that actually been the case, I would have no problem agreeing with them and I actually started out on their side as this is a lockout as opposed to a strike. But in my mind, the owners made more than enough concessions to the point where it would qualify as negotiating fairly and not running up the score.
The fact of the matter is that they started out asking for the majority of BRI, no more guaranteed contracts, contract length at 3 years, a hard cap and a lot of other things that didn't have much chance.
Slowly but surely, they gave up on those concepts for things like a flex cap, only allowing one bird free agent to re sign per season per team and taking away the MLE from tax payers.
By the time we got to last week, they gave up on all of that and on top of it, starting throwing in concessions to the players on things that didn't even exist in the last cba. The owners were willing to raise the floor from 75% to 90%, add an MLE to teams with cap space that they could use as soon as they capped out, an extra MLE to non taxpayers assuming they could fit one in the $58 to $70 million window and give incentives to players on the rookie scale. On top of that were "win win" mechanisms like the stretch provision and the amnesty clause which allow players to get paid in full AND become free agents all the while creating cap space for other free agents to take advantage of.
Of course, this was countered by a lot of negatives including the stricter tax scale and the taking away of the full MLE for tax payers as well as no S & T's for tax payers. There was also the issue of lessening guaranteed deals by one year but even there, that helps because expected bad contracts would be coming off the books a year earlier which again, creates cap space for free agents.
You can go back and forth arguing whether or not the players were getting a good deal but to say that the owners kept pouring it on is just flat out wrong. The fact that a good chunk of them didn't even want this deal tells me that they are legit concessions even if I'm not a capologist and don't understand the system issues.
Throw in the fact that the union didn't even give a counter offer or take this to a vote would make me even more suspicious. They say that the rank & file would vote emotionally as opposed to knowing the facts isn't a good excuse. They had 3 days to get the rank & file fully up to date on the issues. Media members were predicting that they would vote favorably for the deal so the fact that this didn't get to a vote tells me that the player reps felt the same.
Last edited:
Any player who wants to go somewhere can go somewhere its a matter of money. If someone really wants to go to a specific ball club all they have to do is take the vet min to get there and if 3 want to do it then you have a big 3 for no money so no you can't fix collusion among the players with the CBA all you can do is discourage it and limit a single teams ability to pay the players that want to play together. This of course only applies without a hard cap but we had moved away from that a while back.
I think it is amusing everyone talks about large amounts of money and large % of those pies but you have 450 people splitting 50% of the income and 30 splitting the other 50% but the owners 50% is were all the bills and operating costs come from so they aren't seeing 50%. And you have players with large deals that lay outside bri which doesn't get touched, but any outside income a club can bring in is immediately cut by 50%. Are the players owners? Are they shareholders? Why are they even in the conversation with total team and nba income? They have guaranteed contracts so I don't understand why they are entitled to get more if its a good year or have to pay back if 2 small market teams go to the finals...
I think the players are getting the short end of the shaft and I think the owners aren't telling their entire financial story(when has anyone ever?) but the truth of the matter is the longer this goes on the more it hurts the players over the owners and while the nba might take 10 years to get the fans back to the same level of support they got last season the owners have all the cards and the players should have realized it going in. The players shouldn't have given up any games cause its screwing themselves their rooks and since it hurts the nba they are hurting the future gen of players.
450 players going overseas I guess. They will be lucky to make 1/4 or 1/2 of what they make in the nba and that will only be the ones that can make the 2 spot per team for non nationals. Totally worth 2% or letting some old player s&t to an overcap team. I hope the players get what they want cause if they don't its all meaningless.
(Yes I understand how and why the bri is split up I am just pointing out that with guaranteed contracts the players don't need to be part of bri)
I think it is amusing everyone talks about large amounts of money and large % of those pies but you have 450 people splitting 50% of the income and 30 splitting the other 50% but the owners 50% is were all the bills and operating costs come from so they aren't seeing 50%. And you have players with large deals that lay outside bri which doesn't get touched, but any outside income a club can bring in is immediately cut by 50%. Are the players owners? Are they shareholders? Why are they even in the conversation with total team and nba income? They have guaranteed contracts so I don't understand why they are entitled to get more if its a good year or have to pay back if 2 small market teams go to the finals...
I think the players are getting the short end of the shaft and I think the owners aren't telling their entire financial story(when has anyone ever?) but the truth of the matter is the longer this goes on the more it hurts the players over the owners and while the nba might take 10 years to get the fans back to the same level of support they got last season the owners have all the cards and the players should have realized it going in. The players shouldn't have given up any games cause its screwing themselves their rooks and since it hurts the nba they are hurting the future gen of players.
450 players going overseas I guess. They will be lucky to make 1/4 or 1/2 of what they make in the nba and that will only be the ones that can make the 2 spot per team for non nationals. Totally worth 2% or letting some old player s&t to an overcap team. I hope the players get what they want cause if they don't its all meaningless.
(Yes I understand how and why the bri is split up I am just pointing out that with guaranteed contracts the players don't need to be part of bri)
yeah, I agree completely. Its much easier for three stars staring at the end of their careers to blend together unselfishly. As you said, its a completely different dynamic when the three stars are in their prime, and used to having the spotlight on them. It may eventually work, but it'll take some time. At the moment, time is something we all seem to have. Basketball wise at least. Apparently the owners are meeting tomorrow. I'd like to be a fly in that room.
