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

[GarbageTime]

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.

Jimmie you seem to be missing a huge part of the discussion there. The very fact that he ALLOWED Lebron to make the decision should be a bigger issue than Lebron making the decision. It was still Dan Gilberts company. He is still responsible for it no matter what he allows to happen.

And the above statement is part of my problem with this entire fiasco. Its the 'idiots' who caused the problems and now they aren't saying "we'll stop being idiots", they are saying "we can't stop being idiots so force us to", while draffing every non-idiot down to their level to.

[Apollo]

why do you keep talking about the "NFL" system? Since when is there even anything close to the NFL coming in?

Because the league admires it and if it were in the NBA things would be much better. Also negotiations aren't over and things are about to "reset".

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.

Sometimes. It depends on the mistake. For small market teams every mistake is a huge mistake. For a big market team this is not the case.

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.

That's where guaranteed money comes into play.

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)

Big markets drive their number above cap and then use that extra contract money to capitalize on teams looking to cap dump because they can't afford the escalating roster costs of a growing team.

[mcHAPPY]

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.

And then increase revenue sharing 3-4 fold and *bam* break even.

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.

I've never questioned the roll of luck and drafting. The problem is the current system allows for luck and drafting to not be enough for all teams even with good management.

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.

Give Dwight Howard the option of 5 years and $100M from Orlando or 3 years and $50M from LAL or NYK or Brooklyn/NJN - if he still wants to leave, more power to him, I'll pack his bags.

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.

With only so many dollars to go around and no team able to spend more than another eventually players will have to decide what is more important - money or location. If a player can get 4 years and $32M in Milwaukee but prefer to go for 4 years and $16M in Miami, more power to them, clearly the attributes of Miami will be worth the extra $16M to that player and that is their choice.

If you can find a quote by me where I've said a hard cap would create absolute parity or competitive balance, I will quickly apologize and acknowledge it as incorrect. If you can find a quote by me where I've said players should not have a choice, I will quickly apologize and acknowledge it as incorrect. If you can find a quote by me that says certain markets do not have an advantage over others and all things being equal financially those certain markets will NOT be at an advantage, I will quickly apologize and acknowledge it as incorrect.

I've never said level salaries, I've said distribute them equally among 30 teams with a minimum floor to ensure players receive their full share of revenues.


We've been going over these topics for weeks and months and you are still missing major points of the system I am advocating.

[GarbageTime]

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.

ok so now we are narrowing the field as small as possible. Gotcha.

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.

Winning does come down to superstars... do you disagree with that or not? If not then I guess a hard cap makes all the difference... if so, a hard cap does very little to create competitive balance as the 'competitiveness' of teams is based on a team having superstars.

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.

your right... I read your statement wrong. You were referring to having "no power to hold a team randsom" rather than have "no power and hold teams randsom" It was my mistake.

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.

If part of the consequences of James decision was its result on the state of ohio... so should every player who would have a comparable impact. More than anything, it was sarcasm as James impact on the state of Ohio should not be part of the hard cap/lockout discussion.

The Owners are working on not giving them power. It's the new CBA.

but they don't need a new CBA to 'not give them power'. They can just stop doing it. That is, stop letting them make decisions for their own companies. Yes it may make for some 'tough' decisions... but welcome to the real world.

And if the players have 'power' right now, how does a hard cap change that influence they have over a team? It doesn't. Lebron is just as influential to the Cavaliers under any cap system.

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:
Do some players abuse this? Sure. But that does not mean they all do, they all will or that all should lose any influence.

how do you get I said they should turn a blind eye from my above quote? Its not even remotely close to anything like that.

Oh got a question though. Is a player using their 'leverage' to leave a team, and less 'ethical' than trading a player without their approval? Is this another, its good for the goose but not for the gander situations or is their a significant difference between the two situations? What about just cutting a players contract (if there where unguaranteed contracts)? Is that any less 'ethical'?

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.

the question was under the hard cap, what does a team do when they have a FA coming up who they can't keep but want to (specifically referring to a superstar). Do they just let that player go, or try to get rid of some of their teammates... specifically those teammates who play an important roll on the team. Your answer was to cut contracts as guaranteed contracts would not exist under a hard cap.... yet they are going to exist. That is not answering the question.

