Demolishing The NBA Salary Cap...

[edgar]

Demolishing The Nba Salary Cap
By: Edgar Rocha
August 06, 2008
11:00pm Central Time

In a country where monopolies are controlled from occuring to let others have a fair chance too, there resides an association that we call "The NBA". Back when salary cap room was established, everything seemed like the perfect fit. To each its own slice of the cake. This cake further known as the "NBA players" that have entertained us for years. Some slices looking more appealing than others one seems to think. What a perfect gig it seems to be, that everyone is counted as even and receives the same amount of piece and each may do whatever they want with it. But before anyone can take a piece of that cake, disaster happens and slice by slice begins to banish away from the hands of each holding a slice. As if it was a scary movie you begin to look for an explanation and behind you stands the rest of the world smiling...

The NBA faces some problems to address, whether it likes it or not. Those problems being the Salary Cap and its restrictions upon teams. Its seems just yesterday when we saw Childress leave, a sign that may create a ripple affect towards other player movement. For years the NBA has been thought out as the Association to play at. The highest mountain to climb even. And these facts will continue to be true but will we be saying this 10 years from now? David Stern should be content about the world's growing interest in the game. But with mad millionaires and billionaires throwing insane cash at his players, one has to wonder how dangerous this interest could be to the NBA. Throw that, the fact that NBA teams are limited to what they can offer these players, and the rising value of the Euro and this creates a big issue. If that isin't alarming enough Stern, reports state that Lebron James would consider an offer from a European team. Changes are needed to our crippling salary cap system. But even demolishing our salary cap system create problems. Surely bigger markets would lure in the big time players with more money. So its an open challange to what we should do with this issue. For now, ill just enjoy my slice of the cake.

Edgar Rocha
Copyright 2008

[honestfool84]

no.

[Trainwreck2100]

fuck no

[DespЏrado]

Welcome to the board...

Nice attempt at a write up but honestly, and I see what you are trying to do here, you might want to keep your day job.

And how many times did you need to sign it as written by Edgar Rocha, and saying it is copyrighted just makes me want to make fun of you.

Too nitpick if you are going to say something is copyrighted at least get all of your grammar right and a decent flow to the article. And for the love of God, break it up into small paragraphs.

Take these two sentences, they don't even make sense:

What a perfect gig it seems to be, that everyone is counted as even and receives the same amount of piece and each may do whatever they want with it. But before anyone can take a piece of that cake, disaster happens and slice by slice begins to banish away from the hands of each holding a slice.

Finally, we all know that there is a problem with the salary cap as the dollar loses its value but if you are going to take the time to write an article at least have something to say about it. You're conclusion that,

"So its an open challange to what we should do with this issue. For now, ill just enjoy my slice of the cake."
just comes off as admitting that there is no depth or perspective that you can lend us, so why waste our time writing it in the first place. This is a message board where you have to say something outrageous or inflammatory to get a topic going.

[L.I.T]

All I got out of that is some cake sounds good right about now.

And No.

[DROB4EVER]

Untill stars are leaving I wouldnt worry about it, if the dollar gets stronger it will even lessen the chance player leave.

I would like to see some adjustments to the salary cap, I would like to do away with guarnteed money, go to an NFL type system but keep a hard cap. This gives teams the ability to improve every year and dump guys who are stealing money like Eddie Curry and Randolph from NY.

I would like to see teams be rewarded by staying under the cap by having some sort of added cap room in one yr for stayn under it for 3 yrs in a row.

I think alot of improvments can be made that will help smaller market teams be able to sign big named FAs without overpaying.

[Brutalis]

This is a nice dude cut him some slack. He's apparently real new to message boards.

However I believe ridding the salary cap would only hurt things worse in the long run.

[edgar]

Welcome to the board...

Nice attempt at a write up but honestly, and I see what you are trying to do here, you might want to keep your day job.

Thanks for your feedback and will work on things to improve to everyone's likings.


You're conclusion that, "So its an open challange to what we should do with this issue. For now, ill just enjoy my slice of the cake." just comes off as admitting that there is no depth or perspective that you can lend us, so why waste our time writing it in the first place. This is a message board where you have to say something outrageous or inflammatory to get a topic going.

To be quite honest I would hate to be the guy to have to make a decision on the NBA's salary cap. I don't lean more on any decision as to what to do on this subject but just think we need to do something. This is a matter of discussing rather than to make a point. :toast

[K-State Spur]

The thing about Childress is that it's not like there weren't NBA teams that could exceed his Greek offer.

They just a) didn't feel that he was worth that kind of money and b) any NBA deal he received could be matched by the Hawks.

[edgar]

The thing about Childress is that it's not like there weren't NBA teams that could exceed his Greek offer.

They just didn't feel that he was worth that kind of money.


Point well made, but sooner or later these clubs will come to the conclusion that "hey, lets now go after the big fish!" for now though they are just happy to get some nba talent.

[anakha]

Very cajunspur-esque article.