IMO getting to the Finals worked pretty well, and it was their first year together. Next season, if we do get one, they'll still be the top dog to contend for the Finals.
Sometime the NBA god is not on your side...especially if you think you will get 5-6 rings before even getting 1.
.
By the way I would love for you to be a fly in that room as well.
Sometime the NBA god is not on your side...especially if you think you will get 5-6 rings before even getting 1.
.By the way I would love for you to be a fly in that room as well.
People keep pointing to Miami as a problem, but that's not really the problem. The problem is what happened with Carmelo and what could end up happening with Chris Paul. Players threatening their teams to get traded to the teams they want to go to for less than what the market should be. Miami kind of got lucky to a degree, I wouldn't expect something like that to happen too often. I think the system focuses should be on giving teams more advantage in keeping their star players. Sure, some of the contracts need to get under control, but we should be talking about trying to make the system fair for everybody, not just cheaper for the small/mid market teams. What's stopping these rules changes from punishing mid market teams who build their team the right way and develop a championship quality core of players, and they start bringing in more revenue because of it, but then they start hitting this new tax wall (i.e. virtual hard cap) and they can't keep their team together?
The big market teams are always going to have an advantage, because if everything is equal, players are still going to want to go to bigger market teams, because the commercial opportunities are often much greater. Where the problem lies though is that we tell smaller market teams that the way they counteract this is by drafting and developing their own players, but how will they be able to keep these players if they duck out for greener pastures the first chance they get? The problem is that it's too easy for players to force themselves off their teams by threatening to bolt in free agency. We need to make it easier for teams to call their bluff.
Also, I think what needs to be said here is that why should the NBA be doing so much for some of these small market teams? The idea behind all of this not being a free market in the first place, is to make smaller market teams capable of competing with the larger market teams, for the benefit of creating wider appeal in the sport. However, when you look at teams like the Bobcats, the Hornets, the Grizzlies, the Raptors, and the Timberwolves. Are they pulling their weight when it comes to helping create national appeal, or are they just extraneous markets that are holding everyone down by needing welfare rules? If people are going to start bringing up the reality that a lot of these teams need help with competing with the rest of the league, then I think naturally they have to start justifying their existence in the first place. IMO, you can't logically justify these rule changes, without justifying the possibility of contraction as well.
The big market teams are always going to have an advantage, because if everything is equal, players are still going to want to go to bigger market teams, because the commercial opportunities are often much greater. Where the problem lies though is that we tell smaller market teams that the way they counteract this is by drafting and developing their own players, but how will they be able to keep these players if they duck out for greener pastures the first chance they get? The problem is that it's too easy for players to force themselves off their teams by threatening to bolt in free agency. We need to make it easier for teams to call their bluff.
Also, I think what needs to be said here is that why should the NBA be doing so much for some of these small market teams? The idea behind all of this not being a free market in the first place, is to make smaller market teams capable of competing with the larger market teams, for the benefit of creating wider appeal in the sport. However, when you look at teams like the Bobcats, the Hornets, the Grizzlies, the Raptors, and the Timberwolves. Are they pulling their weight when it comes to helping create national appeal, or are they just extraneous markets that are holding everyone down by needing welfare rules? If people are going to start bringing up the reality that a lot of these teams need help with competing with the rest of the league, then I think naturally they have to start justifying their existence in the first place. IMO, you can't logically justify these rule changes, without justifying the possibility of contraction as well.
IMO getting to the Finals worked pretty well, and it was their first year together. Next season, if we do get one, they'll still be the top dog to contend for the Finals.
Sometime the NBA god is not on your side...especially if you think you will get 5-6 rings before even getting 1..
By the way I would love for you to be a fly in that room as well.
Sometime the NBA god is not on your side...especially if you think you will get 5-6 rings before even getting 1.
.By the way I would love for you to be a fly in that room as well.
I just don't get this contraction idea. There are cities out there that are dying for a team. There are wealthy people that are dying to buy a team. So why in the hell would you voluntarily destroy a product that you can sell. The Warriors just sold for 400 million plus. If the league was going to contract a team, it would be the New Orleans team. The league owns it, so to my mind, it would be the easiest to contract. I think contraction is just a threat to the union. Fewer teams means fewer jobs. I seriously doubt the union is going to endorse it.
The way a small market team can compete is through good management. Players still like to play for a winner. I was a player! Different sport, but to me, it was all about winning. I grant you that secondly, endorsements are a big part of the decision making. But if a small market team can draft well, and then make good decisions when it comes to freeagents, that team will attract good players. The Spurs have done just fine by creating an atmosphere of winning, and by having a good coach. I can't speak for all the teams you mentioned, but with Minny, its obvious. Just look at their GM. The Raptors have always had a problem because of their tax situation. The players are getting double dipped. The Grizz did well last season. If they can maintain it, they should be good for quite a few years.
The Kings did just fine at the box office when they were one of the best teams in the NBA. I grant you that small market teams walk a finer line than the big market teams do. But it can be done. It would be nice if the final results of this lockout are that the line is widened somewhat. Where there is more room for error. The bottom line is, that if you want to have a legitimate league, you have to appeal to a broad spectrum of the population. If your town has a team, as a fan your going to be interested in the playoffs, even if you team isn't participating. You'll probably root for one of the two teams in the finals. There are only so many big markets, so, your going to have to have small market teams in the league. Thats just a fact! So you better find a way to make it as competitive as you can. Saying, get better or were going to contract you isn't going to cut it. As a fan, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and it would totally turn me off to the NBA is they were to contract the Kings.
