Reply With Quote
The CBA didn't account for stupid FOs.
Its been said on the boards and in the national media quite a bit, but remember how the lockout was suppose to be about making the league more compe ive, leveling the playing field, and getting rid of FO overspending and bloated contracts...
And then Omar Asik was offered $25 million 3 year contract, Laundry Fields got a 20 million 3 year deal, Nash is getting a sign and trade to a team with nearly $80 million in salary committed before the trade and without sending any salary back, and Jeremy Lin is reportedly being offered something in the ballpark of 30-40 million for a 3-4 year deal. There are others I'm missing, but again, other than the 50-50 revenue split, what the did we miss 16 games and have a compressed season last year for. Seriously?
The CBA didn't account for stupid FOs.
All that stuff about compe ion was a subordinate goal that the owners abandoned.
They got the 50-50 split, the more punitive tax, and revenue sharing.
The league as a whole will be more profitable. If individual owners want to spend like drunken idiots, that's fine as long as they pay their taxes.
I like that the contracts are shorter. In fact I think it'd be better if the max length is only 3 years. Some crappy players are getting loads of cash. These owners are really doing some stupid spending.
Wasn't it 2 or 3 seasons until the punitive tax comes into play? There's still time for some of these teams to shred salary.
Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA are at the same tax levels as before.
Years 3 and 4 the higher taxes take effect.
Year 5 and beyond, the most punitive taxes for repeat offenders kick in.
This. It was never about compe ion. There are only so many good players, and as long as their salaries are kept constrained to far below market value there won't be compe ion. This was obvious at the time of the lockout to people that paid attention.
Only way to get compe ion would be a salary cap with no maximum individual salary. Teams offer $40 million to LeBron, fill out with scrubs but the union would never agree to that, as all but the top guys would lose a ton of money.
Lol
Preach on, brother, cuz CBF is in tha middle of tha choir
IMO, players don't get paid enough money. It's pretty lame that they put in all the hard work, get the brunt of the criticism, put their long-term health on the line and never really get to lead a regular life and yet some anonymous suit splits the money with them 50/50.
But that may just be me.
Well lets put it into perspective its just a game and there getting payed to play. If anything it is a blessing to get paid that much to play a GAME.
Regular life? They get paid millions of dollars. You know who should get paid are men and women in the military.
Supply and demand.
I have always said - It would be a lot easier to find owners than this talent. That really is the only argument to me on who deserves more.
And doctors and firemen etc etc
Let's stop acting like running a basketball team is easy business. 50/50 is ransom on the players part...you think people would go watch these players if it weren't for the built up hype/commercialism/tv deals/arenas to play in?
If the players just banned together to create their own league, do you think they'd pile up 50% of their "hard earned cash" to build the infrastructure for a league? No way....their greed would lead to their demise, because all a player would be concerned about is himself and making sure the league last just long enough for their career.
Without all the things the owners provide, players wouldn't even be making the income they enjoy today.
The whole concept that the players were saying that they lived in modern day slavery with a 60/40 like split was/is a disgusting exaggeration when the average working man makes 1/100th the average NBA player.
Exactly so all I'm saying is basketball players get payed a lot of money for what they do and saying the get paid to little is kinda blah.
Yea basketball players don't save peoples lifes all they do is play is a en game.
I agree. They can't even tweet their minds without getting fined.
I agree that players are underpaid. 57% was close, Owners were just losing money because there non player costs increased so much, and rather than control those they just went to take back money from the players.
Owners could wait out the season, as most of the money they get is from franchises rapidly appreciating in value over time. They were giving up a year of basically neutral cash flow, players would have sacrificed 2 Billion in salaries if they sat out the year. Owners used that fact to screw over the players.
We won't see an end to absurd contracts. The only way people are going to get pried away is offering a large contract that is above what a team will pay, and it's likely that the Winners curse will screw over the team that signs a player.
Players are underpaid? Are you kidding? I don't know what universe you live in but they get paid better than doctors,millitary, and policemen and they save lifes. All basketball players do is play a game. gtfo with that bs
What does that has to do with anything? If cops, doctors, military, firemen, etc could have the talent to play basketball and fill arenas like NBA players do, then they wouldn't be cops, doctors, military, firemen, etc.
You can't teach being Lebron James.
The CBA arguments were never about competative balance.
The NBA has never been about competative balance.
It's only been about owners getting more money and paying players less overall. Teams like the Lakers will still go well into the luxury tax because their income is so much higher than most of the other teams in the NBA and can afford it.
I disagree. Doing that is their choice; knowing all risks involved. If they were actually "defending the country", I might agree to a pay increase. . .but not that high since it's illogical. As bloated as US military spending is right now, it's bloated towards giving US-based defense contractors assloads of money to make vehicles, jets, and other bull . . .not it's personel who tend to be looked at as lowly peons by the rich pricks in charge.
this is what i also dont get, if half the teams are not compe ive or in any form of contenders, why do they need to spend close to the cap? they could just fit the requirements of the 80% cap rule and field out a ty roster collect the revenue sharing....
unless they are force to put out a product to fill seats in teh stadium....
Ya da, specially cuz you are spurs brass insider
WTF, I guess tha lj finally showed his colors with this one
I thought sign and trade are no longer allowed in new CBA?
To play devils advocate with the owners, its one thing to be a rare athletic talent at something, and another to find ways to monetize it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