[edgar]

Untill stars are leaving I wouldnt worry about it, if the dollar gets stronger it will even lessen the chance player leave.

I would like to see some adjustments to the salary cap, I would like to do away with guarnteed money, go to an NFL type system but keep a hard cap. This gives teams the ability to improve every year and dump guys who are stealing money like Eddie Curry and Randolph from NY.

I would like to see teams be rewarded by staying under the cap by having some sort of added cap room in one yr for stayn under it for 3 yrs in a row.

I think alot of improvments can be made that will help smaller market teams be able to sign big named FAs without overpaying.


Out of all your writting, I specifically agree with that fact that we should be able to stop slackers and ppl not worth their money, from attaining this money and therefor cutting into the cap room. But what to do about the outside influence that these other big time players are getting. (i.e Lebron James :bking)

[Squid]

I ink on no salary cap.

[edgar]

Very cajunspur-esque article.


Im sorry, im new, I don't get the joke/?

:rolleyes

[K-State Spur]

Point well made, but sooner or later these clubs will come to the conclusion that "hey, lets now go after the big fish!" for now though they are just happy to get some nba talent.

There are issues with that as well. Most big fish currently have deals with shoe companies (and other endorsements) that would prefer their guys get the exposure that only the NBA currently provides.

I think the league is much more at risk of losing out on foreign talent vs. an exodus of domestic players. We may see the occasional 3rd tier player (like Childress) jump abroad, but - for the immediate future - I would expect that to be the anomaly, not the norm.

Obviously, eventually, things will always change. To assume that the US will always have an economy that can sustain the top sports leagues (at least in the sports that we care about) is naive at best.

[edgar]

True

[DPG21920]

Name any other business that operates in a free market capitalist society that gets to just dump "employees" and slackers. If teams wanted to do that, they should have to do what every other company does: fire them and honor their contracts. Just like CEO's have golden parachutes, if you enter into a contract with a player, you need to honor it or negotiate a buy out. Why should front offices who make terrible decisions be rewarded by enabling them to get out easy?

If a regular company makes a bad decisions like that, their stock price plummets and people get fired. The company pays the price. Owners here already get "assistance" if they are not making money and they do not force bad owners to sell their teams or higher better general managers. That is already 10x more help than a company in any other industry gets. Stockholders would have the heads of some of these "companies/teams" if they operated as some of them do and make such poor decisions.

Another thing is that what you are talking about is already in position. You are saying do away with the cap, others say that would be devastating to the league. Good news is the league already took care of that by creating a soft cap. You can pay as much as you want under certain rules, you will have to pay a luxury tax, but you can still do it. You can waive players and negotiate buyouts, what more do you want? The soft-cap is the perfect way to ensure that you can have your cake and eat it to. If the Hawks wanted to pay Childress that much, they could have. They would have to go into luxury tax to do it, but it is a business decision they have to face in the industry in which they operate.

[edgar]

Another thing is that what you are talking about is already in position. You are saying do away with the cap, others say that would be devastating to the league. Good news is the league already took care of that by creating a soft cap. You can pay as much as you want under certain rules, you will have to pay a luxury tax, but you can still do it. You can waive players and negotiate buyouts, what more do you want? The soft-cap is the perfect way to ensure that you can have your cake and eat it to. If the Hawks wanted to pay Childress that much, they could have. They would have to go into luxury tax to do it, but it is a business decision they have to face in the industry in which they operate.


You can pay the player more to keep him but the problem was that the team that swayed him away does not have to follow those rules nor do they have to pay taxes. The fact that non-nba teams can just come in and swoop players away without having to suffer any consequence but the team trying to attain his player does, is not fair! Its not a point of being able to pay him but about fairness to the team that has his rights.

[anakha]

Im sorry, im new, I don't get the joke/?

:rolleyes

Query for the threads started by that guy, and you'll get it.

[DPG21920]

You can pay the player more to keep him but the problem was that the team that swayed him away does not have to follow those rules nor do they have to pay taxes. The fact that non-nba teams can just come in and swoop players away without having to suffer any consequence but the team trying to attain will is not fair. Its not a point of being able to pay him but about fairness to the team that has his rights.

It is fair. It is called market value. Willingness to pay. If someone is willing to pay "x" amount for something and you value it the same, that is what you should pay. You could always waive players to make more room to avoid the luxury tax. It is another business decision that everyone in every industry has to make; how much are you willing to pay and do you think you will get the necessary ROI for the risks involved.

To say that other teams do not have to suffer consequences is silly. Over paying is over paying. So if the main market in which a commodity is traded (in this case the NBA) all value someone in a general range and someone comes in a way overpays, there will be repercussions in the future such as: much lower ROI because the returns you get from a player remain about the same, while the price has risen, cornering yourself on what you can do in the future if you want to make the jump to next level players (since you overpaid Childress, you will also have to drastically overpay Lebron, Kobe...and that does eat into your profits) and many other scenarios such as that. Just because you have money does not mean you should overpay for an asset (within reason it is ok, especially when it is an extremely important asset).

