"Only way to avoid 'super teams' is to impose a hard cap."

[GetBuLLish]

NHL just got a hard cap, and they are headed for more labor trouble. Meanwhile MLB has no cap, and has had labor peace since 1994.

That's because NHL revenues are way down, a hard cap or no hard cap is irrelevant to their issues.

Isn't "competitive balance" supposed to create more revenue...?

[clevceltics]

Agenda,

I find it highly unlikely that a fringe all star would play for 3.5 mil but ok.

[DanTown8587]

NHL just got a hard cap, and they are headed for more labor trouble. Meanwhile MLB has no cap, and has had labor peace since 1994.

That's because NHL revenues are way down, a hard cap or no hard cap is irrelevant to their issues.

Yeah, they actually added the hard cap and watched revenue go up 50% since the lockout

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_21333136/nhl-could-be-headed-lockout-negotiations-stall

In simple terms, the owners want to pay players less -- much less. Despite the fact the NHL's revenues grew from $2.2 billion before the 2004-05 lockout to $3.3 billion last season, a number of teams are still struggling. The financial success of the wealthiest franchises over the last seven years ended up hurting the poorer ones.

That's because the salary cap was tied to overall hockey-related revenues and rose dramatically from $39 million in 2005-06 to $64.3 million last season, bringing the salary floor (the minimum teams must spend) up along with it.

The NHL is actually exactly where the NBA was last year: the large markets made a ton of money, the small markets not so much and then there was a huge class separation in terms of ownership. That's why you see massive HRI cuts.

[Don Draper]

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown is actually the 6th largest media market in the country and the 4th largest metropolitan area. I'd wager his reluctance to sign there has far more to do with how terrible a city HOU is for a twentysomething athlete's lifestyle, and the fact that he would be potentially entering another rebuilding period there, more than the lure of LA or BRK. The Rockets also have a huge presence in China that would doubtlessly have expanded Howard's brand, especially by playing alongside Lin.

If you're a young, rich african-american Houston is one of the best places in the US to live. It's not Miami, LA, or NY but it's certainly not a terrible city.

[LateRoundFlyer]

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown is actually the 6th largest media market in the country and the 4th largest metropolitan area. I'd wager his reluctance to sign there has far more to do with how terrible a city HOU is for a twentysomething athlete's lifestyle, and the fact that he would be potentially entering another rebuilding period there, more than the lure of LA or BRK. The Rockets also have a huge presence in China that would doubtlessly have expanded Howard's brand, especially by playing alongside Lin.

If you're a young, rich african-american Houston is one of the best places in the US to live. It's not Miami, LA, or NY but it's certainly not a terrible city.

Look, I'm not really keen on starting a whole debate on livability or social dynamism here. I can respect the fact that, as a Rockets fan, you no doubt have special ties to the area and local pride and I'm not trying to diminish that in any sense at all. For what it's worth, I too have a local connection to the area through family, and have visited many times. As America's 4th-largest city, there is a lot HOU must be doing right...

But... as you knew this was coming... I scarcely believe you can make the claim that what is appealing to a young, rich African American is necessarily the same as what might appeal to a rich, fun-seeking, socialite athlete -- if we were to even assume young, rich black males in HOU hold the same universal regard for amenities as you suggest. For everything that HOU may have going for it, you can't deny that for someone specifically of Dwight's profile, the prospects for him ever staying beyond next year didn't look great at all.

HOU's sprawl and all the associated problems that stem from it are well-known. From the traffic nightmares to the smog pollution, sticky summers and limited social scene, which of these do you think would strike Dwight's fancy first?

Yes, there's some things you can't necessarily account the same as others. The people are great, so is the regional cuisine. And HOU's made great in-roads in public transportation, health services, and science research. All that is good and fine... but how many athletes do you know move to a city for their great hospitals?

When all personal bias is removed from the equation, I doubt anyone with a straight face could really recommend HOU purely on the merits of it being a great city. To an athlete who cares more about these things, perhaps. The Rockets do indeed have a history of talented big men and championship-quality management. But why choose them over the Lakers, who have the exact same things going for them plus a great city as well?

