|
A free market with restraints...isn't a free market. You can't even decide where to work for the first 7 years of your career, and if you want to so early on you must sacrifice money because the owners say so, not for competitive reasons. It's not a free market :D
Newsflash by the way: Every NBA team is rich. They all KNOW the rules before buying a team. This isn't a business where you can grow it and a monopolizing force outstrips you with unfair labor practices. The NBA is a monopsony and the buying power is artificially split between 30 billionaires. There is no fairness from the outset. they aren't competing about outspending each other because majority of the time they aren't even faced with such a decision - the incumbent team has an unfair advantage at the cost of the player and any team wanting to bid on his services until year 7.
The West isn't competitive because of a salary cap. They are competitive because the best players and teams tend to be there. Or would you rather we go the free market route, have Steph Curry, Blake Griffin, Anthony Davis, and Kawhi Leonard redo their contracts asap and threaten to walk out and go East when their teams claim they can't pay them enough?
|
On October 21 2014 15:20 RowdierBob wrote:
They're all making a far better living than the fans who probably get exploited the most. And we do so because we love the game.
The top players don't get what they're worth but it's hard to feel bad for someone making $20mill a year to play basketball.
The cap benefits consumers and thats the right focus for mine.
The fans get exploited the most? The cap benefits consumers????!! Stop it, please. Because these guys make millions it's ok to let them be exploited?
A famous quote/paraphrase I'll repeat (Steinbeck):
Socialism never took root in the USA because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires
Think about that very, very, very carefully.
|
It's the same tired owners vs players argument alllll the time when that's not the point. The fans/consumers are what really matters most. Fans want a league where their team has a chance to win and a cap gives them that. Again, it's not socialism.
Businesses have rules placed on them to prevent anti-competitive practices. That's a restraint on them too but it seeks to ensure a fair playing field.
It's common sense not socialism.
|
At the end of the day, do you want an NBA where every team has at least a realistic chance of winning or where the players get every dime they're worth but which will turn it into the EPL?
I prefer the former but I do get where some advocate the latter.
|
Fans and consumers do not matter the most. Where are you getting this idea from? That a business would even consider putting you first at the expense of labor? Do you understand that the TV market in the US is screwy BECAUSE sports owners realized duping fans is easy? Or that the taxpayers/fans actually front the bill for arenas while owners collect rent? :D
Businesses have rules placed on them to prevent anti-competitive practices. That's a restraint on them too but it seeks to ensure a fair playing field.
It's common sense not socialism.
You keep saying this but I really don't think you understand what this is. A salary cap would only help a league like the NBA from a competition standpoint if every team had an equal chance at every player from Day 1. This isn't how the league functions. There is no idea to ensure a fair playing field because the thing you're advocating for doesn't even exist.
On October 21 2014 15:47 RowdierBob wrote:
At the end of the day, do you want an NBA where every team has at least a realistic chance of winning or where the players get every dime they're worth but which will turn it into the EPL?
I prefer the former but I do get where some advocate the latter.
This is a false dichotomy. Is there evidence that a system where players can get whatever they want in salary inhibits every team from having an equal chance at winning? If this is provable, then I'll see how your question makes sense. I still don't see how the current system gives every team a realistic chance at winning either.
|
On October 21 2014 15:20 RowdierBob wrote:
They're all making a far better living than the fans who probably get exploited the most. And we do so because we love the game.
The top players don't get what they're worth but it's hard to feel bad for someone making $20mill a year to play basketball.
The cap benefits consumers and thats the right focus for mine.
So an owner should be allowed to maximize his business's earning potential, but when players want the same, they're making too much money?
Fans often think they'd love to play in the NBA for the league minimum. " if I was given those gifts...if I had that opportunity...these players are selfish..."
But why don't we flip that thinking. What would you accept to own an NBA team? Is it hard to feel bad for a billionaire trying to wring out an extra $7 million dollars from his payroll?
|
The players aren't selfish and anyone who thinks so is daft.
But somewhere in these arguments people neglect what's best for the fans (who are the sole reason owners and players make so much). Kobe was right when he said both are overpaid.
|
On October 21 2014 15:48 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 15:20 RowdierBob wrote:
They're all making a far better living than the fans who probably get exploited the most. And we do so because we love the game.
The top players don't get what they're worth but it's hard to feel bad for someone making $20mill a year to play basketball.
The cap benefits consumers and thats the right focus for mine. So an owner should be allowed to maximize his business's earning potential, but when players want the same, they're making too much money? Fans often think they'd love to play in the NBA for the league minimum. " if I was given those gifts...if I had that opportunity...these players are selfish..." But why don't we flip that thinking. What would you accept to own an NBA team? Is it hard to feel bad for a billionaire trying to wring out an extra $7 million dollars from his payroll?
