until they get a hard cap in basketball

[ducks]

teams like the lakers and knicks will say who cares
their tv contracts pays them so they do not care if they have to pay major luxury tax. I believe if teams are in luxury tax they should lose their draft picks. They have to do something besides fine these teams. Money means nothing to these teams. They want to try to buy their champship. People say spur fans should not care because they do not have a legit shot unless something miracle happens. I disagree. They may not have a shot now but later and then if lakers do something like get someone like dwight howard then face major tax $$ then it hurts their chances. History shows lakers also seem to get help every year in their major weakness. Why not one of the other big market teams?

[benefactor]

This is easily one of the worst takes I've ever read.

[ducks]

thank you

[spurs1990]

OKC is just as likely to win the '13 championship and they've been constructed entirely via drafts and trades.

Secondarily there will always be injuries to be dealt with so the all-star squads will still have an uphill climb.

Lastly, the Bulls won 6 out of 8 and I don't remember anyone complaining about their constant presence in the title games. I actually believe having powerhouse teams is healthy for the NBA. Gives the other teams' fans a big target to root against.

[TheSpursFNRule]

This is easily one of the worst takes I've ever read.

How is this one of the worst takes you've ever read? OP made nothing but good points. A luxury tax punishment is essentially non existent to a bigger market team that is going to make money anyway because of media. So why not punish with draft picks? The Lakers will have 92 million in salary owed to their team in a few years and won't mean a fucking thing. Why do you people want big market teams to continue to dominate the league? You bring up OKC, a team that his built through the draft but it took them YEARS to get relevant. Not every GM is Same Presti and got a once in a generation Kevin Durant. That will not happen again for a while guaranteed. The league is ruined by this horse shit.

[kaji157]

I disagree, i think the cap should be as it is, what i would change is the tax as constructed. It should be redone in order to affect teams in similar ways.If the TV deals are somehow such a deciding factor then what i would do is to put the tax in percentage of net income of the TV deals so that teams with the greatest incomes from the TV feel the same impact as smaller market teams.

As an example i would say, if the Spurs exceed the luxury tax by a million, then they have to pay 1% of their net tv deal income to the league and teams under the tax. Then again, the lakers would do so, but their 1% would be a lot more money than the Spurs.

[sananspursfan21]

http://ak.buy.com/PI/0/500/224420977.jpg

[scanry]

Every Sport has em. Why only target the Lakers? Atleast the money spent has produced championships unlike the Knicks.

Ferrari spends almost $500 mil a year for producing 8-10 monocoques, 20 engines, 16 gearboxes for their Formula 1 cars. Talk about throwing money down the drain. In addition, the governing body gives them $100 million a year on top of the prize money for their contribution to F1 history. :wow

[Venti Quattro]

A hard cap is not going to change the culture of idiot teams/front offices.

[GoodOdor]

This is easily one of the worst takes I've ever read.

You understood any of that?

[Cane]

That's why we gotta appreciate the Duncan era

[benefactor]

How is this one of the worst takes you've ever read? OP made nothing but good points. A luxury tax punishment is essentially non existent to a bigger market team that is going to make money anyway because of media. So why not punish with draft picks? The Lakers will have 92 million in salary owed to their team in a few years and won't mean a fucking thing. Why do you people want big market teams to continue to dominate the league? You bring up OKC, a team that his built through the draft but it took them YEARS to get relevant. Not every GM is Same Presti and got a once in a generation Kevin Durant. That will not happen again for a while guaranteed. The league is ruined by this horse shit.
I will hold the sword while you run on it, if you like.

[Bruno]

There is a new CBA with a lot of new rules to avoid to have big market teams outspending by a big margin other teams. It's hard to tell whether or not these rules work since some still aren't applied. In 2 or 3 years, all these rules will be in full effect and we will see the result they will give.

Before asking for a new CBA, let's wait to see how the current one will work.

For example, if you look at what Lakers have done this summer:
- First, the Nash sign and trade will be forbidden by the CBA as soon as next year.
- Second, Lakers will be $30M over the tax this year. It will cost them and additional $30M in tax payment. In a couple of years, with the new luxury tax and the repeater tax, being $30M over the tax will cost an additional $115M.

[DMC]

This is easily one of the worst takes I've ever read.
I agree. The NBA is a business. Luxury tax isn't really a tax. It's a penalty paid to the NBA. If they did away with that, it would cost them hundreds of millions a year possibly. The NBA wants to give the appearance of a desire for parity, but they don't want to cut their nose off to spite their face.