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The fact that non-nba teams can just come in and swoop players away without having to suffer any consequence but the team trying to attain will is not fair.

If the player isn't under contract, why should they have to suffer any consequence?

More than likely you will see the NBA and Euroleague work out a deal similar to MLS and European futbol where the clubs have to compensate one another for a player going to the other league.

As big a prick as Stern is this is right in his wheelhouse and he's already probably working on something like this.

[edgar]

It is fair. It is called market value. Willingness to pay. If someone is willing to pay "x" amount for something and you value it the same, that is what you should pay. You could always waive players to make more room to avoid the luxury tax. It is another business decision that everyone in every industry has to make; how much are you willing to pay and do you think you will get the necessary ROI for the risks involved.

To say that other teams do not have to suffer consequences is silly. Over paying is over paying. So if the main market in which a commodity is traded (in this case the NBA) all value someone in a general range and someone comes in a way overpays, there will be repercussions in the future such as: much lower ROI because the returns you get from a player remain about the same, while the price has risen, cornering yourself on what you can do in the future if you want to make the jump to next level players (since you overpaid Childress, you will also have to drastically overpay Lebron, Kobe...and that does eat into your profits) and many other scenarios such as that. Just because you have money does not mean you should overpay for an asset (within reason it is ok, especially when it is an extremely important asset).

Overpaying is overpaying true, but i just still wish we could somehow tax these teams from taking our talent, but then again they aren't objects and two they probably would want to do the same for their European talents.

In the end, a king dies and another one will soon arisen. :lmao

[DPG21920]

Point being, if there was some rich Russian owner in the NBA who did not care about how much he spent, and valued Childress, he would have paid, even if meant luxury tax. You can not separate the two. Salary = negotiated contract + any other costs associated with the asset. Just like if a farmer buys a tractor. Cost of the tractor = price they paid the dealer + maintenance + gas + someone to operate the vehicle + insurance. You could just consider all of the things other than the price tag at the dealer luxury tax.

[DROB4EVER]

Out of all your writting, I specifically agree with that fact that we should be able to stop slackers and ppl not worth their money, from attaining this money and therefor cutting into the cap room. But what to do about the outside influence that these other big time players are getting. (i.e Lebron James :bking)

I dont think you can do anything about it right now without giving a huge advantage to teams like NY LA NJ CHI......teams that if we got rid of the cap will spend and spend and will dominate every yr. Small and mid market teams will suffer, but if we could as I said before cut scrubs who dont pan out, that will free up money for every team and what would happen is you would have teams paying for performance and the players who dont perform will wash out and end up in Europe.

Lets take Childress for example, he got what amounts to 7 mil pr year....but no one could pay him here for that amount because of the cap. Its not the cap thats the problem its the CRAP. Think about it lets say we coudl dump Bonner, Vaughn, Oberto.....that frees up 7 mil, then we could sign Childress.

The guys we dump would then either resign for vets min or go over seas. This way you keep the good and great players in the NBA and weed out the crap. Its ashame Josh had to leave to get paid cause I think he is a great 6th man. And while he is over seas we are overpaying crappy players. And the leauge is littered with them.

I think this system would work well.

[edgar]

If the player isn't under contract, why should they have to suffer any consequence?

Hawks had his rights and he was a restricted free agent..so other teams had to go above the matched offer..no one wanted to do that though..

[DPG21920]

That is why the soft cap is a great answer to the problem. It allows controlled flexibility and encourages and rewards savvy management.

Also, another consequence these foreign teams will have to deal with is that paying lots of money does not = winning. Just ask the Knicks...

[DPG21920]

I dont think you can do anything about it right now without giving a huge advantage to teams like NY LA NJ CHI......teams that if we got rid of the cap will spend and spend and will dominate every yr. Small and mid market teams will suffer, but if we could as I said before cut scrubs who dont pan out, that will free up money for every team and what would happen is you would have teams paying for performance and the players who dont perform will wash out and end up in Europe.

Lets take Childress for example, he got what amounts to 7 mil pr year....but no one could pay him here for that amount because of the cap. Its not the cap thats the problem its the CRAP. Think about it lets say we coudl dump Bonner, Vaughn, Oberto.....that frees up 7 mil, then we could sign Childress.

The guys we dump would then either resign for vets min or go over seas. This way you keep the good and great players in the NBA and weed out the crap. Its ashame Josh had to leave to get paid cause I think he is a great 6th man. And while he is over seas we are overpaying crappy players. And the leauge is littered with them.

I think this system would work well.

What player would sign under these conditions? You try telling players that you are going to take away their financial security long-term. I would bolt to Europe so fast that it would not even be funny.

Also, the Knicks do spend and spend under the current system and they do not dominate. The Yankees do not dominate.

[DPG21920]

Hawks had his rights and he was a restricted free agent..so other teams had to go above the matched offer..no one wanted to do that though..

