Who do you support?

[J-Roc]

I am loving Fairview4Life in this thread.

+1 to everything he's (or she's) said.

lol

[Tenacious_C]

I can't support the players when %50 of BRI with no risk still isn't enough for them.

This.

[timdunkit]

The harder the cap rules in place, the more competitive the entire league. NFL and MLB are at the extreme ends. Basketball is somewhere in the middle. Higher salries do not guarantee success, but teams with high salaries certainly have more success overall than teams that don't.

I would guess that most of the people supporting owners think that if there is hard/cap and other changes, it will change the competitive balance in this league. Thinking teams like the Raptors/Kings/Bucks/etc will be more competitive in this environment.

1. NBA requires just one player to change the whole team. Who ever has the likes of Lebron, Kobe, Durant, Rose, etc will be contenders. There can only be 5-8 of these players. You can't competitive balance because these players are rare. Whoever has these players will dominate.

2. Having hard cap just makes this problem worse. Currently you have one or nearly two players making the max on every team. When the cap is reduced, only few teams will offer the max, and probably the most deserving will get those. What you will have than is bunch of 2nd tier superstars currently making $10M+, making probably half of that. Teams like Lakers will be able to afford two/three of Gasols. Than instead of having role players playing for MLE, they will get these at minimum. You think players like Amir will join Raptors for $3M instead of playing in LA making $1.5M? Money will become less of an issue and players will be more attracted to winning/attractive markets.

A hard cap does exactly that. Under a hard the LAL would no longer be able to afford Kobe, Gasol. Bynum nor would Miami be able to afford the big 3 nor would Dallas be able to resign key players, nor would NYKs be able to add a 3rd superstar or Chicago the ability to add more depth and have problems keeping the current team together when Rose becomes a free agent.

Amir would sign with 3 million not 1 1/2. The Raptors are in a unique posit they are a young team with Alabi. Babosa and Jose expiring within the next 2 years. They will get a top 5 draft pick or better this year and have Jonas in his 1st year. So yes they will be extremely competitive.

Not really ... I think you have this wrong to an extent.

First off, right now large market teams have not only preference in places but also cash over small market teams. Meaning they can not only give the same amount or more dollars then small market teams but they are also preferred.

By cutting down spending where large market teams cannot spend so much more then a small market team, allows for a more even playing ground.

It means a team like LA can't afford to pay Luke Walton and Ron Artest so much and still be able to afford Kobe/Gasol/Odom and Bynum. Right now, larger market teams dont have to worry about their mistakes because they can use money to cover it up. Changing over to a hard cap or reduces the amount of salary a team can have would change that.

Edit: But a side effect owould be punishing teams like OKC who drafted well but would have to make tough decisions on who to pay.

[TdotO]

I support the owners on this....

I fully believe that in order for the NBA to sustain a model that would be successful for all involved that a 50/50 split plus a hard cap is necessary…and if the players want their cake and eat it too then what can you do!?!?

It’s like saying your dad gives you an allowance, then realizes due to inflation etc.. that he’s not able to give you as much as he did in the past but because he promised you a certain amount for a certain number of years, he forgoes paying other bills to pay you the allowance he promised. Now the 5 yrs passed and dad says to you, “Son I can’t give you the same allowance anymore, in order for me to pay the bills and still give you an allowance I have to lower it by X amount” do you think it fair that the son would say “NO DAD!!!!..you got a raise last year and the year before etc.. so therefore you have to give me the same amount plus more over the next few years” Wouldn’t you think that was being unfair??

Sure dad got a raise, however inflation, increase in rent, car breaking down, car payments, interest rates on the credit card etc all increased as well!!

