Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NO FREE MARKET, This Is What The NBA *DAVID STERN* Should Do

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NO FREE MARKET, This Is What The NBA *DAVID STERN* Should Do

    I love the NBA. But after watching out of shape veterans (Eddy Curry), injury prone players who get paid too much (Bynum, Mcgrady), highschoolers who get drafted on potential (Darius Miles and almost everyone else) I'm getting tired of it. Thank goodness the CBA is expiring and really hope David Stern takes my ideas and runs with it. I would be willing to wait 2 years of lockout if this would happen!!

    1. Implement a hard cap that would force owners with deep pockets from aquiring talent by simply agreeing to take on more money. (ie Gasol to Lakers and every single Dallas Maverick trade)

    2. Shorten contract length to 4 years.

    3. Non-guaranteed contracts after first season. This rule forces mediocre players entering their twilight of their career to simply relax after their "last contract" (ie Turkoglu)

    4. Implement some sort of strategy to reduce free agent movement or compensation system. Adding a "franchise" tag to the NBA would prevent Lebron from severely reducing the franchise value. If not, add a compensation system in which franchise players are rewarded with a supplemental lottery pick depending on the impact of the player and where he was chosen in the draft. (ex Lebron would be top 5 pick, Amare top 10 pick) This would give hope to the franchise base and attendance wouldn't significantly drop if another superstar is drafted

    5. Force college players to stay 3 years in school before eligible for draft. High school players and one-and-done players are being drafted on potential rather than production taking roster spots away from players that can contribute right away. Everyone wants to see John Wall right away but he would come in the league more NBA ready and have a greater impact 3 years later. Players like Derozan would benefit the most.

    6. No more MAX contracts. If there is a hard cap teams can pay the players what they deem are worth. This would help as superstars would make the money they deserve and fans don't have to worry about multiple superstars playing on one team. That would not be possible unless they agree to take significantly less than they are worth. (Bosh, Wade, Lebron are taking 2 million less a year which will easily be recovered from endorsements) Under this system cap room really does matter. If NY is offering 30 MILL to Lebron and MIA is offering 14.5 it will be almost impossible to turn that down.

    These are some basic strategies that would get veterans to play harder and young players would be more seasoned. Franchises like Indiana wouldn't have to struggle paying mediocre players 10 mill a year and "salary dump" trades wouldn't happen as every team can cut a player like the NFL. Teams would be competitive and trades would be fair. The product will improve drastically as players don't have the umbrella of knowing they are getting paid guaranteed dollars for x amount of years and would have to play hard.

  • #2
    1) This is what's ruining the NHL. The fans want to see the good cities succeed, it's the reason Red Sox/Yankees series get the highest rating. And if you're NY, LA, Dal, whoever and you're willing to spend and spend with a luxury tax to win then you should be allowed, screw all the cheap owners out there.

    2) why?

    3) This is an awful idea, and the proof is in the NFL. These are athletes who with one bad step could have their 15 year career (if they're lucky) cut in half and you want to give their billionaire owners the ability to get rid of them at any time they want? Sure some players don't try until the contract year, but that's a risk you take when you give them that contract, no one put a gun to your head and said offer Torkuglu or Vince Carter a contract.

    4) They did implement a way for players to not move around a lot, that's why the team that had them under contract can offer the most amount of money, and the sign and trade is exactly what you're talking about. Sure TO got screwed this year but that's because Bosh was pretty much willing to walk away and leave the extra money on the table, but look at what NY got back for David Lee.

    5) This I hate, it was bad enough that we're forcing ADULTS to have to play an extra year in a corrupt system like the NCAA for free but now you want them to go there for 3 years???

    6) This only works if owners are all smart and agents aren't all smarter than them. So not in reality. In reality you'll have guys like Joe Johnson getting 20 mil, which'll cause Deron Williams to want 22, which'll cause CP3 to want 24, and Amare wont play unless he's the highest paid.

    basically I don't like any of your ideas. And I'll probably be in the minority but other than a few little loopholes, I think the NBA system is the best one in major sports right now. The good teams with money thrive, the bad teams with cheap owners get a chance to compete and still be profitable and the fans get amazing playoff matchups.