They had the ability to do that. Why do you think the Clippers renounced the rights to so many of their players in order to make room to sign Baron Davis and Elton Brand (so they thought)? That was one of many options.

Childress was not under contract with the Hawks although they had his rights. He could of excepted the qualifying offer and become unrestricted next year, signed an offer sheet from another NBA team that suits him best, or sign overseas. He choose the latter, the Hawks had a fair chance to make many moves in order to sign him and they did not.

[ss1986v2]

Also, the Knicks do spend and spend under the current system and they do not dominate. The Yankees do not dominate.
when was the last time a team not named the "yankees" or "red sox" won the AL east?

[edgar]

I dont think you can do anything about it right now without giving a huge advantage to teams like NY LA NJ CHI......teams that if we got rid of the cap will spend and spend and will dominate every yr. Small and mid market teams will suffer, but if we could as I said before cut scrubs who dont pan out, that will free up money for every team and what would happen is you would have teams paying for performance and the players who dont perform will wash out and end up in Europe.

Lets take Childress for example, he got what amounts to 7 mil pr year....but no one could pay him here for that amount because of the cap. Its not the cap thats the problem its the CRAP. Think about it lets say we coudl dump Bonner, Vaughn, Oberto.....that frees up 7 mil, then we could sign Childress.

The guys we dump would then either resign for vets min or go over seas. This way you keep the good and great players in the NBA and weed out the crap. Its ashame Josh had to leave to get paid cause I think he is a great 6th man. And while he is over seas we are overpaying crappy players. And the leauge is littered with them.

I think this system would work well.

I agree especially with the part where we weed out THE CRAP!

I envision contracts based on performance...where only so much is guranteed up front..then depending on how your team is using you is how you will get paid. Not necesarly on what you produce (i.e points, assist, blocks) but instead on your time productivity, O.M.G like in a real world JOB! Now the great thing for the player on this one would be the fact that if the team is not using him for at least X amount of time, then they are forced to release him or trade him to someone who may want him. Players would definetly be out there hussling at every lose fould and we would eliminate any slackers and like you stated crappy players who are sitting on their a## at the end of the bench.

Why should I always be working hard, staying in favor of my bosses to keep my job, while these big shot nba players sit and collect pay checks? That makes me sick. :bang

[K-State Spur]

when was the last time a team not named the "yankees" or "red sox" won the AL east?

1997 - Orioles (who had the largest payroll in baseball that year)

[DPG21920]

I dont think you can do anything about it right now without giving a huge advantage to teams like NY LA NJ CHI......teams that if we got rid of the cap will spend and spend and will dominate every yr. Small and mid market teams will suffer, but if we could as I said before cut scrubs who dont pan out, that will free up money for every team and what would happen is you would have teams paying for performance and the players who dont perform will wash out and end up in Europe.

Lets take Childress for example, he got what amounts to 7 mil pr year....but no one could pay him here for that amount because of the cap. Its not the cap thats the problem its the CRAP. Think about it lets say we coudl dump Bonner, Vaughn, Oberto.....that frees up 7 mil, then we could sign Childress.

The guys we dump would then either resign for vets min or go over seas. This way you keep the good and great players in the NBA and weed out the crap. Its ashame Josh had to leave to get paid cause I think he is a great 6th man. And while he is over seas we are overpaying crappy players. And the leauge is littered with them.

I think this system would work well.

Also, you can do what you said already. You can cut a player. You will have to honor their contract, but you can do it if you want to clear cap space in order to avoid luxury tax when signing a new player. It just becomes a total cost calculation. Is keeping (in your example) Bonner, Vaughn and Oberto and signing Childress while paying a luxury tax a cheaper option than cutting them and negotiating a buyout and then signing Childress and avoiding luxury tax. That is not all you have to consider however. In each option you have to see what will make your team the most competitive overall? You have to look at that plus the actual costs in order to determine what is the best route to go.

[DPG21920]

when was the last time a team not named the "yankees" or "red sox" won the AL east?

Ask the Lakers how great it feels to win the West?

[DROB4EVER]

What player would sign under these conditions? You try telling players that you are going to take away their financial security long-term. I would bolt to Europe so fast that it would not even be funny.

Also, the Knicks do spend and spend under the current system and they do not dominate. The Yankees do not dominate.

Nfl is the best run pro sports leauge by far and they use it. Players will sign where ever the money is, players who love the game and play well are rewarded, players like Mike James, Eddie Curry, Jerome James sign big contracts and destroy the ability of the team to be compeditive untill they are unloaded.

Players would get signing bonus so they would get security. And where will these players bolt too? The Eruo leauges will only pay so many players. The system now is broken on two levels, a team is screwed if they sign a guy and he doesnt work out, it may take years before they can contend and we are seeing lots of good players get max deals use up all the money from 29-30 teams then we start losing guys who want to stay but cant get paid so they go over seas.

As in any other job, perform get rewarded, dont show up get fired. Why souldnt it be this way in the pros?

