As you might guessed, im bored to death, and its lockout.. that means no trade rumors, no free agents.. so I came to think of the lockout.. and came up with this, just for fun:

How would the teams/legaue look like with NO SALARY CAP?

Not pretty. The top tier teams would be Miami, new York, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, lakers. It would stay that way forever.

Other teams would simply fold, and league revenues would drop severely as would team rev's. The league would not last beyond a year

Quote from: KP43 on July 26, 2011, 10:37:56 AM

As you might guessed, im bored to death, and its lockout.. that means no trade rumors, no free agents.. so I came to think of the lockout.. and came up with this, just for fun:

How would the teams/legaue look like with NO SALARY CAP?

Not pretty. The top tier teams would be Miami, new York, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, lakers. It would stay that way forever.

Other teams would simply fold, and league revenues would drop severely as would team rev's. The league would not last beyond a year

it would last longer than a year...but you're right it wouldn't be pretty, teams that are willing to spend would overspend and make it almost impossible for others to contend.  Though some teams may happily collect revenue and start a "farm system" style team with homegrown talent like in the MLB

Wasn't baseball like this till recently? With sorta mixed results?

Kevin Durant would be the highest paid player.

The NBA with no salary cap would look a lot like European soccer leagues and, to a lesser extent, Euro basketball leagues as well.

The big market teams would be on top ad infinitum.  The smaller teams would have no hope of keeping superstars past their rookie contracts, signing any big free agents, or competing for anything much more than a playoff spot.  Maybe if some super rich owner really liked a particular city, and was willing to invest their own money (at a loss), an occasional small city would have success.  Otherwise it would be rare.

Personally, I have no problem with that.  If the owners don't want to share their money with each other, that's their problem.  They shouldn't be artifically limiting player salaries.  It's just wrong.

America is weird.  We belive in a free-market, but, want our sports to be socialistic, where all teams/cities have a chance to compete but at the expense of workers (players) earning a fair market value for their labor.  These are illegal labor practices absent collective bargaining.  Personally, I find it sickening.

It seems to me individual teams are either competing businesses or part of one business entity (league).  They can't be both.  If sports leagues want a level playing field for all teams, then that is a more of a single entity league (the MLS is like this).  In that case, all league revenues should be shared equally among all teams.  If the leagues want their teams to be competeing businesses, then they need to accept certain teams will always be disadvantaged.

If you set a salary cap at a level low enough for the lower revenue generating teams to compete and make money, the larger revenue generating teams will then be limited in what they can spend.  This ends up resulting in money that the larger revenue generating teams would have otherwise spent on player salaries instead going straight back into the owners pockets.  That is wrong and what player in their right mind would ever agree to those kind labor terms.

Quote from: KGs Knee on July 26, 2011, 04:21:20 PM

The NBA with no salary cap would look a lot like European soccer leagues and, to a lesser extent, Euro basketball leagues as well.

The big market teams would be on top ad infinitum.  The smaller teams would have no hope of keeping superstars past their rookie contracts, signing any big free agents, or competing for anything much more than a playoff spot.  Maybe if some super rich owner really liked a particular city, and was willing to invest their own money (at a loss), an occasional small city would have success.  Otherwise it would be rare.

Personally, I have no problem with that.  If the owners don't want to share their money with each other, that's their problem.  They shouldn't be artifically limiting player salaries.  It's just wrong.

America is weird.  We belive in a free-market, but, want our sports to be socialistic, where all teams/cities have a chance to compete but at the expense of workers (players) earning a fair market value for their labor.  These are illegal labor practices absent collective bargaining.  Personally, I find it sickening.

It seems to me individual teams are either competing businesses or part of one business entity (league).  They can't be both.  If sports leagues want a level playing field for all teams, then that is a more of a single entity league (the MLS is like this).  In that case, all league revenues should be shared equally among all teams.  If the leagues want their teams to be competeing businesses, then they need to accept certain teams will always be disadvantaged.

If you set a salary cap at a level low enough for the lower revenue generating teams to compete and make money, the larger revenue generating teams will then be limited in what they can spend.  This ends up resulting in money that the larger revenue generating teams would have otherwise spent on player salaries instead going straight back into the owners pockets.  That is wrong and what player in their right mind would ever agree to those kind labor terms.

That's an interesting take on this situation that I hadn't heard or considered before.  TP for you for the thought-provoking commentary

TP.. and, one question, why aren't YOU in David Stern's chair?

Would there be no union either?  If there was no union would there be a draft?  Imagine no draft too?  My head is going to explode!