The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap

[jdiddy]

Hoston, low key, has done good moves. Always seem to compete without a "superstar" on that team. Even how the team reacts with the whole Yao problem, amazes me.

 

[jdiddy]

Hoston, low key, has done good moves. Always seem to compete without a "superstar" on that team. Even how the team reacts with the whole Yao problem, amazes me.

 

[jdiddy]

Hoston, low key, has done good moves. Always seem to compete without a "superstar" on that team. Even how the team reacts with the whole Yao problem, amazes me.

 

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by JPZx

For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.

This.

Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.




True.  Somehow, I wish players don't have the option to pick where they want to play.  The league should do all that and make balanced good teams.  Phoenix used to be the spot to come until Robert Sarver showed how great of an owner he is. 

  I can't lie I loved hearing players saying they wanted to come play in Phoenix...

 

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by JPZx

For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.

This.

Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.




True.  Somehow, I wish players don't have the option to pick where they want to play.  The league should do all that and make balanced good teams.  Phoenix used to be the spot to come until Robert Sarver showed how great of an owner he is. 

  I can't lie I loved hearing players saying they wanted to come play in Phoenix...

 

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by JPZx

For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.

This.

Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.




True.  Somehow, I wish players don't have the option to pick where they want to play.  The league should do all that and make balanced good teams.  Phoenix used to be the spot to come until Robert Sarver showed how great of an owner he is. 

  I can't lie I loved hearing players saying they wanted to come play in Phoenix...

 

[sooperhooper]

I wonder what the league would do if literally all of the top players took a pay cut to go to the same team. East all star team is now the bucks. Competition committee would have to step in.

 

[sooperhooper]

I wonder what the league would do if literally all of the top players took a pay cut to go to the same team. East all star team is now the bucks. Competition committee would have to step in.

 

[sooperhooper]

I wonder what the league would do if literally all of the top players took a pay cut to go to the same team. East all star team is now the bucks. Competition committee would have to step in.

 

[pmatic]

EXCLUSIVE: Details of owners’ tax proposal

Many raised their eyebrows Tuesday morning when a few outlets, including The New York Times, Newsday and CBSSports.com, reported that the NBA’s proposed luxury tax could in theory penalize teams as much as $8 for every dollar they spend on player salaries over certain thresholds.

The old system taxed such teams only on a dollar-for-dollar basis, meaning if a team exceeded the tax threshold by $20 million, as the Lakers did last season, it had to pay an additional $20 million in penalties. On top of that, teams that came in even a single dollar over the threshold lost out on a chunk of the tax proceeds the NBA distributes to every team that doesn’t pay tax.

The league’s reported tax proposal was restrictive enough for the players on Monday to characterize it as essentially a hard cap. If you’re going to tax teams at an 8-to-1 ratio, the argument goes, big-money teams will stop spending so much, and when they do, players will have lost a key source of free-agency leverage.

The devil, of course, is in the details, and a source close to the labor negotiations explained to SI.com just how the owners’ tax proposal would work. (An NBA spokesman declined a request to comment or verify the details of the tax proposal, saying the league will not publicly discuss the specifics of the negotiations.)

• The tax would start at $1.75 in penalty payments for every dollar a team is over the tax threshold. Say goodbye to the dollar-for-dollar hit, which was the maximum penalty a team could pay under the old system.

• That $1.75-to-1 ratio would last for the first $5 million a team is over the tax line. For every $5 million increment after that, the penalty would jump by 50 cents per dollar. So, for spending over the threshold between $5 million and $10 million, the penalty would be $2.25-to-1. For spending between $10 million and $15 million, it would be $2.75-to-1. And so on.

• The tax threshold would begin near where it did last season, when the salary cap was $58 million and teams crossed into luxury-tax territory at the $70 million mark.

Let’s use the Lakers as an example, since they spent almost exactly $20 million above the tax line last season. Under the old system, they would (and eventually will) pay $20 million in penalties, and lose out on the slice of money every non-taxpaying team receives. We don’t know what that slice will be for the 2010-11 season, but it was $3.7 million the year before, and it won’t change much. (To learn how that is calculated, go here.) Total losses under the old system were $23.7 million.

