Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

    http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...ne/index.html#

    "We're trying to formulate a new agreement that will allow teams like Portland -- smaller markets in the league -- to have an opportunity to be both profitable and competitive on the court," deputy commissioner Adam Silver told the Oregonian newspaper in March. He and David Stern have offered variations on that theme a hundred times since; this lockout is about making sure that every team has a chance to compete. But what system can guarantee that?

    Of course, the league has one in mind -- a hard, or at least, hard-er cap system in which the disparity between what the top teams pay in salary and their lesser brethren is greatly reduced. In the league's mind, getting rid of the current system, where the luxury tax has had no impact on the five or six teams that are willing to pay it, is paramount.

    But ... what have those teams gotten for their money?

    According to cap avatar Larry Coon, these are the teams that paid the tax from 2004-2005 to 2009-10: the Knicks (five times, at a total of about $131 million), Mavericks (five times, $85 million), Cavaliers (three times, $43 million), Lakers (three times, $33 million), Celtics (three times, $31 million), Nuggets (three times, $21 million), Magic (twice, $18 million), Suns (three times, almost $14 million), Heat (twice, $11 million), Spurs (three times, almost $10 million), Blazers (once, $5.9 million), Pacers (yeah, surprised me, too--once, at $4.7 million), Grizzlies (once, $3.7 million), Jazz (once, $3.1 million) and Timberwolves (once, $1 million). Reportedly, the Lakers, Magic and Mavericks were the only teams that paid the tax this past season, at around $20 million each.

    The Knicks didn't make the playoffs once in the five seasons they paid the luxury tax. The Mavs made it each of the six years -- including this past one -- that they paid the tax. But they made the postseason in the five previous seasons (2000-2005) in which they did not pay a luxury tax as well. The Lakers have paid the tax when they lost in the Finals (2007-08), the two years they won the championship ('08-09 and '09-10) and this past year, when they got smoked in the semis. Boston paid tax when it won its last championship (2007-08) and the year it lost to Orlando in the conference semifinals (2008-09).

    The Nuggets have paid the tax three times, but they didn't pay it in 2008-09, the year they made the Western Conference finals for the first time in 24 seasons.

    More to the point, Utah -- which has paid the tax once in its history -- has made the playoffs 24 times in the last 28 years. The Blazers -- who've paid the tax once -- have made the playoffs 24 times in the last 29 years.

    I'm sure Stern and Silver would say that they're not literally looking for guarantees that every team in the league be competitive every year, only that financial limitations shouldn't be decisive in determining how competitive a team can be. The Commish often cites the disparity between the Lakers' $110 million payroll last season and Sacramento's $45 million to exemplify how the Kings simply cannot field a team that can play with L.A.'s. And they would argue that things are much different now than they were in the mid-80s. Fair enough.

    So I have tried to look at a more fair comparison.

    I have taken a look at the last 13 seasons since the implementation of the 1999 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the league and the players that ended the '98 lockout. I used that line of demarcation because that CBA produced much of the modern salary structure in the game. It capped salaries of the top players, meaning the exponential growth in max player salaries that culminated in Kevin Garnett's $126 million from small-market Minnesota in 1996 would be stopped dead in its tracks. It created the mid-level exception, tied to the average salary paid in the league. And it established the luxury tax and escrow payments from the players to owners.

    I tried to look at how teams' decisions affected their on-court performance. I tried to see if there was any difference between how teams in large markets, medium markets and small ones fared when it came to making the playoffs. (The delineation between "major," "midsize" and "small" markets is mine, as are any mistakes in those listings.)

    "Smart Moves" refer to decisions that weren't obvious to do and had a major impact on the franchise. For example, the Bulls were fortunate to get the first pick in the 2008 Draft, but it was a no-brainer to take Derrick Rose with the first pick (or for the Cavs to take LeBron James first overall in 2003). They don't get credit for that.

    "Questionable and/or Bad Moves" doesn't necessarily mean bad Draft picks or trades, though if a particular one was so egregious to the franchise's future or ability to win has been included.

    The question "have they competed for championships?" does allow for some interpretation. I created four categories: yes (meaning they've won a title during the 12-season stretch, made The Finals, or made at least two conference finals), no (meaning they haven't made the playoffs or haven't gotten past the second round more than once), not really (defining teams that may have made the playoffs a few times, but haven't been real title contenders) and briefly (defining teams that had a small window of contention that was closed by injury to a key player or some other traumatic experience).

    ATLANTA HAWKS

    Playoff appearances: 5
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Trading for Joe Johnson (2004); taking Al Horford (third overall) in 2007 Draft
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Drafting Marvin Williams in first round (2005) instead of Chris Paul or Deron Williams; max contract ($124 million) for Johnson in 2010
    External Factors: Former ownership group (Atlanta Spirit) beset by internal struggles
    Have they competed for championships?: Not really

    BOSTON CELTICS

    Playoff appearances: 8
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Acquiring Kendrick Perkins (2003) and Rajon Rondo (2006) in Draft day deals; trading for Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen (2007)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Trading Perkins to Oklahoma City for Jeff Green (2010)
    External Factors: Increasing operating capital with local cable TV deals
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    CHARLOTTE BOBCATS

    Playoff appearances: 1
    Market size: Midsize
    Smart Moves: Hiring Larry Brown as coach (2008)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Front office purge under former owner Robert Johnson
    External Factors: An NFL team (Carolina Panthers, founded in 1995) competing for discretionary income
    Have they competed for championships?: No

    CHICAGO BULLS

    Playoff appearances: 6
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Not trading for Kobe Bryant (2007), which would have gutted roster (Luol Deng) and cost future Draft picks (Joakim Noah, Taj Gibson, etc.)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Hiring Vinny Del Negro as head coach (2006) instead of Mike D'Antoni
    External Factors: Incomparably loyal fan base continued to generate revenue during down seasons
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    CLEVELAND CAVALIERS

    Playoff appearances: 5
    Market size: Midsize
    Smart Moves: Hiring a virtual unknown, Mike Brown, as coach (2005)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Never getting LeBron James a legitimate superstar partner (Jason Kidd, 2008; Amar'e Stoudemire, 2010)
    External Factors: Carlos Boozer's departure to Utah (2004) under murky circumstances
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    DALLAS MAVERICKS

    Playoff appearances: 11
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Embracing defense-first philosophy (Avery Johnson, Rick Carlisle), acquiring Jason Kidd (2008)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Losing Steve Nash (2004)
    External Factors: Mark Cuban working more behind the scenes with league instead of daily confrontations
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    DENVER NUGGETS

    Playoff appearances: 8
    Market size: Midsize
    Smart Moves: Successfully salvaging Carmelo Anthony trade request (2011)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Max contract for Kenyon Martin (2004), which limited flexibility for other moves once Martin became injured
    External Factors: George Karl's cancer battle (2010)
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    DETROIT PISTONS

    Playoff appearances: 10
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Signing Chauncey Billups (2002), hiring Larry Brown (2003)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Trading Billups for Allen Iverson (2008); hiring Michael Curry (2008-09) and John Kuester (2009-10) as head coaches
    External Factors: Death of longtime owner Bill Davidson (2009) threw franchise into limbo
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS

    Playoff appearances: 1
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Putting together strong front office with Larry Riley, Bob Myers, Jerry West; hiring Mark Jackson as head coach (2011)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Everything before that
    External Factors: Former owner Chris Cohan's IRS issues
    Have they competed for championships?: No

    HOUSTON ROCKETS

    Playoff appearances: 6
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Hiring excellent head coaches (Rudy Tomjanovich, Jeff Van Gundy, Rick Adelman)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Tracy McGrady/Yao Ming pairing never meshed into dynamic duo due to injuries
    External Factors: Chinese Basketball's insistence on Yao playing every summer for national team
    Have they competed for championships?: Not really

    INDIANA PACERS

    Playoff appearances: 9
    Market size: Small
    Smart Moves: Building Conseco Fieldhouse, which is still a state-of-the-art stadium 12 years after opening
    Questionable/Bad Moves: 2007 trade with Warriors (Al Harrington, Stephen Jackson, et.al, for Mike Dunleavy, Jr., Troy Murphy, et.al)
    External Factors: Malice at The Palace (2004)
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS

    Playoff appearances: 1
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Baron Davis-Mo Williams trade (2011)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Signing Baron Davis ($65 million in 2008-09) didn't work out as planned
    External Factors: Owner Donald Sterling. 'Nuff said
    Have they competed for championships?: No

    LOS ANGELES LAKERS

    Playoff appearances: 12
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Pau Gasol trade (2008), not trading Kobe Bryant (2007)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Trading Shaq (2004)
    External Factors: Emergence of Jim Buss as power broker, beating out Jerry West, Phil Jackson
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    MEMPHIS GRIZZLIES

    Playoff appearances: 4
    Market size: Small
    Smart Moves: Pau Gasol trade (2008), Zach Randolph trade (2010)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Jury's out on recent spending sprees ($80 million for Rudy Gay; $45 million for Mike Conley)
    External Factors: University of Memphis' stall as national college power helps Grizzlies' bottom line, though entities work with one another
    Have they competed for championships?: No

    MIAMI HEAT

    Playoff appearances: 10
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: The Super Friends (2010) and the three years of planning it took to make that happen
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Running coach Stan Van Gundy out of town
    External Factors: Aligning of Creative Artists Agency into basketball power broker
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    MILWAUKEE BUCKS

    Playoff appearances: 7
    Market size: Small
    Smart Moves: Gambling on Brandon Jennings (10th pick, 2010)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Big contract ($91 million, 2005) for Michael Redd, whose knees wouldn't let him live up to it
    External Factors: Inability to get new arena built to replace Bradley Center further hamstrings team compared to NBA's haves
    Have they competed for championships?: No

    MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES

    Playoff appearances: 6
    Market size: Small
    Smart Moves: Hiring Rick Adelman (2011)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Drafting Jonny Flynn (2009) instead of Steph Curry, Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson
    External Factors: Illegal contract for Joe Smith (2002), costing franchise four first-round picks
    Have they competed for championships?: Briefly

    NEW JERSEY NETS

    Playoff appearances: 6
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Jason Kidd trade (2001)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Losing Kenyon Martin (2004)
    External Factors: Former majority owner Bruce Ratner's payroll strip in advance of new Brooklyn complex gutted promising squad
    Have they competed for championships?: Briefly

    NEW ORLEANS HORNETS

    Playoff appearances: 8
    Market size: Small
    Smart Moves: Tyson Chandler trade (2006)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Firing Byron Scott (2009)
    External Factors: Hurricane Katrina (2005) wiped out local economy for years
    Have they competed for championships?: Not really

    NEW YORK KNICKS

    Playoff appearances: 5
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Signing Amar'e Stoudemire (2010)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Acquiring Eddy Curry (2005), signing Jerome James (2005, $30 million), trading Trevor Ariza for Steve Francis (2006), hiring Larry Brown (2006) ... do we have to go on? Knicks fans' eyes are about to explode
    External Factors: Sexual harassment lawsuit (2007) exposed all of MSG's dirty laundry
    Have they competed for championships?: No

    OKLAHOMA CITY THUNDER

    Playoff appearances: 5 (3 as Seattle SuperSonics)
    Market size: Small
    Smart Moves: Drafting Russell Westbrook (2008), keeping Serge Ibaka (taken in 2008, left overseas for a season)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Relocation from Seattle (2006). Nothing against the folks in OKC; I happen to have a soft spot for the Emerald City
    External Factors: Only pro game in town makes Thunder a must ticket
    Have they competed for championships?: Not really

    ORLANDO MAGIC

    Playoff appearances: 9
    Market size: Small
    Smart Moves: Opting for Stan Van Gundy instead of Billy Donovan (2007) as head coach; signing Hedo Turkoglu (2004)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Trading for Gilbert Arenas (2010)
    External Factors: Can anyone believe the Magic don't want a settlement of the lockout to have an offseason to get more talent around Dwight Howard before he becomes a free agent next summer?
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    PHILADELPHIA 76ERS

