EPTNBA Offseason 2014 - Page 111
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
DarthPunk
Australia10854 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia12999 Posts
On October 21 2014 15:48 Ace wrote: 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 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. 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. I work in antitrust law each day (thankfully for me, I guess?) so let me explain the point I'm trying to make. We're far from a 'free-market' society that we like to think. Business is very reflective of this. Treating everyone is equally is not the same as equal opportunity as large corporations have huge market power over their weaker rivals. This is where we need rules like anti-trust to create a system where everybody has equal opportunity. A system whereby it recognises that allowing the Lakers and Knicks to abuse their market power (monetary wise) is not a good thing for overall competition. It's a free market but with rules to ensure the playing field is fair for everyone. So just as a large corporation can't use its obscene power and predatory price to restrict competition, the Lakers or Knicks can't abuse their obvious monetary advantages to buy all the best players (which when I refer to European football is what happens). This is what the cap enables. It's a rule or a restraint--not socialism. So yes, it's not an entirely free market but it's still pretty close (and this is neglecting the other rules like max contracts, rookie scale etc--that's a whole other discussion. This is purely about the cap). As I said before, if the NBA came out and implemented a new rule whereby they had to approve every trade and FA signing before it could be ratified, well then you're getting into a high degree of social engineering by the ruling body. That's not a good idea IMO because it takes the responsibility away from an FO, which is now so crucial to the success of a team (not how much $$ you have to spend). Competition would be great if the NBA did that but it would, ironically, be anathema to the competitive process. People like to overuse a term like 'socialism' to hound down any rule imposed on them by an authority. But there are subtle differences. NBA franchises are still free to spend their money how they please but they have to do so on a battlefield (so to speak) that is fair to all 30 franchises (by and large--I'd prefer a hard cap but the current one is acting like one anyway...). More so than ever, it's the FO that matters most. This is a good thing. It's true that the players (and really only the top players) are a casualty of this process. To keep the fair playing field, they no doubt do sacrifice some salary. But the paradox is that the middle class of the NBA might actually lose out if it really was a free-market. Is your average 12th man on a roster going to make more money? Doubtful. And that goes for the owners of the teams that can't compete too. The Lakers and Knicks will still make shitloads of money (like Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal etc) but the others will scrape by. Now I could be wrong. Perhaps fans would still watch if it was the same few teams hoarding the talent at the expense of the rest like the EPL. But I doubt fans would flock to a league when they're purely there to make up the numbers for their larger rivals. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
An example: Vivek Ranadive buys the Sacramento Kings and has a NW of 3 billion, and invests around $500 million in capital to run the Kings. Jimmy Buss buys the Lakers and has around 2 billion in net worth and invests $500 million in capital to run the Lakers. The first thing most people say is aha! The Lakers have a larger market so Buss will get more return on his investment! The answer is no one knows for sure because the Kings owner has much more capital to invest in his team. The size of the LA market doesn't tell us anything about how MUCH money a team owner is willing to spend. This is important because once again the costs are largely known: you wouldn't go into a business like this without serious capital behind you in the first place (hence ownership groups). It's like arguing that one guy can't afford a million dollar house because he only makes $400 million a year from his consumers and the other guy makes $1.2 billion from his. To make this even more ridiculous, part of the reason there was a lockout was small market owners wanting to force bigger markets to subsidize their costs. Of course, The Buss family and Dolan were upset: some of you already get tax payer subsidies on your arenas and related business, but now you're claiming losses so we have to pay you because our teams are popular? In a free market this would be hilarious and you'd get laughed out of the room. You claim your business is failing so I have to pay to keep you around? What the hell? Now here's the real kicker - some of the owners obviously knew this was bullshit which is why you had guys being super tight lipped about it during negotiations and fans finally, almost 4 years later at that, realizing what many were saying before: you can claim a loss on an appreciable asset and it doesn't matter, the value of the asset is still positive. Hence claiming losses of "10 million" on something you mismanaged but will sell for 600 million a year later. The market size affects how many money bags you can carry out at the end day when you sell it. It'll still be well over 10 times what you paid for it. Think of the NBA as a franchise system where everything always gains value even if you have yearly losses and mismanage your team. Then, and only then, will it start to make sense why some of the market size arguments are overblown. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia12999 Posts