This is where you and I are already in agreement: the max contract and salary cap makes location the most important thing in a player's free agency decision. If you want more competitive player movement, the solution is obvious. But to say that even those changes would make location a negligible consideration... I just don't think anyone would buy it. Least of all Dwight.

[smith2373]

The people why cry about parity and competitive balance must not watch college sports at all.

Sure I know college isn't the pros, but I wonder how you people watch college sports without crying about parity and needing to create competitive balance.

[EireannX]

The people why cry about parity and competitive balance must not watch college sports at all.

Sure I know college isn't the pros, but I wonder how you people watch college sports without crying about parity and needing to create competitive balance.

Because 35 different schools have won the NCAA? Because apart from Wooden's ridiculous success with UCLA in the 60s, no team has won it more than 2 years in a row? (And a lot of us weren't alive for the 60s run so we're not going to cry about things that happened before we were born).

[Pimpwerx]

That poll suggests there are 64% of people who read this thread that are dopes that didn't pay attention during the lockout. Owners don't care about competitive balance, and a hard cap wouldn't stop players from taking pay cuts to join up.

This just says that when the next CBA discussions come up, 2/3 of the people reading this thread are gonna side with the owners again, and get duped yet again. **** learn your lesson, dammit. PEACE.

[Ditchweed]

NHL just got a hard cap, and they are headed for more labor trouble. Meanwhile MLB has no cap, and has had labor peace since 1994.

That's because NHL revenues are way down, a hard cap or no hard cap is irrelevant to their issues.

Yeah, they actually added the hard cap and watched revenue go up 50% since the lockout

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_21333136/nhl-could-be-headed-lockout-negotiations-stall

In simple terms, the owners want to pay players less -- much less. Despite the fact the NHL's revenues grew from $2.2 billion before the 2004-05 lockout to $3.3 billion last season, a number of teams are still struggling. The financial success of the wealthiest franchises over the last seven years ended up hurting the poorer ones.

That's because the salary cap was tied to overall hockey-related revenues and rose dramatically from $39 million in 2005-06 to $64.3 million last season, bringing the salary floor (the minimum teams must spend) up along with it.

The NHL is actually exactly where the NBA was last year: the large markets made a ton of money, the small markets not so much and then there was a huge class separation in terms of ownership. That's why you see massive HRI cuts.

Yes, you are right, I should have said profits are down, for small markets. There is no revenue sharing and, cap or no cap, the have markets still spend, and even though the small markets revenue has grown, it is not enough to cover the rising floor salaries. The cap has risen by 75% since 2005 and some small market teams now say they can barely make the minimum salary payments. Still, the situation would probably be even worse for them without any cap at all. They would still have some minimum to pay, but have lower revenues, which would leave them in an even bigger financial mess, and as disparate teams in a lopsided league.

[Ditchweed]

That poll suggests there are 64% of people who read this thread that are dopes that didn't pay attention during the lockout. Owners don't care about competitive balance, and a hard cap wouldn't stop players from taking pay cuts to join up.

This just says that when the next CBA discussions come up, 2/3 of the people reading this thread are gonna side with the owners again, and get duped yet again. **** learn your lesson, dammit. PEACE.

What's the difference with whom they choose? What does choosing the players do any better for the fans than choosing the owner? Learn what lesson, that it is all about money?

It is all about money and making the owners more profit. The NBA is a business, an entertainment business to make profits for the owners, not a charity nor an owned right for fans to have say in the direction of the teams, unless they are willing to part with some cash to influence the owners.

Neither owners nor players goals may be truly what the fans want, but siding with the players is even further away than what the owners are offering. If the owners think they can pry more profit with a more balanced league than what it is now, and the majority of fans (2/3 as you say) look at that as being more of the lines in what they want, that is what they will choose to support. What do the players offer in that direction ... nothing.

[Tave]

The players offer us the chance to actually watch the sport instead of wasting seasons away in lockouts.

[Don Draper]

Look, I'm not really keen on starting a whole debate on livability or social dynamism here. I can respect the fact that, as a Rockets fan, you no doubt have special ties to the area and local pride and I'm not trying to diminish that in any sense at all. For what it's worth, I too have a local connection to the area through family, and have visited many times. As America's 4th-largest city, there is a lot HOU must be doing right...

