Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • planetmars wrote: View Post
    My point however is that with the system in the last CBA you would need to either draft a potential HOF'er, and then build around them (and hope they don't leave when they become a FA), or essentially be a farm team for a team that is more attractive.
    Let me fix that for you:

    My point however is that in the last 60 years in the NBA you would need to either draft a potential HOF'er, and then build around them and hope they don't leave when they become a FA), or essentially be a farm team for a team that is more attractive.

    Comment


    • WJF wrote: View Post
      The players keep saying all they want is a fair deal. News flash players, the last deal was so far in your favor that you can't even see what a fair deal is. Get this crap over with and sign a fucking deal!!!
      I second this notion.

      Comment


      • slaw wrote: View Post
        Well, as to the first point, I was trying to be dipomatic to the poster but if you want me to refer to him as the one whining and blaming and someone else for the failures of his team, well, done!
        I didn't read what he said as "whining". He voiced his opinion on the issue. There's no need to put the guy down for having a view contrary to yours. Your post made it sound like you were suggesting that the Raptors were "crying woe is me, blaming someone else and looking for their fairy godmother to bail them out" and that what they need to do is "do a better job". The wording led to my confusion.

        slaw wrote: View Post
        As for the second point, I think you should go back and read your own posts. No one on here is more emotionally invested in "system changes" believing they are the key to greater parity. You've been hammering on it for months - don't bail at this point and hedge with some wishy-washy "well, good management, luck, timing, etc." matter, too. Y
        Never have I said:

        slaw wrote: View Post
        all about the salary cap
        That implies that I consider only one issue to be the problem. I've said time and time again that in the current system the thing that separates well managed teams in the end is money. I've said without an even playing field good managers can't maintain good programs in small markets. I've said that one big mistake for a small market team means a lot of suffering. I've said that one big mistake for a big market team is a non-issue if the owners are willing to toss more money at the issue.

        slaw wrote: View Post
        You and Matt have been vociferously supporting major system changes, if your position is hedged so much that my generalization isn't applicable, then why the hell do you care so much?
        I care about being misquoted because if I didn't say it, I didn't say it. It's the principle of it all.

        Comment


        • slaw wrote: View Post
          As a sidenote, I love how awful owners like Sarver, Jordan, Gilbert, the Simons, Heisley, etc. have convinced their fans that the real reason they can't compete is the salary cap system. Got nothing to do with the fact they have run their teams into the ground with horrible management. Nope, all about the salary cap. Once fixed, the Charlotte Bobcats will rise from the ashes! It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad....
          I think the hypocracy from some of these guys is ridiculous. Gilbert seemed to have no problems throwing money around when his meal ticket was in his pocket.... and then once its not there anymore... "oh I can't compete with the big spenders, you need to spend to win and I can't afford it so Cleveland doesn't stand a chance". Bullshit. What he's really saying is... "I don't want to take risks. I never had to worry about that before because I had a guaranteed money maker. Now all of a sudden my decisions have consequences? Screw that! Someone keep me from being responsible for my own actions"

          Comment


          • GT, do you realize how much money LeBron James brought state of Ohio and the Cleveland Caveliers? Gilbert's statements are very plausible.

            Comment


            • Apollo wrote: View Post
              The Knicks are a bad example. They were absolutely horrible from 2001 all the way up to their epic cap dump a few years back. I would rather use a team like the Mavs as an example of a team who spends a lot and has spent it's way out of trouble in the past. You need good management and a good bank roll to compete every year in the NBA right now. If you have just one or the other you're probably not going to stick around long.
              All a team needs is good management to compete every year.... and good management will create a good bank roll.

              The evidence is abundant and throughout this thread. You don't need to spend to win. You just need to be smart and sometimes that means knowing when to spend and when not to. Just like every business on the face of the earth.

              The Knicks are a GREAT example of this.

              Comment


              • Apollo wrote: View Post
                GT, do you realize how much money LeBron James brought state of Ohio and the Cleveland Caveliers? Gilbert's statements are very plausible.
                that is EXACTLY my point.

                Comment


                • planetmars wrote: View Post
                  I'm under the impression that you would rather have status-quo then right?
                  No. I am not really sure what system would work best in the NBA. The problem is simple: you have a game where one player makes an enormous difference but where there are only maybe, maybe 10 of those guys in the league at any given time. Even then, the difference between what a Lebron can do and what a Chris Paul can do is vastly different even though they are both franchise guys.

                  I think some things would help. One thing I would like to see is longer cost control of drafted players: instead of 4 years, make it 7. This gives you a guy through the first part of his prime career. I also think compensation for free agents should be considered. Not exactly sure how this would work but, for example, let's say that you sign a Lebron James type from Cleveland. Maybe it's sandwich picks in the lottery, cash and maybe even actual players back to Cleveland. I would end sign and trades, which are absolutely ridiculous. I would also allow "home team discounts" at a greater level. Let's say 6yr deals as opposed to 4yrs and a 20% max salary difference. Most importantly, the NBA would have to adopt the NFL's national model of revenue sharing as opposed to its historic regional model. Without that, the rest likely doesn't change much for the dregs of the league.

                  Comment


                  • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                    that is EXACTLY my point.
                    Ok, so the Cavs lost their franchise player and got virtually nothing in return. The whole system was heavily built around that one player and there was no one even remotely decent enough to fill that role. They didn't even have a couple guys who could help share such a role. As a result the next season went down the drain. I'd imagine their gate numbers were down and they no doubt took a big hit in other revenue streams. So LeBron leaves town, leaving them empty handed and then Gilbert says he can't afford to field a big spending team anymore. What's the point you're making here just so we're clear? His decisons had consequences before LeBron left. If he didn't put together a winning product at all cost he was going to lose his superstar(his main gate draw) due to a crappy system.

                    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                    All a team needs is good management to compete every year.... and good management will create a good bank roll.
                    Well you'll need to prove that statement because I disagree. If you're telling me the Oklahoma City will be able to afford a $90M cap number plus taxes if they keep drafting well, adding guys and negotiating new contracts with their stud players then I have to strongly disagree.

                    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                    The evidence is abundant and throughout this thread. You don't need to spend to win. You just need to be smart and sometimes that means knowing when to spend and when not to. Just like every business on the face of the earth.
                    I again disagree. The evidence is not all over this thread. It's actually the contrary. You're far more likely to field a good team if you can afford to spend well about cap. The teams who are below cap who do well are typically teams at the final stages of a rebuild who have stars on their rookie deals. Like Oklahoma City and Chicago for example.

                    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                    he Knicks are a GREAT example of this.
                    So you only need one example to validate your view point?

                    Comment


                    • slaw wrote: View Post
                      No. I am not really sure what system would work best in the NBA. The problem is simple: you have a game where one player makes an enormous difference but where there are only maybe, maybe 10 of those guys in the league at any given time. Even then, the difference between what a Lebron can do and what a Chris Paul can do is vastly different even though they are both franchise guys.

                      I think some things would help. One thing I would like to see is longer cost control of drafted players: instead of 4 years, make it 7. This gives you a guy through the first part of his prime career. I also think compensation for free agents should be considered. Not exactly sure how this would work but, for example, let's say that you sign a Lebron James type from Cleveland. Maybe it's sandwich picks in the lottery, cash and maybe even actual players back to Cleveland. I would end sign and trades, which are absolutely ridiculous. I would also allow "home team discounts" at a greater level. Let's say 6yr deals as opposed to 4yrs and a 20% max salary difference. Most importantly, the NBA would have to adopt the NFL's national model of revenue sharing as opposed to its historic regional model. Without that, the rest likely doesn't change much for the dregs of the league.
                      One thing I'd like to note is that there already are cost controls for the first 7 years. Rookie scale contract, RFA and then max salary based on 'years of service' (for lack of a better term)

                      Otherwise I think what you said is spot on.... I'd also add to the first part (and something I mentioned a few weeks ago), is that while one can never completely change the value one individual player has to the sport, it can be limited by changing some of the NBA rules (or more specifically an approach to rules... ie. star calls). This ofcourse will never be a discussion point as those star players are what make these teams their $, and its that 'star status' that makes the players individually wealthy.

                      Comment


                      • One last post. I would like to see an addendum added to the new CBA, the owners get what they want but no more taxpayer money.... Read the whole thing.

                        http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=21043

                        But sports economist and former IUPUI dean Mark Rosentraub is less convinced.

                        “I’m not sure how you can operate in one of the nicest facilities in the league essentially rent free, and be so far in the red,” Rosentraub said Monday morning.

                        Rosentraub also pointed out that eight of those 11 years were during relatively economic robust times.

                        “If the CIB is so convinced in the accuracy of those figures, which happened during some very robust times for the city and the state, you’d have to ask, 'Is the conclusion that the Pacers can’t be operated profitably in this city?' If that’s the case, what could possibly change in two to three years to turn this thing around, or are we looking at a long-term situation of paying to keep the Pacers here?”

                        While Rosentraub said he thinks the Pacers and Conseco Fieldhouse are important components to a vital downtown, he said the CIB and Pacers should put all the financial cards on the table.