Under the new system, the Lakers’ tax penalty would be close to $54 million based on these calculations:

$5 million x $1.75 = $8.75 million

$5 million x $2.25 = $11.25 million

$5 million x $2.75 = $13.75 million

$5 million x $3.25 = $16.25 million

Add the $3.7 million, and the Lakers’ taxes/losses end up at $53.7 million. That’s a lot. It might not be enough on its own to keep the Lakers from spending, but as SI.com has reported, the league has also proposed rules that would prohibit teams over the tax from using the mid-level exception, Bird Rights and other mechanisms that allow big spenders to spend more.

While the Lakers, who are about to enter into a massive new local TV deal, may spend right through the financial hits, teams that approached the old tax line a bit more cautiously might look at this one like a red-hot poker.

And the poker gets even hotter. As Yahoo! Sports’ Adrian Wojnarowski reported late Monday, the proposal would penalize teams that pay the tax in more than two seasons during any five-season stretch. That penalty is harsh, according to a source familiar with the matter. If a team has gotten into tax territory, say, twice over the preceding four seasons and finds itself over the tax line a third time, the penalty triples in each spending range.  In other words, that $1.75-to-1 ratio that kicks off the tax in Year 1 would jump to $5.25-to-1 for a team paying the tax a third time. Do the math, and you could get to 10-to-1 or higher pretty quickly. Whether you’re the Lakers or the Knicks or the Bill Gates Billionaires (based in Seattle!), you are going to blink at paying $100 million in tax penalties alone. Fine, maybe Gates wouldn’t blink, but he doesn’t own an NBA team.

The players proposed their own revised tax plan, but it was far less restrictive, as you’d expect, and the union has opposed most moves to take exceptions like the mid-level and Bird Rights away from all or most taxpaying teams. The union’s proposal would have started with a $1.25-to-1 ratio and escalated much more slowly, and to a much lower ceiling, than the league’s proposal, according to a source. It’s unclear how different it really would have been from the tax system the league just had.

Look at these two plans, and you can see the “gulf

 

[pmatic]

EXCLUSIVE: Details of owners’ tax proposal

Many raised their eyebrows Tuesday morning when a few outlets, including The New York Times, Newsday and CBSSports.com, reported that the NBA’s proposed luxury tax could in theory penalize teams as much as $8 for every dollar they spend on player salaries over certain thresholds.

The old system taxed such teams only on a dollar-for-dollar basis, meaning if a team exceeded the tax threshold by $20 million, as the Lakers did last season, it had to pay an additional $20 million in penalties. On top of that, teams that came in even a single dollar over the threshold lost out on a chunk of the tax proceeds the NBA distributes to every team that doesn’t pay tax.

The league’s reported tax proposal was restrictive enough for the players on Monday to characterize it as essentially a hard cap. If you’re going to tax teams at an 8-to-1 ratio, the argument goes, big-money teams will stop spending so much, and when they do, players will have lost a key source of free-agency leverage.

The devil, of course, is in the details, and a source close to the labor negotiations explained to SI.com just how the owners’ tax proposal would work. (An NBA spokesman declined a request to comment or verify the details of the tax proposal, saying the league will not publicly discuss the specifics of the negotiations.)

• The tax would start at $1.75 in penalty payments for every dollar a team is over the tax threshold. Say goodbye to the dollar-for-dollar hit, which was the maximum penalty a team could pay under the old system.

• That $1.75-to-1 ratio would last for the first $5 million a team is over the tax line. For every $5 million increment after that, the penalty would jump by 50 cents per dollar. So, for spending over the threshold between $5 million and $10 million, the penalty would be $2.25-to-1. For spending between $10 million and $15 million, it would be $2.75-to-1. And so on.

• The tax threshold would begin near where it did last season, when the salary cap was $58 million and teams crossed into luxury-tax territory at the $70 million mark.

