GOOD NEWS: Ready to negotiate that hard cap: David Stern

mcfly1204 · Post #21 » by **mcfly1204** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:45 pm

In summary, here is the relevant information I extracted from that blog:

AQuintus · Post #22 » by **AQuintus** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:47 pm

7-Day Dray wrote:
mid-post wrote:Why is a hard cap good news?

THIS. How does a hard cap help the NBA?

It means that teams like Dallas, LA, or New York can't spend three times more on their rosters than smaller market teams.

RookieStar · Post #23 » by **RookieStar** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:36 pm

Seriously, I think a hard cap will "equalize" the league.

7-Day Dray · Post #24 » by **7-Day Dray** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:05 pm

RookieStar wrote:Seriously, I think a hard cap will "equalize" the league.

Do you see that as a good or bad thing?

And for the people thinking a hard cap=instant parity, you guys got the wrong idea.

charlie sheen · Post #25 » by **charlie sheen** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:50 pm

AQuintus wrote:
7-Day Dray wrote:
mid-post wrote:Why is a hard cap good news?

THIS. How does a hard cap help the NBA?

It means that teams like Dallas, LA, or New York can't spend three times more on their rosters than smaller market teams.

Huh? Salary does not always equal success. The Knicks had the highest salary in the league for God knows how long and were a perennial lottery team until last season. Spurs have always managed to field a quality team without going into luxury tax. The only thing a hard cap will do is to drive out the NBA's middle class and create 1 star teams surrounded by D league players.

MrBigShot · Post #26 » by **MrBigShot** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:53 pm

lol...who else saw "NBA agrees to to 5 year deal..." in the wiretap and saw a glimpse of hope before finishing the sentence?

Im Coming Home · Post #27 » by **Im Coming Home** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:54 pm

AQuintus wrote:
7-Day Dray wrote:
mid-post wrote:Why is a hard cap good news?

THIS. How does a hard cap help the NBA?

It means that teams like Dallas, LA, or New York can't spend three times more on their rosters than smaller market teams.

Ya, so screw that crap. :lol:

Kurtz · Post #28 » by **Kurtz** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:23 am

7-Day Dray wrote:
RookieStar wrote:Seriously, I think a hard cap will "equalize" the league.

Do you see that as a good or bad thing?

Unless you're a fan of the Lakers/Heat, or possibly a team like the Knicks, you'll likely see the cap as a good thing.

Post #29 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:34 am

Kurtz wrote:
7-Day Dray wrote:
RookieStar wrote:Seriously, I think a hard cap will "equalize" the league.

Do you see that as a good or bad thing?

Unless you're a fan of the Lakers/Heat, or possibly a team like the Knicks, you'll likely see the cap as a good thing.

I'm not seeing it.

Top 5 players with so so team mates beat a solid good squad 19 out of 20 times. There is a reason everyone wants to counter with 1 Pistons championship in which they weren't favored in the slightest, and it is the simple fact that there aren't any other modern exceptions.

[Add in that stars will figure out that 15 million + a better supporting cast > 20 million when endorsements etc, (and the joy of winning) are figured in, and what changed?]

Bucksfans1and2 · Post #30 » by **Bucksfans1and2** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:39 am

UssjTrunks wrote:That's awful news. The owners need to push hard for a hardcap. If it means an entire season of no basketball, then so be it.

Bucksfans1and2 · Post #31 » by **Bucksfans1and2** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:40 am

Also this:

mcfly1204 wrote:In summary, here is the relevant information I extracted from that blog:

TDG26 · Post #32 » by **TDG26** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:40 am

It is the view of the board and the committee that an individual team salary cap, as opposed to a league-wide salary cap, is preferred and the better way to go. But as we told the union, and will continue to tell them, everything is negotiable.

how the hell is a individual team salary cap supposed to work?

Kurtz · Post #33 » by **Kurtz** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:42 am

HartfordWhalers wrote:I'm not seeing it.

Top 5 players with so so team mates beat a solid good squad 19 out of 20 times. There is a reason everyone wants to counter with 1 Pistons championship in which they weren't favored in the slightest, and it is the simple fact that there aren't any other modern exceptions.

