LeBron Syndrome: Death of Small Markets and Why a Hard Cap is Needed
by KA1Z3R on Jun 29, 2011 7:02 PM CDT
Email
Print
Pounding the Rock, this is a post that is going to be dead serious. I've said it before recently and made my jokes here and there. However, this is something that is killing professional sports everywhere and making small market teams annually irrelevant with a few exceptions here and there (the San Antonio dynasty, the Giants World Series out of nowhere, the Rays success, the San Jose Sharks recent successes, etc)
Now then, let me first say that I'm going to be talking about sports economics and revenue. Two topics I'll admit that I'm not very knowledgeable about. I don't know exact figures and have no interest and pulling up numbers. What I can give is the trends that you don't need to be part of Wall Street to know and comprehend. I apologize if this gives my post less ground to stand on but it's just my way of doing things.
Without further adieu, LeBron Syndrome diagnosed and why the small markets will continue to suffer without a hard cap.
LeBron James is not the only case of this by any means. However, he's the one most fresh in our minds. He's the most extreme case of the Syndrome I've so named after him. How his departure took a team from best record in the East and perennial contender, to worst record in the NBA. So let's look at just what I mean by LeBron Syndrome.
Cleveland was a struggling small market team. I can't really recall any standout players on their roster, nor any true moments of greatness. Their revenue was little and their fanbase outside of their state small. They needed a savior and bad. And on draft night, a high school phenom was picked to be that man.
For several years Lebron James gave Cleveland a golden age. High seeding in the playoffs, deep playoff runs, even a Finals appearance where another small market team would sweep them. The money swarmed in as LeBron became the hottest name in the game since Shaq, or Kobe, or Wade. And for a while things were great. Their star was happy winning and being a god-like figure in sports, and the team was pulling in enough money to keep him signed and happy. Then came the undoing.
Money and winning mixed together horribly.
LeBron was getting ludicrous amounts of money and was racking up the wins for the Cavs. However, he wanted a championship and a good team around him to get him there. I can't blame him for this. That should be every player's goal first and foremost. Winning titles. But it would seem LeBron had taken a bit way too much money.
Here is the LeBron syndrome in all its terrifying might. A superstar high-caliber player lands in a small market team. He begins to win and taste some of that championship gold. He demands a great supporting cast to get the championship. However, the team has no money to keep the superstar signed AND get a great supporting cast. The superstar demands a trade or bolts to free agency and the small market team crumbles.
Sure enough, LeBron bolts to go play in Miami with two other "star" players (Bosh is not a star to me by any means, Wade is still a superstar though). He takes less with Miami because they're a beautiful big market team and is willing to so that two other massive contracts can be allowed. Miami goes to the Finals while Cleveland is left to crawl in the mud of being the worst team in the NBA.
Sure fans get excited when some young stud their small market team drafted is awesome and great. Hang on to that excitement as long as you can, because it won't be there long (looking at you Thunder fans with Kevin Durant Give it four or five years). One day when your team's star is enough get to Conference Finals or even the Finals but come up fruitless, they'll ask for more around them. And it'll be that very star that is the reason the team can't get that more.
Teams like the Lakers and Celtics will pretty much always be at or near the best in their respective conferences because they've been so successful and have such a huge fanbase that they'll constantly have money to keep landing and KEEPING great players. Meanwhile the Kings and Bobcats of the NBA will occasionally lay a golden egg or two, but they won't be able to keep those golden eggs from the large market farmers to ever become anything more than the lowly chickens of the NBA farm. Running around scratching at the dirt and hopefully one day laying another golden egg before the farmers scoop them up again.
There must be a hard cap to stop this. This foolish soft cap, luxury tax stuff will fool many fans out there. Those big market teams wouldn't dare have to pay the luxury tax. It's not like jersey and concession stand sales don't already cover all that. I'm sure the Heat LeBron jerseys sold enough this year alone to cover the hit LeBron's first big extension will create.
Soft caps like this create anarchy to where the Lakers can theoretically afford a team of Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, Pau Gasol, one of Lamar Odom or Andrew Bynum, and Ron Artest. Are you freaking kidding me? It's no wonder they keep dominating almost non-stop. Or the Knicks could probably afford Chris Paul, Amare Stoudamire, and Carmelo Anthony. Those guys are so greedy that even Wario would be green with envy.
Is it practical? Probably not because thank god being over the "cap" means you can't throw out a max contract. But it would be as simple as saying, "Chris Paul, how's about you come play for the Knicks for the MLE. We'll initially sign you for the MLE so we follow the cap guidelines, then extend your contract and pay you more as soon as you get here. And we'll also make that MLE one year. So even if we lie you can just tank and hurt the team then leave next year or get traded." Honestly, I couldn't pass up that offer and I hate the LeBron Syndrome. Does this happen, not really. I don't know if it ever has. But I don't see why not. I'm sure you guys know better with that stuff, but you get what I'm saying.
More often than not, these powerhouse teams stack up their rosters by getting the superstars right when they're just about to demand that trade, or the supporting cast, or the huge contract. Trade them over to a big market before they break your bank, let them deal with that $100 million contract. Oh wait, they can!
It's absolutely insane. Now the cap needs to be higher than the $45 million those greedy owners are throwing around. But there has to be a hard cap in place. There just has to be. No more of this luxury tax crap where it's okay to be over the cap if you can pay for it. If you're over the cap, you can't sign any more players except for maybe your rookies.
MLE for over the cap, out the window. Why should these huge markets still get a good mid-level player when they're already stacked? There absolutely must be a hard cap of some kind. The small markets need a fighting chance before they go bankrupt or have to move because they can't pay their players and their new stadium lease. Especially in this kind of economy, and especially when basketball is still a secondary sport.
