The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap

[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? 

 

[everysingletime]

I'm like split in half right now.

Part of me is thinking that the owners are really prepared to lockout the league 1-2 seasons. 

The other thinks, naw, owners can't be that dumb.  The backlash from fans would be too big.  It won't matter if they get the CBA they want. 

Hmm........

................

Ok, carry on with your small vs big market arguments, guys. 




But seriously...I would die a little if DRose misses two prime years

 

[everysingletime]

I'm like split in half right now.

Part of me is thinking that the owners are really prepared to lockout the league 1-2 seasons. 

The other thinks, naw, owners can't be that dumb.  The backlash from fans would be too big.  It won't matter if they get the CBA they want. 

Hmm........

................

Ok, carry on with your small vs big market arguments, guys. 




But seriously...I would die a little if DRose misses two prime years

 

[big j 33]

I'm fairly convinced you aren't even reading properly, CP.
Chill out, if anyone here is saying "market size is the #1 factor in influencing success", then they're wrong. Show me that person who is saying that, and I'll agree with you.

What we're saying is, it is a factor. It's small and doesn't influence EVERY SINGLE *+@#%%@ GAME like you are exaggerating, but it's A factor. Certain cities have and will always have an advantage over other cities simply because of their location, can you really not admit to that? Where do you see all of these excuses we're supposedly making? No one is arguing that "small" markets can't be successful, but we're speaking of the smallest of teams like Minny, Bucks, Hornets, Grizz, Cleveland, Sac., won't attract the same free agents with all things equal compared to the bigger markets.

Again, who's blaming ALL their failures on market size? We sound "ridiculous" and "pathetic"? Really? And sure, you can say they've only attracted 3 big free agents... while a small number, those are 2 of the greatest big men of all-time and another great big man in his prime... all being major factors in the Lakers championships. 

General Managers, drafting, coaching, the players themselves, ARE ALL IMPORTANT AND MAJOR FACTORS IN A TEAMS SUCCESS... but the location of the team is also a factor. Maybe it's very small, but it's there. That's all we're saying. I'm not arguing for a pro-owner deal, not arguing for the Sarver's or the Gilbert's, just that there exists a small advantage.

 

[big j 33]

I'm fairly convinced you aren't even reading properly, CP.
Chill out, if anyone here is saying "market size is the #1 factor in influencing success", then they're wrong. Show me that person who is saying that, and I'll agree with you.

What we're saying is, it is a factor. It's small and doesn't influence EVERY SINGLE *+@#%%@ GAME like you are exaggerating, but it's A factor. Certain cities have and will always have an advantage over other cities simply because of their location, can you really not admit to that? Where do you see all of these excuses we're supposedly making? No one is arguing that "small" markets can't be successful, but we're speaking of the smallest of teams like Minny, Bucks, Hornets, Grizz, Cleveland, Sac., won't attract the same free agents with all things equal compared to the bigger markets.

Again, who's blaming ALL their failures on market size? We sound "ridiculous" and "pathetic"? Really? And sure, you can say they've only attracted 3 big free agents... while a small number, those are 2 of the greatest big men of all-time and another great big man in his prime... all being major factors in the Lakers championships. 

General Managers, drafting, coaching, the players themselves, ARE ALL IMPORTANT AND MAJOR FACTORS IN A TEAMS SUCCESS... but the location of the team is also a factor. Maybe it's very small, but it's there. That's all we're saying. I'm not arguing for a pro-owner deal, not arguing for the Sarver's or the Gilbert's, just that there exists a small advantage.

 

[man listen]

It's interesting that outside of Milwaukee, most of the small market cities either have a similar level of success in all pro sports or have fared much better in the NBA than in other leagues, if the market even exists in other leagues which is saying something. it's not a real issue but instead just a ploy to make it seem like the owners are looking out for the greater good when they're really just looking out for themselves. on a sidenote am I the only one that thinks the NBA will be more popular and profitable after this lockout? with players going overseas and playing for international teams instead of against them like in the Olympics, it's gotta leave the fans with a certain kind of brand loyalty to NBA players. can you imagine all the fans in Turkey right now? "who is this Deron fellow? he is greater than the legend Iverson!". and just like that you're selling league pass subscriptions door to door in Istanbul. almost like an indirect guerilla marketing strategy by Stern and co, sponsored by FIBA. I mean the owners are being so unreasonable it's almost like a lockout is exactly what they want. it's not about big market versus small market, it's about the international market that could make everything else a moot point if millions of fans in China etc are helping fund the league. if that scenario plays out then you sacrifice a season but both players and owners (and agents) win in the long run.