[Add in that stars will figure out that 15 million + a better supporting cast > 20 million when endorsements etc, (and the joy of winning) are figured in, and what changed?]

A hard cap won't solve every problem, but it'd prevent things like the current Heat team. It would also give teams a better chance to retain their superstars, because the current trend seems to be of superstars wanting to team up.

They could still team up off course, but that would leave them surrounded by low paid players, and even the playing field a lot.

SacKingZZZ · Post #34 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:19 am

charlie sheen wrote:
Huh? Salary does not always equal success. The Knicks had the highest salary in the league for God knows how long and were a perennial lottery team until last season. Spurs have always managed to field a quality team without going into luxury tax. The only thing a hard cap will do is to drive out the NBA's middle class and create 1 star teams surrounded by D league players.

Well, not really. The players that are in the league right now probably are not going to be leave and if there is a viable option like overseas for them to leave to the NBA will not chance it. The only way teams would be structured that way is if the other 90% of the league left, that's not going to happen. Now, the players fears about a huge disparity in salaries from non-stars to stars could be realized but there has to be some sort of balance.

I read an article where one of the examples was a guy like Steve Blake could end up making a million bucks instead of 4 million a year, and that was an argument in favor of the players! Uh, sounds about right to me! haha.

Walid · Post #35 » by **Walid** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:20 am

As long as there is basketball, i don't care about anything else.

ADoaN17 · Post #36 » by **ADoaN17** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:22 am

JrueTheFuture wrote:pls end the lockout before 2k12 comes out I wanna use the Iman Shumpert and Jimmer Fredette

?? are rookies not in 2k12?

SacKingZZZ · Post #37 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:22 am

Kurtz wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:I'm not seeing it.

Top 5 players with so so team mates beat a solid good squad 19 out of 20 times. There is a reason everyone wants to counter with 1 Pistons championship in which they weren't favored in the slightest, and it is the simple fact that there aren't any other modern exceptions.

[Add in that stars will figure out that 15 million + a better supporting cast > 20 million when endorsements etc, (and the joy of winning) are figured in, and what changed?]

A hard cap won't solve every problem, but it'd prevent things like the current Heat team. It would also give teams a better chance to retain their superstars, because the current trend seems to be of superstars wanting to team up.

They could still team up off course, but that would leave them surrounded by low paid players, and even the playing field a lot.

I think a bigger disparity in what "home" teams can pay to their stars as opposed to teams with cap would help that. If players want to ditch out to shinier shores than they need to pay a much bigger cost than a few million a year when they're making 15+ anyway.

SacKingZZZ · Post #38 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:24 am

ADoaN17 wrote:
JrueTheFuture wrote:pls end the lockout before 2k12 comes out I wanna use the Iman Shumpert and Jimmer Fredette

?? are rookies not in 2k12?

Not until the lockout is resolved. When it is they'll be in a roster update.

Kurtz · Post #39 » by **Kurtz** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:41 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:

I think a bigger disparity in what "home" teams can pay to their stars as opposed to teams with cap would help that. If players want to ditch out to shinier shores than they need to pay a much bigger cost than a few million a year when they're making 15+ anyway.

I think that would work...but they'd have to ban sign and trade deals. Those things should have been banned already, but alas...

Ditchweed · Post #40 » by **Ditchweed** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:42 am

I don't know what the basis of Derek's belief is," Stern said. "But I can tell you, having just come out of the meeting, the vast majority of owners are indeed in favor of a 'hard-cap system,' as Derek refers to it. Having said that, they authorized the committee to be ready to negotiate on all points, and the committee is."

I don't see how some people are reading this as no hard cap. All they are saying is that everything is negotiable. Since the majority of the owners do want a hard cap, I see this as an owner's major negotiating stance where the NBPA in turn would also have to give up a major reduction from their present demands for the owners to be sated with no hard cap. The NBPA won't get that for nothing.

From my interpetation of the statement, I would think that a full hard cap which is wanted by the owners is a still possiblility that can go in effect, or at the least a "much, much harder cap than now" will be the minimum the owners will move to on that point. Regardless, it would seem the status quo salary cap is more than likely dead.

Of course, there is now way to know exactly how it will end up till done and the agreement is signed. As well, this "negotiate on all points" could just be posturing to portray a positive bargaining attitude.