[DMC]

There is a new CBA with a lot of new rules to avoid to have big market teams outspending by a big margin other teams. It's hard to tell whether or not these rules work since some still aren't applied. In 2 or 3 years, all these rules will be in full effect and we will see the result they will give.

Before asking for a new CBA, let's wait to see how the current one will work.

For example, if you look at what Lakers have done this summer:
- First, the Nash sign and trade will be forbidden by the CBA as soon as next year.
- Second, Lakers will be $30M over the tax this year. It will cost them and additional $30M in tax payment. In a couple of years, with the new luxury tax and the repeater tax, being $30M over the tax will cost an additional $115M.
What it really does it ensure that small market teams can never compete with luxury tax teams.

[Clipper Nation]

A hard cap is not going to change the culture of idiot teams/front offices.

It would make it easier for competently-managed teams to keep their players, tbh....

[Venti Quattro]

Who are the competent front-offices? Yeah, those who are championship contenders.

[Clipper Nation]

Who are the competent front-offices? Yeah, those who are championship contenders.

ChokeKC still can't afford to keep their whole core together and can't command a huge TV deal that cancels out the luxury tax.... Denver and Utah are also competently-managed teams that couldn't keep their stars.....

[DMC]

Who are the competent front-offices? Yeah, those who are championship contenders.

Being part of a team with a successful NBA history helps just a little. Surely the Lakers have more bargaining power than the Bobcats.

Being in a city where black athletes want to live also helps. Surely the Lakers have more attractiveness to black athletes than San Antonio or Dallas.

Being a franchise dominated by super black athletes like Johnson and Jabbar during the Bird years surely plays a factor in how some of these young guys perceive the teams in terms of good vs evil.

Knowing they will make more money and be Hollywood famous plays a large role. Surely players prefer that over Minnesota.

[swaggerjackson]

I would support a hard cap, but the nba will never go for it. The truth is that the Lakers are integral to the nba success as a whole and a hard cap would destroy them. As for forfeiting draft picks, I don't think that would weaken them at all. They never hold on to their picks. Other than Bynum and Fisher it is tough to name a key Laker player that they drafted and developed. They simply stick their pick at the end of the bench until he runs out his contract. Meanwhile they buy all the talent they need.

I would love to see a hard cap. Everyone who says the Lakers are a well run team is just wrong. Truthfully they engineered a hell of a trade. But would the whole thing have happened if Dwight Howard did not refuse to play for the magic? The magic had lost a lot of leverage. Not only did Dwight request to be trade, he was making the list of teams he would play for known publicly. The magic had their arm twisted into the deal. The Lakers are not geniuses they had a whinny superstar throwing a hissy fit until he could play for them. And as for the argument where people state that OKC and Spurs built contenders and high spending teams like the Knicks are perennial losers: then why do the Lakers spend so much? If money doesn't buy wins then why would they be afraid of a hard cap where they can't spend excessively? The truth is, money helps. And they Lakers would not survive without it.

This brings me to my main point which is the NBA is expanding all over the world and like it or not the Lakers are the most popular team. They don't always grab intense fans such as us, but to the average NBA fan who catches the games when they can or just watches highlights, they love the Lakers. The Lakers produce highlights, they have tradition of greatness, they sell cool products, the celebrities like the lakers, and the normally win. If you don't truly care about the game the Lakers are your team. They are the most fun. And to the rest of league and intense fans they are a villain. If you take away their ability to spend, you take away their life-blood. This is a team that thrives on attracting superstars, paying them like megastars, and then addressing last seasons weakness by overpaying free agents in the offseason. If they can't do that then suddenly Kobe gets too old to carry the team. Pau is soft and like Kobe ages. Steve Nash fades into the mist. Artest collects his check and contributes every fourth game. Howard dominates the salary cap but has not been a player capable of winning a championship on his own. They have no real significant young talent and no cap flexibility to make trades or signings. The lakers would be like every other team in the league all of the sudden.

PS I am sick of hearing 30 million in taxes versus 115 million in taxes on the new CBA. I hear that and these numbers sound high, but it is impossible to understand what they mean without knowing what the Lakers or Spurs are pulling in revenue in a given season. 115 million is more than I will make in my lifetime yes but if the lakers make 3 billion in revenue a season, suddenly it is no that much. If anyone could lend some insight to what teams are pulling in in a season I would be very interested.

[Obstructed_View]

A hard cap is not going to change the culture of idiot teams/front offices.

This. It's not really the fault of the Lakers that Orlando was willing to jump the gun and give up Howard for nothing and Philly was willing to let go of most of their best players to get Bynum. LA perhaps risked more than other teams were willing to by taking Howard with no guarantee that he'd re-sign, but nobody had a gun to the heads of all the stupid-ass teams that helped them get him.

[swaggerjackson]

Dwight Howard demanding a trade and making the teams he would play for known publicly is a gun to the head if you ask me. They were forced to trade him or let him walk next offseason with nothing in return.

This is what I hate. If Dwight wants to be a Laker that is fine. He needs to play out the CONTRACT he signed with the Orlando Magic and then sign with LA. There is nothing preventing him for being a Laker next offseason, the only problem is he would not get 20 million dollars a season for it. Players whine and cry for not getting the most amount of money to play where they want. Pick one: money or the team you want to be one. It is not their right to get both. If it happens great but this is ridiculous. They should sit these guys down and explain what a CONTRACT is.

[bbarry]

You say those teams buy their championships by means of signing big names... okay, but then you want to take away their draft picks which would do absolutely NOTHING to prevent them from stacking their roster with those big name signings..

yeah, not sure you thought this out really well at all.

[hsxvvd]

Three points.
1. The luxury tax doesn't work because the financial incentive of the tv deal when these teams are competitive outweighs the money they'd make with no luxury tax and the risk they take of years of rebuilding making them irrelevant.

2. Everybody wins financially because everybody benefits from the tv deals and the luxury tax money goes back to those under.

3. Canceling draft picks does little if they simply sign them after their rookie contracts anyway. Only way to stop it is to increase the gap between what their current team can offer and what they might receiving signing elsewhere. But even this is offset by sponsorship dollars in most cases.

[dbestpro]

Dwight Howard demanding a trade and making the teams he would play for known publicly is a gun to the head if you ask me. They were forced to trade him or let him walk next offseason with nothing in return.

This is what I hate. If Dwight wants to be a Laker that is fine. He needs to play out the CONTRACT he signed with the Orlando Magic and then sign with LA. There is nothing preventing him for being a Laker next offseason, the only problem is he would not get 20 million dollars a season for it. Players whine and cry for not getting the most amount of money to play where they want. Pick one: money or the team you want to be one. It is not their right to get both. If it happens great but this is ridiculous. They should sit these guys down and explain what a CONTRACT is.

Howard traded his cape for a coattail.

[Clipper Nation]

I actually think the NBA will have no choice but to implement an NFL-esque system by the next CBA negotiations, tbh..... it's either that, or every small-market team either getting contracted or trying to crowd into NY, LA, or Miami, tbh....

[therealtruth]

Three points.
1. The luxury tax doesn't work because the financial incentive of the tv deal when these teams are competitive outweighs the money they'd make with no luxury tax and the risk they take of years of rebuilding making them irrelevant.

2. Everybody wins financially because everybody benefits from the tv deals and the luxury tax money goes back to those under.

3. Canceling draft picks does little if they simply sign them after their rookie contracts anyway. Only way to stop it is to increase the gap between what their current team can offer and what they might receiving signing elsewhere. But even this is offset by sponsorship dollars in most cases.

We don't know yet. I doubt Buss will want to continue paying huge luxury payments without a championship. The new CBA allows you to go all in and just penalizes heavily for staying like that. So I imagine he's going to have a pretty quick hook if they're not getting results.

[therealtruth]

This. It's not really the fault of the Lakers that Orlando was willing to jump the gun and give up Howard for nothing and Philly was willing to let go of most of their best players to get Bynum. LA perhaps risked more than other teams were willing to by taking Howard with no guarantee that he'd re-sign, but nobody had a gun to the heads of all the stupid-ass teams that helped them get him.

Yeah I never understand that. George Karl is always complaining about how good the Lakers are but still allows them to get better. He must think helping the Lakers get Howard is OK since he's getting Igoudala.

[Obstructed_View]

Dwight Howard demanding a trade and making the teams he would play for known publicly is a gun to the head if you ask me. They were forced to trade him or let him walk next offseason with nothing in return.
Orlando ends up with shit, and didn't get rid of any of their bad contracts. They could easily have waited until the trade deadline and gotten more for Howard from a team that just wanted to rent him for half a year to make a run at a title. No player's trade demand put a gun to the heads of Philly and Denver.

