NBA owners want more parity. Or SOCIALISM

[schneiderjazz]

Hardcap is the way to go. Then superstars will have to actually choose between money and playing with other stars. It's too easy to take a 10 million paycut when you're making 110 million.

[truthiness]

Anyone gonna disagree that shorter contract and less-guaranteed money would be good for the league?? Really, has there been any franchise who has never had to spent years trying to get out from under a bad signing? Why does all the money need to be guaranteed?? Why shouldn't Orlando be allowed to cut Rashard Lewis when he starts playing terribly - and gets busted for a DUI and gets busted using PEDs? ... do we all just subscribe to an absolute and excruciating punishment system for bad signings? Do we view a horrendous contract as such a incredible sin that we believe the franchise must be forced to be crippled because of it for years and years?

Honestly, if they can at least accomplish that in the next CBA I believe the NBA would already be soo much better off.

Read my 2nd post of the thread. I agree with shorter contracts and partially guaranteed money. I would just reward winning with a lot of money.

As for bad contracts, maybe owners should slap themselves for hiring incompetent managers or agreeing to those contracts themselves.

For f's sake, you only have to read a couple of NBA columns or blogs to know who are the most terrible and incompetent GM's in the league. And if you keep Kahn's job (after keeping McHale for what seemed like 5 decades of absolute ineptitude) you should damn well pay for it.

[mup]

You don't seem to understand what incompetent management is. You criticize teams for taking risks that don't work out but that is not incompetence. Sure, in hindsight you can say Lewis wasn't worth his contract and there may even have been some people who said that at the time it was signed. But taking a risk and hoping a guy is going to pan out is not incompetence; it's a business risk.

Sure, it would be great if every team was the Lakers and didn't have to take risks. They don't have to take risks on second-tier free agents because the first-tier free agents always come there with little persuasion needed. They don't have to make risky trades. Hell, they don't even have to draft well. Go look up the Lakers' draft picks--- they are horrendous. All you're doing is looking at wins and losses without even trying to understand which teams are truly well-run and which ones are given inherent advantages so they don't have to be.

From Coca-Cola to Ford to Wal-Mart to whatever, no business has ever been successful without taking some risk--- some iffy capital investment, a heavy-interest loan, a questionable marketing campaign.... something. Yet the NBA is so screwed up that there are certain teams that can get by without taking any risk whatsoever (and yet are called well-run) whereas the teams that have to constantly take risks to find that needle in a haystack are called incompetent every time one of the 1000 risks they have to take each year does not work out. That's not incompetence, it's business.

And you cry that if this were the "real world" (or whatever phrase you used), that these "incompetent" owners would be bankrupt. Well, brother, if this were the real world, your Heat wouldn't have the Miami market all to themseleves. They would have to share that market with every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wanted to start an NBA franchise on "Souf Beach." So, if you want to fight this so-called "socialism" you keep talking about, let's fight it on all fronts, shall we? No more territorial rights for teams like the Heat who get to hog glamour markets all to themselves. Let's make them compete in that market. In fact, no more rules on who can start a team at all. We'll open the doors to all comers and we'll have 250 teams in the NBA by 2020. After all, are those restrictions (which favor the Heat) not also forms of socialism? Well, fortunately, this isn't the real world.

And don't forget (if you ever realized it) that the teams do not compete against each other from a business standpoint. They are part of the same enterprise that thrives only upon the mutual success of all of the other teams. Coke would love to drive Pepsi out of business. Do you think the Heat want to drive the Magic out of business?? Well, you probably do believe that, but the rest of the world realizes that one cannot exist without the other. Nobody is going to pay to watch the Heat practice by themselves.

It is in everyone's best interest to create a system where all teams can be profitable. What is it that you don't understand about that?

[Spottieottie]

Read my 2nd post of the thread. I agree with shorter contracts and partially guaranteed money. I would just reward winning with a lot of money.

As for bad contracts, maybe owners should slap themselves for hiring incompetent managers or agreeing to those contracts themselves.

For f's sake, you only have to read a couple of NBA columns or blogs to know who are the most terrible and incompetent GM's in the league. And if you keep Kahn's job (after keeping McHale for what seemed like 5 decades of absolute ineptitude) you should damn well pay for it.

Right, so you do believe that an entire franchise should have to be crippled for years because of an under-performing star player. This is why the athletes have so much power in the NBA... once they sign that deal, boom - they're set. It would be nice if they had as much riding on their performances as the Teams, Owners and GMs who signed them do.

[truthiness]

....

wooosh.

read my postS again. especially the 2nd one.