Let’s use the Lakers as an example, since they spent almost exactly $20 million above the tax line last season. Under the old system, they would (and eventually will) pay $20 million in penalties, and lose out on the slice of money every non-taxpaying team receives. We don’t know what that slice will be for the 2010-11 season, but it was $3.7 million the year before, and it won’t change much. (To learn how that is calculated, go here.) Total losses under the old system were $23.7 million.

Under the new system, the Lakers’ tax penalty would be close to $54 million based on these calculations:

$5 million x $1.75 = $8.75 million

$5 million x $2.25 = $11.25 million

$5 million x $2.75 = $13.75 million

$5 million x $3.25 = $16.25 million

Add the $3.7 million, and the Lakers’ taxes/losses end up at $53.7 million. That’s a lot. It might not be enough on its own to keep the Lakers from spending, but as SI.com has reported, the league has also proposed rules that would prohibit teams over the tax from using the mid-level exception, Bird Rights and other mechanisms that allow big spenders to spend more.

While the Lakers, who are about to enter into a massive new local TV deal, may spend right through the financial hits, teams that approached the old tax line a bit more cautiously might look at this one like a red-hot poker.

And the poker gets even hotter. As Yahoo! Sports’ Adrian Wojnarowski reported late Monday, the proposal would penalize teams that pay the tax in more than two seasons during any five-season stretch. That penalty is harsh, according to a source familiar with the matter. If a team has gotten into tax territory, say, twice over the preceding four seasons and finds itself over the tax line a third time, the penalty triples in each spending range.  In other words, that $1.75-to-1 ratio that kicks off the tax in Year 1 would jump to $5.25-to-1 for a team paying the tax a third time. Do the math, and you could get to 10-to-1 or higher pretty quickly. Whether you’re the Lakers or the Knicks or the Bill Gates Billionaires (based in Seattle!), you are going to blink at paying $100 million in tax penalties alone. Fine, maybe Gates wouldn’t blink, but he doesn’t own an NBA team.

The players proposed their own revised tax plan, but it was far less restrictive, as you’d expect, and the union has opposed most moves to take exceptions like the mid-level and Bird Rights away from all or most taxpaying teams. The union’s proposal would have started with a $1.25-to-1 ratio and escalated much more slowly, and to a much lower ceiling, than the league’s proposal, according to a source. It’s unclear how different it really would have been from the tax system the league just had.

Look at these two plans, and you can see the “gulf

 

[pmatic]

EXCLUSIVE: Details of owners’ tax proposal

Many raised their eyebrows Tuesday morning when a few outlets, including The New York Times, Newsday and CBSSports.com, reported that the NBA’s proposed luxury tax could in theory penalize teams as much as $8 for every dollar they spend on player salaries over certain thresholds.

The old system taxed such teams only on a dollar-for-dollar basis, meaning if a team exceeded the tax threshold by $20 million, as the Lakers did last season, it had to pay an additional $20 million in penalties. On top of that, teams that came in even a single dollar over the threshold lost out on a chunk of the tax proceeds the NBA distributes to every team that doesn’t pay tax.

The league’s reported tax proposal was restrictive enough for the players on Monday to characterize it as essentially a hard cap. If you’re going to tax teams at an 8-to-1 ratio, the argument goes, big-money teams will stop spending so much, and when they do, players will have lost a key source of free-agency leverage.

The devil, of course, is in the details, and a source close to the labor negotiations explained to SI.com just how the owners’ tax proposal would work. (An NBA spokesman declined a request to comment or verify the details of the tax proposal, saying the league will not publicly discuss the specifics of the negotiations.)

• The tax would start at $1.75 in penalty payments for every dollar a team is over the tax threshold. Say goodbye to the dollar-for-dollar hit, which was the maximum penalty a team could pay under the old system.

• That $1.75-to-1 ratio would last for the first $5 million a team is over the tax line. For every $5 million increment after that, the penalty would jump by 50 cents per dollar. So, for spending over the threshold between $5 million and $10 million, the penalty would be $2.25-to-1. For spending between $10 million and $15 million, it would be $2.75-to-1. And so on.

• The tax threshold would begin near where it did last season, when the salary cap was $58 million and teams crossed into luxury-tax territory at the $70 million mark.