Owners having a lot of money is not the issue….they make money off other business ventures just as the players make money off their other business ventures. It’s fair that the money being shared is only tickets, merchandise and NATIONAL tv revenue. Think of it this way, when certain players are in town the businesses around the arena all get boosts to their revenue because of said team/player being in town, does that mean that they have to share their revenue with the players?? Because without the players they wouldn’t make that boost?! The line has to be drawn somewhere…wouldn’t you agree?

while the players want nothing to do with the problems of the NBA they want everything that is good with the NBA. The players are SOLELY responsible for driving up the cost of the salaries…they set the market, wouldn’t you agree?! So if they set the market and are the ones that cause the massive jumps in cost due to salaries alone, wouldn’t you agree that they have some responsibility to why they NEED to have salary caps in place?! It’s not the revenue sharing that’s the issue. It’s the “not being able to forecast cost” due to the ever increasing cost that the high level players put on themselves. Because of that cost the smaller market teams can’t afford good players, due to the player pricing themselves out of that market leaving those teams losing money. So while I hear your point about a better revenue sharing program, you have to hold the players accountable, meaning that they can’t simply drive up their prices to exorbitant prices

That was me on my soapbox! Thank you for listening

[Indeed]

I support the owners on this....

I fully believe that in order for the NBA to sustain a model that would be successful for all involved that a 50/50 split plus a hard cap is necessary…and if the players want their cake and eat it too then what can you do!?!?

It’s like saying your dad gives you an allowance, then realizes due to inflation etc.. that he’s not able to give you as much as he did in the past but because he promised you a certain amount for a certain number of years, he forgoes paying other bills to pay you the allowance he promised. Now the 5 yrs passed and dad says to you, “Son I can’t give you the same allowance anymore, in order for me to pay the bills and still give you an allowance I have to lower it by X amount” do you think it fair that the son would say “NO DAD!!!!..you got a raise last year and the year before etc.. so therefore you have to give me the same amount plus more over the next few years” Wouldn’t you think that was being unfair??

Sure dad got a raise, however inflation, increase in rent, car breaking down, car payments, interest rates on the credit card etc all increased as well!!

Owners having a lot of money is not the issue….they make money off other business ventures just as the players make money off their other business ventures. It’s fair that the money being shared is only tickets, merchandise and NATIONAL tv revenue. Think of it this way, when certain players are in town the businesses around the arena all get boosts to their revenue because of said team/player being in town, does that mean that they have to share their revenue with the players?? Because without the players they wouldn’t make that boost?! The line has to be drawn somewhere…wouldn’t you agree?

while the players want nothing to do with the problems of the NBA they want everything that is good with the NBA. The players are SOLELY responsible for driving up the cost of the salaries…they set the market, wouldn’t you agree?! So if they set the market and are the ones that cause the massive jumps in cost due to salaries alone, wouldn’t you agree that they have some responsibility to why they NEED to have salary caps in place?! It’s not the revenue sharing that’s the issue. It’s the “not being able to forecast cost” due to the ever increasing cost that the high level players put on themselves. Because of that cost the smaller market teams can’t afford good players, due to the player pricing themselves out of that market leaving those teams losing money. So while I hear your point about a better revenue sharing program, you have to hold the players accountable, meaning that they can’t simply drive up their prices to exorbitant prices

That was me on my soapbox! Thank you for listening

lol, the revenue is highest ever, your dad can afford more than that, but he just being greedy on his own plan (I want to buy a new cars, get a cottage), the interest rate is the lowest ever in US and Canada.

The players NEVER drive up the cost of the salaries, it has always been a RBI at 57%. And if the players are the sales/marketing of the company, what are the owners contributing? Just money?

I think you have a lot of mis-understanding here.

[NH]

Don't really support either parties but at the end of the day, owners/management always win. Bring in the classic employee relations concept of 'Plea or Flee'. As an employee, you only really have 2 options when faced with work conflict; you negotiate, voice your concerns, grieve OR you leave and find BETTER employment.

For the average person, if their boss comes to them and tells the whole company they need to do 10% salary rollbacks, they will either:

- Whine and complain but accept it and continue working OR
- Leave and find BETTER employment

For these NBA players, they can do the same thing but they will not find better employment elsewhere (not even close).

The only other way employees can win in a lockout/strike is by gaining enough public support to put pressure on the owners to make better offers or to end the standoff. Too bad players will not be able to do this, especially with the way the economy is right now. People have limited income to spend, and if not on the NBA, they will find other things to do. It also does not help that most of the fans are telling the NBA players on Twitter to just take the deal and play ball (nor does guys like Kenyon Martin retaliating back on fans help). In the end, the players are on their own, and they will never outlast the owners. Time to cut their loses (OR try to find a better job elsewhere).

[Rapsfan07]

I'm on the side that is trying to create true parity in the league. A place where every team can actually try and win a chip.

That said, I think the Owners are the side I'm leaning to a bit more just because from a fans perspective, they're actually TRYING to get a deal done. After 100+ days, I haven't heard any demand of the players. Only thing I've heard is them contradicting everything the owners suggest. Now, at the end of the day, it's the players that are being marketed, players names on the jerseys and its the players people spend money to come and watch so I believe they should get more of the BRI...BUT they're aren't NEGOTIATING. Their stance is basically " This is what I want and I don't want to bargain unless I'm getting it". THAT attitude is what's really stopping the deal from moving forward. Because if BRI is their main concern then they can have their 53% or whatever BUT when NEGOTIATING, you cannot have everything you want. You give and you take. From my point of view, the owners have backed off quite a few issues they said they were not going to leave the table without (salary rollback, hard cap,etc). What compromise have the players made? This is why I'm voting owners because yes the players should have more BRI but I think something in the ball park of 51 or 52% max. They have to realize the system cannot work with them getting paid so much money AND getting so much BRI...the NBA has to stay afloat too.

On the other hand, a knock I have on the Owners is THEY'RE the ones handling out contracts like Gooden, Arenas, Lewis and the like and then complaining about money and revenues. They have GOT to do a better job managing their finances and assets because expecting the players to take too hard a hit for the mistake that THEY made isn't fair either. We know that it's agents who contribute to driving up player prices which forces teams to overspend and that's a good reason for a hard cap so I can't blame owners for that either.

[Black Milk]

Man the NBAPA has really lost the PR battle. If 70% of basketball forum members are pro owners, I can't even begin to imagine how little sympathy for the players is out there in the general public.

[dacrusha]

A hard cap does exactly that. Under a hard the LAL would no longer be able to afford Kobe, Gasol. Bynum nor would Miami be able to afford the big 3 nor would Dallas be able to resign key players, nor would NYKs be able to add a 3rd superstar or Chicago the ability to add more depth and have problems keeping the current team together when Rose becomes a free agent.

Amir would sign with 3 million not 1 1/2. The Raptors are in a unique posit they are a young team with Alabi. Babosa and Jose expiring within the next 2 years. They will get a top 5 draft pick or better this year and have Jonas in his 1st year. So yes they will be extremely competitive.

Not really ... I think you have this wrong to an extent.

First off, right now large market teams have not only preference in places but also cash over small market teams. Meaning they can not only give the same amount or more dollars then small market teams but they are also preferred.

By cutting down spending where large market teams cannot spend so much more then a small market team, allows for a more even playing ground.

It means a team like LA can't afford to pay Luke Walton and Ron Artest so much and still be able to afford Kobe/Gasol/Odom and Bynum. Right now, larger market teams dont have to worry about their mistakes because they can use money to cover it up. Changing over to a hard cap or reduces the amount of salary a team can have would change that.

Edit: But a side effect owould be punishing teams like OKC who drafted well but would have to make tough decisions on who to pay.

[/quote]

Yup, look what a hard cap did to Chicago in the NHL... they were PUNISHED the summer after fielding a young, well-drafted team that won the Stanley Cup. Who the hell would support a system like this that punishes success? MLSE, of course, who has no real interest in fielding a winner anyway.

Let's see: a higher percentage of BRI, lower player salaries and a hard cap; that should see MLSE profits rise by another $10-15 million the next full year of play. And not one cent would go towards building a winner because (in the unlikely event that MLSE would like to open the vault to sign a high profile player or two) a hard cap would prevent any increases in roster budget to allow the team to sign better talent.

However, on the bright side, that money CAN be used to build more condos, restaurants and sports bars.

[Tenacious_C]

A hard cap does exactly that. Under a hard the LAL would no longer be able to afford Kobe, Gasol. Bynum nor would Miami be able to afford the big 3 nor would Dallas be able to resign key players, nor would NYKs be able to add a 3rd superstar or Chicago the ability to add more depth and have problems keeping the current team together when Rose becomes a free agent.

Amir would sign with 3 million not 1 1/2. The Raptors are in a unique posit they are a young team with Alabi. Babosa and Jose expiring within the next 2 years. They will get a top 5 draft pick or better this year and have Jonas in his 1st year. So yes they will be extremely competitive.

Not really ... I think you have this wrong to an extent.

First off, right now large market teams have not only preference in places but also cash over small market teams. Meaning they can not only give the same amount or more dollars then small market teams but they are also preferred.

By cutting down spending where large market teams cannot spend so much more then a small market team, allows for a more even playing ground.

It means a team like LA can't afford to pay Luke Walton and Ron Artest so much and still be able to afford Kobe/Gasol/Odom and Bynum. Right now, larger market teams dont have to worry about their mistakes because they can use money to cover it up. Changing over to a hard cap or reduces the amount of salary a team can have would change that.

Edit: But a side effect owould be punishing teams like OKC who drafted well but would have to make tough decisions on who to pay.

Yup, look what a hard cap did to Chicago in the NHL... they were PUNISHED the summer after fielding a young, well-drafted team that won the Stanley Cup. Who the hell would support a system like this that punishes success?

MLSE, of course.[/quote]

That same Chicago team is rated #2 in this week's TSN Power Rankings. That situation was a GM who didn't understand the CBA and overspent, it had nothing to do with the system itself. Bowman fixed those mistakes and Chicago is a contender, along with 20 other teams in the league as there is parity in the NHL.

[PerfectJab]

Owners.

I understand the sacrafices that the players are being asked to make in comparison to their former situation. They really have nothing to gain. Then comes reality and that is a poor economy. People making far less money than these players are getting laid off, receiving paycuts with no merit increases and they all think it is unfair. Should their contributions to their organization be considered less important? I understand how fame and million dollar contracts can put people in a situation where they believe that they should be treated differently and nobody likes to lose money. But the reality is, the owners own the league and they have put the players in the situation to make the type of money that they do. As long as the owners are united on their stance the players cannot win. If I was in the NBA, I'd fight it too, but in the back of my mind I'd know that the longer the lockout lasts, the less leverage I have. It's easy to understand how they feel about the owners as it's the exact way I feel about them. The owners are greedy and the players are greedy but when it comes to employment offers the side giving away the money will always have more power. There is no millionaire exemption to this rule.

As a side note, I hate the manipulative PR BS that the players are doing putting the blame on the owners for locking them out trying to get the fans to side with them. Yes, we all know that you want to play basketball, but don't use the game as a way to disguise what the situation is really about - money. Of course you want a fair deal but so does everyone else.

[J-Roc]

A hard cap does exactly that. Under a hard the LAL would no longer be able to afford Kobe, Gasol. Bynum nor would Miami be able to afford the big 3 nor would Dallas be able to resign key players, nor would NYKs be able to add a 3rd superstar or Chicago the ability to add more depth and have problems keeping the current team together when Rose becomes a free agent.

Amir would sign with 3 million not 1 1/2. The Raptors are in a unique posit they are a young team with Alabi. Babosa and Jose expiring within the next 2 years. They will get a top 5 draft pick or better this year and have Jonas in his 1st year. So yes they will be extremely competitive.

Not really ... I think you have this wrong to an extent.

First off, right now large market teams have not only preference in places but also cash over small market teams. Meaning they can not only give the same amount or more dollars then small market teams but they are also preferred.

By cutting down spending where large market teams cannot spend so much more then a small market team, allows for a more even playing ground.

It means a team like LA can't afford to pay Luke Walton and Ron Artest so much and still be able to afford Kobe/Gasol/Odom and Bynum. Right now, larger market teams dont have to worry about their mistakes because they can use money to cover it up. Changing over to a hard cap or reduces the amount of salary a team can have would change that.

Edit: But a side effect owould be punishing teams like OKC who drafted well but would have to make tough decisions on who to pay.