Sure, in hindsight you can say Lewis wasn't worth his contract and there may even have been some people who said that at the time it was signed. But taking a risk and hoping a guy is going to pan out is not incompetence; it's a business risk.

i said it at the time that rashard's contract was horrible. i said it last summer that JJ's and amare's 20 mil/season contracts will look horrible in a couple of years.

also, you seem to think ANY risk is justified cause it's a "business risk". you have no idea what you're talking about.

those banks that put your economy in the crapper (and nearly dragged the rest of the world with them, too) took "business risks". were they justified ? NO. they took those risks out of greed, disregarding common sense and any good business practice guides.

if you even have your own business, i suggest you take the following business risk: take all your money + get all the credit you can and go to vegas and bet it all on one roulette spin. business risk.

[truthiness]

Read my 2nd post of the thread. I agree with shorter contracts and partially guaranteed money. I would just reward winning with a lot of money.

As for bad contracts, maybe owners should slap themselves for hiring incompetent managers or agreeing to those contracts themselves.

For f's sake, you only have to read a couple of NBA columns or blogs to know who are the most terrible and incompetent GM's in the league. And if you keep Kahn's job (after keeping McHale for what seemed like 5 decades of absolute ineptitude) you should damn well pay for it.

Right, so you do believe that an entire franchise should have to be crippled for years because of an under-performing star player. This is why the athletes have so much power in the NBA... once they sign that deal, boom - they're set. It would be nice if they had as much riding on their performances as the Teams, Owners and GMs who signed them do.

you still didn't read that 2nd post, did you ?

[ranger001]

mup, great post.

BTW: If we want to talk about socialism then guaranteed contracts are more socialist than capitalist.

[truthiness]

mup, great post.

BTW: If we want to talk about socialism then guaranteed contracts are more socialist than capitalist.

I grew up in a communist country. Most americans have no effin idea what socialism or communism are.

A guaranteed contract is not "socialist" as it's negotiated between two parties who each have the right to refuse to sign. Teams are not forced or obliged to offer guaranteed contracts, nor to offer max contracts to scrubs. They do so cause they are incompetent.

How many bad contracts have the Spurs offered during the past 15 years ?
How many bad contracts have the Wolves offered during the past 15 years ?

Both are small market teams, but one managed to build around its star and win 4 titles. The other squandered away its star's prime and ended up with a trade exception to show up after trading their star away.

One owner build a smart, capable FO. The other keeps hiring (and then not firing) incompetent GM's.


It's funny how some complain about "class warfare" and then go on to whine about "those millionaire players". Hypocrisy much ?

I bet that most of those who say "paid millions just to dunk a basketball" can't even dribble a ball, far less dunk it. There are just 400 NBA players from over 6 billion people inhabiting the Earth. Their skills are that rare. Meanwhile, most fans are as easily replaceable at their jobs as a used Kleenex.

[gflem]

It's funny how some complain about "class warfare" and then go on to whine about "those millionaire players". Hypocrisy much

?
Nice try. I didnt "whine" about the millionaire players, I pointed out those players are paid by people that are villified for being wealthy without regard to the risk they take to become that way.
Way not to address the point and try to attack the person who made that point. Typical of people with your point of view. Again, the guaranteed contracts that the owners give these players are the problem. Yes, the owners are a big part of the problem. So now that the collective bargaining contract is up and they may try to address the problem that they helped create they are socialists?
I dont blame the players for signing huge guaranteed contracts, I would do the same if offered, but in order to save the league as it stands now there has to be changes made. I know the players will fight these changes, but I believe they will end up with egg on their collective faces trying to sell themselves as victims in this battle.
Again if you dont like the fact that the league is some type of "billionaie boys club" feel free to start another league to compete with it.

[ranger001]

mup, great post.

BTW: If we want to talk about socialism then guaranteed contracts are more socialist than capitalist.

I grew up in a communist country. Most americans have no effin idea what socialism or communism are.

A guaranteed contract is not "socialist" as it's negotiated between two parties who each have the right to refuse to sign. Teams are not forced or obliged to offer guaranteed contracts, nor to offer max contracts to scrubs. They do so cause they are incompetent.

Nonsense. No team in the league could ever hope to compete without giving out guaranteed contracts. What you say is purely theoretical and practically impossible.

A guaranteed salary is definitely more socialist than capitalist.

[Three34]

This is exactly how Nazi Germany started.

[droponov]

mup, great post.

BTW: If we want to talk about socialism then guaranteed contracts are more socialist than capitalist.

I grew up in a communist country. Most americans have no effin idea what socialism or communism are.

A guaranteed contract is not "socialist" as it's negotiated between two parties who each have the right to refuse to sign. Teams are not forced or obliged to offer guaranteed contracts, nor to offer max contracts to scrubs. They do so cause they are incompetent.

Nonsense. No team in the league could ever hope to compete without giving out guaranteed contracts. What you say is purely theoretical and practically impossible.

A guaranteed salary is definitely more socialist than capitalist.

