EPTI think that as long as there is a hard cap, there is no reason to have a draft. Mathematically, a free market (under a hard cap) with none of the stupid other things, like max contracts per player, a draft, rookie salary scales, etc would produce the most competitive NBA.
NBA Offseason 2013 - Page 89
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
I think that as long as there is a hard cap, there is no reason to have a draft. Mathematically, a free market (under a hard cap) with none of the stupid other things, like max contracts per player, a draft, rookie salary scales, etc would produce the most competitive NBA. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Winning a championship usually carries some sort of financial sacrifice, but making the playoffs every year and being decent can sell a lot of tickets (unless you're in Atlanta.) Seems better than tanking and averaging 10,000 attendance per game. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 18 2013 14:13 Ace wrote: Majority of the owners don't care about competition and competitive balance, they care about profit. That's what the entire lockout was about. As long as there is a hard cap, profit is unaffected. Thus, my plan deos not affect anything. As such, the "salaries" players "paid" are irrelevant anyways because the entire union just shares a % of total revenue no matter what happens. In other words, Kobe's ridiculous contract means every other player in the NBA is paid less. "Contracts" really just represent a % of the NBAPA's cut. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
@Jibba: Yep. I've been reading up on some thoughts about tanking and it certainly looks like tanking is just a worse crapshoot than most GMs and Owners realize. I've always thought being a middling 7/8 seed that is young with assets is a great thing. Like you stated the playoff attendance for years on end is good enough. It's also profitable for the owners because players don't get paid in the playoffs (outside of per diem and Finals bonuses anyway). | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
On October 18 2013 13:58 Taguchi wrote: Well, Melo just said he'd like to explore free agency and the Raptors already dumped Bargs on the Knicks, not to mention the long history of panicky Knicks trades that bring in ppg+losses guys so I know who'd be top of my list if I'm Ujiri  By that he's just opting out of his contract, which he should do even if he's re-signing because his extension would only get him a max of 3 years as opposed to the 4-5 he could get in "free" agency. Him opting out doesn't mean that he's necessarily looking to go somewhere else. @Tanking debate- depends on what your objective as an owner is. Tanking can be effective if you want to be a contender, OKC style. You do need good scouts/luck/good draft picks though. It's much harder to be middling for awhile then become a contender- look at the Hawks/Jazz. The Rockets are the exception to this and it's a mixture of Morey being smart, doing it at the right time, and getting lucky. If you're a Cuban/Buss family type owner it might be smarter to tank/at least clear a lot of cap space rather than just being a mediocre team, the chances of you being a really good team in 3-5 years is much higher. If you just want to make money it might make sense to be middling. As others have stated there's a chance you'll tank and when you come back the best you're going to be is middling anyway, but if you become a contender you'll get far more money than if you decide to be middling for a few years. Again, this depends on the market. I feel like places like Chicago, you're gonna sell out no matter what so the revenue lost by tanking is less than if you were in a market that cares less about pro basketball like Memphis or Atlanta. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On October 18 2013 14:35 cLutZ wrote: But players are guaranteed x% of overall revenue no matter what by the cba. How does any particular system of distribution increase profit margins? The only way to increase profits in the NBA is to increase revenue, reduce non-player costs, or reduce your overall share of player costs. It's futile. I thought there was a rule that allowed a team to resign a player to a larger contract than other teams could offer. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On October 18 2013 14:35 cLutZ wrote: But players are guaranteed x% of overall revenue no matter what by the cba. How does any particular system of distribution increase profit margins? The only way to increase profits in the NBA is to increase revenue, reduce non-player costs, or reduce your overall share of player costs. suppress player costs = lower their percentage of BRI. Last lockout took it from 57% to 50% | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
