NBA as we know it.. Is done

[unit321]

This salary increase is horrible for the game. Players are receiving contracts on an outrageous level (not worth it) and getting paid like baseball players. The league that we use to love regarding trades and free agent signing is no-more and this benefit small market teams the most.

It is what it is. Owners and players are in it to make money. It's not a charity.
However, when the US economy tanks, the money is going to dry up. Teams are going to drop out. The league is not going to go away but shrink to a small handful of teams in big markets. It's going to be like Hunger Games, but with like maybe 12 teams, each one to represent a district. The top players are going to have to win to earn their food, so there won't be any tanking.

 

[tremonthustler1]

So in other words it has nothing to do with player salaries.

BRI was their way of bridging that gap since salaries (as they are now) continue to explode for the rank and file. This happened during the last lockout as well only there was no limit to where that money was going.

 

[triplehate]

When the NBA used to be on NBC

That's one day a week. How is that different from now

 

[Houston911]

Now there is some truth in this.. I always questioned why there was a MAX salary in basketball but not in other sports

Nba is black

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

Nba is black

Exactly........ Bron should be getting paid at least 50 million a year

 

[Geek Nasty]

Guess they should be playing for cheap to keep those owners fed, huh? OP just outted himself.

 

[LV Koopa]

If teams can't inherently profit off something, no one will want it. The ones that kept it did so for more sentimental reasons (Minny being a prime example, New Orleans before that)

Except we know that people wanted these supposedly unprofitable teams. It shouldn't be the players that foot the bill if the league wants a team in a market that can't support it. There are a couple of things at play here.

1.) If New Orleans or Minnesota can't support a team - MOVE somewhere that can. The players have every right to complain. Instead of going somewhere else the owners claim they are losing money and the player contracts get slashed. Fans eat this up because they are dumb, and selfishly want small markets "to have a chance" even if it is bad for the NBA as a whole. I'm going to get into why this logic is pure horseshyt in a sec, but as I said before - NBA teams can not fail except for extreme circumstances. If you keep looking at the NBA as a normal business where capitalism and its principles determine what happens you'll keep missing how things work. The NBA is an Oligarchy that operates as a Franchise/Cartel structure.

2.) Back to the small market fallacy. NBA owners are not typical business owners. They aren't creating a product and improving it to sell to consumers. The product is the players and the owners get the rights to have them through pseudo-random selection. After some time, they are allowed to bid on their services. Since the NBA is one of the dream scenarios of a business owner - closed market with major costs known up front you shouldn't even be talking about player salaries when things "fail". The owners KNOW how expensive it is.before buying the team. And in business no one "deserves" to make money. When you buy something and mismanage it then you can't blame other people. And if you're a billionaire ownership group, purposely relocating or catering to smaller markets and then crying poverty then the player salaries are not the problem. It's the choices you made to setup shop there.

Once you look at NBA teams as akin to art collections where complaining about profit is sheer stupidity, instead of treating them as everyday businesses the picture becomes very clear on what is going on. This is without even talking about the other ridiculousness that occurs with NBA owners - namely leveraging franchises for profitable ventures that the players get 0 revenue from.

 

[FTBS]

Works until you have a team with two players who teams will pay more than the max.

Team would use their 1 slot on one of the players. Team would lose other player to FA because they could only offer a max, when other teams (w/o a star) could offer over the max.

It's simple really. All you have to do is keep the same rules in terms of the home team being able to pay the most and/or do what they do with max contracts and make it so that any player is eligible for this exemption as long as they meet certain criteria (MVP and or multiple all stars and all NBA teams and you can throw scoring or ast titles in there too). Problem is the owners want to have set numbers and slots and don't want to really pay guys what they are worth. They would rather overpay average players than accurately pay the money makers.


As far as the overall thread goes, you have to have a cap in the NBA because right now there would be a team comprised of CP3, Wade, Bron, Melo, and whatever center they decided to roll with with nikkas like Love coming off the bench. NBA is such a top heavy and predictable league that you have to have some measure in place to prevent one squad from going Yankees and signing all the big names because talent beats all in this league. That said, there is no reason why those top talents (that are even more important and valuable than top talents in other leagues) should be stifled in terms of what they can make. You set a cap, that is fine. No reason to be capping individual salaries though.

