Marquis Daniels To Celtics

To me fair play is sportivity, but nvm.

You can still hold franchises accountable for a healthy budget, but you don't necessarily have to attach that to a fixed cap number. Soccer teams and cycling equipes can lose their license if they don't have their things in order for instance.

You say it's protection, but Mark Cuban doesn't need any. He only tightens his belt if he feels like it.

Sure they are well paid. The superstars earn a lot of money off the court too, that's true. But the role players are really robbed. They could make a lot more if the sky was the limit. And I think it would attract more money from 'philantropists'.

I define fair play the same way - sportsmanship - but I was using it in a broader sense, the idea of fair competition.

You can still hold franchises accountable for a healthy budget, but you don't necessarily have to attach that to a fixed cap number. Soccer teams and cycling equipes can lose their license if they don't have their things in order for instance.

Granted, but you still must have some standard drawn to hold teams accountable. A salary cap is one of example of such a standard.

You say it's protection, but Mark Cuban doesn't need any. He only tightens his belt if he feels like it.

Who's to say he doesn't need any? And even if he doesn't, he's just one of 30 owners. As I said it's aiming to protect the financial stability of the entire league, not just one owner who's willing to spend money left and right.

Sure they are well paid. The superstars earn a lot of money off the court too, that's true. But the role players are really robbed. They could make a lot more if the sky was the limit. And I think it would attract more money from 'philantropists'.

They aren't really being "robbed". There's a hierachy, plain and simple. I'm sure there's a lot of CEOs and members of middle management in various big corporations that are making much, much more than their underlings and not working nearly as hard. That's capitalism for you. Giving role players equal paycheques to the stars when they're clearly not equal in terms of skill, that would be socialism in my book.

You say it's protection, but Mark Cuban doesn't need any. He only tightens his belt if he feels like it.

Who's to say he doesn't need any? And even if he doesn't, he's just one of 30 owners. As I said it's aiming to protect the financial stability of the entire league, not just one owner who's willing to spend money left and right.

One of the 30 yes, but he's got to assimilate. It's just not freedom to me. Btw making you pay double for every dollar above the luxury cap is definitely not a protective measure but pure punishment that rather endangers financial stability than enhances it.

Making sure the league is financially healthy can be done without a salary cap that's the same for everyone, like many federations do in the rest of the world, so that is not the sole argument. There has to be an alternative one and that is probably the spreading of talent.

Sure they are well paid. The superstars earn a lot of money off the court too, that's true. But the role players are really robbed. They could make a lot more if the sky was the limit. And I think it would attract more money from 'philantropists'.

They aren't really being "robbed". There's a hierachy, plain and simple. I'm sure there's a lot of CEOs and members of middle management in various big corporations that are making much, much more than their underlings and not working nearly as hard. That's capitalism for you. Giving role players equal paycheques to the stars when they're clearly not equal in terms of skill, that would be socialism in my book.

Of course there's a hierarchy. The top players get top dollar, but the rest got to do with what's left. Not in a natural way, what's left to spend, but what is still allowed to spend. Marquis Daniels is probably robbing himself to represent the Celtics, whereas if there was no cap they could pay him his market value and he could still join them (if he would still be on their radar then).

One of the 30 yes, but he's got to assimilate. It's just not freedom to me. Btw making you pay double for every dollar above the luxury cap is definitely not a protective measure but pure punishment that rather endangers financial stability than enhances it.

Well, that's the thing. It's not a hard cap, so there is some freedom there. But there are penalties along with the exceptions and the luxury tax is a deterrent, which is a protective measure in its own right.

Of course there's a hierarchy. The top players get top dollar, but the rest got to do with what's left. Not in a natural way, what's left to spend, but what is still allowed to spend. Marquis Daniels is probably robbing himself to represent the Celtics, whereas if there was no cap they could pay him his market value and he could still join them (if he would still be on their radar then).

That's not completely unlike other professions though. For example, my friend is an electrical engineer and while his wages aren't too shabby at all, they're nothing compared to engineers who have been working with the company for ten, twenty years. As he continues his career he'll have the opportunity to make more money based on his training, skills, and seniority...not completely unlike an NBA player and certainly not unlike other more mundane occupations. Again, I do see where you're coming from but to me, the salary cap is a budget set by a governing body that does have a few exceptions, which are probably necessary with the amount of money involved in the sport.

Role players also have the opportunity to make more money. They have the option to negotiate bigger contracts or leave for other teams that are willing to pay them what they feel they are worth, so the concept of career advancement is certainly there and I'd associate that more with capitalism than socialism. No question, I concede there are parallels but there's an awful lot about the system and being an NBA player that most certainly is capitalist, not socialist.