And then to relate this to Lebron James... Cleveland would have been in a real spot. They would have had to either let Lebron walk (which would change nothing to Clevelands situation) or find a way to cut salaries and lose some of the players they 'had to' obtain to keep Lebron (which then reduces their chances of retaining Lebron James).

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.

The NFL system includes 75% revenue sharing... which is a huge part of why the system works. A system with the only bits and peices of the NFL's is nothing like the NFL system.

[GarbageTime]

I've never questioned the roll of luck and drafting. The problem is the current system allows for luck and drafting to not be enough for all teams even with good management.

sorry I've got an issue with this. When has a team that has drafted well and been lucky and that has not been 'enough'?

If we are talking 'championships' only here... well there is only 1 title and 30 teams so on the most basic statistical level, even if all things were equal, it will never be 'enough' for the vast majority of teams. If we are talking 'contenders' over a reasonable period of time... I can't think of a single team that has drafted well and been lucky that hasn't been a contender. In fact I'd argue that if a team wasn't able to achieve this they have either drafted poorly or at the very least been unlucky.

Give Dwight Howard the option of 5 years and $100M from Orlando or 3 years and $50M from LAL or NYK or Brooklyn/NJN - if he still wants to leave, more power to him, I'll pack his bags

I have no problems with this idea itself (or something similar) but two things:

1) that would result in huge financial implications under a hard cap for the team that kept the superstar (which may or may not be a bad thing)

2) a hard cap isn't even remotely necessary to do this.


Important Note: this assumes you are for a hard cap which I'm starting to get the impression you may no longer necessarily be any longer, or at the very least am getting confused about .

[jimmie]

Jimmie you seem to be missing a huge part of the discussion there. The very fact that he ALLOWED Lebron to make the decision should be a bigger issue than Lebron making the decision. It was still Dan Gilberts company. He is still responsible for it no matter what he allows to happen.

And the above statement is part of my problem with this entire fiasco. Its the 'idiots' who caused the problems and now they aren't saying "we'll stop being idiots", they are saying "we can't stop being idiots so force us to", while draffing every non-idiot down to their level to.

You're living in a true idealist world if you think the solution to idiots being idiots is just to hope that sometime in the future, they stop being idiots. Saying they made poor decisions is fine. We still don't have basketball because of whatever led to those poor decisions. We can agree to disagree on the causes of the current situation. We still don't have basketball. And we still have no solutions to the situation that led the league to where it is today (majority of franchises losing money, superstar players gaming the system to allow them to congregate in limited markets, more fiscally-prudent/frugal teams who play by the cap rules being forced to choose between losing key players or losing money, etc.).

Pretend there was no previous CBA, so nothing for the players to "lose". What's your objection with putting a system in place that allows the players to make more money than any other professional team athlete in the world, allows the superstars to become international stars who make factors more in endorsements than they do in salaries, and at the same time forces/enables the owners to act in a fiscally-responsible manner that enables the league as a whole to grow, and individual franchises to choose their moment to go over the cap in order to compete during their optimal window (as opposed to living over the cap in order to maintain a consistent high standing), so that they can maintain at worst a revenue-neutral business over long periods of time?

[mcHAPPY]

sorry I've got an issue with this. When has a team that has drafted well and been lucky and that has not been 'enough'?

If we are talking 'championships' only here... well there is only 1 title and 30 teams so on the most basic statistical level, even if all things were equal, it will never be 'enough' for the vast majority of teams. If we are talking 'contenders' over a reasonable period of time... I can't think of a single team that has drafted well and been lucky that hasn't been a contender. In fact I'd argue that if a team wasn't able to achieve this they have either drafted poorly or at the very least been unlucky.

I consider drafting well obvious and meant the lucky to be in regards to the draft positioning.

In terms of drafting well and being lucky not being enough together, I agree that is slightly more difficult to come up with but was not what I meant. The only example I can think of is an unknown as OKC will never be known - but I really don't see them able to put a $100M roster together.

I think it is fair to say that the level of managerial success needed to be successful is much higher with a small market team. In other words they have less room for error and cannot (literally) pay for their mistakes.

I have no problems with this idea itself (or something similar) but two things:

1) that would result in huge financial implications under a hard cap for the team that kept the superstar (which may or may not be a bad thing)

2) a hard cap isn't even remotely necessary to do this.


Important Note: this assumes you are for a hard cap which I'm starting to get the impression you may no longer necessarily be any longer, or at the very least am getting confused about .

[/QUOTE]

1) yes - Toronto is a perfect example. They are much better off with Bosh gone. Getting fair market value or close to it would have been much more preferable but c'est la vie.

2) No, you do not need a hard cap to do that. I'd prefer a hard cap or a flex cap but a really punitive tax system may do the same thing. I still think there will be some teams with an advantage or who will be able to pay the tax while others cannot but again any change to the current system is a step in the right direction.

[GarbageTime]

You're living in a true idealist world if you think the solution to idiots being idiots is just to hope that sometime in the future, they stop being idiots. Saying they made poor decisions is fine. We still don't have basketball because of whatever led to those poor decisions. We can agree to disagree on the causes of the current situation. We still don't have basketball. And we still have no solutions to the situation that led the league to where it is today (majority of franchises losing money, superstar players gaming the system to allow them to congregate in limited markets, more fiscally-prudent/frugal teams who play by the cap rules being forced to choose between losing key players or losing money, etc.).

Pretend there was no previous CBA, so nothing for the players to "lose". What's your objection with putting a system in place that allows the players to make more money than any other professional team athlete in the world, allows the superstars to become international stars who make factors more in endorsements than they do in salaries, and at the same time forces/enables the owners to act in a fiscally-responsible manner that enables the league as a whole to grow, and individual franchises to choose their moment to go over the cap in order to compete during their optimal window (as opposed to living over the cap in order to maintain a consistent high standing), so that they can maintain at worst a revenue-neutral business over long periods of time?

I don't think that at all. I just don't think the non-idiots should be dealt the same hand as the idiots. If some drives drunk, should you neither be able to drive or drink anymore (not at the same time ofcourse)? Ofcourse not. So when someone goes and wastes money why should everyone else's purse strings be tied?

And the 'situation' that lead to the majority of the teams losing money is called free market capitalism... not the CBA. When you look at the numbers the BRI has gone up every year, even in the economically poor years, yet the player salaries have always remained at the same percentage of that BRI every year... that means that the owners OTHER expenses have been increasing a rate proportionally greater than salaries. A reduction in BRI is ofcourse the 'easiest' solution and inevitable as it is still their largest expense. But it has not been the CBA costing the league (as a whole) money... and its the individual owners choices as to what to do with their money that has been costing them at a micro level.

A few parts to your ridiculously loaded 'question':

- NBA players have the highest average salary of all North American professional sports. But the NBA also has the smallest roster. That will ofcourse skew the average compared to other sports.

- every pro athlete can become an international superstar and make ridiculous sums in endorsements. What does that have to do with the CBA or a hard cap?

- no one is 'forcing' the owners to do anything.. they are making choices. And many very poor choices if I may.

[Apollo]

Winning does come down to superstars... do you disagree with that or not? If not then I guess a hard cap makes all the difference... if so, a hard cap does very little to create competitive balance as the 'competitiveness' of teams is based on a team having superstars.

No I do not. It makes it a lot easier but the Pistons did no have superstars and they won it. The hard cap would help eliminate superstar players leaving small markets for big markets.

your right... I read your statement wrong. You were referring to having "no power to hold a team randsom" rather than have "no power and hold teams randsom" It was my mistake.

Do you think you're funny? I think you're being immature. We both know you posted that I said I wanted the players to have no rights, period. I didn't say that. Never have I said that I want the players to have all their rights taken away from them. Maybe you should focus more on what I'm saying and less on trying to make yourself sound witty?

but they don't need a new CBA to 'not give them power'. They can just stop doing it. That is, stop letting them make decisions for their own companies. Yes it may make for some 'tough' decisions... but welcome to the real world.

They need a new CBA because the old CBA has expired. That deal is done. Now is the time to bring in new things that they deem important. Welcome to the real world? Well in the real world joint venture agreements include lots of stipulations on what the partnering organizations are allowed to do or are responsible for. The NBA is a joint venture and if they want to agree to put in contract language to reduce their operating risks then they're free to do so provided they can get their unionized laborers to agree to accept it.

And if the players have 'power' right now, how does a hard cap change that influence they have over a team? It doesn't. Lebron is just as influential to the Cavaliers under any cap system.

