Who do you support?

[Laowai]

As others stated you will not have parity because of the power of one player. If parity is your goal, salary cap is not the way to go. Instead it would be to make it more difficult for players to leave the team that drafts them. So for instance allow the team with player rights to offer more money/years (get rid of sign/trade). You can also compensate the lose of player through draft picks.

However what hard cap does is make the teams with top tier talent more powerful. What would happen is that every team will have one marque player. So Lakers won't have Kobe/Gasol/Bynum, but Kobe will go against teams with only one superstar as well. So it will be Kobe vs another go to guy. Since Kobe/Bynum will both be top tier talent/and paid as such, it gives teams with the true superstar advantage. For instance assume Cleveland has Lebron who is paid max ($15M). Toronto top guy is Bosh also making ($15M). Now both are consuming the same amount in salary, however their true worth is not reflected in this. You could say Lebron is twice the talent of Bosh.

The current system has this problem, however with the hard cap, you have less room to fill out your roster, so it makes this problem even worse.

I think that is absolutely full of crap.
One player a team doesn't make whether it is LBJ, Kobe or Dwight yes they have significant value and would likely propel the team into the playoffs but absolutely no guarantee of ultimate victory.
With a hard cap teams like LAL, Dallas, Boston, Miami, NYKs, Orlando would no longer exist.

Teams would not really need a superstar to win more teams like the Pistons of old could be constant winners.Look at the Pacers they were able to get into the play-offs last year and have improved with the addition of Hill. They have a nice mix of players Granger ( Bosh Type player ) George, Collison, Hibbert, Hill and Hansbrough. They currently have a 37 million payroll and plyers like Posey, Price and Stephenson expiring and Rush, Hill & Hibbert with Qualifying offers. They would likely give qualifying offers to both Hill and Hibbert but not Rush. But under a new CBA they wouldn't worry about paying both huge money but minimal raises. They would have money to fill holes at a reduced cost lets say Tyson Chandler for 3 years likely contract 6,7 & 8 million only 1st 2 years guaranteed and Carl Landy for about 4 million. They would move up in the standings substantially and still have cap space.

[TheDrunkenOak]

Thank you, wiretap:

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... Percentage

Expert: Virtually No Correlation Between Payroll And Win Percentage
Oct 12, 2011 11:41 AM EDT

As the NBA league office continues the lockout in an apparent bid to create more parity among teams, a professor of economics at Smith College who has studied the issue says there is almost no relationship between the size of a team's payroll and its success.

“The statistical correlation between payroll and win percentage is practically nonexistent,” said Andrew Zimbalist.

Zimbalist said the league does not have a problem with competitive balance. As examples, he cited the excellent results of the Heat, which plays in the country's 16th-largest television market but has appeared in two of the last six NBA Finals, and the poor results of the Knicks, which have not won a playoff game in 10 years despite paying exorbitant luxury tax bills for several seasons.

In fact, it was not until the Knicks reduced their payroll dramatically last season -- getting far enough under the salary cap to sign Amar'e Stoudemire and force a trade for Carmelo Anthony -- that they qualified for the playoffs for the first time in seven years.

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... z1aaZnkTKe

Now i don't know how he did his calculations or in fact how he was able to obtain accurate payroll info (cos i sure as hell can't accurate numbers online), but i remember back when the raps made the playoffs (don't remember if 2007 or 08), anyways, as with everyone else, was frustrated that we didn't go further, and was pissed off that we didn't spend into lux tax to get a winner (damn you mlse). So I looked up team salaries that year and compared it to playoff teams, and was surprised to see that all the teams except a few, (maybe 4 don't remember exactly) were in lux tax. I think i remember seeing only the raps, atlanta and phoenix being under lux tax.

I've tried to look up that info, but wasn't able to pull anything that's truly accurate, one site will one set of numbers, whereas another will have something else. So i guess you could take what i've stated as hearsay and that's fine, but to just believe some wiretap story as truth, especially when this "expert" hasn't released his calculations, is wrong.

Btw, i looked at last year's salaries, and the owners were a lot more fiscally sound, i guess due to the recession. But, if you look at the team payrolls prior to the recession, you'll be shocked.