Yup, look what a hard cap did to Chicago in the NHL... they were PUNISHED the summer after fielding a young, well-drafted team that won the Stanley Cup. Who the hell would support a system like this that punishes success? MLSE, of course, who has no real interest in fielding a winner anyway.

Let's see: a higher percentage of BRI, lower player salaries and a hard cap; that should see MLSE profits rise by another $10-15 million the next full year of play. And not one cent would go towards building a winner because (in the unlikely event that MLSE would like to open the vault to sign a high profile player or two) a hard cap would prevent any increases in roster budget to allow the team to sign better talent.

However, on the bright side, that money CAN be used to build more condos, restaurants and sports bars. [/quote]

timdunkit, OKC wouldn't necessarily be punished for drafting well. In a league with parity, they would simply be forced to try to win sooner than in the last system. You can't tank year after year.

dacrusha, if you think the management of your team doesn't want to win, then you have no hope for them no matter the system.

[Fairview4Life]

there is parity in the NHL.

There has always been parity in the NHL, due to the nature of the game. On top of that, I haven't seen any analysis on the NHL pre lockout that correlated winning with spending. Before saying the hard cap is the reason for parity in the game, you need to show people that there wasn't parity pre hard cap, and the reason there wasn't parity was due to the discrepancy in payroll between the good teams and the bad teams. You don't just get to say the hard cap created parity and imply it would do the same thing for the NBA, there is no evidence for that assertion.

[Tenacious_C]

there is parity in the NHL.

There has always been parity in the NHL, due to the nature of the game. On top of that, I haven't seen any analysis on the NHL pre lockout that correlated winning with spending. Before saying the hard cap is the reason for parity in the game, you need to show people that there wasn't parity pre hard cap, and the reason there wasn't parity was due to the discrepancy in payroll between the good teams and the bad teams. You don't just get to say the hard cap created parity and imply it would do the same thing for the NBA, there is no evidence for that assertion.

I thought it was understood. Here's some links with journalists stating the obvious who are much more credible than myself.... Sure, I'll play Google:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2 ... eview.html

There have been five different Stanley Cup winners since the lockout and an assortment of eight clubs have advanced to the final. The Red Wings also have made the most final-four appearances at three, and 12 of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference final at least once since the lockout.

http://theslapshot.com/parity-in-the-nh ... the-league

Fourteen games into the season and the top eight teams in the East are separated by five points (20-15), the bottom eight by six (15-9). The standings change on a daily basis and it only takes a brief winning streak to go from a non play-off spot to the top five.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2011/02/ ... _rankings/

The top five teams in the NHL – Vancouver, Philadelphia, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay – have a combined record of 31-16-3 in their past 10 games. By comparison, the bottom five teams – Toronto, New Jersey, the Islanders, Ottawa and Edmonton – have a combined record of 28-17 and five in their past 10 games.

I thought everyone knew that the NHL had benefited from league parity.

[J-Roc]

I thought everyone knew that the NHL had benefited from league parity.

Only those who follow the NHL.

Does anyone know who is the best team in the Eastern Conference this year? It's just like the NFL.

[Indeed]

there is parity in the NHL.

There has always been parity in the NHL, due to the nature of the game. On top of that, I haven't seen any analysis on the NHL pre lockout that correlated winning with spending. Before saying the hard cap is the reason for parity in the game, you need to show people that there wasn't parity pre hard cap, and the reason there wasn't parity was due to the discrepancy in payroll between the good teams and the bad teams. You don't just get to say the hard cap created parity and imply it would do the same thing for the NBA, there is no evidence for that assertion.

I thought it was understood. Here's some links with journalists stating the obvious who are much more credible than myself.... Sure, I'll play Google:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2 ... eview.html

There have been five different Stanley Cup winners since the lockout and an assortment of eight clubs have advanced to the final. The Red Wings also have made the most final-four appearances at three, and 12 of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference final at least once since the lockout.

http://theslapshot.com/parity-in-the-nh ... the-league

Fourteen games into the season and the top eight teams in the East are separated by five points (20-15), the bottom eight by six (15-9). The standings change on a daily basis and it only takes a brief winning streak to go from a non play-off spot to the top five.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2011/02/ ... _rankings/

The top five teams in the NHL – Vancouver, Philadelphia, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay – have a combined record of 31-16-3 in their past 10 games. By comparison, the bottom five teams – Toronto, New Jersey, the Islanders, Ottawa and Edmonton – have a combined record of 28-17 and five in their past 10 games.

