- 20,415
- 10,332
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2001
Play hard and you don't need to worry about job security. Right now, bloated guaranteed contracts are what's keeping the league down. Smaller (still guaranteed) contracts will keep guys hungry.
The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by gangsta207therevolution,
- Start date
big j 33
Supporter
- 35,930
- 16,649
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
My stance on equal play is that the league will never have the perfect union until they affect the schedule. If they want to be "NFL" style, then stop making the T-Wolves play the Lakers 4 times. Have them play the Pacers 6 times instead, like the NFL does. NFL schedule is simple, you play your division twice, another division one each, and then the same slot as your finish in your conference. If you were last, you play last place teams, you were first, you play first place teams, boom, one year jumps just like that. You suck one year, get good draft picks, and play a crappy schedule the next year, just like that you can compete for a title.
Having the T-Wolves play LA, Spurs, Mavs and Thunder 4 times each is NOT going to help balance out the league. I'm sorry, it's not.
I don't see any difference between when small market Portland spent more money than anybody and lost, and the big market Knicks spend more money and lose. Nobody ever ever ever explains that.
Sharing money, taking draft picks, slanting schedule, better GM's, better contracts, lack of injuries, until ALL of that is taken care of, there's never going to be a 30 team chance for a title NBA season, ever. The best 5 guys are going to get their teams 85% of the way, just need other chips to get the 15% you need. It will forever be this way, the owners are full of @#$% with their "we will show you" stance.
I would agree, a schedule format change is something I haven't seen often, if at all, suggested by those clamoring for "competitive balance". My biggest problem with the NBA and the owners is they're hiding behind competitive balance because they don't want to say "the owners want more money". And I wouldn't necessarily blame them for that, if given the choice, most owners would want more money... but they know they need an issue to stand behind in order to get what they want, and if you sell "competitive balance" to the media and fans, they'll eat it up.
The article made a point how top teams forfeiting their draft picks got no interest from the league, yet that's a simple way to make the effort towards competitive balance. Making stricter provisions in the draft lottery as well.. While I do like the lottery existing, maybe limit how far a team can jump to get higher picks. The Bulls jumping to get Rose is an example.. of course, the Blazers went higher than expected and picked Oden, so it doesn't always result in better players, but the point remains, it's a way to make sure the bad teams consistently get higher picks.
big j 33
Supporter
- 35,930
- 16,649
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
My stance on equal play is that the league will never have the perfect union until they affect the schedule. If they want to be "NFL" style, then stop making the T-Wolves play the Lakers 4 times. Have them play the Pacers 6 times instead, like the NFL does. NFL schedule is simple, you play your division twice, another division one each, and then the same slot as your finish in your conference. If you were last, you play last place teams, you were first, you play first place teams, boom, one year jumps just like that. You suck one year, get good draft picks, and play a crappy schedule the next year, just like that you can compete for a title.
Having the T-Wolves play LA, Spurs, Mavs and Thunder 4 times each is NOT going to help balance out the league. I'm sorry, it's not.
I don't see any difference between when small market Portland spent more money than anybody and lost, and the big market Knicks spend more money and lose. Nobody ever ever ever explains that.
Sharing money, taking draft picks, slanting schedule, better GM's, better contracts, lack of injuries, until ALL of that is taken care of, there's never going to be a 30 team chance for a title NBA season, ever. The best 5 guys are going to get their teams 85% of the way, just need other chips to get the 15% you need. It will forever be this way, the owners are full of @#$% with their "we will show you" stance.
I would agree, a schedule format change is something I haven't seen often, if at all, suggested by those clamoring for "competitive balance". My biggest problem with the NBA and the owners is they're hiding behind competitive balance because they don't want to say "the owners want more money". And I wouldn't necessarily blame them for that, if given the choice, most owners would want more money... but they know they need an issue to stand behind in order to get what they want, and if you sell "competitive balance" to the media and fans, they'll eat it up.
The article made a point how top teams forfeiting their draft picks got no interest from the league, yet that's a simple way to make the effort towards competitive balance. Making stricter provisions in the draft lottery as well.. While I do like the lottery existing, maybe limit how far a team can jump to get higher picks. The Bulls jumping to get Rose is an example.. of course, the Blazers went higher than expected and picked Oden, so it doesn't always result in better players, but the point remains, it's a way to make sure the bad teams consistently get higher picks.
big j 33
Supporter
- 35,930
- 16,649
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
My stance on equal play is that the league will never have the perfect union until they affect the schedule. If they want to be "NFL" style, then stop making the T-Wolves play the Lakers 4 times. Have them play the Pacers 6 times instead, like the NFL does. NFL schedule is simple, you play your division twice, another division one each, and then the same slot as your finish in your conference. If you were last, you play last place teams, you were first, you play first place teams, boom, one year jumps just like that. You suck one year, get good draft picks, and play a crappy schedule the next year, just like that you can compete for a title.
Having the T-Wolves play LA, Spurs, Mavs and Thunder 4 times each is NOT going to help balance out the league. I'm sorry, it's not.
I don't see any difference between when small market Portland spent more money than anybody and lost, and the big market Knicks spend more money and lose. Nobody ever ever ever explains that.
Sharing money, taking draft picks, slanting schedule, better GM's, better contracts, lack of injuries, until ALL of that is taken care of, there's never going to be a 30 team chance for a title NBA season, ever. The best 5 guys are going to get their teams 85% of the way, just need other chips to get the 15% you need. It will forever be this way, the owners are full of @#$% with their "we will show you" stance.
I would agree, a schedule format change is something I haven't seen often, if at all, suggested by those clamoring for "competitive balance". My biggest problem with the NBA and the owners is they're hiding behind competitive balance because they don't want to say "the owners want more money". And I wouldn't necessarily blame them for that, if given the choice, most owners would want more money... but they know they need an issue to stand behind in order to get what they want, and if you sell "competitive balance" to the media and fans, they'll eat it up.
The article made a point how top teams forfeiting their draft picks got no interest from the league, yet that's a simple way to make the effort towards competitive balance. Making stricter provisions in the draft lottery as well.. While I do like the lottery existing, maybe limit how far a team can jump to get higher picks. The Bulls jumping to get Rose is an example.. of course, the Blazers went higher than expected and picked Oden, so it doesn't always result in better players, but the point remains, it's a way to make sure the bad teams consistently get higher picks.
- 8,417
- 1,852
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
....my bad, the condescension and insults are are a reply to CP for the condescension and insults started by CP.
- 8,417
- 1,852
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
....my bad, the condescension and insults are are a reply to CP for the condescension and insults started by CP.
- 8,417
- 1,852
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
....my bad, the condescension and insults are are a reply to CP for the condescension and insults started by CP.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
+%%% the NBA players. Spoiled %%+ brats, they can kiss my %%+. NBA players have it the best in sports and are now taking money out of the mouths of the players who don't have endorsement deals to rely on.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
+%%% the NBA players. Spoiled %%+ brats, they can kiss my %%+. NBA players have it the best in sports and are now taking money out of the mouths of the players who don't have endorsement deals to rely on.
big j 33
Supporter
- 35,930
- 16,649
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
+%%% the NBA players. Spoiled %%+ brats, they can kiss my %%+. NBA players have it the best in sports and are now taking money out of the mouths of the players who don't have endorsement deals to rely on.
Those players shouldn't be eating their money, anyway.
big j 33
Supporter
- 35,930
- 16,649
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
+%%% the NBA players. Spoiled %%+ brats, they can kiss my %%+. NBA players have it the best in sports and are now taking money out of the mouths of the players who don't have endorsement deals to rely on.
Those players shouldn't be eating their money, anyway.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
Those players shouldn't be eating their money, anyway.
Cute.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
Those players shouldn't be eating their money, anyway.
Cute.
- 4,524
- 218
- Joined
- May 11, 2004
Those players shouldn't be eating their money, anyway.
Qft
- 4,524
- 218
- Joined
- May 11, 2004
Those players shouldn't be eating their money, anyway.
Qft
I forgot to mention one thing however, not playing the Lakers, Spurs, Mavs, Thunder etc in Minnesota would do what? Hurt attendance, ie $$$. So again, no win situation.
Just like you are saying with the draft, move up to Rose, move up to Oden. Luck of the draw. Exactly why I don't believe a shred of this competitive equality @#$%^&*(. Luck is blind, pure and simple. As I have said in this thread before, #1 pick Lebron, #1 Bogut, luck of the year, plain and very simple. There is no way to fix this.
