Reply With Quote
This is easily one of the worst takes I've ever read.
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?
This is easily one of the worst takes I've ever read.
thank you
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 le games. I actually believe having powerhouse teams is healthy for the NBA. Gives the other teams' fans a big target to root against.
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 ing 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 .
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.
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.
A hard cap is not going to change the culture of idiot teams/front offices.
You understood any of that?
That's why we gotta appreciate the Duncan era
I will hold the sword while you run on it, if you like.
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.
Last edited by Bruno; 08-19-2012 at 03:49 PM.
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.
What it really does it ensure that small market teams can never compete with luxury tax teams.
It would make it easier for competently-managed teams to keep their players, tbh....
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.....
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Three points.
1. The luxury tax doesn't work because the financial incentive of the tv deal when these teams are compe ive 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.
Howard traded his cape for a coattail.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