The hard cap doesn't decrease their influence. It's not meant to do that. It certainly limits their options. The hard cap is meant to help level the playing field. Contract language like outlawing the "extend & trade" and the "S&T" and other things like this will remove the superstar player's dominating influence as their contract matures to the end.

how do you get I said they should turn a blind eye from my above quote? Its not even remotely close to anything like that.

Sure it is. If you're suggesting that they do nothing about it then that is turning a blind eye regardless if you said "turn a blind eye" or not.

Oh got a question though. Is a player using their 'leverage' to leave a team, and less 'ethical' than trading a player without their approval?

No it's not unethical. The team is working within it's means to make it's team better and doing so without being manipulative and in some cases malicious. This comes down to a difference in philosophy. I look at the players as being privileged enough to play pro sports. You sound like you feel it's their right.

What about just cutting a players contract (if there where unguaranteed contracts)? Is that any less 'ethical'?

See above. The Owner is working within the contract. If a player in the expired system was playing on an non-guranteed contract then he's was at the level where he should have been thankful to even get to play a few games in the league. If non-guaranteed contracts were outlawed in the old system that player probably wouldn't get anything more than "ten days".

the question was under the hard cap, what does a team do when they have a FA coming up who they can't keep but want to (specifically referring to a superstar). Do they just let that player go, or try to get rid of some of their teammates... specifically those teammates who play an important roll on the team. Your answer was to cut contracts as guaranteed contracts would not exist under a hard cap.... yet they are going to exist. That is not answering the question.

They have many options. They can cut players to get them down under cap. They can renegotiate contracts with other players, getting the player to take a pay cut to market price if they're overpaid. Get a player to take pay cut in the short term in exchange for a contract extension with more guaranteed money. There are many options available which do not include cutting valuable pieces. They can also work a trade if the player doesn't want to be flexible to allow for his teammate to sign. I've already been over this once or twice, heck maybe three times in this thread. Once on like the last page even.

And then to relate this to Lebron James... Cleveland would have been in a real spot. They would have had to either let Lebron walk (which would change nothing to Clevelands situation) or find a way to cut salaries and lose some of the players they 'had to' obtain to keep Lebron (which then reduces their chances of retaining Lebron James).

It's not fair to assume the Cavs would have pulled the trigger on the same moves if they were operating under a different system. For that matter its not fair to assume that the same moves would have been available to them under a different system.

The NFL system includes 75% revenue sharing... which is a huge part of why the system works. A system with the only bits and peices of the NFL's is nothing like the NFL system.

You seem to be only focusing on what we disagree on because I've said in here many times that I think revenue sharing and the hard cap should go hand in hand. Never have I said revenue sharing isn't important, I've said it's not the only issue. I've said that it should have no impact on the CBA negotiations but never that it wasn't important.

[GarbageTime]

No I do not. It makes it a lot easier but the Pistons did no have superstars and they won it. The hard cap would help eliminate superstar players leaving small markets for big markets

well thats fair....

And if thats the case... why do you even care what the superstars do? Stars 'ganging up', leaving teams etc. should have little relevance as they are not necessary.

Do you think you're funny? I think you're being immature. We both know you posted that I said I wanted the players to have no rights, period. I didn't say that. Never have I said that I want the players to have all their rights taken away from them. Maybe you should focus more on what I'm saying and less on trying to make yourself sound witty?

umm I stated I made a mistake. There was no sarcasm or 'whit' in that statement. I read it wrong, just like I said.

They need a new CBA because the old CBA has expired. That deal is done. Now is the time to bring in new things that they deem important. Welcome to the real world? Well in the real world joint venture agreements include lots of stipulations on what the partnering organizations are allowed to do or are responsible for. The NBA is a joint venture and if they want to agree to put in contract language to reduce their operating risks then they're free to do so provided they can get their unionized laborers to agree to accept it.

seriously... we know the CBA is over.

And the owners can try and do what ever they want. The exact same applies to the players. What exactly is your point? [/QUOTE]

No it's not unethical. The team is working within it's means to make it's team better and doing so without being manipulative and in some cases malicious. This comes down to a difference in philosophy. I look at the players as being privileged enough to play pro sports. You sound like you feel it's their right.

See above. The Owner is working within the contract. If a player in the expired system was playing on an non-guranteed contract then he's was at the level where he should have been thankful to even get to play a few games in the league. If non-guaranteed contracts were outlawed in the old system that player probably wouldn't get anything more than "ten days".

