Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

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

  • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    but there is also no guarantee they won't either (we've seen time and time again team's ability to spend when they are 'good'... hell this entire Cleveland discussion is based on that).... nor is there a guarantee they will or can anywhere else (Dwight sure looks like he's leaving Orlando).

    If the exceptions are changed with the current system, rather than the entire system itself, teams can still be limited in their ability to spend while allowing teams that are patient and make good decisions to continue to do business to their ultimate potential.
    I realize there are no guarantees - there is no guarantee they could all be kept in a hard cap system and there is no guarantee they can be kept in a soft cap system (OKC this refers to).

    It is not only a question of spending. It is a question of not operating in the red as this is not sustainable for the majority of franchises.

    Maybe Cleveland could afford to operate in the red. Maybe long term they couldn't. Maybe they were still profitable despite the huge payroll.

    Orlando is a small market team that has lost more money than any other team in the league ($23M according to Forbes) but with one of the highest payrolls because the owner is a billionaire who loves his franchise toy.

    San Antonio is a small market team that has been very well managed and made sound business decisions yet have not operated at a profit in 2 seasons despite their on court success and have historically stayed out of the luxury tax.


    My only point is the hard/flex cap or punitive luxury tax may break up a team but the inability to spend with the big boys may also break up a team. However in these two situations there is only one that a team/management can plan and prepare for: hard/flex cap or much more punitive luxury tax system. And in those two situations, as a fan, I'd rather have my anger directed towards the management which can be fixed/removed/fired versus a system of which there is no opportunity to change for 6-10 years.


    The old system is broken there is no questioning this. Hopefully we'll have a better idea of a new system before long tonight.
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Wed Nov 9, 2011, 04:27 PM.

    Comment


    • Bendit wrote: View Post
      If all those "Gilbert decisions" (I think u are assuming LJ had nothing to do with them) were so bad the record of the Cavs in the 5 yrs prior to LJ leaving was !st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th. Not bad with 60 some wins in the 1st 2 yrs. This defense of using bad decision making on the part of ownership as the major if not only reason why teams find themselves in a spending quandary is really quite simplistic. It has nothing to do with the system at hand?? The owners need to have fiscal discipline all while they are made to grovel at free agents no matter their abilities or fit to the team to appease their stud player that they are "trying" when of course the judicious course would be the draft or a trade (which doesnt just pop up when you want it) is best. Ah, but that would be slumming it...take the easy way out and hook up with some biggies in an elaborate 3 yr scheme to line up expiry of their contracts in the same year.

      Btw sorry about the misunderstanding in the previous note. My intention was to in fact indicate that I do not believe that a hard cap in of it self is sufficient. The need for something like a franchise tag or increased length of restrictive agency etc is needed, all that would be unacceptable to the PA.

      I shall try and find some links/reports which I remember about LJ's choices of Williams and Shaq.
      Two things here:

      1) they are ultimately Dan Gilbert decisions. While Lebron James may say "I like that player", or "I want that player"... Dan Gilbert pays those bills. He either chooses those players or allowed Lebron James to decide the players. There is a very real problem with the 2nd possibility....

      2) with an almost identical team, minus Lebron James, they became the worst in the league. Lebron James WAS that team. Imagine what would have been possible had Cleveland not made terrible decisions.

      One final point. Exactly who signs the cheques for the teams? Exactly who has final say as two what costs they will incur for their business? There is nothing simplistic about the idea of an owner of a business being responsible for what he does with his business. These are not issue outside a teams control... these were ALL business decisions.

      Comment


      • David Stern
        Derek Fisher said:

        “We’re open to discussions, open to negotiation. We’re open-minded about potential compromises on our number, but there are things in the system that are not up for discussion that we have to have in order to able to get this season going.”

        This is what bothers me about all the ultimatum talk the players say they receive from the owners. In my opinion the players have been doing the same with comments like the above and the whole ‘blood issue’ business.