Let’s use the Lakers as an example, since they spent almost exactly $20 million above the tax line last season. Under the old system, they would (and eventually will) pay $20 million in penalties, and lose out on the slice of money every non-taxpaying team receives. We don’t know what that slice will be for the 2010-11 season, but it was $3.7 million the year before, and it won’t change much. (To learn how that is calculated, go here.) Total losses under the old system were $23.7 million.

Under the new system, the Lakers’ tax penalty would be close to $54 million based on these calculations:

$5 million x $1.75 = $8.75 million

$5 million x $2.25 = $11.25 million

$5 million x $2.75 = $13.75 million

$5 million x $3.25 = $16.25 million

Add the $3.7 million, and the Lakers’ taxes/losses end up at $53.7 million. That’s a lot. It might not be enough on its own to keep the Lakers from spending, but as SI.com has reported, the league has also proposed rules that would prohibit teams over the tax from using the mid-level exception, Bird Rights and other mechanisms that allow big spenders to spend more.

While the Lakers, who are about to enter into a massive new local TV deal, may spend right through the financial hits, teams that approached the old tax line a bit more cautiously might look at this one like a red-hot poker.

And the poker gets even hotter. As Yahoo! Sports’ Adrian Wojnarowski reported late Monday, the proposal would penalize teams that pay the tax in more than two seasons during any five-season stretch. That penalty is harsh, according to a source familiar with the matter. If a team has gotten into tax territory, say, twice over the preceding four seasons and finds itself over the tax line a third time, the penalty triples in each spending range.  In other words, that $1.75-to-1 ratio that kicks off the tax in Year 1 would jump to $5.25-to-1 for a team paying the tax a third time. Do the math, and you could get to 10-to-1 or higher pretty quickly. Whether you’re the Lakers or the Knicks or the Bill Gates Billionaires (based in Seattle!), you are going to blink at paying $100 million in tax penalties alone. Fine, maybe Gates wouldn’t blink, but he doesn’t own an NBA team.

The players proposed their own revised tax plan, but it was far less restrictive, as you’d expect, and the union has opposed most moves to take exceptions like the mid-level and Bird Rights away from all or most taxpaying teams. The union’s proposal would have started with a $1.25-to-1 ratio and escalated much more slowly, and to a much lower ceiling, than the league’s proposal, according to a source. It’s unclear how different it really would have been from the tax system the league just had.

Look at these two plans, and you can see the “gulf

 

[seymore cake]

@ that tax proposal... I can't believe the big wig owners even agreed to something like that to go from paying 20 million to 53.7 million is damn near a 175% mark up

 

[seymore cake]

@ that tax proposal... I can't believe the big wig owners even agreed to something like that to go from paying 20 million to 53.7 million is damn near a 175% mark up

 

[CP1708]

JPZx wrote:

---

For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.

This.

Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.





  

Geeeeee, why would that be????  Hmmmmm, why NY?   Let's see.....I dunno, MAYBE BECAUSE THE KNICKS RID THEMSELVES OF EVERY CONTRACT THEY HAD TO GET UNDER THE CAP BY 50 MILLION DOLLARS OR SO???????? 

How much cap room did Sac have?  Or Toronto?  Or Minnesota.  The Knicks had been playing for this summer for YEARS, they failed on purpose for a few seasons, just to make that push.  Did those other teams do that?  No, they did not.  You'll also notice, the Heat did the exact same thing, rid themselves of every contract except 2, and there ya have it. 

Now, am I saying that if Minnesota had 1 player under contract and 50 mil to spend, would everyone go there?  I don't know.  That depends.  What if the 3 guys they were goin for were from the Midwest? 

  Anyone ever think of that?  I know when I look ahead with LA, I tend to target guys that came from UCLA, or USC, or even high school in LA.  Not every player wants to come home of course, but it's where I tend to start.  Like I have said over and over, you guys are looking for excuses for why poorly run franchises aren't succeeding. 


Osh, hold up.  Did you just throw big markets in my face, and then list Philly, Houston, and Detroit!!!!!!??????   Excuse me everyone, but when the @#$% did those 3 cities start runnin the NBA?  What @#$%^& success have they had that makes them so unfair to the rest of the league?  That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. 

