jfs1000d wrote:The salary cap helps cause tanking.
Unless you get he star, it is impossible to get the player because the salary cap prohibits it, and trades. If there was no cap for trades, and you could spend $200 million on anyone, then more players would move to other markets.
Because it is called, they just take 2-3 mil less to go to a winner. Lebron James is literally worth over $100 million a year to the cavs. That should be his salary.
I have killed philly over the years and think their rebuild is a failure, and it will always be a failure.
But, what are they supposed to do? They had a 42 win team and were capped out. If they could have spent another $50 million and added a good player, they would have never tanked.
But, as long as you can't buy yourself players, the only way to compete is to tank and draft. It is a bad system.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
There is actually separate but intertwined issues. My desire to go to a wheel system is rudimentary and unattached at it's base - I don't want teams to benefit by putting a team on the court designed to lose. I said earlier it is the NBA's version of steroids, but I undersold it. When players in MLB use steroids they are trying to hit baseballs out of the park they are trying to win. Tanking is actually closer to point-shaving or fixing games. Oh yeah sure - the end goal is to have a winning team. But it's like saying your goal is to be wealthy and then robbing a bank to get there. What Philly was supposed to do was to not have a choice. But so far Adam Silver has been the modern day Bud Selig - basking in the glow of the NBA riches, while 20 years earlier Bud was flush with cash as Sosa and McGwire were bopping balls out of the park. Who was reading all of those credible articles about steroids anyway? The wheel system or something like it would be like Philly trying to rob that bank with no money in it. Losing would never be a profitable option.- you might as well try to win the games.
What's intertwined is that teams in any Draft Lottery scenario have to consider, more than ever, having rookie contracts on the books to survive, both competitively and financially. So even with a system that would eliminate the accepted cheating of tanking, you still end up with teams that are no longer incentivised to lose, yet getting rid of players who can win them more games because of the staggering, rising costs. I think we have to wonder where Wyc Grousbeck's appetite for the process begins and ends. I will always wonder if we lost banners in the Big Three Era because of financial reasons of adding longer term salary for good players. It is an advantage to have Mark Cuban as your owner, without question going forward.
As to Lebron getting $100 million, you're absolutely right about his financial impact. But by the same token you get Timofey Mozgov getting $17 million per. If you boiled it down you might pay Lebron $125 million and pay his teammate Jose Calderon $135,000, right? So it shouldn't be viewed that somehow it is unfair to players. The total revenue players get is already collectively bargained with players getting more than half. Would the players have the stomach to pay Lebron what he is worth, to get significantly less individually? The pie is still the same size. Think of a role player actor in a Tom Cruise movie who gets $25,000 while Cruise gets $25,000,000. You have players in today's NBA, riding on the coattails of Lebron and other stars making 8 and even 9 figure salaries in their career earnings, that if they retired, you might not even notice for three years.