I find your interpretation of 'ethical' very one sided. Is there anything in a player's contract that says they can't demand a trade, demand certain teammates or have to return to their current team? Hmm......

If people are only responsible for whats in the contract.... then why do you even care what Lebron did? He did nothing, to my knowledge, outside what his contract demanded. Or does his contract say he is responsible for the state of Ohio?

Or are the players held to a higher level of responsibility above and beyond their contract?

In which case you are talking morality? Which then has nothing to do with whats in one's contract but rather whats 'right'. But then, why is forcing someone (and possibly their family) to pick up and move across the country for the owners own personal gain any less morally wrong then a player 'holding a team hostage' to be traded?

This sure sounds like what I talked about earlier... you want these guys to just do what they are told.

They have many options. They can cut players to get them down under cap. They can renegotiate contracts with other players, getting the player to take a pay cut to market price if they're overpaid. Get a player to take pay cut in the short term in exchange for a contract extension with more guaranteed money. There are many options available which do not include cutting valuable pieces. They can also work a trade if the player doesn't want to be flexible to allow for his teammate to sign. I've already been over this once or twice, heck maybe three times in this thread. Once on like the last page even.

- since when can they just 'cut' contracts?
- since when can they renegotiate contracts?
- getting a player to take a cut now for a later contract is not allowed in the NBA (and quite unethical if you ask me)
- working a trade needs to bring back a comparable salary or have another team with space with a smaller salary and for the other team to want that player. Plus it shouldn't be, theoritically, the player that is 'needed' to retain the star player.

so exactly how do those help the team to make space while still keeping the players a team 'needs' to help retain said player? There are consequences to a well run team under a hard cap to.... its not just 'saving the poor' and 'limiting the idiots'.

It's not fair to assume the Cavs would have pulled the trigger on the same moves if they were operating under a different system. For that matter its not fair to assume that the same moves would have been available to them under a different system.

no your right...it could have been a much better situation, it also could have been much worse, or it could have been the same. The question was an example of what could happen under a hard cap.

You seem to be only focusing on what we disagree on because I've said in here many times that I think revenue sharing and the hard cap should go hand in hand. Never have I said revenue sharing isn't important, I've said it's not the only issue. I've said that it should have no impact on the CBA negotiations but never that it wasn't important.

this whole NFL issue you mentioned was based on my inital question about contracts and the hard cap ... which you turned into a "system like the NFL" and non-guaranteed contracts which the NBA is not talking about.

[Apollo]

well thats fair....

And if thats the case... why do you even care what the superstars do?

It makes it a lot easier[to win it]

seriously... we know the CBA is over.

And the owners can try and do what ever they want. The exact same applies to the players. What exactly is your point?

Now is the time to bring in new things that they deem important.

I find your interpretation of 'ethical' very one sided. Is there anything in a player's contract that says they can't demand a trade, demand certain teammates or have to return to their current team? Hmm......

No but:

This comes down to a difference in philosophy. I look at the players as being privileged enough to play pro sports. You sound like you feel it's their right.

If people are only responsible for whats in the contract.... then why do you even care what Lebron did? He did nothing, to my knowledge, outside what his contract demanded. Or does his contract say he is responsible for the state of Ohio?

Because there is a difference between doing what is required and doing what is right.

Or are the players held to a higher level of responsibility above and beyond their contract?

No but they are role models in the community and if you think what he did with that whole "The Decision" special and all the rest of the fiasco was fine then someone failed you somewhere along the way.

In which case you are talking morality? Which then has nothing to do with whats in one's contract but rather whats 'right'. But then, why is forcing someone (and possibly their family) to pick up and move across the country for the owners own personal gain any less morally wrong then a player 'holding a team hostage' to be traded?

This comes down to a difference in philosophy. I look at the players as being privileged enough to play pro sports. You sound like you feel it's their right.

This sure sounds like what I talked about earlier... you want these guys to just do what they are told.

Of course I do. They're the employees, not the boss or the Owner. Accepting the system instead of trying to exploit it and doing what you're told instead of not respecting authority has nothing to do with rights. Everybody else in society who is not in a place of authority has to accept the system they work under and follow orders. Hell, even people in positions of authority have to answer to somebody.

- since when can they just 'cut' contracts?
- since when can they renegotiate contracts?

- Since when can they do anything? There is no system in place. It very clear we were discussing the hypothetical situation where the Owners could get an system like the NFL in place. I'm not sure why you keep getting confused here. Here, let's me referesh your memory:

the question was under the hard cap, what does a team do when they have a FA coming up who they can't keep but want to (specifically referring to a superstar). Do they just let that player go, or try to get rid of some of their teammates... specifically those teammates who play an important roll on the team. Your answer was to cut contracts as guaranteed contracts would not exist under a hard cap.... yet they are going to exist. That is not answering the question.

They have many options. They can cut players to get them down under cap. They can renegotiate contracts with other players, getting the player to take a pay cut to market price if they're overpaid. Get a player to take pay cut in the short term in exchange for a contract extension with more guaranteed money. There are many options available which do not include cutting valuable pieces. They can also work a trade if the player doesn't want to be flexible to allow for his teammate to sign. I've already been over this once or twice, heck maybe three times in this thread. Once on like the last page even.

- since when can they just 'cut' contracts?
- since when can they renegotiate contracts?

Moving on...

- getting a player to take a cut now for a later contract is not allowed in the NBA (and quite unethical if you ask me)

Where does it say that? There isn't a CBA to govern team activities. And I never said they could get a player to take a cut now with the promise of a later contract. I said in this hypothetical situation:

Get a player to take pay cut in the short term in exchange for a contract extension with more guaranteed money.

- working a trade needs to bring back a comparable salary or have another team with space with a smaller salary and for the other team to want that player. Plus it shouldn't be, theoritically, the player that is 'needed' to retain the star player.

Teams typically re-sign players before or during free agency. One could safely assume that there would be teams with cap space during free agency. I also never mentioned which players in particular would/could/should be traded.

no your right...it could have been a much better situation, it also could have been much worse, or it could have been the same. The question was an example of what could happen under a hard cap.

I fail to see how they could be in a worse situation than they were in. The question was pointless because the circumstances would be different in a different system.

[mcHAPPY]

Adam Silver:

"The competitive issues are independent of the economic issues," Silver said. "Our goal is to have a system in which all 30 teams are competing for championships and, if well managed, they have an opportunity to break even or make a profit. We don't see the ability to break even or make a profit as a tradeoff for the ability to field a competitive team. All of those issues are still in place."

Source

I don't by the 30 teams competing for a championship in any one or two seasons but over a 5/6 year span, well managed, that is a realistic goal in my opinion. And by competing for a championship, I mean making competitive playoff appearances.

[GarbageTime]

Of course I do. They're the employees, not the boss or the Owner. Accepting the system instead of trying to exploit it and doing what you're told instead of not respecting authority has nothing to do with rights. Everybody else in society who is not in a place of authority has to accept the system they work under and follow orders. Hell, even people in positions of authority have to answer to somebody

I think you are mixing up team owners with peace officers and the judicial system.

The 'authority' of the owner or league only goes as far as the contract allows it to.

And when an owner allows a player to make decisions for his team, he is giving up part of his authority.

No but they are role models in the community and if you think what he did with that whole "The Decision" special and all the rest of the fiasco was fine then someone failed you somewhere along the way.

first off all trying to say there is something wrong with me, or how my parents raised me, is quite ignorant.

but I read this last night and thought its appropriate to the discussion of 'role models', 'players priviledge' and player 'ethics'.

What’s happening here is that the players will look like jerks for stopping the negotiations because everybody who likes them thinks they’re making tremendous amounts of money. Now they seem greedy and it’s a little harder to admire them. But the owners don’t serve as inspiration for fans so they don’t lose that aspect.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...al-nba-lockout

Maybe its time to see them all as humans instead of one side as childhood heroes and the other as faceless irrelevant beings. The players should be held to no higher of a moral or ethical standard than anyone else. The idea that one is 'the boss' doesn't change the level of morality or ethics anyone should be held to. Manipulation is manipulation... deception is deception.


Now did I like Lebron's decision? No. But I also don't care he left and I was expecting it. What I dislike the most though, is how the league didn't bother to do anything to look into it... to see if there was something more to the entire scenario. That to me was the biggest failing.

