2011 freeagency, and Dalembert:

[bajaden]

To answer the first question: So what if you sign no one? We didn't sign anyone, and anticipation hasn't been this high in probably six years. We weren't even considered players in free agency. Furthermore, your question is sort of missing the point. There's nothing wrong with signing free agents. I'm talking about free agents that were (seemingly) overpaid. The Lakers signed Steve Blake and Matt Barnes, and those are both really good signings. And the price tags make sense.

As for bidding wars, emotion really only comes into play when it's a product, or in this case, a player, that you really, really want, really, really bad. I don't understand how the guys I mentioned earlier fit that profile. It's not like owners were sitting around desperate to sign Amir Johnson, so why $34 million?

And again, if owners want to present their case as "cash flow has decreased," then the question will be "why did you spend so much money last summer?" And if they say "payrolls are just getting too high," then the retort would be "you need to spend more wisely." That's all I'm saying. Neither case can really be made effectively, not after this summer.

I'm coming back late to this one, since I've been traveling. But essentially what your saying is that its good management vrs bad management, and how do the owners protect the bad managers from themselves. There's no doubt that bad management by one team can have an overall effect on the entire league.. A team like the Knicks is very important to the league since it plays in the media center of the world. If the Knicks are a contender they bring in more tv revenues and put people in the seats of all the arena's. Similar to the Lakers. By the same token, when they're down, they create a bigger black mark than other teams do.

To my mind, they need to find a way to fix things without laying all the burden on the players. Lowering the players share of the revenues to some degree is a workable plan, and one I think the players would be willing to go along with as long as the percentage is reasonable, and the owners are willing to sacrafice something on their end. I think a more equal revenue sharing between the teams would go a long way toward economic balancing of the league. Instead of pushing for a hard cap, and the removal of exceptions, I'd go with a more severe luxury tax. If you want to go over the cap, then you really have to pay through the nose to do so, and to the benefit of all the teams that stay fiscally responsible.

 

[Kingster]

To answer the first question: So what if you sign no one? We didn't sign anyone, and anticipation hasn't been this high in probably six years. We weren't even considered players in free agency. Furthermore, your question is sort of missing the point. There's nothing wrong with signing free agents. I'm talking about free agents that were (seemingly) overpaid. The Lakers signed Steve Blake and Matt Barnes, and those are both really good signings. And the price tags make sense.

As for bidding wars, emotion really only comes into play when it's a product, or in this case, a player, that you really, really want, really, really bad. I don't understand how the guys I mentioned earlier fit that profile. It's not like owners were sitting around desperate to sign Amir Johnson, so why $34 million?

And again, if owners want to present their case as "cash flow has decreased," then the question will be "why did you spend so much money last summer?" And if they say "payrolls are just getting too high," then the retort would be "you need to spend more wisely." That's all I'm saying. Neither case can really be made effectively, not after this summer.

Look, you're inferring that making these signings by some owners necessarily means that the owners are flush with cash and have had no significant decrease in cash flow. I'm saying that's not necessarily so. To resolve the mystery, all you have to do is have the owners open the books and you can see the cash flow. The mystery is solved. All parties can see what the deal is. There are no inferences or assumptions. Case closed. Regardless of what a few owners do independently, the aggregate cash flow will tell the tale. You can't then point to a minority of owners who have made apparent bad decisions to bolster an argument that all owners should then continue to overpay. That makes no sense at all.

 

[Bricklayer]

The bigger issue is the disconnect in the NBA business between goals and revenues.

In any normal business the goal IS revenue. That's the whole point. Anything that earns money = good. Anything that loses money = bad. revenue and goals are joined at the hip, one and the same. In the NBA that is not true. In the NBA, outside of Clipperland, the GOAL is winning. Winning with an eye on the bottomline, but still winning. And we as fans certainly wouldn't want it or accept it any other way. We do not want a league full of Sterlings. We want, nay almost demand owners to be willing to lose money in order to win. And so you have this great disconnect that makes the NBA almost more like a non-profit than a for profit corporation. And hence poor decisions that do not make sense monetarily, but might, in a mistaken GM's mind, make sense in order to try to win.

Meanwhile the players and agents generally ARE in it for the money. That generally is their bottomline. Not entirely mind you as the various peeps hopping onto contending teams every season to bandwagon shows. But that's still generally the modus operandi. And thta give sthe players a major edge when it comes to how revenues are divided. The players do what is necessary to maximize their own share of the revenues. But the owners have other concerns and will often overspend in pursuit of their own overriding objective, which is to win. This new CBA is going to need to address that inequality of bargaining position/goal. Ideally you want to create an environment where the owners can compete absolutely as hard as possible, and still never suffer more than moderate losses. That's the healthiest thing for the league, and the fans.

 

[Ed2009]

I still want Lebron...

 

[Sac.1989]

I like Green because I think he has more upside. He's a better quicker athlete who at least can shoot from 3pt range. While 33% isn't great, its not horrible, and with time will improve. I think Green is a better defender, who can also defend some SF's. Which is a position I think he can play as well as PF. Its not that I dislike Landry. Let me put it this way. Landry is more of a one dimensional player. He's good at what he does, but I don't see much room for growth. Green is a lot more versatile, and I think he has a chance to be a lot better than he is right now. Doesn't mean I'm right. Only the Shadow knows. Heh heh heh!

hes agent is dave falk, we have every chance to snag him with the promise of a young team and a pay rise

 

[Sac.1989]

mind you we would have to pay top dollar to bring him in whereas id like to think Landry would be cheaper with similar stats baring a 3 point shot

 

[bajaden]

The bigger issue is the disconnect in the NBA business between goals and revenues.

In any normal business the goal IS revenue. That's the whole point. Anything that earns money = good. Anything that loses money = bad. revenue and goals are joined at the hip, one and the same. In the NBA that is not true. In the NBA, outside of Clipperland, the GOAL is winning. Winning with an eye on the bottomline, but still winning. And we as fans certainly wouldn't want it or accept it any other way. We do not want a league full of Sterlings. We want, nay almost demand owners to be willing to lose money in order to win. And so you have this great disconnect that makes the NBA almost more like a non-profit than a for profit corporation. And hence poor decisions that do not make sense monetarily, but might, in a mistaken GM's mind, make sense in order to try to win.

Meanwhile the players and agents generally ARE in it for the money. That generally is their bottomline. Not entirely mind you as the various peeps hopping onto contending teams every season to bandwagon shows. But that's still generally the modus operandi. And thta give sthe players a major edge when it comes to how revenues are divided. The players do what is necessary to maximize their own share of the revenues. But the owners have other concerns and will often overspend in pursuit of their own overriding objective, which is to win. This new CBA is going to need to address that inequality of bargaining position/goal. Ideally you want to create an environment where the owners can compete absolutely as hard as possible, and still never suffer more than moderate losses. That's the healthiest thing for the league, and the fans.

Very well said! I don't think you could have made it any clearer...