I thought everyone knew that the NHL had benefited from league parity.

I think you forgot NHL has OTW as a W, therefore you see more wins, since W = L + T.
And please remind me why they sold and moved Atlanta to Winnipeg.

[Fairview4Life]

I thought everyone knew that the NHL had benefited from league parity.

So none of those articles compared the league pre-lockout and post-lockout, and none of them compared payroll expenses as the determining variable for any disparity pre and post lockout. This is exactly why just saying it's common knowledge doesn't make any sense. I'll just take that one CBC article that analyzed the NHL over 5 years, called parity a fact, and do the same for the NBA. A league where one player makes a much larger difference on outcomes, and hasn't been operating under a hard cap like the NHL. Let's go back over the last 5 years and see what we find.

Breaking down the CBC article paragraph by paragraph, in comparison with the last 5 NBA seasons not under a hard cap:

Although the Detroit Red Wings won more games, piled up more points, enjoyed more playoff series celebrations than any other NHL team, parity has prevailed in the first five seasons since the lockout ended.

Although the Dallas Mavericks won more games, and piled up more points, and the Lakers have enjoyed more playoff series celebrations than any other NBA team, parity has prevailed over the last 5 NBA seasons.

There have been five different Stanley Cup winners since the lockout and an assortment of eight clubs have advanced to the final. The Red Wings also have made the most final-four appearances at three, and 12 of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference final at least once since the lockout.

There have been four different title winners since 2006/07 and an assortment of seven clubs have advanced to the final. The Lakers also have made the most final-four appearances at three, and 13 of the 30 teams have advanced to the conference finals at least once since the 2006/07.

Detroit, San Jose and New Jersey not only rank one, two and three in terms of regular-season success, this trio is the only group that has gone five-for-five in playoff appearances.

Dallas, San Antonio, LAL, and Orlando rank one, two, three, and four in terms of regular season success, and all four have gone five-for-five in playoff appearances.

Only two clubs – the Florida Panthers and Toronto Maple Leafs – have not made the playoffs in the past five seasons, and another eight have failed to win a playoff series. The clubs that have made the playoffs, but haven't won a series include: Atlanta Thrashers, Minnesota Wild, Phoenix Coyotes, Los Angeles Kings, St. Louis Blues, Tampa Bay Lightning, Columbus Blue Jackets and New York Islanders.

Only three clubs – the Clippers, Kings and Timberwolves – have not made the playoffs in the past five seasons, and another eight have failed to win a playoff series. The clubs that have made the playoffs, but haven't won a series include: Charlotte Bobcats, Indiana Pacers, Milwaukee Bucks, New York Knicks, Toronto Raptors, Washington Wizards, Portland Trail Blazers, and Philadelphia 76ers.

Here's the NBA data, please let me know how the NHL hard cap system produced more parity than the NBA, for example, over those 5 years. Remember, this is just using the CBC's dumb criteria on the NBA. This is ingoring the differences in the game, payroll, and does not try and figure out why parity happened over that time period, etc., etc., etc..