On October 21 2014 17:26 DarthPunk wrote: I also think the Knicks could have plausibly offered prime Duncan like 40-50 million per year and I highly doubt the spurs dynasty exists without Timmy. This is exactly the problem. Owners are in NBA to make money. Some just aren't going to be willing to spend $150 mill on a roster like the Lakers/Knicks probably could and still turn a big profit. So you'll have a crappy underclass of teams that spends what they can whilst remaining profitable and the league will get really predictable very quickly. Owners just aren't going to bleed money for their franchise. This is shitty for the players because they're not getting their worth. But you know what? They're still doing very well for themselves (exploited is asinine in this regard :| They're underpaid millionaires ffs). It's not a perfect system but the best one available. How do you think the NBA would look if the cap was scrapped? Honestly? | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia12999 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On October 21 2014 17:54 RowdierBob wrote: I work in antitrust law each day (thankfully for me, I guess?) so let me explain the point I'm trying to make. We're far from a 'free-market' society that we like to think. Business is very reflective of this. Treating everyone is equally is not the same as equal opportunity as large corporations have huge market power over their weaker rivals. This is where we need rules like anti-trust to create a system where everybody has equal opportunity. A system whereby it recognises that allowing the Lakers and Knicks to abuse their market power (monetary wise) is not a good thing for overall competition. It's a free market but with rules to ensure the playing field is fair for everyone. Yes, there is no such thing as Perfect Competition. However, if you want to argue for free market ideals then at least recognize that the thing you are asking for: a salary cap that reduces labor earning power is not a free market idea. You work in Anti-Trust law so I'm guessing you notice one of the way competitors outmuscle other companies is by offering lower wages to boost revenue. Something that is illegal without collective bargaining. What we have now is NOT an equal opportunity system. If you want the Lakers and Knicks to have to fight over talent then you'd get rid of the draft and allow more player movement. The most popular stars of the recent years have mostly played in small market teams. Why should the Knicks and Lakers be punished because they have found ways to profit? The Knicks have a large, loyal fanbase in spite of being terrible for mostly every era except the early 70s and 90s. The Lakers had to work to accrue fan loyalty while the Clippers in the same market were trash and still profitable for decades. What you're advocating is helping the "little guys" at the expense of the big guys when they don't need it. Why is it fair to redistribute profits from people abusing market power in a cartel system? Neither are abusing it at the expense of other basketball teams because the NBA is the singular large buyer of NBA talent. Every franchise is a Lakers or Knicks of their respective city. So just as a large corporation can't use its obscene power and predatory price to restrict competition, the Lakers or Knicks can't abuse their obvious monetary advantages to buy all the best players (which when I refer to European football is what happens). This is what the cap enables. It's a rule or a restraint--not socialism. So yes, it's not an entirely free market but it's still pretty close (and this is neglecting the other rules like max contracts, rookie scale etc--that's a whole other discussion. This is purely about the cap). The Lakers/Knicks are not who buy the talent: The NBA buys talent and then assigns it to a team through lottery. Only after a certain amount of time are the teams able to buy talent. Competition within a cartel restricted this way isn't the same as a corporation breaking anti-trust laws: Short of a monopoly you can't even get the same labor conditions. If you want the example to apply it has to be the NBA as a whole restricting other basketball leagues from buying talent. Your second point still hasn't been explained: how would a cap promote fair competition? Not every owner is in it to win so all you're doing is allowing those who want a cheap product and subsidies to profit at the expense of those willing to spend. Why do you argue for fairness but use example where big market teams buy all the talent? If the league would suffer that way - fans leaving, then wouldn't any owner be sensible enough to not go the extreme route and spend 500 million on a roster? Even worse the owners would find out VERY quickly that the marginal cost of adding more superstars becomes problematic because of minutes. Lebron James looks like Lebron James because he can do so much in 36 minutes. Put Wade, Bosh, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Derrick Rose and Blake Griffin on the team and you'll have big problems justifying Lebron making 50 mil. This would also be reflected from the player side because the way to get paid is by mostly putting up large point totals. Shots are a commodity on a star laden team with just 3 guys. Furthermore, any rookies or young player with potential is going to leave the team. They aren't getting many minutes and aren't getting paid a lot of money. Why stick around a star studded team if you aren't a star but can be and make more money elsewhere? Both owners and players have an incentive not to go this route because of the nature of the game and the nature of basketball fans. The EPL doesn't reflect this now does it? As I said before, if the NBA came out and implemented a new rule whereby they had to approve every trade and FA signing before it could be ratified, well then you're getting into a high degree of social engineering by the ruling body. That's not a good idea IMO because it takes the responsibility away from an FO, which is now so crucial to the success of a team (not how much $$ you have to spend). Competition would be great if the NBA did that but it would, ironically, be anathema to the