2011 NBA Offseason

[tfarks]

Are you sure those soft cap exceptions were around then?

 

Can't make things perfectly fair. But you should attempt when also dealing with the economics. The playoffs don't have to be between 3-4 teams while the others momentarily get in the way.

 

The easiest way to fix things is the super league. Don't dick around with it. And every team would have a chance to win every year.

[SouthSideRyan]

Memphis got to the playoffs single-handedly because of Gasol. Seems like a guy that should be traded and not kept as the franchise player.

 

Did he also single-handedly lead them to a 17-42 record during his starts in '05-'06? How about 10-29 in '06-'07?

 

And the rumors I read said Williams asked for Utah to trade him. The organization kept it unofficial just like they downplayed any role he might have had in forcing Sloan's exit. If Utah had a happy Williams they would have never traded him. He wanted out.

 

I'd love to know how you reconcile blaming Williams for Sloan's exit and forcing his way out of Utah within about a week of each other.

 

 

Teams over the salary cap can already resign their own players and sign their draft picks. Plus more I don't feel like getting into. No, they should not be allowed to add yet another player as it just gives the advantage to the teams who can pay the most in luxury tax. Why is it a good idea to keep handing out MLE's to teams like the Heat so they can keep ballooning their payroll to build around their big 3.

How does this make the league worse while being more fair? Why should the Heat get to sign a player with no repercussions every year from now on?

 

You don't even want teams over the cap to be able to sign a draft pick? Are they allowed to sign a league minimum guy? It's not like there aren't restrictions on the MLE. The current level of the cap basically requires the MLE to exist, or to have star players making insultingly low pay.

 

 

Just because the Knicks didn't know how to win being 70 million over the cap doesn't mean it should be an option to the few teams who can afford it. How is that fair to a smart team like OKC who knows how to actually handle the cap? Yet has to face the Lakers who Kobe in Colorado it?

 

I don't buy the argument the league can't be made more fair and be the worse for wear.

 

OKC's benefit of being under the cap is that they can more easily acquire talent be it through FA or trade that a team like the Lakers and Heat can't do.

[Sammy Sofa]

And every team would have a chance to win every year.

 

But that's not (realistically) true for the other major sports, so that seems to be an unrealistic goal and unnecessarily drastic. There's always going to be bad teams that get beat up on.

[SouthSideRyan]

The same 3-4 teams? There've been 8 different teams in the conference finals and 4 different teams in the finals over the past 2 seasons. 9-5 the past 3. 11-5 the past 4.

[Sammy Sofa]

The same 3-4 teams? There've been 8 different teams in the conference finals and 4 different teams in the finals over the past 2 seasons. 9-5 the past 3. 11-5 the past 4.

 

And 6 different champs in the last decade.

[tfarks]

Okay that's a lot for the morning.

 

Yes Memphis sucked even with their star player too.

 

In terms of Williams, that's whats I remember reading. Williams became unhappy about Sloan. Utah kept everything under wraps the best they could then their franchise player was traded. You really think he had nothing to do with either part of that? Seems like a stretch to me. Disgruntled star players spur roster changes, always have always will. Do I know it for sure? Absolutely not. It's possible his bewilderment was legit and he wanted to stay. I think Utah preemptively traded him because they thought he wouldn't re-sign there after their long time coach leaving and a decline in team's play. Doesn't really matter though it was 1 example out of many.

 

Yes, draft picks are able to be signed and I'm fine with that. Same with resigning one's own players. If they're keeping the soft cap structure. Which it seemed like they were keeping, just with changes. Star players don't have to make insultingly low pay, but if you want to have 3 of them together then they need to make considerably less than they normally would. Would help keep stars from congregating on 1 team and still getting near max deals.

 

Yes OKC does have more room. But they did it in a smart way. The Lakers being able to go over 30 million from the cap just seems too easy.

 

No, that's not true of other leagues. That's what would make it cool. It has zero chance of being implemented, but it could hypothetically work, and well.

 

3-4 teams comment means that every year when the playoffs start, the top 3-4 teams are heavily favored because the bottom half of the playoff bracket has little chance. When a 3 seed like Dallas wins it all that's an upset. It will be fun watching the Heat make it year after year to some. Not so much for others.

 

Last 2 years if that's what you wanna work with had the Lakers/Heat/Celtics/Mavs. When's the last time a low seed won the playoffs? Denver was there, New York was there, Portland, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Indiana. All had no chance. All that meant is when it comes playoff time in the NBA it's never between 16 teams. It's usually between 3-4. Maybe even 4-6. A lot of people don't seem to mind this, that's cool. I thought what Memphis did was more interesting than just hoping the Heat would lose.

 

6 different champs is nice. But name me one small-market owner that looks at that and says ooh, fun. Glad I'm losing money and maybe getting bounced out of the 1st round of the playoffs on a good year.

[SouthSideRyan]

My point on Williams is, why would you let a guy force out the head coach if you're going to trade him 2 weeks later? They can't both be true and it's more likely to be neither.

 

The higher seeds should win most of the time. March Madness is fun because a Davidson can make a run to the elite 8 as a 10 seed. March Madness isn't fun when Butler makes a run to the title game and shoots 3% from the field. It's not a slot machine, the best teams should win.

 

There's obviously a gap in our arguments because you believe most small market teams are losing money, and I don't buy it. 2 or 3 teams? Maybe. 1/3? (as referenced by somebody upthread) Not buying it. And to be honest, if Michael Jordan wasn't losing money the way he's run that franchise, then something would be wrong.

 

I guarantee you that the Thunder are making nice money. I guarantee you the Jazz were printing it for years. It's not shocking that bad teams are doing worse profit-wise than good teams are. Build a team, pack your taxpayer financed stadium, or get a new owner in there who can.

[tfarks]

I thought Butler getting to the title game was cool. And the best teams do win. I just want to see more teams given that opportunity to be there. The problem isn't the best teams win, it's that it's the same teams. Although admittedly we have gotten more 1-time winners lately and that's good to see. Except when the Heat win the next 3.

 

I've read it both ways on the finances. And I can't be for sure. There's a lot of hidden money trails out there. But not every owner can get a taxpayer-financed stadium. Simon has lost money continually having to pay for his own venue, and currently the long-term lease on Conseco has him losing money and having him by the balls if he tries to move the team. Why would he vote for status quo? He built a competitive team, built another one, got unlucky with the brawl, and is now building up another competitive team. But it took him losing money since then and counting. If Stern wants a franchise in Indianapolis, and certain other cities, he needs to fix it. And that's one of the reasons such a hard stance was taken against the players.

 

It's also not feasible to say just get an owner in there who can. Because the same restrictions and limitations would be there for him too. Such as a cash-strapped city who can't afford to add 50 million in taxes for a stadium, but depend on the team for revenue. It's just the way the economy is in a lot of places right now. In a positive scenario, the NBA can get more money to these teams and keep their league in all these cities. Keep or gain fans, instead of lose them.

[Sammy Sofa]

6 different champs is nice. But name me one small-market owner that looks at that and says ooh, fun. Glad I'm losing money and maybe getting bounced out of the 1st round of the playoffs on a good year.

 

What you're proposing isn't going to drastically change that. At best you're talking about one of them maybe sneaking in to the finals (and probably losing) and then vanishing for years to come. Caps aren't going to protect those teams from being badly run and bungling the one advantage they have (draft strength) are put them in a big market that is actually appealing to big-name players.

[tfarks]

6 different champs is nice. But name me one small-market owner that looks at that and says ooh, fun. Glad I'm losing money and maybe getting bounced out of the 1st round of the playoffs on a good year.

 

What you're proposing isn't going to drastically change that. At best you're talking about one of them maybe sneaking in to the finals (and probably losing) and then vanishing for years to come. Caps aren't going to protect those teams from being badly run and bungling the one advantage they have (draft strength) are put them in a big market that is actually appealing to big-name players.

 

I don't get it? If they sneak into the Finals why would they vanish? The teams that aren't attractive free-agent destinations have to be competitive to attract players. A team that sniffs the Finals can build upon that, not immediately regress.

 

And yeah what I'm proposing is probably off in numerous areas, but I'm no expert. I just see a problem.

[Sammy Sofa]

6 different champs is nice. But name me one small-market owner that looks at that and says ooh, fun. Glad I'm losing money and maybe getting bounced out of the 1st round of the playoffs on a good year.

