Bill Simmons Article on "How He Would Fix The Lockout"

[Roy H.]

I think automatically setting salary based upon all-star / All-NBA selections is a horrific idea.

[KGs Knee]

I think automatically setting salary based upon all-star / All-NBA selections is a horrific idea.

Yeah, this is where Simmons lost me.

This would likely result in major stat padding by players on marginal/losing teams, and possible in-fighting.

Also, players will never go for this.  They don't have any control over who makes the All-Star team.  Furthermore, All-Star teams are voted on arbitrarily by fans who sometimes seem to lack any knowledge of who is truly deserving.

[get_banners]

Owners have to exhibit some personal responsibility. It is THEIR CALL to sign players to contracts. They have a job as well - running an organization well. This is not the player's job. Anything that automatically determines salary (minus the draft) is crazy and allows an owner to not do their job. Yeah, salaries need to be reworked, but (as I've stated elsewhere), Joe Johnson's crazy contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault. It's his moronic owner's fault. Owners make tenfold more than players...how about making them do their own job? I say put in a reasonable hard cap for both max and min for teams (maybe $65m/$50m), that can be adjusted for inflation, etc. But don't let bad owners off the hook for making foolish decisions. 

[OsirusCeltics]

Contract to 20 teams!! Gosh it would be so much better

-Gain in profit, revenue sharing can be split 20 ways instead of 30

-Better wealth of talent. All the All-stars from the lost teams would now be on the remaining one. Make the competition better. No more of that huge talent difference between the team with the best record and the team with the worst record. More opportunities for all 20 teams to win a title every year
That 72-10 Bulls team wasn't a product of an impressive achievement, it was that the league was very watered-down

[KCattheStripe]

I think automatically setting salary based upon all-star / All-NBA selections is a horrific idea.

I really don't want media voting determining how someone gets paid.

[PosImpos]

I think automatically setting salary based upon all-star / All-NBA selections is a horrific idea.

I agree.  I liked the intention behind it, but I think it's a pretty bad idea.

[PosImpos]

There's a reason people all across the country go nuts for March Madness.  It's because you can never be sure how it's going to play out.

That isn't the reason people go nuts for March Madness at all.  Its GAMBLING.  Plain and simple.

Do you realize how many peolple who know nothing about college basketball get involved in tounranment pools?  A lot!  There are always people who otherwise wouldn't care a lick who get interested just for the sake of getting in on the fun of possibly winning some money and being invovled in the competetion indirectly.

It's the same reason the NFL is so wildly successful (along with the Super Bowl-which people who don't even care about football watch).  I am in a couple of football pools each year, and almost half of the participants have very little knowledge of football and probabaly couldn't name even 10 current players.  Yet despite this, these same people become interested when there is money to be won.

Honestly, all I'm talking about is an NBA where the champion is much more often like the '04 Pistons than the '01 Lakers or the 96 Bulls.  That's what I'd like to see.

This may be what YOU would like to see, but the casual fan definitely wouldn't.  TV ratings prove this.  TV ratings are always higher when there are dynasties and/or the major market teams are good.

As RAG50K stated, a league where a team like the '04 Pistons are commonplace would be less interesting for casual fans, and would also make the accomplishments of team like that less special.

Hold on, apparently you've misunderstood me.  I do not care AT ALL what the casual fan would find most interesting.  The casual fan would love to see the Miami Heat run over the league every year.

What I want to see is a good, competitive basketball league where the best TEAM wins.

Owners have to exhibit some personal responsibility. It is THEIR CALL to sign players to contracts. They have a job as well - running an organization well. This is not the player's job. Anything that automatically determines salary (minus the draft) is crazy and allows an owner to not do their job. Yeah, salaries need to be reworked, but (as I've stated elsewhere), Joe Johnson's crazy contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault. It's his moronic owner's fault. Owners make tenfold more than players...how about making them do their own job? I say put in a reasonable hard cap for both max and min for teams (maybe $65m/$50m), that can be adjusted for inflation, etc. But don't let bad owners off the hook for making foolish decisions. 

This is the argument I've heard again and again but it ignores the fact that not all owners are alike.  Big market teams (or teams with super rich owners) can afford to overpay players in order to compete at the highest level.  They spend well over the cap and pay top dollar for middle of the road players.  The only way for smaller market teams with less-wealthy owners to compete is to offer similar or even more lucrative contracts, since their own cities are generally less desirable destinations.

This means that small market teams are faced with the choice of spending too much to avoid losing money or spending too little to have a highly competitive roster.

Your argument suggests that the message to small market teams should be: "If you don't have the money to spend with the big boys and still break even, you don't deserve to be competitive."

[KGs Knee]

There's a reason people all across the country go nuts for March Madness.  It's because you can never be sure how it's going to play out.

That isn't the reason people go nuts for March Madness at all.  Its GAMBLING.  Plain and simple.

Do you realize how many peolple who know nothing about college basketball get involved in tounranment pools?  A lot!  There are always people who otherwise wouldn't care a lick who get interested just for the sake of getting in on the fun of possibly winning some money and being invovled in the competetion indirectly.