Face it, stop all the big market stuff, the Lakers and Celtics ALONE have 33 titles.  ALONE.  And Boston won like 11 of them when the league was 12 God damn teams.  Magic and Bird came in, won some titles, and then Boston was DORMANT for almost 25 years!!!!!  LA came in in 2000 with a lesser payroll than the Blazers by like 20 million for 3 straight years and beat the crap out of them anyways.  The CHICAGO Bulls won 6 titles, with the goat, and have done exactly WHAT in ALL of their years without him?  Before and after?  The Knicks, the Nets, the Clippers, what have they done? 

You have TWO teams, with rich traditions, that have ran things for a long time.  One of them, went two decades without doing a damn thing.  But it's sooooooooo easy for people to just make excuses for why small markets don't win.   Yet small market Spurs have the same number of titles as the Celtics and Knicks do COMBINED for the last 30 years.  But we want to just ignore that, we'll just skip over that fact, and make our argument hold more water by saying "oh, the Lakers AND the Celtics, AND the Heat, and now I can add, AND the Mavs all win titles cuz they live in big cities" 

  You guys sound ridiculous.  Serious, look in some mirrors, stop blaming failure on market size, it's pathetic. 

 

[CP1708]

JPZx wrote:

---

For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.

This.

Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.





  

Geeeeee, why would that be????  Hmmmmm, why NY?   Let's see.....I dunno, MAYBE BECAUSE THE KNICKS RID THEMSELVES OF EVERY CONTRACT THEY HAD TO GET UNDER THE CAP BY 50 MILLION DOLLARS OR SO???????? 

How much cap room did Sac have?  Or Toronto?  Or Minnesota.  The Knicks had been playing for this summer for YEARS, they failed on purpose for a few seasons, just to make that push.  Did those other teams do that?  No, they did not.  You'll also notice, the Heat did the exact same thing, rid themselves of every contract except 2, and there ya have it. 

Now, am I saying that if Minnesota had 1 player under contract and 50 mil to spend, would everyone go there?  I don't know.  That depends.  What if the 3 guys they were goin for were from the Midwest? 

  Anyone ever think of that?  I know when I look ahead with LA, I tend to target guys that came from UCLA, or USC, or even high school in LA.  Not every player wants to come home of course, but it's where I tend to start.  Like I have said over and over, you guys are looking for excuses for why poorly run franchises aren't succeeding. 


Osh, hold up.  Did you just throw big markets in my face, and then list Philly, Houston, and Detroit!!!!!!??????   Excuse me everyone, but when the @#$% did those 3 cities start runnin the NBA?  What @#$%^& success have they had that makes them so unfair to the rest of the league?  That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. 

Face it, stop all the big market stuff, the Lakers and Celtics ALONE have 33 titles.  ALONE.  And Boston won like 11 of them when the league was 12 God damn teams.  Magic and Bird came in, won some titles, and then Boston was DORMANT for almost 25 years!!!!!  LA came in in 2000 with a lesser payroll than the Blazers by like 20 million for 3 straight years and beat the crap out of them anyways.  The CHICAGO Bulls won 6 titles, with the goat, and have done exactly WHAT in ALL of their years without him?  Before and after?  The Knicks, the Nets, the Clippers, what have they done? 

You have TWO teams, with rich traditions, that have ran things for a long time.  One of them, went two decades without doing a damn thing.  But it's sooooooooo easy for people to just make excuses for why small markets don't win.   Yet small market Spurs have the same number of titles as the Celtics and Knicks do COMBINED for the last 30 years.  But we want to just ignore that, we'll just skip over that fact, and make our argument hold more water by saying "oh, the Lakers AND the Celtics, AND the Heat, and now I can add, AND the Mavs all win titles cuz they live in big cities" 

  You guys sound ridiculous.  Serious, look in some mirrors, stop blaming failure on market size, it's pathetic. 

 

[kingjay718]

Originally Posted by JDiddy

Originally Posted by JPZx

For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.

This.

Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.

