The 2016 Offseason thread

[3inthekeon]

I've agreed with Silver, but teams like GS and the Spurs have drafted brilliantly (some luck some design - you can argue the proportion of each). Milwaukee hasn't. They each brought in one big star. Not great for competitive balance but understandable.

What seems wrong to me is more the Heat model, with one max level player bringing in 2 more.

Either way, as long as the max is set at an artificially low bar, these types of moves will continue.

[DanH]

Mess, everyone knows that - let's say 30%(????!!!) of the teams this time (or whatever, just make up some number) - are losing money and the ENTIRE LEAGUE IS IN JEOPARDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if the owners don't get more money. The new CBA will allow all teams to compete!!!! It's all for the children. Won't someone think of the children!

Plus, I always enjoy the lockouts in sports where the owners are all going broke and then, two days after the lockout is over, they are all signing mediocre guys to $80 million 4 year deals.

You'd think fans would know the game by now but clearly not.....

Well, this is a little misleading. CBA dictates how much money goes to the players. Teams have to spend 90% of the cap, so 90% of the cost of players is sunk cost even if they sign no one at all. How much teams spend in total is determined entirely by revenue, not by how much stupid stuff they do in free agency.

Obviously claims of competition concerns and losing money are all gamesmanship, but spending in free agency is not an indicator of that gamesmanship.

[slaw]

Well, this is a little misleading. CBA dictates how much money goes to the players. Teams have to spend 90% of the cap, so 90% of the cost of players is sunk cost even if they sign no one at all. How much teams spend in total is determined entirely by revenue, not by how much stupid stuff they do in free agency.

Obviously claims of competition concerns and losing money are all gamesmanship, but spending in free agency is not an indicator of that gamesmanship.

I think you missed my point....

[DanH]

I think you missed my point....

What was your point?

[white men can't jump]

I don't really care for Noel anymore. I'd like us to aim higher (either this year, or next summer).

That's why I never cared for him in the first place.

We'll see what happens this season. We definitely have some moveable parts. Hopefully Masai finds a wing to cement the depth on the perimeter and provide insurance in that respect if they need to move Ross.

[Axel]

What was your point?

Likely how billionaire owners cry over their wallets to try and force players (and cities) to give them more then immediately throw money around once that fight is over.

[DanH]

Likely how billionaire owners cry over their wallets to try and force players (and cities) to give them more then immediately throw money around once that fight is over.

Again, though, that was the point I addressed. They have no choice but to throw that money around.

So, since apparently I missed the point, it must be some other point.

[Axel]

Again, though, that was the point I addressed. They have no choice but to throw that money around.

So, since apparently I missed the point, it must be some other point.

They can choose to spend money more wisely and still spend the required amount.

[DanH]

They can choose to spend money more wisely and still spend the required amount.

How so? If there are no players left worth that amount, and you only have so many roster spots to fill, and other teams want the same players as you, how do you spend more wisely?

[golden]

If this is used as some excuse for a lockout, it's a bogus one. Durant was in OKC for 9 years. There's nothing that anyone can do to force someone to work at the same place for their whole career. Well, there was. But it was abolished.

Of course, it's all about greed on both sides and splitting the absurdly oversized pie. Funny, I never heard any player or owner suggest that a percentage of that massive influx of TV money should be used to keep ticket or merchandise prices down or flat.

But, I think the better play for the NBA and owners would be to make a claim to a portion of the athletes endorsement money as "basketball related income", since players draft for free off the distribution network built by the NBA which provides worldwide exposure to billions. If they wanted to spark a war with the agents, they could get new players entering the league to have to sign up to charging an "access fee" to the NBA global marketing, distribution, media, promotion and advertising machine, paid for and maintained by the league

[Axel]

The 2016 Offseason thread

How so? If there are no players left worth that amount, and you only have so many roster spots to fill, and other teams want the same players as you, how do you spend more wisely?

Every year there are players who are underpaid and some who are overpaid. Smarter decisions with their money within the rules would make it more palatable when they then complain that the players need to give them more money or the team/league can't survive. After that, the owners go hit up the tax payers for millions to build them a stadium so that the owners can then overcharge the tax paying public to attend the games.

Hearing a billionaire complain about money then seeing them spend $16M on Mozgov is a bit ridiculous.

[DanH]

Every year there are players who are underpaid and some who are overpaid. Smarter decisions with their money within the rules would make it more palatable when they then complain that the players need to give them more money to the team/league can't survive. After that, the owners go hit up the tax payers for millions to build them a stadium so that the owners can then overcharge the tax paying public to attend the games.

Hearing a billionaire complain about money then seeing them spend $16M on Mozgov is a bit ridiculous.

See, but I don't get it. The average amount of "wise" and "foolish" spending will average out. It is dictated by the CBA. So you could have some teams spending foolishly (ie not improving their team much) and other teams spending wisely (improving their team a lot) but both will be spending about the same amount, just in good or bad ways. If the foolish teams stopped being foolish, the wise moves would be less wise. It's just the reality of the situation.

If you don't like players getting so much money, then you should be rooting for the owners to get a bigger cut of the revenue pie. Or convince fans to stop buying tickets or watching games.

The reality is, regarding this sentence:

Smarter decisions with their money within the rules would make it more palatable when they then complain that the players need to give them more money to the team/league can't survive.

How smart the decisions the owners make are has almost nothing to do with whether they make money (on average). There will be some teams that spend foolishly and some teams that don't make money, but recent history suggests they won't be the same teams (ie, idiot teams like the Knicks, Lakers, etc, are perennial revenue drivers for the league and the biggest profit generators).

[Axel]

See, but I don't get it.

I think it's more about the perception of owners complaints while throwing around foolish money. You're too focused on the dollars and cents here; what's the big picture? A billionaire complaining how much money they are losing then trying to hit up players or a city for money; while they take their private jets to give ridiculous amounts of money to mediocre players. In the court of public opinion, perception is much more important than CBA rules.

[3inthekeon]

Every year there are players who are underpaid and some who are overpaid. Smarter decisions with their money within the rules would make it more palatable when they then complain that the players need to give them more money or the team/league can't survive. After that, the owners go hit up the tax payers for millions to build them a stadium so that the owners can then overcharge the tax paying public to attend the games.

Hearing a billionaire complain about money then seeing them spend $16M on Mozgov is a bit ridiculous.

The bold is the major reason I have little sympathy for OKC. The ownership tried to extort $500 million from Seattle's taxpayers and when that didn't work they moved the team. Then KD gets ragged on (admittedly not by the owners themselves) for leaving the team.

[Axel]

The bold is the major reason I have little sympathy for OKC. The ownership tried to extort $500 million from Seattle's taxpayers and when that didn't work they moved the team. Then KD gets ragged on (admittedly not by the owners themselves) for leaving the team.

Extortion really is the best word for it too.

Public funded stadiums should be illegal or require significant concessions to the tax payers (including reduced ticket prices).