It's a fully voluntary transaction between two parts. There's nothing socialist about it. Socialism implies legislation that forces something upon unwilling participants. For example, the Congress making guaranteed salaries mandatory or forbidding them would be socialism. If the coercive power of the state isn't part of the equation, it's not socialism, regardless of how communitarian it is. Convents, shared houses or poverty votes aren't socialists.

[droponov]

I agree with the OP. The owners are trying to pass a system where every franchise, regardless of the macro economic climate, the local economy, the quality of the management and the product on the floor, can turn out a profit by the end of the year. You're a bum that gave away max salaries to bench players that produce the worst record in the NBA for the highest pay-roll, the center was arrested for dealing hard drugs and the pg for raping a 14 years old virgin, the swingmen go on strikes because they're unhappy with the coach, your mascot is lame, the parking, food and beverages are the most expensive in the league, the coach is a drunk, it rains inside the arena because you won't spend money fixing it, all your lottery picks don't get their 3rd year option activated, the unemployment rate in your state is above 20% and your tickets the most expensive in the league and even your D-League affiliated sucks? No problemo, you'll still turn out a profit because NBA franchises can't lose money.

This isn't good for the league. It's not socialism. It's just bad business. Business men make mistakes all the time by being short-sighted... and this is one of them.

[ranger001]

This is exactly how Nazi Germany started.

Well the Nazis were fascists, considered as extreme right wing. So you are vehemently disagreeing with the OP I see.

[ranger001]

Nonsense. No team in the league could ever hope to compete without giving out guaranteed contracts. What you say is purely theoretical and practically impossible.

A guaranteed salary is definitely more socialist than capitalist.

It's a fully voluntary transaction between two parts. There's nothing socialist about it. Socialism implies legislation that forces something upon unwilling participants. For example, the Congress making guaranteed salaries mandatory or forbidding them would be socialism. If the coercive power of the state isn't part of the equation, it's not socialism, regardless of how communitarian it is. Convents, shared houses or poverty votes aren't socialists.

Socialist governments are usually democratic nowadays. Its got nothing to do with coercion. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have had socialist governments for years that have been voted in.

[mysticbb]

This is exactly how Nazi Germany started.

Well the Nazis were fascists, considered as extreme right wing. So you are vehemently disagreeing with the OP I see.

Well, if you were at least half as smart as Sham, you would have looked up the term "Nazi" before you answered his post. ;)

[Three34]

So we're actually analysing the legitimacy of my suggestion that the NBA salary cap is similar to the Third Reich. Hmm. This place has changed.

[Leto]

SOCIALISM!!

Really, is it necessary to to "John Birch Society" Realgm?

I don't really get the animosity towards an economic system that seeks to create economic parity and thereby a more equitable society economically as well as politically.

And don't forget (if you ever realized it) that the teams do not compete against each other from a business standpoint. They are part of the same enterprise that thrives only upon the mutual success of all of the other teams. Coke would love to drive Pepsi out of business. Do you think the Heat want to drive the Magic out of business?? Well, you probably do believe that, but the rest of the world realizes that one cannot exist without the other. Nobody is going to pay to watch the Heat practice by themselves.

It is in everyone's best interest to create a system where all teams can be profitable. What is it that you don't understand about that?

Exactly. Parity, created through a socialist economic policies, is not only a good idea, its necessary for the survival of the league. There's a lesson to be learned here....

[gflem]

So we're actually analysing the legitimacy of my suggestion that the NBA salary cap is similar to the Third Reich. Hmm. This place has changed.

Actually it was such a ridiculous statement I am surprised anybody responded to it. However, it wasnt an educated response anyway as "Nazi" was short for "national socialist party" though Hitler didnt care for the socialists he hated the communists and his only way to gain a victory in a popular vote was to co-opt the national socialists. (Source: The Rise an Fall of Nazi Germany by T.L. Jarman)

Exactly. Parity, created through a socialist economic policies, is not only a good idea, its necessary for the survival of the league. There's a lesson to be learned here....

How is the economy doing in Europe these days? Some lesson.

[mysticbb]

Actually it was such a ridiculous statement I am surprised anybody responded to it. However, it wasnt an educated response anyway as "Nazi" was short for "national socialist party"

Nazi is short for National Socialism, (Nationalsozialismus in german, that's where the z comes from ;)).

though Hitler didnt care for the socialists he hated the communists and his only way to gain a victory in a popular vote was to co-opt the national socialists. (Source: The Rise an Fall of Nazi Germany by T.L. Jarman)

Actually Hitler cared a lot about socialism, that was the basis of the economic system in Germany during the "3rd Reich". The control over the economy was the key for Hitler. That was no different than the economy later in eastern europe. The problem is that people most times have no clue what they are talking about. They are confusing terms. Communism and Socialism isn't the same.

There is also no socialism in the Europe anymore. And the economy in Germany is great right now. Not quite sure, but Europe is not as homogen as some US people seem to think.