But... as you knew this was coming... I scarcely believe you can make the claim that what is appealing to a young, rich African American is necessarily the same as what might appeal to a rich, fun-seeking, socialite athlete -- if we were to even assume young, rich black males in HOU hold the same universal regard for amenities as you suggest. For everything that HOU may have going for it, you can't deny that for someone specifically of Dwight's profile, the prospects for him ever staying beyond next year didn't look great at all.

HOU's sprawl and all the associated problems that stem from it are well-known. From the traffic nightmares to the smog pollution, sticky summers and limited social scene, which of these do you think would strike Dwight's fancy first?

Yes, there's some things you can't necessarily account the same as others. The people are great, so is the regional cuisine. And HOU's made great in-roads in public transportation, health services, and science research. All that is good and fine... but how many athletes do you know move to a city for their great hospitals?

When all personal bias is removed from the equation, I doubt anyone with a straight face could really recommend HOU purely on the merits of it being a great city. To an athlete who cares more about these things, perhaps. The Rockets do indeed have a history of talented big men and championship-quality management. But why choose them over the Lakers, who have the exact same things going for them plus a great city as well?

This is where you and I are already in agreement: the max contract and salary cap makes location the most important thing in a player's free agency decision. If you want more competitive player movement, the solution is obvious. But to say that even those changes would make location a negligible consideration... I just don't think anyone would buy it. Least of all Dwight.

You basically just rattled off a bunch of stereotypes of Houston.

- Traffic is no worse than any other major city
- The smog is overstated
- The humidity won't kill
- Houston's social scene is by no means limited (have no idea where you go this from)

The pros you listed are irrelevant to a young black athlete and its odd that you would even list them. How about these?

- Privacy
- Space
- Low cost of living
- Avg. age of 33
- Multicultural
- Lots of single women (groupies)

And it has nothing to do with personal bias. You just haven't been paying attention.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrenn ... s-to-live/

[Ditchweed]

The players offer us the chance to actually watch the sport instead of wasting seasons away in lockouts.

Has there ever been a player's strike ... where the owners offer us the chance to actually watch the sport instead of wasting seasons away in player strikes.

[LateRoundFlyer]

You basically just rattled off a bunch of stereotypes of Houston.

- Traffic is no worse than any other major city
- The smog is overstated
- The humidity won't kill
- Houston's social scene is by no means limited (have no idea where you go this from)

Stereotypes exist because they tend to be true. The fact that you hastily went right into damage control after denouncing them as such ("smog is overstated", "humidity won't kill") merely proves my point.

And yet I'm not paying attention, am I? Curious. Didn't Houston just record its worst ozone levels in 9 years this summer? Your own local paper seems to think so: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 667638.php

The traffic is no worse than any major city? You mean, if the only other major city is LA? American Highway Users Alliance ranks HOU's two major arterial highways, the I-610 and I-45, in their top 20 worst bottlenecks in the country, at #2 and #20 respectively. Number one? LA, which is also the only city to record more entries on the list. But don't just take their word for it. The 2009 Urban Mobility Report puts HOU at #4. A similar report by your beloved Forbes slots them at #6.

A common theme throughout all rankings is congestion speed and hours lost during commute per week. This being the case, that the only city who was ahead of HOU each time was LA is by itself surprising. Compounding the issue? HOU's population density is nowhere near that of the only two other comparable metro areas, New York and Chicago, nor are its road quality or safety of comparable quality. At least LA's sprawl is justified...

The very same 2009 report also listed HOU's road ways as the most dangerous for young drivers in the entire country. HOU's drivers are rated the fourth most reckless in the country, according to data tabulated by MensHealth from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. In fact, out of a 100 major cities, HOU is the only city on either of the previous lists to be graded a D or worse.

