PDA

View Full Version : Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes



diamonddave00
12-10-2011, 09:43 AM
The lockout changed nothing.

Dwight Howard and Chris Paul will both end up Lakers. The Knicks add a bigman Tyson Chandler . The Heat add a glue player Shane Battier and likely Jermaine O'Neal and Chauncey Billups. The Nets add Nene , Celtics add David West. The Bulls either Rip Hamilton or Jamal Crawford. The big markets get stronger.

The Pacers, Kings, and other smaller market teams get nothing in spite of having huge cap space. Nothing has changed

Shade
12-10-2011, 09:45 AM
I was trying to wait for trades to get finalized before starting a very similar thread but yeah, so far the big markets are dominating this off-season.

The system is still broken.

Ownagedood
12-10-2011, 09:49 AM
With how everyone reacted after the vetoed trade, I've given up hope it will ever be even. It's always going to be like this. No one except the people that are in the small market care about the small market teams.

Even sportscasters that aren't fans of them, want the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, etc. to have those dominant teams because they are big cities.

Ransom
12-10-2011, 09:50 AM
As long as the best players come from uber urban environments, big cities will have the advantage. Can't make people love indianapolis over LA.

Major Cold
12-10-2011, 09:54 AM
It is time for us to beat them despite it being their league. That is why the Spurs are my second favorite team.

rm1369
12-10-2011, 09:56 AM
They slightly tweaked the system, they didn't fix it - the only thing they may have fixed is the owners wallets. It would have cost the season to actually fix the salary cap and salary structure. A hard cap, non guaranteed contracts, and no max salary is what was needed.

Unclebuck
12-10-2011, 09:58 AM
How can you devise a system that keeps players from going where they want to go.

rm1369
12-10-2011, 09:59 AM
It is time for us to beat them despite it being their league. That is why the Spurs are my second favorite team.

The pacers passed on their opportunity to replicate the spurs when they continued to trot out mediocre veterans in an attempt to win meaningless games instead evaluating and seasoning their young players. Spurs were built on two #1 draft picks. Smart moves obviously followed, but they mean jack without a superstar.

Pingu
12-10-2011, 10:02 AM
There's no modification of the CBA that'll make Indianapolis more attractive to young rich people than NYC, Miami or LA.

rm1369
12-10-2011, 10:03 AM
How can you devise a system that keeps players from going where they want to go.

No max salary would allow the true superstars to demand so much money that teaming up would nearly be impossible. The Miami players were willing to give up a couple million each, but I doubt they would give up significantly more.

Shade
12-10-2011, 10:05 AM
How can you devise a system that keeps players from going where they want to go.

A hard cap would go a long way in equalizing everything. Sure, superstars could still team-up, but they'd have to take drastic paycuts to do it.

diamonddave00
12-10-2011, 10:06 AM
Stern attempted to when he vetoed the Paul deal and was blasted by the media. But with minor tweaking he will ok it , he had no intention of truly not allowing it, he just wanted to put up a front of caring about equality.

Orlando will accept Bynum and his bum knees for Howard and drop back to the also runs being happy just making the playoffs. New Orleans is doomed to probably moving again.

But hey NYC, L.A., Chicago and Miami will be on tv all the time so small market fans will still get to see the stars often. Say all you want about Daniel Gilbert but his last comment you may as well call 25 of the 30 NBA teams the Washington Generals was dead on.

owl
12-10-2011, 10:07 AM
We will be in lock out mode in 6 years. Count on it and without someway to lock up your superstar it will always be thus. The NFL has it right, mostly. Two franchise tags might do it. I am thinking that maybe the Simons are not willing to spend money at least that is the way it looks today. Nene really should have been given the max. Of course he still may have not come here. He is the one player that makes the Pacers much better.

idioteque
12-10-2011, 10:07 AM
If this is a reaction to Nene, in that case it appeared to be much more about money than location. Of course we will probably never know exactly how much was put on the table, but it is pretty clear Bird was not going to pay Nene $17 million per year.

We'll find the right guys, through trades or otherwise. I'd rather do that than be forced to overpay for a guy to make up for an inferior location and thereby hurt your team. Yes, Indy isn't LA or NY, but once most guys come here and get their feet on the ground they appear to like it well enough. If we can get a fairly well-regarded guy here through trade and he can tell all his friends that Indy isn't a bad place, who knows what can happen in the future. While again we will never know, I am pretty sure that probably contributed to us getting Byron.

I'm sure there was a similar thread when the Lakers signed Payton and Malone. Yes, big names are something, but a Pacers championship brought by components of our young core today would not be unprecedented. Look at SA and Detroit. We can do it too someday, especially since we are one of the better and more well regarded small market franchises historically.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 10:08 AM
I would like to see the owners be able to make blind votes to approve trades. 75% approval required. That would result in far more parity because the better teams wouldn't be able to make many moves.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 10:13 AM
We will be in lock out mode in 6 years. Count on it and without someway to lock up your superstar it will always be thus. The NFL has it right, mostly. Two franchise tags might do it. I am thinking that maybe the Simons are not willing to spend money at least that is the way it looks today. Nene really should have been given the max. Of course he still may have not come here. He is the one player that makes the Pacers much better.

Excellent post Owl. The NBA has become a two tier league. While Dan Gilbert isn't popular, he is mostly right on the mark. 25 Washington Generals teams and 5 that might have a shot at the title. I follow this game only because I prefer basketball and these are the best players in the world...but my interest in the league is beginning to wane. Dwight and CP3 to LA and other big market teams raking in the free agents this round is chipping away...

Ownagedood
12-10-2011, 10:17 AM
Excellent post Owl. The NBA has become a two tier league. While Dan Gilbert isn't popular, he is mostly right on the mark. 25 Washington Generals teams and 5 that might have a shot at the title. I follow this game only because I prefer basketball and these are the best players in the world...but my interest in the league is beginning to wane. Dwight and CP3 to LA and other big market teams raking in the free agents this round is chipping away...

Ya honestly the last couple days as things progressed and it became obvious the power teams were only going to get stronger, the more i thought im gonna have to drop my interest in the NBA soon... Only reason i don't want to is i don't want to abondon my Pacers.. Also the talent level in the league is unmatched. But i much rather watch IU and other college basketball than this league that obviously just isn't built very well for teams to be even. Players should have next to 0 control when they are under contract. They signed with you, they play for you, unless you decide you don't want them. NFL, MLB is built MUCH better.

OakMoses
12-10-2011, 10:18 AM
How can you devise a system that keeps players from going where they want to go.

I think removing the max on individual salaries, even in current system, would help. Guys wouldn't take less to play with their buddies if less was $15mm a year, not $2mm.

The CP3 trade to the Lakers doesn't bother me as originally proposed. They gave up a lot of talent to get Paul. If they manage to turn Bynum into Howard, that's a different story.

The DWest to the Celtics trade is sketchy. I don't understand how you can give up absolutely nothing and get a borderline all-star.

The most offensive thing, however, is JO asking to be waived if he's traded to the Hornets so he can go sign with the Heat. Waived players still get their full salary. There's a lot of hypocrisy here. Guaranteed contracts are a blood issue for the players, so teams have to pay them whether or not the team is interested in having them around or not. However, as soon as a player gets on a team they don't want to play for, they expect to be released so they can go sign somewhere else while still getting paid for the contract they essentially refused to honor. If I'm Demps/Stern and I wind up with JO, I'd tell him to sit at home and get fined until he decided he wanted to honor the contract he signed.

Shade
12-10-2011, 10:19 AM
The most infuriating part of all of this is that the teams with lots of cap space are losing all the big-name FAs to teams that are already contenders and have no space to add them w/o lopsided trades. It's not a coincidence that those "big cap space" teams are all small markets.

Sign-and-trades need to go. They cheat the spirit of the system.

diamonddave00
12-10-2011, 10:26 AM
That was the point that irks me too Shade. Teams wait abiding by the rules building cap space to get "name" free agents, then big market teams with no cap room are able to get around rules to magicly get them.

Tyson Chandler (tho not a big fan of his) signs with Knicks but magically becomes a sign and trade for a scrub giving the Mavs an 8 mil trade exemption to acquire a 10 mil a year player in spite of being well over the cap.

Boston gets David West the same way.

Even the Hornets / Lakers/ Rockets deal would give the Lakers an 8 mil + trade exemption , enough to taKe Turkoglu with Howard for Bynum.

Kegboy
12-10-2011, 10:28 AM
Well, even though I was a militant hardcap-er, the most important thing to come out of the new CBA is revenue sharing. Sounds like the Pacers will get an extra $10M a year thanks to it.

Now, you may say big deal, that doesn't help us compete. But yeah, it does. We may not sign FA's, but Simon has shown he's willing to spend money when we can put a winning product on the floor. It'll help with trades and keeping our young core together.

Also, it'll hopefully keep PS&E from gouging the city again. :fingerscr

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 10:31 AM
I like your ideas Geezer.

Another option is for the small market teams to not do any spending. That would devalue the league as a whole. Bring on guys like Jeff Pendergraph. Better yet, bring Britton Johnson back and make a mockery of the league. I'll go out there and play for the minimum. If they want the Washington Generals to compete against, let'em have it.

I'd rather see that so I would just turn off the channel.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 10:35 AM
The more I think about it, the more I like not spending a penny more than required. Let the teams all stink except of course Chicago, Boston, LA and Miami. Revenue sharing is good. At least the owners make a marginal profit and the tax payer doesn't get the shaft.

able
12-10-2011, 10:39 AM
The most infuriating part of all of this is that the teams with lots of cap space are losing all the big-name FAs to teams that are already contenders and have no space to add them w/o lopsided trades. It's not a coincidence that those "big cap space" teams are all small markets.

Sign-and-trades need to go. They cheat the spirit of the system.

But all those small-market teams need to AGREE on those trades first.

Not giving in to demands is the first step to getting rid of them.

"lose them over nothing!!" perhaps, but feeling better and making your fans feel better as well as having capspace don't hurt that much.

On top of that, you are able to put a deal on the table for said player next year, that will put the decision in HIS court, not yours, to lose all that money.

The system is fine, it was fine, the owners got what they wanted; more money.
Forget revenue sharing, it will be at best 5%

As long as owner are fighting the battles in the FO's as they have done all their lives in business, ruthless, FO's will find ways of collecting toptalent in certain places.
You made a difference bigger in signing for your own team and signing with a new team and next you purposely help circumvent it, so the solution is to make it impossible??
BS, if i player wants to leave so bad he is willing to take the loss, he has the right, it is the owners dealing a year early that are screwing it up.

Of course there's also FO's like ours, but the owner handpicks those as well so he can sit on his own blisters there too.

Unclebuck
12-10-2011, 10:39 AM
Pacers will get more like 15-20 millin in revenue sharing. And if u read what Cuban wrote yesterday, the new system I why they could nt re-sign Chandler

indygeezer
12-10-2011, 10:43 AM
A mini Occupy NBA huh? The owners "go on strike" by only paying the minimum and then getting the Luxury payout etc. Yep, teach the league a lesson. Years ago there was a NASCAR driver that drove only to finish the race and every year he ended up in the top tier of money winners.

able
12-10-2011, 10:44 AM
Pacers will get more like 15-20 millin in revenue sharing. And if u read what Cuban wrote yesterday, the new system I why they could nt re-sign Chandler

Please UB, what you base those calculations on ?
I have not seen the new revenue sharing in print anywhere and i KNOW the penalty pot is going to be LOTS smaller, so please tell ?

diamonddave00
12-10-2011, 10:46 AM
No they couldn't re-sign Chandler but the sign and trade gives them a huge trade exemption to replace him . They can work a trade now to acquire a player plus use the exemption if needed to take a bad contract back in a seperate but in reality one big trade move.

Miller-Time
12-10-2011, 10:48 AM
Great thread! And shade is right on the money with this


The most infuriating part of all of this is that the teams with lots of cap space are losing all the big-name FAs to teams that are already contenders and have no space to add them w/o lopsided trades. It's not a coincidence that those "big cap space" teams are all small markets.

Sign-and-trades need to go. They cheat the spirit of the system.

Shade
12-10-2011, 10:50 AM
Well, even though I was a militant hardcap-er, the most important thing to come out of the new CBA is revenue sharing. Sounds like the Pacers will get an extra $10M a year thanks to it.

Now, you may say big deal, that doesn't help us compete. But yeah, it does. We may not sign FA's, but Simon has shown he's willing to spend money when we can put a winning product on the floor. It'll help with trades and keeping our young core together.

Also, it'll hopefully keep PS&E from gouging the city again. :fingerscr

Problem is, deals like the Lakers one that was nixed would have allowed the Lakers to acquire Paul while shedding a ton of salary, effectively making them better while putting them under the luxury tax threshold. That would have negated a TON of luxury tax revenue the Lakers would have had to share.

It's too easy to cheat the system with stuff like this.

Tom White
12-10-2011, 10:51 AM
As long as the best players come from uber urban environments, big cities will have the advantage. Can't make people love indianapolis over LA.

You mean like Akron?

diamonddave00
12-10-2011, 10:52 AM
I'm glad I started this thread , its good to see others are as frustrated as I am over the whole situation. It lets us all b**ch and let it out a little.

Miller-Time
12-10-2011, 10:55 AM
The worst thing is, I find myself somehow hoping LA gets their own big three in Bryant, Paul and Dwight if this means the heat won't get "not one, not, two, not three, not four..."

Man I hate these egomaniacs in Miami more then any other team after they teamed up. Literally they set this precedent that literally killed the integrity of the game. They brought this whole mess by betraying the sport through collusion in deciding to play together without any teamowner even knowing what will go on. This charade with wade in Chicago in the offseason before the even worse "decision", man really. This gets me fired up even now.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 10:58 AM
The system is fine, it was fine, the owners got what they wanted; more money.

Yes, the owners wanted more money. No, the system is not fine.

Clearly, the uproar over the proposed trade of Chris Paul shows the owners were incredibly ticked off about the system. A system that remains broken and continues to hurt the small market teams as centralization of talent and zero loyalty are the norm.

Tom White
12-10-2011, 10:59 AM
That was the point that irks me too Shade. Teams wait abiding by the rules building cap space to get "name" free agents, then big market teams with no cap room are able to get around rules to magicly get them.

Tyson Chandler (tho not a big fan of his) signs with Knicks but magically becomes a sign and trade for a scrub giving the Mavs an 8 mil trade exemption to acquire a 10 mil a year player in spite of being well over the cap.

Boston gets David West the same way.

Even the Hornets / Lakers/ Rockets deal would give the Lakers an 8 mil + trade exemption , enough to taKe Turkoglu with Howard for Bynum.

Unfortunately, those aren't examples of getting around the rules. Those are examples of using the rules to their own teams benefit in the best way they can.

mildlysane
12-10-2011, 10:59 AM
It is very frustrating to have a "3 year plan" to make it into contention, only to have struck out in free agency. Hopefully, we can do better with a few trades. It really does appear that the NBA is 2 tiered league, where a few teams compete for a championship and the rest are gonna try and make a small profit. This is starting to remind me of professional "Rasslin'". What a joke....

diamonddave00
12-10-2011, 11:01 AM
I hate to even bring this up but IF Paul George develops as some think he will , it could very well mean when Kobe is ready to hang it up - PG will be ready to replace him at home in Cali w/ probably Dwight and Chris.

We can only hope loyalty and a good team here will keep players the Pacers develop here.

Oh wait thats a fantasy world.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 11:06 AM
It is very frustrating to have a "3 year plan" to make it into contention, only to have struck out in free agency. Hopefully, we can do better with a few trades. It really does appear that the NBA is 2 tiered league, where a few teams compete for a championship and the rest are gonna try and make a small profit. This is starting to remind me of professional "Rasslin'". What a joke....

I think the league is already at the Professional "Rasslin" stage. I've turned off the TV before and I'm no longer interested in going to the opener on the 26th. Much of that depends on how the next couple weeks go.

able
12-10-2011, 11:10 AM
A mini Occupy NBA huh? The owners "go on strike" by only paying the minimum and then getting the Luxury payout etc. Yep, teach the league a lesson. Years ago there was a NASCAR driver that drove only to finish the race and every year he ended up in the top tier of money winners.

Naw let's not get silly now, let's stay serious and do some math shall we ?

Dwight Howard:

came in to the league in 2004/5 season, so to date has 7 years under his belt.

Has one 2 more years on his contract, one @ 17.8 million and one (player options) @ 19.2 million

Let's say we refuse to trade him, end of discussion, not going to happen.

He can refuse to play, losing 2 years of his career (he can not pick his option if he is in breach of contract by not playing) and 37 million dollars.
chances he will do that? slim to non-existant.

So he plays, now he opts out of his contract, leaving 19.2 million on the table and going for a new contract:

lets assume salary cap will be a little lower, yes you read that right, but with the lower BRI percentage it will most likely not be higher then the 58 mio for this season.

even if that, at best he starts of at 19.2 million

Now in order to sign him the team signing him has to be under the cap (remember i refuse to help in trade) which leaves out most if not all desired destinations, how sad.

now whoever can offer him the max, can offer 19.2/20/21/22 = 83 million

I can offer : 19.2/21/23/25/27 = 116 million

and it is all up to Dwight to decide what he really wants to do.

Now the systems works as intended.

He leaves? i have 20 million worth of cap space to play with (in general terms)

able
12-10-2011, 11:11 AM
Yes, the owners wanted more money. No, the system is not fine.

Clearly, the uproar over the proposed trade of Chris Paul shows the owners were incredibly ticked off about the system. A system that remains broken and continues to hurt the small market teams as centralization of talent and zero loyalty are the norm.


read what i said, system's fine, owners are not

Shade
12-10-2011, 11:14 AM
Naw let's not get silly now, let's stay serious and do some math shall we ?

Dwight Howard:

came in to the league in 2004/5 season, so to date has 7 years under his belt.

Has one 2 more years on his contract, one @ 17.8 million and one (player options) @ 19.2 million

Let's say we refuse to trade him, end of discussion, not going to happen.

He can refuse to play, losing 2 years of his career (he can not pick his option if he is in breach of contract by not playing) and 37 million dollars.
chances he will do that? slim to non-existant.

So he plays, now he opts out of his contract, leaving 19.2 million on the table and going for a new contract:

lets assume salary cap will be a little lower, yes you read that right, but with the lower BRI percentage it will most likely not be higher then the 58 mio for this season.

even if that, at best he starts of at 19.2 million

Now in order to sign him the team signing him has to be under the cap (remember i refuse to help in trade) which leaves out most if not all desired destinations, how sad.

now whoever can offer him the max, can offer 19.2/20/21/22 = 83 million

I can offer : 19.2/21/23/25/27 = 116 million

and it is all up to Dwight to decide what he really wants to do.

Now the systems works as intended.

He leaves? i have 20 million worth of cap space to play with (in general terms)

The thing is, there's a reason teams do sign-and-trades instead of letting their superstars walk for nothing if he's already made it clear he's unwilling to return.

Hell, even Gilbert did a S&T with LeBron.

able
12-10-2011, 11:16 AM
The thing is, there's a reason teams do sign-and-trades instead of letting their superstars walk for nothing if he's already made it clear he's unwilling to return.

Hell, even Gilbert did a S&T with LeBron.

And did he improve in a way he couldn't otherwise ?

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 11:17 AM
read what i said, system's fine, owners are not

Well, I don't think the owners believe the system's fine. If Howard and CP3 land in LA, I seriously doubt they are going to believe the system's fine.

Edit: BTW, that 20M in cap space isn't going to help a small market team much when they need to pay twice as much to draw the same talent. This issue needed to be addressed and it was not. Also, in the end, the best talent isn't going to want to come here given the opportunity to go to LA or Boston.

able
12-10-2011, 11:21 AM
Well, I don't think the owners believe the system's fine. If Howard and CP3 land in LA, I seriously doubt they are going to believe the system's fine.

How can you complain about something you facilitate ????


You pushing dope on a street corner cant complain about the postoffice selling it too!

if you circumvent rules dont complain about the rules not being tight enough, shackling the players because the owners cant keep their fingers out of the cookie jar is a weird way of solving problems.

able
12-10-2011, 11:23 AM
Well, I don't think the owners believe the system's fine. If Howard and CP3 land in LA, I seriously doubt they are going to believe the system's fine.

Edit: BTW, that 20M in cap space isn't going to help a small market team much when they need to pay twice as much to draw the same talent. This issue needed to be addressed and it was not. Also, in the end, the best talent isn't going to want to come here given the opportunity to go to LA or Boston.

small market discussion is a fake one, it is failed markets and succesfull ones, spurs are "small" but have more titles than the Knicks, with all their losses.

Denver came close, and had a damn good chance as well, even the Pacers had a damn good chance, how come we are so far off since?

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 11:24 AM
A mini Occupy NBA huh? The owners "go on strike" by only paying the minimum and then getting the Luxury payout etc. Yep, teach the league a lesson. Years ago there was a NASCAR driver that drove only to finish the race and every year he ended up in the top tier of money winners.

Yes, that's correct. Hand out contracts to garbage players and have them play instead of your starters. You'd not only minimize spending but you'd put a horrific product on the floor which would make a mockery of the league. Something that's already being done on a smaller scale.

Shade
12-10-2011, 11:25 AM
And did he improve in a way he couldn't otherwise ?

Actually, yes.

I think you're forgetting about Bird Rights that allow players like LeBron and Dwight to be re-signed without massive luxury tax implications. If LeBron/Dwight walk, their respective teams don't get that entire salary back to spend on other players. They can only use that "extra" salary by acquiring players in a S&T.

Shade
12-10-2011, 11:26 AM
small market discussion is a fake one, it is failed markets and succesfull ones, spurs are "small" but have more titles than the Knicks, with all their losses.

Denver came close, and had a damn good chance as well, even the Pacers had a damn good chance, how come we are so far off since?

Yet, the Spurs (an exception to the rule, btw; how many other small market teams have won a championship?) are losing money while the horribly-managed, tax-paying Knicks continue to make money every year.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 11:29 AM
small market discussion is a fake one, it is failed markets and succesfull ones, spurs are "small" but have more titles than the Knicks, with all their losses.

Denver came close, and had a damn good chance as well, even the Pacers had a damn good chance, how come we are so far off since?

You are talking exceptions rather than the rule. Also, Denver is considered a desirable locale and not exactly a small market. This is about the bigger cities, advertising dollars and the like.

Talk to me about Memphis, Minnesota, Charlotte, Sacramento, Cleveland and other less than desirable locales that are not destinations for free agents. Those teams and more are at a distinct disadvantage and cause the league to be one of haves and have nots....not really worth watching, quite frankly.

Sparhawk
12-10-2011, 11:30 AM
The system is definitely broken.

Basketball used to be my #1 sport. It's been #3 for a few years behind football and baseball.

Just makes me sad that players just want to team up with each other instead of competing against each other.

able
12-10-2011, 11:30 AM
let's keep the accountancy part out of it, you never make me buy the "most teams lose money" line and certainly not anymore under the new cba.

S&T only perpetuates the system, it only takes one to start the end.

however if you take it out and u really want to get rid of a player, then what do you do ?

Also now doing it a year early to extend or keep bird rights, all you are doing is being a facilitator nothing else, don't complain, you are doing it yourself.

Saying no is so easy, just do it and move on.

owl
12-10-2011, 11:31 AM
I seem to remember Granger complaining last year when the superfriends team was forming in Miami about how that was not fair. Now he complains when the superfriends in LA can't get together. So which side are you on? It sure is not helping your situation with the Pacers
and them trying to get better.

Miller-Time
12-10-2011, 11:31 AM
I think getting rid of S&T won't cut it.

Have another suggestion:
Just give the team that loses a player after his rookie deal is up and signs a deal of at least (let's say) 10+mil/year with another team a certain compensation.

This compensation could be an additional pick or a higher cap. Think this would help the small market teams out a fair bit. As S&T do have a certain sense actually and are not the big problem per se

able
12-10-2011, 11:32 AM
Cleveland, Memphis, yeah they never had that earth-shattering difference maker in their team, they never screwed up the logisitcs of supporting cast.

and they are only recent examples.

Shade
12-10-2011, 11:37 AM
let's keep the accountancy part out of it, you never make me buy the "most teams lose money" line and certainly not anymore under the new cba.

S&T only perpetuates the system, it only takes one to start the end.

however if you take it out and u really want to get rid of a player, then what do you do ?

Also now doing it a year early to extend or keep bird rights, all you are doing is being a facilitator nothing else, don't complain, you are doing it yourself.

Saying no is so easy, just do it and move on.

You can't take the accountancy part out if it, though. This is a business.

By not agreeing to a S&T, you leave yourself significantly less money to replace your lost superstar, leading to a much-worse product on the floor, leading to attendance drops. It's a purgatory that is very hard to get out of w/o years of suffering and can lead to eventual contraction when the annual losses pile up too high.

Shade
12-10-2011, 11:39 AM
I seem to remember Granger complaining last year when the superfriends team was forming in Miami about how that was not fair. Now he complains when the superfriends in LA can't get together. So which side are you on? It sure is not helping your situation with the Pacers
and them trying to get better.

Maybe he's just less concerned with a superteam in the West as opposed to the East.

King Tuts Tomb
12-10-2011, 11:41 AM
I posted this entire article in another thread but this section is fitting for this discussion:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/12/09/the_nba_s_crisis_of_governance.html?wpisrc=slate_r iver


— The owners don't seem to realize that the more they act as a cartel to squeeze players' monetary compensation the stronger the hand of teams in the desirable locations becomes because non-salary compensation (including both endorsements and non-monetary benefits of playing with your friends or winning championships) starts looming larger in the equation.

Add this to the fact that fans and the media CONSTANTLY tear down superstar players for not winning championships every year. It's to the point where every player in the league is given a 5 year window and if they don't win a title within that five years, they're a loser.

When that type of intense pressure is placed on a player, of course he's going to do everything he can to win a title.

able
12-10-2011, 11:42 AM
You can't take the accountancy part out if it, though. This is a business.

By not agreeing to a S&T, you leave yourself significantly less money to replace your lost superstar, leading to a much-worse product on the floor, leading to attendance drops. It's a purgatory that is very hard to get out of w/o years of suffering and can lead to eventual contraction when the annual losses pile up too high.

that is definitely a reasoning that will get you murphleavy scenarios, please, that is enouhg of an example to not go that route.

You ARE creating cap space and you WILL have to be more prudent on talent that comes at lowers cost as well as your picksm, i.e. you have to be smarter, i say that is good.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 11:43 AM
Cleveland, Memphis, yeah they never had that earth-shattering difference maker in their team, they never screwed up the logisitcs of supporting cast.

and they are only recent examples.

Memphis is not a good example. Jerry West (former Laker and Memphis GM) handed Pau Gasol to the Lakers. That's just another travesty. Also, New York has been the most poorly managed franchise in league history and they continue to draw talent like a magnet.

Anyway, good luck on the free agent market to the Pacers and other non-destination cities. The fact is, the Pacers have been a well run organization with very well liked owners...yet they aren't a player in the free agent market to any extent because they are not a destination. This isn't about mismanagement.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 11:45 AM
I posted this entire article in another thread but this section is fitting for this discussion:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/12/09/the_nba_s_crisis_of_governance.html?wpisrc=slate_r iver



Add this to the fact that fans and the media CONSTANTLY tear down superstar players for not winning championships every year. It's to the point where every player in the league is given a 5 year window and if they don't win a title within that five years, they're a loser.

When that type of intense pressure is placed on a player, of course he's going to do everything he can to win a title.

Now, these are good points. The system still needs fixed unless everyone is fine with a two tiered league for ad infinitum. There's a reason only a handful of teams win the championship...and it's because the league as a whole is really a farce.

mattie
12-10-2011, 11:48 AM
Memphis is not a good example. Jerry West (former Laker and Memphis GM) handed Pau Gasol to the Lakers. That's just another travesty. Also, New York has been the most poorly managed franchise in league history and they continue to draw talent like a magnet.

Anyway, good luck on the free agent market to the Pacers and other non-destination cities. The fact is, the Pacers have been a well run organization with very well liked owners...yet they aren't a player in the free agent market to any extent because they are not a destination. This isn't about mismanagement.

Please tell me when the Pacers gave a superstar an offer to play here in Indy. (Don't worry I'll wait.)

Ransom
12-10-2011, 11:49 AM
You mean like Akron?

Are we arguing broad trends or specifics here? If the whole direction of the league hinges in where 5 or 6 guys are at a time then I don't think the problem is really solvable unless you're going to duplicate the 2004 Pistons, which were a very unique exception. 25 of 30 will always have no chance.

The larger point that most young men would prefer living in Miami vs Cleveland stands I think.

I guess this whole thread comes off as very whiny and entitled to me.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 11:50 AM
Please tell me when the Pacers gave a superstar an offer to play here in Indy. (Don't worry I'll wait.)

I'm sure there have been offers. The issue is gaining acceptance when the superstar really just wants to join his superstar friends to play next to the ocean and sell commercials and merchandise in huge markets for huge money.

mattie
12-10-2011, 11:54 AM
I'm sure there have been offers. The issue is gaining acceptance when the superstar really just wants to join his superstar friends to play next to the ocean and sell commercials and merchandise in huge markets for huge money.

No. Sorry. There hasn't been any.

Again I'll wait for you to tell me when the Pacers offered a superstar a contract to play here.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 11:58 AM
No. Sorry. There hasn't been any.

Again I'll wait for you to tell me when the Pacers offered a superstar a contract to play here.

A superstar? Every single team in the league has made offers for superstar, but they don't materialize for many of the reasons stated.

mattie
12-10-2011, 11:58 AM
The idea that players won't play in small markets is absurd and disproven already by many superstars over the last 20 years. Duncan/Durant/LBJ/Payton/Webber etc..

The only real problem is probably media related honestly. The media has a lot more influence than they'll admit.

The media repeated daily/weekly/yearly that stars need big markets. This in effect makes it true. They certainly ask for it only after they have been mismanaged on a small market team- had the world not preached maybe the stars wouldn't ask for something they think they need.

mattie
12-10-2011, 11:59 AM
A superstar? Every single team in the league has made offers for superstar, but they don't materialize for many of the reasons stated.

The question was specific. No the Pacers haven't. The Pacers haven't had the cap room to make an offer to a superstar in over 20 years, but nice try.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 12:03 PM
The idea that players won't play in small markets is absurd and disproven already by many superstars over the last 20 years. Duncan/Durant/LBJ/Payton/Webber etc..

The only real problem is probably media related honestly. The media has a lot more influence than they'll admit.

The media repeated daily/weekly/yearly that stars need big markets. This in effect makes it true. They certainly ask for it only after they have been mismanaged on a small market team- had the world not preached maybe the stars wouldn't ask for something they think they need.

It's location, location, location...along with advertising/merchandise revenue (i.e. money). Not the media.

Also, Duncan, Durant, LBJ and Gary Payton were all drafted by small markets. Payton left for LA. LBJ left for Miami...so you are proving my point. Durant is probably headed there next.

mattie
12-10-2011, 12:05 PM
This is extremely rare:

A talented small market team with cap space gives a superstar an max contract offer. Whens the last time it happened? The only time I think it happened is in Chris Webber's case when he rejected the offer and went to a big market. Wait, no he signed with Sacramento.

Miller-Time
12-10-2011, 12:07 PM
Add this to the fact that fans and the media CONSTANTLY tear down superstar players for not winning championships every year. It's to the point where every player in the league is given a 5 year window and if they don't win a title within that five years, they're a loser.

When that type of intense pressure is placed on a player, of course he's going to do everything he can to win a title.

There is definately some truth in it.
Actually one has to understand the players in their situation right now. And this is just where my picture of the problem comes into play, that the big 3 bums created in Miami.
If any good player wants to win now, he HAS to team up to even have a chance. It's pretty clear one big star won't make it to a ring, as great as he may be. No Dwight or anybody else will make it by his own, that's why Melo, Amare try this in NY and this is why Dwight and CP3 will take their talents to another franchise. They won't stand a chance alone and have to team up somehow. After the collusion and the precedent the Heat created the system/ the situation of the NBA is screwed

cordobes
12-10-2011, 12:08 PM
Until a superstar leaves a lot of money on the table to play in a bigger market, I won't worry. This is more of a myth than a real issue.


The idea that players won't play in small markets is absurd and disproven already by many superstars over the last 20 years. Duncan/Durant/LBJ/Payton/Webber etc..

A few years back, Grant Hill joined the Orlando Magic after saying no to the Knicks.

Players will prioritize money, chances of winning for the duration of the contract (teammates talent, coaching staff, front office pedigree) and style of play/role. Location is an almost irrelevant factor.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 12:11 PM
The question was specific. No the Pacers haven't. The Pacers haven't had the cap room to make an offer to a superstar in over 20 years, but nice try.

That does not prevent the Pacers from making a trade to get enough cap room to make such an offer. Have you heard of trading for an expiring contract? Teams do this all the time. The Pacers don't do it because they know it's a futile effort. The only reason we are well below the cap now is that the team was destroyed and had terrible contracts to offload.

mattie
12-10-2011, 12:12 PM
It's location, location, location...along with advertising/merchandise revenue (i.e. money). Not the media.

Really?? HOW? What are you basing that on other than hearing Bill Simmons and the rest of ESPN preach that the entire time you've watched basketball?

I guess if a player plays for a small market team he won't get endorsements???


Also, Duncan, Durant, LBJ and Gary Payton were all drafted by small markets. Payton left for LA. LBJ left for Miami...so you are proving my point. Durant is probably headed there next.

Payton left when his career was over good one. Durant has no intentions of leaving, nor will he ever (you're high if you think he's leaving)

LBJ STILL considered staying in Cleveland despite playing for 7 years with HORRIBLE teammates.

If Duncan needed a big market he would have left!!

owl
12-10-2011, 12:13 PM
The question was specific. No the Pacers haven't. The Pacers haven't had the cap room to make an offer to a superstar in over 20 years, but nice try.

And now that they do they have offered to Howard and CP3, right? uhhh no. At least not that has been reported or heard of.
I wonder why?

d_c
12-10-2011, 12:14 PM
I posted this entire article in another thread but this section is fitting for this discussion:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/12/09/the_nba_s_crisis_of_governance.html?wpisrc=slate_r iver



Add this to the fact that fans and the media CONSTANTLY tear down superstar players for not winning championships every year. It's to the point where every player in the league is given a 5 year window and if they don't win a title within that five years, they're a loser.

When that type of intense pressure is placed on a player, of course he's going to do everything he can to win a title.

Pretty much this.

I mean, what have we said about Chris Paul? Great, great player. But good enough for a team to win a championship with him as your best player? Most would agree that he's not. So he ain't all that.

So what do we expect him to do when he realizes that's probably the case? Then he gets motivated to join a team where he isn't the best player.

There were super teams in the 80s or 90s, too. They just happened to be built by ownerships and team managements. Some of these teams were just unbeatable. Nowadays when players realize there are just unbeatable franchises out there built by another team's management (the Lakers/Spurs of the 2000s for ex.), they realize the futility of playing against them and then just decided to form their own super teams.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 12:14 PM
And now that they do they have offered to Howard and CP3, right? uhhh no. At least not that has been reported or heard of.
I wonder why?

Because they aren't free-agents.

imawhat
12-10-2011, 12:16 PM
Until a superstar leaves a lot of money on the table to play in a bigger market, I won't worry. This is more of a myth than a real issue.



A few years back, Grant Hill joined the Orlando Magic after saying no to the Knicks.

Players will prioritize money, chances of winning for the duration of the contract (teammates talent, coaching staff, front office pedigree) and style of play/role. Location is an almost irrelevant factor.

This is not free agency, but why do you think all of the major transactioaver his offseason have been in the favor of the larger market teams, especially when there are superior offers on the table from smaller teams?

I don't think it's a coincidence. Can you name a lopsided trade in which a small market franchise gained a lot from a large market?

vnzla81
12-10-2011, 12:16 PM
The question was specific. No the Pacers haven't. The Pacers haven't had the cap room to make an offer to a superstar in over 20 years, but nice try.

You don't need cap space to offer a superstar a contract there is always ways to go around that, if you are a big team all you got it do is find an small market team that is under the cap like the Pacers and send all the non wanted contracts to them+draft picks so both sides get what they want, the Pacers get more pIcks so they can continue with the rebuilding proccess while the big team continues trying to win a championship.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 12:17 PM
Really?? HOW? What are you basing that on other than hearing Bill Simmons and the rest of ESPN preach that the entire time you've watched basketball?

I guess if a player plays for a small market team he won't get endorsements???



Payton left when his career was over good one. Durant has no intentions of leaving, nor will he ever (you're high if you think he's leaving)

LBJ STILL considered staying in Cleveland despite playing for 7 years with HORRIBLE teammates.

If Duncan needed a big market he would have left!!

Tim Duncan had a verbal agreement with Orlando. The year they signed Grant Hill. He was afraid the Spurs couldn't put another championship team around him. He actually traveled to Orlando to sign a contract, but Popovich and David Robinson convinced him that the Spurs would be able to retool successfully.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 12:17 PM
Really?? HOW? What are you basing that on other than hearing Bill Simmons and the rest of ESPN preach that the entire time you've watched basketball?

I guess if a player plays for a small market team he won't get endorsements???



Payton left when his career was over good one. Durant has no intentions of leaving, nor will he ever (you're high if you think he's leaving)

LBJ STILL considered staying in Cleveland despite playing for 7 years with HORRIBLE teammates.

If Duncan needed a big market he would have left!!

You have this backwards. You are pointing out a couple players who were loyal to the teams that drafted them. Reggie Miller is another example. You are NOT proving that small market teams have a ghost of a chance compared to big market/coastal/desirable locale teams when stars are out shopping. I'm surprised anyone is even questioning this.

...and Grant Hill was limping on one leg and probably wanted to get to a warmer climate.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 12:18 PM
This is not free agency, but why do you think all of the major transactions have been in the favor of large markets, especially when there are superior offers on the table from smaller teams?

What are the superior offers from smaller markets? What transactions are you talking about specifically? I don't believe a GM will take a lower offer just because it's from a team located in a larger city.

ksuttonjr76
12-10-2011, 12:18 PM
This is extremely rare:

A talented small market team with cap space gives a superstar an max contract offer. Whens the last time it happened? The only time I think it happened is in Chris Webber's case when he rejected the offer and went to a big market. Wait, no he signed with Sacramento.

Come on...there's got to be a more recent example than that. Please...let their be one.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 12:19 PM
Tim Duncan had a verbal agreement with Orlando. The year they signed Grant Hill. He was afraid the Spurs couldn't put another championship team around him. He actually traveled to Orlando to sign a contract, but Popovich and David Robinson convinced him that the Spurs would be able to retool successfully.

Reggie Miller didn't go to NY either, but this is just proving there are a few loyal players in the league. It is NOT proving that small markets are as desirable a destination...or even remotely as desirable.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 12:22 PM
...and Grant Hill was limping on one leg and probably wanted to get to a warmer climate.

No, Grant Hill played 74 games in the season before. Averaging 26/7/5. A superstar in his prime. He signed with Orlando.

The fact is that never has a star passed on a better opportunity in a small-market to join a bigger one.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 12:24 PM
No, Grant Hill played 74 games in the season before. Averaging 26/7/5. A superstar in his prime. He signed with Orlando.

The fact is that never has a star passed on a better opportunity in a small-market to join a bigger one.

You cannot possibly prove this. Are you privy to every offer not accepted?

ksuttonjr76
12-10-2011, 12:26 PM
What are the superior offers from smaller markets? What transactions are you talking about specifically? I don't believe a GM will take a lower offer just because it's from a team located in a larger city.

Boston/Indiana/NO trade proposal.

FIVE, YOUNG (DC/Rush/Hansbrough/Bradley/Green) players and ONE (maybe TWO if Indiana gave them one) draft pick in a LOADED draft, AND their LOTTERY pick in the SAME draft unless their acquired players played above expectations. PLUS, plenty of CAP SPACE, because all the incoming players are still on rookie contracts.

***** that...I would have taken that trade, and not blinked twice, and I DON'T say that because one of the teams was Indiana.

With the proposed trade, WHO are they going to rebuild around...Odom? Martin? Scola? Gracia?

d_c
12-10-2011, 12:28 PM
Reggie Miller didn't go to NY either, but this is just proving there are a few loyal players in the league. It is NOT proving that small markets are as desirable a destination...or even remotely as desirable.

Reggie did have a few shots at a championship, something Chris Paul doesn't have in N.O.

But it's not so much about loyalty these days as it is about players deciding to be their own management rather than just letting the management of their own team dictate their careers. And it comes from the AAU culture (something that didn't exist in the Jordan/Magic/Bird eras). Players at a very young age formed their own teams.

Dominique Wilkins would probably be pulling this same stuff if he played in this era. Charles Barkley eventually DID do it back in 92' and again with Houston in 96' because he knew that would be his only shot at a title.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 12:28 PM
Reggie Miller didn't go to NY either, but this is just proving there are a few loyal players in the league. It is NOT proving that small markets are as desirable a destination...or even remotely as desirable.

Tim Duncan wasn't loyal. He was loyal to his chances of winning, regardless of the size of the market. Miller player in contenders for most of his career. If that wasn't the case, I bet he'd have left Indiana at some point.

But are you going to announce the names of those players who left money on the table to join a big-market?

I mean, who were those superstar free-agents who joined big markets?

LAL - they had Shaq. But Orlando tried to lowball him and that was a big reason why he ended up in LA. ANd it's the same Orlando team that attracted Grant Hill, Tracy McGrady and got a verbal agreement from Duncan.
Chicago - Ben Wallace and Boozer. Both way overpaid.
NY - Overpaid for Stoudemire - he said that for the same money, he'd stay in Phoenix. It was the Suns decision to not keep him. It's going to overpay for Chandler.
Boston - never really signed a free-agent better than mediocre.

What are the other big markets?

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 12:30 PM
No, Grant Hill played 74 games in the season before. Averaging 26/7/5. A superstar in his prime. He signed with Orlando.

The fact is that never has a star passed on a better opportunity in a small-market to join a bigger one.

A superstar with a serious injury. A little history should clear this up for you:

"On April 15, 2000, 7 days before the start of the playoffs, Hill sprained his left ankle in a game against the Philadelphia 76ers. He continued to play until the first round playoff series against the Miami Heat, in which his injured ankle got worse and Hill was forced to leave halfway through game 2. Eventually, the Heat swept the Pistons 3–0."

cordobes
12-10-2011, 12:32 PM
Boston/Indiana/NO trade proposal.

FIVE, YOUNG (DC/Rush/Hansbrough/Bradley/Green) players and ONE (maybe TWO if Indiana gave them one) draft pick in a LOADED draft, AND their LOTTERY pick in the SAME draft unless their acquired players played above expectations. PLUS, plenty of CAP SPACE, because all the incoming players are still on rookie contracts.

***** that...I would have taken that trade, and not blinked twice, and I DON'T say that because one of the teams was Indiana.

With the proposed trade, WHO are they going to rebuild around...Odom? Martin? Scola? Gracia?

To me that deal is probably even worse. A modest starter in Collison and four backups - and this assuming Bradley will be good enough to be a backup. You can't build around those guys either. You need top-tier players to build around.

In my opinion they should take Bynum, Rondo or the Minnesota pick the Clippers have or just stay put.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 12:32 PM
Tim Duncan wasn't loyal. He was loyal to his chances of winning, regardless of the size of the market. Miller player in contenders for most of his career. If that wasn't the case, I bet he'd have left Indiana at some point.

But are you going to announce the names of those players who left money on the table to join a big-market?

I mean, who were those superstar free-agents who joined big markets?

LAL - they had Shaq. But Orlando tried to lowball him and that was a big reason why he ended up in LA. ANd it's the same Orlando team that attracted Grant Hill, Tracy McGrady and got a verbal agreement from Duncan.
Chicago - Ben Wallace and Boozer. Both way overpaid.
NY - Overpaid for Stoudemire - he said that for the same money, he'd stay in Phoenix. It was the Suns decision to not keep him. It's going to overpay for Chandler.
Boston - never really signed a free-agent better than mediocre.

What are the other big markets?

You are just proving part of my point. Big markets have big revenue, advertising dollars, etc. Therefore, they are going to have the cash to overpay and pay the luxury tax. That's one reason...only one reason...why the bigger coastal markets are more desirable than little ole Indy.

Edit: Also, I don't believe you know whether Tim Duncan is loyal.

Brad8888
12-10-2011, 12:32 PM
Lookin like same ol' same ol'. How u?

I would assume that a few of the have nots are now positioning themselves to sell with a better revenue picture and a 6 year CBA in place. I am afraid that the Pacers are one of those teams. I also am afraid that the "big announcement" scheduled for 12-22 might be that the Pacers are being sold. What I hope is that the good part of the announcement is that Bird is part of the new ownership group and that he intends to keep the franchise here.

Obviously this is speculation on my part, and could easily be baseless. But...

mattie
12-10-2011, 12:33 PM
That does not prevent the Pacers from making a trade to get enough cap room to make such an offer. Have you heard of trading for an expiring contract? Teams do this all the time. The Pacers don't do it because they know it's a futile effort. The only reason we are well below the cap now is that the team was destroyed and had terrible contracts to offload.

Way to avoid the question. I didn't ask you "how do you clear cap space."

d_c
12-10-2011, 12:33 PM
A superstar with a serious injury. A little history should clear this up for you:

"On April 15, 2000, 7 days before the start of the playoffs, Hill sprained his left ankle in a game against the Philadelphia 76ers. He continued to play until the first round playoff series against the Miami Heat, in which his injured ankle got worse and Hill was forced to leave halfway through game 2. Eventually, the Heat swept the Pistons 3–0."

Should be noted that nobody at the time knew how serious Hill's injury would turn out to be and he was still very much the #2 most coveted FA right behind Duncan. Pistons tried desperately to convince him to re-sign but he didn't think much of his chances of winning in Detroit.

Also, Duncan came VERY close to joining the Magic that summer, despite already playing for a championship organization. The rest of the Spurs supporting cast was aging (no Ginobilli or Parker yet) while the Magic offered the allure of playing with another superstar. When he did re-sign with the Spurs, he only took a 3 year deal (like Lebron's 1st extension with the Cavs) because he wanted to see how things would play out first.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 12:35 PM
A superstar with a serious injury. A little history should clear this up for you:

"On April 15, 2000, 7 days before the start of the playoffs, Hill sprained his left ankle in a game against the Philadelphia 76ers. He continued to play until the first round playoff series against the Miami Heat, in which his injured ankle got worse and Hill was forced to leave halfway through game 2. Eventually, the Heat swept the Pistons 3–0."

I remember that well. The injury wasn't thought to derail his career. That's why the Knicks and Pistons offered him a max contract. But, for the same money, he preferred to play in a smaller market. Isn't that what you say players never do?

What I still want to know is what players left serious money on the table to sign for a big-market team. Until that happens, this seems to be nothing more than an urban legend. I mean, not even a handful of guys? If it's such a huge problem, it shouldn't be complicated to come up with real life examples.

Kegboy
12-10-2011, 12:36 PM
Pacers will get more like 15-20 millin in revenue sharing. And if u read what Cuban wrote yesterday, the new system I why they could nt re-sign Chandler

I read it as they were already getting 5, so 15 would be 10 more.

[edit] Able, this is where I saw it. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bucks get more than us, but I would certainly think we're one of the bottom six, especially with our bad attendance.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/135283073.html

cordobes
12-10-2011, 12:37 PM
You are just proving part of my point. Big markets have big revenue, advertising dollars, etc. Therefore, they are going to have the cash to overpay and pay the luxury tax. That's one reason...only one reason...why the bigger coastal markets are more desirable than little ole Indy.

Edit: Also, I don't believe you know whether Tim Duncan is loyal.

So, your problem is the decision to overpay Ben Wallace, Stoudemire, Boozer and Tyson Chandler?

I thought the issue here is that small-markets had to overpay to get players. After all is that big markets teams decided to overpay to get players? And they got those 4 guys, all in the declining phases of their careers?

Doesn't seem much of an issue to me.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 12:43 PM
I remember that well. The injury wasn't thought to derail his career. That's why the Knicks offer him a max contract. But, for the same money, he preferred to play in a smaller market. Isn't that what you say players never do?

What I still want to know is what players left serious money on the table to sign for a big-market team. Until that happens, this seems to be nothing more than an urban legend. I mean, not even a handful of guys? If it's such a huge problem, it shouldn't be complicated to come up with real life examples.

Again, whether or not that's true...which neither of us could possibly prove...it isn't even important. The fact bigger markets...I think we both agree...have more money to buy players. I think that leads to a less competitive league. Haves and have nots in a league that are supposed to be competitive. Secondly, the advertising/merchandise dollars are going to be bigger. So, I agree that more money is the issue. If anything, this is all proving my point that smaller markets are less desirable than the coastal/large markets.

imawhat
12-10-2011, 12:44 PM
What are the superior offers from smaller markets? What transactions are you talking about specifically? I don't believe a GM will take a lower offer just because it's from a team located in a larger city.

All of the published trade offers for Chris Paul are superior to the Lakers offer, all from markets smaller than LA.

You think the best offer for Howard will come from the Lakers or Nets, aside from Paul, Howard and Carmelo were/are effectively acting as free agents?

What about the Gasol trade? Aside from the stroke of luck that occurred in drafting Marc in the second round, how could that have been the best offer on the table?

Rather than debating these, I think it would be easier to debunk the large market conspiracy theory if you could list lopsided trades in which a small market team fleeced a large market team.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 12:45 PM
So, your problem is the decision to overpay Ben Wallace, Stoudemire, Boozer and Tyson Chandler?

I thought the issue here is that small-markets had to overpay to get players. After all is that big markets teams decided to overpay to get players? And they got those 4 guys, all in the declining phases of their careers?

Doesn't seem much of an issue to me.

It's not just one issue.

Even given the same contract from a small market team, they will usually go large for at least two reasons. 1) Larger markets provide a superstar much bigger advertising/merchandise dollars. 2) Coastal cities and even more desirable cities like Dallas and Denver even, have an advantage.

How do you offset that to assist with creating a competitive league?

imawhat
12-10-2011, 12:51 PM
I remember that well. The injury wasn't thought to derail his career. That's why the Knicks and Pistons offered him a max contract. But, for the same money, he preferred to play in a smaller market. Isn't that what you say players never do?

What I still want to know is what players left serious money on the table to sign for a big-market team. Until that happens, this seems to be nothing more than an urban legend. I mean, not even a handful of guys? If it's such a huge problem, it shouldn't be complicated to come up with real life examples.

Not superstars, but there's no doubt Chandler's leaving money on the table to join the Knicks. Is Rip's biggest offer going to come from the Bulls?

mattie
12-10-2011, 12:51 PM
s?

I don't think it's a coincidence. Can you name a lopsided trade in which a small market franchise gained a lot from a large market?

haha! Yes, until the NBA nixed it the NOH/LA trade!

cordobes
12-10-2011, 12:55 PM
All of the published trade offers for Chris Paul are superior to the Lakers offer, all from markets smaller than LA.

You think the best offer for Howard will come from the Lakers or Nets, aside from Paul, Howard and Carmelo were/are effectively acting as free agents?

What about the Gasol trade? Aside from the stroke of luck that occurred in drafting Marc in the second round, how could that have been the best offer on the table?

Rather than debating these, I think it would be easier to debunk the large market conspiracy theory if you could list lopsided trades in which a small market team fleeced a large market team.

Every market is smaller than LA. And even in this board are plenty of people who think the Lakers/Rockets proposal is a good one. I completely disagree, but I guess it's arguable. In any case, the other three teams reportedly biding were Boston, Clippers and Warriors, none of them exactly small markets teams. I don't know exactly what was the Warriors offer, but if it didn't include Curry, then it wasn't that good.

I don't know if there were better offers for Pau Gasol. It's easy to say there were, but I've never heard about a concrete one. What were those offers?

Shaq to Miami is the quintessential lopsided trade. Indy getting Jackson from the Clippers is another one.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 12:58 PM
Not superstars, but there's no doubt Chandler's leaving money on the table to join the Knicks. Is Rip's biggest offer going to come from the Bulls?

How much money is Chandler leaving on the table? I don't know about that. We know the Mavericks only offered him a 2 years contract.

I have no idea about Rip, but players like him leaving a little money on the table to play for contenders is usual. McDyess left money on the table to join the Spurs, too. That has to do with their role + chances of winning, not the size of the city.

Basketball Fan
12-10-2011, 01:00 PM
I seem to remember Granger complaining last year when the superfriends team was forming in Miami about how that was not fair. Now he complains when the superfriends in LA can't get together. So which side are you on? It sure is not helping your situation with the Pacers
and them trying to get better.




Probably because the Miami Thrice (Golden Girls reference) were all FAs and agreed to team up and planned it for years.

CP3 was part of a trade that helped 3 teams and it was vetoed because of the other owners involved in a team owned by the league.

Its one thing if the Hornets had an independent owner and did this but the other owners were thinking of their teams not the Hornets franchise who will get nothing after CP3 walks.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 01:00 PM
It's not just one issue.

Even given the same contract from a small market team, they will usually go large for at least two reasons. 1) Larger markets provide a superstar much bigger advertising/merchandise dollars. 2) Coastal cities and even more desirable cities like Dallas and Denver even, have an advantage.

How do you offset that to assist with creating a competitive league?

Who are they? And Stoudemire, Boozer, Wallace weren't given the same contracts from small market teams. One of them even said that for the same contract, he'd have opted for the small market team, which directly contradicts your argument.

xBulletproof
12-10-2011, 01:02 PM
I can't wait until an owner has the sack to tell a superstar, "Im not trading you. When you're a free agent, you can play here for an extra 30 million or leave it on the table and play elsewhere. Your choice"

Until that happens we don't know if the system is broken, or if the owners are just chicken ****.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 01:02 PM
Again, whether or not that's true...which neither of us could possibly prove...it isn't even important. The fact bigger markets...I think we both agree...have more money to buy players. I think that leads to a less competitive league. Haves and have nots in a league that are supposed to be competitive. Secondly, the advertising/merchandise dollars are going to be bigger. So, I agree that more money is the issue. If anything, this is all proving my point that smaller markets are less desirable than the coastal/large markets.

If the problem is the financial inequalities between teams, the only solution to it is revenue-sharing. There's no other. That's up to the owners to do.

mattie
12-10-2011, 01:13 PM
This is for everyone who has the ability to think- (I've given up on BnG, if every star in the league forced a trade to small market teams tomorrow he'd still choose to believe what he does with the evidence smacking him in the face- this is for everyone else) let's question the conventional wisdom for a moment.

We know, that every other league besides the NBA has no problem having competitive balance. This contradicts the conventional wisdom that you have to be a big market to win.

We know, that every other league besides the NBA has major superstars playing in small markets. This goes against the conventional wisdom that stars need big markets.

Consider, Nike, Underarmor and every other big name athletic gear distributor doesn't need an athlete to own a house in beverly hills to give them a major endorsement. The idea that they need a big market to make more money is ludicrous.

Duncan, Durant, Robinson, Sir Charles, Payton, Chris Webber, are all superstars that didn't need big markets. Try to think about this- If they really needed a big market, they would have done what was necessary to go to those markets. They didn't.

We have seen superstars force trades to big markets. Nearly every single scenario involves that specific star being fed up with a mismanaged team. Certainly with everyone telling those players they need a big market, they made a choice and big markets were generally what they asked for. In that case, no one else can offer much- you can dump all your assets to acquire the player in a trade, but that doesn't help much in the long run, the new player will just leave when they're a FA.

Think about all the times where small market teams had the cap room and talented team both, and offered a big time FA money. What happened? It's rare that the two ever happened wasn't it? But when it did the FA chose the small market team.

mattie
12-10-2011, 01:20 PM
Honestly the only REAL issue is the nonstop narrative repeated by the media that stars need big markets. That's it. Even then it's a small issue, but in cases where stars are merely choosing a city, they choose a big one because after hearing their entire life they start to believe they need a big market too.

An example of the media's influence: Ron Paul has the strongest base of every republican candidate this year, he's not winning in the polls simply because the media has for 9 months told everyone he has no chance. So guess what, he has no chance!! (I don't give a **** about politics, and in no way does that have anything to do with politics, just pointing out the power of the media)

Since86
12-10-2011, 01:22 PM
I can't wait until an owner has the sack to tell a superstar, "Im not trading you. When you're a free agent, you can play here for an extra 30 million or leave it on the table and play elsewhere. Your choice"

Until that happens we don't know if the system is broken, or if the owners are just chicken ****.

You dont consider LBJ and the Cavs doing just that? LeBron didnt' even talk to the Cavs during his FA period, they had to know something was up. If they weren't being talked to, and everyone else was, it should have given them a heads up that he was out the door already and that they should start pursuing a S&T.

I have a hard time believing Dan Gilbert can be that rich and that stupid that he can't decipher the other parties behavior and understand it's not a positive sign.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 01:27 PM
This is for everyone who has the ability to think- (I've given up on BnG, if every star in the league forced a trade to small market teams tomorrow he'd still choose to believe what he does with the evidence smacking him in the face- this is for everyone else) let's question the conventional wisdom for a moment.

Sorry if you cannot respond with any logic and need to use hyperbole. The fact remains, talent has been flowing to the big markets...for whatever reason. That in itself is a problem if you want a competitive league.

mattie
12-10-2011, 01:30 PM
Sorry if you cannot respond with any logic and need to use hyperbole. The fact remains, talent has been flowing to the big markets...for whatever reason. That in itself is a problem if you want a competitive league.

Learn what hyperbole means.

No, I'm not kidding about giving up on you. However, if anyone else wants to discuss the topic, they should feel free.

:)

CableKC
12-10-2011, 01:42 PM
I'm lost here....has the Lakers actually made an offer that would net them both CP3 AND Howard?

I went through this entire thread and have not seen one Tweet or rumor that outlines the deal. If there isn't and this is some thread that complains about the how the new CBA DOESN'T work....change the frakkin title.

Since86
12-10-2011, 01:48 PM
We know, that every other league besides the NBA has no problem having competitive balance. This contradicts the conventional wisdom that you have to be a big market to win.



What are you talking about?? MLB does not have anything close to competitive balance, unless you think a team winning 110 games while another wins 40 is balanced.....

The NHL is the perfect example. Competitive balance was an issue, until their new CBA, and what happened in their new CBA? A hard cap that restricted major markets.

The NFL has a hard cap already, which is why they have competitive balance. Not to mention that they also advertise teams with superstars instead of just superstars.

Its crazy you'd try use other sports leagues, considering the two strongest ones currently have hard caps.

EDIT: And I should and in the fact that the only way to be competitive in MLB is to massively overpay. Which is why the Yankees/Red Sox/Phillies/Angels (now)/Texas all at the top. Tampa Bay is the example of a team trying to compete without overspending, and they had their troubles pretty early on after watching most of their FA bolt to other places to get paid.

EDIT2: And the Cubs try to overspend to win, but they just can't do it. Plus you had Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs all trying to sign Dice K when he was coming over from Japan. Boston paid 51million dollars just to have 30 days to sign him. If they didn't sign him in that 30 days then they do the process over and who ever pays the most gets another 30 days. You really think Kansas City can compete with that?

ksuttonjr76
12-10-2011, 01:49 PM
I'm lost here....has the Lakers actually made an offer that would net them both CP3 AND Howard?

I went through this entire thread and have not seen one Tweet or rumor that outlines the deal. If there isn't and this is some thread that complains about the how the new CBA DOESN'T work....change the frakkin title.

There's nothing official. The CP3 trade was just the first domino. There's nothing to confirm rumors of Dwight Howard going to LA, HOWEVER NBA fans wouldn't be surprised if it ended up that way.

Here's what about to happen...

CP3 to LA
Howard to LA
Nets sign Nene AND Crawford
Indiana is left with nothing.

Since86
12-10-2011, 01:52 PM
I'm lost here....has the Lakers actually made an offer that would net them both CP3 AND Howard?

I went through this entire thread and have not seen one Tweet or rumor that outlines the deal. If there isn't and this is some thread that complains about the how the new CBA DOESN'T work....change the frakkin title.

The CP3 trade left enough pieces for the Lakers to make their offer. Bynum, a 1st, whatever other fillers they would want, and enough cap space to take him on.

mattie
12-10-2011, 01:52 PM
What are you talking about?? MLB does not have anything close to competitive balance, unless you think a team winning 110 games while another wins 40 is balanced.....

The NHL is the perfect example. Competitive balance was an issue, until their new CBA, and what happened in their new CBA? A hard cap that restricted major markets.

The NFL has a hard cap already, which is why they have competitive balance. Not to mention that they also advertise teams with superstars instead of just superstars.

Its crazy you'd try use other sports leagues, considering the two strongest ones currently have hard caps.

Does the NFL and NHL have competitive balance? Yes.

Ok so now we know competitive balance can be achieved.

Will it require a hard cap? Sure that may be needed.

Just to be clear though, i'm not necessarily talking about parity. I'm just considering whether or not a small market has the opportunity to win just as much as a big market. Equal opportunity? No. Can a small market win? Of course. It's already been done multiple times. It will again when OKC finally wins 1 or more.

mattie
12-10-2011, 01:54 PM
The CP3 trade left enough pieces for the Lakers to make their offer. Bynum, a 1st, whatever other fillers they would want, and enough cap space to take him on.

No that's ridiculous. If LA loses Gasol, they lose the main piece that makes them able to make a move for Howard. If they only have Bynum plus pieces, they aren't getting him.

Other teams will have much better offers.

Since86
12-10-2011, 01:57 PM
Does the NFL and NHL have competitive balance? Yes.

Ok so now we know competitive balance can be achieved.

Will it require a hard cap? Sure that may be needed.

Just to be clear though, i'm not necessarily talking about parity. I'm just considering whether or not a small market has the opportunity to win just as much as a big market. Equal opportunity? No. Can a small market win? Of course. It's already been done multiple times. It will again when OKC finally wins 1 or more.

The sole purpose of a hard cap is to negate the advantages that comes with being in a big market.

If you agree that there has to be a hard cap in order to have competitive balance then you're admitting that a soft cap can't accomplish that because big markets will always beat out smaller markets.

Since86
12-10-2011, 01:59 PM
No that's ridiculous. If LA loses Gasol, they lose the main piece that makes them able to make a move for Howard. If they only have Bynum plus pieces, they aren't getting him.

Other teams will have much better offers.

Bynum, healthy, would be the best offer Orlando would get. Their currently in talks with NJ for Brook Lopez and what else? Nothing else, because they aren't giving up Williams. If they would take Lopez plus crap, they'd certainly take Bynum, healthy, plus crap.

xBulletproof
12-10-2011, 02:00 PM
You dont consider LBJ and the Cavs doing just that? LeBron didnt' even talk to the Cavs during his FA period, they had to know something was up. If they weren't being talked to, and everyone else was, it should have given them a heads up that he was out the door already and that they should start pursuing a S&T.

I have a hard time believing Dan Gilbert can be that rich and that stupid that he can't decipher the other parties behavior and understand it's not a positive sign.

Lebron is an exception. Anything he misses on his contract he can quadruple with 1 call offering his face for a commercial. He made more off his first Nike contract than he did his first what, 7 or 8 years in the league? Most other NBA stars can't do that.

PR07
12-10-2011, 02:03 PM
For some reason, NBA execs are still enamored with Bynum because he's young and big. Problem is, he can't stay healthy.

mattie
12-10-2011, 02:06 PM
Bynum, healthy, would be the best offer Orlando would get. Their currently in talks with NJ for Brook Lopez and what else? Nothing else, because they aren't giving up Williams. If they would take Lopez plus crap, they'd certainly take Bynum, healthy, plus crap.

haha I agree Bynum Healthy is a better player than Lopez. Only problem is the fictional player Bynum Healthy doesn't exist.

trs72
12-10-2011, 02:06 PM
Unfortunately the owners did not get a hard cap so this BS will continue with this generation of players. Small market teams want to compete they are going to have to be extremely well coached, good management and have high character guys on the team. What some of these small market teams need to start doing is having a enforcer or 2 on their team that is payed to take guys out. The superstars want to join forces to beat up on the little guys to get rings to feel good about themselves so they can feel there just like Mike need to get fouled a little harder. It would not be all that hard to undercut a guy and blow out their knee. A lot of these guys are good at acting and flopping so i am sure they can accidently slip and fall into a guys leg.

Since86
12-10-2011, 02:07 PM
Lebron is an exception. Anything he misses on his contract he can quadruple with 1 call offering his face for a commercial. He made more off his first Nike contract than he did his first what, 7 or 8 years in the league? Most other NBA stars can't do that.

I'm tempted to agree, but I'm just not sure. It really depends on which side of the argument you fall on, and I think the general rule that the big markets will win a head to head with a small market is spot on.

Since86
12-10-2011, 02:09 PM
haha I agree Bynum Healthy is a better player than Lopez. Only problem is the fictional player Bynum Healthy doesn't exist.

We still have people complaining about how the Pacers had a chance at landing MJ. No one wants to miss out if a player pans out, when they're as young as Bynum.

Sure, some have the balls, but a lot of them don't. If don't have that much faith in Otis Smith knowing the difference. Their past few trades shows he's not all that good at making decisions.

ksuttonjr76
12-10-2011, 02:14 PM
To me that deal is probably even worse. A modest starter in Collison and four backups - and this assuming Bradley will be good enough to be a backup. You can't build around those guys either. You need top-tier players to build around.

In my opinion they should take Bynum, Rondo or the Minnesota pick the Clippers have or just stay put.

How is that worse? Bynum misses 20+ games for the past 4 seasons. Rondo is a Top 5 PG, but he's no Chris Paul offensively nor can he carry a team by himself. New Orleans will have their own lottery pick plus one or two additional 1st round picks while the Minnesota pick is Top-10 protected.

Luis Scola is 31
Lamar Odom is 32
Kevin Martin is 28 (not really that bad)
Goran Dragic is 25 (not really that bad either)

Darren Collison (24) is better than Goran Dragic.
Tyler Hansbrough is 26.
Brandon Rush is 26.
Bradley Avery is 21.
Jeff Green is 25.

THREE of the players are double-digit scores (Collison, Hansbrough, Green).

Now let's dig a little bit deeper. Trevor Ariza is only 26. Jarret Jack is 28. Emeka Okafor is 29. Jerryd Bayless is 23.

Without making any other major moves, New Orleans is already working with

Collison/Jack/Bayless
Rush/
Ariza/Green
Hansbrough
Okafor

The team is respectable, but it's not enough where they going to make a big splash in the comepetive West which is what New Orleans should want. You're going to tell me that they can't get an impact player at the SG spot to replace Rush in this year's draft? New Orleans needs to take their whupping this season (win/loss), so they can draft pretty high while praying that the Clippers play bad enough to still be a lotter team outside of the Top ten.

Since86
12-10-2011, 02:18 PM
Unfortunately the owners did not get a hard cap so this BS will continue with this generation of players. Small market teams want to compete they are going to have to be extremely well coached, good management and have high character guys on the team. What some of these small market teams need to start doing is having a enforcer or 2 on their team that is payed to take guys out. The superstars want to join forces to beat up on the little guys to get rings to feel good about themselves so they can feel there just like Mike need to get fouled a little harder. It would not be all that hard to undercut a guy and blow out their knee. A lot of these guys are good at acting and flopping so i am sure they can accidently slip and fall into a guys leg.

And to be perfectly fair, there are examples of small markets doing just this. San Antonio and Detroit, but I would include the Pacers and even the Nash Suns.

But the arguments split when you start comparing the healthiness of hard cap leagues versus soft cap leagues. The NHL is proving, IMHO anyways, that smaller venue sports, meaning not NFL, can follow their model and by extremely successful. And the entire purpose of a CBA agreement is to ensure that the success of the league turns into success of the players.

All it's going to take is the NPBA to realize that a one generation of NBA players needs to sacrifice in order to make their league a much stronger one. And if the turn around is as fast as the NHL it's not even going to take an entire generation, but rather just half but that's only 2 years, so not saying much.

xBulletproof
12-10-2011, 02:26 PM
I'm tempted to agree, but I'm just not sure. It really depends on which side of the argument you fall on, and I think the general rule that the big markets will win a head to head with a small market is spot on.

In general I agree. However the issue is without a sign and trade, how often does a large market have the cap space for it to matter? You have to hold the no trade stance through the offseason as well.

Justin Tyme
12-10-2011, 02:38 PM
How is that worse? Bynum misses 20+ games for the past 4 seasons. Rondo is a Top 5 PG, but he's no Chris Paul offensively nor can he carry a team by himself. New Orleans will have their own lottery pick plus one or two additional 1st round picks while the Minnesota pick is Top-10 protected.

Luis Scola is 31
Lamar Odom is 32
Kevin Martin is 28 (not really that bad)
Goran Dragic is 25 (not really that bad either)

Darren Collison (24) is better than Goran Dragic.
Tyler Hansbrough is 26.
Brandon Rush is 26.
Bradley Avery is 21.
Jeff Green is 25.

THREE of the players are double-digit scores (Collison, Hansbrough, Green).

Now let's dig a little bit deeper. Trevor Ariza is only 26. Jarret Jack is 28. Emeka Okafor is 29. Jerryd Bayless is 23.

Without making any other major moves, New Orleans is already working with

Collison/Jack/Bayless
Rush/
Ariza/Green
Hansbrough
Okafor

The team is respectable, but it's not enough where they going to make a big splash in the comepetive West which is what New Orleans should want. You're going to tell me that they can't get an impact player at the SG spot to replace Rush in this year's draft? New Orleans needs to take their whupping this season (win/loss), so they can draft pretty high while praying that the Clippers play bad enough to still be a lotter team outside of the Top ten.



:confused: Did I miss where Bayless was traded from Toronto?

cordobes
12-10-2011, 02:46 PM
How is that worse? Bynum misses 20+ games for the past 4 seasons. Rondo is a Top 5 PG, but he's no Chris Paul offensively nor can he carry a team by himself. New Orleans will have their own lottery pick plus one or two additional 1st round picks while the Minnesota pick is Top-10 protected.

Luis Scola is 31
Lamar Odom is 32
Kevin Martin is 28 (not really that bad)
Goran Dragic is 25 (not really that bad either)

Darren Collison (24) is better than Goran Dragic.
Tyler Hansbrough is 26.
Brandon Rush is 26.
Bradley Avery is 21.
Jeff Green is 25.

THREE of the players are double-digit scores (Collison, Hansbrough, Green).

Now let's dig a little bit deeper. Trevor Ariza is only 26. Jarret Jack is 28. Emeka Okafor is 29. Jerryd Bayless is 23.

Without making any other major moves, New Orleans is already working with

Collison/Jack/Bayless
Rush/
Ariza/Green
Hansbrough
Okafor

The team is respectable, but it's not enough where they going to make a big splash in the comepetive West which is what New Orleans should want. You're going to tell me that they can't get an impact player at the SG spot to replace Rush in this year's draft? New Orleans needs to take their whupping this season (win/loss), so they can draft pretty high while praying that the Clippers play bad enough to still be a lotter team outside of the Top ten.

Bayless has been playing in Toronto for awhile. He was traded for Jack.

Here's how I rate the different proposals being discussed (I'll leave the fillers, like late picks and Bradley, out of it):

1 - Bynum
2 - Rondo


3 - Minny unprotected pick (Clippers owned)


4 - Scola, Odom, Martin, Dragic
5 - Collison, Hansbrough, Green, Rush

idioteque
12-10-2011, 02:55 PM
Nobody seemed to have mentioned that our own Jermaine O'Neal re-signed with the Pacers when he had the chance to leave and was at the time one of the top 3-5 PF's in the league (and an argument could be made he was the best) with seemingly great years ahead of him. The only other place he seriously considered signing? San Antonio.

It is harder to build a winning tradition in a small market, but it is possible. The Pacers are already one of the more well-regarded small market franchises, certainly moreso than Minnesota, Milwaukee, and Cleveland (which is one LBJ away from being Milwaukee). We've got a much more intriguing roster than most small markets right now. Why else would have Reggie Miller, Jermaine O'Neal, and Danny Granger re-upped here? We will get talent here one way or another.

Since86
12-10-2011, 03:03 PM
In general I agree. However the issue is without a sign and trade, how often does a large market have the cap space for it to matter? You have to hold the no trade stance through the offseason as well.

True, but that comes down to a skill, more so than location. Cuban addressed it earlier in his letter talking about the difference between this CBA and the past CBA. Said he could always just take on more money



Cuban at least thinks that the Mavs' free-spending days are over.


What I don’t think people understand is that once a team hits the tax level the ability to improve our team is reduced dramatically. In addition, your ability to make trades is reduced. So basically, if we made the move to keep everyone together with five-year deals, the team we have today is going to be the team we have for the next five years. If we were a young team it would be one thing. But we are not a young team.

In the past, it was different. If we had a problem, I could fix any mistake by having Donnie find a trade and just taking on more money. That is how we got Jet, the Matrix, JKidd, Tyson. It was always about taking on more money. That trick doesn’t work any more for teams over the tax. So we have to change our approach. By getting back under the cap, we have a ton of flexibility not only for free agent signings but also trades. If we can get the right guy(s) via free agency, great. if we do it via trade, great. We have that much more flexibility to make moves.
http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/mavericks/post/_/id/4681588/what-are-mavs-thinking-mark-cuban-explains


http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=67441

Which is why Mackey going around trying to say that the CBA was only about money, nothing more, isn't true. Hardly ever does change come in one single swoop. This new CBA started addressing the issues, and if it's enough they might not change it anymore. If it's not enough, then the NBA and the NBPA will pick up their arguments at the exact place they left off in 2017.

NappyRootz
12-10-2011, 03:22 PM
Sorry if you cannot respond with any logic and need to use hyperbole. The fact remains, talent has been flowing to the big markets...for whatever reason. That in itself is a problem if you want a competitive league.

This is an awesome discussion !! We can start a business economics class with the eople on here.

My point of view regarding the NBA is this:

The league is certainly flawed to a degree. But other than the NFL and to some degree the NHL......what league isn't ?? Baseball is the worst. My favorite team teh Pirates have absolutely NO chance to ever compete with regularity. The Rays do everything right and barely have a chance to make the playoffs and even that is a short lived journey until all their stars reach FA.

The NBA has had successful markets recently in San Antonio, Utah, Sacramento, Indiana, Cleveland, detroit, New Jersey, Orlando, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Phoenix, Portland, Atlanta and Denver.

Of those Houston and Dallas are big markets but certainly not glamour NBA markets.

The lakers and Celtics have dominated play recently and now Chicago and Miami have joined in as well. Miami however is a pretty small market compared to the other three but it is now a glamour NBA franchise.

I still think as OK City attests to.......that if you get a little bit lucky and build properly you can compete for Championships in the NBA outside of those markets. Orlando came very close a couple years ago. Indiana was in the mix forever when Reggie was playing. San Antonio dominated the early 2000s.

I am a big David Stern detractor with his exertion of influence on the games themselves through the games officiating.

But in this case I side with him. We are a free society and players should be allowed to migrate where they want to. If thats LA and Miami so be it just dont compound th eproblem by letting Dwayne Wade, Kobe and Derrick Rose shoot 30 FTs a game in the playoffs......thats where I get disgusted.

As for the disallowed trade...........the NBA owns the Hornets and as such should look out for the well being of the franchise. Whie the trade looks pretty good on paper, the one thing that NO ONE has talked about except Dan Gilbert is that NO is taking on almost $70mm in long term committments making the franchise less attractive to a potential buyer.

Do you want a 39 win team in a loaded WC with no cap space the next two or three years and several veterans mailing it in and cashing checks ??

Or would you rather acquire a bunch of young guys and draft picks barely paying the minimum required salary winning 17-25 games and having almost unlimited flexibility the next several years while picking in the top 5 every year ??

I know which of the two I'd prefer if I were buying a team.

DocHolliday
12-10-2011, 03:23 PM
I remember that well. The injury wasn't thought to derail his career. That's why the Knicks and Pistons offered him a max contract. But, for the same money, he preferred to play in a smaller market. Isn't that what you say players never do?

What I still want to know is what players left serious money on the table to sign for a big-market team. Until that happens, this seems to be nothing more than an urban legend. I mean, not even a handful of guys? If it's such a huge problem, it shouldn't be complicated to come up with real life examples.

I'm sure you'll set me straight, but this article makes it sound like KG agreed to the trade from MIN only after the Celtics showed him the money with a nice extension and he realized it was pretty much a done deal. Do you think he would've done that for Portland, Houston, Utah, Indiana, etc? There wasnt a chance he was going to stay in MIN and be mocked for never making it out of the first round.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2954127

xBulletproof
12-10-2011, 03:28 PM
I'm sure you'll set me straight, but this article makes it sound like KG agreed to the trade from MIN only after the Celtics showed him the money with a nice extension and he realized it was pretty much a done deal. Do you think he would've done that for Portland, Houston, Utah, Indiana, etc? There wasnt a chance he was going to stay in MIN and be mocked for never making it out of the first round.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2954127

I didn't read the article, but I clearly remember Garnett changing his mind after they got Ray Allen.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 03:30 PM
I'm sure you'll set me straight, but this article makes it sound like KG agreed to the trade from MIN only after the Celtics showed him the money with a nice extension and he realized it was pretty much a done deal. Do you think he would've done that for Portland, Houston, Utah, Indianapolis, etc?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2954127

Sure he would. In fact, he didn't want to be traded to Boston because he didn't think the talent they had was good enough to win the title. Only after Ainge acquired Ray Allen, Garnett agreed to sign an extension. He wanted to play for a team that would give him chances to win a title after wasting his prime in the mess that were the Wolves. Boston being a larger market did nothing for him. Boston having a quality supporting cast was the deciding factor. He was okay to be traded to Phoenix, Kerr never pulled the trigger.

I mean, Garnett was more than loyal - I think most people agree that too loyal - to Minnesota, of all places. You couldn't have picked a worse example.

DocHolliday
12-10-2011, 03:34 PM
Point is, he wasn't going to stay in Minnesota and the only two options were warm weather and a place with money to lure other talent. Small markets in flyover cities need not inquire.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 03:38 PM
Point is, he wasn't going to stay in Minnesota and the only two options were warm weather and a place with money to lure other talent.

What? Why is the money relevant at all? Boston didn't acquire talent by spending money.

Garnett stayed in Minny for way too long. It was in the best interest of Minny to trade him too at that point. Garnett agreeing to sign an extension was essential for Minny to trade him for good value. The deciding factor for Garnett wasn't money (every team in the league would give him the exact same contract) or size of the market (hence why he refused to go to Boston at first), but the talent on the team (hence why he never refused to go to Phoenix and why he agreed to go to Boston after they traded for Ray Allen).

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. I don't understand the relevance of "money" in this deal. It didn't have any.

ksuttonjr76
12-10-2011, 03:46 PM
:confused: Did I miss where Bayless was traded from Toronto?

Oops...that was my bad. Sorry. I was reviewing the wrong roster at the time.

kellogg
12-10-2011, 03:58 PM
How can you devise a system that keeps players from going where they want to go.

Not sure...ask the Green Bay Packers and the NFL.

Steagles
12-10-2011, 04:20 PM
I, being a teenage fan who wants to become a sportswriter, just wanted the NBA back. Since the deal was reached, my eyes have been opened. Very wide open. I see now why everyone is so pissed and I myself am getting pissed. I never really looked into the exemptions and such, and now I wish I would've shed a bit of my fanhood to side with the small markets and a hard cap. Granted I wore nothing NBA (only my team USA jersey I bought) but I just wanted basketball back. Now I'm regretting that. The system is broken. Before the new CBA ends, I want to see a Cleveland or Minnesota just put nothing but **** on the floor for the minimum for like 3 years. That will open some eyes.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

Kstat
12-10-2011, 04:22 PM
Not sure...ask the Green Bay Packers and the NFL.

totally different animal.

The NBAPA will never, ever consent to a franchise tag. You could miss 3 seasons and they still wouldn't agree to it.

Eleazar
12-10-2011, 04:29 PM
To devise a system that makes it difficult for star players to go where ever they want you need two things a hard cap and no max salary. Yeah it is impossible to completely control it unless the league dictates how much each player makes depending on their skill and a hard cap.

dal9
12-10-2011, 04:35 PM
I think removing the max on individual salaries, even in current system, would help. Guys wouldn't take less to play with their buddies if less was $15mm a year, not $2mm.


this sounds right to me...which side was for / against this in the lockout?

pacer4ever
12-10-2011, 05:03 PM
How can you devise a system that keeps players from going where they want to go.

a hard cap and a franchise tag for superstars works for the NFL and would work in the NBA.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 05:03 PM
neither will happen in the NBA, though. If the lockout taught us anything, it was that the owners do not have the stomach to kill multiple seasons for this, and the public doesn't either.

Since86
12-10-2011, 05:07 PM
neither will happen in the NBA, though. If the lockout taught us anything, it was that the owners do not have the stomach to kill multiple seasons for this, and the public doesn't either.

So because they didn't do it all in one move, it will never get done?

They can achieve the exact same things by increasing the luxury tax penalty, like they've already done. If this CBA doesn't fix the problems, you'll see the owners increase it if they can't get an outright hard cap.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 05:09 PM
So because they didn't do it all in one move, it will never get done?


Yes. Because the players will fight it to the death. That means killing the next 2 seasons,at a minimum.

able
12-10-2011, 05:16 PM
Hardcap and franchise tag are a fallacy as long as you dont share revenue.

owners/frontoffice have the keys, certainly the less succesfull teams do, they keep throwing them in the bowl not noticing the bowl is see-through.

saying no to Howard, saying no to CP3 does A: not destroy your team instantly, B: avoid you getting crap back on your roster ala murphleavy C: gives you exactly what Cuban is talking about; flexibility.

why ?

a: the ball is in the player's court the next year to leave approx 30 million on the table or to pocket it and stay put.
b: the player can only sign for teams with enough cap-space, any other option will have to go through you! therefore YOU call the shots, not an acceptable trade, then screw it and let him sign for the bullets.

Now the players has only a limited choice and it will always go through his wallet.

Since86
12-10-2011, 05:17 PM
Yes. Because the players will fight it to the death. That means killing the next 2 seasons,at a minimum.

The average NBA player is only in the league for 4 seasons. The first opt out date is 2017, which is 6 years from now. Most of the players involved in this past CBA fight will be out of the league by 2017. The fight will be a brand new fight for most of them.

You're looking at it like the fight is just taking a break, as opposed to a completely new discussion involving new blood.

To try and say it won't be done, because these set of players wouldn't allow it doesnt mean that a completely new set of players wouldn't be willing too.

They won't know any difference than what they know, which will be playing under this new CBA and preserving it.

Billy Hunter and Stern are gone. Stern has already said this was his last go around. New people brings new personalities. There's no way you can say, with any confidence, what they will and wont do.

It all depends on how this CBA works out.

Since86
12-10-2011, 05:19 PM
Hardcap and franchise tag are a fallacy as long as you dont share revenue.

Obviously you didn't hear. Revenue sharing was more than tripled with this past CBA.

able
12-10-2011, 05:28 PM
Obviously you didn't hear. Revenue sharing was more than tripled with this past CBA.

and obviously you are not a math major

there is NO report on sharing except for whispers it could at most treble.

well if it did, then i have news for you: the old "sharing" was 50 million
the new therefore MAXIMIUM woudl be 150 million.

there is one "however" in there; the teams were receiving 1-1 lt dollars (split among teams under), that no longer happens, only half of that, and while teams work to get closer to the cap and under the LT that takes away at least half the increase.

So hallelujah the NBA shares 100 million dollar in revenue to the poor brethren!

150 million on a portrayed full season with 4.2 billion turnover

well under my predicted 5%

fyi: the NFL shares 75%

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 05:32 PM
a hard cap and a franchise tag for superstars works for the NFL.

