RealGM

Let teams pay a player as much as they want if it helps them keep a player from going overseas

plus it would just help the product out more,the nba would have some great teams again with no cap

That's ridiculous. The owners will not get rid of the cap because they lost Josh ****ing Childress to Europe. It's al about the weak dollar that is causing this right now. The Euro teams aren't inflating their salaries, they just are worth more when you convert the Euros to Dollars.

That's beyond ridiculous.

With no cap, you'd have what you used to have in the MLB with a few teams dominating, actually you still do have that same concept.

No the cap needs to stay. But they should either get rid of the luxury tax or increase the salary cap.
Getting rid of the salary cap would have too many negative results. Knicks and Lakers would buy every player and we'd have a situation like Baseball.

LMAO.

Like gifting the Knicks Patrick Ewing hasn't already been enough.

They need a more creative/flexible CBA, no doubt. No salary cap isn't the answer, though. That's worked quite terribly in baseball.

Atlanta could have prevented Childress bolting by offering him more money in the first place - there was nothing in the CBA that prevented them from doing so, they just falsely believed that no one was going to offer Chill more than the MLE and they could just match. Oops. Lesson learned. It's really no different than LAC not offering Brand all they could, falsely believing he had no choice but to return.

The moral of the story is clear. If you want a player to stay, don't have hubris and cough up the dough. We've already started to see a trend of bigger, shorter contracts. That's the best remedy to this in the short term.

Flash3 wrote:That's beyond ridiculous.

With no cap, you'd have what you used to have in the MLB with a few teams dominating, actually you still do have that same concept.

a few teams dominating thats what you have now

the nba rarely has parity

and the mlb sytem you kill the parity has been very good and much better then the nba lately

the nbas golden years there was no cap and under this current system weve seen it be as less popular thne ever yet your gonna tell em no cap would kill the nba somehow?

please

draft wrote:No the cap needs to stay. But they should either get rid of the luxury tax or increase the salary cap.
Getting rid of the salary cap would have too many negative results. Knicks and Lakers would buy every player and we'd have a situation like Baseball.

Exactly. The league just needs to raise the cap a lot more so players will be entitled to more money so they won't leave the nba for a bigger payday. There's no need to change the cap to an MLB type one, since it'll keep smaller markets from going after free agents. The one thing they might considering altering is restricted free agency since some players simply don't want to play for a certain team.

Childress probably wouldn't have left for instance if the MLE was 8 million as opposed to around 5 million.

draft wrote:No the cap needs to stay. But they should either get rid of the luxury tax or increase the salary cap.
Getting rid of the salary cap would have too many negative results. Knicks and Lakers would buy every player and we'd have a situation like Baseball.

You mean the Blazers...with the richest owner in all of American sport...

britblazerdude wrote:

draft wrote:No the cap needs to stay. But they should either get rid of the luxury tax or increase the salary cap.
Getting rid of the salary cap would have too many negative results. Knicks and Lakers would buy every player and we'd have a situation like Baseball.

You mean the Blazers...with the richest owner in all of American sport...

Imagine what would happen to the Suns with their stingy owner who trades away players and draft picks for cash.

Getting rid of the cap altogether isn't the answer. Modifying the way restricted free agents are handled is a start. Reduce the amount of time teams have to match to 3 days. Also, if a player hasn't signed a qualifying offer by the beginning of the season, they should become an unrestricted free agent. While people may believe this would motivate most restricted free agents to just wait out the summer, I don't think this would be the case. Players would still be motivated to work on deals because teams would want to have their rosters set before the beginning of the season. The luxury tax also needs to be modified. Perhaps within the first 10 million of being over the luxury tax threshold, teams could pay a 1.25 penalty rather than double. After that, double would apply as normal. Max contracts for star players should be raised in order to prevent elite players going to Europe. I don't care what anyone says....folks...this is a legitimate risk. Of course, you'd have people on these forums that would act like loosing Dwayne Wade to a Euro team is no big deal. Lastly...teams have to have another opporunity at amnesty in order to get rid of 1 contract that is just killing the team. Actually, I think that teams should have this opportunity every 2 or 3 years. There are too many teams out there that can't do anything for the next several years because of horrible contracts.

Oh yeah...one last thing....get rid of the Atlanta Hawks franchise. Problem solved.

dflash3 wrote:

britblazerdude wrote:

draft wrote:No the cap needs to stay. But they should either get rid of the luxury tax or increase the salary cap.
Getting rid of the salary cap would have too many negative results. Knicks and Lakers would buy every player and we'd have a situation like Baseball.

You mean the Blazers...with the richest owner in all of American sport...