Bottom line, owners are BENT about Lebron leaving. I know it pissed alot of them off more than they are admitting. Melo, Paul, Howard are all part of it as well. Deron too. And so this is how they have decided to respond. But the competitive balance thing is a damn farce. They want to take away free agency, to an extent. I'm surprised they just haven't come forward and said lifetime contracts to specific players. They want a way to lock down the stars they do get lucky with. I highly doubt this whole thing is over a couple 4 million dollar exceptions to James Posey or Baby Davis. They want to lock in their revenue generators.
I forgot to mention one thing however, not playing the Lakers, Spurs, Mavs, Thunder etc in Minnesota would do what? Hurt attendance, ie $$$. So again, no win situation.
Just like you are saying with the draft, move up to Rose, move up to Oden. Luck of the draw. Exactly why I don't believe a shred of this competitive equality @#$%^&*(. Luck is blind, pure and simple. As I have said in this thread before, #1 pick Lebron, #1 Bogut, luck of the year, plain and very simple. There is no way to fix this.
Bottom line, owners are BENT about Lebron leaving. I know it pissed alot of them off more than they are admitting. Melo, Paul, Howard are all part of it as well. Deron too. And so this is how they have decided to respond. But the competitive balance thing is a damn farce. They want to take away free agency, to an extent. I'm surprised they just haven't come forward and said lifetime contracts to specific players. They want a way to lock down the stars they do get lucky with. I highly doubt this whole thing is over a couple 4 million dollar exceptions to James Posey or Baby Davis. They want to lock in their revenue generators.
- 12,102
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
Luck is blind, pure and simple. As I have said in this thread before, #1 pick Lebron, #1 Bogut, luck of the year, plain and very simple. There is no way to fix this.
This is what sucks and owners will never understand this. They look at the other major sports and see several teams be able to compete and even win it all and think it should be the same here. It's just not possible in basketball. You don't have 25 man rosters or 50+ man rosters. It's a team of 12, and only 8 are playing...and only, what..probably not even 10 guys alive that are STARS that put you in a position to contend for championships.
It's a star driven league. They get that part. They get the $ part of it, and want some of the $ and don't want it to leave once they get it. I don't even blame them for that, but They don't get that it's a star driven results league, too.
I would say there probably are things you can do to help the small markets hold onto the stars IF they get one...and if things are put in place to do so..that's fine. Offer even more money than just another guaranteed year if they re-sign. Hell, make it another $50 million, I don't care. I assume That at least would make a Dwight or LeBron think about staying put. and if they don't want that money and prefer a new location, new ownership, new front office, new teammates. That is their decision. But, there is nothing that ever can be done to achieve the parity that exists in other sports. NBA just has not, does not and never will be able to work in that manner.
I said last month or 2 months ago, that the small markets work at a disadvantage. And I still absolutely think that just off the strength of free agency. If you get lucky and get a LeBron or Dwight, you better milk it and have the right parts in place to win and/or eventually keep him. but owners need to accept the fact that if you don't have that star, you're not competing for championships. I don't care if you have a hard cap, or whatever. As you said CP, the elite of the elite are taking their teams into and the playoffs and The top 4, 5, 6 teams with the top 4, 5, 6 players will go at it.. The 04 Pistons are probably a 1/20 year type team and even then needed the 2 stars of the league being idiots to beat them.
- 12,102
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
Luck is blind, pure and simple. As I have said in this thread before, #1 pick Lebron, #1 Bogut, luck of the year, plain and very simple. There is no way to fix this.
This is what sucks and owners will never understand this. They look at the other major sports and see several teams be able to compete and even win it all and think it should be the same here. It's just not possible in basketball. You don't have 25 man rosters or 50+ man rosters. It's a team of 12, and only 8 are playing...and only, what..probably not even 10 guys alive that are STARS that put you in a position to contend for championships.
It's a star driven league. They get that part. They get the $ part of it, and want some of the $ and don't want it to leave once they get it. I don't even blame them for that, but They don't get that it's a star driven results league, too.