Correct? | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On October 18 2013 11:37 cLutZ wrote: But who is still dumb enough to trade for Rudy Gay? CLE needs a SF and need to put enough talent around Kyrie to keep him there. This would require them to give up on the idea of Lebron returning though, so who knows. WAS needs a SF badly enough that they might bite. They could even use Gay as a PF since their frontcourt situation is such a mess right now too. MIL is always a potential target for strange trades. They were the ones who put together the Jennings and Ellis backcourt after all. UTA has no SF either, unless you count Hayward, who they could play at SG instead. SAC could look to make a big move, and SF is arguably a position of need. All of these franchises are fully capbable of this kind of move IMO. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 18 2013 15:15 Ace wrote: Right. So what are you arguing about? I already said even if those things increase competition the owners don't care - they want profit. We agree that drafts, negotiations and player salaries (locked at 50% of the NBA revenue) won't do anything to effect owner profit. Correct? We are not arguing, I guess. But, if thatsthe case, what was your point? On October 18 2013 15:28 XaI)CyRiC wrote: CLE needs a SF and need to put enough talent around Kyrie to keep him there. This would require them to give up on the idea of Lebron returning though, so who knows. WAS needs a SF badly enough that they might bite. They could even use Gay as a PF since their frontcourt situation is such a mess right now too. MIL is always a potential target for strange trades. They were the ones who put together the Jennings and Ellis backcourt after all. UTA has no SF either, unless you count Hayward, who they could play at SG instead. SAC could look to make a big move, and SF is arguably a position of need. All of these franchises are fully capbable of this kind of move IMO. That requires 2 Falsehoods to be believed by one of those teams: 1. That Rudy Gay is a good player. 2. That Rudy Gay's Contract isn't terrible. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
As a result, I could see one of those weaker teams being willing to overpay for him to fill what they may consider to be an urgent need. None of them are locations that are attractive to FAs. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On October 18 2013 15:15 Ace wrote: Right. So what are you arguing about? I already said even if those things increase competition the owners don't care - they want profit. We agree that drafts, negotiations and player salaries (locked at 50% of the NBA revenue) won't do anything to effect owner profit. Correct? That salary caps, etc are a tool to suppress wages despite being separate from the CBA revenue split. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 18 2013 16:06 Jerubaal wrote: That salary caps, etc are a tool to suppress wages despite being separate from the CBA revenue split. Right. The CBA revenue split is what suppresses wages overall. The Salary cap is ostensibly a parity-enforcing mechanism, and the individual player caps (max contract) works in the opposite direction, but is really a "tax" on great players like LBJ who aren't allowed to get the % of the overall split they deserve, and give extra to mediocre players like Joel Anthony and Derek Fisher. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13296 Posts
Yes they care about profit, but a lot of them care about winning too. Guys like Buss, Lacob, Cuban, Arison, Holt etc care more than just making a profit out of their team. There are some shitty owners in the NBA who suck the life out of their team and its supporters but they're not all bad guys. On the issue of tanking, it sucks but will be a legitimate strategy when the NBA incentivizes losing. I agree with Clutz in that they should just implement a hard cap and scrap things like the draft and max contracts. Although this in itself would not be perfect: there would be plenty of dumb owners dishing out ridiculous contracts that would cripple their franchises for years. Then again, this pretty much already happens but would happen on a worse scale. Particularly with rookies also--imagine getting into a ridiculous bidding war for a projected talent like Michael Beasley was coming out of college and then you end up paying $20mill a year for, well, Michael Beasley. If they were going to do this they'd have to go balls to the wall without concessions to give every team a chance. It would certainly make having a good FO even more important. Tanking either needs to be accepted as a necessary evil in the NBA or something drastic needs to change to take the incentive away from teams to deliberately be as least competitive as possible. | ||
|
Wiggins8
Germany107 Posts
Come on, Kobe at #25? ESPN's just openly trolling for clicks now. The vote is about how the player will perform in the coming season and Kobe will not play until at least December and is on a terrible team. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
On October 18 2013 15:06 Jerubaal wrote: It's futile. I thought there was a rule that allowed a team to resign a player to a larger contract than other teams could offer. There is, but he'd have to be up for free agency to exercise it- by opting out Anthony would choose not to get the 3 year contract extension, which isn't the max. @owner discussion- definitely agree that not all owners just care about profit. Look at the new Nets owner or w/e. If he just cared about money he wouldn't be spending obscene amounts of it on his roster. Dudes like him, Cuban, Buss, definitely care more about winning than just making money. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
but lakers are so bad | ||
| ||
