|
On March 07 2014 09:41 Jerubaal wrote:
I find it amazing that you constantly bash GMs for being stupid and teams for being cheap and then find no fault whatsoever in all the extra-CBA factors that came into building the Heat. How can you POSSIBLY judge teams for being bad when they didn't even have a fair shot to begin with?
What CBA factors? Please be VERY in depth with where you're going, because I believe you don't actually understand what you're speaking on. I don't even know what that fair shot nonsense is since everyone never has an equal chance of acquiring star players anyway.
On March 07 2014 09:49 AgentW wrote:
I'd contest that the Nets never had a shot because Billie King is the GM, not because of the market they play in, and it's a big one.
GM's like the Presti obviously are at a disadvantage because of the market and must develop their talent, but that's just a way of the world. The thing is, playing in a big market isn't a guarantee to victory if your GM is a moron.
I'll do you one even better:
1.) Billionaire owner wants to purchase an NBA team, with decades of data on how the market works.
2.) Is in one of the largest markets in the league, complains when taxpayers wont fund a new stadium.
3.) Moves to an extremely small market city
4.) Gets 4+ low cost, high revenue contracts at below market rates via the draft
5.) Profits for years as franchise valuation appreciates and his young guys get better
6.) Doesn't want to pay one of his stars, hiding behind the excuse that it costs too much since he is in a small market
Yet, he knew this was the way things would work out before even buying an NBA team. Amazing what people will allow to happen when it's young black men being exploited since "dey make millionz! How can dey complain?!"
|
Is the answer to this question Clay Bennett?
As a follow up, are you from the Northwest?
|
Yep it's Clay Bennett. I'm from NYC.
|
is there data on if being able to pay the luxury tax actually means deeper playoff runs or making the playoffs at all?
|
|
|
doesn't that just remind them of carter
|
VC was the first thing came into my mind when i saw the youtube preview image
|
On March 07 2014 10:11 Ace wrote:
Yep it's Clay Bennett. I'm from NYC.
Ha I was just wondering if you were being bitter. Seattle fans have a habit of that when it comes to Bennett.
|
On March 07 2014 09:59 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 09:41 Jerubaal wrote:
I find it amazing that you constantly bash GMs for being stupid and teams for being cheap and then find no fault whatsoever in all the extra-CBA factors that came into building the Heat. How can you POSSIBLY judge teams for being bad when they didn't even have a fair shot to begin with? What CBA factors? Please be VERY in depth with where you're going, because I believe you don't actually understand what you're speaking on. I don't even know what that fair shot nonsense is since everyone never has an equal chance of acquiring star players anyway. Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 09:49 AgentW wrote:
I'd contest that the Nets never had a shot because Billie King is the GM, not because of the market they play in, and it's a big one.
GM's like the Presti obviously are at a disadvantage because of the market and must develop their talent, but that's just a way of the world. The thing is, playing in a big market isn't a guarantee to victory if your GM is a moron. I'll do you one even better: 1.) Billionaire owner wants to purchase an NBA team, with decades of data on how the market works. 2.) Is in one of the largest markets in the league, complains when taxpayers wont fund a new stadium. 3.) Moves to an extremely small market city 4.) Gets 4+ low cost, high revenue contracts at below market rates via the draft 5.) Profits for years as franchise valuation appreciates and his young guys get better 6.) Doesn't want to pay one of his stars, hiding behind the excuse that it costs too much since he is in a small market Yet, he knew this was the way things would work out before even buying an NBA team. Amazing what people will allow to happen when it's young black men being exploited since "dey make millionz! How can dey complain?!"
Not to mention that they continue to cheap the fuck out despite having one of the best teams. Like not wanting to go over the tax at the trade deadline? And your team commands the highest ticket prices and is regularly featured on national TV? The OKC's "we're poor" act is all bs and people should stop buying into it.
On March 07 2014 11:55 zulu_nation8 wrote:
is there data on if being able to pay the luxury tax actually means deeper playoff runs or making the playoffs at all?
Able to pay or willing to pay? Because pretty much every NBA team CAN pay the luxury tax, they're all operating at a profit.
|
|
|
Is this gonna be a 50 point drubbing?  A couple years ago, the LA teams were in the exact opposite position.
|
On March 07 2014 14:54 Caladbolg wrote:Is this gonna be a 50 point drubbing? A couple years ago, the LA teams were in the exact opposite position.
Doc's still mad about the 2010 finals and the blowout on opening day.