True.  Somehow, I wish players don't have the option to pick where they want to play.  The league should do all that and make balanced good teams.  Phoenix used to be the spot to come until Robert Sarver showed how great of an owner he is. 

  I can't lie I loved hearing players saying they wanted to come play in Phoenix...

I remember when Danny Manning left the Hawks, he happily came to Phoenix to be a 6th Man and had no issues with it.  And prior he made it know he wanted to be in Phoenix.

 

[kingjay718]

Originally Posted by JDiddy

Originally Posted by JPZx

For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.

This.

Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.

True.  Somehow, I wish players don't have the option to pick where they want to play.  The league should do all that and make balanced good teams.  Phoenix used to be the spot to come until Robert Sarver showed how great of an owner he is. 

  I can't lie I loved hearing players saying they wanted to come play in Phoenix...

I remember when Danny Manning left the Hawks, he happily came to Phoenix to be a 6th Man and had no issues with it.  And prior he made it know he wanted to be in Phoenix.

 

[al3xis]

I don't think anyone is really using it as an excuse for the dumb moves teams make, but it's just how the NBA is.

And I'm not even on the 'market size' stuff..to me it's a group of cities that no NBA players want any part of, they are:

Cleveland, Minnesota, Sacramento, Toronto, Milwaukee, Indiana,-- they are not NBA destinations and never will be. They are wastelands. No geographical ties to the players, small media markets, & mostly bad weather.

You won't get Midwest guys going 'home' because they don't exist outside of Chicago. Basketball is dominated by East, West and South.

So, that's an absolute minimum of 20-25% of the league that will never able to lure a free agent in if money is equal elsewhere. So, It's not an excuse, it's just how things are..but I don't know how you can't see that teams located elsewhere in the major markets DO have an advantage over that quarter of the league, even if tiny.

I'm trying to get think of one un-restricted FA that got a max deal or close to it that ended up in one of those cities the past 10-15 years -- Larry Hughes to Cleveland is all I can come up with.


Again, owners purchasing these franchises should understand it's an uphill battle. Fans should accept it for what it is and front offices should know they have to be sharp. But, to me, those are organizations faced with more hurdles to overcome.

 

[al3xis]

I don't think anyone is really using it as an excuse for the dumb moves teams make, but it's just how the NBA is.

And I'm not even on the 'market size' stuff..to me it's a group of cities that no NBA players want any part of, they are:

Cleveland, Minnesota, Sacramento, Toronto, Milwaukee, Indiana,-- they are not NBA destinations and never will be. They are wastelands. No geographical ties to the players, small media markets, & mostly bad weather.

You won't get Midwest guys going 'home' because they don't exist outside of Chicago. Basketball is dominated by East, West and South.

So, that's an absolute minimum of 20-25% of the league that will never able to lure a free agent in if money is equal elsewhere. So, It's not an excuse, it's just how things are..but I don't know how you can't see that teams located elsewhere in the major markets DO have an advantage over that quarter of the league, even if tiny.

I'm trying to get think of one un-restricted FA that got a max deal or close to it that ended up in one of those cities the past 10-15 years -- Larry Hughes to Cleveland is all I can come up with.


Again, owners purchasing these franchises should understand it's an uphill battle. Fans should accept it for what it is and front offices should know they have to be sharp. But, to me, those are organizations faced with more hurdles to overcome.

 

[bigmike23]

So JA opinion was stupid because it was so pro owners what would you call yours cp?


It's a middle ground to all of this it can't be a 1 sided deal like the owners want for themselves and what agents keep telling the players to ask for...

Not sure how anyone can sit here and think both sides don't have valid points on what they want..... I have no problem with the owners wanting to make a better profit and clean Up what they think is a broken system.... Just don't try to rape the players and make it seem like the whole problem is them.

 

[bigmike23]

So JA opinion was stupid because it was so pro owners what would you call yours cp?


It's a middle ground to all of this it can't be a 1 sided deal like the owners want for themselves and what agents keep telling the players to ask for...

Not sure how anyone can sit here and think both sides don't have valid points on what they want..... I have no problem with the owners wanting to make a better profit and clean Up what they think is a broken system.... Just don't try to rape the players and make it seem like the whole problem is them.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Originally Posted by CP1708

JPZx wrote:

---

For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.