        You cannot say the owners have not been negotiating in good faith when from the onset of negotiations you are telling the other party (owners) we are not willing to discuss this (hard/flex cap, guaranteed contracts) and then get upset when they are unwilling to move on that (BRI, exemptions and S&T for tax payers). What do you think Larry?

        (Great work throughout the lockout by the way!)

        Larry Coon
        Yes. The only real “bad faith” claims come from the owners: 1) Overreaching; and 2) Trying to say it’s about competitive balance when it’s not.

        The players would be issuing a lot more ultimatums if they were legally able to do so. The only thing they can really threaten them with is decertification, and there are reasons they can’t use decertification as a threat. Even yesterday they were careful to point out that they hardly discussed decertification.


        http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-salary...ry-coon-11911/
        Larry Coon answered my question!

        Comment


        • jimmie wrote: View Post
          So you admit the system needs to be changed. The players don't, and don't want changes. That's a pretty solid hole in your support for the players.

          Also, re: LBJ -- It's been intimated that he had all the leverage while in Cleveland, and it's common knowledge that he exercised it to its fullest. There was no FA signing during his time in Cleveland that wasn't either pushed or endorsed by LBJ. So tell me again how this "partner" of Dan Gilbert's held up his end of the bargain? Gilbert fell all over himself to put a team around LBJ, endorsed by LBJ, in hopes of winning/enticing LBJ to stay. LBJ pushes for signings, threatens management with leaving, gets one coach fired, etc. At the end of the day, the team wins over 60 games the year before he leaves, but still that's not enough for LBJ.

          If you're a "partner", esp. one with so much front office swing, you need to belly up. Cleveland did EVERYTHING for Lebron, and it wasn't enough. This is the kind of thing that can only be solved by significant system changes that take that kind of irrational leverage away from the players.
          since when do I "support the players"? Because I don't believe there should be a hard cap and I think fans are putting the blame for a lockout on the players? That isn't supporting the players.... and never have I been against change, or some atleast somes changes to the league. In fact I want even more changes... which include greater revenue sharing and rule changes (again more specifically to how the rules are called)

          The 'hole' in your entire idea is somehow thinking this is about me being with one side or another

          Oh and can I see this "bargain" that Lebron signed with Dan Gilbert to make decisions and stay with the team? Was it an unwritten agreement? Verbal? Or just implied?

          Did Lebron make some decisions? I'm sure he did.... but if thats true that hardly liberates Gilbert from allow him to?

          Comment


          • Matt52 wrote: View Post
            I realize there are no guarantees - there is no guarantee they could all be kept in a hard cap system and there is no guarantee they can be kept in a soft cap system (OKC this refers to).

            It is not only a question of spending. It is a question of not operating in the red as this is not sustainable for the majority of franchises.

            Maybe Cleveland could afford to operate in the red. Maybe long term they couldn't. Maybe they were still profitable despite the huge payroll.

            Orlando is a small market team that has lost more money than any other team in the league ($23M according to Forbes) but with one of the highest payrolls because the owner is a billionaire who loves his franchise toy.

            San Antonio is a small market team that has been very well managed and made sound business decisions yet have not operated at a profit in 2 seasons despite their on court success and have historically stayed out of the luxury tax.


            My only point is the hard/flex cap or punitive luxury tax may break up a team but the inability to spend with the big boys may also break up a team. However in these two situations there is only one that a team/management can plan and prepare for: hard/flex cap or much more punitive luxury tax system. And in those two situations, as a fan, I'd rather have my anger directed towards the management which can be fixed/removed/fired versus a system of which there is no opportunity to change for 6-10 years.


            The old system is broken there is no questioning this. Hopefully we'll have a better idea of a new system before long tonight.
            But the idea of a hard cap vs cost cutting are not necessarily the same. Remember just like the BRI 'guarantees' how much players make... it also 'guarantees' their cost.

