freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Please expound.
My whine about the amnesty rule
- Thread starter northeast
- Start date
Please expound.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am defining a league as being less competitive if the same few teams tend to win over and over, while other teams just don't seem to ever have a shot.
If one team does not make the finals every year, that would mean the league is more competitive, while the one team is less competitive.
Last edited:
green
Well-Known Member
There is a simple fix: If you are amnestied, you get your contract money and it doesn't count against the cap. BUT, IF you sign with another team, you forfeit your previous contract, the previous team is released from paying you, and you now operate under your current contract. That would force players to 1) actually LIVE UP to their contract. 2) If they can't physically live up to their contract, then they can't go chasing a ring, they must retire, or 3) if they decide to keep playing, they will be paid WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. Funny concept that a lot of Americans don't believe in, especially union members.
The player can still get his money, if that is what is most important to him, but he can't screw over the team paying him by agreeing to a significantly less contract to chase a ring. How fair would it be to Dallas if they amnestied a player, he went and signed for the vet minimum, and then he played a significant role in the finals against Dallas? Dallas would be paying the guy to be Dallas. Not right at all.
The player can still get his money, if that is what is most important to him, but he can't screw over the team paying him by agreeing to a significantly less contract to chase a ring. How fair would it be to Dallas if they amnestied a player, he went and signed for the vet minimum, and then he played a significant role in the finals against Dallas? Dallas would be paying the guy to be Dallas. Not right at all.
I like this idea green. Who can we get to champion it the next time CBA negotiations roll around?
Is that really the MOST important thing?
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Agree with that part. Cuban has already stated that the new rules have changed the way he will build his team. The "Big-3" model is going to work for another couple of years and then we'll either have a couple of owners say "screw it," I'm going all in no matter the cost (the basketball equivalent of Steinbrenner's Yankees), or they'll take a shot, then try to dump players after 1-2 yrs. Could create quite a secondary market for players like Bosh, Boozer, etc. who have signed big contracts but really aren't worth what they're getting. There are going to be some weird trades after next year.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Interesting concept, but no one is forcing these owners to extend huge contracts to certain players. Will Asik be worth his $8M per? Is Hibbert really a MAX player? IS Gerald Wallace worth 4/$40M? And the list goes on...there are even worse contracts being offered. I'm totally against the amnesty provision. The owners had a chance to clear their books of a player under the old CBA. And what happened? They didn't learn their lesson and here we are again, back to ridiculous contracts being offered. Who's to judge if a player underperforms? Look at Scola. He had a decent season in Houston. His scoring was above his career avg, shooting % and rebounds were fairly close. Why was he amnestied? Clearly, because Houston wants to go after Howard. Not his fault.
If my employer wants to get rid of me without cause, I'd certainly expect severance. Now unfortunately for us peons, that generally means 2 weeks, maybe a month or two pay - tops. But we generally don't have guaranteed employment contracts. Top managers and CEO's may get several months or a lump sum. NBA players get a year's pay.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Two problems. First, there are two salary caps. Minimum and maximum. You have to be above the minimum, which is so close to the maximum right now that it's not even funny. It's at 85%. This encourages teams to sign players when they're under 85% with little regard for actual value. What difference does it make if you overpay a guy by a few million if it means being above the 85%?
The other problem is that the NBA is a closed league. If you don't give that guy a crazy contract, someone else will. Hibbert may not be worth the MAX, but that's the only price you can have him at. If the Pacers could get him at 8 million a year, they would. And remember, the choice the Pacers have is not having Hibbert at the MAX or having him at 8 million a year. The choice is between giving him the MAX or starting Fesenko. And because of the cap, it's not like the Pacers can just say that they can find a player almost as good for 8 million a year and sign him.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Didn't the Jazz do that with Boozer? With Williams? And at a lower price point, with Ronnie B and Korver?
Teams need to decide whether or not to draw the line on salaries. I'm not going to feel sorry for Greg or KOC if they sign Millsap to a $12M deal. That would be their choice. If I were GM, and he didn't agree to a more reasonable extension, I'd trade him now. Get assets for him.
This is a copycat league. Every team sees what Miami did and wants to have a "Big 3." In a couple of years, it won't be fiscally possible, unless you pay a huge tax in one year, then cut salaries the next. If you become a repeat taxpayer from how I understand the rules, the huge penalties really kick in (I believe in the 3rd year).
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Being a GM is a lot more about being in the right place at the right time then it is about brilliant strokes of genius. Boozer was not worth the money he wanted because the Jazz had Millsap and because they were able to get Jefferson for less. Hence that move was basically a no-brainer. Things might have been different if the Jazz did not have Millsap, or the pieces to get anything resembling a replacement for Boozer. Suppose the Jazz did not have Millsap or the ability to trade for someone decent. What then? You let Boozer go and let Koufos start and hope you can somehow win 53 games again?
To get back to the question of Hibbert, there are two separate issues here. Is Hibbert worth the MAX under generic or ideal circumstances, and is Hibbert worth the MAX to this specific Pacers team, under the current circumstances.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
In order to determine competitive balance, I think you have to consider the longevity of bad teams, not the randomness of good teams.
In MLB, the following teams have not even been to the playoffs in a considerable amount of time:
Seattle Mariners- 10 Years
Baltimore Orioles- 14 Years
Toronto Blue Jays- 18 Years
Pittsburgh Pirates- 19 Years
KC Royals- 26 Years
Washington Nationals- 30 Years
Can you imagine being a fan of a team that hasn't even made the playoffs in 30 years? 30 YEARS!!!!! If you are under 30 years old, this franchise has not made the playoffs during your existence!
Only 6 teams have have not made the playoffs in the past 3 years in the nba. Look at the list of 6 mlb teams above and how long they have been out of the playoffs. Of the 6 nba teams, a few would be considered likely or possible playoff teams next year (Brooklyn, Minnesota, Golden State).
Baseball sometimes gets off the hook because rarely do teams repeat as champions, but I think that has more to do with the randomness in outcomes in a 7 game series. Only two teams in MLB currently have won more than 60% of their games (Yanks and Rangers). In the last NBA full season (10-11) 9 teams had a winning percentage over 60%, and 3 were over 70%. Baseball just has more randomness to it than do basketball. That's why they need to play 162 games to really determine which teams are any good. Then when teams play a best of 7, it's almost a crap-shoot determining who will win.