I would say there probably are things you can do to help the small markets hold onto the stars IF they get one...and if things are put in place to do so..that's fine. Offer even more money than just another guaranteed year if they re-sign. Hell, make it another $50 million, I don't care. I assume That at least would make a Dwight or LeBron think about staying put. and if they don't want that money and prefer a new location, new ownership, new front office, new teammates. That is their decision. But, there is nothing that ever can be done to achieve the parity that exists in other sports. NBA just has not, does not and never will be able to work in that manner.
I said last month or 2 months ago, that the small markets work at a disadvantage. And I still absolutely think that just off the strength of free agency. If you get lucky and get a LeBron or Dwight, you better milk it and have the right parts in place to win and/or eventually keep him. but owners need to accept the fact that if you don't have that star, you're not competing for championships. I don't care if you have a hard cap, or whatever. As you said CP, the elite of the elite are taking their teams into and the playoffs and The top 4, 5, 6 teams with the top 4, 5, 6 players will go at it.. The 04 Pistons are probably a 1/20 year type team and even then needed the 2 stars of the league being idiots to beat them.
^
It's baffling ain't it? That owners can't see that who the stars are and who they need to get is such a small fine line? Or maybe they do see it, and are just hiding behind the equality issue, I dunno. But it's why I will never ever believe that crap. It's make believe, fairy tale nonsense right up there with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
And I agree, if they want to set something up for stars to stay IF THEY WISH, yeah I'm good with that. Extra year, extra money, yup, cool by me. But this nonsense that the Lakers should give money to another team because of market size, give me a @#$%^&* break. Intel isn't cutting checks to other computer companies every month. Google and Yahoo and Bing aren't sharing cash.
Hell, the NFL doesn't even have their own TV deals, it's ONE deal. ONE. With multiple partners, ESPN, Directv, etc. It's not like the Bills can sell their games to ABC or something, or have the Vikings sell games to the Lifetime channel.
Maybe that's what the NBA SHOULD focus on. League pass is most games, but not all games. And it's regional Fox sports channels anyways, that they use. Why not tear that down and rebuild it? All NBA game, ALL of them, are THRU the NBA, and do something with that? THEN you could have a form of revenue sharing. You wouldn't have the split between NY and LA vs everyone else, people can stop crying. Plus all the money would then be visible. Not buying shares of the network to hide cash flow. Smart folk obviously need to connect all the dots that I can't, but how is that not more feasible? That makes everyone happy, does it not?
It's baffling ain't it? That owners can't see that who the stars are and who they need to get is such a small fine line? Or maybe they do see it, and are just hiding behind the equality issue, I dunno. But it's why I will never ever believe that crap. It's make believe, fairy tale nonsense right up there with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
And I agree, if they want to set something up for stars to stay IF THEY WISH, yeah I'm good with that. Extra year, extra money, yup, cool by me. But this nonsense that the Lakers should give money to another team because of market size, give me a @#$%^&* break. Intel isn't cutting checks to other computer companies every month. Google and Yahoo and Bing aren't sharing cash.
Hell, the NFL doesn't even have their own TV deals, it's ONE deal. ONE. With multiple partners, ESPN, Directv, etc. It's not like the Bills can sell their games to ABC or something, or have the Vikings sell games to the Lifetime channel.
Maybe that's what the NBA SHOULD focus on. League pass is most games, but not all games. And it's regional Fox sports channels anyways, that they use. Why not tear that down and rebuild it? All NBA game, ALL of them, are THRU the NBA, and do something with that? THEN you could have a form of revenue sharing. You wouldn't have the split between NY and LA vs everyone else, people can stop crying. Plus all the money would then be visible. Not buying shares of the network to hide cash flow. Smart folk obviously need to connect all the dots that I can't, but how is that not more feasible? That makes everyone happy, does it not?
^
It's baffling ain't it? That owners can't see that who the stars are and who they need to get is such a small fine line? Or maybe they do see it, and are just hiding behind the equality issue, I dunno. But it's why I will never ever believe that crap. It's make believe, fairy tale nonsense right up there with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
And I agree, if they want to set something up for stars to stay IF THEY WISH, yeah I'm good with that. Extra year, extra money, yup, cool by me. But this nonsense that the Lakers should give money to another team because of market size, give me a @#$%^&* break. Intel isn't cutting checks to other computer companies every month. Google and Yahoo and Bing aren't sharing cash.