The only sport where all or almost all franchises seem to be pulling in a sizable profit is the NFL. And football is always so consistently balanced. Why? Many years of hard cap with this past uncapped year being one of the few years in recent history that there was no cap or a soft cap. At least that I'm aware of. There's not quite as much learning curve from college to NFL and more overall talent for the sport.
I'm not a sports history buff, I'm not a sports economist, but I don't have to be to see that there's only a handful of teams in the NBA that are consistently good each and every year with few exceptions (due to many variables that can cause down turns no matter how big your pocket book is), and that the small market teams are suffering mightily.
There needs to be a hard cap, there just has to be. If not, we might as well just get rid of the small markets. LeBron Syndrome is killing the NBA. Sure ratings will go up, sure the sports's popularity will go up, but for how long after there's only 10 teams left? How long after the small markets go bankrupt? How long after there's no more underdogs? After there's no exciting or emotional storylines?
Like I said though, I don't know the money or the history so I might be completely wrong. Maybe the hard cap is inevitable (seems to be) and that all this hypothetical stuff will have been for nothing. Maybe this has been going on forever won't ever come to the worst possible future. Maybe small markets have more of a chance than I'm aware of. But there's no denying the crying shame that is the injustice that the small markets have suffered through, that Cleveland has suffered through, that Orlando has and will probably suffer through, that the small market MLB teams are still suffering through, that the small market NHL teams are suffering through, so on and so forth.
LeBron Syndrome. It gives you false hopes for glory and stability, but only brings the exact opposite. For the sake of the small markets, even if I hate those small market teams, I'm hoping for a cure. They need a fighting chance or else fall into unending irrelevancy.
62 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oh, the “options” in the poll are so lovely. I’m an opponent of a hard cap, but I would never say there’s no imbalance. However, there is not one end-all be-all solution.
There are other ideas besides a hard cap. How about a staggered luxury tax, that starts at the “soft” cap? For example, for every $1M a team goes over the cap, they have to pay an additional 10% in lux tax on the amount that you go over by. So a team that goes $30M over the cap, as the Lakers and Mavs do now, would have to pay 300% of that $30M back in lux tax, or $90M. Let’s see teams put those insane payrolls on the books when it’s financially crippling to do so.
I also like the idea of making contracts only partially guaranteed. ::coughrjcough::
If a hard cap gets put in place, especially if it’s anything close to the insulting $45M proposal, there will be a mass exodus of talented players overseas, where the amount of contracts is after taxes. The top level Euroleague teams spend close to that amount, and there’s a shitload more teams in Europe than there are in the NBA. The superstars will stay in the NBA, but a lot of mid-tier players will leave. A preview of this will be seen when many of this year’s draft picks start signing overseas because the team that drafted them can’t sign them during the lockout, and they need money after leaving college. There will also be little incentive for players already playing overseas to come to the US after being drafted, which may hurt the Spurs more than any other team, due to their penchant for scouting talent outside the NBA.
Time to build a new dynasty from the ashes of the old one.
Interesting if draft choices start signing overseas. Maybe that’s why the Spurs picks are mainly under 20 so that the Spurs could let them develop for a year or two and still have them at a young age?
One apparent flaw in the theory is that big-market teams can dominate because they can afford the highest payroll. One of the biggest market teams would be the Knicks, and they’ve been bad for years. They also have at this point one of the lower payrolls (keeping room for a big free-agent signing), as does Miami. Of the final four (Dallas, OKC, MIami and Chicago), only Dallas (#3) had a payroll in the top 20 payrolls , Tim C’s staggered tax looks like a fair solution, though I’m not sure it is even necessary when 3 of the final 4 teams were in the lower 10 in payroll.
Yes, but you can spend all you want and overpay crap players. That’s the problem with the Knicks. however, a smart team like the Mavs can take on talented players, and eventually found the right set of players. Mavs almost won. Portland had its moments in early 2000s. Lakers are definitely a high spending team.May not be at the very top, but they have more room for overhead than most.
One of the reasons for the Spurs that hurt them is they rebuild smart, but they have to do it because their resources are so thin. Honestly, they needed to re-build/spend more sooner. They were about a year or two too slow.
They say every time Pop smiles, an angel is told to stop being so fu--ing lazy and play some defense. -Hipuks 2/3/11
Although I agree that big market teams have the advantage, I think your point about the Spurs being smart is important. By no means do I think that the NBA is balanced, nor do I think it ever will be. But the owners who complain about losing money because their team isn’t very good need to be smarter and stop throwing money away with huge contacts for crappy players. Contacts like Eddy Curry and Gilbert Arenas are what gets owners in trouble. Having partially guaranteed contacts would certainly help but I think owners need to be a little smarter with where they their their money.
"I've got Tim (Duncan) and you don't. That's the difference." -Gregg Popovich
Honestly, I think the contracts should have more bonuses mixed in rather than full guaranteed. Obviously they’d have to be agreed upon at the beginning of the contract.
Some things like staying in reasonable shape, health (if healthy in your last 2 years you get 2M extra or something). Stuff like that. Something reasonable. Or the non-mandatory, stay with team “franchise tag” where the player volunteers to say I’ll stay this long for an extra bonus….
Sounds crazy and probably is since its harder to standardize, but why not….
They say every time Pop smiles, an angel is told to stop being so fu--ing lazy and play some defense. -Hipuks 2/3/11
Unfortunately, that’s the only way small market teams can compete is with massive extensions and huge contracts. It ends up hurting them for sure, but what else can they do? It’s about the only way they can get at least a couple good players.
The Spurs were lucky to actually land guys who care less about money and more about winning. In the world of modern professional sports, that’s incredibly rare. If a team like the T-Wolves had a couple Tim Duncan type character guys who will take a smaller contract in order to enhance their chance of a title, then they would probably have a fighting chance. But good luck finding that anymore.