competitive process. What is this in response to? I got lost here. People like to overuse a term like 'socialism' to hound down any rule imposed on them by an authority. But there are subtle differences. NBA franchises are still free to spend their money how they please but they have to do so on a battlefield (so to speak) that is fair to all 30 franchises (by and large--I'd prefer a hard cap but the current one is acting like one anyway...). More so than ever, it's the FO that matters most. This is a good thing. Eh, I don't know about those people that use socialism as an anti-authority stance. That's not the way I'm using it or intending to. The quote I posted earlier is a related idea: people believe that their own earning power should be maximized, but envy others and will want to see it restricted even in the face of exploitation to that working class. I'm still not getting your concept of fairness here. To me it sounds like you're advocating large markets not being able to spend as they please when that doesn't really matter because the Knicks nor Lakers have many chances to get stars anyway. Add in that historically neither team ever gets a lot of FA superstars and I don't see what the basis for fear is. It's true that the players (and really only the top players) are a casualty of this process. To keep the fair playing field, they no doubt do sacrifice some salary. But the paradox is that the middle class of the NBA might actually lose out if it really was a free-market. Is your average 12th man on a roster going to make more money? Doubtful. And that goes for the owners of the teams that can't compete too. The Lakers and Knicks will still make shitloads of money (like Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal etc) but the others will scrape by. Now I could be wrong. Perhaps fans would still watch if it was the same few teams hoarding the talent at the expense of the rest like the EPL. But I doubt fans would flock to a league when they're purely there to make up the numbers for their larger rivals. I don't know why the average middle class must be saved by cutting player costs for the elite. Wouldn't it just make more sense to tell the owners to spend more? Why must wealth be distributed by exploiting other workers when there is enough capital to afford it? There isn't a paradox at all here. Just pay everyone their perceived worth. The only reason the 12th man might lose money in an unrestricted cap is that his skills are now being evaluated more by the market and not by cap constraints. 12th man Charlie Ward makes 1.2 mil because of Birds Rights, Vet minimums, and salary floors that exist because of a salary cap. 12th man no salary cap Charlie Ward could make more or less primarily depending on what a team needs him to do on the basketball court. Everyone can't pay him the same salary while his incumbent team gets to offer him more than anyone else. This should be an alarm bell ringing because this is the very idea I thought you don't like. The bold is addressed above. I think reasons exists - for both players and owners that won't allow that to happen. Edited some points for clarity | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
| ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10854 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On October 21 2014 20:03 Daozzt wrote: All the owners are loaded and they can shell out 100+ million a year on players easily if they wanted to. The salary cap's just there to cut their costs. Even garbage teams in the middle of nowhere like the Bucks make a ton of money in the long run, otherwise it wouldn't have easily sold for half a billion earlier this year. Well, if it really is the case, they could just raise the cap a bit and every player would make a bit more. But if you remove it altogether doesn't it make this sport essentially a pay2win? I like microtransactions as much as your next CandyCrush gosu, but I'd like them to stay away from mah basketball. Edit: Nah the comparison is bad actually, it would be more like the Diablo 3 Auction House, the coolest feature in the history of gaming. | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
I wasn't for or against removing a cap system, I was just saying that the owners are obscenely rich and would still be profiting even if they paid 100m+ for their roster. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
Keep in mind that not every NBA owner is there to maximize profits. The Buss family do need the profits from the Lakers to finance their lifestyle. Steve Ballmer didn't buy the Clippers to maximize his ROI. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On October 22 2014 00:29 andrewlt wrote: I think people misunderstood the Kobe article that touched off this firestorm. The Lakers didn't get a second star not because they are paying Kobe too much money. Stars did not want to come to the Lakers to play with Kobe anyway so they would have tons of useless free cap space on the books. The Lakers might as well use the free cap space to pay Kobe and keep their fans happy until he retires. Keep in mind that not every NBA owner is there to maximize profits. The Buss family do need the profits from the Lakers to finance their lifestyle. Steve Ballmer didn't buy the Clippers to maximize his ROI. Pau Gasol came to LA. I'm sure he wasn't complaining when the team went to 3 straight finals and won 2 championships. I really don't buy the argument that stars don't want to come to LA. It isn't so much about Kobe right now as there were no good free agents who would mix. I think Carmelo in LA would have been stupid, it doesn't make sense to have 2 ball dominant wing players playing on the same team. It has much more to do with the fact that those players just wouldn't get along style-wise than Carmelo not wanting to play with Kobe. Everyone pretty much pegged Kevin Love to go to LA before the Cavs/LeBron trade materialized (and obviously you'd choose playing with LeBron over Kobe at this point). There's no indication that Love didn't want to play with Kobe or wouldn't want to come to LA; all the signs said he was going to do that if he entered free agency. My personal prediction is that Kobe will finish this contract, LA will get some top level players, and he'll re-sign for 2 more years and finish his career as basically a 2nd fiddle/mentor for some younger superstar. | ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