 

[man listen]

It's interesting that outside of Milwaukee, most of the small market cities either have a similar level of success in all pro sports or have fared much better in the NBA than in other leagues, if the market even exists in other leagues which is saying something. it's not a real issue but instead just a ploy to make it seem like the owners are looking out for the greater good when they're really just looking out for themselves. on a sidenote am I the only one that thinks the NBA will be more popular and profitable after this lockout? with players going overseas and playing for international teams instead of against them like in the Olympics, it's gotta leave the fans with a certain kind of brand loyalty to NBA players. can you imagine all the fans in Turkey right now? "who is this Deron fellow? he is greater than the legend Iverson!". and just like that you're selling league pass subscriptions door to door in Istanbul. almost like an indirect guerilla marketing strategy by Stern and co, sponsored by FIBA. I mean the owners are being so unreasonable it's almost like a lockout is exactly what they want. it's not about big market versus small market, it's about the international market that could make everything else a moot point if millions of fans in China etc are helping fund the league. if that scenario plays out then you sacrifice a season but both players and owners (and agents) win in the long run.

 

[jpzx]

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.

You do know, it doesn't depend, they wouldn't go there.

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,
Minnesota doesn't have a small media market at all, but yeah I see what you're saying.

 

[jpzx]

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.

You do know, it doesn't depend, they wouldn't go there.

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,
Minnesota doesn't have a small media market at all, but yeah I see what you're saying.

 

[man listen]

Originally Posted by JPZx

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.

You do know, it doesn't depend, they wouldn't go there.



you have guys leaving the US to go and play in the middle east right now for less than NBA money....is Minnesota that crappy? it's not so much the city but the organizations that suck. say what you want about the market in a place like LA but let's not forget there are two teams in that city. the Lakers are more attractive because they are a well managed organization with an owner that is passionate about basketball and cares about winning. take the Lakers front office and put them in Minnesota for the last 15 years and do you think that team wouldn't be any better? hell that's where the Lakers had their first dynasty......

 

[man listen]

Originally Posted by JPZx

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.

You do know, it doesn't depend, they wouldn't go there.



you have guys leaving the US to go and play in the middle east right now for less than NBA money....is Minnesota that crappy? it's not so much the city but the organizations that suck. say what you want about the market in a place like LA but let's not forget there are two teams in that city. the Lakers are more attractive because they are a well managed organization with an owner that is passionate about basketball and cares about winning. take the Lakers front office and put them in Minnesota for the last 15 years and do you think that team wouldn't be any better? hell that's where the Lakers had their first dynasty......

 

[Nike Jordan]

Toronto is far from a small market.

Just sayin'.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Toronto is far from a small market.

Just sayin'.

 

[Clyde Frog]

Are dudes in here really saying that market size doesnt matter in the NBA? CP did you just say that they got Melo and Amare cause they rid their cap to have room? The Bucks had 96 million dollars open up due to Redds contract expiring. Technically we have a shot at any player in the league, but do we? NO. The only thing we can do is use that cap space to load up on average players and get a few above average players if we're lucky. 

I love basketball, but this is what the NBA needs. This league is so effed up right now i dont care if its locked out all year 2 years or 3 years, as long as it gets fixed. There is no parity whatsoever. The NBA is ruining the game of baskebtall but no one is realizing it cause they half the fan base doenst know what basketball is and would rather argue who's better Kobe or Lebron.
If yall are saying the NBA isnt completely +*$%!* right now your an idiot.

 

[Clyde Frog]

Are dudes in here really saying that market size doesnt matter in the NBA? CP did you just say that they got Melo and Amare cause they rid their cap to have room? The Bucks had 96 million dollars open up due to Redds contract expiring. Technically we have a shot at any player in the league, but do we? NO. The only thing we can do is use that cap space to load up on average players and get a few above average players if we're lucky. 