But as you like to point out to so regularily with the current negotiations and with the owners.... Lebron had no contract and was therefore free to do as he choose. He had no 'authority' figure (as you like to call it) to be responsible to other than himself and he made his own decision. If thats all the owners seem to need (ie. a contract), then I see no other reason than to hold Lebron (or any player) to that same standard.

You may not care about having a double standard towards individuals, or for standing up yourself, or for wanting to make your own choices or for treating people equally. But I'm not the same. And do you know why? Because no one failed me along the way

I'm done with your nonesense

[Apollo]

I think you are mixing up team owners with peace officers and the judicial system.

The 'authority' of the owner or league only goes as far as the contract allows it to.

And when an owner allows a player to make decisions for his team, he is giving up part of his authority.

I'm not mixing anything up. This comes back to the system. The Owners are pressured into the situation where they have to let these guys who don't have a clue about running a team have a lot of input in a bid to keep them happy so that they re-sign.

Maybe its time to see them all as humans instead of one side as childhood heroes and the other as faceless irrelevant beings. The players should be held to no higher of a moral or ethical standard than anyone else. The idea that one is 'the boss' doesn't change the level of morality or ethics anyone should be held to. Manipulation is manipulation... deception is deception.

I'm not going to argue with you further about this because we're not exactly making any headway here but I will say this. Looking beyond whether it's right or wrong the impact of these players strong arming teams is detrimental to the game. Basically like you said earlier, it all comes down to the contract and not morality. Sure, I think LBJ is a narcissistic, oblivious, PR rep's worst nightmare but the only reason he wronged Cleveland on the highest level imaginable was because he's a narcissistic, oblivious ass and because he wasn't blocked by the system. So coming full circle, there needs to be rules in place that block things like the "extend & trade", the "S&T" and furthermore there should be a franchise tag. When a team makes a trade typically they're looking out for the team. When a player demands a trade he's looking out for himself. The fans are paying to see the team win, not the particular player win even if the players are selling points to the fans.

You may not care about having a double standard towards individuals, or for standing up yourself, or for wanting to make your own choices or for treating people equally. But I'm not the same. And do you know why? Because no one failed me along the way

I care about the product. With the players' at the helm they're looking out for themselves and they carry this out in a very short sighted approach. Instant gratification.

The owners also are looking out for themselves and they carry this out by trying to keep the fans happy. The fans are the source of their revenues. They're trying to make a system which appeals more to all fans, like the NFL does.

I'll say it again. To cheer for the players keeping their newly found power is to shoot yourself in the foot. It does nothing for you the fan, who is paying for a product. If you go to a restaurant and find that someone spit in your burger and ate half your fries, who are you rooting for when the manager goes to discuss the matter with the only other person in the kitchen?

first off all trying to say there is something wrong with me, or how my parents raised me, is quite ignorant.

I never said that. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. Let's see it again:

if you think what he did with that whole "The Decision" special and all the rest of the fiasco was fine then someone failed you somewhere along the way.

Now did I like Lebron's decision? No.

So no one failed you. You have compassion for other people. In prior posts it wasn't clear or not if you were defending what he did because you thought it was right. There wasn't anything ignorant about what I said. LeBron James did act extremely selfish and heartless in how he left Cleveland. You see this. You see what is wrong with it. You passed the if statement. If you thought it was great how the hometown boy played an entire city for fools and kicked them while they were down then we would have been in a whole different ball game...

[planetmars]

Marc Stein reporting on yesterday's meeting...

Source

Two things that I did not want to see, seemed to happen

NBA.com reported that an unspecified amount of progress was made on three of those system issues, but that the parties continue to struggle to find compromise on the parameters of a workable mid-level exception and face "a couple of new issues added to [the] mix." The various restrictions and penalties that owners continue to insist on to regulate teams that stray into luxury-tax territory, sources say, are where the sides continue to snag.

Stern and Fisher, however, have assured their constituents that the league will relax some of the proposed restrictions against tax teams, such as its determination to forbid taxpayers from participating in sign-and-trade deals and having access to the full mid-level exception. So they're under pressure to deliver and secure a few concessions with the union dropping to a 50/50 split after players earned 57 percent of BRI in the final year of the previous labor deal.

If this is the way its going, then we'll be seeing the Heat and the Lakers in the finals for years to come. I'd prefer a relaxed BRI split favouring the players in favour of stronger system changes. One's hoping that this is all still very premature.