Never forget who your selling the product to!!!!! The goose can and will stop laying the golden eggs.
The way a small market team can compete is through good management. Players still like to play for a winner. I was a player! Different sport, but to me, it was all about winning. I grant you that secondly, endorsements are a big part of the decision making. But if a small market team can draft well, and then make good decisions when it comes to freeagents, that team will attract good players. The Spurs have done just fine by creating an atmosphere of winning, and by having a good coach. I can't speak for all the teams you mentioned, but with Minny, its obvious. Just look at their GM. The Raptors have always had a problem because of their tax situation. The players are getting double dipped. The Grizz did well last season. If they can maintain it, they should be good for quite a few years.
The Kings did just fine at the box office when they were one of the best teams in the NBA. I grant you that small market teams walk a finer line than the big market teams do. But it can be done. It would be nice if the final results of this lockout are that the line is widened somewhat. Where there is more room for error. The bottom line is, that if you want to have a legitimate league, you have to appeal to a broad spectrum of the population. If your town has a team, as a fan your going to be interested in the playoffs, even if you team isn't participating. You'll probably root for one of the two teams in the finals. There are only so many big markets, so, your going to have to have small market teams in the league. Thats just a fact! So you better find a way to make it as competitive as you can. Saying, get better or were going to contract you isn't going to cut it. As a fan, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and it would totally turn me off to the NBA is they were to contract the Kings.
Never forget who your selling the product to!!!!! The goose can and will stop laying the golden eggs.
Thinking of the big 3; you have to question the mindset of the players; and that's whats most important.
is it "win at all costs" or "i get 30 points at all costs." I genuinely think for a lot of NBA players it's the points. And then suddenly they get to the end of their careers ringless and start panicking.
we've seen the way some "franchise" players act when their not getting their "touches" Mcgrady, Iverson etc. They act like kids; so thats always a danger of having too many stars.
It'll be interesting to see how our team develops (if it ever gets a chance!) with some pretty big stars (mid level stars) like Cousins, Salmons, Evans, Jimmer, Hickson, Thornton. People who will demand touches of the ball.
I don't see Cousins as someone who will be happy to getting 10 touches a game, or Evans. Jimmers attitude from what i've seen is excellent. I really think he is the "win at all costs" camp.
Evans, Cousins, Salmons, Thornton... hmmm maybe the points camp.
is it "win at all costs" or "i get 30 points at all costs." I genuinely think for a lot of NBA players it's the points. And then suddenly they get to the end of their careers ringless and start panicking.
we've seen the way some "franchise" players act when their not getting their "touches" Mcgrady, Iverson etc. They act like kids; so thats always a danger of having too many stars.
It'll be interesting to see how our team develops (if it ever gets a chance!) with some pretty big stars (mid level stars) like Cousins, Salmons, Evans, Jimmer, Hickson, Thornton. People who will demand touches of the ball.
I don't see Cousins as someone who will be happy to getting 10 touches a game, or Evans. Jimmers attitude from what i've seen is excellent. I really think he is the "win at all costs" camp.
Evans, Cousins, Salmons, Thornton... hmmm maybe the points camp.
You bring up a few things here. I just wanted to point out two things:
1) The players contracts are guaranteed, but a portion of their money goes into an escrow account. If the collective contracts equal more than their BRI percentage, they have to give back a certain amount until the two numbers even out. It works the other way as well; if compensation is less than the BRI percentage, the owners make up the difference and it goes to the players. So, if the players share of BRI equals $2 billion, but contracts equal $2.2 billion, the players collectively give back $200 million from their escrow account (I wonder who earns the interest on those escrows). On the other hand, if contracts only equal $1.8 billion, the owners cut a check for $200 million and it goes to the players. So compensation always equals whatever the players' BRI split is, even with so-called "guaranteed" contracts. This was just made clear to me a few months ago.
2) The reason players get a predetermined percentage of BRI is because the compensation model calls for them to share in the growth of the league. As the primary component of the product, I don't see why that's not far. Their pay is directly related to how much revenue the league generates. This could be scrapped entirely, and they could just say "our compensation is X amount every year," but that becomes a problem in five years when BRI increases by 25%, but the players aren't seeing any of that increase. I don't really care what the compensation model is, but I understand why players get a percentage of BRI.
Another thing is that BRI is used to determine max contracts.
1) The players contracts are guaranteed, but a portion of their money goes into an escrow account. If the collective contracts equal more than their BRI percentage, they have to give back a certain amount until the two numbers even out. It works the other way as well; if compensation is less than the BRI percentage, the owners make up the difference and it goes to the players. So, if the players share of BRI equals $2 billion, but contracts equal $2.2 billion, the players collectively give back $200 million from their escrow account (I wonder who earns the interest on those escrows). On the other hand, if contracts only equal $1.8 billion, the owners cut a check for $200 million and it goes to the players. So compensation always equals whatever the players' BRI split is, even with so-called "guaranteed" contracts. This was just made clear to me a few months ago.