 

[Leasy]

locally I believe you, but on the national scene like NBA players are.....we know the answer.

i have never heard on a national level complaints about NBA players making money because casual fans don't care about a Asik or Thompson.

 

[tremonthustler1]

Except we know that people wanted these supposedly unprofitable teams. It shouldn't be the players that foot the bill if the league wants a team in a market that can't support it. There are a couple of things at play here.

1.) If New Orleans or Minnesota can't support a team - MOVE somewhere that can. The players have every right to complain. Instead of going somewhere else the owners claim they are losing money and the player contracts get slashed. Fans eat this up because they are dumb, and selfishly want small markets "to have a chance" even if it is bad for the NBA as a whole. I'm going to get into why this logic is pure horseshyt in a sec, but as I said before - NBA teams can not fail except for extreme circumstances. If you keep looking at the NBA as a normal business where capitalism and its principles determine what happens you'll keep missing how things work. The NBA is an Oligarchy that operates as a Franchise/Cartel structure.

2.) Back to the small market fallacy. NBA owners are not typical business owners. They aren't creating a product and improving it to sell to consumers. The product is the players and the owners get the rights to have them through pseudo-random selection. After some time, they are allowed to bid on their services. Since the NBA is one of the dream scenarios of a business owner - closed market with major costs known up front you shouldn't even be talking about player salaries when things "fail". The owners KNOW how expensive it is.before buying the team. And in business no one "deserves" to make money. When you buy something and mismanage it then you can't blame other people. And if you're a billionaire ownership group, purposely relocating or catering to smaller markets and then crying poverty then the player salaries are not the problem. It's the choices you made to setup shop there.

Glen wasn't gonna move them. He's die before that happens. He bought the team specifically to keep them in the Twin Cities, so lately he bought many of the minority owners' shares himself. It cost him an insane amount of money but everyone who wanted the team wanted to move them to either Seattle or San Jose so he put in writing that the team cannot move which scared everyone off.

 

[Rekkapryde]

i have never heard on a national level complaints about NBA players making money because casual fans don't care about a Asik or Thompson.

Where were you during the lockouts?

 

[ghostwriterx]

BRI was their way of bridging that gap since salaries (as they are now) continue to explode for the rank and file. This happened during the last lockout as well only there was no limit to where that money was going.

yeah, but regardless there's also a salary floor. who gets the money is kind of irrelevant when teams have to spend a certain amount. The teams that lose money are just run badly. Reducing players share of BRI doesn't really address that.

 

[Leasy]

Where were you during the lockouts?

I don't recall that much just the owner trying to manipulate everybody on their side and as I said before this thread wasn't about players getting paid but the players getting paid not much of their worth staying with teams stopping player movements causing players to not leave as they get paid more on their original team even if their is no need for them (Thompson)

You don't see nothing wrong with 6th man making 90 million where he could of made that starting somewhere else on another team?

 

[Rekkapryde]

I don't recall that much just the owner trying to manipulate everybody on their side and as I said before this thread wasn't about players getting paid but the players getting paid not much of their worth staying with teams stopping player movements causing players to not leave as they get paid more on their original team even if their is no need for them (Thompson)

You don't see nothing wrong with 6th man making 90 million where he could of made that starting somewhere else on another team?

Cacs were shytting on players HARD during the last lockout. It wasn't even a STRIKE, it was a LOCKOUT

As for role players being overpaid, If the owners/gms are dumb enough to give it to him, no I don't. Would YOU turn it down?

 

[Rekkapryde]

It is what it is. Owners and players are in it to make money. It's not a charity.
However, when the US economy tanks, the money is going to dry up. Teams are going to drop out. The league is not going to go away but shrink to a small handful of teams in big markets. It's going to be like Hunger Games, but with like maybe 12 teams, each one to represent a district. The top players are going to have to win to earn their food, so there won't be any tanking.

:wtfdoc: