Why do we care so much about the money?

lucky777s · Post #21 » by **lucky777s** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 7:32 pm

EG73 wrote:
BC chose a used Chevy GEO for 80 grand even though it was in the shop for major repairs. Felt it was just a down year for the car.

Fixed

The_Hater · Post #22 » by **The_Hater** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 7:42 pm

ruckus wrote:I've been following the Raps since the beginning and in recent years, it seems that so much of the hardcore fans' focus is on the player's worth in comparison to their contracts.

My question as a Raps fan is, does it matter? For the life of me, I can't remember any contract that the Raps have had that have hamstrung anything they've wanted to do nor have we ever been in any situation where we've capitalized on having oodles of cap space.

So, does it really matter that Jose makes 10 mil or that DeMar got a big extension? As we all know by now, the size of a contract doesn't really matter. You'll always find a taker eventually.

Another side to this is that winners spend money. In any sport, you'll see that the majority of the teams at the top are the biggest spenders. With a market the size of Toronto's and a company with the resources of MLSE, we should be doing whatever it takes to build a team.

It's called a salary cap. Every single player you overpay effects all the moves that follow because the team only has so much money to spend on it's roster. On top of that, if you overpay a player or give him a longer than necessary contract, that subsequently diminishes his trade value. It's all about getting players for good value so that you can fit more good players on your roster. The day that DD signed his extension, he went from being an intriguing young asset on a rookie contract to just another overpaid player with marginal trade value.

Sorry but the school of thought 'it's not our money so why should we care' hasn't applied for 15-20 years. And you're dead wrong that the Raps have never been hamstrung with a bad conract. There are a few on the roster right now and there have been tons of them in the past. It would explain we are currently watching a capped-out, lottery team.

rove · Post #23 » by **rove** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 7:56 pm

MLSE will go above the tax if we have a winning team. We went over in 2002/03 and 2003/04 seasons when VC was at his peak here. Let's put this "MLSE doesn't care about winning" garbage to rest once and for all.

Also, the tax is much more punitive now than ever before. In addition to increased monetary penalties (from the old $1 penalty per dollar spent to the sliding scale of $1.5 - $4.75 penalty per dollar spent now), it impacts on signing as well. See this link from Larry Coon's cap FAQ:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q23

So yes, watching salaries is EXTREMELY important in this new CBA.

ruckus · Post #24 » by **ruckus** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 7:57 pm

The_Hater wrote:It's called a salary cap. Every single player you overpay effects all the moves that follow because the team only has so much money to spend on it's roster. On top of that, if you overpay a player or give him a longer than necessary contract, that subsequently diminishes his trade value. It's all about getting players for good value so that you can fit more good players on your roster. The day that DD signed his extension, he went from being an intriguing young asset on a rookie contract to just another overpaid player with marginal trade value.

Sorry but the school of thought 'it's not our money so why should we care' hasn't applied for 15-20 years. And you're dead wrong that the Raps have never been hamstrung with a bad conract. There are a few on the roster right now and there have been tons of them in the past. It would explain we are currently watching a capped-out, lottery team.

Yes, I'm familiar with the salary cap.

It's not our money. Why should we care?

Look, I don't like the direction that BC has taken with this team. Its all fairly obvious that he's trying to build a tower with a sand block as the cornerstone.

All I'm saying is, 1) this franchise's problems go much deeper than BC's deficiencies and 2) hearing that so-and-so player is overpaid ad nauseum is getting really tired.

TheAlchemist · Post #25 » by **TheAlchemist** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 8:04 pm

It doesn't matter in the sense that "OH NO!, he cost so much!"

It's none of our money, and even if derozan got paid 10 mil, I' wouldn't care.

What matters to me is that if certain players get over payed, it effects the QUALITY of the team via the Salary Cap.

So if Derozan, a so-so talent, gets 10 milion, add another 5-6 and you can get an awesome player who impacts the game.

Our roster currently has like around 11 mil tied up on Landry fields and Linas Klieza.

To put that in perspective, David Lee's contract is 12.7 Mil.

Once we get to a level where our team is up against the cap, we'll regret having so much money tied into mediocre players. Especially players who aren't elite at any one talent, and don't bring a game changing impact.

Post #26 » by **FluLikeSymptoms** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 8:10 pm

If we had everything we needed, DD's, LOLK's and LOLF's contracts would just be comical and I could say, "it ain't my money, who cares?". But we suck, and these deals all but guarantee future suckage. I wish we had a GM who valued flexibility...

The_Hater · Post #27 » by **The_Hater** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 8:17 pm

ruckus wrote:It's not our money. Why should we care?
.

Did you not read what I wrote? Or did you fail to comprehend it?

That was a serious question by the way because I answered your original question as clearly as I could so those are the only 2 possibilities.

UcanUwill · Post #28 » by **UcanUwill** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 8:20 pm

ruckus wrote:Yes, I'm familiar with the salary cap.

It's not our money. Why should we care?

It effects your team, your team's roster! You are making no sense. If salary cap wasn't there, then you shouldn't care, owners could spend billions for all we care. Euros dont have Salary caps, this is why I do not care how much my favorite Euro team spends...

dTox · Post #29 » by **dTox** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 8:21 pm

The_Hater wrote:
ruckus wrote:It's not our money. Why should we care?
.

Did you not read what I wrote? Or did you fail to comprehend it?

That was a serious question by the way because I answered your original question as clearly as I could so those are the only 2 possibilities.

I think the OP is BC himself since he clearly doesn't understand the value of cheap contracts/bargain deals, or the impact an overpaid player can have on the salary cap

The_Hater · Post #30 » by **The_Hater** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 8:39 pm

UcanUwill wrote:
ruckus wrote:Yes, I'm familiar with the salary cap.

It's not our money. Why should we care?

It effects your team, your team's roster! You are making no sense. If salary cap wasn't there, then you shouldn't care, owners could spend billions for all we care. Euros dont have Salary caps, this is why I do not care how much my favorite Euro team spends...

While there is definitely less of an issue in a league without a salary cap or luxury tax, you should still care with what your Euro teams spend because the owner has almost certainly placed a spending budget on team salary.

SDM · Post #31 » by **SDM** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 8:46 pm

In baseball, you have a point. If I'm the Dodgers and I have no hypothetical spending ceiling, I can spend $87807640876458067 on a AAA infielder without the rest of the roster being impacted.

In a salary cap league, you do not have a point. The money does matter. It affects your return on your own signed players, plus affects how you're able to sign in the future. In fact, I don't see how you can accurately assess a team's long-term potential without considering money.

And if you'd like two examples in recent history of players with massive contracts on the Raps, ultimately requiring them to be packaged with assets so that we could move them and get out from under their salary obligations... Rose and JO.

roundhead0 · Post #32 » by **roundhead0** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 9:22 pm

dTox wrote:
The_Hater wrote:
ruckus wrote:It's not our money. Why should we care?
.

Did you not read what I wrote? Or did you fail to comprehend it?

That was a serious question by the way because I answered your original question as clearly as I could so those are the only 2 possibilities.

I think the OP is BC himself since he clearly doesn't understand the value of cheap contracts/bargain deals, or the impact an overpaid player can have on the salary cap

On the contrary. BC often finds himself signing bargain basement guys to be starters!

BC is trying to be assertive. He thinks he knows what he wants, and then he goes about getting it. Assertiveness can be useful, but it needs to be properly balanced with caution.

Spicy P · Post #33 » by **Spicy P** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 9:29 pm

Because there's this thing called a salary cap and it'd be nice to have some cap space once in a while so we can acquire an impact player and not average players like DeRozan and Calderon.