2) The reason players get a predetermined percentage of BRI is because the compensation model calls for them to share in the growth of the league. As the primary component of the product, I don't see why that's not far. Their pay is directly related to how much revenue the league generates. This could be scrapped entirely, and they could just say "our compensation is X amount every year," but that becomes a problem in five years when BRI increases by 25%, but the players aren't seeing any of that increase. I don't really care what the compensation model is, but I understand why players get a percentage of BRI.
Another thing is that BRI is used to determine max contracts.
I'm not talking about contraction as a threat, I'm just saying that if someone is going to argue that dramatic changes need to be made for these small market teams, then I do think that puts an onus on those franchises to justify their existence in the first place. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too in this instance. If these teams not being able to compete financially is such a problem and they're losing so much money because they can't get a return on the exuberant prices they're paying for these franchises, then perhaps they either need to go, be relocated, or prove that they're necessary to the wider appeal of the NBA. Why should it be automatically assumed that the system is the problem and not them?
I'm not against rule changes that change competitive balance, but short-sighted system changes that are just about taking down specific teams by virtually capping their spending is not the way to do it. I think it needs to be feasible to build a team around stars that make a lot of money in case it's not just being done by teams that merely lure players with their market, but rather by smart team management. You want to make things fair, but you also don't want to forbid super teams from developing. The reality is teams like the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls made the NBA the powerhouse it is today. You can't just discard that reality because it seems unfair or distasteful.
I think we need to realize that parity isn't all it's cracked up to be, at least for the NBA. I think the NBA benefits a lot from super teams that are a consistent contender. That's what people like, they like to see dominant teams, they don't want to see some new Cinderella team every year. Yes, you do need there to be realistic opportunity for all of the teams to eventually become a contender, but going the extreme in the direction of parity is not going to increase overall appeal in the NBA, IMO. That's not what makes the NBA successful.
I'm not against rule changes that change competitive balance, but short-sighted system changes that are just about taking down specific teams by virtually capping their spending is not the way to do it. I think it needs to be feasible to build a team around stars that make a lot of money in case it's not just being done by teams that merely lure players with their market, but rather by smart team management. You want to make things fair, but you also don't want to forbid super teams from developing. The reality is teams like the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls made the NBA the powerhouse it is today. You can't just discard that reality because it seems unfair or distasteful.
I think we need to realize that parity isn't all it's cracked up to be, at least for the NBA. I think the NBA benefits a lot from super teams that are a consistent contender. That's what people like, they like to see dominant teams, they don't want to see some new Cinderella team every year. Yes, you do need there to be realistic opportunity for all of the teams to eventually become a contender, but going the extreme in the direction of parity is not going to increase overall appeal in the NBA, IMO. That's not what makes the NBA successful.
Last edited:
This is where I don't see how a player like LeBron can win. If he says "I'm the man, and I'm always going to be the man," then he's labeled as selfish and just out to score points and make money. But if he says "I want to win championships, and if that means teaming up with another star and maybe even deferring sometimes," he's soft, he's not an alpha, he's not clutch, he can't be the #1, etc. Never mind the fact that he dragged a group of YMCA scrubs to the Finals in his fourth year in the league, nearly averaged a triple double through the playoffs. He's been in the league 8 years already; why wouldn't he want to maximize his remaining chances to win championships? Why should he wait until he's 35 and well past his prime to go tag along on a team that's already a contender?
He took a little less money, teamed up with two other really good players, and they all gave up a little -- both on the court and off -- for the chance to win championships. Why people hate him so much for that is beyond me.
How he left Cleveland, including The Decision and the Miami pep rally, all in poor taste. Absolutely true. But I don't see what's wrong with him playing out his contract and them signing where he wanted to, based off having the best chance to win, not earning the most money. New York would have been best for sponsorships and media relations. He could have tried to force a sign and trade to the Lakers. Chicago would have been good for business. Going to Miami was all about winning. Isn't that what people want athletes to be all about?
Also, to the end of your post, I don't see what makes anyone think that either Cousins or Evans would ever have a problem with not getting the most touches, and conversely thinking that Jimmer Fredette (who averaged about as many shots per game in college as Tyreke and DeMarcus combined) is only about winning and doesn't care about scoring. I like Jimmer, think he's a good guy and a good teammate. Cousins has had attitude problems, but they've NEVER stemmed from lack of offensive opportunities. Evans hasn't had any issues at any point throughout his career. I don't know what makes you lump them in with players like Allen Iverson and Tracy McGrady. Salmons and Thornton are gunners, so I get that, although I don't believe either of them is selfish and puts his own offense ahead of what's good for the team. But I wonder what you think is so different about Fredette from Evans and Cousins. Perhaps you paint with too broad a brushstroke.
He took a little less money, teamed up with two other really good players, and they all gave up a little -- both on the court and off -- for the chance to win championships. Why people hate him so much for that is beyond me.
How he left Cleveland, including The Decision and the Miami pep rally, all in poor taste. Absolutely true. But I don't see what's wrong with him playing out his contract and them signing where he wanted to, based off having the best chance to win, not earning the most money. New York would have been best for sponsorships and media relations. He could have tried to force a sign and trade to the Lakers. Chicago would have been good for business. Going to Miami was all about winning. Isn't that what people want athletes to be all about?