    Comment


    • #3
      There is no "free market" in the NBA - The creating and movement of NBA franchises is controlled by a small group of people. If there was truly a "free market" a city or corporation could build an arena or lease one, incorporate a team, hire a management staff and then start signing free agents and arranging to play other teams based upon arm lengths transactions. This does not exist. So there is no "free market" in the NBA.

      On top of that player movement, which includes drafting of players, pay scales, salary caps, etc are all controlled by a Union contract; i.e. the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement). So again no "free market" there.

      Bottom line is there is no "Free Market" in the NBA

      As to whether there should be that is beyond my ability to argue.

      I will say this regarding two things.

      1. One and Done Players - The league and NCAA need to set up a system that allows players to go directly from High School to getting paid for playing basketball, without this one and done baloney. A minor league could be set up and then players could be drafted from there. Players who choose to go to college. I agree that they would have to commit to three years. If they leave school before three years then they can't play professionally until their three years are up. That would be the basics of it.

      2. Player Pay - Players should be paid a small minimum guaranteed amount if they make a roster with that amount only guaranteed for as long as they are on the roster, Everything beyond that would be based solely on their performance, the team's performance and the team and league TV, merchandising revenues, etc. Players could buy injury insurance.
      Avatar: Riverboat Coffee House 134 Yorkville Ave. billboard of upcoming entertainers - Circa 1960s

      Memories some so sweet, indeed

      Larger Photo of the avatar



      “As a captain, I played furiously. I drew a lot of fouls, but I brought everything I had to every practice and to every game. I left everything on the court because I simply wanted the team to win”
      Quote from well known personality who led their high school team to a state championship.

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't have time to go down the list so I'll take contention w/ #3.

        Force?lol America is all about freedom and you want to force folks to stay in college instead of earning a living with their G-D given abilities? Is this not a capitalistic society? Get real. If a hs aged computer wiz can go straight to Microsoft instead of college why can't a hs aged basketball wiz go str8 to the NBA (where some owner will sign/draft him using their own free will- not by force)- who are we to hold that young person back?

        Baseball, hockey, golf & tennis all allow qualified hs aged talent- see a problem? Some folks just hate to see young brothers rich- legally. Why not just end the draft and let players choose where they want to play at from jump street instead of being auctioned off?

        John Wall received nothing from a year of college except making the NCAA some money as a fake student athlete, he would have been better served to go from str8 from HS to the NBA while learning on the job as you can always go back to school once you are paid if one wants to. The NBA is entertainment not NASA- point blank.

        Comment


        • #5
          SirChillyMost wrote: View Post
          I don't have time to go down the list so I'll take contention w/ #3.

          Force?lol America is all about freedom and you want to force folks to stay in college instead of earning a living with their G-D given abilities? Is this not a capitalistic society? Get real. If a hs aged computer wiz can go straight to Microsoft instead of college why can't a hs aged basketball wiz go str8 to the NBA (where some owner will sign/draft him using their own free will- not by force)- who are we to hold that young person back?

          Baseball, hockey, golf & tennis all allow qualified hs aged talent- see a problem? Some folks just hate to see young brothers rich- legally. Why not just end the draft and let players choose where they want to play at from jump street instead of being auctioned off?

          John Wall received nothing from a year of college except making the NCAA some money as a fake student athlete, he would have been better served to go from str8 from HS to the NBA while learning on the job as you can always go back to school once you are paid if one wants to. The NBA is entertainment not NASA- point blank.
          At least one more minor league in addition to the NBA controlled D-league needs to be set up where basketball players of all ages can go play once they are old enough to work. Though I would prefer that the minimum be 17 or 18 years old. If a player who then plays in that league for pay is good enough he will get drafted by the NBA the first summer that he is a free agent in that league.

          So while some of these young kids 18 or whatever might make a little less money for one, two or three seasons depending on how long an initial contract they sign they will at least have a better chance of making money doing what they do best and love to do than if they are solely dependent upon being drafted by a NBA teams.

