Originally posted by crzy:
Actually, the most owner friendly CBA in professional sports is the NFL (besides the issues of rookie contracts)....seeing as how players in a brutal sport don't have guaranteed contracts, and players generally in the NFL are far more replaceable than in basketball.
I understand what you're saying.
And while the owners are to blame for their insane spending this off-season, it's pretty clear to me that most of those contracts were signed with the "wink-wink" as the owners pretty much expect that most of those players will not see that money in the event of a lockout. They'll likely demand that money back and they'll get it...just like the NHL owners did.
Personally, I don't really care about the players.
Because the NBA owners winning this labor dispute will be better for the NBA long-term.
LOL. I respect the honesty.
Personally, I think that profitability and competitiveness is already achievable for small market teams, without having to do anything spectacular. You get young talent that's either locked up for 5 years below market value, or you can drop them after 3 if they aren't. They have exclusive negotiating rights for at least two seasons if you want to extend them. And if they're elite, like a Durant, there's a cap on how much they can make anyway.
And if your GM is actually good at what he does and hits on a player that isn't in the lottery? f**kin' GOLD. Look at the salary of a player like Rondo, who was the 21st pick in the draft.
Rondo's made $5.8M in his entire career
due to the rookie salary scale, and he made the Celtics a lot more money than that in that period of time with the quality of his play. That's almost exactly what Drew Gooden is going to make this season alone.
And that's why the RC Buford's, Sam Presti's, & Daryl Morey's of the league have been killing other GMs. They stockpile assets in the undervalued market (the draft) and pretty much stay the f**k away from the overvalued one. (free agency)
I disagree with your point of view that these things would improve competitive balance. The Knicks are in the biggest market in the league, and have been a laughingstock for years. Same thing with the Clippers. Boston, who's in the #3 market in New England, was bad for 20 years.
On the flip side, the smallest market in the league has been profitable and competitive for the last 25 years (San Antonio), and OKC (which IIRC is the 2nd smallest) looks poised to do the same for the next decade.
It has nothing to do with your market size, and everything to do with how good your decision makers are. If the owners are upset that the big market teams are making more money, maybe they should increase the revenue sharing, because I don't understand why that's the player's problem.