[TheDrunkenOak]

As others stated you will not have parity because of the power of one player. If parity is your goal, salary cap is not the way to go. Instead it would be to make it more difficult for players to leave the team that drafts them. So for instance allow the team with player rights to offer more money/years (get rid of sign/trade). You can also compensate the lose of player through draft picks.

However what hard cap does is make the teams with top tier talent more powerful. What would happen is that every team will have one marque player. So Lakers won't have Kobe/Gasol/Bynum, but Kobe will go against teams with only one superstar as well. So it will be Kobe vs another go to guy. Since Kobe/Bynum will both be top tier talent/and paid as such, it gives teams with the true superstar advantage. For instance assume Cleveland has Lebron who is paid max ($15M). Toronto top guy is Bosh also making ($15M). Now both are consuming the same amount in salary, however their true worth is not reflected in this. You could say Lebron is twice the talent of Bosh.

The current system has this problem, however with the hard cap, you have less room to fill out your roster, so it makes this problem even worse.

I think that is absolutely full of crap.
One player a team doesn't make whether it is LBJ, Kobe or Dwight yes they have significant value and would likely propel the team into the playoffs but absolutely no guarantee of ultimate victory.
With a hard cap teams like LAL, Dallas, Boston, Miami, NYKs, Orlando would no longer exist.

Teams would not really need a superstar to win more teams like the Pistons of old could be constant winners.Look at the Pacers they were able to get into the play-offs last year and have improved with the addition of Hill. They have a nice mix of players Granger ( Bosh Type player ) George, Collison, Hibbert, Hill and Hansbrough. They currently have a 37 million payroll and plyers like Posey, Price and Stephenson expiring and Rush, Hill & Hibbert with Qualifying offers. They would likely give qualifying offers to both Hill and Hibbert but not Rush. But under a new CBA they wouldn't worry about paying both huge money but minimal raises. They would have money to fill holes at a reduced cost lets say Tyson Chandler for 3 years likely contract 6,7 & 8 million only 1st 2 years guaranteed and Carl Landy for about 4 million. They would move up in the standings substantially and still have cap space.

+1

With a hard cap, teams can choose to go with either a batman with lots of batgirls or have team full of robins.

[TheDrunkenOak]

Oh i just wanna add one more thing in regards to the nhl.

Would the bruins have won, if it weren't for parity across the league due to the hard cap? It wasn't long ago that they were basement dwellers.

[knickerbocker2k2]

One player a team doesn't make whether it is LBJ, Kobe or Dwight yes they have significant value and would likely propel the team into the playoffs but absolutely no guarantee of ultimate victory.

Tell that to the Cavs. Going from contenders to bottom feeders. Look up NBA history. With the exception of the Pistons, the last 30 years the team with one of the top tier talent players have won the championship. Dirk, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Thomas, Magic, Bird, etc. There is strong correlation between having one of the better players and winning the title. Setting hard cap won't change that.

Teams would not really need a superstar to win more teams like the Pistons of old could be constant winners.Look at the Pacers they were able to get into the play-offs last year and have improved with the addition of Hill. They have a nice mix of players Granger ( Bosh Type player ) George, Collison, Hibbert, Hill and Hansbrough. They currently have a 37 million payroll and plyers like Posey, Price and Stephenson expiring and Rush, Hill & Hibbert with Qualifying offers. They would likely give qualifying offers to both Hill and Hibbert but not Rush. But under a new CBA they wouldn't worry about paying both huge money but minimal raises.

You don't make any sense. Pacers were over the salary cap last year. The way teams get around not having superstar like Lebron, etc is to have depth and good players at all positions. Essentially use the sum of the parts game rather than individual. However in your system it would be nearly impossible to do this b/c of the salary. You use the Pistons but that team was intact for 4-5 years. How do you expect teams to stay together? Look at the NHL. You can only keep core of team together for short period of time.

They would have money to fill holes at a reduced cost lets say Tyson Chandler for 3 years likely contract 6,7 & 8 million only 1st 2 years guaranteed and Carl Landy for about 4 million. They would move up in the standings substantially and still have cap space.