Also, to the end of your post, I don't see what makes anyone think that either Cousins or Evans would ever have a problem with not getting the most touches, and conversely thinking that Jimmer Fredette (who averaged about as many shots per game in college as Tyreke and DeMarcus combined) is only about winning and doesn't care about scoring. I like Jimmer, think he's a good guy and a good teammate. Cousins has had attitude problems, but they've NEVER stemmed from lack of offensive opportunities. Evans hasn't had any issues at any point throughout his career. I don't know what makes you lump them in with players like Allen Iverson and Tracy McGrady. Salmons and Thornton are gunners, so I get that, although I don't believe either of them is selfish and puts his own offense ahead of what's good for the team. But I wonder what you think is so different about Fredette from Evans and Cousins. Perhaps you paint with too broad a brushstroke.
I don't think big market/money teams should have to subsidize the small market/money teams just for the sake of those teams being profitable. If a team can't be profitable in a small market, even with good management (which is entirely subjective), then I understand saying "maybe you shouldn't be in this market." Like you say, those teams should have to justify their existence in their current form. Can't just keep a team in New Orleans because it's cool to have a team in New Orleans; if the franchise can't make money there, they shouldn't be buoyed endlessly by the Lakers, Bulls and Knicks. I understand profit-sharing, but not to the point where teams that aren't viable are being kept afloat mainly by profit-sharing.
I don't think contraction is a reasonable option at this point. Kansas City just built a stadium without a team. They'll get a franchise before someone gets contracted. The Anaheim project can still work for a team in a bad situation. Sacramento is still a very viable market, you just need a new arena, which can very easily happen if everyone just gets out of the way. You can put a second team in Chicago. You can put a team in Seattle again. I'm pretty sure all those possibilities and countless others would be pursued before any team gets contracted.
As for parity, it will never exist in the full sense of the word. The big market teams will always have an advantage. The small market teams will never sign $3 billion TV contracts. No 28 year old male who plays basketball for a living is going to choose Milwaukee or Indianapolis over Miami or Dallas, all things being equal. Teams, especially the ones in big markets with lots of money, will always be able to attract great players. (The Florida Marlins built a new stadium in Miami, changed their name to the Miami Marlins, and now with their new revenue deals, they're able to offer nine figure contracts to Albert Pujols and Jose Reyes. Market matters, even when it's only a matter of a few miles.) But you can and should create restraints to check big money/market teams from spending their way to contention every season, at the expense of the small market teams. If you set a salary cap, it should be more than just a suggestion.
Yes, it's important for the big market teams to be good, but it's also important for the small market teams to have a chance on a consistent basis. That's the only reason fans in small cities buy League Pass subscriptions and take road trips to see their teams play, because they think they might have a chance to win every once in a while. If you keep letting the big market teams spend and add payroll with virtual impunity, the haves/have-nots scenario that's been setting up pretty aggressively the past couple years will only get worse. The Lakers will continue spending $90-100 million every year, while the Kings struggle to meet minimum requirements (we traded for a player who was effectively retired along with the cash to pay his salary last season just to get to the baseline). The talent will continue to pool in the more attractive markets, and the middle of the map will be devoid of any real contention possibility. Teams will start to stack in major metro areas: the Kings will be in SoCal, the Hornets will be in Chicago, New York will a third team, and so on.
If you're not going to put real restraints in place, for the sake of allowing the big market teams to stay at the top, then drop the charade altogether. Get rid of the cap entirely. Allow everyone to spend whatever they want, with a tax, like MLB does. Get rid of the matching values trade restrictions. Then, at least the small market teams will be able to go all-in every few years, put together a strong squad for two or three years, and then blow it up and start from scratch again. But what they're doing now simply doesn't work, and it undermines the spirit of competition when it allows Carmelo Anthony to spend a year forcing his way to the Knicks. Either go ahead and give the big market teams what they want, or put some real restraints in place and try to even the playing field a little bit.
I don't think contraction is a reasonable option at this point. Kansas City just built a stadium without a team. They'll get a franchise before someone gets contracted. The Anaheim project can still work for a team in a bad situation. Sacramento is still a very viable market, you just need a new arena, which can very easily happen if everyone just gets out of the way. You can put a second team in Chicago. You can put a team in Seattle again. I'm pretty sure all those possibilities and countless others would be pursued before any team gets contracted.
As for parity, it will never exist in the full sense of the word. The big market teams will always have an advantage. The small market teams will never sign $3 billion TV contracts. No 28 year old male who plays basketball for a living is going to choose Milwaukee or Indianapolis over Miami or Dallas, all things being equal. Teams, especially the ones in big markets with lots of money, will always be able to attract great players. (The Florida Marlins built a new stadium in Miami, changed their name to the Miami Marlins, and now with their new revenue deals, they're able to offer nine figure contracts to Albert Pujols and Jose Reyes. Market matters, even when it's only a matter of a few miles.) But you can and should create restraints to check big money/market teams from spending their way to contention every season, at the expense of the small market teams. If you set a salary cap, it should be more than just a suggestion.