[swaggerjackson]

How does he become more valuable at the deadline? It is the same exact scenario. He is asking for a trade. He still will have a select group of teams who he would agree to play for.

I agree that the Magic could have gotten more for Howard. Even if they didn't bring talent back in they needed to atleast clear cap space. But the point that I would like to make is that they should not have to be subject to player trade demands. They had a horrible season they got the number one pick. They picked Howard and worked to develop him. Then he signs a contract saying he will play in Orlando for a giant amount of money. Then he demands to be traded. The Orlando Magic should not have to purposefully destroy their team to accommodate one player's demands. This is a formula that is going to leave teams in shambles to satisfy a few superstars.

Now Dwight Howard is happy but every Magic fan is screwed for the next few season while they try and sort out the mess. I think this idea of the teams being responsible to star players is ridiculous. They signed a contract saying that they will play basketball to the best of their ability for a franchise, and they only seem to honor it when it works perfectly in their favor. If they don't like the situation they demand to be traded or simply give up and collect the money anyway (I am looking at you Diaw). I can't pretend to have the answer but the league needs to develop a system that benefits the whole. First of all not having teams remain powerhouses indefinitely, but also having a firm understanding that players are there to better the team.

I understand that it is rough to just be told you have been traded and have to move across the country immediately. But that is just the price you pay to play in the NBA. Trust me the pros outweigh the cons on this one. You might argue that this is selfish on the team's behave, but in reality the team is moving a couple of players to benefit the entire roster and fan base. It is not an action that only satisfies one person's desires, which is exactly what these trade demands are. I was hoping they would fix this in the lockout but it looks like the same old system right now. Hopefully the new tax penalties do make a difference, but I am skeptical. I think the CBA needs an overhaul and the power needs to be taken out of the players hands.

[Kidd K]

OP, I don't agree that they should lose draft picks, but I agree that there needs to be a change made.

Luxury tax isn't enough. There simply needs to be restrictions put in place to prevent stuff like this year from happening.

For example, something like: Once a team is in the luxury tax, they can no longer add a player to the team that gets paid more than an MLE, even via trade of another high salary player. If they want to trade said high salary player, it can be for multiple players to match up salary, but no high salary players.

That way they can't jump dump their inferior center with knees that he's about to have surgeory on for the best player in the NBA. . .and that way they can just basically sign Steve Nash to a multi-year 12m/year deal when they're already WAY over the cap. Essentially destroying the entire point of there even being a salary cap (trade exception, terrible idea)




OKC is just as likely to win the '13 championship and they've been constructed entirely via drafts and trades.

Secondarily there will always be injuries to be dealt with so the all-star squads will still have an uphill climb.

Lastly, the Bulls won 6 out of 8 and I don't remember anyone complaining about their constant presence in the title games. I actually believe having powerhouse teams is healthy for the NBA. Gives the other teams' fans a big target to root against.

That's besides the point, because OKC/Seattle has been terrible for a decade before they became good again. . .because of said salary situation. Many other teams face the same issues.

And yes, I've seen the arguments of "the Knicks are terrible despite having money", but that's just one of the few exceptions to what's otherwise normality. Just like the Spurs are a very rare and unique team that somehow manages to be good all the time despite never being very far above the salary cap any given year.

No one complained about the Bulls because they didn't buy their titles. They drafted Jordan, they drafted Pippen, they drafted Horace Grant, they drafted Kukoc, etc. They barely added much to that team through free agency at all. They also very rarely took part in any major trades; the only one I can even really think of is the one where the Spurs wanted to just get rid of Rodman because he was a dickhead. Which I don't consider to be in the same ballpark as the infamous Lakers "cash considerations" type trade.


The Lakers are the Yankees of the NBA. They buy their championships. That's always going to be disliked by a significant portion of the population. Usually those that enjoy watching "fair competition".

[Obstructed_View]

How does he become more valuable at the deadline? It is the same exact scenario. He is asking for a trade. He still will have a select group of teams who he would agree to play for.
Refusing to give him up for shit or requiring that a team take on a bad contract would be a good start, and would likely have teams sweetening the pot. Also, Howard didn't say there were teams he wouldn't play for, he said there were teams he would re-sign with. Again, a team might offer somehing during the season if he could bring them a title, even if he walks after doing so. Seriously, it was such a shit deal they could have simply waited around for a better offer, and the risk was very slight, even if they can't move him.