This.

I've seen a lot of talk in this thread, but the bottom line is that the NBA isn't a very competitive league. Some might point to money in terms of contracts. Some might point to non-NBA revenue a player can generate. Others might point to things like beaches, mountains...things many people weigh when deciding where they want to live.

Whatever the reason, the result is the same. The NBA isn't competitive and hasn't been that way for decades. The only question is whether you consider that to be a problem. Apparently, the majority of owners...people who actually know the issues...think it's a problem...and I'm with them on this issue.

Edit: the franchise tag (or two) would certainly help create competitive balance. The hard-cap helps a little, but there are workarounds.

Since86
12-10-2011, 05:38 PM
I'm not a math major? Atleast I don't have to resort to purposely distorting the truth.

You've went from claiming there wasn't any revenue sharing, to now admitting that they're in the process of atleast tripling it.

Since you're moving towards the actual truth, I'll speed up the process

It is expected that revenue-sharing will increase from $40 million to $160 million initially and keep rising to nearly $200 million, Stern said.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/story/2011-12-10/Impact-of-NBAs-labor-deal-will-cap-Sterns-legacy/51782532/1

So it will actually quadruple revenue sharing, and eventually multiply it by 5.

Basketball Fan
12-10-2011, 05:47 PM
Not sure...ask the Green Bay Packers and the NFL.

Putting that the NFL is totally different than the NBA the Packers are a storied franchise(probably the storied franchise) in the NFL.

That also factors in to whether a player wants to play there or not.

A winning tradition.

able
12-10-2011, 05:49 PM
I'm not a math major? Atleast I don't have to resort to purposely distorting the truth.

You've went from claiming there wasn't any revenue sharing, to now admitting that they're in the process of atleast tripling it.

Since you're moving towards the actual truth, I'll speed up the process

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/story/2011-12-10/Impact-of-NBAs-labor-deal-will-cap-Sterns-legacy/51782532/1

So it will actually quadruple revenue sharing, and eventually multiply it by 5.


IF that is the deal that is accepted, then it is OVER THE DURATION OF THIS CBA!

200 million??? for all i care they shove it because that is still UNDER my prognoses of 5%

I never mentioned anywhere there was no revenue sharing, pls quote me where i did.
not worth mentioning sharing, yes, and unless you want to call sharing 1% of the gross product really sharing then you wont have an argument there, which you still dont have but ok,

My argument was not that they dont share, my argument was that A: hardcap and franchise tag were a fallacy without revenue sharing (see NFL 75%) something that is not going to happen in my lifetime in the NBA.

secondly i made a case stating that it is the owners who are at fault (and their front offices) and not the players, but you ignored the for reasons only you can come up with.

So now we have established that revenue sharing can at best for the near fiture reach 4% of the gross product while changing the LT so that teams under the LT get less then ever

LT changes: formerly 1 - 1 all dollars go to teams under the treshold
LT now: several layers, more severe penalty system, less teams over
which at best will equal to the same amount of LT being received by the league as before, however...........

50% of that remains with the league to do as the league sees fit.
50% gets distributed over ALL teams (including those over the LT)

So, what you gain on sharing, you lose on LT revenue.

really that hard?

Since86
12-10-2011, 05:52 PM
Hardcap and franchise tag are a fallacy as long as you dont share revenue.

Uh, right here. Not sharing is different than not sharing enough. Like I said, I don't need to purposefully distort the truth.

able
12-10-2011, 05:57 PM
Uh, right here. Not sharing is different than not sharing enough. Like I said, I don't need to purposefully distort the truth.


Great answer, you really brought in arguments to take my case of the table and still saw chance to call me a liar without bringing any proof whatsoever to the table.

Or do you really want to argue that sharing 1% of the gross product really is revenue sharing ??????

Shade
12-10-2011, 06:04 PM
that is definitely a reasoning that will get you murphleavy scenarios, please, that is enouhg of an example to not go that route.

You ARE creating cap space and you WILL have to be more prudent on talent that comes at lowers cost as well as your picksm, i.e. you have to be smarter, i say that is good.

You can't compare a superstar in his prime to the then-untradeable Stephen Jackson and Ron Artest. If the Magic traded Dwight Howard for Murphleavy, they would be rightfully skewered.

The Pacers are currently in as good of a position as you can get a team: a young, playoff core under contract and a ton of cap space. Yet, we don't appear to be players for Howard or Paul, let alone both, even though we could more easily accomodate them than any other team in the league. Why is that?

Since86
12-10-2011, 06:04 PM
Do they share money? Yes. Therefore it's revenue sharing. Once again, not sharing any isn't equal to not sharing enough.

Zero is zero. Anything more than zero is more than zero.

When you know that they do revenue share, and you make a post where you claim they do not, that is lying. If you would have said they didn't share enough, then that would have been a matter of opinion.

I might have poor math skills by your standards, but I'm pretty strong at understanding english.

able
12-10-2011, 06:07 PM
Do they share money? Yes. Therefore it's revenue sharing. Once again, not sharing any isn't equal to not sharing enough.

Zero is zero. Anything more than zero is more than zero.

When you know that they do revenue share, and you make a post where you claim they do not, that is lying. If you would have said they didn't share enough, then that would have been a matter of opinion.

I might have poor math skills by your standards, but I'm pretty strong at understanding english.

No you are not, understanding English, but it is fine, get back to me when you are ready to discuss the content of my post instead of fragments of imagination that don't quite topple the topic but let you score in the "i'm right" department

Since86
12-10-2011, 06:11 PM
Well I hope you don't forget to mark that win down on your chalkboard. I would hate for you to not pat yourself on your back.

xBulletproof
12-10-2011, 06:47 PM
IF that is the deal that is accepted, then it is OVER THE DURATION OF THIS CBA!

Wait, do you think they mean 200 million shared total in 10 years?

ksuttonjr76
12-10-2011, 07:02 PM
Frankly, I don't give a d*mn about the revenue sharing. I just want a d*mn impactful FA to come to Indiana.

Revenue sharing doesn't address my desire to see the Pacers win a championship within my lifetime.

Hard cap, soft cap, LT, and revnue sharing don't mean a thing if we can't lure players here to even make it a problem for us in the first place.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 07:03 PM
Frankly, I don't give a d*mn about the revenue sharing. I just want a d*mn impactful FA to come to Indiana.

Revenue sharing doesn't address my desire to see the Pacers win a championship within my lifetime.

Dwight Howard just asked for a trade. Maybe we go after him...:laugh:

Scot Pollard
12-10-2011, 07:11 PM
Looking at this in the NBA makes me nauseous.

I was happy to see what Denver got in return for Carmelo Anthony. They turned out to be the better team in the end.

So if these trades can be done and those who lose their star get good, young value in return to build with and win, then I don't have as much of a problem.

If these stars want to play together and have a grand old time and play like it's for fun without any chemistry between anyone, then go ahead.

able
12-10-2011, 07:13 PM
Wait, do you think they mean 200 million shared total in 10 years?

no yearly of course, but it starts of (at best) with 150 or 120, whatever publication you read, and over the 10 year course of this cba will grow to 160/200 depending on the publication

it remains totally irellevant money compared to any other sport.

able
12-10-2011, 07:14 PM
Dwight Howard just asked for a trade. Maybe we go after him...:laugh:

My argument centers around refusing him that trade.
I am saying owner have the power to make it better, they just dont want to.

Hicks
12-10-2011, 07:16 PM
no yearly of course, but it starts of (at best) with 150 or 120, whatever publication you read, and over the 10 year course of this cba will grow to 160/200 depending on the publication

it remains totally irellevant money compared to any other sport.

What was the number last year?

Scot Pollard
12-10-2011, 07:19 PM
So where is Kevin Durant going when he expires?

Probably the Lakers because by then Kobe will pretty be out the door. As it stands now, he seems to be a loyal guy, but it can very well change. Ala LeBron.

Hopefully things won't become anymore insane than it is today with commissioner Adam Silver at the helm.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 07:22 PM
Just like Tim Duncan bolted San Antonio when his contract expired?

If Dwight Howard had a better team around him, he isn't asking out. It was criminal how little help he had last year in the paint.

I can't blame Howard and Paul for wanting to go elsewhere. Neither of their teams had done a good job of building around them for the better part of a decade.

able
12-10-2011, 07:28 PM
What was the number last year?

40 million dollar. or 50, depending on your source

and dont forget they had 1 for 1 LT to go to teams under the LT, in the new setup it will be 50% to the league and 50% to ALL teams, uncluding the payers., so that deludes to nearly 0

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 07:32 PM
Just like Tim Duncan bolted San Antonio when his contract expired?

If Dwight Howard had a better team around him, he isn't asking out. It was criminal how little help he had last year in the paint.

I can't blame Howard and Paul for wanting to go elsewhere. Neither of their teams had done a good job of building around them for the better part of a decade.

Howard has had pretty good pieces around him at times. I don't think that's the issue. Orlando had a good enough team to win it all...it just didn't work out.

pacer4ever
12-10-2011, 07:42 PM
:bs:
Howard has had pretty good pieces around him at times. I don't think that's the issue. Orlando had a good enough team to win it all...it just didn't work out.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 07:43 PM
Yeah...that's BS.

Who is the 2nd best player Dwight has ever had around him?

Vince Carter?

Hedo Turkoglu?

Jameer Nelson?

Rashard Lewis?

Not to mention, none of those guys make his job any easier in the paint.

Scot Pollard
12-10-2011, 07:44 PM
I wonder if Gilbert Arenas was still as good as he was before the whole incident, would Dwight be happy?

It would probably help the Magic win something.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 07:45 PM
Well, they cut him, so he obviously wasn't.

Arenas isn't a 4-down point guard anyway. He needs to run pick and rolls.

Scot Pollard
12-10-2011, 07:48 PM
Well, they cut him, so he obviously wasn't.

That wasn't my point, but okay.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 07:56 PM
Yeah...that's BS.

Who is the 2nd best player Dwight has ever had around him?

Vince Carter?

Hedo Turkoglu?

Jameer Nelson?

Rashard Lewis?

Not to mention, none of those guys make his job any easier in the paint.

They won 59 games in both 2009 and 2010. Last year's champion (Dallas) won 57 games. Also, Orlando went to the finals and ECF those two years. Of course, they lost to a superteam (LA) in the finals, that had stolen another superstar (Pau) from a small market team (Memphis) so it's no wonder they lost.

Since86
12-10-2011, 07:57 PM
I don't think the issue is about whether or not Orlando put a good team around Dwight, but obviously they tried. Same thing for Cleveland.

Getting pieces that fit together to help your superstar isn't some easy task for a small market. Like Cuban said in his letter a few days ago. He could always take on more salary to get the pieces he wanted. That's how they got pretty much their entire team. If your owner doesn't have the capability to take on extra salary, or isn't willing, then having a great GM is the only other option.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 07:59 PM
They won 59 games in both 2009 and 2010. Last year's champion (Dallas) won 57 games. Also, Orlando went to the finals and ECF those two years. Of course, they lost to a superteam (LA) in the finals, that had stolen another superstar (Pau) from a small market team (Memphis) so it's no wonder they lost.

...and without Howard, that team might win 30 games.

It's the same scenario as Cleveland. Winning a bunch of games with a premier superstar doesn't mean you're building it the right way.

And FYI, they got murdered by Gasol because they themselves stole Rashard Lewis from Seattle for $100 million and had the brilliant idea of playing him at PF.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 08:03 PM
I don't think the issue is about whether or not Orlando put a good team around Dwight, but obviously they tried. Same thing for Cleveland.

Getting pieces that fit together to help your superstar isn't some easy task for a small market. Like Cuban said in his letter a few days ago. He could always take on more salary to get the pieces he wanted. That's how they got pretty much their entire team. If your owner doesn't have the capability to take on extra salary, or isn't willing, then having a great GM is the only other option.

Gilbert and DeVos could say the same thing Cuban said. They were always willing to take in salary. Look at their payrolls. Not surprising, they earned a lot of money because of these players, especially Gilbert.

The difference is that Donnie Nelson is a good GM while Ferry and Smith are beyond horrible. I like that you need good GMing to win titles and keep your superstars, that luck in the draft isn't enough. Seems fair to me.

Major Cold
12-10-2011, 08:05 PM
Magic overpaid on Lewis. And it has hurt them ever since. Small market teams cannot make that mistake.

Nene anyone?

Since86
12-10-2011, 08:06 PM
Gilbert and DeVos could say the same thing Cuban said. They were always willing to take in salary. Look at their payrolls. Not surprising, they earned a lot of money because of these players, especially Gilbert.

The difference is that Donnie Nelson is a good GM while Ferry and Smith are beyond horrible. I like that you need good GMing to win titles and keep your superstars, that luck in the draft isn't enough. Seems fair to me.

You've basically described the MLB. Would you rather have a league that everyone has a chance or just a handful?

It comes down to preference.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 08:07 PM
...and without Howard, that team might win 30 games.

It's the same scenario as Cleveland. Winning a bunch of games with a premier superstar doesn't mean you're building it the right way.

And FYI, they got murdered by Gasol because they themselves stole Rashard Lewis from Seattle for $100 million and had the brilliant idea of playing him at PF.

59 wins is pretty good. Better than the Indiana Pacers during their 1990's runs...where they were built very well. Also much better than your Pistons when they won a title.

The problem Orlando ran into was a 65 win Laker team...better than any Laker team since the team the Pacers faced in 2000 (which won 67 games).
But I agree with your point about Rashard Lewis. He cannot defend the position and was a big hole.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 08:11 PM
Orlando WAS playing under the right circumstances in 2009.

They played a Boston team without KG, and it still took them 7 games to take them down.

Then they played an equally poorly constructed Cleveland team in the ECF, with Varejao starting at PF.

They managed to get through the entire east playoffs without their weakest link being tested once.

You saw what happened the next season when they ran into the celtics again, with a healthy KG. They got obliterated.

FrenchConnection
12-10-2011, 08:12 PM
In a capped league, teams cannot whiff on high $ FA signings like Orlando did on Lewis. And that goes for the large markets too. Just ask the Knicks.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 08:12 PM
You've basically described the MLB. Would you rather have a league that everyone has a chance or just a handful?

It comes down to preference.

What? I want a league where GMing matters. Good management should be rewarded, bad management should be punished. That's the difference between Dallas, Cleveland and Orlando. Not the owners ability or willingness to spend money.

rexnom
12-10-2011, 08:15 PM
Orlando WAS playing under the right circumstances in 2009.

They played a Boston team without KG, and it still took them 7 games to take them down.

Then they played an equally poorly constructed Cleveland team in the ECF, with Varejao starting at PF.

They managed to get through the entire east playoffs without their weakest link being tested once.

You saw what happened the next season when they ran into the celtics again, with a healthy KG. They got obliterated.
I agree with your point, more or less. But I also don't think you're giving that '08-'09 Magic team enough credit. That was a nicely built team. Part of what made them so unique was the Turkoglu-Lewis combo up front with Howard. They lost a lot of that when they went more traditional and Lewis slowed down some. If they had returned with the same team (Turkoglu, Lee, healthy Nelson), I'm not sure they wouldn't have done some damage in 2010.

Also, that Finals was the closest five game series I've ever seen. Maybe I'm insane but I don't think it was impossible for them to beat that Lakers team.

Scot Pollard
12-10-2011, 08:17 PM
These super teams are too good to be true.

cordobes
12-10-2011, 08:17 PM
Players put more focus on their chances of winning for the duration of the contract than on the past obviously. That's why Duncan almost signed with Orlando after winning a title with San Antonio. The trust they have in the front-office to build a winner is what really matters. Magic's management hasn't showed anything to earn that faith from Howard. I'd move away from them too.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 08:18 PM
Orlando WAS playing under the right circumstances in 2009.

They played a Boston team without KG, and it still took them 7 games to take them down.

Then they played an equally poorly constructed Cleveland team in the ECF, with Varejao starting at PF.

They managed to get through the entire east playoffs without their weakest link being tested once.

You saw what happened the next season when they ran into the celtics again, with a healthy KG. They got obliterated.

Facing the best Laker team since 2000 was not exactly good timing.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 08:18 PM
all things being equal, they should never even have reached the Lakers. Any team with a PF that can walk and chew gum would have had a shot at beating them.

The Pistons were murdering Orlando at the 4 long before Boston started doing it with KG.

Scot Pollard
12-10-2011, 08:19 PM
Announcing the starters to the Western Conference All-Stars.....

At guard from the Los Angeles Lakers, Kobe Bryant!
At guard also from the Los Angeles Lakers, Chris Paul!
At center also from the Los Angeles Lakers, Dwight Howard!

FrenchConnection
12-10-2011, 08:22 PM
What? I want a league where GMing matters. Good management should be rewarded, bad management should be punished. That's the difference between Dallas, Cleveland and Orlando. Not the owners ability or willingness to spend money.

Great point. People seem to forget that we paid the tax for years while losing. We spent the money, just not wisely.

But the problems small markets are facing right now is not related to money or management, but rather player demands. I think that the players are angry at management and emboldened by the lockout and are using their new-found leverage to reshape the league. Also, I think that what we learned in the lockout is that agents are the ones really running this whole show. The next step will be top players (and their agents) pulling "an Eli" on a routine basis. Imagine a situation where a real superstar coming out of their single college year forces a team like the Cavs or Pacers to trade their #1 pick to one of three teams because they will refuse to sign. That's a very real possibility, especially with the overseas option becoming more and more prevalent. That would destroy everything. The NBA would resemble a European soccer league, where only one or two teams have a real chance to win every year and the rest of the league develops players for them.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 08:22 PM
all things being equal, they should never even have reached the Lakers. Any team with a PF that can walk and chew gum would have had a shot at beating them.

The Pistons were murdering Orlando at the 4 long before Boston started doing it with KG.

They beat the Cavs that year....and that team won 66 games. So, are you saying the Cavs were built well? All the teams are flawed....except the supa-Lakas.

Since86
12-10-2011, 08:23 PM
What? I want a league where GMing matters. Good management should be rewarded, bad management should be punished. That's the difference between Dallas, Cleveland and Orlando. Not the owners ability or willingness to spend money.

Yeah, and in baseball you have to not only have deep pockets but also a good GM. With just money, and no GM, you have the Chicago Cubs. With money and a good GM you have the Yankees/Red Sox/Rangers/Angels. Without money, and with a good GM, you have the Tampa Bay Rays.

In the NFL you money doesn't determine whether or not you win. Dallas and Washington have consistently under performed eventhough they have some of the deepest pockets in the NFL.

Being able to win shouldn't be determined by who your owner is.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 08:25 PM
They beat the Cavs that year....and that team won 66 games. So, are you saying the Cavs were built well? All the teams are flawed....except the supa-Lakas.

No, I'm saying the Cavs and Magic were built stupidly but won anyway because their best players were that good.

and BTW, the "supa-lakes" started Trevor Ariza at SF and Derek Fisher at PG...

The difference is, the Lakers' role players fit a system and could defend their positions. It's called smart management.

Since86
12-10-2011, 08:26 PM
Great point. People seem to forget that we paid the tax for years while losing. We spent the money, just not wisely.

But the problems small markets are facing right now is not related to money or management, but rather player demands. I think that the players are angry at management and emboldened by the lockout and are using their new-found leverage to reshape the league. Also, I think that what we learned in the lockout is that agents are the ones really running this whole show. The next step will be top players (and their agents) pulling "an Eli" on a routine basis. Imagine a situation where a real superstar coming out of their single college year forces a team like the Cavs or Pacers to trade their #1 pick to one of three teams because they will refuse to sign. That's a very real possibility, especially with the overseas option becoming more and more prevalent. That would destroy everything. The NBA would resemble a European soccer league, where only one or two teams have a real chance to win every year and the rest of the league develops players for them.

Spending 70mil, and being in the luxury tax is a little bit different than having a 90mil payroll, and being in the luxury tax.

The Pacers have been losing moeny while spending 60mil on payroll. What's another 30mil, along with tax penalties gonna do to the team if they've already had talks about leaving? The CIB just had to pick up an even bigger portion of the tab to ensure that the Pacers stay.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 08:30 PM
No, I'm saying the Cavs and Magic were built stupidly but won anyway because their best players were that good.

I wouldn't describe a 66 win team as being built stupidly. The Cavs had some decent pieces around LeBron IMO. Orlando did too.

The issue is that comparing those teams to the Lakers and Boston...teams where talent flocks...they will not look as good and really they are not. Rashard isn't the guy you want at PF, but he's still pretty good as a weak link. Dallas from last year wasn't any better than that Orlando team IMHO.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 08:32 PM
That Dallas team had a lot of older former star players that knew how to win. More improtantly, they played defense.

Jason Terry is a far better sidekick for Dirk than LeBron or Howard had.

Since86
12-10-2011, 08:33 PM
That Dallas team had a lot of older former star players that knew how to win. Moreimprotantly, they played defense.

And the most important thing is they had an owner willing to pay, or that team is never put together.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 08:34 PM
Orlando and Cleveland were more than willing to pay. They paid for crap.

BlueNGold
12-10-2011, 08:36 PM
Orlando and Cleveland were more than willing to pay. They paid for crap.

I think you are making a good point here. It's difficult to draw talent to small markets...;)

Edit: BTW, notice both Orlando and Cleveland drafted those guys, couldn't attract good talent as much as they spent, and have lost or are losing their stars.

This pretty much wraps up all the threads....

Kstat
12-10-2011, 08:38 PM
Cleveland had a shot at Amare Stoudemire. They turned it down because their GM thought he drafted a future superstar in JJ Hickson.

Since86
12-10-2011, 08:52 PM
Cleveland had a shot at Amare Stoudemire. They turned it down because their GM thought he drafted a future superstar in JJ Hickson.

And I'm sure that extra 20+million had nothing to do with that decision?

Kstat
12-10-2011, 08:55 PM
And I'm sure that extra 20+million had nothing to do with that decision?

No. They had already spent a ton of cash in bringing in Shaq, Mo Williams and Jamison. If Ferry had half a brain, he could have made that trade for Amare in the last year of his deal.

Hicks
12-10-2011, 09:23 PM
I'm still confused about the revenue. Did it really triple (or more), or not? Does that new tax setup reduce the final amount the Pacers will get?

Bottom line: How much did we get in shared revenue last year, and how much should we expect to get (bottom line) this year?

Scot Pollard
12-10-2011, 09:29 PM
I liked LeBron in Cleveland. He was actually a funny and cool guy with the pregame rituals.

I think he would've stayed if management was better.

They definitely could've had Amare OR Chris Bosh, IIRC.

Since86
12-10-2011, 09:52 PM
No. They had already spent a ton of cash in bringing in Shaq, Mo Williams and Jamison. If Ferry had half a brain, he could have made that trade for Amare in the last year of his deal.

So you don't think owners hit a line? They were willing to take on some, but not an infinite amount. I don't know if he turned it down because he hit his max willingness to spend, but neither do you.

And if any of them had a brain they would have realized LeBron was gone and tried to do a S&T, instead of getting caught with their thumb up their ***.

Kstat
12-10-2011, 09:54 PM
No. Amare was on the last half-season of his contract. Dan Gilbert would have to be a total moron to veto that trade for $20 million after all the money he spent on far worse players.

Since86
12-10-2011, 09:55 PM
No. Amare was on the last half-season of his contract. Dan Gilbert would have to be a total moron to veto that trade for $20 million after all the money he spent on far worse players.

Ah. That does make a difference.

EDIT: Wait, why would it? They would still need to resign him. It's not like he's an expiring they wouldn't want to keep. If they keep Hickson they keep a rookie contract in place.

count55
12-10-2011, 11:16 PM
Bottom line: How much did we get in shared revenue last year, and how much should we expect to get (bottom line) this year?

Best guess New system:

$15-20mm in rev sharing
1/30 of 50% of the tax payments (probably $1-2mm)
and probably
1/30 of the other 50% of the tax payments

Old system/last year:

1/30 of the tax payments (probably $2-3mm)
add'l rev share for "teams in distress" that would bring the total to no more than $6mm.

So, probably no less than $18mm total for Pacers, and maybe as much as $25mm, compared to no more than $6mm under the old system.

It's important to remember that the Pacers will receive less in revenue sharing as their own revenue goes up. If the system is set up as I suspect, a contending Pacer team that is drawing well and going deep in the playoffs will receive very little or no share, and may even be a small contributor.

King Tuts Tomb
12-10-2011, 11:23 PM
Interesting take from Deadspin (http://deadspin.com/5866620/five-********-things-about-david-sterns-********-veto-of-the-chris-paul-trade) on the blocked Paul trade. I don't totally agree with it all but it's worth reading (some light profanity)


4.) "When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?" obstreperous bullshitter Dan Gilbert said in a message to Stern, apparently written in the sort of pleading, self-pitying prose one finds in prison letters. Here's the ******** thing about that: You are the Washington Generals. You have always been the Washington Generals, and until the NBA goes commie and starts arming the peasantry and redistributing the land—a la the NFL—you will go on being the Washington Generals. All sports are rigged to one degree or another. The NFL is rigged so that everyone is the Washington Generals. MLB is rigged so that the Washington Generals, upon receiving their annual bribe, are mostly content to remain the Washington Generals. And, yes, the NBA is rigged so that a handful of teams—the teams the general public actually likes to watch on TV—get to enjoy their native blessings, and everyone else is the Washington Generals.

Hicks
12-10-2011, 11:32 PM
Best guess New system:

$15-20mm in rev sharing
1/30 of 50% of the tax payments (probably $1-2mm)
and probably
1/30 of the other 50% of the tax payments

Old system/last year:

1/30 of the tax payments (probably $2-3mm)
add'l rev share for "teams in distress" that would bring the total to no more than $6mm.

So, probably no less than $18mm total for Pacers, and maybe as much as $25mm, compared to no more than $6mm under the old system.

It's important to remember that the Pacers will receive less in revenue sharing as their own revenue goes up. If the system is set up as I suspect, a contending Pacer team that is drawing well and going deep in the playoffs will receive very little or no share, and may even be a small contributor.

In other words... 3 to 4 times as much, right?

Basketball Fan
12-10-2011, 11:48 PM
I liked LeBron in Cleveland. He was actually a funny and cool guy with the pregame rituals.

I think he would've stayed if management was better.

They definitely could've had Amare OR Chris Bosh, IIRC.

That and if Dan Gilbert wasn't a nutbar. It was a business decision he knew he was never going to win there.

You saw how that team fell off after he left. I definately think that he made a huge difference(and the Eastern Conference was garbage) much like we're seeing the Colts without Manning right now.

Although I never cared for LeBron I think overall he's a harmless individual but The Decision was a bad one(even if I thought he was smart to leave Cleveland)

Basketball Fan
12-10-2011, 11:52 PM
So where is Kevin Durant going when he expires?

Probably the Lakers because by then Kobe will pretty be out the door. As it stands now, he seems to be a loyal guy, but it can very well change. Ala LeBron.

Hopefully things won't become anymore insane than it is today with commissioner Adam Silver at the helm.


I think he'll stay in OKC he doesn't seem into the big market(then again I don't really know the guy) they're actually building a team around the guy and have made good moves.

As long as they're in the mix he'll stay. Guards usually do ..

Centers are another story.

pacer4ever
12-11-2011, 12:18 AM
Best guess New system:

$15-20mm in rev sharing
1/30 of 50% of the tax payments (probably $1-2mm)
and probably
1/30 of the other 50% of the tax payments

Old system/last year:

1/30 of the tax payments (probably $2-3mm)
add'l rev share for "teams in distress" that would bring the total to no more than $6mm.

So, probably no less than $18mm total for Pacers, and maybe as much as $25mm, compared to no more than $6mm under the old system.

It's important to remember that the Pacers will receive less in revenue sharing as their own revenue goes up. If the system is set up as I suspect, a contending Pacer team that is drawing well and going deep in the playoffs will receive very little or no share, and may even be a small contributor.

Stern said most teams will get between 15m-20m and should go up in time. He said that in the presser the other day announcing the CBA is official

and yes 4 times as much.