RealGM

Hear me out. These guys like LeBron, Kawhi etc. are easily worth $150M per year plus in an actual free market. Probably more.

NCAA used to not pay players because they claimed some high & mighty morality. They were just stealing money from players like O'Bannon for life who were generating billions. I remember "scandals" like Chris Mills or Webber whatever getting paid. Hey, 13 year old actors got to make millions but some 20 year old generating legitimate tens of millions was on a meal stipend. Absurd thievery.

This shows that salary caps for top players are a monstrosity that WILL END. The end of this is, top basketball players should make soccer type salaries. You either do that in the NBA or they're gonna go and create their own player owned league.

The "free market" applies when rich guys need to pay poor proletarians too not just when we're all being looted by big ugly corporations. Labor should get what it's worth, period.

Parity is for losers. This is America not Cuba.

But getting rid of the cap, NBA automatically becomes European football. And European football has no parity, the richest team will always win more trophies.

Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen (in the past, RIP) would be wrecking the game.

Black Jack wrote:Hear me out. These guys like LeBron, Kawhi etc. are easily worth $150M per year plus in an actual free market. Probably more.

NCAA used to not pay players because they claimed some high & mighty morality. They were just stealing money from players like O'Bannon for life who were generating billions. I remember "scandals" like Chris Mills or Webber whatever getting paid. Hey, 13 year old actors got to make millions but some 20 year old generating legitimate tens of millions was on a meal stipend. Absurd thievery.

This shows that salary caps for top players are a monstrosity that WILL END. The end of this is, top basketball players should make soccer type salaries. You either do that in the NBA or they're gonna go and create their own player owned league.

The "free market" applies when rich guys need to pay poor proletarians too not just when we're all being looted by big ugly corporations. Labor should get what it's worth, period.

Parity is for losers. This is America not Cuba.

They are worth that. But the CBA in each league is negotiated in a way to balance stars vs average players. Why will this end?

There is very little worry the best players will create another league. That's a different skill set. More likely the Saudi's will create a league and some of the best players will go but mostly mid-tier guys who are getting the short end of the salary cap stick.

Wallace_Wallace wrote:But getting rid of the cap, NBA automatically becomes European football. And European football has no parity, the richest team will always win more trophies.

Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen (in the past, RIP) would be wrecking the game.

Paul Allen was very loud critic of lack of financial viability of owning an NBA franchise in the mid 2000s, he did spend, but he clearly didn't like what happened afterwards.

Black Jack wrote:Hear me out. These guys like LeBron, Kawhi etc. are easily worth $150M per year plus in an actual free market. Probably more.

NCAA used to not pay players because they claimed some high & mighty morality. They were just stealing money from players like O'Bannon for life who were generating billions. I remember "scandals" like Chris Mills or Webber whatever getting paid. Hey, 13 year old actors got to make millions but some 20 year old generating legitimate tens of millions was on a meal stipend. Absurd thievery.

This shows that salary caps for top players are a monstrosity that WILL END. The end of this is, top basketball players should make soccer type salaries. You either do that in the NBA or they're gonna go and create their own player owned league.

The "free market" applies when rich guys need to pay poor proletarians too not just when we're all being looted by big ugly corporations. Labor should get what it's worth, period.

Parity is for losers. This is America not Cuba.

I long for American sports to have a promotion/relegation system ala Europe but I'm very skeptical it will happen. I do think the max individual salaries among NBA superstars will either be eliminated or raised significantly. The delta between what NBA superstars are worth in comparison to what they are paid is huge. Eventually that gap will have to be narrowed with some of the money coming out of the owners' pockets and the rest coming out of the non-superstar players' pockets.

The current system is very tenuous.

Wallace_Wallace wrote:But getting rid of the cap, NBA automatically becomes European football. And European football has no parity, the richest team will always win more trophies.

Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen (in the past, RIP) would be wrecking the game.

First off, you already have this kind of situation in the NBA. There are teams that have to pay more for less talented players, that arent a free agent destination. Some teams dont care about luxury taxes, buyouts and so on.

Also just to point out,its not completely true that it is always the richest team that wins all trophies. From a Champions League perspective German teams are the best example. They dont have any rich Billionaire owners and German teams are still constantly some of the best teams in European competitions since Bosman case in the early 90s.

Bayern Munich is constantly one of the favorites to win the Champions League despite rarely paying big transfer fees. Kane was a big exception from that.