What does all this body of research suggest? A pretty damning argument for the fitness of Houston's roadways if you ask me. Overall, Texas has 8 failing driving communities on the list, the worst out of any other state. I most recently noticed this firsthand immediately after landing from Hobby and taking the 45 N on a recent trip. We had just made it out of the airport before 4PM and were trying to beat rush hour (on a Friday no less) ahead of downtown. Just ahead of the 94 interchange, some idiot in a mustang with one ear on the phone cuts across two lanes to make the turn, nearly blindsiding my rental into the center divider in the process. Now, given everything I've posted so far, am I really to believe that this is just an isolated incident, and that such is not what I should expect were I to live there 365 days out of the year?

No. You can say whatever you like in defense of HOU's transportation. But to try and undermine any counterargument entirely by some careless hand-waving ("it's no worse than any other major city") is not going to fly with me. Maybe it's a moot point, however, for athletes who can afford private choppers to whisk them from point A to B on a daily basis -- and even then, that's an awfully tricky proposition to be forced to fall back on.

As to limited social scene? I completely stand by what I said before. If your idea of having a good time is going to the Galleria or Space Museum, more power to you. I would, however, be more inclined to rate your interests as more atypical than the average young person. And it goes without saying bars alone does not a social scene make. The numbers from Sperling's (http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/ ... ities.aspx) bear this out.

The pros you listed are irrelevant to a young black athlete and its odd that you would even list them. How about these?

- Privacy
- Space
- Low cost of living
- Avg. age of 33
- Multicultural
- Lots of single women (groupies)

LOL! How is what I've said odd? I was throwing you a bone there. Would you rather I actively dismiss every potential strength your city does have to offer, in order to comport with some one-dimensional straw man you've already laid out for me? Sorry to disappoint you there. My fault for assuming a player exists who actually cares about championship pedigree, or fan engagement, I suppose. But as to your list:

•Privacy? Really? Out of all the possible things a multimillion-dollar athlete eager to rebuild his popularity and expand his brand would consider, privacy is the best you could do?

•Space? Low cost of living? Surely, you jest. You speak of relevance to a young black athlete making upwards of $20m a year... and his foremost concern is space and low cost of living? This says to me that you're having trouble making a nuanced distinction between what a sports superstar might want versus a regular young careerist. You have your priorities completely mixed up.

•Mean age of 33, multiculturalist, lots of single women? Again, LA has all these things already in spades and the mean age is only slightly higher. But considering the proportionality between both metro areas is so disparate, even median rankings like this are easily thrown out.

And it has nothing to do with personal bias. You just haven't been paying attention.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrenn ... s-to-live/

Ah, it all makes sense now: you're drawing your entire argument from Forbes. I should have expected this article eventually but to see it so soon just... reeks of desperation.

The list you mentioned already conceded it weighs certain factors considerably more than others (cost of living, median age, primarily) and it's not hard to see why: such metrics, one expects, would be high on any fresh college graduate scoping out the best place to start their careers and/or a family. Now, do me a favor here and simply answer these questions truthfully:

Is the prospective resident we're talking about here unemployed?

Is he a college graduate?

Did he even go to college?

Is he single?

Is he looking to start a family?

It would seem the only irrelevant conclusions anyone's making here are your own, I'm sorry to say. Even the article you've admitted as evidence in your favor ranks Los Angeles #3 on its list, on its own formula -- further championing the fact that LA offers just as much as HOU does, if not more. So why then, if cost of living is not an issue, would anyone choose HOU over LA, let alone the superstar athlete we've been discussing?

For this is the reality of the current NBA, as I already said before. If money were an equal consideration -- and it is, because of the salary cap -- why would any star choose HOU over LA? Fortunately, such a question need not be discarded as a hypothetical. Name one NBA star, name ANY star for that matter, that, in the last 20 years, chose Houston in free agency during the prime of their careers. I should be interested to see what you manage to come up with, especially as it relates to the mitigating factors behind any such decision.

Ignore such invitations if you wish. In the end, you neither affirm your original argument nor hurt those that press on for a hard cap. You accomplish nothing.

[Dennis 37]

NHL just got a hard cap, and they are headed for more labor trouble. Meanwhile MLB has no cap, and has had labor peace since 1994.

That's because NHL revenues are way down, a hard cap or no hard cap is irrelevant to their issues.