Code: Select all

Team   W   L   PTS   Playoff Appearances   Series Won   Conference Finals   Finals   Titles
Dallas Mavericks   280   130   560   5   5   1   1   1
San Antonio Spurs   279   131   558   5   7   2   1   1
Los Angeles Lakers   278   132   556   5   12   3   3   2
Orlando Magic   262   148   524   5   6   2   1   0
Boston Celtics   258   152   516   4   9   2   2   1
Phoenix Suns   256   154   512   3   3   1   0   0
Denver Nuggets   252   158   504   5   2   1   0   0
Houston Rockets   245   165   490   3   1   0   0   0
Utah Jazz   245   165   490   4   4   1   0   0
Cleveland Cavaliers   241   169   482   4   7   2   1   0
New Orleans Hornets   227   183   454   3   1   0   0   0
Chicago Bulls   226   184   452   4   3   1   0   0
Portland Trail Blazers   225   185   450   3   0   0   0   0
Atlanta Hawks   211   199   422   4   3   0   0   0
Detroit Pistons   208   202   416   3   4   2   0   0
Miami Heat   207   203   414   4   3   1   1   0
Philadelphia 76ers   184   226   368   3   0   0   0   0
Toronto Raptors   183   227   366   2   0   0   0   0
Golden State Warriors   181   229   362   1   1   0   0   0
Oklahoma City Thunder   179   231   358   2   2   1   0   0
Charlotte Bobcats   178   232   356   1   0   0   0   0
Indiana Pacers   176   234   352   1   0   0   0   0
Milwaukee Bucks   169   241   338   1   0   0   0   0
New York Knicks   159   251   318   1   0   0   0   0
Memphis Grizzlies   154   256   308   1   1   0   0   0
Washington Wizards   152   258   304   2   0   0   0   0
New Jersey Nets   145   265   290   1   1   0   0   0
Los Angeles Clippers   143   267   286   0   0   0   0   0
Sacramento Kings   137   273   274   0   0   0   0   0
Minnesota Timberwolves   110   300   220   0   0   0   0   0


So it's now common knowledge that parity exists in the NBA, right?

[3Si]

there is parity in the NHL.

You don't just get to say the hard cap created parity and imply it would do the same thing for the NBA, there is no evidence for that assertion.

And you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Everything we have said is mostly based on speculation. You think 2nd tier stars will go to a winning team over increase in pay, while I believe money talks, and they will go to the team that will pay.

Using the Amir example up there from someone, I'm pretty sure Amir would take 3M to play in Toronto than 1.5M in LA... that example was pretty funny however. What was that poster thinking...

[Fairview4Life]

there is parity in the NHL.

You don't just get to say the hard cap created parity and imply it would do the same thing for the NBA, there is no evidence for that assertion.

And you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Everything we have said is mostly based on speculation. You think 2nd tier stars will go to a winning team over increase in pay, while I believe money talks, and they will go to the team that will pay.

Using the Amir example up there from someone, I'm pretty sure Amir would take 3M to play in Toronto than 1.5M in LA... that example was pretty funny however. What was that poster thinking...

What I believe is that the differences in pay under a hard cap will be negligible enough that utility like winning, and endorsements in large markets, and wanting to live in NY over Minnesota will start to make even more of a difference to players.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

so what do you suggest Fariview, just leave things the way they are, let the Players have 53% and get back to basketball?

I'm starting to think we tend to lose by a basic hard cap. I mean, we're one of the few profitable teams. HAd MLSE had the balls, we co9uld have been onse of those tax teams and been more competitive. the problem is they've always had the wussy stance, not paying tax until it's clear they are close. That was there choice. Regardless, the ability to over pay FA's is what helps us get them in the first place. Maybe if we can't over pay, then we don't get them? and if it was a hard cap, we may not have that ability. Still, I think the system needs tweaking, it's jsut what do you do.


I posted in another thread, and I'll repost it here, a system that would keep the FA market going, so the Players should be happy, but help to ensure that it rotates around the league, so that may keep the league happy.

They should allow teams to go a few years over the tax to take a run, thenimpose the tougher sanctions to make it hard to do it for extended periods and spread the wealth. Maybe teams can only be in the tax of two years, in a five year period, and then they lose their exceptions, first round picks and pay a higher tax if the don't cut salary. It would spread it around a bit more. Teams would have to get close and then take their shot, and then it would be other teams that would have the advantage.

For the players, there would always be a market, but for the teams it would not only be certain teams who would be there constantly. There would be more movement, and it wouldn't be the same teams in the running year after year, unless they were doing it while being under the tax. Teams would have to plan in out in like five year plans, when they are going to make their move, as if they make the move and don't get it done in two years, they'll have to tear it down and start again, or pay the tough penalty and lose their exceptions and maybe even picks.