Reply With Quote
Agreed. David is not amused though...
Always cracks me up when right wingers complain about s making cash in sports but then defend the bankers and their golden parachutes.
Agreed. David is not amused though...
The only way to improve parity (which even this wouldn't do it all) would be to change up the draft. For teams that miss the playoffs, the best record should get the most ping pong balls. It would keep teams from tanking, and help teams that are on the cusp of the playoffs land cheap top flight talent if they draft well to take that next step.
That's just because some "good" teams failed to live up to their expectations like NY and Brooklyn, and last season's Lakers of course.
banderas.gif
ElNono I would say there's actually more parity now. It's just parity of opportunity instead of talent. We're big-market teams having to cut costs or at least greatly limited in how much they can spend to improve. The fact that the league is being dominated by three small-market teams (and Miami) this season shows that. When we see the Nets, Knicks and Heat break up next year, it will be even more evident that teams with loads money but dumb front offices can't buy their way to championships anymore.
I'm not sure I agree. All those three small-market teams were basically put together with the old CBA, and they already had a fairly good control of their monies. The only team with a somewhat consistent success rate at throwing gobs of money at talent and actually winning were the Lakers. The Knicks are a prime example of that strategy going awfully wrong for a long, long time. If anything, the real purpose of such a punitive luxury tax is to stop owners from hurting themselves, at the expense of paying less for talent. Ultimately, the Nets are an attempt to pull a Miami and build another "superfriends" team. In a way, I'm glad is not working.
It's a complex topic, there's a lot of things in play. But when you only see 4-5 teams out of 30 having a real shot, then it's not really different than the previous CBA. When it comes to addressing parity, it looks like utter failure.
I think what makes it different is that any team can build like Indiana. New York could decide tomorrow to completely change their front office and focus on building a winning system. It may or may not work, but it was always an option. Not every team can build like the Lakers did. And now, they can't either. If Philly, Orlando, New Orleans or Detroit win out on Wiggins, they could be the next powerhouse. There probably won't be another Miami for a long time.
It also greatly narrows windows for le teams, as OKC and soon Indiana can attest to. So we're won't see another Spurs for an even longer time.
What I think is really going to happen is this CBA is going to be gutted once the economy props up a bit again, and the excuse of "teams not making enough money" dries out. Also disagree about not being another Miami. There will always be a FA market, and players willing to sign for less to chase a ring or earn more in endorsements. It's actually the problem with too-stiff salary caps. The uncapped outside-the-court earnings get more value, and those are much, much larger on big markets. There's not going to be an even playing field as long as that's around.
The NBA has the least amount of parity of the 4 pro sports in North America.
If you disagree with capitalism, that's fine, but then your stance is that the billionaire owners should get more of the or that federal regulations should be imposed on ticket prices and merchandising prices.
It's supply and demand. There's one Kobe, and a hundred million be@ners in LA who worship him. You do the math.
The NBA is the sport with the least amount of players in the game at the same time, and hockey is the only one that's close. Hockey is a much less star-dominated sport by nature, so that's not really a fault of the CBA.
The last 10 years of the NBA have been dominated by Duncan, the big markets, and a ridiculously potent Detroit team. Again, difficult to control that, and the NBA has done what they can to prevent teams like the Lakers from going 30 million over the cap on a yearly basis.
Need a hard cap. That's the logical next step to more parity. Or just make the luxury tax even more prohibitive and FORCE the smaller market teams to spend the revenue they receive.
Don't look now but the MLB is slowly starting to get there despite no salary cap.
I'm surprised it hasn't happened quicker when Red Sox, Yankees et al can just spend whatever they want.
I think these arbitrary caps are futile if the endgame is to even the playing field. I think Lebron, Kirby et all should be truly part of a capitalist system and get paid what they're really worth, salary-wise.
He deserves more than the $90 million for the revenue he generates for the league and his sponsors. Same for global icons like Jordan, LeBron, Messi and Ronaldo. Their salaries are negligible in comparison to the revenue they generate for their club, league and sponsors.
So are you suggesting that teams be forced to pay a player more even if the player will settle for less? Doesn't that fly in the face of a free market system? I see no reason to punish a player for being a high value player by restricting his ability to play for less elsewhere. Sure it's gaming the system, but franchises need to become attractive destinations for players. League parity isn't nearly as important as free market. Who cares about a bunch of teams with players you don't know or like who just got moved around because their stats are being used to balance the field?
Or, are you saying that the cap should be lifted and these guys should be able to capitalize on their demand, basically gathering their rosebuds while they may? That's what I think you're saying. If that's the case, the wealthiest teams will have all the talent and there won't be any real league. There has to be a limited amount to work with in compe ion. It's their ability to manage that amount the most efficiently that should make the difference. Spending your way to a ring is a Yankees concept, and though it's not always worked in baseball, in basketball I think it would.
A free market would trip the league of the power to rig games which's the real reason why they'll never implement a real free market in NBA imho. Teams all have to act as their puppets no matter rich or poor, big or small
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