            So if you have a hard cap = BRI teams will have to pay to that point anyways and a hard cap isn't doing anything the BRI isn't already. If the hard cap is < BRI than the teams will have to 'make up' the difference regardless.

            The BRI is what is deciding the costs. (atleast at a Macro level)

            Thats not even getting into the relationship between winning and making money. A better team will get more fans and more media coverage and be able to charge more. So if a team is 'forced' to be worse because of the hard cap they could just as easily lose potential money as they will be able to make money. And then ofcourse if the cap has a bottom... you may be in a NHL situation were teams are forced to lose money to spend at the bottom.

            A hard cap doesn't mean profits.... it just changes the risk levels of teams. (ie. all teams are forced to spend less per player and therefore are all taking less risk per player)

            Comment


            • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
              Two things here:

              1) they are ultimately Dan Gilbert decisions. While Lebron James may say "I like that player", or "I want that player"... Dan Gilbert pays those bills. He either chooses those players or allowed Lebron James to decide the players. There is a very real problem with the 2nd possibility....

              2) with an almost identical team, minus Lebron James, they became the worst in the league. Lebron James WAS that team. Imagine what would have been possible had Cleveland not made terrible decisions.

              One final point. Exactly who signs the cheques for the teams? Exactly who has final say as two what costs they will incur for their business? There is nothing simplistic about the idea of an owner of a business being responsible for what he does with his business. These are not issue outside a teams control... these were ALL business decisions.
              I am afraid you are making my argument for me.

              We are talking about an asset (LBJ) who is so good that HE was the franchise and was worth I believe at leas t 100 million (I think that was the drop in value next day after the decision). The notion that Gilbert would consider not kowtowing to LBJ on just about any basketball matter is ridiculous....and not good business. Like someone else said, there was extortion taking place and signing the cheques was a byproduct. Iam sure Gilbert didnt make his money in his other lives doing the same. You bring up the acquired players again...can you suggest alternatives who were available to when they acquired Williams, Shaq, Jamison & Wallace and whether the Cavs cap position allowed for f/a signings (since they were all trades I believe). I again point to the record of the Cavs I provided and the fact that they could have paid him the most. It's the system. It is skewed.

              Comment


              • Michael Jordan is a classic example of a Superstar not being able to win until he gets a world class supporting cast. For a team to have that level of quality of a roster would require a payroll along the lines of the Lakers in today's system. You do need to spend money to win it and to maintain. It's only a matter of time, not a matter of if, maybe, possibly, whatever. Lay the money on the table or move over. That's the current system.
                Again that is untrue. There is a complete unwillingness here to accept actual factual evidence. But thats hardly coming off as a suprise anymore. It doesn't matter how many times you say a team has to spend to win... it doesn't make it true.

                And to now make this an idea of a 'long term' trend of winning over time... exactly how many teams have been 'good' for a long term? And also how many of those teams had superstars? And how many teams that spent long term without a superstar were successful?

                It all comes back to the superstar talent, time and time again. No matter what you want to say about spending... its still based on that superstar franchise player.


                They're not forced to do that. You've gone off the deep end into Exaggerationland
                You are the one who said they should have "no rights" (exact quote). That would indeed force them into that position. Unless ofcourse it was you who was 'exaggerating' when you said that... in which case you might want to check your location and not mine

                And this is where we say farewell. It's not worth continuing discussing this if you see nothing wrong with the players strong arming organizations. It's a highly unethical practice which can hurt far more people than just a fat guy in a suit. Just ask the state of Ohio
                when did I ever say, or even imply, that players 'strong arming' organizations is acceptable or "ethical"? Where did that even come up? All I said in my reply is that not ALL players do it or will do it. You are completely making stuff up now.

                But since you mentioned it.... why is Lebron James suddenly beholden to the state of ohio? Why is that even part of this discussion? I don't hear you complaining about Michael Jordan when he retired and the people in Illinois who he hurt by doing that. What a dick he was huh?

