- 25,494
- 653
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
Dub you want to go by how the team is run or TV markets when calling one small or big market?
The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by gangsta207therevolution,
- Start date
- 29,630
- 1,863
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
I mean I don't know. I think it's a grey area.
Phoenix has a big fan base. But their owner is notoriously cheap. The celtics are supposedly. Great organization but I've read conflicting reports on how they do financially.
This lock out has made arguments seem so black and white
Phoenix has a big fan base. But their owner is notoriously cheap. The celtics are supposedly. Great organization but I've read conflicting reports on how they do financially.
This lock out has made arguments seem so black and white
- 2,836
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2011
FALSEOriginally Posted by lawdog1
Originally Posted by Jay02
Originally Posted by CP1708
Hi.
Can you explain the bold underline to me please? You just said last page the bucks had 96 million dollars to spend, and nobody would take it. But you say here that revenue sharing would somehow upen up some doors........explain.
As for the decrease, where do you want the bar set man? It was mid 50's last year wasn't it? What do you want it to be at, 50 mil even? For 12 players per team, in a league that made what, 3 bil last year? Something like that. Where is all that left over money going in your wish list?
It won't be long before I start seeing people say each player gets only 1 million per year, I can see it now.
Howdy,
The league is in a bit of a different state currently then it was 7 years ago. 22 teams lost money this year. No way in hell that includes your Lakers. Again shared revenue would help this. At one point we were able to shell out 96 million, cant take risks like that anymore (whether or not it was a good management move is irrelevant). Either way 3/4 of the NBA werent losing money then.
And the bar for the salary decrease, idk I dont have a number. But its clear that I think the players should be making less cause like I said it was stop these stupid big 3's from forming. What I see happening though is the players and owners agreeing on 50/50. I dont know how much the players are getting now but I know its more than half.
About the "big 3s," I think that's another difference between the league now and a few years ago. There's been sort of a cultural shift with the star players that's its best to team up with another star and get a ring that way. In the 80s, 90s and even early 2000, you didn't see stars openly talking about wanting to go play with other stars. But now its actually been done, so its impacted the model of what other teams have to compete with. Sure, Dallas got Miami this last year, but there's very few people who don't think the Heat will break through and get theirs at some point soon.
Back then, players didn't have as much freedom, so it's easy to say that now. I highly doubt that, Jordan/Bird/Magic would have stayed on their teams if they were terrible, especially if greener pastures awaited(ala Lebron in '10) awaited them through FA.
- 2,836
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2011
FALSEOriginally Posted by lawdog1
Originally Posted by Jay02
Originally Posted by CP1708
Hi.
Can you explain the bold underline to me please? You just said last page the bucks had 96 million dollars to spend, and nobody would take it. But you say here that revenue sharing would somehow upen up some doors........explain.
As for the decrease, where do you want the bar set man? It was mid 50's last year wasn't it? What do you want it to be at, 50 mil even? For 12 players per team, in a league that made what, 3 bil last year? Something like that. Where is all that left over money going in your wish list?
It won't be long before I start seeing people say each player gets only 1 million per year, I can see it now.
Howdy,
The league is in a bit of a different state currently then it was 7 years ago. 22 teams lost money this year. No way in hell that includes your Lakers. Again shared revenue would help this. At one point we were able to shell out 96 million, cant take risks like that anymore (whether or not it was a good management move is irrelevant). Either way 3/4 of the NBA werent losing money then.
And the bar for the salary decrease, idk I dont have a number. But its clear that I think the players should be making less cause like I said it was stop these stupid big 3's from forming. What I see happening though is the players and owners agreeing on 50/50. I dont know how much the players are getting now but I know its more than half.
About the "big 3s," I think that's another difference between the league now and a few years ago. There's been sort of a cultural shift with the star players that's its best to team up with another star and get a ring that way. In the 80s, 90s and even early 2000, you didn't see stars openly talking about wanting to go play with other stars. But now its actually been done, so its impacted the model of what other teams have to compete with. Sure, Dallas got Miami this last year, but there's very few people who don't think the Heat will break through and get theirs at some point soon.
Back then, players didn't have as much freedom, so it's easy to say that now. I highly doubt that, Jordan/Bird/Magic would have stayed on their teams if they were terrible, especially if greener pastures awaited(ala Lebron in '10) awaited them through FA.
- 29,630
- 1,863
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
I mean I don't know. I think it's a grey area.