[edgar]

Nfl is the best run pro sports leauge by far and they use it. Players will sign where ever the money is, players who love the game and play well are rewarded, players like Mike James, Eddie Curry, Jerome James sign big contracts and destroy the ability of the team to be compeditive untill they are unloaded.

Players would get signing bonus so they would get security. And where will these players bolt too? The Eruo leauges will only pay so many players. The system now is broken on two levels, a team is screwed if they sign a guy and he doesnt work out, it may take years before they can contend and we are seeing lots of good players get max deals use up all the money from 29-30 teams then we start losing guys who want to stay but cant get paid so they go over seas.

As in any other job, perform get rewarded, dont show up get fired. Why souldnt it be this way in the pros?

I agree..either play or be played!

[ss1986v2]

Ask the Lakers how great it feels to win the West?
lets ask them how it felt in the 80s to win the pacific division 9 times out of 10.

[DPG21920]

Nfl is the best run pro sports leauge by far and they use it. Players will sign where ever the money is, players who love the game and play well are rewarded, players like Mike James, Eddie Curry, Jerome James sign big contracts and destroy the ability of the team to be compeditive untill they are unloaded.

Players would get signing bonus so they would get security. And where will these players bolt too? The Eruo leauges will only pay so many players. The system now is broken on two levels, a team is screwed if they sign a guy and he doesnt work out, it may take years before they can contend and we are seeing lots of good players get max deals use up all the money from 29-30 teams then we start losing guys who want to stay but cant get paid so they go over seas.

As in any other job, perform get rewarded, dont show up get fired. Why souldnt it be this way in the pros?

It is that way, for smart teams. Why do you think someone like Matt Bonner gets 3M and not 10M like Dampier? It is not the players fault that management is willing to give these guys massive contracts. Quit making dumb ass decisions.

While I agree that the NFL is run nicely, do not act like they do not have some of the same problems, especially when rookies (especially quarter backs) are given huge portions of guaranteed money in favor of guys who have proven themselves in the league.

[DROB4EVER]

Also, you can do what you said already. You can cut a player. You will have to honor their contract, but you can do it if you want to clear cap space in order to avoid luxury tax when signing a new player. It just becomes a total cost calculation. Is keeping (in your example) Bonner, Vaughn and Oberto and signing Childress while paying a luxury tax a cheaper option than cutting them and negotiating a buyout and then signing Childress and avoiding luxury tax. That is not all you have to consider however. In each option you have to see what will make your team the most competitive overall? You have to look at that plus the actual costs in order to determine what is the best route to go.

Im not sure how the buy out thing works in the NBA but I believe the NBA still counts the bought out players salary againt the team. Stern had tried to get the players association to agree to 1 time every 5 yrs a bad contract can be dumped, the team still must pay the player the full amount but, it would not count against the cap. Thats how Fin became a Free Agent a couple yrs back. But as far as I can tell a bought out player is normally only done to create a roster spot, team must still pay player and tax.

What I am talking about is being able to cut a player with no penalty, and the players contract is over. Like the NFL. All a player is gaurenteed is his signing bonus, then he would get a yearly salary and could be cut any time but the bonus money would be counted against the cap.

This would allow teams to get better every year if they wanted to, and would filter out the trash in the leauge. It would also reward the good players with higher salaries but the bench players would see a pay cut.

I mean dont you think bonner getting 3 mil to sit on the bench in a suit? Jerome James who has played what 100min in 3 yrs in NY getting 5 mil a year.

[edgar]

It is that way, for smart teams. Why do you think someone like Matt Bonner gets 3M and not 10M like Dampier? It is not the players fault that management is willing to give these guys massive contracts. Quit making dumb ass decisions.

While I agree that the NFL is run nicely, do not act like they do not have some of the same problems, especially when rookies (especially quarter backs) are given huge portions of guaranteed money in favor of guys who have proven themselves in the league.

Thats where you are wrong.

Its kinda like getting a new product without an insurance. You expect that product to last you a good 3-5 years tops but after the 1 year it breaks down and doesn't produce. WTF are you gonna do with it now? :lmao

[DPG21920]

lets ask them how it felt in the 80s to win the pacific division 9 times out of 10.

You do realize it is 2008? Funny how you can point to one successful large market franchise that has been successful over a sustained period of time, but forget to mention the vast majority who are not that spend more than 80% of the league:
Final 2007-2008 Luxury Tax Numbers

July 9, 2008 11:53 AM

The NBA's luxury tax -- a 100% tax to the League for player salaries in excess of $67,865,000 -- has proven to be much more effective than the salary cap when it comes to controlling spending.

With all of the complicated bonuses and everything else factored in, just eight of the League's thirty teams are now proven to have been over the luxury tax in 2007-2008.

The Knicks are still the kings in this category, but with big-earning Jason Kidd in the house, the Mavericks are nipping at their heels.

Both NBA finalists are on the list of payers, but of the teams with the eight highest payrolls, only three made it past the first round of the playoffs.

