***General NBA Discussion Thread***

Originally posted by crzy:
I agree that stars dominate in basketball, however changing the league salary structure would help more teams become competitive, and would be better for the league long-term.

What do you specifically have in mind, aside from non-guaranteed contracts? (which is one of the few things I agree with the owners on)

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by crzy:
I agree that stars dominate in basketball, however changing the league salary structure would help more teams become competitive, and would be better for the league long-term.

What do you specifically have in mind, aside from non-guaranteed contracts? (which is one of the few things I agree with the owners on)

Actually that's pretty much all I care about. The "hard cap" or whatever, isn't as important as the non-guaranteed contracts.

Structuring NBA contracts like NFL contracts with signing bonuses and cap hits if you cut a player.

Also, remove trade restrictions. I absolutely HATE that contracts have to match in a trade. That makes no sense.

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by crzy:
I agree that stars dominate in basketball, however changing the league salary structure would help more teams become competitive, and would be better for the league long-term.

What do you specifically have in mind, aside from non-guaranteed contracts? (which is one of the few things I agree with the owners on)

Actually that's pretty much all I care about. The "hard cap" or whatever, isn't as important as the non-guaranteed contracts.

Structuring NBA contracts like NFL contracts with signing bonuses and cap hits if you cut a player.

Also, remove trade restrictions. I absolutely HATE that contracts have to match in a trade. That makes no sense.

How would the non-guaranteed contracts make the league more competitive though?

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by crzy:
I agree that stars dominate in basketball, however changing the league salary structure would help more teams become competitive, and would be better for the league long-term.

What do you specifically have in mind, aside from non-guaranteed contracts? (which is one of the few things I agree with the owners on)

Actually that's pretty much all I care about. The "hard cap" or whatever, isn't as important as the non-guaranteed contracts.

Structuring NBA contracts like NFL contracts with signing bonuses and cap hits if you cut a player.

Also, remove trade restrictions. I absolutely HATE that contracts have to match in a trade. That makes no sense.

How would the non-guaranteed contracts make the league more competitive though?

No more Eddy Curry's, Kenny Thomas's.

No more salary cap hell for teams that kill a team's roster flexibility.

All players getting paid each year based on their TRUE value, not what their value was at the time they were free agents.

The owners are absolutely justified in going after the players. I hope they completely destroy the players in negotiations. I wouldn't mind seeing the max contract lowered either.

In the end, a lockout would benefit the NBA.

Right now, it's very difficult to turn a profit if you own an NBA team unless you're in a huge market. The more profitable small-market franchises become, the more money owners can invest in their teams. The fewer Pau Gasol-type salary dumps we'll see.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jeff_pearlman/09/29/eddy.curry/


Peralman eviscerates Curry

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by crzy:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by crzy:
I agree that stars dominate in basketball, however changing the league salary structure would help more teams become competitive, and would be better for the league long-term.

What do you specifically have in mind, aside from non-guaranteed contracts? (which is one of the few things I agree with the owners on)

Actually that's pretty much all I care about. The "hard cap" or whatever, isn't as important as the non-guaranteed contracts.

Structuring NBA contracts like NFL contracts with signing bonuses and cap hits if you cut a player.

Also, remove trade restrictions. I absolutely HATE that contracts have to match in a trade. That makes no sense.

How would the non-guaranteed contracts make the league more competitive though?

No more Eddy Curry's, Kenny Thomas's.

No more salary cap hell for teams that kill a team's roster flexibility.

All players getting paid each year based on their TRUE value, not what their value was at the time they were free agents.

The owners are absolutely justified in going after the players. I hope they completely destroy the players in negotiations. I wouldn't mind seeing the max contract lowered either.

In the end, a lockout would benefit the NBA.

Right now, it's very difficult to turn a profit if you own an NBA team unless you're in a huge market. The more profitable small-market franchises become, the more money owners can invest in their teams. The fewer Pau Gasol-type salary dumps we'll see.