          Also, doing it the way I am suggesting would allow time for young players to hone and improve their games while their bodies grow up and get paid for it. This way they would be more ready for the NBA when the time comes. It is a win win situation for everyone involved including the colleges who won't have to deal with the one and done players anymore.
          Avatar: Riverboat Coffee House 134 Yorkville Ave. billboard of upcoming entertainers - Circa 1960s

          Memories some so sweet, indeed

          Larger Photo of the avatar



          “As a captain, I played furiously. I drew a lot of fouls, but I brought everything I had to every practice and to every game. I left everything on the court because I simply wanted the team to win”
          Quote from well known personality who led their high school team to a state championship.

          Comment


          • #6
            2 things I would like to see personally

            1. 3 year college min before you can enter the league, my reason is that I would like to see the draft be deeper with talent.

            2. lower the cap to around 50 mil

            Comment


            • #7
              One point not argued is if there are curbs put on the players where are the curbs on the owners? It is patently unjust to put a break on salaries (costs) but not on profits or ticket prices. I would suggest both with an escrow account which would be used for the developmental/growth of the game (building courts in cities/states/foreign countries), education fund and pensions/retirement/injury events.

              This is a complex problem requiring an agreement by both sides (cba). It has to be shown that there is a balance in how the pie is divided while keeping balance in the distribution not just between players but between unequal markets as well. It is how this is done that is obviously difficult.

              I agree that the current system is flawed with the top players enjoying too much leverage in movement and salaries. This has to be controlled somehow. We must not forget that the vast majority "toil" in relative obscurity (eg. Andersen!) while still being amongst the top 400 or so in the world at what they do and with a relatively short shelf life.

              Comment


              • #8
                I know there isn't a free market, I was just replying to a thread in which someone had said there should be one. I felt these changes would be enough to make the league profitable and enjoyable for fans. As for you suggestion I do agree that a minor league system would work for high school players and the NBA actually has a D-League in which players could play for a year and be eligible for the draft. Unfortunately only one player has chosen to do so and until all the top talent decides to foregos college for the D-League and if they pay more than 20k a year which they currently do the NCAA will always have an advantage.
                Your idea for player pay is a good but it could get very complicated in terms of production. How do you judge how a player performs? Is it stats? Playoff performance? How do you compare performance with someone like Bosh who puts up great numbers on a bad team to Pau Gasol or Tim Duncan's average numbers on a great team. It could get very complicated. Like I said one year guarantee would be best but if they added a 30% buyout after the second year it wouldn't be too bad for the players

                Comment


                • #9
                  Letter N wrote: View Post
                  1) This is what's ruining the NHL. The fans want to see the good cities succeed, it's the reason Red Sox/Yankees series get the highest rating. And if you're NY, LA, Dal, whoever and you're willing to spend and spend with a luxury tax to win then you should be allowed, screw all the cheap owners out there.

                  2) why?

                  3) This is an awful idea, and the proof is in the NFL. These are athletes who with one bad step could have their 15 year career (if they're lucky) cut in half and you want to give their billionaire owners the ability to get rid of them at any time they want? Sure some players don't try until the contract year, but that's a risk you take when you give them that contract, no one put a gun to your head and said offer Torkuglu or Vince Carter a contract.

                  4) They did implement a way for players to not move around a lot, that's why the team that had them under contract can offer the most amount of money, and the sign and trade is exactly what you're talking about. Sure TO got screwed this year but that's because Bosh was pretty much willing to walk away and leave the extra money on the table, but look at what NY got back for David Lee.

                  5) This I hate, it was bad enough that we're forcing ADULTS to have to play an extra year in a corrupt system like the NCAA for free but now you want them to go there for 3 years???