                        “The CIB is a public agency,” Rosentraub said. “If these numbers are real, what’s the hesitancy?”

                        Comment


                        • slaw wrote: View Post
                          Let me fix that for you:

                          My point however is that in the last 60 years in the NBA you would need to either draft a potential HOF'er, and then build around them and hope they don't leave when they become a FA), or essentially be a farm team for a team that is more attractive.
                          Yes, good point.. however unfortunately one key difference between players now versus players back in the day were that they wouldn't jump ship in their prime and want to play with other top all-stars/HOF'ers.

                          Any advantage the Raptors can obtain by a system change is a good thing in my opinion. We are already playing with certain disadvantages (in a foreign country, bad weather, basketball isn't the top sport in the city, etc)... it would be nice to get something positive to help the Raptors compete with some of the more advantageous teams in the league like Miami, LA, NY, etc.

                          The NBA may never be able to have perfect parity since there are only a handful of guys in a league of 450 that actually make a difference.. but you should be able to bridge the gap a little bit to help even the playing field out for all the other teams that don't have those players. Why should a team with two potential HOF'ers also be able to pay for really good role players?

                          Comment


                          • Apollo wrote: View Post
                            Ok, so they Cavs lost their franchise player and got virtually nothing in return. The whole system was heavily built around that one player and there was no one even remotely decent enough to fill that role. They didn't even have a couple guys who could help share such a role. As a result the next season went down the drain. I'd imagine their gate numbers were down and they no doubt took a big hit in other revenue streams. So LeBron leaves town, leaving them empty handed and then Gilbert says he can't afford to field a big spending team anymore. What's the point you're making here just so we're clear? His decisons had consequences before LeBron left. If he didn't put together a winning product at all cost he was going to lose his superstar(his main gate draw) due to a crappy system.
                            well a few things here:

                            1) Cleveland was top 5 (?) in attendance last year. But I imagine they cut ticket prices so I can't tell you what their gate income was

                            2) yes the lost their franchise player and got nearly nothing in return.... and how can that be helped? Lebron didn't leave because of money. Something like Slaw mentioned... adding additional sandwhich picks... would atleast offer some compensation.

                            3) no discussion of how Gilbert spent that money and the inevitable consequences of it? He had 3 of the worst contracts in the NBA on his team to go with Lebron - Shaq, Mo Williams and Antwan Jamison. Shouldn't that be a HUGE part of the discussion? His wasteful spending NEEDS to be in the discussion

                            4) His team was a top team in the league for half a decade... always a contender and he still lost his superstar. Exactly how did the system force him to waste his money with out considering the consequences of said action?


                            Like I said though, its his hypocracy here. He WAS one of the 'big spending culprits' until just this year. Now he wants people to 'do as he says not as he does' because its currently convient for him. Thats the definition of hypocracy.

                            Comment


                            • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              I think the hypocracy from some of these guys is ridiculous. Gilbert seemed to have no problems throwing money around when his meal ticket was in his pocket.... and then once its not there anymore... "oh I can't compete with the big spenders, you need to spend to win and I can't afford it so Cleveland doesn't stand a chance". Bullshit. What he's really saying is... "I don't want to take risks. I never had to worry about that before because I had a guaranteed money maker. Now all of a sudden my decisions have consequences? Screw that! Someone keep me from being responsible for my own actions"
                              A) Can you source me those quotes attributed to Gilbert or like statements. I havent come across those sentiments other than he was pretty pissed when LeBron went thru that "Decision" charade.

                              B) Why did Lebron leave really? Was it the salary? Were the seasonal records not amongst the best in the league? Did the Cavaliers not spend enough? Did the Cavs not accomodate him with a coach of choice, special considerations for his posse and available free agents really to the long term detriment of the org?

                              Addendum: Are you absolutely sure that the bad spending on free agents were not done at Lebron's request...or should I say demands? I believe Ferry woulnt make a move without consulting LBJ
                              Last edited by Bendit; Wed Nov 9, 2011, 12:03 PM. Reason: Just saw your most recent post

                              Comment


                              • slaw wrote: View Post
                                Well, as to the first point, I was trying to be dipomatic to the poster but if you want me to refer to him as the one whining and blaming and someone else for the failures of his team, well, done!

                                As for the second point, I think you should go back and read your own posts. No one on here is more emotionally invested in "system changes" believing they are the key to greater parity. You've been hammering on it for months - don't bail at this point and hedge with some wishy-washy "well, good management, luck, timing, etc." matter, too. You and Matt have been vociferously supporting major system changes, if your position is hedged so much that my generalization isn't applicable, then why the hell do you care so much?

                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X