Imagine what would happen to the Suns with their stingy owner who trades away players and draft picks for cash.

So they would be the Pittsburgh Pirates of the NBA?

I don't think wholesale destruction of the cap is the answer, but rather allowing more flexibility within the cap structure by allowing a Mike Finley type buyout each year (remember summer of 06 IIRC - the player is still paid but the amount doesn't count towards a team's cap figure) - this would allow teams to quickly get under the cap (should they so choose) to offer more money, but would limit the amount that they could do so and thereby still retain the benefits of the cap.

I actually think getting rid of the cap could help. If you have the luxury tax at say, 80 mill then that acts as a kind of soft cap, that just penalizes you for exceeding it. Yeah, big market teams and Portland would get more free agents, but that's a much better compromise than what may happen if this situation remains untouched, and the NBA system becomes just like the soccer system, where small market teams have zeeero chance.

EricAnderson wrote:

Flash3 wrote:That's beyond ridiculous.

With no cap, you'd have what you used to have in the MLB with a few teams dominating, actually you still do have that same concept.

a few teams dominating thats what you have now

the nba rarely has parity

and the mlb sytem you kill the parity has been very good and much better then the nba lately

the nbas golden years there was no cap and under this current system weve seen it be as less popular thne ever yet your gonna tell em no cap would kill the nba somehow?

please

The ignorance displayed in this post is astounding. Tell me, genius, when was the last time a team other than the Yankees or Red Sox (2 of the very highest spending teams in baseball by a WIDE margin) won the AL East? Parity galore, huh? Parity and "who wins the title" aren't synonymous.

DelaneyRudd wrote:That's ridiculous. The owners will not get rid of the cap because they lost Josh ****ing Childress to Europe. It's al about the weak dollar that is causing this right now. The Euro teams aren't inflating their salaries, they just are worth more when you convert the Euros to Dollars.

So, so very wrong. In 2004 Panathinaikos and Olympiacos had basketball budgets of about €3-4 million euros. In 2009 season Panathinaikos is around €30 million euros (with the option to go to €40 million if they want for the right player like Luol Deng if they can get him) and Olympiacos €35 million euros (with the option to go to over €40 million if they want for the right player like Ben Gordon if they can get him).

CSKA Moscow had a basketball budget of around €8 milliion euros in 2004 and their current is about €40 million euros.

Khimki and Dynamo only had budgets of €2-3 million euros in 2004 and now their budgets for 2009 are something like €30 million euros already and are after just about every NBA player that is available right now, so who knows what they are even willing to spend for this year.

How in the world could you surmise that these clubs are not increasing spending?

dflash3 wrote:

britblazerdude wrote:

draft wrote:No the cap needs to stay. But they should either get rid of the luxury tax or increase the salary cap.
Getting rid of the salary cap would have too many negative results. Knicks and Lakers would buy every player and we'd have a situation like Baseball.

You mean the Blazers...with the richest owner in all of American sport...

Imagine what would happen to the Suns with their stingy owner who trades away players and draft picks for cash.

Have you noticed how the Suns are usually on par with the cap or have gone over?

Why doesn't the NBA just do what the NFL does? If you don't perform you get cut off the team. Increase the cap to 100mill and give teams the options to get rid of under performing players. This keeps the cycle of new players more fresh and encourages higher performance on court. Instead of contracts that basically say you're guaranteed this money for a few years, just show up and play.

The MLB system sucks, no thanks. Why would the NBA change anyway? Because Josh Childress moved overseas? Maybe it's the Euroleagues that should change since they lost, ya know, actual good players.

rpa wrote:

EricAnderson wrote:

Flash3 wrote:That's beyond ridiculous.

With no cap, you'd have what you used to have in the MLB with a few teams dominating, actually you still do have that same concept.

a few teams dominating thats what you have now

the nba rarely has parity

and the mlb sytem you kill the parity has been very good and much better then the nba lately

the nbas golden years there was no cap and under this current system weve seen it be as less popular thne ever yet your gonna tell em no cap would kill the nba somehow?

please

The ignorance displayed in this post is astounding. Tell me, genius, when was the last time a team other than the Yankees or Red Sox (2 of the very highest spending teams in baseball by a WIDE margin) won the AL East? Parity galore, huh? Parity and "who wins the title" aren't synonymous.

i never said mlb was a perfect sytem my point is the poster was acting like the nba has so much more parity then mlb and it doesnt

and my other point was how its hillarious how people are acting like the nba would die with no cap

the nba was fine in the 80's with no cap and during this sytem has seen hard times so the idea the league would just fold if u take away the cap is moronic