EPTNBA Offseason 2013 - Page 76
| Forum Index > Sports |
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On September 29 2013 08:43 jmbthirteen wrote: He's one of the best 2 way players in the league, lead his team to within a game of the NBA finals, was an all star, and is 23 years old and will only be getting better. Not a bad deal at all. Remember, this doesn't go into effect this year, its next year. So most likely you will have a guy who is leading his team to a ECF or NBA Finals, another all star appearance and another all nba team. And the Pacers already have Hibbert/West/Hill all locked up for 3+ years and will either lock up Stephenson or Granger for a long time this off season. His max contract doesn't constrict the Pacers much at all. And the NBA can't remove the cap. That would be a horrific thing. Look at how amazing it is for baseball. One of the best two way players? Are you maybe basing this off of a single series in which he looked pretty nice? He's an excellent defender and he can look great but he is barely an average offensive weapon. An average offense and an excellent defense is still incredibly valuable. But is it worth a quarter of your salary cap? For 5 years? You're fooling yourself if you think this doesn't end all financial flexibility the Pacers have/had. If this contract happens, the fate of the Pacer's basketball success is defined by Paul George's success. Baseball's lack of a salary cap is wonderful. The Cleveland Indiana, Tampa Bay Rays and Texas Rangers are all contending for the final wildcard on the last day of the season. That's the 17th, 23rd and 7th largest payroll - respectively. If you don't really know about baseball, I wouldn't get in this conversation. Endless spending is a competitive advantage but baseball has has more competitive balance than the NBA can ever dream of. It's players's are better compensated and a way larger variety of teams have won the World Series when compared to the NBA Championship over the past 2 decades. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On September 30 2013 04:02 Jibba wrote: That unpredictability is inherent in the nature of the game, not the salary system. If baseball teams used 1 pitcher and a 4 person lineup, variance would drop dramatically. Maybe the World Series win but in a 182 game season? How much of a sampling do you need? Salary caps don't achieve competitive balance. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
get hyppeddd | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
On September 30 2013 01:05 slyboogie wrote: One of the best two way players? Are you maybe basing this off of a single series in which he looked pretty nice? He's an excellent defender and he can look great but he is barely an average offensive weapon. An average offense and an excellent defense is still incredibly valuable. But is it worth a quarter of your salary cap? For 5 years? You're fooling yourself if you think this doesn't end all financial flexibility the Pacers have/had. If this contract happens, the fate of the Pacer's basketball success is defined by Paul George's success. Baseball's lack of a salary cap is wonderful. The Cleveland Indiana, Tampa Bay Rays and Texas Rangers are all contending for the final wildcard on the last day of the season. That's the 17th, 23rd and 7th largest payroll - respectively. If you don't really know about baseball, I wouldn't get in this conversation. Endless spending is a competitive advantage but baseball has has more competitive balance than the NBA can ever dream of. It's players's are better compensated and a way larger variety of teams have won the World Series when compared to the NBA Championship over the past 2 decades. Yeah I'm basing this off one series.... I've seen more Pacers games than anyone on this site. Paul George is arguably the best defensive wing in the game. Yes a guy that averages 17ppg, 4apg, 7.5rpg and plays elite defense is one of the best two way players in the game. And he elevated those numbers in the post season. Is PG one of the best isolation players in the league? No. But there is way more to offense than isolation. He can hit from any spot on the floor, can attack the basket, creates for others. He rebounds incredibly well. He was 25th in the league scoring on a team with a very balanced offense. Is his offensive game on the level of LeBron, Melo or Durant? Of course not. He's not an elite offensive player yet. But he is a damn good one, above average for sure. And he is elite on the defensive end. That makes him one of the best two way players in the league. And he's only 23. PG probably wont average 20ppg this year. But thats not because of his limitations. Thats because of how the Pacers are built and will be built for years to come. His max contract changes nothing. The team could keep Granger and Stephenson if they would go into the luxury tax. The entire core is already locked up outside of those two players, one of which will be kept. The fate of the Pacers success is not on one player. That is not how they are built. To say such a thing is ignorant. Paul George could average 25/6/8 on 48% shooting this year, but if Roy Hibbert plays like he did in the first