The Sunkist Kaiser, most epic thing since the Grizzly BLAAAAAAAIR! Relax, play, and drink Sunkist! Your Kaiser commands it.
How does luxury tax work as it is now? I like your idea a lot. Partially guaranteed contracts won’t go over very well though. Great for the owners but i don’t see the players getting on board with that.
What really sucks here is that the owners really have no leverage. If they make something the players don’t want, they can go to Europe. Home of many more teams, more money, and owners who would treat them like kings.
If there’s a hard cap, it definitely has to be more than $45 million, but it can’t be too high to where the players will keep getting so many outrageous contracts left and right. I never root for owners in these situations, but the players are asking for too much money on their contracts.
Players need to be willing to make sacrifices to better the league. Let the league get some more revenue and then the league can lighten up the cap and give the players that money. Both sides need to make sacrifices. Either way, this will be s looooooooong lockout.
The Sunkist Kaiser, most epic thing since the Grizzly BLAAAAAAAIR! Relax, play, and drink Sunkist! Your Kaiser commands it.
I guess I’ll expand on the “partially guaranteed” thing. The owners wouldn’t be able to excercise the “unguaranteed” part unless the player gets in legal trouble(i.e. Gilbert Arenas and his albatross contract). Injuries wouldn’t qualify for reducing the players’ pay.
Time to build a new dynasty from the ashes of the old one.
I am in the same boat as you in term of the options in the poll. A hard cap as a means to improve balance is a horrible idea. I also think it would lower one of the most entertaining parts of the league, teams trading players in hopes of improving.
Is an alternative to the hard cap I like your idea about the staggered luxury tax. It is a method to increase the tax burden the farther from the tax a team is. Another alternative that I was thinking about is conserved cap. Everybody starts with the same cap/luxury figure. Lets consider a two team league. Team A goes over the cap/luxury in year 1, then in year 2 their cap/luxury decreases and they have to pay taxes for more of the money in their payroll. Team B in year one stayed around the cap figure, in year two they would have an increase in their available cap space and would pay taxes on a less amount of money for their payroll. Something like this needs to be paired with shorter contracts so that teams can adjust more rapidly to the dynamic nature of the cap.
"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG
by LasEspuelas on Jun 30, 2011 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions
I see your point but as many here have said, it’s not that simple. Before you keep reading, considered that I am not knowledgeable of the issue and it’s only my opinion based on the little I know about things and what I think is common sense.
First, a hardcap, specially one as low as this one, would make ANY mistake a mortal one. If you sign one bad contract you are completely screwed. One injury, one overpayed player, one bad fit or whatever and you would almost be automatically out of contention. You would have to get a perfect situation just to be considered a viable contender, let alone have an actual chance to win it all. Now, this can be considered a good thing since it would broaden the list of teams that could win a championship but it would feel as it was more a by-default championship than it does now in some years when all the best teams go down before they should.
All this, even if you consider the “no guaranteed” issue, which is another problem since it would be impossible to agree what is covered and what is not. When a clause applies and when it does not. Can you void a contract based on injury? That would be crazy and I don’t think that should be even considered. Maybe still pay the player but don’t count it against the cap? Can you void based on performance? Try settling over the cause of the dip in performance (chemistry, styles, minutes played, different teammates, lack of effort, etc.) not to mention the very definition of “good” and “bad” performance. Can you just say “we don’t need/want you anymore” or just take your talents somewhere else? You would end up with 300 Lebron/Cleveland incidents each season.
A casual diehard Spurs fan.
if only rewind time and stop the NBA from turning into a league where everyone’s trying to get a record contract, thing would be so much easier. I know it would be impossible, but the average contract wage needs to go way down. And I’m in no way advocating that horrid $45 million cap. I won’t throw out any numbers because I’m not knowledgeable of salaries of teams and caps and such, but it definitely needs to be higher than that 45.
But player salaries need to be brought down. Sadly though, that would lead them to Europe. It’s appearing like a near impossible situation because i doubt the owners go without some sort of hard cap. Ideally, players take less money on average, and a hard cap gets put in place that would still allow teams to still do vet min type deal in case of injury and to sign rookies if they’re over cap.
I doubt the first will happen which could ruin a hard cap, but I’d love the kind of hard cap I mentioned.
The Sunkist Kaiser, most epic thing since the Grizzly BLAAAAAAAIR! Relax, play, and drink Sunkist! Your Kaiser commands it.
im not sure a hard cap is good or bad…i just didn’t think the lebron story was a good reason for one.
a lot of people keep saying something that goes like this: it isn’t the players problem or fault that owners cant control themselves and offer crazy contracts.
part of this is true but in a bidding/auction system spending can always get out of control. yes there are some stupid contracts out there but the owners are saying heres a hard cap…with this no matter how out of control things get this rule allows us to impose limits on our selves and it helps impose those limits while also creating some what of a fair playing field (no matter what you do big markets will have some advantages).
I think revenue sharing is a good option too and a hard (or harder) cap and revenue sharing are not mutually excluded.
As a fan I think shorter contracts are going to happen and are a good thing for both sides. Players can leave sooner (if thats what they want) and teams can get out of mistakes sooner (head cases, tankers, just stupid contracts and injuries). Early termination options for players or teams and sign and trade options may have to be tinkered with a little. But from a team (not necessarily an owner) and a fan perspective some of these changes could help avoid some of the players tanking or forcing a team to trade them for 30 cents on the dollar.
I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything in this post.