I love basketball, but this is what the NBA needs. This league is so effed up right now i dont care if its locked out all year 2 years or 3 years, as long as it gets fixed. There is no parity whatsoever. The NBA is ruining the game of baskebtall but no one is realizing it cause they half the fan base doenst know what basketball is and would rather argue who's better Kobe or Lebron.
If yall are saying the NBA isnt completely +*$%!* right now your an idiot.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Great thread. Keeping me thoroughly intrigued during lunch.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Great thread. Keeping me thoroughly intrigued during lunch.

 

[cosmiccanon]

Originally Posted by Big J 33

How do you define "talent"? Jordan Hill sucks, who knows with Thabeet, Montiejunas is garbage, I do like Lee (who is 26 by the way, so not that young), and Flynn is another question mark.

And you're making some reaches there... I wouldn't exactly say they've "STOCKPILED" picks and talent. They have 2 extra picks the next two years, from two playoff teams most likely... so it's not as if they have 3 extra picks from the Clippers, T-Wolves, or Cavs all next season.

I see what you're saying, that you don't necessarily have to get a top 5 lotto pick and draft a future superstar, and that in theory you could build through trades and getting young players. But you've said "young and potential" a lot so there's tons of question marks around those particular players. When they package those guys with picks, make a trade for a higher pick/established player/what have you... then the Rockets should be the model and benchmark. Right now they've made some moves to get younger guys and two extra first round picks, but the jury is still out on them.

I understand Houston will have 2 extra picks that WON'T be lottery picks.
However, given the fact that you can't rule a player out til AFTER his 3rd or 4th year, they have a lot of players that are CHEAP and HAVE POTENTIAL.

Everyone on the Rockets' roster fits that description, sans Lowry/Scola/Martin/Dragic. So AT LEAST 7 of their players, have 3 years- of experience.

Also, let's not disregard 1st round picks outside of the lottery. In the past three drafts, we've had NUMEROUS players non-lottery that are good.

Those players are the following:

Taj Gibson

Jrue Holiday

Eric Bledsoe

Landry Fields

Jeff Teague

Darren Collison

Toney Douglas

 Rodrigue Beaubois

Dejuan Blair

Chase Budinger

That's 10 players bruh, and people wanna say "you can't find good players past the lottery". 

 So it's fathomable, for the Rockets to find a solid player. Whether it's a role player type starter, or key guy off the bench, the Rockets CAN find a player with those two late picks.

Also, the Rockets WILL have a top-5 worst record this year(or whenever the NBA resumes), so they WILL be in the running for the 1st pick in 2012. Maybe in 2013 as well, depending on where they pick next year. So AT WORST they'll have a top 6 draft pick in a GREAT draft next year. 

Finally, the extra picks and cheap talent, creates FLEXIBILITY for the Rockets. If Morey(Rockets' GM) wanted to, he could make a push for CP3 or Dwight. Very unlikely he does that(since the Rockets are rebuilding), but having a surplus of picks/young talent, allows teams to target big-time players through trades. Coincidentally, this franchise(Rockets) did that in acquiring Tracy McGrady(a superstar in 2004). My final point, is that small-mid markets WILL NEVER be able to draw FA like NY/Chicago/LA.  Simply because, small-mid markets aren't AS DESIRABLE like NY/Chicago/LA. However, they can get a type A talent through the draft, or by stockpiling on picks/young talent to TRADE for a type A talent.

So let's just end the "small markets can't win" nonsense. 

 

[cosmiccanon]

Originally Posted by Big J 33

How do you define "talent"? Jordan Hill sucks, who knows with Thabeet, Montiejunas is garbage, I do like Lee (who is 26 by the way, so not that young), and Flynn is another question mark.

And you're making some reaches there... I wouldn't exactly say they've "STOCKPILED" picks and talent. They have 2 extra picks the next two years, from two playoff teams most likely... so it's not as if they have 3 extra picks from the Clippers, T-Wolves, or Cavs all next season.

