That is why the soft cap is a great answer to the problem. It allows controlled flexibility and encourages and rewards savvy management.
Also, another consequence these foreign teams will have to deal with is that paying lots of money does not = winning. Just ask the Knicks...
What player would sign under these conditions? You try telling players that you are going to take away their financial security long-term. I would bolt to Europe so fast that it would not even be funny.
Also, the Knicks do spend and spend under the current system and they do not dominate. The Yankees do not dominate.
They had the ability to do that. Why do you think the Clippers renounced the rights to so many of their players in order to make room to sign Baron Davis and Elton Brand (so they thought)? That was one of many options.
Childress was not under contract with the Hawks although they had his rights. He could of excepted the qualifying offer and become unrestricted next year, signed an offer sheet from another NBA team that suits him best, or sign overseas. He choose the latter, the Hawks had a fair chance to make many moves in order to sign him and they did not.
when was the last time a team not named the "yankees" or "red sox" won the AL east?
I agree especially with the part where we weed out THE CRAP!
I envision contracts based on performance...where only so much is guranteed up front..then depending on how your team is using you is how you will get paid. Not necesarly on what you produce (i.e points, assist, blocks) but instead on your time productivity, O.M.G like in a real world JOB! Now the great thing for the player on this one would be the fact that if the team is not using him for at least X amount of time, then they are forced to release him or trade him to someone who may want him. Players would definetly be out there hussling at every lose fould and we would eliminate any slackers and like you stated crappy players who are sitting on their a## at the end of the bench.
Why should I always be working hard, staying in favor of my bosses to keep my job, while these big shot nba players sit and collect pay checks? That makes me sick.
1997 - Orioles (who had the largest payroll in baseball that year)
Also, you can do what you said already. You can cut a player. You will have to honor their contract, but you can do it if you want to clear cap space in order to avoid luxury tax when signing a new player. It just becomes a total cost calculation. Is keeping (in your example) Bonner, Vaughn and Oberto and signing Childress while paying a luxury tax a cheaper option than cutting them and negotiating a buyout and then signing Childress and avoiding luxury tax. That is not all you have to consider however. In each option you have to see what will make your team the most compe ive overall? You have to look at that plus the actual costs in order to determine what is the best route to go.
Nfl is the best run pro sports leauge by far and they use it. Players will sign where ever the money is, players who love the game and play well are rewarded, players like Mike James, Eddie Curry, Jerome James sign big contracts and destroy the ability of the team to be compeditive untill they are unloaded.
Players would get signing bonus so they would get security. And where will these players bolt too? The Eruo leauges will only pay so many players. The system now is broken on two levels, a team is screwed if they sign a guy and he doesnt work out, it may take years before they can contend and we are seeing lots of good players get max deals use up all the money from 29-30 teams then we start losing guys who want to stay but cant get paid so they go over seas.
As in any other job, perform get rewarded, dont show up get fired. Why souldnt it be this way in the pros?
Ask the Lakers how great it feels to win the West?
I agree..either play or be played!
lets ask them how it felt in the 80s to win the pacific division 9 times out of 10.
It is that way, for smart teams. Why do you think someone like Matt Bonner gets 3M and not 10M like Dampier? It is not the players fault that management is willing to give these guys massive contracts. Quit making dumb ass decisions.
While I agree that the NFL is run nicely, do not act like they do not have some of the same problems, especially when rookies (especially quarter backs) are given huge portions of guaranteed money in favor of guys who have proven themselves in the league.
Im not sure how the buy out thing works in the NBA but I believe the NBA still counts the bought out players salary againt the team. Stern had tried to get the players association to agree to 1 time every 5 yrs a bad contract can be dumped, the team still must pay the player the full amount but, it would not count against the cap. Thats how Fin became a Free Agent a couple yrs back. But as far as I can tell a bought out player is normally only done to create a roster spot, team must still pay player and tax.
What I am talking about is being able to cut a player with no penalty, and the players contract is over. Like the NFL. All a player is gaurenteed is his signing bonus, then he would get a yearly salary and could be cut any time but the bonus money would be counted against the cap.
This would allow teams to get better every year if they wanted to, and would filter out the trash in the leauge. It would also reward the good players with higher salaries but the bench players would see a pay cut.
I mean dont you think bonner getting 3 mil to sit on the bench in a suit? Jerome James who has played what 100min in 3 yrs in NY getting 5 mil a year.
Thats where you are wrong.
Its kinda like getting a new product without an insurance. You expect that product to last you a good 3-5 years tops but after the 1 year it breaks down and doesn't produce. WTF are you gonna do with it now?
