Man the NBA salary cap is totally ludicrous.

tremonthustler1

aka bx_representer
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
87,517
Reputation
10,182
Daps
217,834
Reppin
My Pops Forever RIP
the owners were never losing money. They messed with the numbers, big time. They devalued the worth of the players by classifying them as depreciating assets and as a result the numbers showed that the franchises were operating at a loss.

Bullshyt, and even the players association agreed to this. You boxed yourself there. Nobody debated whether owners lost money. They debated how many of them did. The players took the low end number whereas owners were claiming it was damn near 2/3rds of the league. That's where the disconnect was. Otherwise renegotiating a labor agreement, like in MLB for example, would have taken mere days.

If everyone made money, owning a team would not only be foolproof, nobody would ever sell.
 

SwagKingKong

All Star
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
4,442
Reputation
181
Daps
6,380
No fukks given about the franchise values if my team can't make moves due to punative luxury tax ramifications.

It's not the rest of the leagues fault you have an owner who's more interested in making money than putting out the most competitive team.

I mean, how the hell do you justify annually being around the top of teams making the most money, yet you can't pay the luxury tax to win a 'ship.

Bulls will make a trade to get under the luxury tax this year whether you like it or not and don't blame anyone else but your cheap ass owner. Cause your franchise is actually making alot of money.
 

beenz

Rap Guerilla
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
86,249
Reputation
11,740
Daps
202,036
Reppin
The Chi (South Side)
the owners were never losing money. They messed with the numbers, big time. They devalued the worth of the players by classifying them as depreciating assets and as a result the numbers showed that the franchises were operating at a loss.

Exactly. It's all accounting. They are factoring non tangible loss such as ammitorzatiom (sp) and stadium depreciation in those losses which isn't a real monetary loss.

As for :mjpls: He bought the cats for pennies on the dollar from bob Johnson cuz he needed quick cash for his impending divorce at the time. That nikka gon be swimming in luxury tax money too.
 

gho3st

plata or plomo
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
36,042
Reputation
3,285
Daps
87,977
Reppin
2016
the owners were never losing money. They messed with the numbers, big time. They devalued the worth of the players by classifying them as depreciating assets and as a result the numbers showed that the franchises were operating at a loss.

at the end of the day it doesnt really matter. Owners had all the leverage. Players had none. They had no choice but to settle.
 

FTBS

Superstar
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
21,494
Reputation
3,939
Daps
59,510
Reppin
NULL
Penalizes small markets and drafting as well ( look at my team for ex)

This is the most ironic part of the whole deal. People go on and on about "superteams" and guys teaming up and "woe is the small markets" but OKC did it the "right way" in a small market and pretty much got punished for drafting too well. :mindblown: Meanwhile all of the player movement that everyone is so up in arms about is a direct result of the current set up.
 

No_bammer_weed

✌️ Coli. Wish y’all the best of luck. One
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
10,505
Reputation
8,285
Daps
59,942
Bullshyt, and even the players association agreed to this. You boxed yourself there. Nobody debated whether owners lost money. They debated how many of them did. The players took the low end number whereas owners were claiming it was damn near 2/3rds of the league. That's where the disconnect was. Otherwise renegotiating a labor agreement, like in MLB for example, would have taken mere days.

If everyone made money, owning a team would not only be foolproof, nobody would ever sell.

Naw bruh, hes right. Aint nobody really losing money...perhaps one or two owners maybe, but it certainly wasnt some widespread epidemic attributable to out of control salaries like the narrative they painted.

You have to understand this --- accounting practices for sports ownership is extremely complex. I studied the sht, and I'll admit a lot the details and fine print is out of my depth, but I will give you an overarching idea. There are billion tricks to ownership taxation/accounting, which is called "aggressive accounting" --- basically lying, cheating, and gaming the system for the rich.

Ownership can house all assets and depreciations and collect them under the team asset --- meaning, side business that are losing money can be conflated with the team asset for taxation purposes...contracts can be amortized, and considered "depreciating assets", same with luxury suites, arena lease agreements, etc.

What does all this mean? Basically owners can cook the books to give off the impression that their franchises are losing money, when they are profitable. This is done for a variety of reasons, the least of which ammo during collective bargaining negotiations.

The owners were financially capable of sitting out the entire year --- that should tell you what their financial standing is as a collective. They also knew that they had public opinion on their side, as ESPN and talk radio would paint players as "greedy nikkers", and pressure their side alone in striking a deal.
 

tremonthustler1

aka bx_representer
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
87,517
Reputation
10,182
Daps
217,834
Reppin
My Pops Forever RIP
The owners were financially capable of sitting out the entire year --- that should tell you what their financial standing is as a collective. They also knew that they had public opinion on their side, as ESPN and talk radio would paint players as "greedy nikkers", and pressure their side alone in striking a deal.

Owners are always gonna have more of a capability to endure a lock out. That's why THEY do the locking out.

Fans take the owners' side for reasons I already mentioned, not because they want to, but because they'd rather root for crappy ownership than have no ownership at all.

Do owners cook books? Sure. Can ownership cook books to where they're annually losing money? That's hard to pull off. Maybe some owners are legit not turning profits. In year 1 post lockout we still saw teams lose money. What incentive would a team have to cook their books 1 year into a new CBA that won't expire for at least 8 years?
 

tremonthustler1

aka bx_representer
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
87,517
Reputation
10,182
Daps
217,834
Reppin
My Pops Forever RIP

what would be your solution?

Neither side seems to be something wants to do.

A hard cap depresses salaries all across the board.

Owners: :noah:

Players: :deadrose:

The way it used to be inflates everyone's salary and leads to chaos.

Owners: :merchant:

Players: :ahh:

Me? I woulda been cool with either. When the cap meant nothing, that's when my team spent, but because of that, the NBA had a lockout.
 

beenz

Rap Guerilla
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
86,249
Reputation
11,740
Daps
202,036
Reppin
The Chi (South Side)
what would be your solution?

Neither side seems to be something wants to do.

A hard cap depresses salaries all across the board.

Owners: :noah:

Players: :deadrose:

The way it used to be inflates everyone's salary and leads to chaos.

Owners: :merchant:

Players: :ahh:

Me? I woulda been cool with either. When the cap meant nothing, that's when my team spent, but because of that, the NBA had a lockout.

I say you take the MLE, multiply it times 15 and there's your hard cap. somewhere between $80-$90M is where the cap should be.
 

tremonthustler1

aka bx_representer
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
87,517
Reputation
10,182
Daps
217,834
Reppin
My Pops Forever RIP
I say you take the MLE, multiply it times 15 and there's your hard cap. somewhere between $80-$90M is where the cap should be.

problem is two fold:

hard cap = no need for an MLE.

do you have a salary floor? For each team you think will spend up to that cap, other teams won't spend a dime. If a team ain't tryna spend $70 mil without a lux tax hit, why would they spend $80-$90 mil?

With the increase of the cap, there would be an increase in max salaries or simply abolish the max right? Remember, it's a hard cap with guaranteed salaries. That's gonna be a bytch to manage.
 

beenz

Rap Guerilla
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
86,249
Reputation
11,740
Daps
202,036
Reppin
The Chi (South Side)
problem is two fold:

hard cap = no need for an MLE.

do you have a salary floor? For each team you think will spend up to that cap, other teams won't spend a dime. If a team ain't tryna spend $70 mil without a lux tax hit, why would they spend $80-$90 mil?

With the increase of the cap, there would be an increase in max salaries or simply abolish the max right? Remember, it's a hard cap with guaranteed salaries. That's gonna be a bytch to manage.

they can still have a floor. I believe its like 90% of the cap right now. so say u give a floor of 80% of the cap. 80% of $80M is $64M. most teams are easily spending that much now.
 
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
8,296
Reputation
-720
Daps
8,223
Reppin
NULL
NBa has made a league thats impossible to make trades and where small market teams get penelaized for drafting well and are basically farm systems to the big market teams
 
Top