A superstar high-caliber player lands in a small market team. He begins to win and taste some of that championship gold. He demands a great supporting cast to get the championship. However, the team has no money to keep the superstar signed AND get a great supporting cast. The superstar demands a trade or bolts to free agency and the small market team crumblesThat’s simply not what happened. The Cavs had Lebron on a rookie contract for 4 years (completely underpaid). Then they gave him a 3 year max extension for players with that amount of years on the league (far from a cap-killing contract). During those years they made terrible personnel decisions (drafting Luke Jackson with the 10th pick, trading for Larry Hughes and Szczerbiak, etc) that prevented them from becoming the best team in the league. It wasn’t Lebron or the lack of money to spend what held the Cavaliers back, it was bad FO decisions. They had no problem spending money, they simply did so in the wrong players. Instead of getting young talent that could grow next to Lebron (like the Thunder is doing with Durant) they tried to speed up the process with good-not-great veterans with bad contracts. Had the Cavs provided Lebron with a quality number 2 player and other good young pieces, Lebron probably would have won a championship and stayed in Cleveland, and this “Lebron syndrome” you talk about wouldn’t exist.
As for how a hard cap would prevent such situation, I think you are wrong again and I offer this two reasons why:
1- if elite players are willing to take a paycuts to play with other elite players in the place they choose, the hard cap would be ineffective in keeping guys in, say, Minnesota anyway; they’d team up in New York, taking up most of the team cap space, knowing that they can get rotation level players on the cheap because there are no exceptions and other teams would have limited cap space too, which would happen because:
2- A hard cap would kill the NBA’s middle class. Elite talent would still be getting the lion’s share of a team’s cap space, leading to good-not-great players fighting for scraps. The value of those players would lower and you would have teams comprised with a couple of superstars with large contracts, a couple above average players that are underpaid but still get a reasonable amount of money and everyone else playing for the minimum. The soft cap and max contracts allow teams to pay their superstars, pay the second tier players and pay their rookies. A hard cap wouldn’t actually affect the Lebrons of the league; it would affect the Bonners.
Bottomline is, I agree with you that changes have to be made and will be made but the reality is, It’s not the “Lebron syndrome” or the absence of a hard cap what is killing small market teams. It’s bad management and the absence of a good revenue sharing system. And while a hard cap is an option that should be explored as a possible solution, so are a million others.
"Deep down we all know that swagger comes hand in hand with insecurity. We strut not to convince competitors of our dominance; we strut to convince ourselves."
Matthew Powell
by Edg5 on Jun 30, 2011 2:35 PM CDT reply actions 7 recs
+1 Billion!!!!!!!!!!!
THANK YOU!!!!
Somebody has been watching basketball instead of listening to what the media outlets have been saying. It is so funny how the media painted this dude and the 2 other cats down there in Miami. They all took way less than the maximum contract and all were willing to concede some of the spotlight and credit to win championships. Let me say this again they TOOK LESS MONEY AND CREDIT TO WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS. LOL.
Like Herman Edwards said YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!
Damn near everything you posted my friend was 100% truth and made a boat load of sense but lets see how many people reply to this truth
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Jun 30, 2011 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Gotta to agree with the things that you laid out. A hard cap of $45 million for 10 years, with a new tv contract after 5 yrs that will probably have a 33-50% increase in it, and the players will be stuck?? Great players will team up in the big cities more often because money will be de-emphasized. More Childress type players will go overseas and fewer Nowitzki’s and Gasol’s will want to come to the states due to the restrictions. Rasheed Wallace, Antonio Mcdyess types will retire earlier under a hard cap with no mid-level. The injuries of a Roy and Oden would ruin a team for years.
Unless the hard cap was tied to more revenue sharing between teams and the players got a % tied to those revenues, I can’t see it being beneficial for the NBA.
I agree with you with the bad FO decisions of cleveland
And the thing about a hard cap, it would be nice because it would affect those teams that live of money
Lakers, Mavs, Knicks, celtics, Magic
And it would give a chance to those teams that make smart decisions with less money
And it would give a chance to those young teams with stars players with a rookie contract
I’m not trying to be confrontational or anything, but how exactly would it give a chance to those teams that make smart decisions with less money? The teams that spend the most are usually big market teams. Big market teams would benefit from a hard cap because players would still leave in free agency to go to LA or NYC. They’s still be getting the elite players, only with a hard cap they’d pay them less and get quality rotation players on the cheap.
As for how it would give a chance to those young teams with star players with a rookie contract, I really don’t know what you mean.
Again, I’m not trying to be confrontational, I just don’t see the benefit of a hard cap as it concerns to parity. If players want to team up in the city of their choice and are willing to leave some money on the table to do it, no hard cap could prevent it. It wasn’t the soft cap what allowed the Heat to get their big three; it was free agency. They were well under the cap. Similarly, and unlike what a lot of people are saying, the soft cap doesn’t make big spending teams the only contenders. The Knicks spent more than everyone for a decade and were awful. They wasted their cap room on the wrong players and paid the price. No superstar is going to sign for the MLE. If you make bad choices under the current system, you pay for it.
As I see it, the only hope for small market franchises is to draft well, make the right decisions and hope their stars stay. Nothing more, nothing else.
"Deep down we all know that swagger comes hand in hand with insecurity. We strut not to convince competitors of our dominance; we strut to convince ourselves."
Matthew Powell
YES
Money doesnt mean championchips just like that But it help a lot to teams like the lakers and the mavs this year, also the celtics of this era
Money doesnt help when you doesnt make smart decisions thats for sure
A hard cap would no affect the personal decisions of the players like lebron or the dwight, chris paul or deron williams … But they have to choose between money or been in a contender team
Hard cap would affect big markets because they would not make big offers that nobody can match
For example: The lakers was thinking to much when lamar odom was asking for an extention, at the end lamar win because the lakers were able to give that contract
“only with a hard cap they’d pay them less and get quality rotation players on the cheap.”
