Who's side are you on? (Lockout)

[Reignman]

Tl;dr version - if a big market team is determined enough to make a run at an elite free agent and clears cap space, there isn't much a smaller market team can do to keep him.

The issue isn't that black and white though. Yes, movement and salary restrictions aren't going to keep the big markets from attracting one or two free agents. No one is saying they will. It does, however, prevent team stacking - unless superstars are willing to take deep, deep salary cuts to play with their friends.

So say the league does a reset, and implements their hard cap. What happens when a team, for example, like Toronto, manages to draft 2 superstars in a row? Say Val turns out to be a stud, and starts putting up 22/13/4. You also manage to draft Harrison Barnes in the next draft, who is also putting up 23/6rpg. Oh, and let's not forget DeRozan, who, during the lockout, learned to shoot 3s, and is now averaging 18 ppg, despite only getting 13 FGA per game. Now, under this new hard cap, you're not going to be able to sign all 3. So now what? Colangelo gets penalized for drafting 3 studs, and now must trade 1 away? How is that fair? Meanwhile, you've got a team like Atlanta, who's made stupid draft picks, but has somehow managed to clear enough cap space and is just waiting to sign away one of your guys, knowing you can't afford them all. It's almost like the smart teams get penalized, while the mismanaged teams get mulligans, so long as they can clear enough cap space. With shorter, possibly non-guaranteed contracts, it will be a cinch for big market teams to chase elite players whenever they please.

It's fair because all 30 teams would be facing the same limitations. The rule is to stay under X amount of $$$ so it's up to each team on how they allocate those $$$.

A hard cap has no bias, each team gets the same amount.

[Fairview4Life]

What would actually level the geographic advantages of certain markets: no max contracts and massive revenue sharing. I'm willing to bet the players would agree to that, but of course the owners want no part of that.

I'm sure you meant "no max contracts along with a hard salary cap", right? I'm not sure the players would acquiesce to that, honestly.

And again: revenue sharing when the league is losing money in aggregate is not a solution to anything. The league has to be profitable for that to help much.

The players have already agreed to give up a massive amount of money. That is the world in which I am proposing massive revenue sharing. That is why I mentioned the 3 billion/10 years earlier.

And nope: I meant what I wrote. Increased revenue sharing with no max contracts. Give everyone around the same amount to spend, and let them go out and succeed or fail. Someone wants ot offer Lebron a $70 million a year deal for the next 20 years? Go for it. Courtside has come up with some decent rules for revenue sharing so that the Donald Sterling's of the world can't just sit back and earn money off of a terribly managed team, but you can tweak those types of systems to find a decent balance. If it benefits the Knicks to have a team in Indiana, the Knicks should help keep that team afloat. Setting a hard cap at a level that a team in Indiana can afford, but not giving them any money from the Knicks (or if Indiana's revenues somehow go through the roof and the Knicks lose a ton of revenue, vice versa) isn't good for the NBA. We just have these conversations again in 10 years, and the next Lebron is off playing football.

At the end of the day the owners claims of just wanting parity might be true, but their proposals don't actually accomplish what they say they want. I think those actions speak louder than their words.

[Reignman]

It's called cap management, and it works in other leagues. It essentially discourages teams from living in the basement of the league trying to amass cheap stars, so we might have to eventually trade one star for some contracts that are more manageable. I feel like you're late to the parity party.

Imagine if the Lakers had to trade away Worthy and Kareem to retain Magic. If the Celtics traded McHale to keep Bird, if the Bulls couldn't keep Pippen. The quality of play would suffer, all in the name of competitive parity. Ugh.

Look at the Chicago Blackhawks - great young team, comprised of good draft picks and smart trades wins the Stanley Cup, then gets broken up just so they can fit under the cap. Again, that doesn't seem right that a smart franchise has to be penalized for making the right moves.

What the hell are you babbling about? If the Lakers had to trade away Worthy and Kareem in order to make room for Magic do you think Worthy and Kareem would dissappear off the face of the earth?

No, they'd end up on another team making them stronger.