I see what you're saying, that you don't necessarily have to get a top 5 lotto pick and draft a future superstar, and that in theory you could build through trades and getting young players. But you've said "young and potential" a lot so there's tons of question marks around those particular players. When they package those guys with picks, make a trade for a higher pick/established player/what have you... then the Rockets should be the model and benchmark. Right now they've made some moves to get younger guys and two extra first round picks, but the jury is still out on them.

I understand Houston will have 2 extra picks that WON'T be lottery picks.
However, given the fact that you can't rule a player out til AFTER his 3rd or 4th year, they have a lot of players that are CHEAP and HAVE POTENTIAL.

Everyone on the Rockets' roster fits that description, sans Lowry/Scola/Martin/Dragic. So AT LEAST 7 of their players, have 3 years- of experience.

Also, let's not disregard 1st round picks outside of the lottery. In the past three drafts, we've had NUMEROUS players non-lottery that are good.

Those players are the following:

Taj Gibson

Jrue Holiday

Eric Bledsoe

Landry Fields

Jeff Teague

Darren Collison

Toney Douglas

 Rodrigue Beaubois

Dejuan Blair

Chase Budinger

That's 10 players bruh, and people wanna say "you can't find good players past the lottery". 

 So it's fathomable, for the Rockets to find a solid player. Whether it's a role player type starter, or key guy off the bench, the Rockets CAN find a player with those two late picks.

Also, the Rockets WILL have a top-5 worst record this year(or whenever the NBA resumes), so they WILL be in the running for the 1st pick in 2012. Maybe in 2013 as well, depending on where they pick next year. So AT WORST they'll have a top 6 draft pick in a GREAT draft next year. 

Finally, the extra picks and cheap talent, creates FLEXIBILITY for the Rockets. If Morey(Rockets' GM) wanted to, he could make a push for CP3 or Dwight. Very unlikely he does that(since the Rockets are rebuilding), but having a surplus of picks/young talent, allows teams to target big-time players through trades. Coincidentally, this franchise(Rockets) did that in acquiring Tracy McGrady(a superstar in 2004). My final point, is that small-mid markets WILL NEVER be able to draw FA like NY/Chicago/LA.  Simply because, small-mid markets aren't AS DESIRABLE like NY/Chicago/LA. However, they can get a type A talent through the draft, or by stockpiling on picks/young talent to TRADE for a type A talent.

So let's just end the "small markets can't win" nonsense. 

 

[CP1708]

Big J, Doo was the first to start crying about market size and some others agreed. Doo with the "its just not fair!!!!"

And when the og topic on Twitter started, it was brought up there. Allen and Osh make points, and I hear those, but some others have been blaming markets as unfair advantages and such, that's what I'm refuting.

 

[CP1708]

Big J, Doo was the first to start crying about market size and some others agreed. Doo with the "its just not fair!!!!"

And when the og topic on Twitter started, it was brought up there. Allen and Osh make points, and I hear those, but some others have been blaming markets as unfair advantages and such, that's what I'm refuting.

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Jay02

Are dudes in here really saying that market size doesnt matter in the NBA? CP did you just say that they got Melo and Amare cause they rid their cap to have room? The Bucks had 96 million dollars open up due to Redds contract expiring. Technically we have a shot at any player in the league, but do we? NO. The only thing we can do is use that cap space to load up on average players and get a few above average players if we're lucky. 

I love basketball, but this is what the NBA needs. This league is so effed up right now i dont care if its locked out all year 2 years or 3 years, as long as it gets fixed. There is no parity whatsoever. The NBA is ruining the game of baskebtall but no one is realizing it cause they half the fan base doenst know what basketball is and would rather argue who's better Kobe or Lebron.
If yall are saying the NBA isnt completely +*$%!* right now your an idiot.

What are you talking 96 million opened up? Where are you getting that number from? Over how many years?

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Jay02

Are dudes in here really saying that market size doesnt matter in the NBA? CP did you just say that they got Melo and Amare cause they rid their cap to have room? The Bucks had 96 million dollars open up due to Redds contract expiring. Technically we have a shot at any player in the league, but do we? NO. The only thing we can do is use that cap space to load up on average players and get a few above average players if we're lucky. 