I dont think that this is going to happen, not all the players are going to be like lebron (lebron live of publicity, not of his contract with the heat)…
And a team like the heat is not going to happen every year (hey we are young superstars, lets win multiple championships together)
a much better example then lamar (who by all accounts took less then market value on his contract) is artest. it could be argued that artest was what put LA over the top their last title (especially in the playoffs having huge games in game 6-7 of the finals and getting a critical put back on a game winning kobe miss against phx) artest as a 4th option is over paid and relative to his contribution is over paid.
As far as the “LeBron Syndrome” we don’t even know if this is going to work…if miami losses again next year the egos might kick in and it could all fall apart. remember although there was tension as long as LA was winning kobe/shaq could work. once they started losing it all fell apart.
And a team like the heat is not going to happen every year
exactly, it is very rare over all…we can even see with other super stars who saw what lebron did and wanted to do it too that even if the players want to do this in the current system it cant automatically happen and players would have to be Fas to insure they get to leave and when they are you cant stop them from leaving. they would have to choose to leave and more then likely choose to take less money…hard cap doesn’t stop that.
there are also flaws either way. a hard cap with no mle would kill any teams ablity to get better or make any moves and limit player movement alot (matching contracts makes it tough). any system will have some flaws and big markets or certain teams will have advantages regardless of the nbas cba
First let me say that I’m focusing on Lebron and the Heat because the post focuses on Lebron.
A hard cap would no affect the personal decisions of the players like lebron or the dwight, chris paul or deron williams … But they have to choose between money or been in a contender team
No, they would not. They (elite players) would sign for teams that open up cap space and team up through free agency like they did this time. Giving up some money didn’t stop Lebron, Bosh or Wade form signing with the Heat. And if they have to chose between LA and Milwaukee to do it, where do you think they’ll go?
The players that would have to face such a decision (money vs contending) would be the Artests and the Odoms, but they already had to in a way. Both signed with LA for below market value (yes, Artest too) even though there were other teams at the time pursuing them (the Heat in Odom’s case and the Cavs in Artest’s case).
But those where highly coveted veterans. What I mean when I say they’d get quality rotation players on the cheap, I mean younger guys who haven’t proven as much or specialists. Those guys would fight for the scraps left by the superstars and the veterans like Odom and Artest. Cap space would be too valuable for small market teams to gamble it on unproven or flawed players, so big offers wouldn’t come say, Bonner’s or Ariza’s way. And again, if you have to sign for close to the minimum no matter where you go, which is it going to be, Milwaukee or LA?
"Deep down we all know that swagger comes hand in hand with insecurity. We strut not to convince competitors of our dominance; we strut to convince ourselves."
Matthew Powell
Amen!!!
When are people gonna realize that the smart front offices are the ones who are always contenders and playoff teams. Not necessarily the big spending teams.
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Jul 3, 2011 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions
there are examples for both big spending and getting nothing and smart FO moves. there is a lot of luck and timing in a lot of these moves too. you could argue a smart FO with a hard cap would do even better because their smart moves (especially not over paying, ect) would be even more valuable.
and perceptions change…5 years ago dumars was considered a genius and ainge was on the verge of being run out of town…now its reversed. LA has spent their way to the last few titles but orlando hasn’t been able to find the magic (pun intended) with the 2nd highest payroll. big teams with big payrolls can shot and miss more but in the current system they can just keep shooting themselves in the foot till they are so far gone they are a punchline and it takes them 5 years just to un fuck themselves(see new york the last 10 years or so)
hard cap doesn’t really fix this…it does allow the owners to control themselves by the rules which could be a good thing for everyone, fans, teams , owners (other the the players) but revenue sharing seems like a good route too. it locks them into not over spending at all. but it also hurts player movement or teams tweeking little things between seasons.
The owners are looking for a way to make sure they don’t over spend. Its way to easy and simple to say well just done spend because owners need to put a team out there and get people interested. A 2nd tier star is still a star and can generate buzz and get people to want to at least watch the team. To keep them from leaving they have to over pay or the player goes somewhere else for the same money. If they over pay the payroll is too high…if they don’t no one watches the team or buys a jersey and they don’t make enough money. That has to change for the bottom 3rd of the teams at least. They players are correct but should be making it a bigger deal that there should be revenue sharing and the issue should be owners and other owners.
Presently the players are guaranteed their money and the owners on the bottom are not. There are problems with the system that need to be fixed but it has nothing to do with the lebron situation.
i agree
but to be honest I think Dumars is a better GM than Ainge because what the Celtics did wasn’t all that hard to do. He got 2 proven All Star caliber players in trades to help there old teams dump salary and start over. I will say that he had an eye for talent in the draft because he did get Big Baby and Leon Powe late in the draft. But me, you and anybody else who post on this site would’ve taken Garnett and Ray Allen for the people they traded. I will give him some credit for believing Ray would come back healthy after his ankle surgeries but Garnett was ballin’ before he got traded to Boston.
Dumars actually got players besides Hamilton who most had given up on. Billups was starting to come around before he got signed by Dumars but nobody honestly thought he would turn out this good. Dumars also got a lot of good players with low draft picks like Okur,Prince, Delfino and Maxiell. I will admit he screwed up trading Billups for Iverson and resigning Hamilton, not to mention Charlie V to that bad deal. But the dude truly built those good Pistons teams not bought them.
Now as far as the payrolls and screwing teams up go, I think it serves the front offices right if they over pay for scrubs and it messes stuff up. A lot of these teams don’t do there home work and think just paying for the best available player is going to fix everything. You would think after all these years of seeing that it doesn’t work that these GM’s would learn. But it’s obvious they haven’t and how is helping them watch what they spend going to truly help these teams keep there fan base and make more money than the teams that do watch what they are doing and consistently win? Soon the owners will be crying that the teams that are winning championships without bloated payrolls are making way more money than them. Then what are the owners going to do? LOL.