And it wouldnt be that exteme, since there is no relegation and NBA teams are owned by Billionaires. At least it would then be in the open instead of those under the hand deals.

I realized the last few Months that what I preferred most about the 90s era Basketball was that it was just about Basketball. Nobody cared or knew the contract situations of players, as long as there wasnt some dispute ongoing. Nobody cared about salary cap, 2nd apron, Rookie contracts (didnt even exist until 95). Players werent signed from the perspective that they might be bought out around the trade deadline to go to a contender. It was just about playing Basketball, trades were understandable and didnt involve 5 future picks and pick swaps that have a trade protection and will be transferred in 2nd rounders if they dont confey within the next 3 seasons and so on.

That happens and I stop watching. Little hope vs just impossible.

But if you think owners are giving up a guaranteed share of the profits by pricing/bidding themselves out of it, paying players an uncapped amount, and subsequently tanking the values of their team, you might not understand the real difference between America and Cuba.

And when have you had a free market last? You're/we're getting gouged by collusion, lobbying and fiduciary duty in near every sector these days.

Wonder how often Tom Brady got deals like this. He always got praised for taking team friendly deals and had the perfect alibi in Giselle being wealthy but it wouldn't shock me if he and others have done similar things in the past.

bkkrh wrote:
Also just to point out,its not completely true that it is always the richest team that wins all trophies. From a Champions League perspective German teams are the best example. They dont have any rich Billionaire owners and German teams are still constantly some of the best teams in European competitions since Bosman case in the early 90s.

Bayern Munich is constantly one of the favorites to win the Champions League despite rarely paying big transfer fees. Kane was a big exception from that.

Bayern has been a top 5-6 team in revenue since forever.

The assumption that NBA stars justify salaries higher than their max is being made with the current revenue of the league in mind, this revenue is reached because of the parity system, that is enabled by the draft and the salary cap and rules, do away with the latter and you may very well decimate the revenure when 20 mid and small market teams refuse to be fodder for the Ballmers and popular teams like Knicks, Celtics and Lakers.

Black Jack wrote:Hear me out. These guys like LeBron, Kawhi etc. are easily worth $150M per year plus in an actual free market. Probably more.

NCAA used to not pay players because they claimed some high & mighty morality. They were just stealing money from players like O'Bannon for life who were generating billions. I remember "scandals" like Chris Mills or Webber whatever getting paid. Hey, 13 year old actors got to make millions but some 20 year old generating legitimate tens of millions was on a meal stipend. Absurd thievery.

This shows that salary caps for top players are a monstrosity that WILL END. The end of this is, top basketball players should make soccer type salaries. You either do that in the NBA or they're gonna go and create their own player owned league.

The "free market" applies when rich guys need to pay poor proletarians too not just when we're all being looted by big ugly corporations. Labor should get what it's worth, period.

Parity is for losers. This is America not Cuba.

Collective bargaining is the critical difference. "These guys like LeBron, Kawhi, etc." have no one to blame but their union reps ... except the union reps rep the entire union, not just the big fish.

Mavrelous wrote:The assumption that NBA stars justify salaries higher than their max is being made with the current revenue of the league in mind, this revenue is reached because of the parity system, that is enabled by the draft and the salary cap and rules, do away with the latter and you may very well decimate the revenure when 20 mid and small market teams refuse to be fodder for the Ballmers and popular teams like Knicks, Celtics and Lakers.

I think there's a version of this where Ballmer can give Kawhi infinity dollars but he doesn't have the ability to go shopping for a bunch of other high dollar vets. Maybe a team has one salary they can give that doesn't impact the cap or theres some luxury taxes.

I personally think the cap is stupid and it's funny to me how Americans are so capitalistic in almost every domain except for elite basketball and football. It was same with NCAA, just blatant hypocrisy. Some old guys in NCAA and coaches were making millions per year talking about "paying players is bad for them"

Hey why IS it that MLB is the only major American sport with no salary cap anyway?

Are fans threatening to not watch MLB because the Dodgers and Yankees have great players?

Black Jack wrote:

Mavrelous wrote:The assumption that NBA stars justify salaries higher than their max is being made with the current revenue of the league in mind, this revenue is reached because of the parity system, that is enabled by the draft and the salary cap and rules, do away with the latter and you may very well decimate the revenure when 20 mid and small market teams refuse to be fodder for the Ballmers and popular teams like Knicks, Celtics and Lakers.

