Soxbadger Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Bad contracts are always going to happen, its just the nature of being a GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasox24 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 16, 2011 -> 11:58 AM) Someone get Balta some tickets to games 2 through 4. The Bulls respond well when he's in attendance. Or me... Do you remember Game 3 vs ATL? I was there for Rose's career night, something none of you jokers can say... (please realize I'm messing around) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) Bad contracts are always going to happen, its just the nature of being a GM. Sure, you're always going to have some bad deals, but basketball seems to have far more large contracts that are dumb from the second they are signed than other sports. It also doesn't help that they way the CBA is written, deals are backloaded. I could go on all day with examples, it seems like teams sign guys to huge deals just because they can under the system sometimes. Unlike in baseball, you just don't see guys leave a team because the organization won't make a competitive offer very often. Teams don't seem to say "no, we can't afford that", they sign it and then deal him for 75 cents on the dollar three years later instead. Who knows, maybe with a hard cap, teams will think twice about giving out that monster deal that makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 One thing that will be certian is that draft picks will become a lot more valuable if the cap is that low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 The difference in baseball is there is no cap, which means no floor or ceiling. These basketball teams figure out how much money they have and then they spend it, because outside of saving money, there is no other benefit to being under the cap. Teams worry about perception and its easy for KC/Pitt to say that they cant spend like the Yankees, Red Sox, so why even try as opposed to the Suns/Kings etc where there is a salary cap and therefore fans think "its equal" (you see the same thing in the NFL). The difference is that NFL contracts are basically fake money outside of the bonus, so those teams just dump the guy the next year or 2 if he doesnt work. If there is a hard cap it basically just solidifies what every team will spend. The only way to prevent really bad contracts is to allow teams to dump them at a fraction of the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2011 -> 07:25 PM) The difference in baseball is there is no cap, which means no floor or ceiling. These basketball teams figure out how much money they have and then they spend it, because outside of saving money, there is no other benefit to being under the cap. Teams worry about perception and its easy for KC/Pitt to say that they cant spend like the Yankees, Red Sox, so why even try as opposed to the Suns/Kings etc where there is a salary cap and therefore fans think "its equal" (you see the same thing in the NFL). The difference is that NFL contracts are basically fake money outside of the bonus, so those teams just dump the guy the next year or 2 if he doesnt work. If there is a hard cap it basically just solidifies what every team will spend. The only way to prevent really bad contracts is to allow teams to dump them at a fraction of the price. True, I'm just imagining in your cap and trade model the maloofs working a 10 million dollar salary and pocketing $40 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) My initial idea was that the cap was $10mil to trade or receive, meaning that the most a team could trade away was $10mil. But even if you allowed a team to trade as much cap as they wanted, its far better for the fans to have a cheap young team that traded for a bunch of draft picks and maybe in the future will be good, than a team with some young guys and a bunch of overpaid vets and the ownership losing money. There is no answer, because every solution creates a different problem. Edited May 17, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) The difference in baseball is there is no cap, which means no floor or ceiling. These basketball teams figure out how much money they have and then they spend it, because outside of saving money, there is no other benefit to being under the cap. Teams worry about perception and its easy for KC/Pitt to say that they cant spend like the Yankees, Red Sox, so why even try as opposed to the Suns/Kings etc where there is a salary cap and therefore fans think "its equal" (you see the same thing in the NFL). The difference is that NFL contracts are basically fake money outside of the bonus, so those teams just dump the guy the next year or 2 if he doesnt work. If there is a hard cap it basically just solidifies what every team will spend. The only way to prevent really bad contracts is to allow teams to dump them at a fraction of the price. That's not totally true, cap space definitely has some value in the NBA. You can't sign free agents without it and it lets you take in a lot more in trades. That's why teams love guys that have expiring deals. That's part of the problem, teams won't sit on their space if they could be spending money on inferior players. Someone like the Pistons wouldn't be nearly as screwed if they had saved their money for the 2011 free agency run instead of wasting $20 mil on Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva and another $12 mil on extending an aging Richard Hamilton. Every team seems content to overspend to keep their own mediocre players rather than lose them to free agency, like they're totally irreplaceable. If you can eliminate just a few of those kind of situations with shorter contracts reducing the impact of stuff like the Arenas, Lewis, Redd and Kirilenko deals, that reduces the financial issues quite a bit. Edited May 17, 2011 by ZoomSlowik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Well the value of singing free agents is inherent in cap space, Im talking about the situation with Detroit where there is no added benefit of keeping $20mil off the books and they cant save face with their fans. In the teams mind the $20mil was going to spent regardless that year, it just was a matter of how to spend it. I think the only way to really drastically reduce the impact is to allow NBA teams to cut players at a fraction of the price, or makes years after 3 voidable, etc. Without that type of loophole NBA teams are going to get in the same mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) Well the value of singing free agents is inherent in cap space, Im talking about the situation with Detroit where there is no added benefit of keeping $20mil off the books and they cant save face with their fans. In the teams mind the $20mil was going to spent regardless that year, it just was a matter of how to spend it. I think the only way to really drastically reduce the impact is to allow NBA teams to cut players at a fraction of the price, or makes years after 3 voidable, etc. Without that type of loophole NBA teams are going to get in the same mess. My original point was basically that they're going to get into the same messes. This protracted lockout isn't going to "solve" anything, just reduce the impact of their stupid decisions. As for Detroit, I can't imagine watching this awful Pistons' team is helping their situation with the fans. Fans gripe (b**** is on the swear filter? Seriously?) about poorly spent money too, and it couldn't have delivered a much lower return. Plus they spent it two years ago in a bad free agent class instead of saving it for 2011 like everyone else did. The Knicks sold their fans on