                  6) This only works if owners are all smart and agents aren't all smarter than them. So not in reality. In reality you'll have guys like Joe Johnson getting 20 mil, which'll cause Deron Williams to want 22, which'll cause CP3 to want 24, and Amare wont play unless he's the highest paid.

                  basically I don't like any of your ideas. And I'll probably be in the minority but other than a few little loopholes, I think the NBA system is the best one in major sports right now. The good teams with money thrive, the bad teams with cheap owners get a chance to compete and still be profitable and the fans get amazing playoff matchups.
                  1. Hard cap works. It forces owners and GMs to think down the line when giving out a contract. Prevents dynasties from happening. Allows small markets to compete on a fair playing field with the Lakers and Celtics. Future example is the Oklahoma Thunder. The gm did a wonderful job of saving cap space, drafting phenomenal talent and built a playoff team from the ground up. Unfortunately under this system when it comes time to pay Green, Durant and Westbrook someone has to go as the market value of those players is too much for the small market Thunder to absorb.Meanwhile had it been Dallas that drafted those three, paying them wouldn't be a problem. A hard cap would force salaries down for mediocre to good players thereby allowing you to pay top players.

                  2. To save the Isiah Thomases from themselves. There are too many in the NBA. Or should I say David Khans now
                  3. NBA isn't the NFL, its rare for someone to get a serious injury. Happens but rare. It seems like you can tear your ACL just by stepping on the field in the NFL. So cutting a player would be performance induced.
                  4. True, you are correct. Its rare players used to leave teams when free agency hit but I believe the league has evolved. Teams now are saving cap space to spend in free agency instead of trading for big contracts. I think Lebron and company have now set the standard. New York has tons of cap space waiting 2 years from now exactly when Paul and Carmelo are free agents. And the trio in Miami have outs in their contracts 3 years from now just so they can do this again to us. I say nip it in the bud before its too late.
                  5. True, but NFL have the same rules and fans aren't complaining. A minor league be a great idea if it was possible.
                  6.True, but with a hard cap Deron's market value would be based on what teams have available rather than a set amount. It FORCES owners and gms not to overpay because how can you justify giving Rudy Gay 15 million when you have OJ Mayo and Randolph. Assuming the hard cap is set at 58 million how can any team offer Rudy Gay 25% of the cap when they must surround him with equally as good players who will want Rudy Gay money. Deron won't be affected because he's a star and teams can justify paying him 30% of the cap as it only takes a little more talent to win. The guys would really be affected are mediocre players. Drew Gooden won't be getting 6 million when you have Bogut and Jennings because his contract may get in their way when it comes time to sign them

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hard caps go against the entire idea of capitalism and the goal of making money. The Lakers/Celtics final had the highest TV ratings for a final in years, Kobe Bryant jersey's fly off the shelf, kids are wearing Laker caps all over the world and you want them to be forced to spend just as little as the Minnesota Timberwolves???

                    In what world does that make any sense. Treat it like a business (because that's what it is), if you can make money spending over the cap (and paying a tax that benefits all the poor teams) then it's on you as an organization to decide if you want to do that. Just because we call it a game doesn't mean it's like monopoly and we all have to start out with the same amount in the bank.

                    It's tough to take when you're living in one of the cities that isn't leading the pack, but the fact is when the big cities thrive the league thrives. The worst thing happening to the league has been the fall of the Knicks in the last few years. Knicks/Lakers final....even my mom is watching that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ibzilla wrote: View Post
                      I know there isn't a free market, I was just replying to a thread in which someone had said there should be one. I felt these changes would be enough to make the league profitable and enjoyable for fans.

                      As for you suggestion I do agree that a minor league system would work for high school players and the NBA actually has a D-League in which players could play for a year and be eligible for the draft. Unfortunately only one player has chosen to do so and until all the top talent decides to foregos college for the D-League and if they pay more than 20k a year which they currently do the NCAA will always have an advantage.
                      Your idea for player pay is a good but it could get very complicated in terms of production. How do you judge how a player performs? Is it stats? Playoff performance? How do you compare performance with someone like Bosh who puts up great numbers on a bad team to Pau Gasol or Tim Duncan's average numbers on a great team. It could get very complicated. Like I said one year guarantee would be best but if they added a 30% buyout after the second year it wouldn't be too bad for the players
                      The one thing that I think the league should do is give fans the option on network telecasts during the season and in the playoffs to listen to the terrible network announcers or to the announcers of the teams that are playing.