I think there's a version of this where Ballmer can give Kawhi infinity dollars but he doesn't have the ability to go shopping for a bunch of other high dollar vets. Maybe a team has one salary they can give that doesn't impact the cap or theres some luxury taxes.

I personally think the cap is stupid and it's funny to me how Americans are so capitalistic in almost every domain except for elite basketball and football. It was same with NCAA, just blatant hypocrisy. Some old guys in NCAA and coaches were making millions per year talking about "paying players is bad for them"

Hey why IS it that MLB is the only major American sport with no salary cap anyway?

Are fans threatening to not watch MLB because the Dodgers and Yankees have great players?

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, it doesn't mean there are no rules, the NBA is a private league, they set their own rules in a way that maximizes their revenue, they even change the rule of the game itself compared to the rest of the world, the rules and the revenue come together, and can't be separated, if the rules change there will likely be consequences.
The league had no cap before, and they had to institute one.

Mavrelous wrote:

Black Jack wrote:

Mavrelous wrote:The assumption that NBA stars justify salaries higher than their max is being made with the current revenue of the league in mind, this revenue is reached because of the parity system, that is enabled by the draft and the salary cap and rules, do away with the latter and you may very well decimate the revenure when 20 mid and small market teams refuse to be fodder for the Ballmers and popular teams like Knicks, Celtics and Lakers.

I think there's a version of this where Ballmer can give Kawhi infinity dollars but he doesn't have the ability to go shopping for a bunch of other high dollar vets. Maybe a team has one salary they can give that doesn't impact the cap or theres some luxury taxes.

I personally think the cap is stupid and it's funny to me how Americans are so capitalistic in almost every domain except for elite basketball and football. It was same with NCAA, just blatant hypocrisy. Some old guys in NCAA and coaches were making millions per year talking about "paying players is bad for them"

Hey why IS it that MLB is the only major American sport with no salary cap anyway?

Are fans threatening to not watch MLB because the Dodgers and Yankees have great players?

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, it doesn't mean there are no rules, the NBA is a private league, they set their own rules in a way that maximizes their revenue, they even change the rule of the game itself compared to the rest of the world, the rules and the revenue come together, and can't be separated, if the rules change there will likely be consequences.
The league had no cap before, and they had to institute one.

Employers being able to collude to hold down wages is not capitalism per se. I am not a worshipper at the church of capital but the fact is, the Owners of Means of Production want capitalism when it benefits them and socialist collectivism when it also benefits them.

Imagine when you graduate, all employers in your field have colluded and they hand you a wage schedule and your work location for your next several years. Is that a free market?

sp6r=underrated wrote:

Black Jack wrote:Hear me out. These guys like LeBron, Kawhi etc. are easily worth $150M per year plus in an actual free market. Probably more.

NCAA used to not pay players because they claimed some high & mighty morality. They were just stealing money from players like O'Bannon for life who were generating billions. I remember "scandals" like Chris Mills or Webber whatever getting paid. Hey, 13 year old actors got to make millions but some 20 year old generating legitimate tens of millions was on a meal stipend. Absurd thievery.

This shows that salary caps for top players are a monstrosity that WILL END. The end of this is, top basketball players should make soccer type salaries. You either do that in the NBA or they're gonna go and create their own player owned league.

The "free market" applies when rich guys need to pay poor proletarians too not just when we're all being looted by big ugly corporations. Labor should get what it's worth, period.

Parity is for losers. This is America not Cuba.

I long for American sports to have a promotion/relegation system ala Europe but I'm very skeptical it will happen. I do think the max individual salaries among NBA superstars will either be eliminated or raised significantly. The delta between what NBA superstars are worth in comparison to what they are paid is huge. Eventually that gap will have to be narrowed with some of the money coming out of the owners' pockets and the rest coming out of the non-superstar players' pockets.

The current system is very tenuous.

Why would it come out of the owner's pocket? The players already get a pretty fair split given owners have all costs.

bkkrh wrote:

Wallace_Wallace wrote:But getting rid of the cap, NBA automatically becomes European football. And European football has no parity, the richest team will always win more trophies.

Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen (in the past, RIP) would be wrecking the game.

First off, you already have this kind of situation in the NBA. There are teams that have to pay more for less talented players, that arent a free agent destination. Some teams dont care about luxury taxes, buyouts and so on.