This.

Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.





  

Geeeeee, why would that be????  Hmmmmm, why NY?   Let's see.....I dunno, MAYBE BECAUSE THE KNICKS RID THEMSELVES OF EVERY CONTRACT THEY HAD TO GET UNDER THE CAP BY 50 MILLION DOLLARS OR SO???????? 

How much cap room did Sac have?  Or Toronto?  Or Minnesota.  The Knicks had been playing for this summer for YEARS, they failed on purpose for a few seasons, just to make that push.  Did those other teams do that?  No, they did not.  You'll also notice, the Heat did the exact same thing, rid themselves of every contract except 2, and there ya have it. 

Now, am I saying that if Minnesota had 1 player under contract and 50 mil to spend, would everyone go there?  I don't know.  That depends.  What if the 3 guys they were goin for were from the Midwest? 

  Anyone ever think of that?  I know when I look ahead with LA, I tend to target guys that came from UCLA, or USC, or even high school in LA.  Not every player wants to come home of course, but it's where I tend to start.  Like I have said over and over, you guys are looking for excuses for why poorly run franchises aren't succeeding. 


Osh, hold up.  Did you just throw big markets in my face, and then list Philly, Houston, and Detroit!!!!!!??????   Excuse me everyone, but when the @#$% did those 3 cities start runnin the NBA?  What @#$%^& success have they had that makes them so unfair to the rest of the league?  That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. 

Face it, stop all the big market stuff, the Lakers and Celtics ALONE have 33 titles.  ALONE.  And Boston won like 11 of them when the league was 12 God damn teams.  Magic and Bird came in, won some titles, and then Boston was DORMANT for almost 25 years!!!!!  LA came in in 2000 with a lesser payroll than the Blazers by like 20 million for 3 straight years and beat the crap out of them anyways.  The CHICAGO Bulls won 6 titles, with the goat, and have done exactly WHAT in ALL of their years without him?  Before and after?  The Knicks, the Nets, the Clippers, what have they done? 

You have TWO teams, with rich traditions, that have ran things for a long time.  One of them, went two decades without doing a damn thing.  But it's sooooooooo easy for people to just make excuses for why small markets don't win.   Yet small market Spurs have the same number of titles as the Celtics and Knicks do COMBINED for the last 30 years.  But we want to just ignore that, we'll just skip over that fact, and make our argument hold more water by saying "oh, the Lakers AND the Celtics, AND the Heat, and now I can add, AND the Mavs all win titles cuz they live in big cities" 

  You guys sound ridiculous.  Serious, look in some mirrors, stop blaming failure on market size, it's pathetic. 
Jesus I'm not looking for any excuse, to say that in the past 30 years of nba basketball all the franchise have been just worse run that the big markets is silly.

As traditional basketball markets hous, phi, det they have a easier time luring free agents, issues are complex nobody is blaming all the failures on market size, but it one facet that makes it more difficult and it's the entire history of the NBA shows you that.

Just please name all the times in history that a small market has a attracted a super star in their prime to play there either through free agency or trade? when they move most of the time it's to traditional basketball powers/ big markets.

It's a little bit harder, impossible? No. But a little bit harder.

I'm not even saying Toronto really has it bad or something, we are a big market team, that makes money whether they are good or bad, it's one of the most popular road cities amongst players...teams like Minnesota, Indiana, Bucks, Hornets, Thunder, Grizzlies, they have it harder. They are going have to get really luck and find that second superstar in the draft TWICE as opposed to just once.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Originally Posted by CP1708

JPZx wrote:

---

For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.

This.

Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.





  

Geeeeee, why would that be????  Hmmmmm, why NY?   Let's see.....I dunno, MAYBE BECAUSE THE KNICKS RID THEMSELVES OF EVERY CONTRACT THEY HAD TO GET UNDER THE CAP BY 50 MILLION DOLLARS OR SO???????? 