The owners don't already have enough going for them? What other business or sport has a limit on what it's top revenue producers can make? What other business or sport has a limit on what it's incoming rookies can make?

They're absolutely NOT justified in going after the players. They have perhaps the most owner friendly CBA in sports, and now they want the players to save them from their own bad decisions?

And they're pleading poverty in a year that saw Joe Johnson get $120M, Drew Gooden get $32M, and a host of other players get ridiculous money? In a year where they posted their highest gross revenues EVER?

Originally posted by LA9erFan:


They're absolutely NOT justified in going after the players. They have perhaps the most owner friendly CBA in sports, and now they want the players to save them from their own bad decisions?

THIS

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.

Actually the more I think about it, I'm pro-hard cap as well.

These super-teams where Lebron, Wade, and Bosh are all joining together annoys the s**t out of me.

And now Carmelo wants to join Chris Paul and Amare in NY

A hard cap leading to a better distribution of talent makes sense.

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.

2006-07...$1,143,600
2007-08...$1,229,280
2008-09...$1,315,080
2009-10...$2,094,922

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.

Actually the one bad part of a hard cap would be teams not being able to retain their superstar player, which would suck.

I'm thinking that each team would have a "franchise player exception" that would allow them to go over the cap to only keep ONE max player.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

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.

2006-07...$1,143,600
2007-08...$1,229,280
2008-09...$1,315,080
2009-10...$2,094,922

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.

You are correct in saying that decision making is the primary factor that dictates whether a team will be successful. Well...decision making and luck (luckily ending up with the #2 pick and Durant for example).

The system is definitely broken though in terms of parity and distribution of talent. The last Forbes report a year ago had 40% of the NBA operating in the red and that included competitive teams like the Magic. The New Orleans Hornets have a star player in Chris Paul and cannot afford to keep him. We see the "super-team building" phenomenon happening in Miami, and threatening to happen again in New York.

And while a hard cap or non-guaranteed contracts would certainly not solve the problem entirely, I think it's a step in the right direction.

The players might end up sacrificing the years of job security that they have now, which definitely would suck for them, but ultimately, the star players in the league will still get paid substantial amounts of money. There could be some sort of "escrow fund" that would pay a player that has a career-ending injury.

I think revenue sharing is dangerous. It's already been proven in the MLB that owners like the Marlins or Pirates can simply pocket the money from revenue sharing and not ever worry about putting a competitive product out on the field. I don't really want revenue sharing in basketball. I just want a playing field that makes it easier for owners to generate their own profits by holding down player salaries.

I hear what you're saying, but I think that non-guaranteed contracts are enough of a concession on the player's end.

I mean, the current framework violates the hell out of anti-trust laws, and if the union decertifies, the owners are in deep s**t. The NFL recently lost a lawsuit where the court determined that they were in fact one entity, as opposed to 30 competing entities, and that's going to impact the NBA negotiations as well. A salary cap, rookie cap scale, maximum contract cap, and even the draft violate anti-trust law.

But having a league where everyone is profitable is ideal for both sides. The owners have plenty of advantages working in their favor where they can accomplish this.

Orlando is operating in the red? They weren't before they gave Lewis & VC $183M. Am I supposed to feel bad for them?

New Orleans can't afford CP3? Then why'd they trade Chandler's expiring contract for $50M+ of Emeka Okafor? Why'd they trade for $28M of Trevor Ariza? Why'd they sign Peja to that ridiculous deal? Or James Posey?

Those poor Memphis Grizzlies just gave Rudy Gay $80M.

Their payroll's too high because they made awful decisions with the money they had. Non-guaranteed contracts? Fine, but that's it. They need to look in the mirror.

Didnt kno where else to put this and since there are multiple stabs at LeBron...

Originally posted by GameOver:



Didnt kno where else to put this and since there are multiple stabs at LeBron...

I have that jersey he put on in the end!!!