half of last season, the Pacers aren't winning the title. The Pacers are a team. They have 7 starters (PG, George Hill, Granger, West, Hibbert, Stephenson, Scola). PG is a huge piece of the puzzle, but this team will win and lose as a team. As for the MLB, so an average payroll, a below average payroll and a high payroll are all battling for the new additional wild card spot. Seems about right. Had the Yankees not been decimated by injuries, chances are Tampa isn't even battling for a spot. And of all the biggest contenders to actually win the World Series, they all have payrolls well over $100 mil. Also lets see how long these lower payroll teams keep competitive as more of the young guys who are cheap now, go and sign with the Yankees, Redsox and Dodgers for more money. The issue would be even worse in basketball because of how much larger the impact a single player has on the game of basketball vs baseball. You can be the best player in the MLB and put up ridiculous numbers and still not even make the playoffs because the rest of the team sucks. In the NBA you are LeBron James on the Cleveland Cavs and you go to the ECF or NBA Finals each year. Now if the Lakers get to spend all this extra money they get from that rich tv contract no one else in basketball comes close to touching, well just about every other team is fucked. You think the Pacers keep guys then? Hell fucking no. LA would be offering PG way more than 90 million because they could and it wouldn't even matter to them. A salary capless NBA is a HORRIBLE idea. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
Yay. Of course there's the well publicized aspect of the the Away team having more games played at home at the 5 game mark, but also no Away team has ever won when the series has gone to the final two games. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 30 2013 06:24 slyboogie wrote: Maybe the World Series win but in a 182 game season? How much of a sampling do you need? Salary caps don't achieve competitive balance. What? You haven't actually explained what it is you believe having no cap does to achieve competitive balance. All you've done is point to the balance of baseball, which I'm 99% sure is attributable to the sport of baseball and not at all the system they use. In a 182 game season with 10+ players per side per game, none of whom has an impact on every play of the game and many of whom are locked into overly long contracts (the first few years are likely to match performance, while the last few are not) or misjudged (peak performance of baseball players swings wildly in comparison to NBA, NHL and NFL players), loading up on expensive talent has a diminished impact. Importantly, it's still a non-0 impact. Freakonomics and others have approached it differently, but the r^2 is still between .17 and .49. Might be weak, might be moderate, isn't negligible. Champion's League football is a better comparison given the nature of the game and what the players can do, and there we can see a pretty strong relationship between payroll and winning. The last team that wasn't a top 15 franchise in the world (not in football, in all sports) in payroll was Porto, and if you look at the final 4 teams you'll see the same giants over and over. So explain what you think uncapping the NBA would actually do. Don't just show us the result of baseball, explain how it would come to be. | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
| ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
On September 30 2013 09:05 Jibba wrote: What? You haven't actually explained what it is you believe having no cap does to achieve competitive balance. All you've done is point to the balance of baseball, which I'm 99% sure is attributable to the sport of baseball and not at all the system they use. In a 182 game season with 10+ players per side per game, none of whom has an impact on every play of the game and many of whom are locked into overly long contracts (the first few years are likely to match performance, while the last few are not) or misjudged (peak performance of baseball players swings wildly in comparison to NBA, NHL and NFL players), loading up on expensive talent has a diminished impact. Importantly, it's still a non-0 impact. Freakonomics and others have approached it differently, but the r^2 is still between .17 and .49. Might be weak, might be moderate, isn't negligible. Champion's League football is a better comparison given the nature of the game and what the players can do, and there we can see a pretty strong relationship between payroll and winning. The last team that wasn't a top 15 franchise in the world (not in football, in all sports) in payroll was Porto, and if you look at the final 4 teams you'll see the same giants over and over. So explain what you think uncapping the NBA would actually do. Don't just show us the result of baseball, explain how it would come to be. He can't because it would be so much worse. The impact one player has on a team in the NBA is greater than any other major sport. That just comes down to the fact that compared to other team sports, there are less guys on the court and they play both sides of the ball. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On September 30 2013 09:05 Jibba wrote: What? You haven't actually explained what it is you believe having no cap does to achieve competitive balance. All you've done is point to the balance of baseball, which I'm 99% sure is attributable to the sport of baseball and not at all the system they use. In a 182 game season with 10+ players per side per game, none of whom has an impact on every play of the game and many of whom are locked into overly long contracts (the first few years are likely to match performance, while the last few are not) or misjudged (peak performance of baseball players swings wildly in comparison to NBA, NHL and NFL players), loading up on expensive talent has a diminished impact. Importantly, it's still a non-0 impact. Freakonomics and others have approached it differently, but the r^2 is still between .17 and .49. Might be weak, might be moderate, isn't negligible. Champion's League football is a better comparison given the nature of the game and what the players can do, and there we can see a pretty strong relationship between payroll and winning. The last team that wasn't a top 15 franchise in the world (not in football, in all sports) in payroll was Porto, and if you look at the final 4 teams you'll see the same giants over and over. So explain what you think uncapping the NBA would actually do. Don't just show us the result of baseball, explain how it would come to be. Jibba, we agree on a number of points. Obviously the greatest player in baseball history is worth maybe 10-12 wins. The best player in the NBA is easily worth 2-3 dozen. Not disputing that. I don't watch enough Premier League to speak intelligently on it, but I understand they use a system of relegation. I think that's fine. I agree with it. I'm the same person who constantly believes the NBA should contract. Furthermore, maybe 3 posts above, I already admitted that endless spending is a competitive advantage. But using the "nature of the sport" argument is misleading. For instance, strong teams in the NFL gain fringe advantages from cap management, drafting blah blah. But ultimately, quarterback play is so critical to a teams success. What does the salary cap have to do with elite quarterbacks except for paying them less than their worth? Not to answer a question with a question, but why does moving teams' payrolls towards the mean help competitive balance? Can you prove that it does? With roster limits - what is the fear? That some Russian Nickel Magnate is going to sign all the talent? Come on, in an uncapped world, Lebron would get close to $40 million per annum. Elite players would get close to the same. Secondly, even in a dream world where a guy signs the 12 best players in the world (has that happened in soccer? Sincere question, I don't know,) the 13th-25th best players would then be had at a discount, since the big fish buyer would be paralyzed. Look, I think the idea of a salary cap seems "fair." But it's a trick - tying competitive balance to a salary cap is the easiest way for team owners to coopt the opinions of fans. | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On September 30 2013 10:08 jmbthirteen wrote: Except in the NBA you don't need the 12 best on the same team. If you get three of the top 10, you are winning the championship. Look at the Heat now. They have the best player in LeBron, another top player in Wade and a good player in Bosh. They are rounded out with roll players. And they are back to back champs and favored to win it again. The contracts teams like the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks and Nets would be able to hand out would be ridiculous compared to the rest of the league. The way the Spurs and Pacers are built today, that wouldn't exist in a league without the salary cap. Small markets would be completely fucked. But the Heat exist. So does the salary cap. How did this happen? Look, the salary cap facilitates the kinds of tricks to get teams like the Heat. If a team like the Heat exists, it SHOULD be paying into the hundred million. It should be paying its fellow franchise out of their luxury tax bill. You know who likes the salary cap? Billionaire Mickey Arison and stupid Miami Heat fans. | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
On September 30 2013 10:14 slyboogie wrote: But the Heat exist. So does the salary cap. How did this happen? Look, the salary cap facilitates the kinds of tricks to get teams like the Heat. If a team like the Heat exists, it SHOULD be paying into the hundred million. It should be paying its fellow franchise out of their luxury tax bill. You know who likes the salary cap? Billionaire Mickey Arison and stupid Miami Heat fans. The Heat won't exist under the new CBA. Also don't undervalue LeBron. He had the Cavs how close with the shit teams around him. Pair him with Wade and 3 other guys in Heat uniforms and you have a title contender easy. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On September 30 2013 10:08 jmbthirteen wrote: Except in the NBA you don't need the 12 best on the same team. If you get three of the top 10, you are winning the championship. Look at the Heat now. They have the best player in LeBron, another top player in Wade and a good player in Bosh. They are rounded out with roll players. And they are back to back champs and favored to win it again. The contracts teams like the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks and Nets would be able to hand out would be ridiculous compared to the rest of the league. The way the Spurs and Pacers are built today, that wouldn't exist in a league without the salary cap. Small markets would be completely fucked. And would still have lost without 3 very good players playing for peanuts. Let me see if I can explain this without eliciting a violent response, despite being completely accurate. Slyboogie doesn't precisely think this would make the NBA better somehow, but is applying his historicist, some would say Marxist, narrative in which the employer is always manipulative and the employees are always oppressed and it's not really worth arguing past that point. On September 30 2013 10:14 slyboogie wrote: But the Heat exist. So does the salary cap. How did this happen? Look, the salary cap facilitates the kinds of tricks to get teams like the Heat. If a team like the Heat exists, it SHOULD be paying into the hundred million. It should be paying its fellow franchise out of their luxury tax bill. You know who likes the salary cap? Billionaire Mickey Arison and stupid Miami Heat fans. And several aspects of the creation bypassed- some would say subverted- the normal free market process, including Bosh and Lebron never actually entering FA and 3 role players playing for well under their market value. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On September 30 2013 10:21 Jerubaal wrote: And would still have lost without 3 very good players playing for peanuts. Let me see if I can explain this without eliciting a violent response, despite being completely accurate. Slyboogie doesn't precisely think this would make the NBA better somehow, but is applying his historicist, some would say Marxist, narrative in which the employer is always manipulative and the employees are always oppressed and it's not really worth arguing past that point. Well, it's not totally Marxist... Owners own teams that generate a lot of money from the public because sports are cool. Owners aren't all manipulative, no. It's totally natural to want to control your costs - that's okay. And owners should make money, they pay for the franchises and sort of..kind of..pay for the stadiums that the players play in. That's okay. But if you don't accept that fact, that owners will try to keep most of the money, then you'll keep thinking the salary cap exists for competitive balance purposes and not for keeping salaries down. Ostensibly, it exists for both, but one of those reasons is unprovable. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
If you are asking if "thats fair to the players", well ask them? I think the problem here is that there are so very few people who actually argue for professional athletes to make even more money than they do, so nobody has any idea what point you are coming from. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On September 30 2013 10:28 slyboogie wrote: Well, it's not totally Marxist... Owners own teams that generate a lot of money from the public because sports are cool. Owners aren't all manipulative, no. It's totally natural to want to control your costs - that's okay. And owners should make money, they pay for the franchises and sort of..kind of..pay for the stadiums that the players play in. That's okay. But if you don't accept that fact, that owners will try to keep most of the money, then you'll keep thinking the salary cap exists for competitive balance purposes and not for keeping salaries down. Ostensibly, it exists for both, but one of those reasons is unprovable. My question then is why wouldn't the increased salaries for mega players cut into the salaries of, if not the mid range players, the lower level players. As I understand it, the CBAs are negotiated as a percentage of total revenue, so I don't see how that would work, even if individual teams tried to overspend. | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
Letting teams spend whatever they want on their roster would collapse the NBA. There would be no parity. At least the Heat were pushed to 7 games in the ECF and Finals. A roster containing LeBron, Durant, CP3, Howard and filled out with whoever else? No point in even playing. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On September 30 2013 10:35 a176 wrote: The Heat are a case of players taking "less money than their worth", to play for championships rather than playing for money. If you are asking if "thats fair to the players", well ask them? I think the problem here is that there are so very few people who actually argue for professional athletes to make even more money than they do, so nobody has any idea what point you are coming from. Dude, why shouldn't a laborer earn what he's worth in a free market? The players taking less than they were worth was because of the cap - the team says, "sorry, I can't pay you what you're worth. Cause of the cap...damn, sorry. But here's the $1.2 vet exception!" | ||
| ||