Also just to point out,its not completely true that it is always the richest team that wins all trophies. From a Champions League perspective German teams are the best example. They dont have any rich Billionaire owners and German teams are still constantly some of the best teams in European competitions since Bosman case in the early 90s.

Bayern Munich is constantly one of the favorites to win the Champions League despite rarely paying big transfer fees. Kane was a big exception from that.

And it wouldnt be that exteme, since there is no relegation and NBA teams are owned by Billionaires. At least it would then be in the open instead of those under the hand deals.

I realized the last few Months that what I preferred most about the 90s era Basketball was that it was just about Basketball. Nobody cared or knew the contract situations of players, as long as there wasnt some dispute ongoing. Nobody cared about salary cap, 2nd apron, Rookie contracts (didnt even exist until 95). Players werent signed from the perspective that they might be bought out around the trade deadline to go to a contender. It was just about playing Basketball, trades were understandable and didnt involve 5 future picks and pick swaps that have a trade protection and will be transferred in 2nd rounders if they dont confey within the next 3 seasons and so on.

The 90's when two teams won 8 titles? And the Spurs won the title after the owner's locked the players out to fix the broken system....which btw was all in the 90's.

But yeah when things were simpler 3 teams won 14 titles from 1980-1998.

sisibilio wrote:

bkkrh wrote:
Also just to point out,its not completely true that it is always the richest team that wins all trophies. From a Champions League perspective German teams are the best example. They dont have any rich Billionaire owners and German teams are still constantly some of the best teams in European competitions since Bosman case in the early 90s.

Bayern Munich is constantly one of the favorites to win the Champions League despite rarely paying big transfer fees. Kane was a big exception from that.

Bayern has been a top 5-6 team in revenue since forever.

And still they don't go in depth or have a rich owner, or sell land they own. The Bundesliga has by far the strictest rules of all major leagues when it comes to ownership and accumulating depth, they are still one of the most successfull and richest teams in Europe.

So they are a proof that it is possible. As is Dortmund, who were close to bankruptcy and league relegation based on that in 2002 and were back in the champions league finals less than 10 seasons later.

dhsilv2 wrote:

bkkrh wrote:

Wallace_Wallace wrote:But getting rid of the cap, NBA automatically becomes European football. And European football has no parity, the richest team will always win more trophies.

Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen (in the past, RIP) would be wrecking the game.

First off, you already have this kind of situation in the NBA. There are teams that have to pay more for less talented players, that arent a free agent destination. Some teams dont care about luxury taxes, buyouts and so on.

Also just to point out,its not completely true that it is always the richest team that wins all trophies. From a Champions League perspective German teams are the best example. They dont have any rich Billionaire owners and German teams are still constantly some of the best teams in European competitions since Bosman case in the early 90s.

Bayern Munich is constantly one of the favorites to win the Champions League despite rarely paying big transfer fees. Kane was a big exception from that.

And it wouldnt be that exteme, since there is no relegation and NBA teams are owned by Billionaires. At least it would then be in the open instead of those under the hand deals.

I realized the last few Months that what I preferred most about the 90s era Basketball was that it was just about Basketball. Nobody cared or knew the contract situations of players, as long as there wasnt some dispute ongoing. Nobody cared about salary cap, 2nd apron, Rookie contracts (didnt even exist until 95). Players werent signed from the perspective that they might be bought out around the trade deadline to go to a contender. It was just about playing Basketball, trades were understandable and didnt involve 5 future picks and pick swaps that have a trade protection and will be transferred in 2nd rounders if they dont confey within the next 3 seasons and so on.

The 90's when two teams won 8 titles? And the Spurs won the title after the owner's locked the players out to fix the broken system....which btw was all in the 90's.

But yeah when things were simpler 3 teams won 14 titles from 1980-1998.

What does that have to do with anything I wrote? 2 teams won 8 titles because 1 team won 6 titles based on having the player that many consider to be the best player of all time on the roster.

How often did it happen during that period that there were situations that teams did a complete rebuild, rotation players got bought out midseason or benched the rest of the season, players were evaluated by their contract value, players weren't resigned or traded because teams needed to stay under the 2nd appron and so on.

I'd prefer a league where the Celtics off-season isn't viewed as a success because they traded enough players from their former championship team to get a year under the 2nd appron so that they aren't handicapped the next few years.