Everything else is the way professional sports has always been since the age of free agency.

[swaggerjackson]

I think saying you won't sign long term is essentially saying you don't want to play there. And you can debate that all day, but the fact is it has the same result. The result is that all those teams which he said he would not sign long term deals with are disincentivized to trade for him. That means his words have limited the number of teams who are willing to trade for him. He has handicapped the Magic from the start. The Magic had to make a deal which means other teams are not going to sweet the pot they are going to wait for the Magic to lower their asking price, knowing that the longer the wait the more desperate the Magic are to move him. They cut their losses early on this one to avoid an even worse deal. I am not saying they got a good deal but I see their logic.

[Obstructed_View]

Having a really hard time figuring out how the Magic avoided an even worse deal. What they got was worse than just letting his ass leave at the end of the season.

[swaggerjackson]

As much fun as I am having disagreeing with you I cannot refute that point. I think it was a terrible deal, but I think they had to make a deal and that is the problem. They should not have their arm twisted into making a bad deal. But at the same time what deal was out there where they truthfully get equal value for dwight howard. It is hard to construct one.

[Obstructed_View]

As much fun as I am having disagreeing with you I cannot refute that point. I think it was a terrible deal, but I think they had to make a deal and that is the problem. They should not have their arm twisted into making a bad deal. But at the same time what deal was out there where they truthfully get equal value for dwight howard. It is hard to construct one.

I really really wish for their sake that they'd made a deal that could be categorized as a "had to make" kind of deal. I can't blame the Magic for Shaq ending up in LA, but they can never complain about Howard being there. Perhaps they decided that they'd rather have him in the western conference, which I suppose could be a small victory, but given what they received I find it unlikely that they'll make it to the conference finals before Dwight retires.

[swaggerjackson]

I totally agree with that last statement. I will absolutely watch the Spurs and the NBA until Duncan retires, but after he is gone I can see myself just giving up on the NBA. I am really pushed away by the money grubbing, celebrity players; the fact that big market teams have distinct advantages; and the physicality being taken out of the game. I watched a documentary on the Pacers vs. the Knicks back when Jordan retired. Watching the clips of the game play back in 93 reminded me how much I miss that style of play. Now when a cutter goes down the lane a defender tries to slide under him and fall down to get the call. Back in the old days you went for the block and if you couldn't get it you put the offensive player on the ground. I miss that brand of basketball.

[Brutalis]

What's new? Just more money and business.

[therealtruth]

I totally agree with that last statement. I will absolutely watch the Spurs and the NBA until Duncan retires, but after he is gone I can see myself just giving up on the NBA. I am really pushed away by the money grubbing, celebrity players; the fact that big market teams have distinct advantages; and the physicality being taken out of the game. I watched a documentary on the Pacers vs. the Knicks back when Jordan retired. Watching the clips of the game play back in 93 reminded me how much I miss that style of play. Now when a cutter goes down the lane a defender tries to slide under him and fall down to get the call. Back in the old days you went for the block and if you couldn't get it you put the offensive player on the ground. I miss that brand of basketball.

I think the current style of play relies on the refs too much. I was always of the belief no blood no foul. Basically if the foul wasn't significant you shouldn't call it.

[Obstructed_View]

Too often you see a guy step under someone that's in the air or that's already released the ball (sometimes both) and draw a "charge". David Robinson used to draw charges once in a while and it's because he had such amazingly quick feet. 90 percent of what's called today is a simple blocking foul. If the NBA instituted a "when-in-doubt-it's-a-defensive-foul" policy, you'd see far more guys going for blocks. You shouldn't reward crappy defenders for just throwing themselves in front of a dribbling player.

That said, more players could take the Larry Johnson/Charles Barkley approach and start damaging people who try to draw a charge so much that they decide it's not a good idea.

[swaggerjackson]

Could not agree more. I always talk about this during games. Even when Manu draws a charge I still get annoy many times. It is bad for the game and over time I think it will push people away. I remember when there was contact it was a no call or it went against the defense. Now it amazes me how many offensive fouls are called. What is more amazing is when you consider the rules. What they call "holding position" is a joke. People feet are off the ground, or they are leaning into the defender. If they just call it by the literal rule they would clean up alot of this. But then again without handcheck rules on the perimeter slasher would have a cake walk to the free throw line.