Should Jazz intentionally exceed cap?

finnegan · Post #1 » by **finnegan** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:53 pm

Here are my assumptions:

1) The hard cap will probably be implemented.
2) A lockout will probably occur.
3) The luxury tax will disappear.
4) Teams will be given time to come into compliance with the hard cap.

If these are all true, then we only overpay this year, and Jazz ownership pays to price to be the best team we possibly can NOW.

Post #2 » by **StocktonShorts** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:01 pm

There's also the chance that teams are given a one-time mulligan, as was the case after the last lockout. It's an interesting idea but it'd be really ballsy to count on such relief.

Lava Rock Kid · Post #3 » by **Lava Rock Kid** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:34 am

I so hope for a Hard Cap. I am tired of the teams with the big money spending for the title. I know this one year we are over the cap, but we are nowhere near what LA is spending and now they want to bring in Bosh? NBA needs a hard cap.

hoops4life · Post #4 » by **hoops4life** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:57 am

That is too risky of a gamble. A hard cap would be nice.

Post #5 » by **jazzfan1971** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:52 am

I dunno. It seems like small market teams are doing pretty well with the current system. I worry that a hard cap, depending on how it's implemented will be more friendly to large market teams.

Tapoona · Post #6 » by **Tapoona** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:35 pm

jazzfan1971 wrote: I worry that a hard cap, depending on how it's implemented will be more friendly to large market teams.

I would think having a hard cap would level teh playing field a bit. How would it help large market teams more?

dr0welf · Post #7 » by **dr0welf** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:26 pm

Players Union will never go for a hard cap

Neon Black · Post #8 » by **Neon Black** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:20 pm

dr0welf wrote:Players Union will never go for a hard cap

maybe they can get telemarketing jobs.

kebutah · Post #9 » by **kebutah** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:32 pm

dr0welf wrote:Players Union will never go for a hard cap

There is speculation that the owners may be attempting decertification of the union through their hardline proposal. Even though the inital proposal was withdrawn it draws some level of a line in the sand for the future. Ultimately, they will compromise somewhere in the middle but closer to the owners desires than the players.

Lava Rock Kid · Post #10 » by **Lava Rock Kid** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm

jazzfan1971 wrote:I dunno. It seems like small market teams are doing pretty well with the current system. I worry that a hard cap, depending on how it's implemented will be more friendly to large market teams.

If the Jazz had the payroll size of the lakers, would of they resigned Gasol? Nope. Lakers are quite a bit better than the rest of the west, and they also have the highest salary. Coincidence, I dont think so.

finnegan · Post #11 » by **finnegan** » Fri Oct 1, 2010 5:45 pm

"Hard Cap Could Mean Reduction Of Existing Contracts"

Wish the Jazz would have seen this coming and gone out a a limb a little bit. Signing Wes Mathews might have been an option, and I'm sure there were other good opportunities too.

With a hard cap, the league had no other option than to proportionally reduce players salaries. Now the Heat and a few others are going to be huge beneficiaries of the new CBA, and my guess is that the effect will be felt for the next 5 to 10 years (to their benefit).

Why do the Jazz always have to be so dang conservative???

BarneyGumble · Post #12 » by **BarneyGumble** » Fri Oct 1, 2010 5:58 pm

Finnegan's plan would be a home run if all of his assumptions are correct. Chances are one or more of his assumptions will not be correct, and his plan bankrupts the Miller family and the state of Utah loses the Jazz. Millionairs and billionaires dont become such by taking those types of risks....

Post #13 » by **jazzfan1971** » Fri Oct 1, 2010 6:01 pm

Well, if every team is spending the same dollars, you look to non-dollar perks. Beaches, night clubs, movie stars, large markets, etc...

At least with the current system we can overpay our own free agents. Without that ability, we might be at a competitive disadvantage.

I'm not sure it'd be that way, but, I don't see it as a magic bullet. Folks will always want to play in the prestige locations, of which Utah is definitely not one.

Be careful what you wish for, that's all I'm saying.

idajazz · Post #14 » by **idajazz** » Fri Oct 1, 2010 6:12 pm

jazzfan1971 wrote:Well, if every team is spending the same dollars, you look to non-dollar perks. Beaches, night clubs, movie stars, large markets, etc...

At least with the current system we can overpay our own free agents. Without that ability, we might be at a competitive disadvantage.

I'm not sure it'd be that way, but, I don't see it as a magic bullet. Folks will always want to play in the prestige locations, of which Utah is definitely not one.

Be careful what you wish for, that's all I'm saying.

The problem is that as of right now they can spend more AND have the perks.

finnegan · Post #15 » by **finnegan** » Fri Oct 1, 2010 7:01 pm

DWill_daShizzle wrote:Millionairs and billionaires dont become such by taking those types of risks....

Actually that is precisely how they do it. Well that is how Bill Gates and Larry Elison did it, and countless others.

I'm no fortune teller, but there are certain things that you can see coming, like D Wade focusing on Bosh to force LeBrons hand.

If the Jazz can't forecast future events and manage their risks, then they need to hire someone who can. There is a new major called Actuarial Science and this is exacly what they do.

BarneyGumble · Post #16 » by **BarneyGumble** » Fri Oct 1, 2010 7:17 pm

finnegan wrote:
DWill_daShizzle wrote:Millionairs and billionaires dont become such by taking those types of risks....

Actually that is precisely how they do it.

Really? Want to buy some subprime CDO's? :lol:

finnegan · Post #17 » by **finnegan** » Fri Oct 1, 2010 11:53 pm

DWill_daShizzle wrote:
finnegan wrote:
DWill_daShizzle wrote:Millionairs and billionaires dont become such by taking those types of risks....

Actually that is precisely how they do it.

Really? Want to buy some subprime CDO's?

No thank you. But I am happy to direct you to the nearest library, so that you can check out a book called "Rich Dad, Poor Dad."

Not all risk is bad, and not all risk is extreme.

gojazzmjsucks · Post #18 » by **gojazzmjsucks** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 12:48 am

Hard cap would level the spending.In the end players would still want to go live in the big market areas!

finnegan · Post #19 » by **finnegan** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:14 am

If the president of the players union mentions de-certification as an option, at this stage of the game, then that means that there is a 75% chance that a hard cap gets implemented.

It also likely means that salaries for big spenders like Miami and the Lakers, get proprotionally rolled back to meet the hard cap. So teams that are way over the cap get a huge benefit, in terms of quality of players. For example; if hamburger was $2 per pound, and steak is $6 per pound, and I load up with five pounds of steak, and my neighbor fills up with hamburger, and the cashier says all meat today is $2 per pound, then I clearly benefit.

Sorry for bringing up an old post, but lots of this stuff is predictable with some degree of accuracy. I hope that the Jazz will consider employing a risk manager at some point.

BarneyGumble · Post #20 » by **BarneyGumble** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:08 pm

finnegan wrote:It also likely means that salaries for big spenders like Miami and the Lakers, get proprotionally rolled back to meet the hard cap. So teams that are way over the cap get a huge benefit, in terms of quality of players. For example; if hamburger was $2 per pound, and steak is $6 per pound, and I load up with five pounds of steak, and my neighbor fills up with hamburger, and the cashier says all meat today is $2 per pound, then I clearly benefit.

Please stop speculating on the league's financial decisions.....