    Playoff appearances: 9
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Drafting Thaddeus Young (2008), hiring Doug Collins (2010)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Ousting former team president Pat Croce; $80 million contracts apiece for Elton Brand, Andre Iguodala (2008)
    External Factors: Former owner Ed Snider, Comcast-Spectactor group were Flyers/NHL -first kind of people
    Have they competed for championships?: Briefly

    PHOENIX SUNS

    Playoff appearances: 9
    Market size: Midsize
    Smart Moves: Signing Steve Nash (2004), hiring Mike D'Antoni (2003)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Losing Joe Johnson (2004), firing D'Antoni (2008), trading for Shaquille O'Neal (2008)
    External Factors: Selling first-round picks (Rajon Rondo, Rudy Fernandez) to save cash
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS

    Playoff appearances: 8
    Market size: Small
    Smart Moves: Hiring Nate McMillan (2005), not trading Nicolas Batum
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Firing GMs Kevin Pritchard (2010), Rich Cho (2010)
    External Factors: Health of owner Paul Allen
    Have they competed for championships?: Briefly

    SACRAMENTO KINGS

    Playoff appearances: 8
    Market size: Small
    Smart Moves: Max contract ($121 million, 2001) for Chris Webber
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Losing core of title contending team to avoid paying luxury tax
    External Factors: Recession has hit Maloof Family, which owns team, as hard as any owners in the league
    Have they competed for championships?: Briefly

    SAN ANTONIO SPURS

    Playoff appearances: 13
    Market size: Small
    Smart Moves: Late-round Draft success (Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Tiago Splitter, DeJuan Blair, George Hill, etc.)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Trading Luis Scola (2007) to save money
    External Factors: "Brain Drain" of executives (Sam Presti, Dell Demps) in recent years
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    TORONTO RAPTORS

    Playoff appearances: 5
    Market size: Midsize
    Smart Moves: Hiring Dwane Casey (2011) as coach
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Never surrounding Chris Bosh with quality talent
    External Factors: Team's owners (Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment) are hockey-first people
    Have they competed for championships?: No

    UTAH JAZZ

    Playoff appearances: 9
    Market size: Small
    Smart Moves: Signing Carlos Boozer, Mehmet Okur (2004), trading for Deron Williams (2005), finding Wes Matthews (2009) as undrafted rookie
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Trading Ronnie Brewer (2010)
    External Factors: Death of owner Larry Miller (2007)
    Have they competed for championships?: Yes

    WASHINGTON WIZARDS

    Playoff appearances: 4
    Market size: Major
    Smart Moves: Gilbert Arenas free agent signing (2003)
    Questionable/Bad Moves: Gilbert Arenas $111 million extension (2008)
    External Factors: Gunplay in the locker room (2009)
    Have they competed for championships?: No

    So, what do all of those numbers mean?

    Sixfteen -- just more than half -- of the NBA's teams have made the playoffs more than half of the time (at least seven appearances) in that 13-season stretch. Another four teams have made it six times in 13 seasons, meaning two-thirds of the teams in the NBA have been fairly regular visitors to the playoffs under this system.

    Only five teams -- Charlotte, Golden State, the Clippers, Memphis and Washington -- have made the playoffs less than a third of the time. Do those teams have anything in common? Washington, the Clippers and Golden State are in major markets; Memphis and Charlotte are in small ones. The Wizards and Warriors have spent big on players; the Grizzlies and Bobcats have limits, and we all know that winning is hardly important to Sterling.

    The league would probably say that teams like the Kings and Suns, which had championship-level squads, couldn't maintain them because of the current system when the Lakers' payroll dwarfs theirs. Of course, the Lakers can do that, in part, because of their prohibitive advantage over most teams in local televsion money. It's an edge that's only going to grow once L.A.'s new deal with Time Warner Cable -- reported at $3 billion over 20 years -- starts in 2012. And the union maintains that those local TV dollars, along with other money that teams don't share with one another is where the have-nots can be made whole.

    Stern reiterated last week that a new revenue sharing plan will be in place when the new CBA gets hammered out, and will pay out at least three times -- or $180 million -- what the current revenue sharing deal splits between teams.

    But teams make decisions. The Spurs, Magic and Jazz went all in the last couple of years, willing to pay luxury tax to give, respectively, Tim Duncan a couple more shots at a ring, Dwight Howard his best chance at a title and to try and keep Williams and Boozer happy enough to stay around. (It doesn't look promising for the Spurs, the Magic's hopes of keeping Howard are teetering and we know how it worked out for the Jazz, who also lost coach Jerry Sloan in the process.)

    Michael Heisley, the Grizzlies' owner, got ripped for much of the decade for being cheap, but he always said he'd spend for players he thought were worth it. In the last two years, Memphis has given extensions to Rudy Gay ($80 million), Mike Conley ($45 million) and Zach Randolph ($68 million), and says it won't let Marc Gasol -- the centerpiece of the Pau Gasol trade in 2008 -- get away as a free agent.

    Memphis not only made the playoffs last season, but knocked the Spurs out and almost beat Oklahoma City in the semis, taking the Thunder to a Game 7. The Grizz traded a veteran small forward, Shane Battier, for Gay in 2006. They drafted Conley in the first round in 2007. They picked up Randolph from the Clippers in 2009 for little-used Quentin Richardson. And last season, they got Battier back in a deadline-day deal that helped fuel the Grizzlies' run. Smart drafting, smart signings, smart trades -- isn't that the very definition of "being competitive" in a small market?

    The league, of course, will say that the losses that teams are taking has grown exponentially in the last five to seven years, and no matter if you believe the losses are $300 million or less than that, I don't doubt more teams are losing more money than they did in 1999.

    There's no question that there have to be better ways for teams to get out of underperforming contracts. There's no question that owners shouldn't have to go bankrupt to keep their teams. But the tried and tested formula of good management -- draft the right guys, trade for the right guys, keep the right guys, and pay the right guys the right amount of money -- still works. And there is nothing that can -- or should -- protect a team from its own bad, dumb decisions.

    "There are 30 teams," free agent guard T.J. Ford said Thursday. "That means somebody has to lose."

    It's kind of hard to argue with that logic.
    I would like to think our marketsize would be "medium" instead of "small"
    Last edited by 90'sNBARocked; 09-20-2011, 04:42 PM.
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

    I think what this article missed is the part about being competition AND profitable. Smaller markets are able to compete with a luxury tax, but only if they are willing to lose money.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      I think what this article missed is the part about being competition AND profitable. Smaller markets are able to compete with a luxury tax, but only if they are willing to lose money.
      Good point
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

        Clone Lebron, Kobe and Dwight so that every team can have one of each. You said "guarantee", right?

        The inherent problem is that there are hundreds of players in the league, but only a handful of true difference makers. Even with a hard cap and more revenue sharing, there's still going to be a problem of haves and have nots in terms of difference making talent.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

          Originally posted by d_c View Post
          Clone Lebron, Kobe and Dwight so that every team can have one of each. You said "guarantee", right?

          The inherent problem is that there are hundreds of players in the league, but only a handful of true difference makers. Even with a hard cap and more revenue sharing, there's still going to be a problem of haves and have nots in terms of difference making talent.
          With a hard cap it will become easier to counter act a "difference maker" with having just a good team from top to bottom without the need of a difference maker. Part of the reason those difference makers can be such good difference makers is because they are usually surrounded by extremely good talent also. If you make it more difficult for those teams to keep all of that good talent other teams will be able to pick them up, and form teams that aren't just one man shows. So you will have teams that are one man shows, that are even more reliant on that man and teams that don't have the great individual but make up for it with great team play. Think Colts compared to the Steelers. The Colts rely on a few great players, while the Steelers don't have many great players, but have a ton of really good players.

          With that sad the most important point is that they don't want the money to be the difference maker, but instead they want the management to be the difference maker. So teams that are well managed do better than teams who aren't. For all we know the Lakers have a ****** as management team, but since they can pay more to keep players it covers up their idiocy. With a hard cap that will not happen.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            With a hard cap it will become easier to counter act a "difference maker" with having just a good team from top to bottom without the need of a difference maker.
            Mark Cuban and the Mavs counteracted Miami's 3 difference makers with a deep team that went heavily into luxury tax territory. Without his wallet and the depth it created, Miami would've won. It was Miami, not Dallas, that would've benefited more from a hard cap in that matchup.

            Again, I understand why people would root for the Mavs over the Heat, but it was the Mavs (the team everyone rooted for) who benefited most from the current CBA. And it's not as if the Mavs were ever considered "big market" in NBA terms until Cuban (who isn't nearly as rich as the Simons) started opening his wallet and spending big.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

              Nobody ever said anything about "guaranteeing" competitive balance. They just want to make the opportunity even.

              Taking a subjective, hindsight-filled list of "Smart" vs "questionable" moves doesn't prove much of anything.

              Comparing the finances and long-term viability of the teams that lost money because they had to go over the cap or LT to keep up with the teams that ignored the LT like it was a parking ticket might be a little better.
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

                competitive balance
                There's a fine line between parity and parody.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

                  Originally posted by d_c View Post
                  Mark Cuban and the Mavs counteracted Miami's 3 difference makers with a deep team that went heavily into luxury tax territory. Without his wallet and the depth it created, Miami would've won. It was Miami, not Dallas, that would've benefited more from a hard cap in that matchup.

                  Again, I understand why people would root for the Mavs over the Heat, but it was the Mavs (the team everyone rooted for) who benefited most from the current CBA. And it's not as if the Mavs were ever considered "big market" in NBA terms until Cuban (who isn't nearly as rich as the Simons) started opening his wallet and spending big.
                  Do you realize that under a hard cap the Heat wouldn't have been able to obtain all three Wade, LeBron, and Bosh. Yeah, they could sign all three, but going into the future they wouldn't have been able to sign anyone else except for minimum salary players. So yes the Heat did benefit from the soft cap, give them a hard cap and they would not have become a team because they wouldn't have been able to pay each player what they wanted in the longer term to make up for taking less in the current period. If they all just decided to take less to play on the same team well you can't stop that in any system.

                  You also have to take into consideration salary adjustment. Chances are will the adjusted salary the Mavs would have been able to form a pretty similar team, if not the exact same team.

                  You have to look at the whole picture not just one slice.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

                    I would agree that Dallas and Miami both were able to sign the players that they wanted without regard to how much they were spending. Both benefited significantly, just in different ways.

                    I asked in another thread how competitive could be achieved without a hard cap and Wintermute gave what I thought was an excellent response. His response was centered on revenue sharing such that revenues would be shared enough to provide the small market teams enough money to compete with the other teams in signing free agents for top dollar.

                    After thinking about that for a couple of days, I'm back to where I was, because I don't believe revenue sharing alone will accomplish the goal.

                    It will take a hard cap. My rationale comes back to top free agents probably not wanting to sign with small market teams... IF THEY HAVE A CHOICE.

                    If there is no hard cap and we allow top player salaries to be whatever a team is willing to pay, then competitive balance will not be achieved. However, if we allow individual player salaries to be whatever a team is willing to pay, accompanied by a hard cap, then there will be top dollar players that will be forced to sign with teams other than the largest market teams.

                    However, if a hard cap is set at a very high limit, then all you do is benefit the large market teams, with or without revenue sharing. A high limit would still enable a single team to stockpile top end talent at high dollars. If the hard cap were established at a lower level, say 60M to 62M for example, then I think the scenario that I described above would come into play. Some top end talent would be forced to sign with teams other than the largest market teams.

                    Negotiating and settling on a final CBA is going to be by know means simple. I really see smaller market teams holding out until they get what they need... and that is pretty extensive revenue sharing with a hard cap.

                    I also see large market teams not liking at all what will be forced down their throats... namely some form of improved revenue sharing and a hard cap.

                    But if they truly want better balanced competition like all the other teams and the players, then that is exactly where they are headed.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      Do you realize that under a hard cap the Heat wouldn't have been able to obtain all three Wade, LeBron, and Bosh. Yeah, they could sign all three, but going into the future they wouldn't have been able to sign anyone else except for minimum salary players. So yes the Heat did benefit from the soft cap, give them a hard cap and they would not have become a team because they wouldn't have been able to pay each player what they wanted in the longer term to make up for taking less in the current period. If they all just decided to take less to play on the same team well you can't stop that in any system.

                      You also have to take into consideration salary adjustment. Chances are will the adjusted salary the Mavs would have been able to form a pretty similar team, if not the exact same team.

                      You have to look at the whole picture not just one slice.
                      And if you look at the Mavs, their cap situation in the next year changes drastically. They seem to only have about $60M on their books for next year (ShamSports). Last year... $87M.
                      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

                        The long term health of the league needs teams remaining viable in their selected cities. Small market teams can't be city jumping every few years looking for the next best deal available nor can owners be in cost-cutting mode more worried about the bottom line than their fans and fielding a competitive team.

                        For every new town embracing their 'new' team there is another jilted town souring on the league as a whole... unless and until they get a 'new' team themselves. I just don't see that as sustainable for league health. And at some point, if the league isn't healthy then even the large market teams will be affected. If nothing else the TV package will reflect the declining health of the league (Altho TV will be slow to reflect it, it WILL reflect it because it can't throw good money after bad).
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

                          The NBA has become such a ****ing joke.

                          A players' circus is was it is.

                          Not a team league like it once was.

                          Get a hard cap. It's a disgrace to basketball that the NBA has gotten as bad as it has.

                          If all goes well and a hard cap is put in place with very strict guidelines, teams like the Heat, Lakers, and Knicks are going to be screwed while teams like us or the ones with the cap space will be smiling.

                          <------- Of course, it won't change to take away the big market/super team dominance because of this guy repping one of his favorite teams in the NBA.
                          In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            Do you realize that under a hard cap the Heat wouldn't have been able to obtain all three Wade, LeBron, and Bosh. Yeah, they could sign all three, but going into the future they wouldn't have been able to sign anyone else except for minimum salary players. So yes the Heat did benefit from the soft cap, give them a hard cap and they would not have become a team because they wouldn't have been able to pay each player what they wanted in the longer term to make up for taking less in the current period. If they all just decided to take less to play on the same team well you can't stop that in any system.

                            You also have to take into consideration salary adjustment. Chances are will the adjusted salary the Mavs would have been able to form a pretty similar team, if not the exact same team.

                            You have to look at the whole picture not just one slice.
                            And the Heat almost won it all with those 3 and what was essentially a bunch of minimum salary players. Riley would most likely still take that bet of signing 3 superstars all over again if he knew he was going to go against a Mavs team that could no longer afford to keep all their depth.

                            It's highly unlikely Cuban could have structured the same type of team he did under a hard cap. The Mavs drafted and developed Dirk. Other than that, the Mavs pretty much assembled their team through overpaying and poaching from other teams. And they did it while being WAY over the cap themselves the entire time.

                            Cuban formed his Mavs team over the past decade by offering shorter/expiring contracts to other teams that decided certain talented but overpaid players they had were good, but not franchise guys worth their contracts. He was a junk peddler who "bailed out" other teams by taking their overpaid players and assembling his team that way. Dallas is the one that built their team by overpaying, not the Heat.

                            There absolutely needs to be a new CBA with new rules, but the Mavs are a far, far bigger poster child of overpaying to build a winner than Miami.
                            Last edited by d_c; 09-21-2011, 07:38 PM.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: How do you, exactly, "guarantee" competitive balance?

                              Originally posted by Scot Pollard View Post
                              The NBA has become such a ****ing joke.

                              A players' circus is was it is.

                              Not a team league like it once was.

                              Get a hard cap. It's a disgrace to basketball that the NBA has gotten as bad as it has.

                              If all goes well and a hard cap is put in place with very strict guidelines, teams like the Heat, Lakers, and Knicks are going to be screwed while teams like us or the ones with the cap space will be smiling.

                              <------- Of course, it won't change to take away the big market/super team dominance because of this guy repping one of his favorite teams in the NBA.
                              The Pacers are NOT going to have cap space every season. That's the point many posters have been trying to make. If the Pacers good young talent develops, then a pure hard cap is going to hurt them. They may not be able to keep Paul George potentially. Is that what you want?

                              I think every team gets hurt eventually by a pure hard cap. I agree with eliminating the MLE and BAE, but there needs to be some sort of Bird rights that allows teams to keep their best players (and thus keep their teams good).

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X