                      I would much prefer to listen to the Lakers announcers when the Lakers are on network TV than those network guys and gals. For the most part when the Lakers are on network TV and blacked out locally I turn on the Lakers radio guys and listen on the radio.

                      This is especially true when the games are on ABC/ESPN. The TNT guys are okay but the ESPN/ABC coverage drives me up the wall. I hate it.

                      I don't know if the D-league can sign anyone who is not eligible to play in the NBA; i.e. at least one year removed from their graduating class and 18? or older.

                      As far as the compensation goes. That would have to be worked out between the players union and the league owners in a collective bargaining agreement. I am sure that if they decided to go that way that they could come to some agreement. I would think though that it would reward individual performance based upon some set of pre-agreed metrics and then a certain percentage maybe 30% could come from the player's team's performance.

                      Maybe a breakdown like this

                      50% from a player's performance against a certain set of pre-determined metrics
                      30% from their team's performance during the regular season - Playoffs would be separately computed
                      20% from the leagues general revenues.

                      The 20% would be used to determine the minimum salary of all players based upon some pre-determined prior season performance. This way players could be broken down into say 5 classifications and the base pay of the players in each class would be different with the best performing players from the prior season getting the highest minimum guaranteed amount and the rookies and other non-league players in the prior season getting the lowest guaranteed amount. The other 80% of each players pay would come as I suggested above.

                      Clearly when I am talking about the 30% and 50% a total pool would be computed so that the total of all players pay would be broken down 50/30/20. However a player who puts up great numbers against the metrics and his team say wins the most games during the regular season, his pay would have more than 80% coming from the individual performance and team performance pay groups.
                      Last edited by Buddahfan; Fri Jul 30th, 2010, 10:53 PM.
                      Avatar: Riverboat Coffee House 134 Yorkville Ave. billboard of upcoming entertainers - Circa 1960s

                      Memories some so sweet, indeed

                      Larger Photo of the avatar



                      “As a captain, I played furiously. I drew a lot of fouls, but I brought everything I had to every practice and to every game. I left everything on the court because I simply wanted the team to win”
                      Quote from well known personality who led their high school team to a state championship.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ibzilla wrote: View Post
                        I love the NBA. But after watching out of shape veterans (Eddy Curry), injury prone players who get paid too much (Bynum, Mcgrady), highschoolers who get drafted on potential (Darius Miles and almost everyone else) I'm getting tired of it. Thank goodness the CBA is expiring and really hope David Stern takes my ideas and runs with it. I would be willing to wait 2 years of lockout if this would happen!!

                        1. Implement a hard cap that would force owners with deep pockets from aquiring talent by simply agreeing to take on more money. (ie Gasol to Lakers and every single Dallas Maverick trade)

                        2. Shorten contract length to 4 years.

                        3. Non-guaranteed contracts after first season. This rule forces mediocre players entering their twilight of their career to simply relax after their "last contract" (ie Turkoglu)

                        4. Implement some sort of strategy to reduce free agent movement or compensation system. Adding a "franchise" tag to the NBA would prevent Lebron from severely reducing the franchise value. If not, add a compensation system in which franchise players are rewarded with a supplemental lottery pick depending on the impact of the player and where he was chosen in the draft. (ex Lebron would be top 5 pick, Amare top 10 pick) This would give hope to the franchise base and attendance wouldn't significantly drop if another superstar is drafted

                        5. Force college players to stay 3 years in school before eligible for draft. High school players and one-and-done players are being drafted on potential rather than production taking roster spots away from players that can contribute right away. Everyone wants to see John Wall right away but he would come in the league more NBA ready and have a greater impact 3 years later. Players like Derozan would benefit the most.