                Nothing has happened. That's why we're heading into mid November with no basketball. The NBA desired to have a model like the NFL. NFL teams don't give guaranteed deals like the NBA.
                nice work trying to avoid the question. Regarless of what the system the owners want the league to 'look like', when did unguaranteed question come back to the table?

                (So they also want 75% revenue sharing? I think you mixed up NHL and NFL... whose contracts are not alike)

                Comment


                • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                  Thats not even getting into the relationship between winning and making money. A better team will get more fans and more media coverage and be able to charge more. So if a team is 'forced' to be worse because of the hard cap they could just as easily lose potential money as they will be able to make money. And then ofcourse if the cap has a bottom... you may be in a NHL situation were teams are forced to lose money to spend at the bottom.

                  A hard cap doesn't mean profits.... it just changes the risk levels of teams. (ie. all teams are forced to spend less per player and therefore are all taking less risk per player)
                  No team is forced to be worse in a hard cap system like the NFL. It's always because of their own doing. You pay your stars well and you scout thoroughly each year to make sure you can fill vacancies when they occur. Just like good management does in a soft cap system. Teams will rise and fall in a hard cap system, just like in a soft cap system. The only difference is the fall is determined solely due to managerial decisions and luck. You also need to consider that all those other teams have to worry about paying their own guys as well and as such you're not going to see about of teams overpaying to get players... Well, not as much anyway. Also as I mentioned earlier if the NBA were to use the NFL as a model then there wouldn't be there fully guaranteed contracts. This means there would be people on roster who are hardly guaranteed anything at all. Those guys are easily expendable. There is always the possibility of contract negotiations in a hard cap system. If the contract doesn't work for either party but they want to keep working together then they re-work the deal. So to summarize, pay the stars well, draft well and cut lose the least value added players to make room for the new influx of talent. That's what good NFL teams do in their hard cap system.

                  In the example of the Thunder we know they have a lot of talent coming up for new contracts. To get around this in the short term they could front load the contracts of those who are first to sign(to bring them up to the cap number) and back load the deals of some of the guys who come on later. That prolongs keeping the group together. Then later they can renegotiate new terms on some of these players, extending their contracts and restructuring them to help them stay at the cap number. To get the player to sign on they could guarantee more money on his new deal. A hard cap system offers far more contract flexibility for the player and the team if they want to keep working together.

                  Comment


                  • Bendit wrote: View Post
                    I am afraid you are making my argument for me.

                    We are talking about an asset (LBJ) who is so good that HE was the franchise and was worth I believe at leas t 100 million (I think that was the drop in value next day after the decision). The notion that Gilbert would consider not kowtowing to LBJ on just about any basketball matter is ridiculous....and not good business. Like someone else said, there was extortion taking place and signing the cheques was a byproduct. Iam sure Gilbert didnt make his money in his other lives doing the same. You bring up the acquired players again...can you suggest alternatives who were available to when they acquired Williams, Shaq, Jamison & Wallace and whether the Cavs cap position allowed for f/a signings (since they were all trades I believe). I again point to the record of the Cavs I provided and the fact that they could have paid him the most. It's the system. It is skewed.
                    I'm completely losing the point you are trying to make. Gilbert HAD to do whatever Lebron said... ok fine. Do you not see an issue with that? Do you really think Gilbert built a major company (quicken loans I believe) by doing everything other people wanted him to? Is Lebron a 'special case', to some degree yes as he is also the product Dan Gilbert sold. But that still doesn't make Gilbert any less responsible for handing over responsibility for his business to someone else. And hell... if thats true, why does he even get any input into these talks? Why not have Lebron James in there as he apparently ran the Cavaliers anyways......

                    Am I the only one who doesn't blame a child for acting like a spoiled brat when their parents encourage that behaviour? Maybe I'm just too old school....