Isn't "competitive balance" supposed to create more revenue...?

The NHL has too many teams in markets that don't give a crap about hockey. These teams need to be moved or contracted.

[DanTown8587]

Yes, you are right, I should have said profits are down, for small markets. There is no revenue sharing and, cap or no cap, the have markets still spend, and even though the small markets revenue has grown, it is not enough to cover the rising floor salaries. The cap has risen by 75% since 2005 and some small market teams now say they can barely make the minimum salary payments. Still, the situation would probably be even worse for them without any cap at all. They would still have some minimum to pay, but have lower revenues, which would leave them in an even bigger financial mess, and as disparate teams in a lopsided league.

Again, a hard cap has not helped most of the NHL. All it has done is capped the spending of the large markets and then made the smaller markets pay more in HRI than they can. The owners of the NHL are exactly where the NBA was in their lockout, which is that they need to share revenue better and cut some costs but they don't need the drastic cuts being asked for.

And the situation would surely be better for small market teams. Think of it this way: the NHL teams are all paying about the same amount of money for their teams, in essence, reducing the value of the markets. The only pro sport without true markets is the NFL. The other sports all had major labor unrest when they realized that was the case (MLB in 94, NBA in 2011, NHL now).

[BadMofoPimp]

Again I ask, why the hell should anyone be a fan of a small market team if your choice is that you have to root for a team that is not given a fair chance to compete?

Whats the use of having more than 8 teams in the NBA if that is the case?

Why even bother buying season tickets to a Raptors game if your choice is to be fodder or a farm team to the big markets?

FYI. Not everyone likes LA, Boston, NY or Miami.

[DanTown8587]

Again I ask, why the hell should anyone be a fan of a small market team if your choice is that you have to root for a team that is not given a fair chance to compete?

Whats the use of having more than 8 teams in the NBA if that is the case?

Why even bother buying season tickets to a Raptors game if your choice is to be fodder or a farm team to the big markets?

FYI. Not everyone likes LA, Boston, NY or Miami.

One, people are fans of all teams (market size regardless) because their fans. Being in NY or LA certainly hasn't helped those teams in the past.

Two, nothing is stopping these teams from acquiring great talents in the draft and then building around them. While that requires luck, teams have done it before.

Three, is anyone arguing for small market teams to be fodder? It's a pure economic issue. The Milwaukee area cannot contribute the same amount of money that say Chicago can for one team. So when the Bulls make a ton of money, they give some back so that the Bucks can be in the black as well. The new system went from "22" teams losing money to only four or five in just one lockout shortened season. As the new television deal increases per team income and more revenue streams into the business, the small market teams will have a better ability to spend.

[Tai]

Again I ask, why the hell should anyone be a fan of a small market team if your choice is that you have to root for a team that is not given a fair chance to compete?

Whats the use of having more than 8 teams in the NBA if that is the case?

Why even bother buying season tickets to a Raptors game if your choice is to be fodder or a farm team to the big markets?

FYI. Not everyone likes LA, Boston, NY or Miami.

Why do I feel like you're just asking the same question over and over again in different ways for the sake of it? Assuming your sig's not sarcastic, it doesn't help your stance, it makes you sound like you're more interested in whining than discussing a true solution. Like, the "split the league into the Big Market League and Small Market league" comment, even if you were exaggerating, it just came off as pure "oh woe is me". And dude? the "farm team" thing has no place in this discussion, you're just fabricating the materiality of it, period.

And then, the "fair chance to compete" crap, you've basically done that all topic, and I think it's getting old. And the Raptors? What moves have they made the past few years that suggest they know what they're doing?

[Dennis 37]

Two, nothing is stopping these teams from acquiring great talents in the draft and then building around them. While that requires luck, teams have done it.

We had Carter and McGrady and McGrady left.

We had to overspend to surround Carter with players. Players were not taking a paycut to play beside Vince Carter.

When Carter left we were left with overpaid pieces and it took us years to clear cap space.


If Carter was drafted by the Knicks, McGrady would have gone there instead of Orlando. Then other pieces would have taken paycuts to play with them.

It just doesn't happen as easily for the less popular teams.