It's the same reason the NFL is so wildly successful (along with the Super Bowl-which people who don't even care about football watch).  I am in a couple of football pools each year, and almost half of the participants have very little knowledge of football and probabaly couldn't name even 10 current players.  Yet despite this, these same people become interested when there is money to be won.

Honestly, all I'm talking about is an NBA where the champion is much more often like the '04 Pistons than the '01 Lakers or the 96 Bulls.  That's what I'd like to see.

This may be what YOU would like to see, but the casual fan definitely wouldn't.  TV ratings prove this.  TV ratings are always higher when there are dynasties and/or the major market teams are good.

As RAG50K stated, a league where a team like the '04 Pistons are commonplace would be less interesting for casual fans, and would also make the accomplishments of team like that less special.

Hold on, apparently you've misunderstood me.  I do not care AT ALL what the casual fan would find most interesting.  The casual fan would love to see the Miami Heat run over the league every year.

What I want to see is a good, competitive basketball league where the best TEAM wins.

No, I didn't misunderstand you.  I get it that you prefer a league where the teams that win fit your ideal of the way basketball should be played.  I don't even really disagree that it's nice to see teams like that win.  My point was, the NBA is far more concerned about it's casual fans than they are their die-hard and knowledgable fans.  Fans like yourself will, for the most part, watch regardless.  Maybe a few would stop watching if they were substantially turned off by the style of play of the league, but not that many.

The NBA makes it's most money when casual fans are interested.  Teams like Miami are what interest casual fans, so, of course the NBA would like to see teams like that exist.

[PosImpos]

There's a reason people all across the country go nuts for March Madness.  It's because you can never be sure how it's going to play out.

That isn't the reason people go nuts for March Madness at all.  Its GAMBLING.  Plain and simple.

Do you realize how many peolple who know nothing about college basketball get involved in tounranment pools?  A lot!  There are always people who otherwise wouldn't care a lick who get interested just for the sake of getting in on the fun of possibly winning some money and being invovled in the competetion indirectly.

It's the same reason the NFL is so wildly successful (along with the Super Bowl-which people who don't even care about football watch).  I am in a couple of football pools each year, and almost half of the participants have very little knowledge of football and probabaly couldn't name even 10 current players.  Yet despite this, these same people become interested when there is money to be won.

Honestly, all I'm talking about is an NBA where the champion is much more often like the '04 Pistons than the '01 Lakers or the 96 Bulls.  That's what I'd like to see.

This may be what YOU would like to see, but the casual fan definitely wouldn't.  TV ratings prove this.  TV ratings are always higher when there are dynasties and/or the major market teams are good.

As RAG50K stated, a league where a team like the '04 Pistons are commonplace would be less interesting for casual fans, and would also make the accomplishments of team like that less special.

Hold on, apparently you've misunderstood me.  I do not care AT ALL what the casual fan would find most interesting.  The casual fan would love to see the Miami Heat run over the league every year.

What I want to see is a good, competitive basketball league where the best TEAM wins.

No, I didn't misunderstand you.  I get it that you prefer a league where the teams that win fit your ideal of the way basketball should be played.  I don't even really disagree that it's nice to see teams like that win.  My point was, the NBA is far more concerned about it's casual fans than they are their die-hard and knowledgable fans.  Fans like yourself will, for the most part, watch regardless.  Maybe a few would stop watching if they were substantially turned off by the style of play of the league, but not that many.

The NBA makes it's most money when casual fans are interested.  Teams like Miami are what interest casual fans, so, of course the NBA would like to see teams like that exist.

Yep, I'm fully aware of that.  And it's too bad, because as we saw during the Finals this year, it's the true teams that play the best basketball -- even against the stacked superstar squads.

[LooseCannon]

The only way for smaller market teams with less-wealthy owners to compete is to offer similar or even more lucrative contracts, since their own cities are generally less desirable destinations.

If the NBA institutes a hard cap, I suppose this means that small markets and cold weather cities are going to be less likely to sign free agents and retain their own because even more limited cap space means that players are more likely to decide on where to go based on intangibles.

[get_banners]

There's a reason people all across the country go nuts for March Madness.  It's because you can never be sure how it's going to play out.

That isn't the reason people go nuts for March Madness at all.  Its GAMBLING.  Plain and simple.

Do you realize how many peolple who know nothing about college basketball get involved in tounranment pools?  A lot!  There are always people who otherwise wouldn't care a lick who get interested just for the sake of getting in on the fun of possibly winning some money and being invovled in the competetion indirectly.

It's the same reason the NFL is so wildly successful (along with the Super Bowl-which people who don't even care about football watch).  I am in a couple of football pools each year, and almost half of the participants have very little knowledge of football and probabaly couldn't name even 10 current players.  Yet despite this, these same people become interested when there is money to be won.

Honestly, all I'm talking about is an NBA where the champion is much more often like the '04 Pistons than the '01 Lakers or the 96 Bulls.  That's what I'd like to see.

This may be what YOU would like to see, but the casual fan definitely wouldn't.  TV ratings prove this.  TV ratings are always higher when there are dynasties and/or the major market teams are good.