Again. All hard cap does is restrict salary. How is it going to change the competitive balance? You assume in this example pacers are the only team under the cap. Why wont the Lakers be able to get Tyson for 6,7 & 7 million?

[Fairview4Life]

Now i don't know how he did his calculations or in fact how he was able to obtain accurate payroll info (cos i sure as hell can't accurate numbers online), but i remember back when the raps made the playoffs (don't remember if 2007 or 08), anyways, as with everyone else, was frustrated that we didn't go further, and was pissed off that we didn't spend into lux tax to get a winner (damn you mlse). So I looked up team salaries that year and compared it to playoff teams, and was surprised to see that all the teams except a few, (maybe 4 don't remember exactly) were in lux tax. I think i remember seeing only the raps, atlanta and phoenix being under lux tax.

I've tried to look up that info, but wasn't able to pull anything that's truly accurate, one site will one set of numbers, whereas another will have something else. So i guess you could take what i've stated as hearsay and that's fine, but to just believe some wiretap story as truth, especially when this "expert" hasn't released his calculations, is wrong.

Btw, i looked at last year's salaries, and the owners were a lot more fiscally sound, i guess due to the recession. But, if you look at the team payrolls prior to the recession, you'll be shocked.

Shamsports has had numbers for every season and is extremely accurate. It is relatively easy to cobble together the numbers from sites like Hoopshype, which are slightly less accurate, but not bad. Sham doesn't have historical numbers up, but you can probably just ask and he'd provide them. I assume someone running a study like this would have pretty accurate info and would not be pulling numbers down off the internet. Using Sham's numbers and something simple like the correl function in Excel, you can get a correlation coefficient between win % and payroll of .558 for the 2010/11 season, which is not that meaningful.

Here's a cobbled together list from 06/07 by Patricia Bender. The luxury tax limit that year was $65.42 million:
http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries07.txt
There were only 6 teams paying luxury tax that season, and of those 6, only 2 made the playoffs (LAL and Dallas...who both somehow lost in the 1st round). All of the 14 other teams in the post season, including the Raps, were below the luxury tax limit for that season.

07/08 the luxury tax limit was $67.865 million. According to this dude there were 8 tax teams in 07/08:
http://www.realclearsports.com/blognetw ... mbers.html
Boston and LA made the finals, and paid tax. But Detroit and SAS in the conference finals did not pay tax, and the Cavs were the only other tax team that made it to the 2nd round. Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix all lost in the 1st round, and the Knicks and Heat didn't make the playoffs. So 6 of the 16 teams in the playoffs paid tax in 07/08, 3 of them lost in the 1st round (Denver lost to LA, another tax team), 1 lost in the second round, one lost in the finals, and the Celtics won it all.

Looking at both of those seasons, I'm not sure if you're remembering things correctly.

Getting back to the larger issue, if you want to argue that a hard cap creates parity, and then point to the NHL as an example of that, you need to show some work. First, you need to explain what you mean by parity. Just titles? Finals appearances? Conference finals? Winning playoff series? Just making the playoffs? As I pointed out earlier, the NBA over the last 5 seasons stacks up well with the post lockout hard cap NHL in all of those measures. Secondly, you need to show that payroll was correlated with winning in the NHL pre lockout, but is not post lockout, and this is due to the hard cap. Then you need to show that winning is currently correlated with payroll in the NBA (which it is not, according to this economist who's looked at the numbers). You can't just point to an example, or the other side can just trot out the Knicks, or Heat in 07/08. You need a lot of data points. This guy presumably has them (and they aren't as difficult to get as you are making out).

[TdotO]

lol, the revenue is highest ever, your dad can afford more than that, but he just being greedy on his own plan (I want to buy a new cars, get a cottage), the interest rate is the lowest ever in US and Canada.

The players NEVER drive up the cost of the salaries, it has always been a RBI at 57%. And if the players are the sales/marketing of the company, what are the owners contributing? Just money?

I think you have a lot of mis-understanding here.

record revenue doesn't equal record profit!

The players by way of their agents drive up their own market cost making themselves only available to the teams that have the money leaving smaller markets out in the cold. thus contributing to teams losing money.