He didn't have to play the starters for the entire second half and they still would've won.
|
On March 07 2014 14:39 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 09:59 Ace wrote:On March 07 2014 09:41 Jerubaal wrote:
I find it amazing that you constantly bash GMs for being stupid and teams for being cheap and then find no fault whatsoever in all the extra-CBA factors that came into building the Heat. How can you POSSIBLY judge teams for being bad when they didn't even have a fair shot to begin with? What CBA factors? Please be VERY in depth with where you're going, because I believe you don't actually understand what you're speaking on. I don't even know what that fair shot nonsense is since everyone never has an equal chance of acquiring star players anyway. On March 07 2014 09:49 AgentW wrote:
I'd contest that the Nets never had a shot because Billie King is the GM, not because of the market they play in, and it's a big one.
GM's like the Presti obviously are at a disadvantage because of the market and must develop their talent, but that's just a way of the world. The thing is, playing in a big market isn't a guarantee to victory if your GM is a moron. I'll do you one even better: 1.) Billionaire owner wants to purchase an NBA team, with decades of data on how the market works. 2.) Is in one of the largest markets in the league, complains when taxpayers wont fund a new stadium. 3.) Moves to an extremely small market city 4.) Gets 4+ low cost, high revenue contracts at below market rates via the draft 5.) Profits for years as franchise valuation appreciates and his young guys get better 6.) Doesn't want to pay one of his stars, hiding behind the excuse that it costs too much since he is in a small market Yet, he knew this was the way things would work out before even buying an NBA team. Amazing what people will allow to happen when it's young black men being exploited since "dey make millionz! How can dey complain?!" Not to mention that they continue to cheap the fuck out despite having one of the best teams. Like not wanting to go over the tax at the trade deadline? And your team commands the highest ticket prices and is regularly featured on national TV? The OKC's "we're poor" act is all bs and people should stop buying into it. Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 11:55 zulu_nation8 wrote:
is there data on if being able to pay the luxury tax actually means deeper playoff runs or making the playoffs at all? Able to pay or willing to pay? Because pretty much every NBA team CAN pay the luxury tax, they're all operating at a profit.
While I can see merits in both arguments it's a bit rich for fans to call an owner "cheap" for not wanting to get into the lux tax.
Clay Bennett made a call on Harden and it was wrong but I honestly find it hard to call him cheap. With lux tax taken into consideration that contract was likely going to be inflated to near $30 mill per season. Harden's good but that's a big call to make on a guy who was a sixth man at the time (albeit the league's best).
Fans have an expectation sometimes that owners should spend whatever it takes. It's a bit rich I think to tell a person how they should be spending their money. For guys like the Maloofs who blatantly gouge and ruin a team for profit then sure, I hate those guys and what they did to the Kings.
But a guy like Clay Bennett? It's a difficult call. I can certainly see the criticisms about him being "cheap" but what's the difference between being cheap and smartly allocating your salary cap $$? Bennett's spending more this year than the Spurs for example. Does this make Holt cheap?
|
And please, spare me the hyperbole about NBA players being "exploited".
Exploited is the poor kids working in sweat shops making the Nike sneakers Harden wears.
|
United States4471 Posts
On March 07 2014 17:19 RowdierBob wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 14:39 DystopiaX wrote:On March 07 2014 09:59 Ace wrote:On March 07 2014 09:41 Jerubaal wrote:
I find it amazing that you constantly bash GMs for being stupid and teams for being cheap and then find no fault whatsoever in all the extra-CBA factors that came into building the Heat. How can you POSSIBLY judge teams for being bad when they didn't even have a fair shot to begin with? What CBA factors? Please be VERY in depth with where you're going, because I believe you don't actually understand what you're speaking on. I don't even know what that fair shot nonsense is since everyone never has an equal chance of acquiring star players anyway. On March 07 2014 09:49 AgentW wrote:
I'd contest that the Nets never had a shot because Billie King is the GM, not because of the market they play in, and it's a big one.