 

What you're proposing isn't going to drastically change that. At best you're talking about one of them maybe sneaking in to the finals (and probably losing) and then vanishing for years to come. Caps aren't going to protect those teams from being badly run and bungling the one advantage they have (draft strength) are put them in a big market that is actually appealing to big-name players.

 

I don't get it? If they sneak into the Finals why would they vanish? The teams that aren't attractive free-agent destinations have to be competitive to attract players. A team that sniffs the Finals can build upon that, not immediately regress.

 

And yeah what I'm proposing is probably off in numerous areas, but I'm no expert. I just see a problem.

 

Because most of those teams are still going to be crappily run and, most importantly, they're still small-market teams that a majority of big-market players want to flee from. A more strict cap doesn't necessarily change that.

[tfarks]

6 different champs is nice. But name me one small-market owner that looks at that and says ooh, fun. Glad I'm losing money and maybe getting bounced out of the 1st round of the playoffs on a good year.

 

What you're proposing isn't going to drastically change that. At best you're talking about one of them maybe sneaking in to the finals (and probably losing) and then vanishing for years to come. Caps aren't going to protect those teams from being badly run and bungling the one advantage they have (draft strength) are put them in a big market that is actually appealing to big-name players.

 

I don't get it? If they sneak into the Finals why would they vanish? The teams that aren't attractive free-agent destinations have to be competitive to attract players. A team that sniffs the Finals can build upon that, not immediately regress.

 

And yeah what I'm proposing is probably off in numerous areas, but I'm no expert. I just see a problem.

 

Because most of those teams are still going to be crappily run and, most importantly, they're still small-market teams that a majority of big-market players want to flee from. A more strict cap doesn't necessarily change that.

 

A strict cap doesn't necessarily change that, and it's something that I don't think will actually happen. But changes to the soft cap need to be made that will help small-market teams. The teams that are poorly run personnel wise won't be able to complain about money, only their own incompetence.

 

Spending limits on top spending teams. Massive revenue sharing. The bottom line of the new BRI will help teams on the bubble already. If there's gonna be a tiered luxury tax system, the poorer teams should be able to financially support themselves going into the luxury tax as well to keep a star player. Or a certain core together. I know I heard talk of a super tax. But they don't really need to go that far if they just share some money with the 12 teams or whoever who need it. Big teams still win, but the little guys get a better shot. I think that's change for the better. No one needs to be handed a title, but they should be placed in an economic system that works.

[Sammy Sofa]

I just don't understand why you keep insisting that a 12-team league is the best solution. I'm all for stripping the NBA of some obvious deadweight teams, but I don't see why eliminating 18 teams is necessary.

 

And my issue with hard caps is that they typically don't come with some type of hard spending "floor." I don't agree that better run teams or ones with more resources available should be punished because there are smaller teams that are often horribly run and shouldn't have even been bought in the first place, because that's how it is more often than not. That's why I'm not confident at all that a hard cap would do much "fixing." I'd rather let a few teams collapse/fold them and move forward with a more streamlined league.

[tfarks]

I just don't understand why you keep insisting that a 12-team league is the best solution. I'm all for stripping the NBA of some obvious deadweight teams, but I don't see why eliminating 18 teams is necessary.

 

And my issue with hard caps is that they typically don't come with some type of hard spending "floor." I don't agree that better run teams or ones with more resources available should be punished because there are smaller teams that are often horribly run and shouldn't have even been bought in the first place, because that's how it is more often than not. That's why I'm not confident at all that a hard cap would do much "fixing." I'd rather let a few teams collapse/fold them and move forward with a more streamlined league.

 

This reply does not fit with what I just wrote. Keep the 30 teams, spread the money around. The 12 team thing was in jest, it was never remotely a possibility.

 

A hard cap doesn't have to happen. Floor or not. They just need to amend the soft cap enough so that it resembles certain aspects from a hard cap. I believe I read that revenue sharing might increase by triple. That's the type of thing that needs to happen. A total spending limit, so a team like the Heat can't can't go too far into the MLE tax. That needs to happen.

[Sammy Sofa]

I just don't understand why you keep insisting that a 12-team league is the best solution. I'm all for stripping the NBA of some obvious deadweight teams, but I don't see why eliminating 18 teams is necessary.