The owners were stupid in agreeing to 57% BRI, if it was 50/50 split from day one, there would never be a lockout!..but the owners agreed to the stupid number of 57% and that's the reason we're here today! The owners take ALL the risk, while the players sit back and collect

[Laowai]

One player a team doesn't make whether it is LBJ, Kobe or Dwight yes they have significant value and would likely propel the team into the playoffs but absolutely no guarantee of ultimate victory.

Tell that to the Cavs. Going from contenders to bottom feeders. Look up NBA history. With the exception of the Pistons, the last 30 years the team with one of the top tier talent players have won the championship. Dirk, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Thomas, Magic, Bird, etc. There is strong correlation between having one of the better players and winning the title. Setting hard cap won't change that.

How many NBA titles did they get?
They are in hell because the current CBA allowed Miami to scoop up Bosh and LBJ of which one of the super 3 will be unlikely to be retained in the future and that will be LBJ or Wade. In a new hard cap CBA every team has a chance. It will be up to good management coaching and drafting not $$$$$.

Teams would not really need a superstar to win more teams like the Pistons of old could be constant winners.Look at the Pacers they were able to get into the play-offs last year and have improved with the addition of Hill. They have a nice mix of players Granger ( Bosh Type player ) George, Collison, Hibbert, Hill and Hansbrough. They currently have a 37 million payroll and plyers like Posey, Price and Stephenson expiring and Rush, Hill & Hibbert with Qualifying offers. They would likely give qualifying offers to both Hill and Hibbert but not Rush. But under a new CBA they wouldn't worry about paying both huge money but minimal raises.

Less teams under the cap becomes supply and demand shrunken demand lower contracts.Lets assume HARD CAP 60 million.17 teams will be under the cap and that's without them signing draft picks or free agents.That will reduce buyers to likely 5 or 6 teams except for a few very inexpensive free agents. Also if Amnesty there may be more free agents on the market.

You don't make any sense. Pacers were over the salary cap last year. The way teams get around not having superstar like Lebron, etc is to have depth and good players at all positions. Essentially use the sum of the parts game rather than individual. However in your system it would be nearly impossible to do this b/c of the salary. You use the Pistons but that team was intact for 4-5 years. How do you expect teams to stay together? Look at the NHL. You can only keep core of team together for short period of time.

1st super star wages will be greatly reduced maybe 15 million tops.
Yes Pacers were over last year now they aren't and are in a very good position.
Raptors are in a similar position which will improve when Barbosa, Alabi and Jose expire.



Again. All hard cap does is restrict salary. How is it going to change the competitive balance? You assume in this example pacers are the only team under the cap. Why wont the Lakers be able to get Tyson for 6,7 & 7 million?

Duh the Lakers have a 92 million payroll even with Amnesty getting rid of Meta and Walton still over cap can't get anyone.

Miami will need to get rid of one of the BIG 3 and thats likely eith LBJ or Wade because no one will give Bosh his contract.

If Orlando wants to keep Dwight they will need to payoff out 100 million to get rid of Agent Zero and Hedo to have cap flexibility.

Dallas would likely be at cap threshold about 60million so they would have to buyout Haywoods contract to keep free agents.

[Indeed]

lol, the revenue is highest ever, your dad can afford more than that, but he just being greedy on his own plan (I want to buy a new cars, get a cottage), the interest rate is the lowest ever in US and Canada.

The players NEVER drive up the cost of the salaries, it has always been a RBI at 57%. And if the players are the sales/marketing of the company, what are the owners contributing? Just money?

I think you have a lot of mis-understanding here.

record revenue doesn't equal record profit!

The players by way of their agents drive up their own market cost making themselves only available to the teams that have the money leaving smaller markets out in the cold. thus contributing to teams losing money.

The owners were stupid in agreeing to 57% BRI, if it was 50/50 split from day one, there would never be a lockout!..but the owners agreed to the stupid number of 57% and that's the reason we're here today! The owners take ALL the risk, while the players sit back and collect

Players never drive up their own market, but supply and demand do.

RBI is pretty fair, while owners did nothing, unlike other business, owners are specialist in some area, but NBA owners just sit back and collect (what did they do? Sales and Marketing? The players did all that, what else?).

The owners were stupid to have long contract, but not 57% BRI. The reason we are today, because of long contracts like Hedo, Brand and etc. The players also takes risk on injuries (Roy) and the owners take the risk of having a bad GM. Unlike NHL, the supply on good players are very limited and can influence a lot on the team's revenue (Rudy Gay for example).

Not saying the players are right, but neither are the owners deserve 50% of the revenue.

Edit: By the way, you can't share profit, because the expense is controlled by the owners. What if they said they need a big parking lot next to the arena? It means more expense to the players, but more assets to the owners alone. Record profit should NEVER be used!!

[Fairview4Life]

Duh the Lakers have a 92 million payroll even with Amnesty getting rid of Meta and Walton still over cap can't get anyone.

Miami will need to get rid of one of the BIG 3 and thats likely eith LBJ or Wade because no one will give Bosh his contract.

If Orlando wants to keep Dwight they will need to payoff out 100 million to get rid of Agent Zero and Hedo to have cap flexibility.

Dallas would likely be at cap threshold about 60million so they would have to buyout Haywoods contract to keep free agents.

I am pretty sure he is speaking in generalities and not just talking about the 2011/12 season.

[Fairview4Life]

Loads of articles about competitive balance and payroll vs. winning.

http://wagesofwins.net/2011/08/10/nba-o ... e-balance/

http://www.jeremyscheff.com/2011/07/the ... d-by-team/

http://wagesofwins.net/2011/09/23/nba-p ... mpossible/

http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... dy-has-it/

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/stor ... gic-flawed

That is a lot of words and numbers.

[I_Like_Dirt]

People keep talking about how the Heat's big 3 will need to be broken up and I just don't see it. They had one of the lowest payrolls this past season. Yeah, they're going to have a barebones cast around the big 3, but that same barebones cast got them to the finals this last season. It's the maximum salary that's a problem. Lower BRI means that top players will get less salary and since the max salary is tied to a % of the cap the team still has the same % to go to other players. Players that hit the max salary are the best bargains in the NBA. Giving them less money is increasing the incentive for players to move to winning teams and take a little less, and it's also increasing the incentive for players to take the minimum salary to play for winning teams rather than taking a contract for $2 million a year or whatever.

What people are talking about when they want to restrict players from going to join other teams and win is that they want to get rid of free agency, which is illegal. Players have the right to have that choice the same way everybody that has a contract has the right to take a contract and work whereever they want when that contract is up. Like I posted earlier, you're heading the wrong direction by trying to block the players from being able to exercise their choice. Instead, you need to create another alternative that actually competes with the choice of playing for a winner. Remove the maximum salary and suddenly superstars are giving up $10s of millions to play for a winner, which is a much tougher choice to make.

[CPT]

^Pretty sure free agency isn't a legal right, especially if it's negotiated that way in a CBA by a union the player is a part of.

People have the right to choose where they work, but once you make the choice to work for the NBA, you play by their rules.

This is moot because it's not like we will see the outright elimination of free agency, but there could be greater restrictions placed on it (longer term before a player hits free agency after drafted), and possibly the abolition of sign and trades, replaced with a draft pick compensation system like we see in other sports.

[Indeed]

People keep talking about how the Heat's big 3 will need to be broken up and I just don't see it. They had one of the lowest payrolls this past season. Yeah, they're going to have a barebones cast around the big 3, but that same barebones cast got them to the finals this last season. It's the maximum salary that's a problem. Lower BRI means that top players will get less salary and since the max salary is tied to a % of the cap the team still has the same % to go to other players. Players that hit the max salary are the best bargains in the NBA. Giving them less money is increasing the incentive for players to move to winning teams and take a little less, and it's also increasing the incentive for players to take the minimum salary to play for winning teams rather than taking a contract for $2 million a year or whatever.

What people are talking about when they want to restrict players from going to join other teams and win is that they want to get rid of free agency, which is illegal. Players have the right to have that choice the same way everybody that has a contract has the right to take a contract and work whereever they want when that contract is up. Like I posted earlier, you're heading the wrong direction by trying to block the players from being able to exercise their choice. Instead, you need to create another alternative that actually competes with the choice of playing for a winner. Remove the maximum salary and suddenly superstars are giving up $10s of millions to play for a winner, which is a much tougher choice to make.

Lower BRI means that mid players will get closer money as the top players, and it will make top players join forces.

You play for the Raptors as a first option paid very similar as the second option as a Knicks (minus promotion packages), then wouldn't you join the Knicks instead of playing for the Raptors?

And another question is, do they want to repeat KG situation in MIN?


I think more trades and signing would benefit parity. That might means shorter contact and easier to make trades (hard-cap is much easier to trade, but they can make changes to the soft-cap trading rule).

[Indeed]

^Pretty sure free agency isn't a legal right, especially if it's negotiated that way in a CBA by a union the player is a part of.

People have the right to choose where they work, but once you make the choice to work for the NBA, you play by their rules.

This is moot because it's not like we will see the outright elimination of free agency, but there could be greater restrictions placed on it (longer term before a player hits free agency after drafted), and possibly the abolition of sign and trades, replaced with a draft pick compensation system like we see in other sports.

Pretty sure free agency is a legal, no contract bounded is legal.
If players want to make changes, CBA should allow "termination clause" on the contract to protect the owner.

Meanwhile, as for a player doesn't want to play for that team, they simply are not getting paid. It is naive to think the owner should get something, the contract law never said they (employer) have that right to get something back. Even I sign a contract with a company, they cannot claim any loses from me.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Free agency is a legal right. The NBA can impose certain restrictions on it provided the players agree to it through collective negotiations, but they can't outlaw free agency entirely.

The NBA could look to negotiate a way that the home team could pay $10 million per season max and other teams could only offer the NBA minimum, but owners won't really like that since it basically restricts who they can spend their money on and eliminates free agency entirely other than re-signing your own players. Even there, that doesn't improve competitive balance, since with a max contract, any team that drafts two stars would be crushing everybody else for years since no team is going to win with only one star and very few teams every draft two stars without trades. It would essentially build even bigger powerhouses and increase the incentive for other teams to tank leading to even less parity.

For increased parity, a even soft cap like what the NBA has will work, just remove that maximum contract with the same tax and maybe put in a second tier tax where if a team (the Lakers) hit $75 million in salary they pay $3 per every dollar or something like that. Presto, it's almost impossible to add loads of talent around Kobe or Lebron so that the team completely outclasses a team build around Melo or Bosh.

The funny part is that for all the talk of revenue-sharing being a sure thing, the only tinkering the owners have actually made regarding revenue sharing in the past couple of years that I can remember aws to actually decrease it where they took the tax money and split it up amongst all teams rather than just non-tax-payers. What do they have to hide that they were alright reducing revenue-sharing prior to negotiations and then expect everybody to believe that they will have it eventually?

[Fairview4Life]

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/10/13/ ... wners-hook

Instead, if it's truly concerned with competitive balance, the league ought to work to expand the margin for error for its low-wealth teams. Make it easier for teams like the Wolves and Kings to rebuild quickly and make a lunge for the top. How? Shorter contracts -- which the players' union has reportedly consented to in lockout talks -- is the most obvious and important way. Robust revenue sharing that dampens the innate, frankly unearned advantages of large market size some teams have is another solid step toward better increased payroll flexibility and competitive balance. Owners don't want to hear it, but allowing all teams -- not just the team's owned by billionaires -- to survive mistakes is a better competitive balance solution than making it miserable for everyone.

By the way, re-consider the idea that all 32 NFL teams are competing for the Super Bowl every year. The NBA has three teams that haven't made the 16-team playoffs within the past five seasons (Kings, Wolves, Clippers). The NFL, which plays a 12-team playoff bracket, has eight (Bills, Browns, Broncos, Lions, Texans, Raiders, 49ers, Rams). The NFL postseason is obviously more exclusive, making a playoff berth an imperfect comparison. But it's not as if the NFL is some bastion of total competitive equality. Its teams have long down-cycles, too ... despite a strict hard cap and wondrous payroll parity. Money isn't everything.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

Kings couldn't afford to spend 100 mil if they did want to. And it's in that system that they find it best not to try and compete, maybe in a new system, like one in which the owners have wanted and the players have been fighting, teams may not have to give up before the season begins. Anyone can throw together a blog piece supporting any side of the debate, doesn't make it definitive. For example, counter his NFL example with how many different teams have one championships in the NBA?