                        6. No more MAX contracts. If there is a hard cap teams can pay the players what they deem are worth. This would help as superstars would make the money they deserve and fans don't have to worry about multiple superstars playing on one team. That would not be possible unless they agree to take significantly less than they are worth. (Bosh, Wade, Lebron are taking 2 million less a year which will easily be recovered from endorsements) Under this system cap room really does matter. If NY is offering 30 MILL to Lebron and MIA is offering 14.5 it will be almost impossible to turn that down.

                        These are some basic strategies that would get veterans to play harder and young players would be more seasoned. Franchises like Indiana wouldn't have to struggle paying mediocre players 10 mill a year and "salary dump" trades wouldn't happen as every team can cut a player like the NFL. Teams would be competitive and trades would be fair. The product will improve drastically as players don't have the umbrella of knowing they are getting paid guaranteed dollars for x amount of years and would have to play hard.
                        1. I agree with that. The NBA is still like the MLB with the soft cap. Consequences of soft or no cap is that rich franchises like the Lakers, Yankees and Red Sox continue to win championships almost every year which is bad for competition and other team fans. The best model leagues are still the NHL and the NFL where small market teams like the Pittsburgh Penguins, Pittsburgh Steelers, New Orlean Saints, Detroit Red Wings and Indiana Colt win even though they are not the richest. However, due to the ridiculous contracts given this offseason, the hard cap can not be implemented in the new CBA. The next CBA after this one is when a hard cap would likely be implemented however with moratorium on no extensions to five year and above 2010 contracts and notification of an hard cap at least 3 years before such CBA(ideally the next CBA after this one should be 5 years after the coming one).

                        2.They can still keep it at 5 years and above but a suggestion is to make half of all new contracts with this coming new CBA unguaranteed(this might suck for the players but other owners might want to trade for them and for albatross contracts(an Okafor-Like contract), they can be traded easily as a result). Elimination of trade kickers is also something they should be looking at.

                        3.See 2.

                        4. I agree with the "franchise" tag suggestion, it breeds competition which I want to see. A way of preventing rich franchises from snapping up franchise players is the losing team priority based on the "franchise" tag status in the draft over a team still with their franchise player and a hefty "franchise tax" to the rich teams to discourage a non-leveling of competition by rich franchises. Other suggestions can be made too and the bird rights exception should still be retained.

                        5. I really agree with 5. Kareem Abdul talked about having an age limit of 21 years to the NBA which I support. Notice that the oldest player in the Top 6 of the 2003 class(the most hyped draft class ever) - Wade, has been the only one to win a championship among other drafted players like Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh and LeBron. Actually, I will support an age-limit instead of the 3 year college limit as some students transfer from other countries to the United States and enter college at less than 18. Such age limit would breed maturity in our athletes and improve the play of the game(see so many air balls this season as evidence).

                        6. I will still say keep the max contracts as bidding for players also reduces the level of competition overall in the NBA. The max contracts should however be lowered to around $10-12 million(with the hard cap lowered of course!) as obtains in the NFL. A graduated system rewards athletes who put in a lot of work on the court.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Letter N wrote: View Post
                          Hard caps go against the entire idea of capitalism and the goal of making money. The Lakers/Celtics final had the highest TV ratings for a final in years, Kobe Bryant jersey's fly off the shelf, kids are wearing Laker caps all over the world and you want them to be forced to spend just as little as the Minnesota Timberwolves???

                          In what world does that make any sense. Treat it like a business (because that's what it is), if you can make money spending over the cap (and paying a tax that benefits all the poor teams) then it's on you as an organization to decide if you want to do that. Just because we call it a game doesn't mean it's like monopoly and we all have to start out with the same amount in the bank.