So instead of the Lakers running roughshod over the league you now have 2 or 3 teams that could hang with each other. That's what we call competitive parity.

And btw, you bring up the Blackhawks, look at how piss poor that franchise was prior to the hardcap. All of a sudden the hardcap brought the Blackhawks back in hockey discussions. Sure, they lost some talent because of the rules but that's part of the cycle. The Blackhawks are now back and if they keep making good decisions they'll be back in the Stanley Cup in the future.

The only downside of the hard cap is that it deters from dynasties forming. I'm talking about teams that can win 3 or 4 in the row, that will be harder under the hard cap.

[BorisDK1]

The players have already agreed to give up a massive amount of money. That is the world in which I am proposing massive revenue sharing. That is why I mentioned the 3 billion/10 years earlier.

Revenue sharing when the league is hemorrhaging cash isn't going to help anything: the league must be profitable first.

And nope: I meant what I wrote. Increased revenue sharing with no max contracts. Give everyone around the same amount to spend, and let them go out and succeed or fail.

But that makes no sense: costs are not equally distributed around the league, so why should cash? Now you're putting certain markets at an incredible disadvantage based on mere geography: nothing has changed (except maybe which markets are or are not in jeopardy).

[ATLTimekeeper]

It's called cap management, and it works in other leagues. It essentially discourages teams from living in the basement of the league trying to amass cheap stars, so we might have to eventually trade one star for some contracts that are more manageable. I feel like you're late to the parity party.

Imagine if the Lakers had to trade away Worthy and Kareem to retain Magic. If the Celtics traded McHale to keep Bird, if the Bulls couldn't keep Pippen. The quality of play would suffer, all in the name of competitive parity. Ugh.

Look at the Chicago Blackhawks - great young team, comprised of good draft picks and smart trades wins the Stanley Cup, then gets broken up just so they can fit under the cap. Again, that doesn't seem right that a smart franchise has to be penalized for making the right moves.

The Blackhawks made some terrible decisions with contracts, but have still managed to keep their core players. They managed the cap poorly. And I'm not sure what you're getting at with quality of play. Having a bunch of all-star teams play each other in the finals is fun when you get to the finals, but during the regular season it sucks. Great teams can still exist under a cap (see San Antonio Spurs). People don't pay to watch owners own, so take them right out of the equation. Leave it up to management, coaches and players. Voila.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue for parity anymore, as it's past the point to do so. This is really an fight about owners wanting to take their league back from agents and players. It's a power struggle. The players' caved and caved and caved and the owners got greedy and thought they were going to cave some more.

[MEDIC]

So say the league does a reset, and implements their hard cap. What happens when a team, for example, like Toronto, manages to draft 2 superstars in a row? Say Val turns out to be a stud, and starts putting up 22/13/4. You also manage to draft Harrison Barnes in the next draft, who is also putting up 23/6rpg. Oh, and let's not forget DeRozan, who, during the lockout, learned to shoot 3s, and is now averaging 18 ppg, despite only getting 13 FGA per game. Now, under this new hard cap, you're not going to be able to sign all 3. So now what? Colangelo gets penalized for drafting 3 studs, and now must trade 1 away? How is that fair? Meanwhile, you've got a team like Atlanta, who's made stupid draft picks, but has somehow managed to clear enough cap space and is just waiting to sign away one of your guys, knowing you can't afford them all. It's almost like the smart teams get penalized, while the mismanaged teams get mulligans, so long as they can clear enough cap space. With shorter, possibly non-guaranteed contracts, it will be a cinch for big market teams to chase elite players whenever they please.

I'm fine with that. Sounds like a perfect situation & is exactly what a lot of us want.

What you are describing above is what we call "creating more parity throughout the league".

[Fairview4Life]

The players have already agreed to give up a massive amount of money. That is the world in which I am proposing massive revenue sharing. That is why I mentioned the 3 billion/10 years earlier.

Revenue sharing when the league is hemorrhaging cash isn't going to help anything: the league must be profitable first.