The owners don’t have to over pay for marginal talent if they don’t want to and if the team is built well they still will win games. The Hawks are a perfect example of what not to do. They overpaid like hell for Joe Johnson who is a good player but not a Kobe, Wade, Duncan, or LeBron type player. The team could’ve did a sign and trade for Joe and got young pieces and cap space and still would’ve been a playoff team in the weak ass East. But instead they bided against themselves and now they are trying to trade away a younger player with a decent deal in Josh Smith. Same with Memphis, Philly, Indiana and a whole boat load of other teams.
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Jul 3, 2011 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions
well part of my point was “great” front offices get lucky. dumars got lucky that r wallace didnt mess everythnig up and got head case on them…even so you me and everyone else would make that trade too and it worked out but it wasnt a sure thing at the time. danny collected assests and made soem deals but there is luck there too…alot of teams collect assets and nothing materializes. its a good stratagy that still needs luck and good timing
the owers may even agree with you that dumb teams should pay but even dumb teams have a right to make money and if you disagree thats fine too contract to 10-16 teams otherwise we need to fine a way to make it profitable for everyone.
there isnt a good answer for the j johnson deal…it would ahve looked alot worse if he was the alst signing instead of the 1st though
Yeah front offices get lucky but it is good to prepare and have a plan and a blueprint for how you want to do things instead of just stumbling in the dark. It just seems like a lot of these teams are stumbling and not learning from there past and others mistakes.
If you look at the NBA as a business like it truly is then you will understand that a decent amount of businesses finish in the red if mismanaged. These people that own these teams know that and they understand the value of a dollar and how to make dollars, I’m pretty sure better than most of us posting.
So for them to (1) overpay for something that is most likely a pet project or a hobby is just down right crazy. Especially when they are complaining about the cost and it doesn’t actually create something that is truly tangible or useful to mankind. (2) Since the owners are now complaining that these teams are truly something they look at as more than a play thing and truly an asset maybe they should treat it as such and make sure it is being ran like a successful company. But if most owners were to be honest about the thing they would say that they never looked at owning these teams as nothing more than a status symbol until the economy started trashing there other ventures. If they are losing so much money sell the damn team and let somebody else deal with it. LOL. These owners are truly looking for a bailout or a way to help them from themselves. How many of us who have small businesses or a regular job get a chance to do this or ask for something like this? Not many. If you can’t afford it you get rid of it or you end up losing it. The league should do a better job screening who buys these teams or something.
I’m not going to sit here and say the current system doesn’t need to be tweaked because it does. But I am definitely not in favor of what the reported ideas the owners have because it just isn’t fair at all to ask the players to take the huge pay-cuts they are proposing so they can pocket more money.
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Jul 3, 2011 5:35 PM CDT up reply actions
also its easy to say bad teams made bad decisions and should loss money but by definition half the teams every year are a failure…most businesses are not a 0 sum system and if they are they are not working in the same collective organization like a sports league…its not the same as a failed business in a normal sense. NY/LA/CHI makes money no matter what but also needs the sac, cle, atl, sa, phx’s of the world to do it.
As fans almost everyone I know would complain if their teams owners only ran things as a business and didn’t spend to win or seem like it was at least trying. Thats not good for the sport or the fans and ultimately the players either (if sac,phx, cle, dal shut down its less jobs)…yes dallas was a joke :P
some teams save all the cap space in the world and get no takers…if they cant swing a good trade what happeneds to them…they have to pay someone and maybe they over pay but FA avoid LA clippers/minn/tor ect even if they have the most money. What do they sit on it and hope some ones desperate next year…recently det and ny signed players because they thought even with the cap space no one was coming their way. They over paid but form a making a team tickets etc point of view they had to sign someone…or is it no good moves don’t do anything.
All im saying is it get really complicated and the teams are working together it doesn’t work if a 3rd of the teams don’t make money or barely make money. NO and PHX jump out right away as teams that seem like all there decisions were based on the bottom line and the team suffers for it but maybe still makes a little money. Is that good? Revenue sharing seems like a better idea imo but the players are part of the system too. They get guaranteed money that the teams are not getting and maybe they have to give a little back. Im not taking sides here and from what ive heard they are willing to give some back and take less going forward, im just saying it not just a owner issue.
Originally my point was the points made about players leaving or going where ever they want "lebron" cant be stopped in the current system or with a hard cap.
The owners don’t have to over pay for players but they do. The owners are thinking the way you posted. They are thinking I have money so I have to spend it. LOL. That is a stupid way to think. You spend money on players who are worth it. You don’t over pay for a guy because some team took the 2 guys you really wanted and you are afraid you are gonna miss out on your 3rd option. You pay accordingly. Besides players will go to teams that (A) Offers them a lot of money (B) has a good chance of winning a championship now © Have good players there they think they can help win a championship in the near future or (D) Offers them a lot of playing time.
Teams like the Spurs, Portland and OKC are perfect examples of how to build teams cost efficiently. You are acting like all the good players will automatically go to a few teams and that is it. That will never be the case and as long as there is a lottery system for getting high draft picks there will always be a chance to get a star player on your roster. The smartest and most cost effective way to build a team is through the draft because there contracts are cheap. Teams seem to not realize this for some reason and are quick to sell or trade any pick not in the lottery. Bad free agent signings is what kills most of these teams. Small market teams can and will draw players to there team if they build a solid core of players. Not everybody is about going to the big cities believe it or not. Most players want to win championships because that is what they play the game for and not to mention winning brings in more money to there pockets, via endorsements and other ventures.
I have no sympathy for the New Orleans Hornets what so ever because there greedy owner took my 2nd favorite team out of Charlotte because he wanted a bigger stadium with more luxury boxes or whatever. The Hornets had the best attendance in the league for a number of years even when the team sucked. The guy was making money but he was greedy and left for so called greener pastures. Fuck George Shinn and all those other greedy stupid owners! LOL.