Per the NBA, they are as follows:

* New York Knicks $19,723,946
* Dallas Mavericks $19,613,295
* Cleveland Cavaliers $14,008,561
* Denver Nuggets $13,572,079
* Miami Heat $8,318,879
* Boston Celtics $8,218,368
* Los Angeles Lakers $5,131,757
* Phoenix Suns $3,867,313

Total domination from the big spenders year in and year out.

[DPG21920]

Im not sure how the buy out thing works in the NBA but I believe the NBA still counts the bought out players salary againt the team. Stern had tried to get the players association to agree to 1 time every 5 yrs a bad contract can be dumped, the team still must pay the player the full amount but, it would not count against the cap. Thats how Fin became a Free Agent a couple yrs back. But as far as I can tell a bought out player is normally only done to create a roster spot, team must still pay player and tax.

What I am talking about is being able to cut a player with no penalty, and the players contract is over. Like the NFL. All a player is gaurenteed is his signing bonus, then he would get a yearly salary and could be cut any time but the bonus money would be counted against the cap.

This would allow teams to get better every year if they wanted to, and would filter out the trash in the leauge. It would also reward the good players with higher salaries but the bench players would see a pay cut.

I mean dont you think bonner getting 3 mil to sit on the bench in a suit? Jerome James who has played what 100min in 3 yrs in NY getting 5 mil a year.

Once again, who's fault is it that they make that money? Did the team have to pay them? There is always going to be bench fodder. Not everyone can play. 3M is a very reasonable amount.

[DROB4EVER]

It is that way, for smart teams. Why do you think someone like Matt Bonner gets 3M and not 10M like Dampier? It is not the players fault that management is willing to give these guys massive contracts. Quit making dumb ass decisions.

While I agree that the NFL is run nicely, do not act like they do not have some of the same problems, especially when rookies (especially quarter backs) are given huge portions of guaranteed money in favor of guys who have proven themselves in the league.

Oh I agree with you about bad managment, but I think the leauge will have to step in at sometime to make sure the worlds best players stay here, and if teams make poor decisions then they are not able to better there team which hurts the leauge in the long run.

Under this system guys like Damp wouldnt even be in the NBA anymore and guys like Childress would. Im not saying this is a perfect system but I sure would like to see how much better the spurs could be if they could add real star quality players and dump the trash. I would like to see a system where the top 7 or 8 players would get 85% of the teams payroll and the 9-15guys get min deals.

[DPG21920]

Thats where you are wrong.

Its kinda like getting a new product without an insurance. You expect that product to last you a good 3-5 years tops but after the 1 year it breaks down and doesn't produce. WTF are you gonna do with it now? :lmao

It is a risk. Each industry has risks. Some industries are more risky, which is why they require more of a premium on their returns. In the context of the amount of money these teams deal with, 3M is very reasonable for Matt Bonner's skill set.

[edgar]

It is a risk. Each industry has risks. Some industries are more risky, which is why they require more of a premium on their returns. In the context of the amount of money these teams deal with, 3M is very reasonable for Matt Bonner's skill set.

Industries also created a funny thing called "Insurance". Why not make our own kind in the nba? Play and produce enough playing time (not necessarly talent wise i.e pts, assists, block) and we will continue to keep that check coming.

[ss1986v2]

You do realize it is 2008? Funny how you can point to one successful large market franchise that has been successful over a sustained period of time, but forget to mention the vast majority who are not that spend more than 80% of the league:
this is all under the current cba in the nba. not the free spending world of mlb or the 80s nba. nba teams are currently restricted on how they spend what money they do. the knicks have shown a willingness to spend, but because of lack of options, incompetent management, and that hole burning in their pocket, it gets spent stupidly. they have made haphazard trades, spent far too much money resigning their own free agents, and spending what room they have had (MLE for example) on mediocre talent thats its killed their cap for the last decade or so.

if they had the option, you can bet they would be throwing it at top shelf talent. but they arent allowed to do that, so they end up simply throwing wads of cash at whoever seems to be standing nearest to them. because the rules restrict how they can spend it.

[DPG21920]

Oh I agree with you about bad managment, but I think the leauge will have to step in at sometime to make sure the worlds best players stay here, and if teams make poor decisions then they are not able to better there team which hurts the leauge in the long run.

Under this system guys like Damp wouldnt even be in the NBA anymore and guys like Childress would. Im not saying this is a perfect system but I sure would like to see how much better the spurs could be if they could add real star quality players and dump the trash. I would like to see a system where the top 7 or 8 players would get 85% of the teams payroll and the 9-15guys get min deals.

Dampier would still be here. If he is capable of starting now for a team that has won 50+ games he would not just disappear.

Of the Spurs current team, which is comprised of 12 players, the top 8 players on the team make 60M of the 64M that is on the books.

[DROB4EVER]

Once again, who's fault is it that they make that money? Did the team have to pay them? There is always going to be bench fodder. Not everyone can play. 3M is a very reasonable amount.