Yes, it's important for the big market teams to be good, but it's also important for the small market teams to have a chance on a consistent basis. That's the only reason fans in small cities buy League Pass subscriptions and take road trips to see their teams play, because they think they might have a chance to win every once in a while. If you keep letting the big market teams spend and add payroll with virtual impunity, the haves/have-nots scenario that's been setting up pretty aggressively the past couple years will only get worse. The Lakers will continue spending $90-100 million every year, while the Kings struggle to meet minimum requirements (we traded for a player who was effectively retired along with the cash to pay his salary last season just to get to the baseline). The talent will continue to pool in the more attractive markets, and the middle of the map will be devoid of any real contention possibility. Teams will start to stack in major metro areas: the Kings will be in SoCal, the Hornets will be in Chicago, New York will a third team, and so on.
If you're not going to put real restraints in place, for the sake of allowing the big market teams to stay at the top, then drop the charade altogether. Get rid of the cap entirely. Allow everyone to spend whatever they want, with a tax, like MLB does. Get rid of the matching values trade restrictions. Then, at least the small market teams will be able to go all-in every few years, put together a strong squad for two or three years, and then blow it up and start from scratch again. But what they're doing now simply doesn't work, and it undermines the spirit of competition when it allows Carmelo Anthony to spend a year forcing his way to the Knicks. Either go ahead and give the big market teams what they want, or put some real restraints in place and try to even the playing field a little bit.
I think you're right that relocation is probably the better answer than contraction, but my point remains the same in either case.
I think we're talking about the same goal here, but I'm just not sure that capping team payroll is really the way to do it per se. I think the focus should be on controlling the way contending teams are built, not controlling how/if they stay on top. I think if you build a championship core legitimately, then you should be able to spend to fill out that team and keep it going as long as possible. Yes, what happened with Carmelo, and what could happen with Paul and Howard, needs to be prevented. I'm just not so sure that capping team salary and getting rid of the exceptions is the best way to do that.
I think we're talking about the same goal here, but I'm just not sure that capping team payroll is really the way to do it per se. I think the focus should be on controlling the way contending teams are built, not controlling how/if they stay on top. I think if you build a championship core legitimately, then you should be able to spend to fill out that team and keep it going as long as possible. Yes, what happened with Carmelo, and what could happen with Paul and Howard, needs to be prevented. I'm just not so sure that capping team salary and getting rid of the exceptions is the best way to do that.
Well hell, lets just get rid of the cap entirely and let the Lakers, Bullls, Knicks etc have all the top players. Why have a charade? Go ahead and do that, and I'll never watch another NBA game again!!! And I've been watching NBA basketball for over 50 years. You have to have some kind of restraints. Reality is what it is, and the system needs fixing. The NFL fixed it and they do have parity. And, their TV attendance is up. No one can predict from year to year whose going to win the superbowl.
I heard these same arguments when the NFL was trying to fix their system. The arguments turned out to be false. Yeah, the average fan is used to seeing the same teams in the finals year after year, and you could argue that those teams helped make the NBA what it is. But thats the way its always been, and that doesn't mean another system wouldn't be as, or more popular. I'm a fan, and I'd love to see a finals between the Thunder and Orlando. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing the Lakers and the Celtics etc. I can guarantee you that many fans share my opinion.
Now, having said all that. I agree that if a team can't make in a certain market, and the league has done everything possible to help that team, then the best case scenario is for that team to move to another city. Actually, many small market teams are very good markets, especially when their the only game in town. Like Sacramento, Portland, Oklahoma, Memphis, and San Antonio. The small market teams that seem to suffer the most are those that have other major sports. Seattle being a prime example. I think New Orleans falls into that same catagory. A major market has the population to support more than one team. Plus the TV revenues that come with a major market.
All I want, is for the small market teams to have as good a chance as possible under the rules to be competitive with the major markets. I realize that there are some things you can't legislate, but those that you can, should be done. I don't care about some idealistic BS about fairness or that the top teams should be allowed to use all the attributes that come from being in a major market. The NBA operates as a socialistic system. Unions by they're very nature are socialistic. Socialism means everyone is equal. Of course in reality, thats ridiculous. Which is why some NBA players make more than others. So having a players union, in the strict sense of the word, isn't possible. Its a union only in the area of collective bargining.
My point being, the league, and the union both operate as "One for all, and all for one". They're all in the same club. And when your in a privite club, all the members are required to pony up to keep the club viable. They all depend on each other. This is their choice, and its the best one if you want to have a successful league. You could go back to survival of the fittest. But in a very short period of time, you wouldn't have much of a league left. So, from a socialistic point of view, the Lakers are very successful! But they're successful because they're part of a successful league. Without the league, their isn't a Laker team. Therefore, they have a responsibility to help keep the league successful. The strong can either take from the weak, or the strong can help the weak. To what extent the strong should help is subjective. And at the moment, can't be agreed upon by the two parties.
By the way, personally, I'm a capitalist.
I heard these same arguments when the NFL was trying to fix their system. The arguments turned out to be false. Yeah, the average fan is used to seeing the same teams in the finals year after year, and you could argue that those teams helped make the NBA what it is. But thats the way its always been, and that doesn't mean another system wouldn't be as, or more popular. I'm a fan, and I'd love to see a finals between the Thunder and Orlando. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing the Lakers and the Celtics etc. I can guarantee you that many fans share my opinion.
Now, having said all that. I agree that if a team can't make in a certain market, and the league has done everything possible to help that team, then the best case scenario is for that team to move to another city. Actually, many small market teams are very good markets, especially when their the only game in town. Like Sacramento, Portland, Oklahoma, Memphis, and San Antonio. The small market teams that seem to suffer the most are those that have other major sports. Seattle being a prime example. I think New Orleans falls into that same catagory. A major market has the population to support more than one team. Plus the TV revenues that come with a major market.