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Jul 3, 2011 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions
the rich market teams will still get their billion dollar individual TV deals regardless of hard cap or not
by i luv this site on Jun 30, 2011 3:42 PM CDT reply actions
The cap is a part of the real deadlock which is revenue sharing. In 2005 the owners agreed to 57/43 and now want a 50/50. The owners are approaching being “upside down” and can see the train heading towards them because the business world has changed since 2005 when everything and every company was on the rise. When AT&T moved it’s corporate headquaters from San Antonio to Dallas it will hurt. Because homebuilding is down, the contractors don’t renew. The cap had nor will have anything to do with LeBron going to the beach for less money than he could of had by staying in Ohio.
Teams lose money because.......
The owners and front offices do a piss poor job of building. Point, blank, period! You have owners paying stars SUPERSTAR money, role players STAR money, bench warmers getting ROLE PLAYER money and people that shouldn’t even be in the league getting deals.
Anybody in there right mind think Joe Johnson who is a good player deserved that horrible deal he got? What about Rashard Lewis getting the deal he got from Orlando? Nobody put a gun to these owners heads and forced them to overpay scrubs and average players.
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
I think the defecting to Europe is WAY OVERBLOWN. In case you haven’t checked the European economies are way worse than the US and not getting any better by the day. Only Germany and France (neither big into BBall) have economies that are stable.
I hope you’re right, but our big trade acquisition is making me nervous.
KawhiLeonard_
#lockout…….. GONE!
Time to build a new dynasty from the ashes of the old one.
In checking on some payroll stuff on Sham, they are reporting that Jamie Skeen, PF 6’9 240 has signed with ASVEL Villerbanne in France. This could have been another player which was passed over in the draft but at the same time good enough, smart enough and could of been a summer league star but NOOOO.
by indiancharlie on Jul 1, 2011 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
Not compared to them, and if the US economy tanks, the rest of them will too. The producer economies don’t do well without a consumer economy to buy their stuff.
Unbelievable Time distortion space is the place Mean Gene Okerlund go down that lonesome highway but don't be hypnotized no- reincarnation doesn't have to be you can concentrate and you can-mental telepathy YEAH! But the beat goes on.
by SpursfanSteve on Jul 1, 2011 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions
By my recollection Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and UK are all in trouble. Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland in BIG TROUBLE. Germany and France are in essence funding all of the others. How much more of Europe is there??? I don’t see much happening in the way of US players going to Europe – en masse.
What the draftees should do is for a small 3-5 team league of their own and travel around playing “exhibition” games here in the states. I am sure that plenty of cities would like to see good BBall being played. Of course, the players would need to arrange for some insurance to cover injuries.
Kobe Bryant of all people is organizing a group of players to do exhibition games in China.
Time to build a new dynasty from the ashes of the old one.
Yeah Marbury said the fans there are great and he is selling his shoes out there like crazy. China has been getting a decent amount of older pros and college players out there playing in there leagues.
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Jul 3, 2011 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Kobe has regularly gone to China for shoe promotions & clinics & camps. He made many trips before the Bejing Olympics. His jersey has been the best selling NBA jersey in China (besides Yao) for years and years. And during the actual games he was mobbed wherever he went.
"Hey if repeating as champions were that easy even the Spurs could do it." olf
tru
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Jul 7, 2011 7:31 PM CDT up reply actions
You don’t mention any countries from Central & Eastern Europe, where there’s a lot of b-ball talent (and what does Ireland have to do with hoops?). Or Turkey, where D-Will is headed. Here’s what he says about a possible exodus to Europe:
http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/news/story?id=6753259
cle is a bad example…yes management f -ed some things up but all FO make some mistakes. its complicated by the fact lebron is a mess too. home town hear but cant get it done, mentally not there but pressuring the FO to get the people he wants (and the FO not standing up to him). at the same time dwade and bosh could have gone to cle to have the big 3 if they wanted too, but who wants to go to cle…which is part of the problem for small markets no matter what the cap is.
even in the current system there isn’t a hard cap but at a certain point (NY is by far the best example) you cant just sign people it has to be through trades and the like. a teams payroll can keep going up and they pay the l tax but at that point its mle and trades to move things around. its not the same as a hard cap but it does limit what the big teams can just do.
in the end if superstars are willing (and able) to put their egos aside (no alpha dog issues) and take less then the max money they could get then you cant stop the lebron situation form happening.
a hard cap also doesn’t stop a small market team from over spending for 2nd tier help. with a hard cap joe j can still end up way over paid because atl is afraid ny/maimi will sweep him away. if joe is willing to take a little less to chase a title there or just wants to go to a big market atl still would over pay him to keep him. the total money would be less but the over paid relative to the value and the crippling your team long term is still a definite possibility
You know, the poll question is filled with loaded words
There’s no imabalance and things are fine as is
So if I vote for no hard cap, then I believe that the NBA is perfectly balanced? Why couldn’t it be a simple yes/no poll question?
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
Also, here’s a simple reason the hard cap will not work:
A hard cap will definitely lower the price of an above-average player’s contract below market value. Though there may not be an official “cap,” there will definitely be an unofficial “cap” because teams can only spend so much money on one player due to the hard cap. Now, one might think that this would be a boon for a small-market team, because they could afford to sign the players. However, it’s not. This is because every other team would also want to sign that player at a below-market price. Simply put, because every other team also wants to sign that player, and since his salary will not change, the player now has the power to choose which team he wants to play for. Heck, he might even have team representative come in and sell him on coming to his team. He might confer with other players to see which teams they are going to.
Sound familiar? That’s what happened with LeBron.
Econ 101: Price ceilings do not balance a market.