And nope: I meant what I wrote. Increased revenue sharing with no max contracts. Give everyone around the same amount to spend, and let them go out and succeed or fail.

But that makes no sense: costs are not equally distributed around the league, so why should cash? Now you're putting certain markets at an incredible disadvantage based on mere geography: nothing has changed (except maybe which markets are or are not in jeopardy).

I said the players have apparently agreed to give the owners a projected $300 million a season in BRI concessions already, for the next 10 years. In that framework, the league is no longer hemorrhaging cash. My point: the players offered the owners more than enough money to cover their supposed losses. In the league with revenue sharing I am discussing, there are no longer massive aggregate losses (until they find more ways to claim them, of course).

As far as costs not being evenly distributed, this is why I pointed to Courtside's (and Schadenfreude's) discussions of various rules or revenue sharing systems that could be used to determine who gets what/how much each team gets. You don't want to necessarily reward a horribly managed team, and can use various methods to figure out who gets what. But leaving the Celtics with a 20% ownership stake in their local TV station broadcasting their games, and the Lakers with an extra $150 million a year in local TV revenue that the Pacers can never receive, not letting the Pacers move to either of those markets, and then setting a hard cap at $50 million/ season because it's all that the Pacers can afford and still turn a profit, doesn't help the NBA in the long run. It is detrimental to the league. it's also not going to solve any parity issues.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

It's called cap management, and it works in other leagues. It essentially discourages teams from living in the basement of the league trying to amass cheap stars, so we might have to eventually trade one star for some contracts that are more manageable. I feel like you're late to the parity party.

Imagine if the Lakers had to trade away Worthy and Kareem to retain Magic. If the Celtics traded McHale to keep Bird, if the Bulls couldn't keep Pippen. The quality of play would suffer, all in the name of competitive parity. Ugh.

What the hell are you babbling about? If the Lakers had to trade away Worthy and Kareem in order to make room for Magic do you think Worthy and Kareem would dissappear off the face of the earth?

No, they'd end up on another team making them stronger.

I'd be watching watered-down teams. I don't know how/why I could ever find this exciting. Give me 2 teams stacked with talent, rather than 2 watered-down teams in the Finals.

[Tommy Udo 6]

This article by Real GM Administrator Doug Thonus is the best analysis of blame (and stupidity) that I have seen:

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-bulls ... messed-up/

[MEDIC]

Imagine if the Lakers had to trade away Worthy and Kareem to retain Magic. If the Celtics traded McHale to keep Bird, if the Bulls couldn't keep Pippen. The quality of play would suffer, all in the name of competitive parity. Ugh.

Look at the Chicago Blackhawks - great young team, comprised of good draft picks and smart trades wins the Stanley Cup, then gets broken up just so they can fit under the cap. Again, that doesn't seem right that a smart franchise has to be penalized for making the right moves.

This is exactly what I want to see. One team has its glory for a bit, now it's somebody elses turn. It will grow the game across the US. It seems to be working amazingly well for football.

Oh, & BTW, the Bulls don't lose Pippen. The simply can't add Kukoc or Rodman unless one of them want to join the team by taking a big paycut.

If those stars aren't all together, the Lakers are still the Lakers & the Bulls are still the Bulls. It will be up to each team to make sure they spend the appropriate money on the appropriate role players & coaching staff. The Bulls were still the bulls before they signed Kukoc & Rodman. Kukoc & Rodman just made them completely unstoppable (ruining competitive parity).

It will put a lot more pressure on GM's to make perfect moves. It won't be as simple as "I'll just sign 3 superstars & win a championship". They'll have to earn their money by making percise moves.

[Fairview4Life]

Imagine if the Lakers had to trade away Worthy and Kareem to retain Magic. If the Celtics traded McHale to keep Bird, if the Bulls couldn't keep Pippen. The quality of play would suffer, all in the name of competitive parity. Ugh.

Look at the Chicago Blackhawks - great young team, comprised of good draft picks and smart trades wins the Stanley Cup, then gets broken up just so they can fit under the cap. Again, that doesn't seem right that a smart franchise has to be penalized for making the right moves.