3 mil is reasonable to who? If it reasonable we would have people calling us about a trade. 3 mil for bonner is rape! a 12th man is not worth 3 mil per yr.

And while he stays in the NBA Childress leaves, and soon it will be more good player leaving while guys like Bonner, J James, Diop, ect....are keeping teams from offering more money.

Just think, if we could have dumped a couple clowns we would have been able to offer Maggette maybe 7 mil pr yr who know maybe more.

I also would like to see and increase in the MLE, that may help a bit.

[DPG21920]

this is all under the current cba in the nba. not the free spending world of mlb or the 80s nba. nba teams are currently restricted on how they spend what money they do. the knicks have shown a willingness to spend, but because of lack of options, incompetent management, and that hole burning in their pocket, it gets spent stupidly. they have made haphazard trades, spent far too much money resigning their own free agents, and spending what room they have had (MLE for example) on mediocre talent thats its killed their cap for the last decade or so.

if they had the option, you can bet they would be throwing it at top shelf talent. but they arent allowed to do that, so they end up simply throwing wads of cash at whoever seems to be standing nearest to them. because the rules restrict how they can spend it.

To a certain degree it does. If they do not throw stupid amounts of money at worthless players, then they would have more money to spend when free agency hits. They can also make smarter trades and get players rights.They also have their own players rights. When they have those players rights they can sign them to what ever they want pretty much.

[DROB4EVER]

Dampier would still be here. If he is capable of starting now for a team that has won 50+ games he would not just disappear.

Of the Spurs current team, which is comprised of 12 players, the top 8 players on the team make 60M of the 64M that is on the books.

Ill take your word on the facts but the spurs are a cheap team, and an older team that has vested players at the upper level of pay range so they are special case, my problem is with guys who are 9th 10th ect men getting 3-4 or more mil pr year, I think this is hurting the leauge.

You dont find 3rd string QBs making 3-4 mil pr yr why shoud we have a 12th man making 3 pr yr the next 2yrs?

[DROB4EVER]

Dampier would still be here. If he is capable of starting now for a team that has won 50+ games he would not just disappear.

Of the Spurs current team, which is comprised of 12 players, the top 8 players on the team make 60M of the 64M that is on the books.

He starts because they have no one else, he is a lazy overpaid loser. Thats why they went out and got Diop. Damp may get a job in the NBA but not at 10 pr year. And Dallas has to play him because he does make 10pr yr, he and his contract have limited them to what they can do to improve.

Its ashamed Dirk will never win a title becasue Dallas payroll will prohibit them from improving.

[ss1986v2]

To a certain degree it does. If they do not throw stupid amounts of money at worthless players, then they would have more money to spend when free agency hits. They can also make smarter trades and get players rights.They also have their own players rights. When they have those players rights they can sign them to what ever they want pretty much.
we dont disagree on this topic i think. i was simply stating that when you impose no restriction on how teams spend, the team that do spend the most inevitable field the most consistently competitive teams (see: mlb). the nba currently has restrictions in place, which alters this above statement, which in my opinion is a good thing. it rewards teams that do make both sound fiscal and personnel decisions.

[DPG21920]

Ill take your word on the facts but the spurs are a cheap team, and an older team that has vested players at the upper level of pay range so they are special case, my problem is with guys who are 9th 10th ect men getting 3-4 or more mil pr year, I think this is hurting the leauge.

You dont find 3rd string QBs making 3-4 mil pr yr why should we have a 12th man making 3 pr yr the next 2yrs?

If you move to incentive based contracts with bonuses, that would not do anything to help bad management. Just like in football, where guys like Vick got way overpaid, you would still have the same problem. Cowboys spend money, they have not won a playoff game in years.

In the NBA you can renounce players rights, trade them, buy them out, cut them. You do not have to give someone money just because you have it. Evidently the feel it necessary to have a 12th man on the roster or else every team would just have minimum players to fill those spots.

[DPG21920]

Here is a link to the salaries of every team, but the Spurs in particular are shown. It is a good site to look at salaries fyi:

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp

[DPG21920]

we dont disagree on this topic i think. i was simply stating that when you impose no restriction on how teams spend, the team that do spend the most inevitable field the most consistently competitive teams (see: mlb). the nba currently has restrictions in place, which alters this above statement, which in my opinion is a good thing. it rewards teams that do make both sound fiscal and personnel decisions.

Exactly. The soft-cap is the perfect way to run a league imo. You can still spend all the money you want (for the most part), but there are penalties and repercussions for bad management decisions.

[L.I.T]

Eventually, the owners of these European basketball clubs are going to be expecting a return on their investment. Teams in the NBA spend $50-100M just for player salaries and reap some sort of monetary benefit: whether it be from ticket sales, merchandising, television, advertising etc. Spurs fans are pretty familiar with this since it's the most common accusation hurled at Peter Holt (ie. a cheap bastard whose prioritizing cost effective spending to maintain a solid bottomline). Donald Sterling has been using the LA Clippers as a cash cow for years: spending just enough to keep them competitive, but not enough to cut into his profits.