Phoenix has a big fan base. But their owner is notoriously cheap. The celtics are supposedly. Great organization but I've read conflicting reports on how they do financially.
This lock out has made arguments seem so black and white
Phoenix has a big fan base. But their owner is notoriously cheap. The celtics are supposedly. Great organization but I've read conflicting reports on how they do financially.
This lock out has made arguments seem so black and white
Clyde Frog
formerly jay02
- 12,617
- 7,475
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
The Thunder and Spurs are the only excpetions on this list. Idk where Seattle is on the market size spectrum but its certainly bigger then OKC where Durant got shipped off too. Like I said before Durant is a rare person to find in the draft. I can see him staying there for a while, he's not like the other stars. Seems humbled, just wants to play ball, cares very little about everything else. Same with Duncan. The Spurs are ONE team I will completely agree with you that management can overcome the leagues limitations on a small market. What they do with these foreign guys is crazy. There isnt any other team that can do what they did. Everyones trying to find these foreign gems but they usually end up being a bust or average at best.
Other than these 2 teams, erase that list. Like I said before they just sucked the best. There's gotta be teams to fill up the remaining playoff seeds. Cant leave the spots blank, someone has to be there. But they dont have a chance.
Clyde Frog
formerly jay02
- 12,617
- 7,475
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
The Thunder and Spurs are the only excpetions on this list. Idk where Seattle is on the market size spectrum but its certainly bigger then OKC where Durant got shipped off too. Like I said before Durant is a rare person to find in the draft. I can see him staying there for a while, he's not like the other stars. Seems humbled, just wants to play ball, cares very little about everything else. Same with Duncan. The Spurs are ONE team I will completely agree with you that management can overcome the leagues limitations on a small market. What they do with these foreign guys is crazy. There isnt any other team that can do what they did. Everyones trying to find these foreign gems but they usually end up being a bust or average at best.
Other than these 2 teams, erase that list. Like I said before they just sucked the best. There's gotta be teams to fill up the remaining playoff seeds. Cant leave the spots blank, someone has to be there. But they dont have a chance.
- 33,617
- 28,933
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
This is pointless argument of degrees.
- 33,617
- 28,933
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
This is pointless argument of degrees.
Clyde Frog
formerly jay02
- 12,617
- 7,475
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
We talking 15-20 years ago? If not i bet my life they Jazz or Blazers wouldnt make the Finals.
Kings, what a shame. We know what happened to them. You know better than anyone. More importantly you know why too.
Kings, what a shame. We know what happened to them. You know better than anyone. More importantly you know why too.
Clyde Frog
formerly jay02
- 12,617
- 7,475
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
We talking 15-20 years ago? If not i bet my life they Jazz or Blazers wouldnt make the Finals.
Kings, what a shame. We know what happened to them. You know better than anyone. More importantly you know why too.
Kings, what a shame. We know what happened to them. You know better than anyone. More importantly you know why too.
- 25,494
- 653
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
i mean classic example is the clippers. in a huge market but nobody gives a rats !#% about them. and small part because of the lakers but a major part on how its run by its owner.
i mean if they clippers where run right since they moved here it could be a Jets/Giants market for them and the lakers.
because of how the owner runs the team IMO big markets would be
Lakers
Bulls
Knicks
portland
mavs
Nets will enter that list very soon
teams that should be in it but are run like %+*#
hawks
wizards
Clippers
76ers
warriors
suns
boston,miami,magic,houston and pistons are the tricky ones
the rest you can throw them around any where else.
- 25,494
- 653
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
i mean classic example is the clippers. in a huge market but nobody gives a rats !#% about them. and small part because of the lakers but a major part on how its run by its owner.
i mean if they clippers where run right since they moved here it could be a Jets/Giants market for them and the lakers.
because of how the owner runs the team IMO big markets would be
Lakers
Bulls
Knicks
portland
mavs
Nets will enter that list very soon
teams that should be in it but are run like %+*#
hawks
wizards
Clippers
76ers
warriors
suns
boston,miami,magic,houston and pistons are the tricky ones
the rest you can throw them around any where else.
- 25,494
- 653
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
nobody told you to come in here tho
- 25,494
- 653
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
nobody told you to come in here tho
- 3,995
- 44
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2004
What does the player's final destination have to do with anything? Those trades were made out of financial need, which is pretty strongly correlated with the size of the team's market. I don't see many big-market teams making similar trades to avoid paying the luxury tax.Originally Posted by CP1708
Blazers paid a bum to leave. Fair enough.Originally Posted by PMatic
Just some random ones that I'm sure really pissed off "small market" fans.