As RAG50K stated, a league where a team like the '04 Pistons are commonplace would be less interesting for casual fans, and would also make the accomplishments of team like that less special.

Hold on, apparently you've misunderstood me.  I do not care AT ALL what the casual fan would find most interesting.  The casual fan would love to see the Miami Heat run over the league every year.

What I want to see is a good, competitive basketball league where the best TEAM wins.

Owners have to exhibit some personal responsibility. It is THEIR CALL to sign players to contracts. They have a job as well - running an organization well. This is not the player's job. Anything that automatically determines salary (minus the draft) is crazy and allows an owner to not do their job. Yeah, salaries need to be reworked, but (as I've stated elsewhere), Joe Johnson's crazy contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault. It's his moronic owner's fault. Owners make tenfold more than players...how about making them do their own job? I say put in a reasonable hard cap for both max and min for teams (maybe $65m/$50m), that can be adjusted for inflation, etc. But don't let bad owners off the hook for making foolish decisions. 

This is the argument I've heard again and again but it ignores the fact that not all owners are alike.  Big market teams (or teams with super rich owners) can afford to overpay players in order to compete at the highest level.  They spend well over the cap and pay top dollar for middle of the road players.  The only way for smaller market teams with less-wealthy owners to compete is to offer similar or even more lucrative contracts, since their own cities are generally less desirable destinations.

This means that small market teams are faced with the choice of spending too much to avoid losing money or spending too little to have a highly competitive roster.

Your argument suggests that the message to small market teams should be: "If you don't have the money to spend with the big boys and still break even, you don't deserve to be competitive."

A reasonable hard upper and lower cap helps that matter a bit - make it harder for a repeat situation of the heat by making it financially nearly impossible for teams like miami, orlando, and LA that tend to attract more FAs by limiting how much they (and everyone) can spend. thus, if you want a superfriends situation, all the players have to leave a ridiculous amount of money on the table.

[cman88]

Owners have to exhibit some personal responsibility. It is THEIR CALL to sign players to contracts. They have a job as well - running an organization well. This is not the player's job. Anything that automatically determines salary (minus the draft) is crazy and allows an owner to not do their job. Yeah, salaries need to be reworked, but (as I've stated elsewhere), Joe Johnson's crazy contract isn't Joe Johnson's fault. It's his moronic owner's fault. Owners make tenfold more than players...how about making them do their own job? I say put in a reasonable hard cap for both max and min for teams (maybe $65m/$50m), that can be adjusted for inflation, etc. But don't let bad owners off the hook for making foolish decisions. 

to be fair though, a team like Atlanta's hands are effectively tied....the system as a whole is broken. If they dont sign Joe Johnson to a big contract, some other team with cap space will...and Atlanta goes into rebuilding mode...is it fair for teams to have their hands tied by their "star" players wanting more $$ and bigger contracts?....the players hold ALL the cards, they're getting their big contract either way..and this is why the owners want to change the system. 

we saw this situation with Perkins this year. Perkins wanted a big $$ contract and Danny decided to trade him to get something rather than let him leave and get nothing. and he recieved flack for it.

Tyson chandler, a good center..but hes looking for a big contract and might bolt out of Dallas...now, you're mark cuban do you overpay to keep the big part of your championship run this year? or let him walk and go back to 1st round exits? its this type of situation that handi-caps teams with bad contracts.

There needs to be a system that allows teams to keep their free agents and remain competitive. we're coming to a point now, where if you dont win "NOW" you are forced to over-pay your stars to keep them, handi-capping your team, or let them leave going into complete rebuilding mode

[PosImpos]

The only way for smaller market teams with less-wealthy owners to compete is to offer similar or even more lucrative contracts, since their own cities are generally less desirable destinations.

If the NBA institutes a hard cap, I suppose this means that small markets and cold weather cities are going to be less likely to sign free agents and retain their own because even more limited cap space means that players are more likely to decide on where to go based on intangibles.

Not if the CBA includes measures to empower franchises to resign their own players for more money / longer deals etc.

Also, lower / hard cap means fewer teams will have the cap space to sign free agents away from other teams.

[dlpin]

I am sorry, but this article was terrible, and had terrible, terrible ideas in them.

The tournament for the last seed is foolish and will essentially make the regular season meaningless.

His attempts to blame the players constantly is bs. His idea to base pay on all star and etc is silly.


And he can't seem to grasp that salaries are currently fixed at 57% of revenue no matter what. If some players are overpaid, it is because some others are underpaid. That may be unfair but is not the reason for the financial health (or lack thereof) of the league.

[PosImpos]

I am sorry, but this article was terrible, and had terrible, terrible ideas in them.

The tournament for the last seed is foolish and will essentially make the regular season meaningless.

His attempts to blame the players constantly is bs. His idea to base pay on all star and etc is silly.

I agree that both ideas are very silly, but I think his sentiment -- that the league should be open to trying creative / outside-the-box ideas to fix long standing problems -- is great.

a) teams need to have more incentive not to tank if they aren't at least a playoff contender

b) players need more incentive to put forth the full effort to keep improving even after they've landed a big contract.