How much cap room did Sac have?  Or Toronto?  Or Minnesota.  The Knicks had been playing for this summer for YEARS, they failed on purpose for a few seasons, just to make that push.  Did those other teams do that?  No, they did not.  You'll also notice, the Heat did the exact same thing, rid themselves of every contract except 2, and there ya have it. 

Now, am I saying that if Minnesota had 1 player under contract and 50 mil to spend, would everyone go there?  I don't know.  That depends.  What if the 3 guys they were goin for were from the Midwest? 

  Anyone ever think of that?  I know when I look ahead with LA, I tend to target guys that came from UCLA, or USC, or even high school in LA.  Not every player wants to come home of course, but it's where I tend to start.  Like I have said over and over, you guys are looking for excuses for why poorly run franchises aren't succeeding. 


Osh, hold up.  Did you just throw big markets in my face, and then list Philly, Houston, and Detroit!!!!!!??????   Excuse me everyone, but when the @#$% did those 3 cities start runnin the NBA?  What @#$%^& success have they had that makes them so unfair to the rest of the league?  That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. 

Face it, stop all the big market stuff, the Lakers and Celtics ALONE have 33 titles.  ALONE.  And Boston won like 11 of them when the league was 12 God damn teams.  Magic and Bird came in, won some titles, and then Boston was DORMANT for almost 25 years!!!!!  LA came in in 2000 with a lesser payroll than the Blazers by like 20 million for 3 straight years and beat the crap out of them anyways.  The CHICAGO Bulls won 6 titles, with the goat, and have done exactly WHAT in ALL of their years without him?  Before and after?  The Knicks, the Nets, the Clippers, what have they done? 

You have TWO teams, with rich traditions, that have ran things for a long time.  One of them, went two decades without doing a damn thing.  But it's sooooooooo easy for people to just make excuses for why small markets don't win.   Yet small market Spurs have the same number of titles as the Celtics and Knicks do COMBINED for the last 30 years.  But we want to just ignore that, we'll just skip over that fact, and make our argument hold more water by saying "oh, the Lakers AND the Celtics, AND the Heat, and now I can add, AND the Mavs all win titles cuz they live in big cities" 

  You guys sound ridiculous.  Serious, look in some mirrors, stop blaming failure on market size, it's pathetic. 
Jesus I'm not looking for any excuse, to say that in the past 30 years of nba basketball all the franchise have been just worse run that the big markets is silly.

As traditional basketball markets hous, phi, det they have a easier time luring free agents, issues are complex nobody is blaming all the failures on market size, but it one facet that makes it more difficult and it's the entire history of the NBA shows you that.

Just please name all the times in history that a small market has a attracted a super star in their prime to play there either through free agency or trade? when they move most of the time it's to traditional basketball powers/ big markets.

It's a little bit harder, impossible? No. But a little bit harder.

I'm not even saying Toronto really has it bad or something, we are a big market team, that makes money whether they are good or bad, it's one of the most popular road cities amongst players...teams like Minnesota, Indiana, Bucks, Hornets, Thunder, Grizzlies, they have it harder. They are going have to get really luck and find that second superstar in the draft TWICE as opposed to just once.

 

[CP1708]

^ ok that's a little more level, I can get with that then. Allen, only name that came to my mind was Boozer to Utah, but that was small to small. Nash to Phoenix, maybe? Lil older, but close. Mike, I don't know what you're asking, I'm not pro owner or player, I'd be perfectly happy at 51-49, minimal difference. I just want a deal done.


EDIT
Webber.....he would have to be one. 

And while I'm thinkin on it, the Lakers have pulled, Kareem via trade, in the mid 70's, Shaq in 96 FA, and Pau in 08, trade.  That's LA's entire history of getting players, in their primes, and I have to listen to people like Spur fan talk about unfair market advantage. 

  I don't know why I didn't just say this to begin with.  3 players.  THREE.  Miami and New York damn near matched that in one 6 month span.  Market size. 

The article that Big J posted last page, anyone sat down and thought about that yet?  We could have MAJOR turnover every 2-3 years with shorter contracts. This is good for the league?  You could have franchise guys leave every other year all around the NBA, are people really wanting that?  The days of 10 year careers all with one team are going to be tough to come by are they not?