You do realize it is 2008? Funny how you can point to one successful large market franchise that has been successful over a sustained period of time, but forget to mention the vast majority who are not that spend more than 80% of the league:
Final 2007-2008 Luxury Tax Numbers
July 9, 2008 11:53 AM
The NBA's luxury tax -- a 100% tax to the League for player salaries in excess of $67,865,000 -- has proven to be much more effective than the salary cap when it comes to controlling spending.
With all of the complicated bonuses and everything else factored in, just eight of the League's thirty teams are now proven to have been over the luxury tax in 2007-2008.
The Knicks are still the kings in this category, but with big-earning Jason Kidd in the house, the Mavericks are nipping at their heels.
Both NBA finalists are on the list of payers, but of the teams with the eight highest payrolls, only three made it past the first round of the playoffs.
Per the NBA, they are as follows:
* New York Knicks $19,723,946
* Dallas Mavericks $19,613,295
* Cleveland Cavaliers $14,008,561
* Denver Nuggets $13,572,079
* Miami Heat $8,318,879
* Boston Celtics $8,218,368
* Los Angeles Lakers $5,131,757
* Phoenix Suns $3,867,313
Total domination from the big spenders year in and year out.
Once again, who's fault is it that they make that money? Did the team have to pay them? There is always going to be bench fodder. Not everyone can play. 3M is a very reasonable amount.
Oh I agree with you about bad managment, but I think the leauge will have to step in at sometime to make sure the worlds best players stay here, and if teams make poor decisions then they are not able to better there team which hurts the leauge in the long run.
Under this system guys like Damp wouldnt even be in the NBA anymore and guys like Childress would. Im not saying this is a perfect system but I sure would like to see how much better the spurs could be if they could add real star quality players and dump the trash. I would like to see a system where the top 7 or 8 players would get 85% of the teams payroll and the 9-15guys get min deals.
It is a risk. Each industry has risks. Some industries are more risky, which is why they require more of a premium on their returns. In the context of the amount of money these teams deal with, 3M is very reasonable for Matt Bonner's skill set.Thats where you are wrong.
Its kinda like getting a new product without an insurance. You expect that product to last you a good 3-5 years tops but after the 1 year it breaks down and doesn't produce. WTF are you gonna do with it now?
Industries also created a funny thing called "Insurance". Why not make our own kind in the nba? Play and produce enough playing time (not necessarly talent wise i.e pts, assists, block) and we will continue to keep that check coming.
this is all under the current cba in the nba. not the free spending world of mlb or the 80s nba. nba teams are currently restricted on how they spend what money they do. the knicks have shown a willingness to spend, but because of lack of options, incompetent management, and that hole burning in their pocket, it gets spent stupidly. they have made haphazard trades, spent far too much money resigning their own free agents, and spending what room they have had (MLE for example) on mediocre talent thats its killed their cap for the last decade or so.
if they had the option, you can bet they would be throwing it at top shelf talent. but they arent allowed to do that, so they end up simply throwing wads of cash at whoever seems to be standing nearest to them. because the rules restrict how they can spend it.
Dampier would still be here. If he is capable of starting now for a team that has won 50+ games he would not just disappear.
Of the Spurs current team, which is comprised of 12 players, the top 8 players on the team make 60M of the 64M that is on the books.
3 mil is reasonable to who? If it reasonable we would have people calling us about a trade. 3 mil for bonner is rape! a 12th man is not worth 3 mil per yr.
And while he stays in the NBA Childress leaves, and soon it will be more good player leaving while guys like Bonner, J James, Diop, ect....are keeping teams from offering more money.
Just think, if we could have dumped a couple clowns we would have been able to offer Maggette maybe 7 mil pr yr who know maybe more.
I also would like to see and increase in the MLE, that may help a bit.
To a certain degree it does. If they do not throw stupid amounts of money at worthless players, then they would have more money to spend when free agency hits. They can also make smarter trades and get players rights.They also have their own players rights. When they have those players rights they can sign them to what ever they want pretty much.
Ill take your word on the facts but the spurs are a cheap team, and an older team that has vested players at the upper level of pay range so they are special case, my problem is with guys who are 9th 10th ect men getting 3-4 or more mil pr year, I think this is hurting the leauge.
You dont find 3rd string QBs making 3-4 mil pr yr why shoud we have a 12th man making 3 pr yr the next 2yrs?
He starts because they have no one else, he is a lazy overpaid loser. Thats why they went out and got Diop. Damp may get a job in the NBA but not at 10 pr year. And Dallas has to play him because he does make 10pr yr, he and his contract have limited them to what they can do to improve.
Its ashamed Dirk will never win a le becasue Dallas payroll will prohibit them from improving.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