All I want, is for the small market teams to have as good a chance as possible under the rules to be competitive with the major markets. I realize that there are some things you can't legislate, but those that you can, should be done. I don't care about some idealistic BS about fairness or that the top teams should be allowed to use all the attributes that come from being in a major market. The NBA operates as a socialistic system. Unions by they're very nature are socialistic. Socialism means everyone is equal. Of course in reality, thats ridiculous. Which is why some NBA players make more than others. So having a players union, in the strict sense of the word, isn't possible. Its a union only in the area of collective bargining.
My point being, the league, and the union both operate as "One for all, and all for one". They're all in the same club. And when your in a privite club, all the members are required to pony up to keep the club viable. They all depend on each other. This is their choice, and its the best one if you want to have a successful league. You could go back to survival of the fittest. But in a very short period of time, you wouldn't have much of a league left. So, from a socialistic point of view, the Lakers are very successful! But they're successful because they're part of a successful league. Without the league, their isn't a Laker team. Therefore, they have a responsibility to help keep the league successful. The strong can either take from the weak, or the strong can help the weak. To what extent the strong should help is subjective. And at the moment, can't be agreed upon by the two parties.
By the way, personally, I'm a capitalist.
Whose definition of "legitimately" are we working with? What happened with Carmelo Anthony is exactly what happened with Pau Gasol (I think Gasol's trade was worse because it was so lopsided), it just wasn't such a high-profile "we're going to lose this guy if we don't trade him now" situation. Gasol didn't publicly hold the Grizzlies hostage and force his way to the Lakers, but everyone knew they wouldn't have been able to resign him after his contract expired. Then the next thing you know, he's a Laker and he's signing an extension. What's the difference, really?
Same thing with Kevin Garnett to the Celtics. People forget that he initially told everyone that he wouldn't sign an extension with the Celtics; it wasn't until they went and got Ray Allen that Garnett finally got out of the way. And we know how the rest went.
So what's legitimate and what's not?
And again, at the same time, people (not necessarily you) have spent the last year-plus complaining about the Miami Heat and LeBron James. The Heat got under the cap, signed three guys to max contracts, and added peripheral players around them. But people keep saying "we have to stop the Miami fiasco from happening." Why? It's free agency. How is that illegitimate, but we say nothing when the big market teams benefit from forced sign-and-trades, Bird rights extensions and MLE additions?
I'm not saying we need a hard cap, NFL style. But I don't see a point in having a cap when you can so easily go over it for the sake of winning (which leads to revenue that more than makes up for whatever luxury tax you pay). The cap winds up hurting the small market teams, when it's meant to protect them, because they simply can't go over the cap and tax like the Lakers can.
So either get rid of the cap and the restrictions that go along with it, making it easier for teams to add and shed payroll as they wish, or use a real cap that forces even big market/money teams to conform. You can grandfather existing contracts in for three years, that way the Lakers don't have to have a fire-sale in order to get down to where they need to be. But I don't see how the system makes any sense as it's currently comprised, not when the Lakers can continue adding payroll, extending their players, adding exception players, and even doing sign-and-trades for more max-level players as they wish, while the Kings have to trade for Marquis Daniels just to meet payroll minimum, and have to get cash in the deal just to pay his salary.
Same thing with Kevin Garnett to the Celtics. People forget that he initially told everyone that he wouldn't sign an extension with the Celtics; it wasn't until they went and got Ray Allen that Garnett finally got out of the way. And we know how the rest went.
So what's legitimate and what's not?
And again, at the same time, people (not necessarily you) have spent the last year-plus complaining about the Miami Heat and LeBron James. The Heat got under the cap, signed three guys to max contracts, and added peripheral players around them. But people keep saying "we have to stop the Miami fiasco from happening." Why? It's free agency. How is that illegitimate, but we say nothing when the big market teams benefit from forced sign-and-trades, Bird rights extensions and MLE additions?
I'm not saying we need a hard cap, NFL style. But I don't see a point in having a cap when you can so easily go over it for the sake of winning (which leads to revenue that more than makes up for whatever luxury tax you pay). The cap winds up hurting the small market teams, when it's meant to protect them, because they simply can't go over the cap and tax like the Lakers can.
So either get rid of the cap and the restrictions that go along with it, making it easier for teams to add and shed payroll as they wish, or use a real cap that forces even big market/money teams to conform. You can grandfather existing contracts in for three years, that way the Lakers don't have to have a fire-sale in order to get down to where they need to be. But I don't see how the system makes any sense as it's currently comprised, not when the Lakers can continue adding payroll, extending their players, adding exception players, and even doing sign-and-trades for more max-level players as they wish, while the Kings have to trade for Marquis Daniels just to meet payroll minimum, and have to get cash in the deal just to pay his salary.
Last edited:
I think you and I have been back and forth on this for the past year, so forgive me for rehashing.