GM's like the Presti obviously are at a disadvantage because of the market and must develop their talent, but that's just a way of the world. The thing is, playing in a big market isn't a guarantee to victory if your GM is a moron. I'll do you one even better: 1.) Billionaire owner wants to purchase an NBA team, with decades of data on how the market works. 2.) Is in one of the largest markets in the league, complains when taxpayers wont fund a new stadium. 3.) Moves to an extremely small market city 4.) Gets 4+ low cost, high revenue contracts at below market rates via the draft 5.) Profits for years as franchise valuation appreciates and his young guys get better 6.) Doesn't want to pay one of his stars, hiding behind the excuse that it costs too much since he is in a small market Yet, he knew this was the way things would work out before even buying an NBA team. Amazing what people will allow to happen when it's young black men being exploited since "dey make millionz! How can dey complain?!" Not to mention that they continue to cheap the fuck out despite having one of the best teams. Like not wanting to go over the tax at the trade deadline? And your team commands the highest ticket prices and is regularly featured on national TV? The OKC's "we're poor" act is all bs and people should stop buying into it. On March 07 2014 11:55 zulu_nation8 wrote:
is there data on if being able to pay the luxury tax actually means deeper playoff runs or making the playoffs at all? Able to pay or willing to pay? Because pretty much every NBA team CAN pay the luxury tax, they're all operating at a profit. While I can see merits in both arguments it's a bit rich for fans to call an owner "cheap" for not wanting to get into the lux tax. Clay Bennett made a call on Harden and it was wrong but I honestly find it hard to call him cheap. With lux tax taken into consideration that contract was likely going to be inflated to near $30 mill per season. Harden's good but that's a big call to make on a guy who was a sixth man at the time (albeit the league's best). Fans have an expectation sometimes that owners should spend whatever it takes. It's a bit rich I think to tell a person how they should be spending their money. For guys like the Maloofs who blatantly gouge and ruin a team for profit then sure, I hate those guys and what they did to the Kings. But a guy like Clay Bennett? It's a difficult call. I can certainly see the criticisms about him being "cheap" but what's the difference between being cheap and smartly allocating your salary cap $$? Bennett's spending more this year than the Spurs for example. Does this make Holt cheap?
Everything is relative. The people who choose to go out and buy NBA teams go in expecting to spend hundreds of millions of dollars at a minimum, and know that they're inevitably going to have to pay the luxury tax to build the type of roster it takes to win a championship. I have no sympathy for ownerships groups who tell their fan bases that their goal is to bring a championship to the city, and yet are unwilling to spend the money that they know it will take to do so. Even if they don't make such promises, the goal of every NBA team is to compete for a championship and every owner knows what that implies.
While Bill Simmons can say a lot of silly things at times, it is very difficult to argue against his point that NBA teams are clearly incredibly valuable, despite whatever the owners want to tell the players and the public, simply based on how much people are willing to spend to acquire one. People who have the money to acquire an NBA team clearly know something about money and managing it, and they'd clearly do their due diligence in analyzing the finances before pursuing such a venture. The fact that there are several ownership groups who have recently purchased and who are waiting to purchase teams for record high amounts, even for terrible teams like the Kings or the Bucks, speaks louder than any story spread by the owners when justifying taking larger pieces of the pie.
As Ace stated earlier, Clay Bennett went out and purchased the Sonics knowing everything that comes with that, chose to remove the team from one of the largest markets in the US and move it to one of the smallest, was gifted the fortune of being able to draft Durant, Westbrook, and Harden and get incredible value from their contracts for years, made tons of money off of them and continue to do so, and then suddenly decided that paying the luxury tax was unacceptable just as they had made the finals and been on the cusp of winning a championship. There is no excuse for that, and people are right to criticize Bennett and his group for being "cheap" despite having made money hand over foot off of the team for years prior. There is no doubt at all that there are many people who wouldn't have thought twice about paying that luxury tax for what the Thunder had that year, as those people are willing to spend ridiculous sums of money to acquire the cesspool that is the Bucks (and the Kings before them). If Bennett was going to approach owning the team this way, he should have done everyone a favor and let someone who is willing to do what is expected buy the team instead.
With regards to NBA players being exploited, they clearly are. Your example of sweat shop workers is a terrible argument, as there is no reasonable comparison between the two. Does a grossly underpaid employee at an accounting firm in the US have no right to demand fair compensation commensurate with what the market determines simply because some kid in a third world country makes only pennies in a factory? That makes no sense. No one said that the NBA players are in terrible and inhuman circumstances, they're just saying that they're being exploited by the people who make hugely disproportionate amounts of money off of them.
For as much money as NBA players are making, the owners who rely on those players to generate all of the money are making substantially more and keep demanding more with each CBA. Players like Kobe and Lebron have been underpaid for years simply because the CBA's they worked under set an artificial cap on the amount of money teams could offer to pay for their services. The fact that a cap is even needed shows that they're clearly worth more to the team owners than they're actually being paid because the cap wouldn't be needed if no one thought they were worth more. The fact that there are any controls on team spending at all is undeniable evidence that the players are worth more than they're actually being paid, because obviously someone is willing to pay them more than that amount or the restrictions would be unnecessary.
|
Guys making millions of dollar playing basketball professionally and exploitation is an oxymoron for me, I'm sorry. I'll accept there's an argument for them not being fairly paid (which is true, they're not fairly paid--the stars at least) but there's a long way between that and exploitation.
I'm playing Devil's advocate with the ownership issue. There's certainly merit in saying a owners have a moral duty to invest in the team they get so much profit from. But at the same time, who are we to tell them how to spend money? This game is a business and players like Harden are an asset. But like any business you need to get a decent return on your asset or it become uneconomic. At an effective rate of $30 mill for his max contract, would that have represented a good return on investment for Clay Bennett? He obv thought no and cut him loose. From a basketball standpoint it was the wrong move. But business wise? I don't know and I struggle to find logic in telling a very successful business man how to spend his money.