This is actually a question of relative wealth that most people don't realize. If I only make $50,000 a year and see millionaires complaining over earning more millions I get upset. Hey, the owner deserves profit! They put up the capital!
Then my company CEO says profits are suffering, so labor costs are coming in the salary range. You now make $30,000 a year.
I start complaining that as one of the best workers in the company I'm producing the same value for less pay.
Somewhere, someone making $3.00 an hour with no job security and 70 hour work weeks is absolutely irate I'm complaining about a simple $20,000 reduction in income. What a spoiled piece of shit.
|
On October 21 2014 15:54 RowdierBob wrote:
The players aren't selfish and anyone who thinks so is daft.
But somewhere in these arguments people neglect what's best for the fans (who are the sole reason owners and players make so much). Kobe was right when he said both are overpaid.
If you can prove that what's best for the fans has some bearing on player salaries I'm all ears.
|
Have you seen European football leagues Ace? There's a reason the same handful of teams compete for the big prize each year and it's because they can simply outspend their competition.
|
On October 21 2014 15:54 RowdierBob wrote:
The players aren't selfish and anyone who thinks so is daft.
But somewhere in these arguments people neglect what's best for the fans (who are the sole reason owners and players make so much). Kobe was right when he said both are overpaid.
The salary cap doesn't exist to make fans happy, much less give them what's best. It's a fiscal tool. You can support it. I think the economic arguments are shallow and wrong, but at least accept that much. The salary cap doesn't exist for competitive balance, it exists to make owners richer.
|
Personally the NBA would be FAR less interesting without a salary cap.
Evaluating the value of contracts, cap maneuvers and all that stuff makes everything far more interesting for me.
I also think having the Lakers and the Knicks being able to buy all the best players would be super boring.
|
On October 21 2014 15:58 RowdierBob wrote:
Have you seen European football leagues Ace? There's a reason the same handful of teams compete for the big prize each year and it's because they can simply outspend their competition.
I always hear this argument. I believe Jibba brings it up every time I talk about the cap. So I did some research, the European leagues use relegation. Furthermore, the leagues are organized slightly off, shouldn't you compare Man City to Bayern Munich instead of Wigan? Real Madrid to Inter Milan? That seems to make more sense. I believe the Champions League is a good reflection of what true competitive balance is like in European football.
|
No, but why would that necessarily be a reason the NBA would follow a similar fate? The same teams tend to win because once they have a player it's difficult for another team to get them.
If an owner wants to enter a market but can't afford it - a cartel structured market at that - then why should he or she be allowed to compete at the expense of someone else who could?
|
On October 21 2014 15:58 RowdierBob wrote:
Have you seen European football leagues Ace? There's a reason the same handful of teams compete for the big prize each year and it's because they can simply outspend their competition.
This.
While I don't precisely know how the NBA works in terms of salaries and such, I do know how it works for football over here. Eventually, good football players end up in like 10 different teams in Europe at most. Small teams manage to sometimes win shit despite having way worse players because football has way more variance than basketball.
If this was basketball, I'm not even sure there would be 10 equally able Champions League level teams competing for the title. It could be 2 or 3 actually.
|
Do you think the spurs would exist if there was no salary cap?
|
|
|
On October 21 2014 16:30 Ace wrote:
Uh, yes?
Obviously the franchise would still exist
I mean like the current iteration of the team, the dynasty with Manu and Parker and Duncan all arguably underpaid for a long time.
If there was no salary cap do you think Tim Duncan would have said no to some huge offer from The Knicks or whoever that the Spurs would never be able to match?
|
I don't know. The Spurs players, especially Tim and Tony could have made more if there was no salary cap but those guys would probably still take less anyway. How much less? No clue. If Tim is being offered 30 million and the Spurs only want to pay $20mil then who knows how he responds.
The real killer is if there was no salary cap, ie a free market would the Spurs have been able to keep Kawhi Leonard in year 2? The casual fans didn't notice but many people had him tabbed at a "he's nearly a star" level. At the beginning of the season he'd get offered a big contract from someone and it'd be interesting to see what the Spurs do.
|
On October 21 2014 16:59 Ace wrote:
I don't know. The Spurs players, especially Tim and Tony could have made more if there was no salary cap but those guys would probably still take less anyway. How much less? No clue. If Tim is being offered 30 million and the Spurs only want to pay $20mil then who knows how he responds.
The real killer is if there was no salary cap, ie a free market would the Spurs have been able to keep Kawhi Leonard in year 2? The casual fans didn't notice but many people had him tabbed at a "he's nearly a star" level. At the beginning of the season he'd get offered a big contract from someone and it'd be interesting to see what the Spurs do.
That is a good point actually.
The Pacers and Paul George would have been interesting also, I doubt the Pacers could have matched the LARGE offers he would have received in an open market.
So he would have not signed that extension last year and gone off to a large market team and the Pacers would suck forever.
I just don't see competitive balance without a salary cap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