                    Please... when did Dan Gilbert suddenly become a victim?

                    ... oh but if you want a list, if you can please provide me a list of all the players who were completely unavailable over that time period this way I know where not to waste my time........ oh and since your at it, and we apparently need specifics, we should also have crystal clear evidence, not heresay, that Lebron both wanted and demanded all those players. I'll check back regularily for that list and go from there.... good luck.

                    (oh to save you some time.... pretty much anyone not named Gilbert Arenas, Allen Iverson, Ed Curry and Darko Milic were better choices than Mo Williams, Ben Wallace, Shaq and Antoine Jamison. Maybe Gilbert got lucky and they were unavailable.)

                    Comment


                    • Apollo wrote: View Post
                      No team is forced to be worse in a hard cap system like the NFL. It's always because of their own doing. You pay your stars well and you scout thoroughly each year to make sure you can fill vacancies when they occur. Just like good management does in a soft cap system. Teams will rise and fall in a hard cap system, just like in a soft cap system. The only difference is the fall is determined solely due to managerial decisions and luck. You also need to consider that all those other teams have to worry about paying their own guys as well and as such you're not going to see about of teams overpaying to get players... Well, not as much anyway. Also as I mentioned earlier if the NBA were to use the NFL as a model then there wouldn't be there fully guaranteed contracts. This means there would be people on roster who are hardly guaranteed anything at all. Those guys are easily expendable. There is always the possibility of contract negotiations in a hard cap system. If the contract doesn't work for either party but they want to keep working together then they re-work the deal. So to summarize, pay the stars well, draft well and cut lose the least value added players to make room for the new influx of talent. That's what good NFL teams do in their hard cap system.

                      In the example of the Thunder we know they have a lot of talent coming up for new contracts. To get around this in the short term they could front load the contracts of those who are first to sign(to bring them up to the cap number) and back load the deals of some of the guys who come on later. That prolongs keeping the group together. Then later they can renegotiate new terms on some of these players, extending their contracts and restructuring them to help them stay at the cap number. To get the player to sign on they could guarantee more money on his new deal. A hard cap system offers far more contract flexibility for the player and the team if they want to keep working together.
                      why do you keep talking about the "NFL" system? Since when is there even anything close to the NFL coming in?

                      and right now the 'fall' of a team is not decided by managerial decisions or luck? huh... well I guess thats where we differ greatly.

                      And if a player is not given a guaranteed contract (as you would like)... who in there right mind is going to take a back loaded contract? No one.

                      I fail to see how continuing to allow teams to resign their own players above the cap is such a detriment to the league (especially after this long debate of a superstar player leaving their teams.... which apparently isn't as big of a deal if the team allows it to happen) as long as it fits within the given 'rules' (ie. Melo rule, no sign and trade, max salaries etc)

                      Comment


                      • Gilbert HAD to do whatever Lebron said... ok fine. Do you not see an issue with that?
                        Yes, of course -- that's what we're all talking about here. It's a HUGE issue -- maybe the biggest one in these negotiations. Gilbert's hands were technically tied by having to do everything in his power to entice LBJ to stay in Cleveland, as he recognized LBJ was the key factor in any success the Cavs would have over the next 10 years -- both on court and in terms of off-court revenues.

                        You seem to be suggesting it's Gilbert's fault for falling all over himself trying to keep LBJ in town, when the "right" management model would have been to see he was being pushed around by an employee and say "scew you, signing Shaq doesn't make sense, and if you end up leaving, I'm stuck holding the bag." Well, that's good in theory. But not in the reality of running a sports franchise.

                        I don't want system changes that make owners immune to their own decisions. I want system changes that make it more difficult for truly horrendous decisions to affect not only the franchise making them, but the league as a whole. Wall Street made a lot of truly horrible decisions that we're all now bearing the fruits of; the system allowed them to do so. It's all well and good to say that those idiots shouldn't have gotten involved in sub-prime mortgages in the first place, and how could they not foresee how it was all going to turn out, but the damage is already done. We *know* that idiots and rich people will make bad decisions with their money; that's expressly why rules are needed to make those bad decisions less harmful than they might otherwise be.