                          It's tough to take when you're living in one of the cities that isn't leading the pack, but the fact is when the big cities thrive the league thrives. The worst thing happening to the league has been the fall of the Knicks in the last few years. Knicks/Lakers final....even my mom is watching that.
                          Capitalism actually sucks too like Communism/Socialism. Capitalism breeds big companies that are too big to fail(Lehmann brothers, AIG are companies that helped the recession get worse, they had lots of employees and had to be bailed out while their CEOs either still went on lavish vacations or were given huge severance packages for retirement as a "reward" for financial recklessness), billionaires that employ lots of tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes(they are rich already!, it is not like billions of tax will affect them that much) and multinational companies that take profit over safety and the overall benefit of society(see BP over handling of oil spill from oil well that should have been maintained or repaired but repairs were scrapped because they did not want to lose immediate profits; Walmart, Nike, Sam's Club, Apple outsourcing their jobs out of the American populace hands to reduce costs; Ford with its handling of Ford Pinto in the 70s where they also favored profits over repairs). Why do you think Canada is actually faring better than our Southern brothers during the recession? It is because Canada has a mixed economic system which should be the ideal economic system. Notice we don't have lots of billionaires like our Southern Brothers, the few billionaires we have pay hefty taxes to the government, big corporations here are usually Crown Corporations that are accountable to themselves and the populace for any financial recklessness and there are pressure groups and immigration laws (workers permit given if the job can not employ a Canadian beyond any reasonable doubt) here against corporations outsourcing jobs(see outcry against Royal Dutch Shell when they were employing lots of Mexicans for cheaper pay at the Athabasca Oil Sands and Fort McMurray). I would love to see how a double dip recession or depression(which is likely) affects our Southern neighbours than us and see if you still support Capitalism after that. End of rant. This is a basketball site, know this dialogue does not belong here and I just want to give my opinion about this for supporters of capitalism that think it is the best economic system.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Should NBA adopt NFL-like player movement rules? Good question
                            July 30, 2010
                            By Ken Berger
                            CBSSports.com Senior Writer

                            The Summer of LeBron has evolved into the Summer of CP3, with the countdown eventually leading to the Summer of the Lockout. The transformational changes brought about by the free-agent class of 2010 will affect the competitive balance in the NBA for years to come.

                            But is the formation of Miami's Superteam, coupled with the unhappiness of Chris Paul in New Orleans, a sign that the NBA's system of player salaries and player movement is in crisis? As you might expect, the owners will argue "yes" in the coming months. The players will continue to stump for the status quo.
                            much more on link

                            http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...-good-question

                            My initial gut reaction is that the concept of the franchise player depending on how difficult it would be for a player to leave his/her team goes back to the pre Lou Brock days in baseball. Prior to the Brock case player's were essentially slaves/chattels of the owners. I would hate to see the NBA go this route and turn their players into slaves from a freedom of movement perspective, albeit extremely well paid ones.

                            I also don't buy the argument that the use of the franchise player concept will help to level the field. In baseball before the Brock decision the Yankees were a lot more dominant than they have been since. In football usually a team with a great quarterback will dominate for a decade or more, though they may not win the Superbowl every year. Look at the Colts and Manning. The Colts every season have one of the best records and dominate the regular season play. It is just that they have managed only one Superbowl victory under Manning's leadership.

                            So I am not convinced that the concept of the franchise player does not create the opposite effect of allowing one team to dominate for a decade. The Cavs have had one of the best teams in the league the last four - five years during the regular season. If they had been able to designate James as a franchise player then their dominance would have continued for another five years if not more.

                            it seems to me that the more player movement allowed the better. The only thing I would change is put in some form of compensation for a lost player like they do in the baseball draft. So in this case with James being rated a top player Cleveland would get say an inserted pick in next season's draft at say between the #1 and #2 picks and maybe another extra one later in the first round in addition to what their normal picks would be.
                            Avatar: Riverboat Coffee House 134 Yorkville Ave. billboard of upcoming entertainers - Circa 1960s

                            Memories some so sweet, indeed

                            Larger Photo of the avatar



                            “As a captain, I played furiously. I drew a lot of fouls, but I brought everything I had to every practice and to every game. I left everything on the court because I simply wanted the team to win”
                            Quote from well known personality who led their high school team to a state championship.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Buddahfan wrote: View Post
                              much more on link

                              http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...-good-question

                              My initial gut reaction is that the concept of the franchise player depending on how difficult it would be for a player to leave his/her team goes back to the pre Lou Brock days in baseball. Prior to the Brock case player's were essentially slaves/chattels of the owners. I would hate to see the NBA go this route and turn their players into slaves from a freedom of movement perspective, albeit extremely well paid ones.