I don't like the Lakers. I'm getting ready to argue in their behalf. The Lakers are the biggest draw in the NBA. One of the biggest draws in professional sports. A venue that's doing 60-70% is jam-packed when the Lakers are in town. You could argue that they are entitled to a portion of those gate receipts, but they don't get any. The home team keeps everything from their gate, no matter the opponent (includes parking, concessions, etc., though I'm not sure about advertising). The Lakers are okay with this, as a form of revenue sharing, because they don't want the Bobcats grabbing a slice of their gate receipts, seeing as how the Lakers make more money in one night than the Bobcats do in an entire homestand, and they do so regardless of the opponent.
Same thing with League Pass: there are more Laker fans living in Indiana paying for League Pass than there are Pacer fans living in SoCal paying for League Pass. Yet, every team gets an equal share of League Pass revenue, as far as I know. ESPN and TNT buy TV rights, not because people are itching to see the Nets vs. Rockets on Wednesdays and Thursdays, but to have the right to broadcast the Lakers vs. Celtics. And everyone gets an equal share of TV revenue, even though certain teams clearly drive the contract values, while others are just along for the ride.
(Basketball fans like seeing great matchups, and if that's the Nets and Rockets, so be it. But TV networks don't anticipate those matchups being big viewership draws. That's why the marquee teams get the primetime games. But NBATV has the right idea with their fan chosen matchups. I love that idea.)
Now, the Lakers (and other big market teams) are being asked to give up more of their revenue every year in more aggressive profit-sharing, because teams like the Bucks and Bobcats and Pacers and Kings and so on are having a hard time staying in the black. It's true that the Lakers have a responsibility to the other teams in the league, but to what extent? Don't those teams have a responsibility to the league to be and stay relevant? If they aren't winning, is it possible it's due to poor management? (We know the answer in most cases.) If they are winning and still can't turn a profit, can they change their business practices? That might include moving to a new city where they'll have a more favorable market share, a more favorable lease agreement, and maybe a more attractive destination for players. Sucks for Sacramento and Indianapolis and Charlotte and Milwaukee, but if asking the Lakers to dip into their $3 billion TV deal to help prop up the league is on the table, moving teams out of bad situations into potentially better situations has to be on the table also.
I don't like the Lakers. I'm getting ready to argue in their behalf. The Lakers are the biggest draw in the NBA. One of the biggest draws in professional sports. A venue that's doing 60-70% is jam-packed when the Lakers are in town. You could argue that they are entitled to a portion of those gate receipts, but they don't get any. The home team keeps everything from their gate, no matter the opponent (includes parking, concessions, etc., though I'm not sure about advertising). The Lakers are okay with this, as a form of revenue sharing, because they don't want the Bobcats grabbing a slice of their gate receipts, seeing as how the Lakers make more money in one night than the Bobcats do in an entire homestand, and they do so regardless of the opponent.
Same thing with League Pass: there are more Laker fans living in Indiana paying for League Pass than there are Pacer fans living in SoCal paying for League Pass. Yet, every team gets an equal share of League Pass revenue, as far as I know. ESPN and TNT buy TV rights, not because people are itching to see the Nets vs. Rockets on Wednesdays and Thursdays, but to have the right to broadcast the Lakers vs. Celtics. And everyone gets an equal share of TV revenue, even though certain teams clearly drive the contract values, while others are just along for the ride.
(Basketball fans like seeing great matchups, and if that's the Nets and Rockets, so be it. But TV networks don't anticipate those matchups being big viewership draws. That's why the marquee teams get the primetime games. But NBATV has the right idea with their fan chosen matchups. I love that idea.)
Now, the Lakers (and other big market teams) are being asked to give up more of their revenue every year in more aggressive profit-sharing, because teams like the Bucks and Bobcats and Pacers and Kings and so on are having a hard time staying in the black. It's true that the Lakers have a responsibility to the other teams in the league, but to what extent? Don't those teams have a responsibility to the league to be and stay relevant? If they aren't winning, is it possible it's due to poor management? (We know the answer in most cases.) If they are winning and still can't turn a profit, can they change their business practices? That might include moving to a new city where they'll have a more favorable market share, a more favorable lease agreement, and maybe a more attractive destination for players. Sucks for Sacramento and Indianapolis and Charlotte and Milwaukee, but if asking the Lakers to dip into their $3 billion TV deal to help prop up the league is on the table, moving teams out of bad situations into potentially better situations has to be on the table also.
Last edited:
I have never liked how a franchise player can leave the home team willing to max them out and still get the extra year and higher raises that they would have gotten by staying. It's always a bogus sign and trade. So yeah, I've complained about that sucking before and I'll complain again. If they leave they shouldn't get home town perks they would have gotten had they stayed. Otherwise the home team advantage is weakened. I admit that I'm thinking about what would happen if Tyreke or Cousins pulled that on the Kings.
The new sign and extend restriction and the sign and trade restrictions in 2 years are a good start but won't totally fix it.
Another interesting question - would Miami have signed all 3 guys if they knew they would be limited to a mini 3mil MLE afterward since they'd be at the tax level? I'm not sure they would have, and if they did they would have that many more weaknesses and horrible depth. I like that.
So far I like the system changes the owners are pushing.
The new sign and extend restriction and the sign and trade restrictions in 2 years are a good start but won't totally fix it.
Another interesting question - would Miami have signed all 3 guys if they knew they would be limited to a mini 3mil MLE afterward since they'd be at the tax level? I'm not sure they would have, and if they did they would have that many more weaknesses and horrible depth. I like that.
So far I like the system changes the owners are pushing.