I think we actually agree on most things. As I said, as to what extent a major market should be required to help the small markets is subjective. I don't have that answer. I just think there has to be some help. We both agree that if a team can't make it in a particular city after all avenues have been traveled down, then the team should be moved to another location. As to responsiblities of either market, and to the extent of those responsibilities, we could get into a chicken and egg thing very easily. So I'll leave it there so as not to rehash all the complications that are involved.
The Lockout has arrived.
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
I was with the owners in principle on BRI and a harder cap but some of the changes will probably cause more harm than good. For example, raising the minimum salary floor from 75% to 90% is tough. That would make it hard to do what the Kings have been doing the last couple of years of keeping payroll low while retooling. Small markets already have such a small window in terms of making mistakes and by raising the minimum salary floor it makes that window that much smaller.
The thing is, almost all teams are right around the 85 to 90% floor. Even the Kings didn't get down to 75% until last year and they most likely will/would do it this year if there is a season but everyone else is at least at the 85% mark so it only effects one team but at the same time is something to sell to the players as a concession.
Also, let's not forget that the main reason that the Kings were so low is because of the Maloof's personal situation. They're doing everything they can to stay afloat and need actual profit to keep from going bankrupt. The Kings going to 75% is more a personal problem as opposed to an NBA system problem or necessity for rebuilding teams.
Also, let's not forget that the main reason that the Kings were so low is because of the Maloof's personal situation. They're doing everything they can to stay afloat and need actual profit to keep from going bankrupt. The Kings going to 75% is more a personal problem as opposed to an NBA system problem or necessity for rebuilding teams.
Right. It was a way to compensate the players without really killing the owners. Heck, it may even get the Maloofs to sell. Instead of being able to have a $43 million payroll, they'll have to bring it up to $50 million or close to it this year. Probably won't get them to sell but you never know. An extra $7 million may be what does them in.
It's looking like goodbye season unless something unexpected happens. i was reading somewhere that the first court date wouldn't even happen until late February. Is it possible the NBA could lose multiple seasons over this? This is my first experience with a lockout so I don't really if what's happening so far is par for the course, or what. it seems like it's developed into an absolute worst case scenario though that might even have the potential to end the NBA as we know it.
Yes, most teams are at the higher level already but not all and some that are close need to be so they can resign their top players without going over the tax. The less room you have between the minimum salary and the tax means the less room to work with and to plan with especially if you have several promising young players coming time for extensions. Based on last years salary cap and going on the proposed eventual 90% minimum, the minimum team's salary would be 54 million and with the tax being 70 leaves only 16 million to work between. You would have to be good and/or lucky with the timing of your contracts.
I hope you realize that if this actually goes the full distance in court we could lose next season as well as the current season. Then throw in that it would most likely bankrupt the league (if the players win) and we would be left with the Dallas Mavs being the final NBA champion, leaving us with college and overseas teams if we want to watch any basketball.
On the surface it sounds tough but it's not as tough as you think. Keep in mind that the Heat went from being a taxpayer at $72 million to being $47 million under the cap in one season. They literally lopped off $65 million in contracts in one year by getting them all to expire in the same season.
For the Kings, it wouldn't be too hard. You overpay a player but only give him a one year deal. Probably someone like Dally. Give him $10 million for one season just to get you to the 90% mark but in the following summer, you're right back to $30 million under the cap and you have some serious money to work with. It's just that the GM's need to earn it.
For the Kings, it wouldn't be too hard. You overpay a player but only give him a one year deal. Probably someone like Dally. Give him $10 million for one season just to get you to the 90% mark but in the following summer, you're right back to $30 million under the cap and you have some serious money to work with. It's just that the GM's need to earn it.
I'd be saddened. Even if I personally got over the loss, there are tons of people who will be out of a job and others will lose something that they are passionate about. Keep in mind that every NBA team employes around 150 people aside from the players plus you have the arena workers and businesses around the arena.
I could go on and on but I just can't find anything to laugh at so saddened is a pretty easy answer to me.
I could go on and on but I just can't find anything to laugh at so saddened is a pretty easy answer to me.
What would be funny, at least to me, is that these greedy dolts would end up hitting the self destruct button on their empire by fighting over what is essentially peanuts in the big picture. It's like two kids fighting over who gets the biggest glass of milk and in the process, spilling all the milk.