Right now the European teams are awash with crazy amounts of liquidity: funds flowing from oil companies and also the dollar/euro exchange rate. But, no matter what, the owners of those teams aren't altruistic angels; its all fun and games right now, but eventually they will expect some sort of ROI. If that doesn't materialize, then why would they continue to sink money into a losing proposition? Prestige?

The United States is still the dominant advertising market in the world. Asia is fast coming up as well and the NBA has been spending the last few years making sure they have a solid handle on this market. I live in Asia and I NEVER hear about European teams. Would I if lets say Lebron moved to a European team? Possibly, but there would be no name recognition or cachet for the brand or the league, unlike what the NBA has right now. That is something that then has to be built through massive advertising dollars and market penetration. They would have to go on a huge information campaign to educate the global market.

The case to study right now is not the mid-tier talent migrating to Europe, but David Beckham. He was given an astronomical contract in an attempt to raise the profile of the MLS in the United States and globally. Is it working? Do soccer fans in Europe and Latin American care about the MLS and the LA Galaxy?

All of this is a roundabout way of saying, the NBA should not get rid of the salary cap. They've tried it without one and eventually lower-tier teams would get squeezed out and operating expenses astronomically sky-rocket to the point where all teams would probably start losing money. That's not fiscally sound for the NBA as a league and each NBA team.

[DPG21920]

He starts because they have no one else, he is a lazy overpaid loser. Thats why they went out and got Diop. Damp may get a job in the NBA but not at 10 pr year. And Dallas has to play him because he does make 10pr yr, he and his contract have limited them to what they can do to improve.

Its ashamed Dirk will never win a title because Dallas payroll will prohibit them from improving.

That is just not true. Dampier was not the only option when they signed him. They could of signed someone else. He can play and is not a bad center. He is not worth 10M in my opinion, but he would help a lot of teams, including the Spurs.

If Mark Cuban was the Spurs owner, the Spurs would be in the same position as the Mavs. That is not a league problem, that is a management problem.

[rj215]

That is just not true. Dampier was not the only option when they signed him. They could of signed someone else. He can play and is not a bad center. He is not worth 10M in my opinion, but he would help a lot of teams, including the Spurs.

If Mark Cuban was the Spurs owner, the Spurs would be in the same position as the Mavs. That is not a league problem, that is a management problem.

Small market teams (like the Spurs) need the salary cap or they'll die.
What NBA execs need are guts and brains:

Cuban essentially gave up Nash for Dampier...brilliant!

Then he traded for 65 year old Ason Kidd...nice!

Then he wouldn't include Josh Howard in a trade for Ron Artest...probably stupid.

[wildbill2u]

What is generally considered to be the biggest, most popular sport worldwide? Football or Soccer and its star players get super compensation.

Yet, twice that I know of, superstars from that sport (Pele and the English guy) have jumped to leagues in the US for additional insane money contracts and from a desire to improve the sport in the US.

If it can happen to the biggest sport in the world, why not the NBA?

[K-State Spur]

What is generally considered to be the biggest, most popular sport worldwide? Football or Soccer and its star players get super compensation.

Yet, twice that I know of, superstars from that sport (Pele and the English guy) have jumped to leagues in the US for additional insane money contracts and from a desire to improve the sport in the US.

If it can happen to the biggest sport in the world, why not the NBA?

it should be noted that both of those players were well past their primes before making the US jump.

[DDS4]

Hell to the NO.

Look at baseball and there's your answer. Even with a cap, it's all about big market teams like the Knicks, Lakers, and Celtics. You can imagine it'll be infinitely worse without a cap, with all big name free agents going to larger market teams with money.

If it means sacrificing a Childress or Arroyo going overseas, it's worth it to keep the cap.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Hawks had his rights and he was a restricted free agent..so other teams had to go above the matched offer..no one wanted to do that though..

The Hawks could have matched the Euro offer but chose not to. In essence, a team with cap room made him an offer, Atlanta could have matched but passed.

[lotr1trekkie]

The current NBA systems works to protect less affluent owners and smaller markets. ANY so called solution that permitted the so called BIGS to buy up the superstars would be a disaster for the NBA. In 2010 if KING JAMES wants to go to play for Tau or Moscow or some Greek team [I can't spell]---let him go! Euros idolize soccer players, bikers and downhill racers more. King James becomes just prince James. If Tony Parker wants to go back to France in two years for 3 times the money so be it. Ditto Manu! NBA fans altready pay through the nose to make NBA players rich. If that ain't enough---we need to wish them God's speed and never retire their jerseys.

[Mark in Austin]

As big a prick as Stern is this is right in his wheelhouse and he's already probably working on something like this.

Truth.

[wijayas]

No way. The Peter Holt's of the world won't be able to compete with the Paul Allen's of the world...