I like to watch Basketball, I don't like to spend about time researching on how much we can offer Hartenstein last season or consider all the reasons on why or why not a trade scenario is possible. But everybody can of course have their own preferences.

bkkrh wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:

bkkrh wrote:
First off, you already have this kind of situation in the NBA. There are teams that have to pay more for less talented players, that arent a free agent destination. Some teams dont care about luxury taxes, buyouts and so on.

Also just to point out,its not completely true that it is always the richest team that wins all trophies. From a Champions League perspective German teams are the best example. They dont have any rich Billionaire owners and German teams are still constantly some of the best teams in European competitions since Bosman case in the early 90s.

Bayern Munich is constantly one of the favorites to win the Champions League despite rarely paying big transfer fees. Kane was a big exception from that.

And it wouldnt be that exteme, since there is no relegation and NBA teams are owned by Billionaires. At least it would then be in the open instead of those under the hand deals.

I realized the last few Months that what I preferred most about the 90s era Basketball was that it was just about Basketball. Nobody cared or knew the contract situations of players, as long as there wasnt some dispute ongoing. Nobody cared about salary cap, 2nd apron, Rookie contracts (didnt even exist until 95). Players werent signed from the perspective that they might be bought out around the trade deadline to go to a contender. It was just about playing Basketball, trades were understandable and didnt involve 5 future picks and pick swaps that have a trade protection and will be transferred in 2nd rounders if they dont confey within the next 3 seasons and so on.

The 90's when two teams won 8 titles? And the Spurs won the title after the owner's locked the players out to fix the broken system....which btw was all in the 90's.

But yeah when things were simpler 3 teams won 14 titles from 1980-1998.

What does that have to do with anything I wrote? 2 teams won 8 titles because 1 team won 6 titles based on having the player that many consider to be the best player of all time on the roster.

How often did it happen during that period that there were situations that teams did a complete rebuild, rotation players got bought out midseason or benched the rest of the season, players were evaluated by their contract value, players weren't resigned or traded because teams needed to stay under the 2nd appron and so on.

I'd prefer a league where the Celtics off-season isn't viewed as a success because they traded enough players from their former championship team to get a year under the 2nd appron so that they aren't handicapped the next few years.

I like to watch Basketball, I don't like to spend about time researching on how much we can offer Hartenstein last season or consider all the reasons on why or why not a trade scenario is possible. But everybody can of course have their own preferences.

One team won 6 titles because of the salary cap being completely broken.

Here are the top 27 salaries in 1995-96

1. Patrick Ewing (NY) ......... $18,724,000
2. Clyde Drexler (Hou) ......... 9,810,000
3. David Robinson (SA) ......... 7,700,000
4. Chris Webber (Was) .......... 7,000,000
5. Joe Dumars (Det) ............ 6,881,000
6. Danny Manning (Pho) ......... 6,833,000
7. A.C. Green (Pho) ............ 6,473,000 (average)
8. Shaquille O'Neal (Orl) ...... 5,700,000
9. Derrick Coleman (Phi) ....... 5,476,000
10. Sean Elliott (SA) ........... 5,333,000 (average)
11. Hakeem Olajuwon (Hou) ....... 5,305,000
12. Anfernee Hardaway (Orl) ..... 5,230,000
13. James Worthy (LAL) .......... 5,150,000 (retired)
14. Detlef Schrempf (Sea) ....... 5,000,000
15. Sam Bowie (LAL) ............. 4,800,000 (retired)
16. Charles Barkley (Pho) ....... 4,760,000
17. Brad Daugherty (Cle) ........ 4,700,000
18. Danny Ferry (Cle) ........... 4,643,000
19. Alonzo Mourning (Mia) ....... 4,560,000
20. Tom Gugliotta (Min) ......... 4,500,000
21. Clarence Weatherspoon (Phi) . 4,500,000
22. Shawn Bradley (NJ) .......... 4,320,000
23. Larry Johnson (Cha) ......... 4,295,000
24. Brian Shaw (Orl) ............ 4,250,000
25. John Williams (Pho) ......... 4,151,000 (average)
26. Dale Davis (Ind) ............ 4,050,000
27. Grant Hill (Det) ............ 4,050,000

You'll notice a certain NBA champions aren't represented. The Bulls won largely because of long deals that kept their players vastly underpaid.