I love basketball, but this is what the NBA needs. This league is so effed up right now i dont care if its locked out all year 2 years or 3 years, as long as it gets fixed. There is no parity whatsoever. The NBA is ruining the game of baskebtall but no one is realizing it cause they half the fan base doenst know what basketball is and would rather argue who's better Kobe or Lebron.
If yall are saying the NBA isnt completely +*$%!* right now your an idiot.

What are you talking 96 million opened up? Where are you getting that number from? Over how many years?

 

[man listen]

Originally Posted by Jay02

Are dudes in here really saying that market size doesnt matter in the NBA? CP did you just say that they got Melo and Amare cause they rid their cap to have room? The Bucks had 96 million dollars open up due to Redds contract expiring. Technically we have a shot at any player in the league, but do we? NO. The only thing we can do is use that cap space to load up on average players and get a few above average players if we're lucky. 

I love basketball, but this is what the NBA needs. This league is so effed up right now i dont care if its locked out all year 2 years or 3 years, as long as it gets fixed. There is no parity whatsoever. The NBA is ruining the game of baskebtall but no one is realizing it cause they half the fan base doenst know what basketball is and would rather argue who's better Kobe or Lebron.
If yall are saying the NBA isnt completely +*$%!* right now your an idiot.

I don't know about anybody else but my point is that good management can overcome the limitations of a small market. the problem with the Bucks is that Michael Redd was taking up 96 mill in the first place. you're talking about a team that had Ray Allen, Sam Cassell, Glen Robinson and Mike Redd all on one team and then in the same breath saying the system is flawed and small markets aren't given a chance. Stern wants to make it so that anyone rich enough can buy a team and be guaranteed to at least break even which would be the worst thing for the quality of the game. it would invite a bunch of clowns that don't care about basketball as long as they make a profit...there are enough Donald Sterlings as is. there are all kinds of restrictions on who can play in the league but anyone with enough money can buy a team and run a franchise into the ground while laughing to the bank. and now they want to make it so that guys who are even less qualified and interested in basketball are able to go and swim in the pool of money. if you're buying into the illusion that the owners are in it to "fix the game" (after one of it's most successful seasons ever with Dallas, Memphis and OKC going deep into the playoffs....what's to fix?) then I don't know what to tell you. 

 

[man listen]

Originally Posted by Jay02

Are dudes in here really saying that market size doesnt matter in the NBA? CP did you just say that they got Melo and Amare cause they rid their cap to have room? The Bucks had 96 million dollars open up due to Redds contract expiring. Technically we have a shot at any player in the league, but do we? NO. The only thing we can do is use that cap space to load up on average players and get a few above average players if we're lucky. 

I love basketball, but this is what the NBA needs. This league is so effed up right now i dont care if its locked out all year 2 years or 3 years, as long as it gets fixed. There is no parity whatsoever. The NBA is ruining the game of baskebtall but no one is realizing it cause they half the fan base doenst know what basketball is and would rather argue who's better Kobe or Lebron.
If yall are saying the NBA isnt completely +*$%!* right now your an idiot.

I don't know about anybody else but my point is that good management can overcome the limitations of a small market. the problem with the Bucks is that Michael Redd was taking up 96 mill in the first place. you're talking about a team that had Ray Allen, Sam Cassell, Glen Robinson and Mike Redd all on one team and then in the same breath saying the system is flawed and small markets aren't given a chance. Stern wants to make it so that anyone rich enough can buy a team and be guaranteed to at least break even which would be the worst thing for the quality of the game. it would invite a bunch of clowns that don't care about basketball as long as they make a profit...there are enough Donald Sterlings as is. there are all kinds of restrictions on who can play in the league but anyone with enough money can buy a team and run a franchise into the ground while laughing to the bank. and now they want to make it so that guys who are even less qualified and interested in basketball are able to go and swim in the pool of money. if you're buying into the illusion that the owners are in it to "fix the game" (after one of it's most successful seasons ever with Dallas, Memphis and OKC going deep into the playoffs....what's to fix?) then I don't know what to tell you.