Captivus
12-27-2012, 09:33 AM
Excuse my english!
In Argentina we have car racing and like in the rest of the world the objective is to win. What happens in a particular category is that the winner of the race will receive weight for the next race in order to be more “even” with the rest of the teams.
Before I say what I want to say, I want to clarify that I don’t have a definite opinion on the subject, I just want to hear other opinions.
I want to talk about the new agreement, which modifies the penalties for teams that spend above the cap.
The aim of this is to match all the teams to make the NBA a more competitive league. The question I ask is: To what extent is this fair?
If a team has more fans, fills their arena every game, the fans are willing to pay more money to see their team, buy more shirts, etc. Is it fair to penalize that team to pair it with a team that has less fans, who do not want to pay a lot to see their team, do not buy so many shirts, etc.?
I do not dislike this kind of rules, but I think that is spread to a point where it becomes unfair. A point where the "best" is punished in order to lose.
Exaggerating the situation somewhat, why not directly give the trophy to a different team every year? There is nothing more "even" than that.
The objective of this thread is NOT to provide solutions, but just to understand my point of view: I think would be fair to let the teams spend as much money as they want, provided they come from NBA related income. Maybe they could put a soft cap just to "help" a little, but not as strong as now.
At some point there will be teams that are going to be forced to trade players because of the penalties they will receive if they keep them, even though this team is the one with most fans, the better television contracts, sell more products, etc.
I don’t have a final opinion on this subject, but I think it is unfair to many teams.
What can a team feel (management, coaches, players, fans) when they win a championship, if that championship was achieved due to rules that punished those that are "better"?
We all like to win, and the "enjoy the ride" is not always enough if the goal is not achieved ... but achieving it due to rules is not what I want.
It goes without saying that I don’t want small teams to disappear, but watching the Bobcats win a championship because Miami give them Lebron because no other team could pay his salary it’s not something I like... and I think that's a scenario that can occur in any year, more if the team is over the cap repeatedly.
As a Spurs fan I like that a team with limited resources wins due to responsibility, work, effort. I would not like to win any other way, I'd rather lose.
The famous Hack-a-Shaq comes from the same concept.
Gerald Green jumps too high; put cement shoes ... would be more even, but is it fair?
I don’t know... the point where “even” becomes “unfair” fails to convince me…
In Argentina we have car racing and like in the rest of the world the objective is to win. What happens in a particular category is that the winner of the race will receive weight for the next race in order to be more “even” with the rest of the teams.
Before I say what I want to say, I want to clarify that I don’t have a definite opinion on the subject, I just want to hear other opinions.
I want to talk about the new agreement, which modifies the penalties for teams that spend above the cap.
The aim of this is to match all the teams to make the NBA a more competitive league. The question I ask is: To what extent is this fair?
If a team has more fans, fills their arena every game, the fans are willing to pay more money to see their team, buy more shirts, etc. Is it fair to penalize that team to pair it with a team that has less fans, who do not want to pay a lot to see their team, do not buy so many shirts, etc.?
I do not dislike this kind of rules, but I think that is spread to a point where it becomes unfair. A point where the "best" is punished in order to lose.
Exaggerating the situation somewhat, why not directly give the trophy to a different team every year? There is nothing more "even" than that.
The objective of this thread is NOT to provide solutions, but just to understand my point of view: I think would be fair to let the teams spend as much money as they want, provided they come from NBA related income. Maybe they could put a soft cap just to "help" a little, but not as strong as now.
At some point there will be teams that are going to be forced to trade players because of the penalties they will receive if they keep them, even though this team is the one with most fans, the better television contracts, sell more products, etc.
I don’t have a final opinion on this subject, but I think it is unfair to many teams.
What can a team feel (management, coaches, players, fans) when they win a championship, if that championship was achieved due to rules that punished those that are "better"?
We all like to win, and the "enjoy the ride" is not always enough if the goal is not achieved ... but achieving it due to rules is not what I want.
It goes without saying that I don’t want small teams to disappear, but watching the Bobcats win a championship because Miami give them Lebron because no other team could pay his salary it’s not something I like... and I think that's a scenario that can occur in any year, more if the team is over the cap repeatedly.
As a Spurs fan I like that a team with limited resources wins due to responsibility, work, effort. I would not like to win any other way, I'd rather lose.
The famous Hack-a-Shaq comes from the same concept.
Gerald Green jumps too high; put cement shoes ... would be more even, but is it fair?
I don’t know... the point where “even” becomes “unfair” fails to convince me…