                        The system needs to change. Bottom line. And the players still don't want it changed.
                        Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

                        Comment


                        • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                          But the idea of a hard cap vs cost cutting are not necessarily the same. Remember just like the BRI 'guarantees' how much players make... it also 'guarantees' their cost.

                          So if you have a hard cap = BRI teams will have to pay to that point anyways and a hard cap isn't doing anything the BRI isn't already. If the hard cap is < BRI than the teams will have to 'make up' the difference regardless.

                          The BRI is what is deciding the costs. (atleast at a Macro level)

                          Thats not even getting into the relationship between winning and making money. A better team will get more fans and more media coverage and be able to charge more. So if a team is 'forced' to be worse because of the hard cap they could just as easily lose potential money as they will be able to make money. And then ofcourse if the cap has a bottom... you may be in a NHL situation were teams are forced to lose money to spend at the bottom.

                          A hard cap doesn't mean profits.... it just changes the risk levels of teams. (ie. all teams are forced to spend less per player and therefore are all taking less risk per player)

                          There is a huge difference between the current players percentage of BRI versus a hard cap with a minimum payroll amount required for each team ensuring players get their share of revenues. That difference is distribution which comes back to the whole issue of the system.

                          When each team has a max and a floor payroll, they are all on the same financial footing. The only excuse for not fielding a competitive team is poor management, poor coaching, and/or poor player performance.


                          With that said, this conversation is going away from the topic I believe I am discussing.


                          This whole discussion, for me, has been about system issues which I want to see changed:

                          no sign and trade
                          no Carmelo situations
                          no player collusion at the expense of a franchise and its fan base
                          no equal or near equal contracts being offered to a free agent i.e. home team gets significant financial advantage



                          With regards to profitability, you may have a point. But given 22 of 30 teams lost money in '09-10 and the league has never turned a profit in 6 years of previous CBA, I have a feeling owners will be wiling to risk the unknown ramifications of a hard cap versus current system in the hopes any losses will be much smaller.

                          Comment


                          • Apollo wrote: View Post
                            In the example of the Thunder we know they have a lot of talent coming up for new contracts. To get around this in the short term they could front load the contracts of those who are first to sign(to bring them up to the cap number) and back load the deals of some of the guys who come on later. That prolongs keeping the group together. Then later they can renegotiate new terms on some of these players, extending their contracts and restructuring them to help them stay at the cap number. To get the player to sign on they could guarantee more money on his new deal. A hard cap system offers far more contract flexibility for the player and the team if they want to keep working together.

                            This is what I am talking about with management being accountable for on court performance versus weather, market, etc.

                            Comment


                            • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              Again that is untrue. There is a complete unwillingness here to accept actual factual evidence. But thats hardly coming off as a suprise anymore. It doesn't matter how many times you say a team has to spend to win... it doesn't make it true.
                              When you say win, what do you mean? I'm talking championships. If you can prove me wrong that you don't need to spend a lot to win rings then prove it. I'm not seeing it in here.

                              GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              And to now make this an idea of a 'long term' trend of winning over time... exactly how many teams have been 'good' for a long term? And also how many of those teams had superstars? And how many teams that spent long term without a superstar were successful?

                              It all comes back to the superstar talent, time and time again. No matter what you want to say about spending... its still based on that superstar franchise player.
                              That question would take a long time to research. You can answer that one yourself. I will say this though. If you feel it all comes down to superstars then a hard cap shouldn't be an issue for you. There is always enough money for the stars in a hard cap system. They're not the guys losing out.