This is exactly what I want to see. One team has its glory for a bit, now it's somebody elses turn. It will grow the game across the US. It seems to be working amazingly well for football.

Oh, & BTW, the Bulls don't lose Pippen. The simply can't add Kukoc or Rodman unless one of them want to join the team by taking a big paycut.

If those stars aren't all together, the Lakers are still the Lakers & the Bulls are still the Bulls. It will be up to each team to make sure they spend the appropriate money on the appropriate role players & coaching staff. The Bulls were still the bulls before they signed Kukoc & Rodman. Kukoc & Rodman just made them completely unstoppable (ruining competitive parity).

It will put a lot more pressure on GM's to make perfect moves. It won't be as simple as "I'll just sign 3 superstars & win a championship". They'll have to earn their money by making percise moves.

Maybe parity in NFL is being driven by revenue sharing? Maybe it's a combination of that and the nature of the game (11 aside, single elimination playoffs, short season). In addition, in the last capped year, the salary spread between the highest and lowest spending NFL teams was around 37%, and the same NBA year was at 36%. The hard cap in the NFL isn't the driving factor for parity as far as I've seen.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

So say the league does a reset, and implements their hard cap. What happens when a team, for example, like Toronto, manages to draft 2 superstars in a row? Say Val turns out to be a stud, and starts putting up 22/13/4. You also manage to draft Harrison Barnes in the next draft, who is also putting up 23/6rpg. Oh, and let's not forget DeRozan, who, during the lockout, learned to shoot 3s, and is now averaging 18 ppg, despite only getting 13 FGA per game. Now, under this new hard cap, you're not going to be able to sign all 3. So now what? Colangelo gets penalized for drafting 3 studs, and now must trade 1 away? How is that fair? Meanwhile, you've got a team like Atlanta, who's made stupid draft picks, but has somehow managed to clear enough cap space and is just waiting to sign away one of your guys, knowing you can't afford them all. It's almost like the smart teams get penalized, while the mismanaged teams get mulligans, so long as they can clear enough cap space. With shorter, possibly non-guaranteed contracts, it will be a cinch for big market teams to chase elite players whenever they please.

I'm fine with that. Sounds like a perfect situation & is exactly what a lot of us want.

What you are describing above is what we call "creating more parity throughout the league".

I'mc coming around to it now. I actually hope this does come into play. Seeing your team get poached for talent will never get old to me.

[Reignman]

So say the league does a reset, and implements their hard cap. What happens when a team, for example, like Toronto, manages to draft 2 superstars in a row? Say Val turns out to be a stud, and starts putting up 22/13/4. You also manage to draft Harrison Barnes in the next draft, who is also putting up 23/6rpg. Oh, and let's not forget DeRozan, who, during the lockout, learned to shoot 3s, and is now averaging 18 ppg, despite only getting 13 FGA per game. Now, under this new hard cap, you're not going to be able to sign all 3. So now what? Colangelo gets penalized for drafting 3 studs, and now must trade 1 away? How is that fair? Meanwhile, you've got a team like Atlanta, who's made stupid draft picks, but has somehow managed to clear enough cap space and is just waiting to sign away one of your guys, knowing you can't afford them all. It's almost like the smart teams get penalized, while the mismanaged teams get mulligans, so long as they can clear enough cap space. With shorter, possibly non-guaranteed contracts, it will be a cinch for big market teams to chase elite players whenever they please.

I'm fine with that. Sounds like a perfect situation & is exactly what a lot of us want.

What you are describing above is what we call "creating more parity throughout the league".

I'mc coming around to it now. I actually hope this does come into play. Seeing your team get poached for talent will never get old to me.

You do realize that in a hard cap environment EVERYONE gets poached and EVERYONE gets to poach.

I hope you get that.

[Reignman]

Imagine if the Lakers had to trade away Worthy and Kareem to retain Magic. If the Celtics traded McHale to keep Bird, if the Bulls couldn't keep Pippen. The quality of play would suffer, all in the name of competitive parity. Ugh.