On October 22 2014 05:24 Xeris wrote: Pau Gasol came to LA. I'm sure he wasn't complaining when the team went to 3 straight finals and won 2 championships. I really don't buy the argument that stars don't want to come to LA. The point the article was making is that the perception of the Lakers around the league, particularly among the top talents but also more broadly is not a good one. Players watched Pau, who was pretty fucking good, become the scapegoat for everything Lakers all the time. They watched and saw the very public humiliations multiple teammates suffered at the hands of the team 'leader'. What's interesting from the article is the case being made that Kobe being Kobe has hurt the Laker's ability to recruit top-talent lately, not that he's not good, or wasn't good or some other nonsense. The scuttlebutt from agents and others quoted is telling in that it suggests a different narrative about how and why things for the Lakers have gone as they have. Maybe Dwight didn't leave because he's an immature goofball with no sense, but because Kobe has no perspective and is a terrible co-worker. Maybe Jim Buss isn't a totally incompetent moron. Etc. | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On October 22 2014 05:24 Xeris wrote: Pau Gasol came to LA. I'm sure he wasn't complaining when the team went to 3 straight finals and won 2 championships. I really don't buy the argument that stars don't want to come to LA. It isn't so much about Kobe right now as there were no good free agents who would mix. I think Carmelo in LA would have been stupid, it doesn't make sense to have 2 ball dominant wing players playing on the same team. It has much more to do with the fact that those players just wouldn't get along style-wise than Carmelo not wanting to play with Kobe. Everyone pretty much pegged Kevin Love to go to LA before the Cavs/LeBron trade materialized (and obviously you'd choose playing with LeBron over Kobe at this point). There's no indication that Love didn't want to play with Kobe or wouldn't want to come to LA; all the signs said he was going to do that if he entered free agency. My personal prediction is that Kobe will finish this contract, LA will get some top level players, and he'll re-sign for 2 more years and finish his career as basically a 2nd fiddle/mentor for some younger superstar. where would they get top level players from? the free agents list in 15/16 look about as good as shit. the only 3 that look good to build around is LMA, durant and rondo. and i dont see either LMA/durant going from good contending teams just to sign with the lakers. rondo... well that's a long ass shot i think. restricted you got thompson/davis both of which would get matched immediately. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia12999 Posts
| ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On October 22 2014 06:14 Haiq343 wrote: The point the article was making is that the perception of the Lakers around the league, particularly among the top talents but also more broadly is not a good one. Players watched Pau, who was pretty fucking good, become the scapegoat for everything Lakers all the time. They watched and saw the very public humiliations multiple teammates suffered at the hands of the team 'leader'. What's interesting from the article is the case being made that Kobe being Kobe has hurt the Laker's ability to recruit top-talent lately, not that he's not good, or wasn't good or some other nonsense. The scuttlebutt from agents and others quoted is telling in that it suggests a different narrative about how and why things for the Lakers have gone as they have. Maybe Dwight didn't leave because he's an immature goofball with no sense, but because Kobe has no perspective and is a terrible co-worker. Maybe Jim Buss isn't a totally incompetent moron. Etc. That's my whole point... there's really no basis to say 'lately.' Dwight left LA, and Carmelo was such an obviously bad fit. In the last season that Kobe played (with Dwight), he basically had the best season of his career. If he plays remotely close to that level, and by all indications he has the ability to do so... he can very easily still be the best or 2nd best player on a title team. I don't know why you think Rondo to LA is farfetched? He's not a scorer, so wouldn't have a problem with Kobe.. and they're both huge assholes and would probably get along. If you pick up Rondo, then the year after Kobe's contract expires + massive TV deal cap influx, you can easily pick up someone like Durant (well not easily, but anyway they have the cap for anyone), or Anthony Davis... lots of precedent for the best center in basketball going to the Lakers. Who knows, all I know is that I don't think there's enough to make those kinds of calls | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10854 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
No, the David Stern trade veto and the Steve Nash trade/contract already ensured the Lakers would not contend this year or next, so why not pay Kobe to do cool Kobe things while you work out all the rubbish that is clogging up your engine. | ||
|
seiferoth10
3362 Posts
On October 22 2014 09:35 DarthPunk wrote: Man that Greek bloke on the Rockets looks really solid. I affectionately call him 'pap smear', hoping this nick name takes off. | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
On October 22 2014 11:39 seiferoth10 wrote: I affectionately call him 'pap smear', hoping this nick name takes off. some have dubbed him papabrickalot. didn't have a great shooting game, but he brings the intangibles | ||
| ||