the promise of 2011 for like 3 years while they cleaned up Isaiah's mess, the Pistons couldn't have done it for one? Edited May 17, 2011 by ZoomSlowik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Knicks were still at salary cap. I just really cant think of examples where a team in a league with a salary cap has spent drastically lower than the cap for multiple seasons. Imo it usually seems that all teams spend to the cap. The lockout wont fix anything because the reality is not all franchise are created equal. Unlike the NFL there are more than 8 home games to sell out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2011 -> 03:05 PM) Knicks were still at salary cap. I just really cant think of examples where a team in a league with a salary cap has spent drastically lower than the cap for multiple seasons. Imo it usually seems that all teams spend to the cap. The lockout wont fix anything because the reality is not all franchise are created equal. Unlike the NFL there are more than 8 home games to sell out. That's basically my point. The lockout is happening because teams would rather spend money stupidly than not spend it at all, and attendance is still dropping in a lot of places despite all of that stupidly spent money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Which is why my solution was to give teams that cant spend money an incentive to not spend (potentially trading cap for draft picks), while still allowing other teams some flexibility when it comes to a cap of $50mil or so. The real problem is the hiring of Gm's that have no clue what they are doing, they then get fired and hired by another team to do the same nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 17, 2011 -> 11:43 AM) You guys are so literal sometimes. I don't think Buehrle > Wood meant he would trade 11 players for Howard. He meant that any combination of players that it took to land Howard sans Rose would be acceptable to him. And I agree. In Rose/Howard, you would have one of the most devastating PG/C combos in the history of the game. You set yourself up for a string of title runs. Not just a flash in the pan (hello, White Sox). I just can't believe people find it so hard to live in the now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) The real problem is the hiring of Gm's that have no clue what they are doing, they then get fired and hired by another team to do the same nonsense. I'm not sure I'd even say that. If I hire you as an NBA Gm tomorrow to take over, let's say, the Raptors. Your job is to take that team and turn it into a winning team within 5 years. Let's also say that you fail to land the next Derrick Rose. You do everything right. You get rid of your big contracts, you try for the lottery every year, but when you win the lottery you wind up with Bargnani. After 3 years of that, the owner and fans have become impatient with you because you're supposed to be winning, but you can't win because you can't land Lebron James as a FA even though you had the cap space, and you can't land Derrick Rose in the draft. What do you do? You have 2 options. Keep doing what you're doing, stay under the cap, maybe even have to pay a bonus to your players because you're under the minimum, and hope to finally land the guy you couldn't land the last few years. Or, 2., try to make the playoffs one of these years. To do that, you take the cap space you have, and you spend it on what's there, whether it's worth what you pay or not. If you do nothing, you're fired in 2 years, so why not gamble? Sometimes the gamble pays off. Take a look at Memphis. They dumped money on Rudy Gay that I thought was crazy, and they took on Zach Randolph's contract which was absolutely nuts of them to do, and they made a pretty good run this year and added probably years to the life of their GM. The problem is that the incentives in the NBA's current system are broken. You can't win as a small team doing everything right unless you happen to land Rose in the draft or unless you happen to be a big enough party/endorsement market that Lebron wants to come party on your shores. It's a fundamentally broken system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) The NBA was the same way in the past. The Lakers got Magic on a coin flip with the Bulls losing. The Bulls got Jordan at the 3 because 2 teams passed. The Lakers drafted Kobe. The system will always be broken because you cant turn Memphis into Chicago. So with all things being equal (aka salary cap and max contract), players will likely choose the better destination, with the better chance of winning. That is the drawback of the salary cap. At the end of the day, with or without a salary cap, the smaller market teams are still at a disadvantage. Edited May 17, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 You do realize that chicago spent 5+ years getting spurned by FA's who could have turned that team around, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Yep, but that was due to the fall out of MJ and the Bulls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2011 -> 03:05 PM) Knicks were still at salary cap. I just really cant think of examples where a team in a league with a salary cap has spent drastically lower than the cap for multiple seasons. Imo it usually seems that all teams spend to the cap. The NHL. They had to institue a cap floor to force teams to spend a minimum amount of money on salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Lakers didn't draft Kobe. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 I meant in NBA or NFL, my guess is that MLS has some teams far below salary cap too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palehosefan Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) The NBA was the same way in the past. The Lakers got Magic on a coin flip with the Bulls losing. The Bulls got Jordan at the 3 because 2 teams passed. The Lakers drafted Kobe. The system will always be broken because you cant turn Memphis into Chicago. So with all things being equal (aka salary cap and max contract), players will likely choose the better destination, with the better chance of winning. That is the drawback of the salary cap. At the end of the day, with or without a salary cap, the smaller market teams are still at a disadvantage. I might be missing something, but the Lakers traded Vlade Divac to the Hornets for Kobe Bryant's draft rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) J4L, Hornets had agreed to trade the pick to the Lakers, so it was the Lakers pick. http://www2.journalnow.com/sports/2008/jun...trued-ar-113126 "The deal was actually done a day ahead of time, and it was Vlade for a player to be named," said Bill Branch, the Hornets' head scout at the time who still operates out of Charlotte as a scout for the Seattle-now-Oklahoma City Sonics. "If I remember right, they didn't even tell us who they wanted us to pick until about five minutes before the pick was made. So it was never a matter of us actually drafting Kobe." So yes the Lakers did draft Kobe, just saying. Edited May 17, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palehosefan Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) J4L, Hornets had agreed to trade the pick to the Lakers, so it was the Lakers pick. http://www2.journalnow.com/sports/2008/jun...trued-ar-113126 So yes the Lakers did draft Kobe, just saying. Semantics, shmantics. Don't forget the fix being in for Chicago getting the #1 pick ahead of Miami Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Big Jim is singing the anthem at Bulls games for the rest of their season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts