Who Do You Blame (Merged)

[Chris]

I don't think Stern has said that the owners are not motivated by greater profits.  He has been pretty clear that the owners want both.  They want a system where they can make money, and where they can make it easier for all teams to compete on a more level playing field.

Sorry, I meant that owners are solely motivated by greater guaranteed profits. There simply isn't any evidence that a better BRI split, a harder cap and less player movement are going to contribute to greater parity. Although I'd be happy to read evidence to the contrary.

The BRI split won't, but a harder cap will.  It won't completely level the playing field, but it will take away at least some advantages that certain teams have now.

Now, those advantages may not be very easily displayed with numbers, but through common sense, it is clear that if no team can have a larger payroll, then no team would have that advantage.

And also, let me be clear, it is not about parity, it is about trying to eliminate competitive advantages based on market size.

Parity is a vague word, that can really be defined a lot of ways, and can be manipulated however you want.  But, the bottom line is, currently, different teams are not playing on equal playing fields.  They want to change that.

[TheReaLPuba]

I don't think Stern has said that the owners are not motivated by greater profits.  He has been pretty clear that the owners want both.  They want a system where they can make money, and where they can make it easier for all teams to compete on a more level playing field.

Sorry, I meant that owners are solely motivated by greater guaranteed profits. There simply isn't any evidence that a better BRI split, a harder cap and less player movement are going to contribute to greater parity. Although I'd be happy to read evidence to the contrary.

The BRI split won't, but a harder cap will.  It won't completely level the playing field, but it will take away at least some advantages that certain teams have now.

Now, those advantages may not be very easily displayed with numbers, but through common sense, it is clear that if no team can have a larger payroll, then no team would have that advantage.

And also, let me be clear, it is not about parity, it is about trying to eliminate competitive advantages based on market size.

Parity is a vague word, that can really be defined a lot of ways, and can be manipulated however you want.  But, the bottom line is, currently, different teams are not playing on equal playing fields.  They want to change that.

A hard cap will be terrible for the NBA.

You will see more teams like the Miami Heat. 2 or 3 max contracts and fodder.

Only 5 of 6 teams viable for a championship for years and years.

If you think a hard cap will keep Superstars on separate teams you're highly mistaken. It will just create less player movement and players are just going to think more and more that their only chance of winning is to team up with other stars and still get paid a boat load too.

[Chris]

I don't think Stern has said that the owners are not motivated by greater profits.  He has been pretty clear that the owners want both.  They want a system where they can make money, and where they can make it easier for all teams to compete on a more level playing field.

Sorry, I meant that owners are solely motivated by greater guaranteed profits. There simply isn't any evidence that a better BRI split, a harder cap and less player movement are going to contribute to greater parity. Although I'd be happy to read evidence to the contrary.

The BRI split won't, but a harder cap will.  It won't completely level the playing field, but it will take away at least some advantages that certain teams have now.

Now, those advantages may not be very easily displayed with numbers, but through common sense, it is clear that if no team can have a larger payroll, then no team would have that advantage.

And also, let me be clear, it is not about parity, it is about trying to eliminate competitive advantages based on market size.

Parity is a vague word, that can really be defined a lot of ways, and can be manipulated however you want.  But, the bottom line is, currently, different teams are not playing on equal playing fields.  They want to change that.

A hard cap will be terrible for the NBA.

You will see more teams like the Miami Heat. 2 or 3 max contracts and fodder.

Only 5 of 6 teams viable for a championship for years and years.

If you think a hard cap will keep Superstars on separate teams you're highly mistaken. It will just create less player movement and players are just going to think more and more that their only chance of winning is to team up with other stars and still get paid a boat load too.

I never said any of that.  All I said was that a hard cap would do more to level the playing field.

[indeedproceed]

The Bucks acquired John Salmons mid season, had a good few months and then lost in the first round of the playoffs.

They lost in the first round of the playoffs after losing their best player, who also happens to be a top 5 (top 2 for me, but hey..) center in the NBA...I mean, it bears mentioning, since he was the major reason they were in a position to make the playoffs anyways, and trying to get the pieces to surround him to make the next jump forward isn't really a horrible idea, IMO

They respond by extending John Salmons to an above market deal. They then threw huge money at Corey Maggette and Drew Gooden on a gamble that they really can't afford.

Now this, this is a great point. Also, should be coupled with this:

The front office probably should have phoned Skiles to see if he'd even consider giving Maggette a steady role.

It's fine if that works out - though it seemed unlikely at the time that Maggette and Gooden were the pieces that they were missing to be a serious contender - but that's a gamble that the team can't afford. That's poor GM work, and it's really terrible business.

I mean...come on! Come on Milwaukee Bucks! You got a coach, who has a 5-6 year 'lifespan' in Skiles. You know what's gonna happen after about 5 years? The players are gonna out-grow him, and tune him out. So you've got a legitimately skilled two-way 7ft big man, who was (at the time) only 25 years old, and you've got a good core of role players around him, and a point guard who had an unexpectedly solid rookie season.

So what did you do, John Hammond? Nothin' much, just acquire two of the most arguably disappointing players from the last decade, and add two big ol' albatross contracts to your payroll.

Solid work, Hammond.

[LB3533]

Small markets make less than Big markets?

What's wrong with that? Isn't that just life?

Why always the need to push for everything to be equal?

It is just illogical to think that the local dinner will and should make as much as McD's.

[indeedproceed]

It is just illogical to think that the local dinner will and should make as much as McD's.

I don't think this metaphor makes all that much sense. If they're both located in the same area, why can't they make more money than McD's?

[fairweatherfan]

Besides that though, these small market teams are full of it anyway.  Last time I checked, San Antonio has 4 titles in the last 10 or so years.  Indiana, Sacramento, Portland, and Cleveland (just to name a few small markets) have also had success to a certain level.  Small markets are not unable to succeed.  They just have to have good management.  What makes that any different than a large market team?

The difference is that even when the small market teams are successful, they often don't make much of a profit, if any at all.  All of the teams you mentioned have suffered serious financial problems despite (and often because of) their success.  Small market teams have to decide between not losing money and becoming and remaining successful.  Big market teams don't have to face that dilemma at all.  

If anything, San Antonio is the exception that proves the rule -- and they aren't even always profitable from year to year despite their continued excellence of the last decade.

Last time I checked, the largest market team of them all (Knicks) hasn't won a title in 30+ years.

That's because they've had some bad luck and also been horribly, horribly mismanaged.  Well managed big market teams have absolutely dominated the league over the course of its existence (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls and to a lesser extent the Sixers).

In regards to the first part, this is about money, not competitive balance.  The players have essentially agreed to a 50/50 split.  This should take care of the issue of small market teams having to choose between fielding a competitive roster or being profitable.  The sytem issues aren't really necessary for addressing this.

Just my opinion but the system issue stuff has generally struck me as the owners resenting the amount of control the players have had over their own movement recently.  The LeBron and Carmelo situations, and the looming Howard and Paul ones, have made the owners feel powerless over a player who wants to go somewhere else.  The players getting to choose their own destination is something the owners absolutely hate, because it threatens their control over their teams.

Competitive balance may improve from these changes but it's a side effect of what the owners really want in my opinion.

[indeedproceed]

Just my opinion but the system issue stuff has generally struck me as the owners resenting the amount of control the players have had over their own movement recently.  The LeBron and Carmelo situations, and the looming Howard and Paul ones, have made the owners feel powerless over a player who wants to go somewhere else.  The players getting to choose their own destination is something the owners absolutely hate, because it threatens their control over their teams.

Competitive balance may improve from these changes but it's a side effect of what the owners really want in my opinion.

Agreed. For all the hand-wringing and sensationalist name-calling, there is a very real fight occurring here as well that has less to do with money, and everything to do with control.

The money matters, and likely matters most at the end of the day, but the other conflict is real, and the system issue squabbles (and how far apart they are on some stuff) is a manifestation of that.

[StartOrien]

It is just illogical to think that the local dinner will and should make as much as McD's.

I don't think this metaphor makes all that much sense. If they're both located in the same area, why can't they make more money than McD's?

Cuz McDonald's milkshakes are really good.

[StartOrien]

It is just illogical to think that the local dinner will and should make as much as McD's.

I don't think this metaphor makes all that much sense. If they're both located in the same area, why can't they make more money than McD's?

Cuz McDonald's milkshakes are really good.

That's actually not really true. Does McDonald's do anything well (by fast food standards)?

[indeedproceed]

It is just illogical to think that the local dinner will and should make as much as McD's.

I don't think this metaphor makes all that much sense. If they're both located in the same area, why can't they make more money than McD's?

Cuz McDonald's milkshakes are really good.

That's actually not really true. Does McDonald's do anything well (by fast food standards)?

The chicken tenders...not the nuggets, the tenders. They're good.

[LooseCannon]

I never said any of that.  All I said was that a hard cap would do more to level the playing field.

If teams can't offer higher salaries to certain players, the non-star, non-scrub, non-rookie players will make more decisions based on "intangibles" - warm weather, vibrant social scenes, things of that nature.

As for the Bucks, they over-performed and thought they were closer to being a legitimate contender than they actually were, so gambled on trading for Maggette, a selfish, injury-prone, no-defense scorer with a higher-than-normal likelihood of falling off a cliff, who was signed to a bad contract.

[fairweatherfan]

Just my opinion but the system issue stuff has generally struck me as the owners resenting the amount of control the players have had over their own movement recently.  The LeBron and Carmelo situations, and the looming Howard and Paul ones, have made the owners feel powerless over a player who wants to go somewhere else.  The players getting to choose their own destination is something the owners absolutely hate, because it threatens their control over their teams.

Competitive balance may improve from these changes but it's a side effect of what the owners really want in my opinion.

Agreed. For all the hand-wringing and sensationalist name-calling, there is a very real fight occurring here as well that has less to do with money, and everything to do with control.

Which is why, misplaced as I think it is, you hear people on the players' side bringing up the race issue so much.  The mostly black players see the mostly white owners viewing them as business assets whose transfer should be significantly restricted, and they bristle against it.  I think they're incorrect to think of it that way but it makes sense that so many do.

[Celtics18]

Besides that though, these small market teams are full of it anyway.  Last time I checked, San Antonio has 4 titles in the last 10 or so years.  Indiana, Sacramento, Portland, and Cleveland (just to name a few small markets) have also had success to a certain level.  Small markets are not unable to succeed.  They just have to have good management.  What makes that any different than a large market team?

The difference is that even when the small market teams are successful, they often don't make much of a profit, if any at all.  All of the teams you mentioned have suffered serious financial problems despite (and often because of) their success.  Small market teams have to decide between not losing money and becoming and remaining successful.  Big market teams don't have to face that dilemma at all.  

If anything, San Antonio is the exception that proves the rule -- and they aren't even always profitable from year to year despite their continued excellence of the last decade.

Last time I checked, the largest market team of them all (Knicks) hasn't won a title in 30+ years.

That's because they've had some bad luck and also been horribly, horribly mismanaged.  Well managed big market teams have absolutely dominated the league over the course of its existence (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls and to a lesser extent the Sixers).

In regards to the first part, this is about money, not competitive balance.  The players have essentially agreed to a 50/50 split.  This should take care of the issue of small market teams having to choose between fielding a competitive roster or being profitable.  The sytem issues aren't really necessary for addressing this.

Just my opinion but the system issue stuff has generally struck me as the owners resenting the amount of control the players have had over their own movement recently.  The LeBron and Carmelo situations, and the looming Howard and Paul ones, have made the owners feel powerless over a player who wants to go somewhere else.  The players getting to choose their own destination is something the owners absolutely hate, because it threatens their control over their teams.

Competitive balance may improve from these changes but it's a side effect of what the owners really want in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.  I guess they've even added a clause against extend and trades, something that they are actually informally referring to now as the "'Melo Rule."

I don't see how adding a rule against doing what Anthony did does anything at all for competitive balance.  It seems purely like a punitive, control measure. 

[Chris]

Besides that though, these small market teams are full of it anyway.  Last time I checked, San Antonio has 4 titles in the last 10 or so years.  Indiana, Sacramento, Portland, and Cleveland (just to name a few small markets) have also had success to a certain level.  Small markets are not unable to succeed.  They just have to have good management.  What makes that any different than a large market team?

The difference is that even when the small market teams are successful, they often don't make much of a profit, if any at all.  All of the teams you mentioned have suffered serious financial problems despite (and often because of) their success.  Small market teams have to decide between not losing money and becoming and remaining successful.  Big market teams don't have to face that dilemma at all.  

If anything, San Antonio is the exception that proves the rule -- and they aren't even always profitable from year to year despite their continued excellence of the last decade.

Last time I checked, the largest market team of them all (Knicks) hasn't won a title in 30+ years.

That's because they've had some bad luck and also been horribly, horribly mismanaged.  Well managed big market teams have absolutely dominated the league over the course of its existence (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls and to a lesser extent the Sixers).

In regards to the first part, this is about money, not competitive balance.  The players have essentially agreed to a 50/50 split.  This should take care of the issue of small market teams having to choose between fielding a competitive roster or being profitable.  The sytem issues aren't really necessary for addressing this.

Just my opinion but the system issue stuff has generally struck me as the owners resenting the amount of control the players have had over their own movement recently.  The LeBron and Carmelo situations, and the looming Howard and Paul ones, have made the owners feel powerless over a player who wants to go somewhere else.  The players getting to choose their own destination is something the owners absolutely hate, because it threatens their control over their teams.

Competitive balance may improve from these changes but it's a side effect of what the owners really want in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.  I guess they've even added a clause against extend and trades, something that they are actually informally referring to now as the "'Melo Rule."

I don't see how adding a rule against doing what Anthony did does anything at all for competitive balance.  It seems purely like a punitive, control measure. 

Yeah, that one isn't about competitive balance.  It is to try to make it harder for a player to hold teams (and the entire league) hostage in a contract year.

So, yeah, its about control.  But IMO, it is a good kind of control.  It at least does a small bit of taking some of the soap opera out of the game.