Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Apollo
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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.

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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?

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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.

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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.


    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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.

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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.

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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".

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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.

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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.

    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    jimmie wrote: View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jimmie
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    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 .
    Last edited by GarbageTime; Wed Nov 9, 2011, 07:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X