Hell, the NFL doesn't even have their own TV deals, it's ONE deal. ONE. With multiple partners, ESPN, Directv, etc. It's not like the Bills can sell their games to ABC or something, or have the Vikings sell games to the Lifetime channel.
Maybe that's what the NBA SHOULD focus on. League pass is most games, but not all games. And it's regional Fox sports channels anyways, that they use. Why not tear that down and rebuild it? All NBA game, ALL of them, are THRU the NBA, and do something with that? THEN you could have a form of revenue sharing. You wouldn't have the split between NY and LA vs everyone else, people can stop crying. Plus all the money would then be visible. Not buying shares of the network to hide cash flow. Smart folk obviously need to connect all the dots that I can't, but how is that not more feasible? That makes everyone happy, does it not?
It's baffling ain't it? That owners can't see that who the stars are and who they need to get is such a small fine line? Or maybe they do see it, and are just hiding behind the equality issue, I dunno. But it's why I will never ever believe that crap. It's make believe, fairy tale nonsense right up there with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
And I agree, if they want to set something up for stars to stay IF THEY WISH, yeah I'm good with that. Extra year, extra money, yup, cool by me. But this nonsense that the Lakers should give money to another team because of market size, give me a @#$%^&* break. Intel isn't cutting checks to other computer companies every month. Google and Yahoo and Bing aren't sharing cash.
Hell, the NFL doesn't even have their own TV deals, it's ONE deal. ONE. With multiple partners, ESPN, Directv, etc. It's not like the Bills can sell their games to ABC or something, or have the Vikings sell games to the Lifetime channel.
Maybe that's what the NBA SHOULD focus on. League pass is most games, but not all games. And it's regional Fox sports channels anyways, that they use. Why not tear that down and rebuild it? All NBA game, ALL of them, are THRU the NBA, and do something with that? THEN you could have a form of revenue sharing. You wouldn't have the split between NY and LA vs everyone else, people can stop crying. Plus all the money would then be visible. Not buying shares of the network to hide cash flow. Smart folk obviously need to connect all the dots that I can't, but how is that not more feasible? That makes everyone happy, does it not?
- 12,102
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
I assume most of the owners make more money through their local networks that broadcast the games as compared to splitting it all up. As Simmons mentioned on his podcast, a lot of the franchises have large stakes in the local networks. And they don't want to share.
ie Celtics games are contracted through Comcast -- and I believe the Celtics now have a 20% stake in the Comcast New England Sports network. Or like James Dolan, he makes $$$$ with the Knicks being on, basically, his own network. never going to want to share that.
ie Celtics games are contracted through Comcast -- and I believe the Celtics now have a 20% stake in the Comcast New England Sports network. Or like James Dolan, he makes $$$$ with the Knicks being on, basically, his own network. never going to want to share that.
- 12,102
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
I assume most of the owners make more money through their local networks that broadcast the games as compared to splitting it all up. As Simmons mentioned on his podcast, a lot of the franchises have large stakes in the local networks. And they don't want to share.
ie Celtics games are contracted through Comcast -- and I believe the Celtics now have a 20% stake in the Comcast New England Sports network. Or like James Dolan, he makes $$$$ with the Knicks being on, basically, his own network. never going to want to share that.
ie Celtics games are contracted through Comcast -- and I believe the Celtics now have a 20% stake in the Comcast New England Sports network. Or like James Dolan, he makes $$$$ with the Knicks being on, basically, his own network. never going to want to share that.
- 4,169
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2002
One thing that I would definitely do if I was trying to come up with a better system is to get rid of caps on individual player salaries so no team could afford to have multiple superstars...If the salary cap is set at let's say $60 million, and Wade was making 30 million then there's no way Miami would've been able to the Big 3. NBA superstars are the worst compensated in all major professional sporting leagues
- 4,169
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2002
One thing that I would definitely do if I was trying to come up with a better system is to get rid of caps on individual player salaries so no team could afford to have multiple superstars...If the salary cap is set at let's say $60 million, and Wade was making 30 million then there's no way Miami would've been able to the Big 3. NBA superstars are the worst compensated in all major professional sporting leagues