J-Roc · Post #34 » by **J-Roc** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 9:41 pm

Wasted roster spots. Wasted rotation spots.

lobosloboslobos · Post #35 » by **lobosloboslobos** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 11:05 pm

I have a question (not rhetorical, there may be good answers)

1) who did we want to sign, who was ever realistically going to sign with us, that we could not afford recently?

I also have a point, regardless of whether or not there are good answers to that question:

I have always believed that people's obsession with who gets paid is not just about the salary cap and i believe that every poster on this thread is being disingenuous to some degree in saying that that is ALL that matters when it comes to guys getting paid. There is SO much complaining when guys get paid, especially when guys get paid more than posters think they should, I definitely believe there is some kind of jealousy factor that kicks in. Yell and scream that I'm wrong all you want, but I've been here long enough to know that the whining about Landry Fields was not just about salary cap, it was about a sense of injustice, that he shouldn't have got paid so much because it's not right, and that somehow this ties in to feeling personally burned. Don't ask me how, just don't tell me it isn't partly true.

sanity · Post #36 » by **sanity** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 11:09 pm

The Cap directly impacts the team's ability to facilitate moves in the offseason to get better. If you're a bad team without a draft pick and without a notable up and coming star player, you're in a pretty bad position moving forward. Last 2 seasons were very important in terms of being cost conscious---especially with the new CBA. Binge spending for role players is what competitive teams do to push themselves over the edge, and even then, their tendency to overspend will lessen given the luxury tax payment (3:1) as well as the sheer amount of average players floating around that are practically replaceable with one another (someone like Fields counts as just that, a nothing-special, utility player).

Calling it jealousy is just taking it to a personal level, which it isn't. Nobody hates Fields, Bargnani or Calderon personally. Thinking otherwise because of what they're paid and being people critical of it (which is totally in their right as fans) is narrow minded and takes basketball-talk towards something else. Its like the Colangenani apologists screaming racism.

rove · Post #37 » by **rove** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 11:14 pm

Speaking for myself, jealousy has nothing to do with what Fields get. Even the scrubbiest scrubs (ones making minimum) earn tons more than 99% of us. Whether he makes $10 mil per year vs $5mil or $18 mil doesn't affect me on a personal level at all.

It is an injustice because compared to his peers, he doesn't bring the same level of skill. As a result, he is a detriment to the team.

Post #38 » by **FluLikeSymptoms** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 11:15 pm

I guess there's the same amount of, "why him?" toward LOLF as there is toward any lottery winner. I bet charities and family members have no problem with hitting him up for money. The real jealousy probably comes from other players, though.

sanity · Post #39 » by **sanity** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 11:16 pm

^ Exactly. I would have no problems at all if Fields were paid the same as Kleiza, which is about what he's worth considering his age and potential. He's a benchplayer who has been struggling over the past 2 years to solidify some kind of role.

Post #40 » by **CPT** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 11:38 pm

Is this a troll job? If not, it's got to be one of the stupidest threads in recent memory.

We care because under a salary cap, money spent in one place can't be spent in another. Period. Even if you say "well you can just spend over the tax," there are mechanisms in place that make that difficult.

The idea that it has never held us back from doing what we wanted is a fallacy as well. How do you know what opportunities may have presented themselves if we had extra cap space? Maybe offers for Jose would have been rolling in if he made $5 million instead of $10. Maybe Bargnani could be considered a legit asset if he made $6 million instead of nearly double that. We can't assume these are true either, but we've seen examples around the league and with our own team that demonstrate how important money is.

Was Baron Davis paired with an unprotected first round pick for Mo Williams because Williams is just that much better? Did we want half a season of Shawn Marion so badly that we felt coughing up a first round pick along with JO was worth it?

Maybe if we weren't spendng $11M on Kleiza and Fields, and $10+ million each on Jose and Bargs, we could be one of those teams that acquires a pick for another team's cap mistake.

It's not so much the money itself, but the opportunity cost that we care about.