                              I also don't buy the argument that the use of the franchise player concept will help to level the field. In baseball before the Brock decision the Yankees were a lot more dominant than they have been since. In football usually a team with a great quarterback will dominate for a decade or more, though they may not win the Superbowl every year. Look at the Colts and Manning. The Colts every season have one of the best records and dominate the regular season play. It is just that they have managed only one Superbowl victory under Manning's leadership.

                              So I am not convinced that the concept of the franchise player does not create the opposite effect of allowing one team to dominate for a decade. The Cavs have had one of the best teams in the league the last four - five years during the regular season. If they had been able to designate James as a franchise player then their dominance would have continued for another five years if not more.

                              it seems to me that the more player movement allowed the better. The only thing I would change is put in some form of compensation for a lost player like they do in the baseball draft. So in this case with James being rated a top player Cleveland would get say an inserted pick in next season's draft at say between the #1 and #2 picks and maybe another extra one later in the first round in addition to what their normal picks would be.
                              In the NFL and MLB there is a compensation system or a franchise tag that restrict player movement and there aren't any complaints that the system should be changed. In the NFL the player is top 5 paid at his position and can always negotiate a long term contract if the uncertainty of a one year contract is too much. Yet in both sports no one player, including the quarterback, has more impact than a franchise player in basketball.
                              In the NFL a team can win the Superbowl with an average quarterback (Ravens). The loss to one player isn't really a big deal because of the depth of a 53 man roster. Almost every year a great player goes down with an injury for the season only to be replaced by an even better backup. (ie Tom Brady)
                              In the MLB one hitter can be pitched around and one pitcher pitches only once a week. The Blue Jays have a better record without Halladay.
                              But no one can argue that a loss to Lebron James will devastate that franchise. I wouldn't be surprised if they won 20 games next season. Look at history, every single team had at least one superstar player carry that team (Bulls, Rockets,Lakers,Spurs,Miami,Boston) the only team that is the exception is Detroit and that is because they had a team with 5 all-stars rather than one or two superstars which is near impossible to recreate. In other sports a team can survive and even win without a superstar, but in the NBA its almost impossible.

                              Also a lot of fans associate their loyalty to players rather than organizations. When Allen Iverson left Philly it seemed that he took half the fans with him as that arena looks half empty now. The casual fan may watch a game just to watch Kobe vs Lebron but won't watch Kobe vs the Cavs.
                              There is nothing wrong with the league implementing rules so that it can thrive as a whole rather than to be top heavy like the MLB and the players can complain all they want but they are being well compensated for their troubles and can play in Europe if they don't like the rules as they have that option. No one is forcing them to play in the NBA. They placed their names eligible for the draft and hence must succumb to league rules. Thats not slavery. At the end of the day the NBA is a business and the players are employees and they must work together to make sure both sides are happy. If prospective players weren't able to play anywhere outside the NBA and were getting paid a very small percentage of revenue I would agree but these athletes chose the NBA and are getting more than 60% of revenue.

                              Player movement helps teams in my opinion. Amare Stoudemire going to NY helps them. Boozer to the Bulls helps Chicago. But Lebron to Miami destroys Cleveland, Chris Paul leaving New Orleans kills them and Carmelo leaving Denver doesn't help either. Awarding a top pick to teams that lose these players isn't bad but sometimes it isn't enough. Its very rare for those type of athletes to come in the draft as you may get Bargnani one year and Dwight Howard the next. Small market teams are doomed to fail under this CBA as even when they manage to get the "once every 10 years" type player, the clock starts ticking right away. The team has 4 years to make a pitch to "convince" the talent to stay once his deal is up. I doubt Lebron would have stayed 3 years ago if he wasn't from Akron. If I'm Indiana, New Orleans, Charlotte, Toronto, Memphis, Minny ect ect I'm crossing my fingers every time my team drafts a star right away and my point is it shouldn't have to come down to that.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X