 

And my issue with hard caps is that they typically don't come with some type of hard spending "floor." I don't agree that better run teams or ones with more resources available should be punished because there are smaller teams that are often horribly run and shouldn't have even been bought in the first place, because that's how it is more often than not. That's why I'm not confident at all that a hard cap would do much "fixing." I'd rather let a few teams collapse/fold them and move forward with a more streamlined league.

 

This reply does not fit with what I just wrote. Keep the 30 teams, spread the money around. The 12 team thing was in jest, it was never remotely a possibility.

 

A hard cap doesn't have to happen. Floor or not. They just need to amend the soft cap enough so that it resembles certain aspects from a hard cap. I believe I read that revenue sharing might increase by triple. That's the type of thing that needs to happen. A total spending limit, so a team like the Heat can't can't go too far into the MLE tax. That needs to happen.

 

I'd rather increase the tax instead of a hard limit. And I brought up the 12-team thing because you've brought it up multiple times, so it was seeming like you were serious. And sure, spread the revenue around; it's just not going to significantly change the makeup of which teams are typically competitive. A hard limit would cause a blip along those lines, but not as much as you seem to be hoping. Most of those teams are just too poorly run and big-name players will simply want to get away from them because they're podunk. There's always going to be a bigger market with money.

[tfarks]

I just don't understand why you keep insisting that a 12-team league is the best solution. I'm all for stripping the NBA of some obvious deadweight teams, but I don't see why eliminating 18 teams is necessary.

 

And my issue with hard caps is that they typically don't come with some type of hard spending "floor." I don't agree that better run teams or ones with more resources available should be punished because there are smaller teams that are often horribly run and shouldn't have even been bought in the first place, because that's how it is more often than not. That's why I'm not confident at all that a hard cap would do much "fixing." I'd rather let a few teams collapse/fold them and move forward with a more streamlined league.

 

This reply does not fit with what I just wrote. Keep the 30 teams, spread the money around. The 12 team thing was in jest, it was never remotely a possibility.

 

A hard cap doesn't have to happen. Floor or not. They just need to amend the soft cap enough so that it resembles certain aspects from a hard cap. I believe I read that revenue sharing might increase by triple. That's the type of thing that needs to happen. A total spending limit, so a team like the Heat can't can't go too far into the MLE tax. That needs to happen.

 

I'd rather increase the tax instead of a hard limit. And I brought up the 12-team thing because you've brought it up multiple times, so it was seeming like you were serious. And sure, spread the revenue around; it's just not going to significantly change the makeup of which teams are typically competitive. A hard limit would cause a blip along those lines, but not as much as you seem to be hoping. Most of those teams are just too poorly run and big-name players will simply want to get away from them.

 

A hard limit that's 30 million over the cap is not a big deal. It just stops someone like New York from getting to spend 70 million more than another team. This actually helps other big market teams. When they have Paul/Anthony/Stoudemire next year it will be difficult for them to keep adding to that. That helps other big market teams, like the Bulls.

 

And you can't definitively say what that increase in revenue sharing would do. It hasn't been done yet. If small-market teams can start going 15 million into the luxury tax then the makeup of their team is entirely different. I don't think there's legions of incompetent management out there that couldn't do better with more money. Team plays better, big-name player doesn't want to run away anymore.

[Sammy Sofa]

Maybe. I'd rather some of the teams just go away instead of catering to them when they shouldn't exist in the first place.

[wolf stansson]

Maybe. I'd rather some of the teams just go away instead of catering to them when they shouldn't exist in the first place.

Well, as much as I'd hate to lose this season, if it led to contraction, that would be a silver lining.

[SouthSideRyan]

Especially if they contract the Bulls.

[SpongeWorthy]

Obama contracted what was left of Rondo's jumper

[SouthSideRyan]

Obama contracted what was left of Rondo's jumper

 

This full year of rest is going to be great for my guys's osteoperosis.

[illiniguy]

Especially if they contract the Bulls.

Are you even trying anymore?

[The R-Train]

Several reports have come out tonight stating that the NBA regular season will kick off on Christmas Day. They expect to play a modified 66 game schedule.

 

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

[JonJayCutler]

:yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

 

This should take my mind off the Bears getting destroyed by GB that night.

[ChiCubsFan]

Thank god. I couldn't go a year without watching Joakim and the boys.