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I can see luxury tax as an option. In this case i will combine the salary cap and the luxury cap and make the tax exponential. So for example, if a team is 5 mil over the cap they pay 5 mil in tax. If they are 10 mil over the cap they pay 10*2 = 20 mil in tax. If they are 15 mil over the cap they pay 15*3 = 45 mil in tax and so on. This way you can get a little bit over the cap and not get a big hit but the more you spend the more you get hit with the tax. This will allow some flexibility as long as you don’t go overboard.
That said, I am in favor of a hard cap. I think it is the best way to level (to an extent) the playing field. I think it should be set to about 60 mil and have some more restrictions on salaries so that a team is only allowed to sign 1 player for up to 15 mil, 2 more players for up to 10 mil each and everybody else for up to 5 mil each (there will still be salary scales of rookies and veterans within these restrictions)
This way teams won’t be able to sign multiple superstars, can you see Lebron or Wade signing for 10 mil when they can get 15 somewhere else?
And about players moving to Europe, I don’t think too many will go there. There aren’t many teams in Europe that can pay the kind of money that even the lower tier of players in the NBA get. here you can see a list of the top 30 best paid players in Europe last year.
Only 6 players got more than 2 mil (euros) and only a bit more than 20 players got more than 1 mil. Also only 5 teams signed the 15 best payed players. There are maybe 10 teams that can sign players for more than 1 mil.
Teams like the Lakers and Celtics will pretty much always be at or near the best in their respective conferences because they’ve been so successful and have such a huge fan base that they’ll constantly have money to keep landing and KEEPING great players.
this kinda cracked me up a bit…for at least the last 2 years before they got the garnett and allen trade people in boston wanted to run danny and doc out of town.
between titles 86-08 (21 years) the c’s lost in
finals 1
con finals 2
con sf 3
1st round 6
missed playoffs 9
yes the team had soem tragic things happen to explain some ofthis but the results looks like an argument against big market domination
lakers are different but they were not studs in the 90’s either. its true that right now and for the last few years they have the biggest payroll but the shaq kobe split was also the modle for teams cant stack alpha dogs on the same team…or not for too long. big markets in any system will have soem advantages no maktter what you do.
with everything in the nba being completely even, where would an NBA player rather live LA or OKC
how much more could you get form endorsements in Dallas or Minnesota
how much more is your contract worth if you play in Orlando (no state tax) or Toronto (Canadian tax)
there will always be factors the nba can not control to help big markets or certain markets (Miami is really a big market historically speaking but hit all 3 of the above factors, place wanting to live, endorsements, taxes)
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned yet that there is a 0% chance of Durant leaving OKC. He’s already signed an extension. This place is perfect for him. They love him here, win or lose, and the Thunder front office is one of the best in the league. There’s nowhere else he could go that would give him this environment and the chances to win a championship.
Unbelievable Time distortion space is the place Mean Gene Okerlund go down that lonesome highway but don't be hypnotized no- reincarnation doesn't have to be you can concentrate and you can-mental telepathy YEAH! But the beat goes on.
There were more important things that were wrong IMO, but yeah there’s nothing to suggest that Durant will leave. Also, wrong is the suggestion that Paul would take the MLE for a year to sign with a team and then get paid the year after. He would have to wait three years. Via Larry Coon’s NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
Why a three-year wait before gaining Bird rights?
It closed a salary cap loophole. There used to be no waiting period, but this was abused by Portland with Chris Dudley and Phoenix with Danny Manning. Both teams signed these players to one-year deals at small salaries. The next year, Bird rights in hand, they signed new contracts far in excess of the cap. The three year rule prevents these types of cap circumventions.
There’s no way that an elite player plays for three year getting payed only the MLE. The system needs tweaks, that’s for sure, but it’s not that easy to circumvent the rules and create a super teams.
"Deep down we all know that swagger comes hand in hand with insecurity. We strut not to convince competitors of our dominance; we strut to convince ourselves."
Matthew Powell
if you mean right now yes, but…
a lot can happen…few players sign a contract and before it even kicks in people are like there is no way he stays or no way he is happy with that team. frustration from losing or a defection of another player (because of role or money), injury to him or a key team mate. im not saying it will happen or that its likely but it certainly isnt 0%.
There’s nowhere else he could go that would give him this environment and the chances to win a championship.
this year yes but down the road who knows. in the evolution of events this is lebron 4-5 years ago. the situation can change
+1
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Jul 3, 2011 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions
I Propose
We call it, BAD FRONT OFFICE SYNDROME!
One thing i can do...................is FINGER ROLL.
by gunnin' gervin on Jul 3, 2011 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions
“Nobody put a gun to these owners heads and forced them to overpay scrubs and average players.”
No, but a hard cap can prevent an owner from doing too many stupid things that hurt all the rest of the teams.
“Now, one might think that this would be a boon for a small-market team, because they could afford to sign the players. However, it’s not. This is because every other team would also want to sign that player at a below-market price. Simply put, because every other team also wants to sign that player, and since his salary will not change, the player now has the power to choose which team he wants to play for.”
BUT, the teams still will be LIMITED in the number of stupid contracts they can give, especially if they make the cap truly a HARD CAP. A team must have X number of players. To sign one really exhorbitant contract would leave the team in the worst case with all other contracts as the league minimum and since the league has to approve all contracts anyway, they could VOID a teams contract with a player IF that contract would prevent them from reaching the league minimum number of players.
While being a strong proponent of a Hard Salary Cap, I am also a strong proponent of a Hard Salary Base and I think the Cap and the Base should be the same. Every team should be required to spend the exact same amount on salaries. It prevents salary creep and ensures each team pays its own weight in player salaries. Each team would be free within the minimum/maximum to establish their own salary structure.
Say 12 is the league minimum number of players, 15 is the league Max players and $60 million is the max/min salary cap. A team could sign 12 players at 5 mil each, or any combination of at least 12-15 salaries that equal $60M. Can’t go one penny over $60M.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Pounding The Rock
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Featured Stories
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