                              GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              You are the one who said they should have "no rights" (exact quote). That would indeed force them into that position. Unless ofcourse it was you who was 'exaggerating' when you said that... in which case you might want to check your location and not mine
                              What page is this exact quote on? You must be taking something out of context. I've been saying they should have no right to tell the teams what to do and the system is broken because they're shouldn't be allowed to strong arm teams.

                              GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              when did I ever say, or even imply, that players 'strong arming' organizations is acceptable or "ethical"? Where did that even come up? All I said in my reply is that not ALL players do it or will do it. You are completely making stuff up now.
                              You basically said that we should turn a blind eye to these unethical practices because to act on it would limit those not conducting unethical practices. I will use an actual direct quote so you don't need to look for a needle in a haystack:
                              GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              Do some players abuse this? Sure. But that does not mean they all do, they all will or that all should lose any influence.

                              Something I didn't comment on before but I will now:
                              GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              And more than anything, the league and the teams shouldn't let them by NOT GIVING THEM THE POWER.
                              The Owners are working on not giving them power. It's the new CBA.

                              GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              But since you mentioned it.... why is Lebron James suddenly beholden to the state of ohio? Why is that even part of this discussion? I don't hear you complaining about Michael Jordan when he retired and the people in Illinois who he hurt by doing that. What a dick he was huh?
                              Why is it part of the conversation? Because LeBron James has a social responsibility as well. I know it has nothing to do with the CBA but I was emphasizing the impact of that particular case. As for the MJ comment, he's no more a dick than you or anybody else will be when they choose to retire. I don't see the common ground between James and Jordan. Jordan was tough, a strong leader and had the heart of a Champion. Also, I didn't call James a dick and I didn't imply he was one for leaving Cleveland. I do think he is a dick though for the record now.

                              GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              nice work trying to avoid the question. Regarless of what the system the owners want the league to 'look like', when did unguaranteed question come back to the table?
                              Come on, I answered the question. Yeah, hard cap and non-guaranteed contracts aren't on the table. The concept of a hard cap came up again and so the discussion of it's positives and negatives hit the discussion floor again. Based on how things are going don't be surprised if the hard cap comes into negotiations again by the way.

                              GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              (So they also want 75% revenue sharing? I think you mixed up NHL and NFL... whose contracts are not alike)
                              I don't understand this piece. I'm not mixing anything up. I never mentioned revenue sharing, I mentioned a hard cap. I said they originally sought a system similar to the NFL who has a hard cap. There are articles on this. Just like there are article about how they admired the NHL system as well.

                              Comment


                              • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                                Why do I care? Because it will be a stronger league in the end.

                                If you truly believe that having each team competing with the same financial restraints does not improve parity, we'll never see eye to eye on this topic.

                                If you believe the current system that has players dictating where they play and who they play with is good for the majority of franchises in the league, we'll never see eye to eye on this topic.

                                Will system changes give every team in the league an opportunity to win? No, but the deciding factor will be coaching and management versus warm weather or cold weather, big city or small city, bloated contract or fair contract.
                                Stronger how? The Pacers claim to have lost $60mm in 2 years. Under the new CBA, by my quick count, they will get something like $9mm (let's say another $10mm in savings). They are still $10mm in the hole/year. As for season-to-season parity, that is simply something that will never exist in the NBA.

                                I wouild agree that spending generally equals more wins but the reality in the NBA is that the spending has to go hand-in-hand with a superstar and there simply aren't enough to go around. Levelling out spending will have some impact but I don't think it's anywhere near as material as that combination of luck and drafting.

                                Your new CBA won't stop players from leaving via FA and demanding trades. It's a personal services industry, the players will always dictate where they play. If you ban free agency they will simply demand trades. If you ban trades they will simply refuse to report until released.

                                On your last point, sorry to burst the bubble, but big cities, warm cities, tax free states, etc. will always have an advantage over small cities in crappy climates. It's true in every single aspect of life, including pro sports. Level salaries, it won't make Milwaukee a sought after destination.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X