I'm not saying Owner's a 100% right, players 100% wrong. But for me as a fan, the system looks broken, whether the CBA was up or not. I don't blame the owners for wanting to fix or for the players for trying to protect thier wallets. But, personally, I care more about improving the system than the players wallets. So as far as BRI discussion goes, I could care less. I just want the players to cave so we get closer to hooping, because I doubt the other side is caving. And I hope they get shorter deals, and a cap system that helps team be more competitive, and prevent this from being a 3 or 4 dynasty league, where we're even more perennial losers. Personally I agree that a straight hard cap may not be the best for us either, but that doesn't mean the current system needs to be left alone as the players want. At least the group of owners seem to the have the good of the system on their mind, where as for players it seems all about "fairness" aka "their paper". For owners it's about "their paper" too, but at least it's also about an equitable system. And revenue sharing is not the answer to me, that's just NBA welfare to keep the good teams rolling and shut the rest of the teams up, like hush money. Here's 20 mil, be the Washington Generals to our globe trotters for the next five years.

Other than scant talk of extra draft pick, I haven't heard one thing about improving competitive Balance from the players side. Imploring the owners to revenue share is about fiscal balance, I see no evidence the players side cares about that. Whereas that's the only part I care about. I don't claim to have the answers, but I do want to see something done about it.

[Indeed]

Kings couldn't afford to spend 100 mil if they did want to. And it's in that system that they find it best not to try and compete, maybe in a new system, like one in which the owners have wanted and the players have been fighting, teams may not have to give up before the season begins. Anyone can throw together a blog piece supporting any side of the debate, doesn't make it definitive. For example, counter his NFL example with how many different teams have one championships in the NBA?

I'm not saying Owner's a 100% right, players 100% wrong. But for me as a fan, the system looks broken, whether the CBA was up or not. I don't blame the owners for wanting to fix or for the players for trying to protect thier wallets. But, personally, I care more about improving the system than the players wallets. So as far as BRI discussion goes, I could care less. I just want the players to cave so we get closer to hooping, because I doubt the other side is caving. And I hope they get shorter deals, and a cap system that helps team be more competitive, and prevent this from being a 3 or 4 dynasty league, where we're even more perennial losers. Personally I agree that a straight hard cap may not be the best for us either, but that doesn't mean the current system needs to be left alone as the players want. At least the group of owners seem to the have the good of the system on their mind, where as for players it seems all about "fairness" aka "their paper". For owners it's about "their paper" too, but at least it's also about an equitable system. And revenue sharing is not the answer to me, that's just NBA welfare to keep the good teams rolling and shut the rest of the teams up, like hush money. Here's 20 mil, be the Washington Generals to our globe trotters for the next five years.

Other than scant talk of extra draft pick, I haven't heard one thing about improving competitive Balance from the players side. Imploring the owners to revenue share is about fiscal balance, I see no evidence the players side cares about that. Whereas that's the only part I care about. I don't claim to have the answers, but I do want to see something done about it.

I thought the problem was owners not willing to negotiate, not event trying to smoothing things out. And I fail to see the group of owners have a good system in place, the system of reducing MLE not only on the years, but on the money, will lead to less competition on signing RFA.

[Econgrad]

I'm with the players just because the owners are full of it. The owners don't care about competitive parity or the fans, they simply want to put rules in place to protect themselves from themselves. They want to create a no-fail business model, which doesn't and shouldn't exist.

If a business is poorly managed, it should lose money and it should fail. With the amount of government support that these franchises get, there is no way that they should be losing money but they are because they are poorly managed which has nothing to do with the players. What is a player going to say if he gets offered more money than he should? No? Would any rational person turn down more money? Not a chance. The problem with big contracts is not a problem with the players, it's a problem with the owners not doing their due diligence when it comes to handing out these contracts. I'm amazed that these people who have succeeded in their other business ventures to the point of being able to afford an NBA team can manage to screw things up so poorly when it comes to running their franchises.