Warriors getting Baron Davis for Dale Davis and Speedy Claxton
Blazers paying Steve Francis $30M to go away.
Spurs trading away Luis Scola because they couldn't/didn't want to pay him.
Spurs taking "advantage" of the Bucks and trading for Richard Jefferson (this hasn't quite worked out)
Jazz having to trade Eric Maynor to rid themselves of Matt Harpring's contract
Bobcats dumping Gerald Wallace for Joel Pryzbilla and picks.
Maynor went small market, to small market. How is that a big market issue?
Wallace, small market, to small market. Again, not seein the issue here.
Are the Warriors considered big or small? If they are big, I'll give you that one with Baron, he's a decent enough player.
I guess you could argue that big markets wouldn't have had to trade away anybody, is that going to be the claim now?
The Scola one is very interesting, but I don't know the whole story. A he was drafted a long time ago wasn't he? But he was international star right? Like Ginobili. What kind of demands money wise was he making back then? Couldn't have been too much could it, hell his deal last year is more than reasonable. And why would the Spurs gamble with Ginobili, Parker, the new Duncan 2.0 kid, but not Scola?Based on their track record, that makes me think more along they were less sure about Scola than the others, know what I mean?
- 3,995
- 44
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2004
What does the player's final destination have to do with anything? Those trades were made out of financial need, which is pretty strongly correlated with the size of the team's market. I don't see many big-market teams making similar trades to avoid paying the luxury tax.Originally Posted by CP1708
Blazers paid a bum to leave. Fair enough.Originally Posted by PMatic
Just some random ones that I'm sure really pissed off "small market" fans.
Warriors getting Baron Davis for Dale Davis and Speedy Claxton
Blazers paying Steve Francis $30M to go away.
Spurs trading away Luis Scola because they couldn't/didn't want to pay him.
Spurs taking "advantage" of the Bucks and trading for Richard Jefferson (this hasn't quite worked out)
Jazz having to trade Eric Maynor to rid themselves of Matt Harpring's contract
Bobcats dumping Gerald Wallace for Joel Pryzbilla and picks.
Maynor went small market, to small market. How is that a big market issue?
Wallace, small market, to small market. Again, not seein the issue here.
Are the Warriors considered big or small? If they are big, I'll give you that one with Baron, he's a decent enough player.
I guess you could argue that big markets wouldn't have had to trade away anybody, is that going to be the claim now?
The Scola one is very interesting, but I don't know the whole story. A he was drafted a long time ago wasn't he? But he was international star right? Like Ginobili. What kind of demands money wise was he making back then? Couldn't have been too much could it, hell his deal last year is more than reasonable. And why would the Spurs gamble with Ginobili, Parker, the new Duncan 2.0 kid, but not Scola?Based on their track record, that makes me think more along they were less sure about Scola than the others, know what I mean?
lawdog1
Supporter
- 59,704
- 71,723
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2000
OK, even if what you're saying is true, do you think Jordan, Bird and Magic would have tried to get on a team with eachother? I don't because both Magic and Jordan have said they wouldn't have wanted to team up with the other superstars of their era. They preferred competing with the other guys who were in their same class. Barkley has said the same thing. That tells me the attitudes now are different. They say they wouldn't have done what LeBron did and I'm going to take them at face value.
And LeBron didn't leave a "terrible" team. He left a team that had the best regular season record in the league two years running for a largely unknown quantity.
lawdog1
Supporter
- 59,704
- 71,723
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2000
OK, even if what you're saying is true, do you think Jordan, Bird and Magic would have tried to get on a team with eachother? I don't because both Magic and Jordan have said they wouldn't have wanted to team up with the other superstars of their era. They preferred competing with the other guys who were in their same class. Barkley has said the same thing. That tells me the attitudes now are different. They say they wouldn't have done what LeBron did and I'm going to take them at face value.
And LeBron didn't leave a "terrible" team. He left a team that had the best regular season record in the league two years running for a largely unknown quantity.
- 29,630
- 1,863
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
I agree with mike on the tricky ones. Those are hard to pinpoint
- 29,630
- 1,863
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
I agree with mike on the tricky ones. Those are hard to pinpoint