The Spurs were well under the cap last year weren't they? I'm pretty sure the Grizz and OKC were too so I don't buy the fact you have to dip into the luxury to succeed. If anything poorly run teams like the Knicks and Brooklyn prove this year after year.
The NBA is a business and owners do have a right to make money off their teams. It's an interesting debate--what is an acceptable rate of return for an NBA owner?
|
On March 07 2014 17:22 RowdierBob wrote:
And please, spare me the hyperbole about NBA players being "exploited".
Exploited is the poor kids working in sweat shops making the Nike sneakers Harden wears.
Slightly on topic, this reminded me of a quote I heard randomly yesterday.
Michael Jordan makes more from Nike annually than every single Nike worker in Malaysia combined.
Continue with your arguments now. Fun to read.
|
United States4471 Posts
On March 07 2014 18:30 RowdierBob wrote:
Guys making millions of dollar playing basketball professionally and exploitation is an oxymoron for me, I'm sorry. I'll accept there's an argument for them not being fairly paid (which is true, they're not fairly paid--the stars at least) but there's a long way between that and exploitation.
exploitation: the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you described.
I'm playing Devil's advocate with the ownership issue. There's certainly merit in saying a owners have a moral duty to invest in the team they get so much profit from. But at the same time, who are we to tell them how to spend money? This game is a business and players like Harden are an asset. But like any business you need to get a decent return on your asset or it become uneconomic. At an effective rate of $30 mill for his max contract, would that have represented a good return on investment for Clay Bennett? He obv thought no and cut him loose. From a basketball standpoint it was the wrong move. But business wise? I don't know and I struggle to find logic in telling a very successful business man how to spend his money.
The Spurs were well under the cap last year weren't they? I'm pretty sure the Grizz and OKC were too so I don't buy the fact you have to dip into the luxury to succeed. If anything poorly run teams like the Knicks and Brooklyn prove this year after year.
The NBA is a business and owners do have a right to make money off their teams. It's an interesting debate--what is an acceptable rate of return for an NBA owner?
The problem with this perspective is that it assumes that paying the luxury tax that would have come with keeping Harden would have suddenly made the financial situation unacceptable for Bennett and his group, which is clearly not the case based on all of the evidence that all NBA teams are doing very well and are at all time highs in value. There's no way that one contract could suddenly make the financial situation for the entire team to become untenable when they were getting incredible value from all three of their stars while they were on their rookie contracts, the team is one of the most popular in the league with one of the two biggest stars in the league, and they are selling out every one of their games for high prices. All of the evidence points to the team making plenty of money, with little to no evidence to the contrary.
Also, sports teams are not simply businesses, they are arguably a part of the cities they are affiliated with. That's why team owners can ask cities and the public to support the teams (i.e. fund their arenas) and continue to pay for tickets even when the teams are putting a poor product out on the floor. There is an unwritten contract and obligation between sports teams owners and their fans, and Bennett has clearly breached his multiple times. Bennett can sit back and refuse to pay more than he's willing, but then he has to deal with the consequences of his actions, i.e. being fairly criticized by fans and the public in general. He's entitled to his "cheap" ways, but his fans and the rest of the people watching are fully entitled to calling him "cheap" and criticizing what he's doing for what it is.
|
Completely agree. No one is above criticism or scrutiny.
It's an impassioned defence, but put a monetary value on what you've just talked about. That's really difficult and it's what teams have to try do. Every team would love it if they spent like the nets, but these guys are in it for more than just love. They want to make money. That's the flip side of capitalism getting rooted in the Nba. The players make more coin but are more subject to the unemotional brutality of the business world.
Owners are an easy target for fans sometimes but it's easy to be an armchair critic versus being the guy who has to decide if harden is worth $30 mill a year or not. That's why I baulk sometimes when people say X is cheap. That's easy to say when you're not the one bankrolling the operation.
|
i have been looking at the top prospects in the past week and it looks like a fraudfest
wiggins' stats are alarmingly mediocre for the 'next lebron'. at-rim finishing in particular, guy seems straight up uncoordinated watching a few 'lowlights', despite being very quick and bouncy
randle looks to have serious problems defensively, he's quite small, seems dumb, and is apparently a 6'8 bullyballer. looks like a less fat big baby. seems extremely unlikely he's ever a very good nba player
aaron gordon seems sucky too, lol at 45% fts
embiid looks like the best prospect but is injured all the time, parker seems good. don't know shit about exum but i'd take him 3rd based on the rest being frauds
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