What the hell are you babbling about? If the Lakers had to trade away Worthy and Kareem in order to make room for Magic do you think Worthy and Kareem would dissappear off the face of the earth?

No, they'd end up on another team making them stronger.

I'd be watching watered-down teams. I don't know how/why I could ever find this exciting. Give me 2 teams stacked with talent, rather than 2 watered-down teams in the Finals.

Oh, now I get it, you're one of those guys that enjoy watching one-sided matches, good for you.

I'd much rather watch equally strong teams battle each other.

[MEDIC]

I'mc coming around to it now. I actually hope this does come into play. Seeing your team get poached for talent will never get old to me.

You do realize that in a hard cap environment EVERYONE gets poached and EVERYONE gets to poach.

I hope you get that.

LOL. We get "poached for talent" currently.

I'd like to see the Lakers & other big markets have their turn.

[Reignman]

I'mc coming around to it now. I actually hope this does come into play. Seeing your team get poached for talent will never get old to me.

You do realize that in a hard cap environment EVERYONE gets poached and EVERYONE gets to poach.

I hope you get that.

LOL. We get "poached for talent" currently.

I'd like to see the Lakers & other big markets have their turn.

haha, true say, we've been getting poached for the last 16 years and this guy acts like it has never happened.

[BorisDK1]

I said the players have apparently agreed to give the owners a projected $300 million a season in BRI concessions already, for the next 10 years. In that framework, the league is no longer hemorrhaging cash. My point: the players offered the owners more than enough money to cover their supposed losses. In the league with revenue sharing I am discussing, there are no longer massive aggregate losses (until they find more ways to claim them, of course).

You're just proposing a hard cap by another name. Instead of limiting it on the demand side (salary), you're doing it on the supply side (money).

As far as costs not being evenly distributed, this is why I pointed to Courtside's (and Schadenfreude's) discussions of various rules or revenue sharing systems that could be used to determine who gets what/how much each team gets. You don't want to necessarily reward a horribly managed team, and can use various methods to figure out who gets what. But leaving the Celtics with a 20% ownership stake in their local TV station broadcasting their games, and the Lakers with an extra $150 million a year in local TV revenue that the Pacers can never receive, not letting the Pacers move to either of those markets, and then setting a hard cap at $50 million/ season because it's all that the Pacers can afford and still turn a profit, doesn't help the NBA in the long run. It is detrimental to the league. it's also not going to solve any parity issues.

You proposed that all teams end up with the same amount of cash. That puts the team who's paying, say, $5 million annually for its stadium lease and $8 million annually in interest at an incredible advantage to the team who's paying $10 million for its stadium lease and $12 million in interest. That is nonsensical, as is a hard cap anyway.

I think what we all want is a system that sees teams building up through draft and trade and not seeing a privileged few teams poach away star talent from markets for reasons of glamour and/or climate.

[sanity]

I think poaching should be used loosely as it really just seems like a select few players (mainly of the 03' draft class) who seem to weld a ridiculous amount of influence over the league and are able to dictate their own terms ahead of the teams they are working for.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

You do realize that in a hard cap environment EVERYONE gets poached and EVERYONE gets to poach.

I hope you get that.

LOL. We get "poached for talent" currently.

I'd like to see the Lakers & other big markets have their turn.

haha, true say, we've been getting poached for the last 16 years and this guy acts like it has never happened.

Yeah, I realize that it's been happening, which is why I said it WILL NEVER GET OLD.

And in Reignman's world of non-guaranteed contracts, it will be that much easier for big city teams to clear the decks and chase after your free agents. Chances are good that you guys will get poached more often than you doing the poaching. Thank the good old American education system and greedy agents for the general misconceptions players have about playing in Canada. Let's see - you guys have lost out on Mighty Mouse, T-mac, VC, and Bosh, but have been able to sign such away such studs like zombie Hakeem Olajuwon, Hedo "Pizza Pizza" Turkoglu, and Jason Kapono. I like your chances.

[Tenacious_C]

I already started a thread with this poll, merge it?