Last edited:
I don't think that first paragraph is a fair response, you're creating a false dilemma of two extremes, and just assuming my argument supports one extreme because it doesn't support the other. I haven't argued to keep the previous system, I've been arguing for a middle-ground. Besides, I didn't even say what I felt about parity personally, I only pointed out that the dynasties have led to greater popularity for the NBA in general, so to outlaw it would be to the detriment of the NBA's popularity. That's the reality whether you personally like it or not. Why do you think the Spurs and Pistons finals' ratings sucked so bad? Because the only star player between them was Duncan and he's about the least charismatic star player there is, the NBA is a star player culture. It has a different culture than other major sports, so I don't care about what works for the NFL. The NBA is a different culture, and I'm not saying fix the system to heavily favor big market franchises, I'm saying don't outlaw dynasties/super teams regardless of what market they're in, people are entertained by those teams even if they're not fans of those teams. You can make them more difficult to build using big market lure, but don't make them impossible to keep together. You may be a basketball purist, but that's not the main attraction of the NBA, it hasn't become so especially popular because people just love the game of basketball and really dig the culture and tradition of it. They love the star power and the performances of star players, and that's a natural result of basketball IMO, because the teams are so much smaller than the other major sports. Individual players, on average, have much greater impact on the outcome of the game than they do in other sports.
I understand the concept of a league, but there's no point in propping up a market just for the sake of propping up a market. No one is saying the small market teams have to contribute equal amounts as the big market teams do, but it isn't a charity either, the league is built with the expectation that the smaller markets need to have meaningful contribution to the wider appeal of the league, if they're stuck in a market that doesn't really contribute that but just looks to the rest of the league to bail them out and keep them profitable, then their existence isn't justified.
No offense, but I don't care what political philosophies you prefer.
I understand the concept of a league, but there's no point in propping up a market just for the sake of propping up a market. No one is saying the small market teams have to contribute equal amounts as the big market teams do, but it isn't a charity either, the league is built with the expectation that the smaller markets need to have meaningful contribution to the wider appeal of the league, if they're stuck in a market that doesn't really contribute that but just looks to the rest of the league to bail them out and keep them profitable, then their existence isn't justified.
No offense, but I don't care what political philosophies you prefer.
Last edited:
What I meant by legitimate in that particular context (and I'm sorry I didn't clarify, I was being lazy) is scouting well, developing well, making quality trades through negotiating savvy and good foresight, i.e. quality team management. That doesn't mean I think team building should be exclusive to that, but rather means other than that should be more difficult to pull off than they currently are.
I have no clue if there was something more going on with the Gasol trade and I'm not going to speculate. My guess is the Lakers just got lucky with having the right package at the right time, and ironically enough, it has turned out alright for the Grizzlies. They basically got their current frontcourt from the trade, with the rights of Marc Gasol being included and the cap space to get Randolph in trade for nothing. IIRC, the Grizzlies were trying to cut down costs to make the team more attractive in a sale, they weren't contending with Gasol, he was teetering on perhaps being too old for their window, and the Lakers had the expiring contract to offer them. The Bulls were going after Gasol, and they could have easily afforded to re-sign him, but they didn't get him despite having better talent to offer. With all that being said, it's not really important to the discussion. I think I made my stance clear when I used Carmelo as a blatant example of a huge problem with the current system, and if that applies to Gasol, then it applies to Gasol, I'm not here to defend the Lakers. I think what needs to be done is to restrict sign and trades and the trading of bird rights, and create a larger gap in max contracts between returning players and outright free agent signings.
I don't see the point in indiscriminately punishing expensive teams. It should discriminate towards how those teams are built. I think when teams manage well, and put together a dominant team that way, I think they've earned the right to spend what they have to to keep it together. I still think there should be a luxury tax and a soft cap, but I just don't like the idea of a hard cap or virtual hard cap.
I have no clue if there was something more going on with the Gasol trade and I'm not going to speculate. My guess is the Lakers just got lucky with having the right package at the right time, and ironically enough, it has turned out alright for the Grizzlies. They basically got their current frontcourt from the trade, with the rights of Marc Gasol being included and the cap space to get Randolph in trade for nothing. IIRC, the Grizzlies were trying to cut down costs to make the team more attractive in a sale, they weren't contending with Gasol, he was teetering on perhaps being too old for their window, and the Lakers had the expiring contract to offer them. The Bulls were going after Gasol, and they could have easily afforded to re-sign him, but they didn't get him despite having better talent to offer. With all that being said, it's not really important to the discussion. I think I made my stance clear when I used Carmelo as a blatant example of a huge problem with the current system, and if that applies to Gasol, then it applies to Gasol, I'm not here to defend the Lakers. I think what needs to be done is to restrict sign and trades and the trading of bird rights, and create a larger gap in max contracts between returning players and outright free agent signings.
