BuzzerBeater Forums

It does not matter who you work for, you should still always remember who is you employer.
You can't assume 8 profitable teams will cover 22 teams losses yearly. The marketing deals and tv deals that teams make can not be meddled with. The only way you can spread the wealth is luxury tax. But if 22 teams are already in deficit, the luxury tax by itself, can not handle the losses. What if none of the richer teams go for the luxury tax? First priority should be getting teams into + on their own. If they start making decent earnings, then you can raise the luxury tax limit a bit. Thus raising the salarys of the players. There will always be richer and poorer teams, just because they are in different citys and have different market opportunitys. Going after their tv revenue is like going after star players endorsement deals and dividing those amongst all players under contract. Would that be fair. Would star players accept this kind of deal. Or if your salary is over some margin you will start paying the lower salary guys 1$ per every dollar you make over that limit.
People need to remember that players are the employees who play basketball for money. They get a paycheck nomatter how bad the team is doing and nomatter what is the teams moneytary situation at the moment. Owners fly them around the country pay their hotel bills, provide them with food, training facilities etc. They take all the risks and cover all the losses. They can't just say, oops there is no money left, can't pay your salary from now on. They have been nice enough to run their businesses in losses for some years now and paying for it from their own pockets. Business is run for profit, if something has been running in "-" for several years it's time to say stop and make changes or quit. Do you think they would have let games to be cancelled if they would lose more money? Last season was great and interesting, with the fanbase expanding. The only guys loosing here are the players. The more games get cancelled, the more they lose. Owners on the other hand win.
Average player broke in 5 years comment is made just to show, that they can not make the easiest mathematical calculations.

Last edited by Kukoc at 10/13/2011 6:46:03 PM

It does not matter who you work for, you should still always remember who is you employer.
You can't assume 8 profitable teams will cover 22 teams losses yearly.

yes but you also have to think about that in the other way, when 8 team would and could easily pay more.

You can not say, guarantee the poorest team the income you could achieve a championship team, which making the richest even richer and just for the "fair play". If you want to have fair play, you can not ask for it on the cost of others.

And you forget that many owners, uses the franchises for looses just for the tax, that are also burokratic games.

Make a free market, and let make the team earing and losses like they work - evn when trades get easier and maybe the draft is dead - that is the way you should go when i look at your arguments.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 10/15/2011 4:08:10 PM

yes but you also have to think about that in the other way, when 8 team would and could easily pay more.

That's where the overly expencive luxury tax comes to play. So if you want to go over the cap you pay significantly more and this money get's spread out to all teams below luxury tax. Currently the tax is too small to even bother those rich teams.

This money goes to the owners, and not to the players who are worth this money, in the eye of the people who pay them. And yes the owners say Butler is worth the doule amount of salary he get, when they sign him above the luxory.

but when the owner don't want long term contract, they shouldn't offer then.

When owner want to make profit, they could mostly pay less salary they ain't forced to overpay.(yes there are 1-2 team below the minimum)

Butler is worth the doule amount of salary he get, when they sign him above the luxory.

This shows you are not familiar with the new luxury tax proposal. For example, Lakers payed 20 mil luxury tax (for going over the tax limit with 20mil). With the new system they would pay 53,7 mil (for going 20mil over the tax limit). That's a big difference. The tax rises exponentially with 5mil intervals. I'm not particularly fan of the 5 year taxation plan (where you can exceed the cap max twise or pay really high tax, 10+ per dollar). Plus the great addition to this is that teams over the luxury tax can not use those mid level and other exceptions.
The contract problem will be smaller when the rich team just can't buy everyone over.
Like I said in an earlier post, too many rules and regulations for veteran guaranteed contracts and rich teams able to go over tax and steal players easily with exceptions etc. I think it was the players suggesting 12 player rosters. Pretty funny imo, stabbing 90 players in the back, who would not have a spot in a team any more, just to keep the better players earning more (less spots on a team, more salary per spot under luxury tax).

the new luxory tax, is still just a proposal. But the problem with it is the same.

The lkakers think a player is worth 10m over luxury, then they could pay them 3 m and pay unconnected buissness parters 7 Mio. Also it get harder to make it.

So the overall contract must get smaller so that the rich team can not spend the money they earn with the players, at the player. And the player get money that the poor team get rich(but will be still relativ poor to the big market teams who earn like crazy) on the cost of the players.

Maybe you should go look at the TV contract the lakers signed a few months back and then compare the 53.7 million to it and correct me if im wrong they can pay twice as much as that with the revenue they get from it..... the nba can just share the revenue they have and fix a lot of things.... n i do want a hard cap im not disagreeing with it... but this is a players game no1 cares about the owners... theres no most valuable owner award but there is a most valuable player.... the nba is nothing without its players so why should they take a pay cut when they have worked their whole life to be basketball player(owners didnt do anything they got there money from stuff thats unrelated to basketball).... the players are its biggest and only asset.... theres no NBA without the players but there will be players without the NBA.... and they can go to europe and play... kobes getting 2 mil to play 1 game.... and thats his value... he gets 25million a season and hes underpaid cause of what he can do..... you cant replace them thats what you gotta realize... you will see more kobe jerseys at lakers game then the whole laker team combined and that goes for every star player... if you take them out you got nothing.... owners are important but the nba isnt like a normal business... 57-43 may not be fair but 53-47 definetly is

You can't just hide 7mil of a 10mil contract. This will eventually come out and NBA has strict regulations about these schemes. Otherwise everyone under contract in europe that was drafted would of been bought out using these unconnected businesses.

so the amount other club pay a player but he had to give it to the other clubs(2/3 of it), saves the NBA from a european invasion?

This lockout has nothing to do with european players. Do you even understand what we are talking about here?:D BRI procentage split for owners makes teams profitable (as a business), new luxury tax will make the league a bit more competitive (limiting the rich teams from spending excessivly), shorter contracts are overall better (as salarys raise annually by guaranteed % with contract rules) - perhaps even 3y contracts max would be better. More player movement and more "contract earning" seasons:)

Otherwise everyone under contract in europe that was drafted would of been bought out using these unconnected businesses.

This lockout has nothing to do with european players.

ok i properly connected your first sentence, to european players sry.

shorter contracts are overall better (as salarys raise annually by guaranteed % with contract rules) - perhaps even 3y contracts max would be better.

why you had to forbid long contracts, when both partys like to sign short ones? So you can allow the long contract fror them who still want them.

procentage split for owners makes teams profitable (as a business),

i really underrstand that owner want to be profitable, and i is really honorabe that they do it on the cost of the players and not asking themself why they give so big contracts(because they didn't attacked the minimum salary and nearly all teams are above their salary limit). And let finacee themself, from the team who still want to pay big paychecks, so that they get 2 bucks for every bug they pay for PLAYERS aboutof the luxiory limit.
You can not take the poorest particpant, and design the system that he makes guaranteed and good earnings, while the finacial solid company are limited to the same expense and makes big money.