Reply With Quote
When SpursTalk gets really bored, they start doubting the existence of the Spurs
After following this free agent frenzy, ad nauseum, I have come to seriously doubt the existence of the Spurs in 5 to 10 years if the next CBA doesn't level the playing field even more. For the average SA fan ticket prices are already prohibitive except for the upper decks. SA and other non-major cities will not be able to compete unless each team has the same same number of chips in the game.
The Knicks and Nets are offering the most $$$ because they can then pass on the cost to their cable viewers over the MSG network. Have a choice? Don't pay or don't see any games all year. NO free TV. Imagine SA with no free broadcasts. Pay the fee, go to the game or don't watch.
The NFL has a less then imperfect system that has provided parity. Otherwise Payton Manning would be playing in Chicago, NY, Miami or Boston + others by now.
When SpursTalk gets really bored, they start doubting the existence of the Spurs
I have heard some people speculate that if the max is too small, then going to a team where the possibility of getting better endorsement contracts might become a significant difference; therefore, even in that situation, the big money towns own.
Not any different than now in that respect.
Hard cap seems to be the most proven way to parity; max salaries lower will only get you part way there. Hard cap also leads to good players being more evenly spread throughout the league...
The thing that I am against because it would destroy player/team iden y would be making one-way contracts where teams can tear it up but the player can't; that encourages teams to gamble because they are not stuck to their mistakes. I think players migrate too much with that.
hard cap is the only way to go. luxury tax further penalizes small markets.
The NFL has jumped from the third most popular sport to the first by being able to bury their contract mistakes. The first couple of years, players took it personally, but now, it's just part of the business. The players understand that only the guaranteed money is guaranteed, and if they want the rest or part of the rest, they're going to have to earn it. The only players this will affect are the Eddie Currys and the Tim Thomases. If you bring it, you earn. If you don't, you're curbside.
There are 2 major problems I can see and non are related to "rules" or agreements.
- Owners that are little interested in the game. You have them making decision based on what makes them lose less money instead of what makes them win games and therefore win money later. See Sterling, Donald.
- General managers that give away too much money on players that obviously not deserving it. Bill Simmons actually makes some sense when he asks something like "If I pay this guy max money, it means he is my best player or a very, very good second best player, am I winning a championship with him being either of those 2?" The answer is almost always: "No". See Johnson, Joe or Lewis, Rashard. There is nothing wrong with either of them, is just that you can't expect to win a championship when you can't afford to get a better team when you have players like them on $120 million. You just can't.
Good examples for my point too. What the are you aspiring to when you give that much money to players like them. There are a few "new" contracts like that this year.
So why should the players be penalized for an owner and GM's stupidity, giving out large contracts? The players are the ones putting out the product out there.
So a gm's stupidity can't be forgiving but a player being paid a max contract and then not showing up can?
No one said the player was worth a max contract, yet you give him one. Great logic. So why should the player be penalized for accepting a contract he is not deserving of?
If the 2011-12 season ends up being shortened like the 1999 season, it could help a team depending on a creaky Duncan and Ginobili. Endurance isn't exactly our greatest quality.
Also, I'm all for a hard salary cap. If you look over a year-by-year list of nba champions, it's pretty easy to see that the structure of the league very much favors dynasties, which is boring as a fan. Plus this is the only way small market teams can keep up and new franchises can potentially get started.
This.
But the NFL gives out fat signing bonuses as well.
The problem is that leverage has now gone too far to the players. Johnson and Amare-- 20 $$$ men. Sorry neither of these players are HOF material unless you reduce it to stats. 4 mil for a backup pointguard in LA doesn't work in SA. The NBA is slowly drifting back to an only rich owner's league. Owners are stupid because they have no choice except to fold. Joe Johnson for 20 mil!!!
IF THE SPURS AREN'T CHAMPIONSHIP COMPE IVE IN 3 YEARS --WHO WILL GO TO THE GAMES? Who will be able afford to the games with family?
What the are you talking about? Ticket prices are not going to reduce just because the players are going to take a paycut. In the end, the product gets paid lesser and you still pay the same amount for tickets. Is this fair to the players? I don't think so unless the owner suits up and starts balling for the league too.
Ticket prices are already "reducing". They need to bring payroll costs into line. The only way to do that is "pay for play". You're given a nice contract, part guaranteed, part earned. It's been a highly successful formula for about 15 years in the NFL.
It still doesn't solve stupidity. I don't see the point of reducing the product's pay and let the owners cash in for doing nothing except dishing out the money and collect more money. It only makes rich people richer. Ticket prices reduced because of the recession, if the owners had a choice, they wouldn't reduce ticket prices.
Sorry chef leon. You simply didn't understand the issue. If David and Tim had gone for the money only-- SA Spurs wouldn't exist right now. I am of the opinion that all tickets from any sports event should be from personal money. Like going to a movie. The entire tax code needs to be adjusted so that losing money is not a tax break for the owners.
Until this last extension that will cover the final two years of his career, when did Tim take anything less than the maximum possible contract?
What does that second bolded portion even mean?
The way it is now, the only way to gain or retain a player is to give him max money. If theres no chance top tier free agents i.e Lebron, wade, bosh, etc. are goin to sign with your team, holding on to whoever you can may mean having to give a 2nd tier player max money. See: Joe Johnson.
Incorrect. If David hadn't gone for the money, then the Spurs wouldn't exist. David got a 10 year contract that guaranteed him the average of the two other highest paid players in the league, every year. Also, when Tim stayed instead of going to Orlando, he got a bigger contract than he could have elsewhere.
So whose fault is it? GMs and owners not playing hard ball and agreeing to everything or the player's fault for signing? That is how negotiations work. The fault lies within the organization for caving in so easily. 1 day into free agency, deals were already agreed to, so whose fault is it?
The cba as is.
So you are trying to blame the CBA, a collective bargaining agreement that the owners and players reached an agreement on which benefited the players? So it is the owners' fault for not playing hard ball and caving in so easily.
No point in doing it again. That's our point. You seem to think the status quo is fine. We don't.
And yet you don't have a reason to reduce a player's salary?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