I don't see the point in indiscriminately punishing expensive teams. It should discriminate towards how those teams are built. I think when teams manage well, and put together a dominant team that way, I think they've earned the right to spend what they have to to keep it together. I still think there should be a luxury tax and a soft cap, but I just don't like the idea of a hard cap or virtual hard cap.
The financials are more or less agreed upon. The system changes the owners want benefit a small market like the Kings in every way so I can't imagine why any Kings fan would want the players to win on those issues other than some subjective opinion about what is "fair".
What the players call "freedom of movement" is a cute term for the right to be able to LEAVE their small market teams wanting to retain them with no consequences at all. Then they want the mid level market to be unrestricted and over-inflated so that a Dalembert can go sign in Miami for the MLE. Of course the Kings can sign him but need to overpay drastically. Voila...a bad contract is created. Horrible for the competitive balance of the league and fans. Yay for agents and player bank accounts?
What the players call "freedom of movement" is a cute term for the right to be able to LEAVE their small market teams wanting to retain them with no consequences at all. Then they want the mid level market to be unrestricted and over-inflated so that a Dalembert can go sign in Miami for the MLE. Of course the Kings can sign him but need to overpay drastically. Voila...a bad contract is created. Horrible for the competitive balance of the league and fans. Yay for agents and player bank accounts?
Bosh and James were going to Miami with or without the sign and trade. Yes, they got an added benefit with an extra year and some more money, but the real beneficiary was Cleveland and Toronto. Which is why I say they should kill the S&T and give teams that lose players to free agency compensatory draft picks.
There's also an element of hypocrisy (don't take this personally) whenever anyone complains about the S&T, because at some point, your team will benefit from it. We did it for Brad Miller in 2004. If we were going to lose Reke or Cousins, we'd benefit from it with compensation that we would otherwise never get. It's getting to be more and more of a problem, as players are essentially holding teams hostage in order to go to the team they want to go to. That's not what happened with James, Bosh and Miami.
Miami wasn't at the tax level after they signed all three guys. With new rules, they probably would have made different decisions, but still, they had the cap space to make those signings, and they did so.
From what I've seen, I don't have any problem with the changes the owners are pushing. I proposed similar changes a year ago, but stated at the time that those changes would be unlikely to be accepted by the players. Still, there needs to be systemic changes in order to promote competition.
There's also an element of hypocrisy (don't take this personally) whenever anyone complains about the S&T, because at some point, your team will benefit from it. We did it for Brad Miller in 2004. If we were going to lose Reke or Cousins, we'd benefit from it with compensation that we would otherwise never get. It's getting to be more and more of a problem, as players are essentially holding teams hostage in order to go to the team they want to go to. That's not what happened with James, Bosh and Miami.
Miami wasn't at the tax level after they signed all three guys. With new rules, they probably would have made different decisions, but still, they had the cap space to make those signings, and they did so.
From what I've seen, I don't have any problem with the changes the owners are pushing. I proposed similar changes a year ago, but stated at the time that those changes would be unlikely to be accepted by the players. Still, there needs to be systemic changes in order to promote competition.
And I disagree with much of your argument here. It's not about "taking down specific teams" per se, it is about leveling the playing field. And capping the spending is ABSOLUTELY the way to do it. I don't care if Buss makes 50 trillion a year in TV rights and he burns Benjamins to light candles in his bathroom, but I don't want that to turn into a competitive disadvantage in fielding a team on the financial front (I know players will still want to go to larger markets in general). What NEEDS to be done is take away the financial incentive to do so!
Yes, the Lakers and Celtics have done well as big market teams, but New York has not (as far as wins/losses go). Frankly, if I never see the Lakers or Celtics in the Finals again it would be too soon. I would be just as interested in a Suns / Orlando finals as a Lakers / Celtics - moreso in fact as I enjoy seeing parity and new faces in these big events.
I LOVE the fact that different teams can rise up and compete any particular year in many sports. That's GREAT for the various leagues and great for smaller market teams to be viable for home ticket sales.
Kings fans didn't sell out 19 of their first 26 seasons because the Lakers or Celtics were in town, they sold the games out to see the Kings play. After tasting some success and then declining as well as going through a BAD economic period, attendance is down in Sacramento. But having a team that can compete night in and out would be helpful in drawing in the more casual fans to games.
In general, having those home teams be able to be comptetitive would do wonders for other teams ticket sales as well if there were a better chance of a win at home.
I think parity would actually help the league tremendously.
Yes, the Lakers and Celtics have done well as big market teams, but New York has not (as far as wins/losses go). Frankly, if I never see the Lakers or Celtics in the Finals again it would be too soon. I would be just as interested in a Suns / Orlando finals as a Lakers / Celtics - moreso in fact as I enjoy seeing parity and new faces in these big events.
I LOVE the fact that different teams can rise up and compete any particular year in many sports. That's GREAT for the various leagues and great for smaller market teams to be viable for home ticket sales.
Kings fans didn't sell out 19 of their first 26 seasons because the Lakers or Celtics were in town, they sold the games out to see the Kings play. After tasting some success and then declining as well as going through a BAD economic period, attendance is down in Sacramento. But having a team that can compete night in and out would be helpful in drawing in the more casual fans to games.
In general, having those home teams be able to be comptetitive would do wonders for other teams ticket sales as well if there were a better chance of a win at home.
I think parity would actually help the league tremendously.
There's usually a midseason deadline for reaching the minimum, which allows flexibility for trades, extensions, etc., in order to conform. You don't have to be at the minimum on opening day.
I do think 90% is pretty aggressive, but assuming there's a lower cap (there would be with a 50/50 BRI split), it should be doable. Someone mentioned that it would be an extra $7 million, based on last year's numbers. But we're not working with last year's numbers; we're working with a lower salary cap. It would probably be an extra $3 or $4 million, and that's assuming the minimum kicks in immediately. I would expect that the minimum would kick in a couple years down the line.
I do think 90% is pretty aggressive, but assuming there's a lower cap (there would be with a 50/50 BRI split), it should be doable. Someone mentioned that it would be an extra $7 million, based on last year's numbers. But we're not working with last year's numbers; we're working with a lower salary cap. It would probably be an extra $3 or $4 million, and that's assuming the minimum kicks in immediately. I would expect that the minimum would kick in a couple years down the line.
No hypocrisy at all. I'd rather have real leverage to actually resign Tyreke and Cousins (i.e., they are guaranteed real financial loss by leaving) at the risk of losing a freaking late 1st rounder from Lakers in a sign and trade. Apparently the small market owners agree looking at the proposal which places more restrictions there.
No they were not at the tax level, but they will be stuck around there for a few years. In the last CBA that was no big deal. Just sign an MLE guy every year and let the rings roll in.
The new proposal affects the additional players they could sign and is clearly design to have an affect on GM strategy and competitive balance.
No they were not at the tax level, but they will be stuck around there for a few years. In the last CBA that was no big deal. Just sign an MLE guy every year and let the rings roll in.
The new proposal affects the additional players they could sign and is clearly design to have an affect on GM strategy and competitive balance.
Why should there be consequences for the players? You play out your contract, you're a free agent, you sign where you want. What's so bad about that?
This has nothing to do with S&Ts, by the way. If a player earns his free agency by playing out his contract, why shouldn't he be able to sign with a team that has the cap space to pay him what he wants to make?
This has nothing to do with S&Ts, by the way. If a player earns his free agency by playing out his contract, why shouldn't he be able to sign with a team that has the cap space to pay him what he wants to make?
Lots of things are bad about it. It's bad for the league that this generation of franchise players is leaving or threatening to leave every small market team. There is more involved than the whims of the player. He's part of a league, a team, a fan base, a city.
Hell, why do we draft players and force them to go to a team in the first place? Why can't the player choose? What's so bad about players choosing where they want to go right from the start?
Once the Kings decided, they rebuilt correctly. If Cousins and Tyreke were just about to reach their prime and decided to leave to a big market and had no consequences at all....I really do think I'd be completely done with the NBA. The team would be a disaster and there's be no reason to hope it would ever be different. Even drafting future superstar would mean little or nothing.
The NFL gets this already with the franchise tag which I would be in full support of for the NBA as well. The league is inching that direction by attempting to restrict sign & trades and extend & trades.
Hell, why do we draft players and force them to go to a team in the first place? Why can't the player choose? What's so bad about players choosing where they want to go right from the start?
Once the Kings decided, they rebuilt correctly. If Cousins and Tyreke were just about to reach their prime and decided to leave to a big market and had no consequences at all....I really do think I'd be completely done with the NBA. The team would be a disaster and there's be no reason to hope it would ever be different. Even drafting future superstar would mean little or nothing.
The NFL gets this already with the franchise tag which I would be in full support of for the NBA as well. The league is inching that direction by attempting to restrict sign & trades and extend & trades.
Your criteria are entirely subjective. I don't think there's any way to make them not subjective. That's the problem. I'm sure the Knicks will call what they did with Carmelo Anthony "savvy negotiating and foresight," but not everyone would.
Not necessarily saying there was anything untoward about what happened with Gasol. In hindsight, the trade is not as lopsided as it looked at the time. Still, it basically amounted to a sign and trade (or extend and trade) which is exactly what happened with Carmelo Anthony. We might look back in three years and determine that the Nuggets came out better than the Knicks in the Carmelo deal, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire episode was contrary to the spirit of the rules. Same thing with Gasol and the Lakers.
I think sign and trades aren't always horrible. But if you create some compensation for a team that loses a free agent, then you neuter the benefit of the sign and trade for everyone involved. If the Nuggets let Carmelo's contract expire, then offer him a max deal, but he goes to the Knicks anyways (or wherever he goes), the Nuggets get a compensatory pick in the first round, somewhere around 15-18. That's probably more valuable than the two first rounders that the Heat sent to Cleveland for LeBron. They can lose a player to free agency, and get compensation for him without taking on equal salary.
But when you have a team that has no intention of retaining a player in free agency (Suns with Amare Stoudemire; Pacers with Brad Miller), why not trade him to someone who wants him and is willing to pay him, and get yourself some compensation? At least you have the option. And again, this is entirely different from the Carmelo Anthony situation, and it's why I don't necessarily think sign and trades need to be nixed completely. I'm perfectly fine with killing them for teams already over the tax threshold, however.
This is what I don't get. You're arguing for a principle that you feel strongly about, but at the end of the day, it has zero bearing on the net result. Whether you built your team "legitimately" or "illegitimately" isn't important. What's important is competition, as that's the whole reason for a cap and tax in the first place. I don't see why it matters if you built your team through the draft, free agency, trades, or whatever. What matters is that you have a team that's well over the cap, into the tax level, and they are still adding salary. Why have a cap if you're not going to do anything to stop those teams from spending?
A team's reward for building a dominant team through good management and savvy and foresight is having a dominant team, making the playoffs, having a chance to win championships, and creating a culture of winning, which leads to sponsorships, endorsements, TV deals, more free agent attraction, etc. Your reward shouldn't be that you get to keep adding salary. I can understand an argument for extensions for players whom you have Bird rights for (although that can be tweaked for players you trade for), but adding an MLE player every year? No. Continuing to do sign and trades for more players? No.
Not necessarily saying there was anything untoward about what happened with Gasol. In hindsight, the trade is not as lopsided as it looked at the time. Still, it basically amounted to a sign and trade (or extend and trade) which is exactly what happened with Carmelo Anthony. We might look back in three years and determine that the Nuggets came out better than the Knicks in the Carmelo deal, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire episode was contrary to the spirit of the rules. Same thing with Gasol and the Lakers.
I think sign and trades aren't always horrible. But if you create some compensation for a team that loses a free agent, then you neuter the benefit of the sign and trade for everyone involved. If the Nuggets let Carmelo's contract expire, then offer him a max deal, but he goes to the Knicks anyways (or wherever he goes), the Nuggets get a compensatory pick in the first round, somewhere around 15-18. That's probably more valuable than the two first rounders that the Heat sent to Cleveland for LeBron. They can lose a player to free agency, and get compensation for him without taking on equal salary.
But when you have a team that has no intention of retaining a player in free agency (Suns with Amare Stoudemire; Pacers with Brad Miller), why not trade him to someone who wants him and is willing to pay him, and get yourself some compensation? At least you have the option. And again, this is entirely different from the Carmelo Anthony situation, and it's why I don't necessarily think sign and trades need to be nixed completely. I'm perfectly fine with killing them for teams already over the tax threshold, however.
This is what I don't get. You're arguing for a principle that you feel strongly about, but at the end of the day, it has zero bearing on the net result. Whether you built your team "legitimately" or "illegitimately" isn't important. What's important is competition, as that's the whole reason for a cap and tax in the first place. I don't see why it matters if you built your team through the draft, free agency, trades, or whatever. What matters is that you have a team that's well over the cap, into the tax level, and they are still adding salary. Why have a cap if you're not going to do anything to stop those teams from spending?
A team's reward for building a dominant team through good management and savvy and foresight is having a dominant team, making the playoffs, having a chance to win championships, and creating a culture of winning, which leads to sponsorships, endorsements, TV deals, more free agent attraction, etc. Your reward shouldn't be that you get to keep adding salary. I can understand an argument for extensions for players whom you have Bird rights for (although that can be tweaked for players you trade for), but adding an MLE player every year? No. Continuing to do sign and trades for more players? No.