I'm not going to argue with (or read) the rest of this, as I don't have a problem with the current cap/tax situation and agreement. It ensures stability in the NBA as a whole and I think the next negotiation may break it. The recent upgrade to the 1999 compromise was actually a good one. A team like New Orleans is unwilling to pay the tax, which has and will overtime spread their talent to other teams. Orlando has decided the tax is worth it for a championship. The Spurs, Mavericks, Celtics, etc. have also said, they will pay the tax to win a championship. Even though winning a title has decreased in value to a team this decade. (I believe Cuban has said before that had the Mavericks won in 2006, they still would've lost money on the endeavor.)

It separates the teams that actually are willing to win, from the businesses. As hinted at in the other thread, the same teams keep winning because they care about that. And as mentioned in a recent ESPN column, almost two-thirds of the league would sell at the right price. Those are people who bought into it on a business. Cuban, the Maloofs, Jerry Buss, the DeVos Family, the Davidson family, etc. They give the green light to win, even if they lose money on it. Making the jump from 30 wins to 60 wins does not increase the money made by enough to offset the required salary increases. This is one reason Sterling doesn't pay. (Although, as I've argued before, 90% of the time it's been smart basketball AND financial decisions.)

Now, to this.

A few socialist aspects of this sytem:
- Players are 'shared'. They are somehow public property and all the teams get their 'fair' share.
This is a tremendous violation imo of the freedom of players. Mainly of their freedom of choice of employer (although of course their employer is The NBA officially) but I find it obscure. The maximum salary may also not be a violation by the law - because players voluntarily agree to play in the league of course, but it definitely reeks of socialism. At the very least I find it very un-American to not let the market decide somebody's pay.

I wouldn't necessarily decry this as "socialistic" for a couple reasons. For one, the market does decide their pay, the market of the NBA previously, but now overseas does as well. The players can always ditch the NBA for a new league, but it's in their benefit to work with the current system. For now. This is the biggest story nobody is talking about in favor of whining about dunks on LeBron videos. Europe is slowly positioning itself, as other locations may in the near future, as a viable destination for star NBA players at least for a few years. The NBA has its own market, and now its previously closed market will have to contend with a global market. The NBA is no different from all other markets, except it's taken about two decades longer.

The players also agreed to these terms through their union. Now if you're making a great argument that unionism and collective bargaining is collectivist and the antithesis of capitalist theory I would be sympathetic but not in full agreement. (As unions are only negative when they eliminate market forces and enforce a closed shop. Jordan famously eschewed the Union and Kobe has flirted with it. Although, Kobe probably recognizes that Jordan had a hand in the lockout.)

I wouldn't argue the Draft is not collectivist. But it is done in hopes of making a more enjoyable league, and players have shown their capability to, after their rookie stint, ditch the team and location. (See: the mass Canadian exodus.)

In the end though, it's a bunch of individuals contracting with a private entity. Socialism, Fascism, Collectivism, etc. is state enforced. Players are not forced to play in the NBA (although some NLSCers and others in the media want them to be based on their Rubio reactions), but when they contract in, they're required to follow the rules they agreed to. Same as NLSC, where you work, etc.

The differentiation is that private entities can't force you with the police force, the government can.

Sure I'm not saying it is pure socialism, but if it didn't exist yet and Obama would propose it then Joe the Plumber would think it's a bad idea. To me it's just ironic that such a system exists in the USA.

I don't think money is enough to attract the best players to Europe. If it would I'm very curious how the NBA will react on that, if certain rules will be changed to fight it. But to me it's like if tomorrow a salary cap would be instituted in Hollywood by the Academy for instance (no Oscar if you don't follow the cap rules ) then I still don't see Tom Cruise settling for a role in Bollywood.

I wonder if they'd abolish restricted free agent in that instance. If not for that, I'd say Josh Childress would still be playing for someone in the NBA.

Sure I'm not saying it is pure socialism, but if it didn't exist yet and Obama would propose it then Joe the Plumber would think it's a bad idea. To me it's just ironic that such a system exists in the USA.

I don't think money is enough to attract the best players to Europe. If it would I'm very curious how the NBA will react on that, if certain rules will be changed to fight it. But to me it's like if tomorrow a salary cap would be instituted in Hollywood by the Academy for instance (no Oscar if you don't follow the cap rules ) then I still don't see Tom Cruise settling for a role in Bollywood.

I know you weren't, but "socialism" and the like is thrown around too much to the point it's just a vapid insult like "fascism" with no relation to actual positioning in our political culture. (Here in the U.S.)

I don't actually think it's that disparate. But now that Kobe has won his title, if that Italian team comes back offering $50 million a year for a couple years? We have to remember that for most of the post-war period, Europe couldn't even attempt to compete with the U.S. Now things are pretty even, there a lot of billionaires in Europe putting money into basketball that weren't there a decade ago, let alone five years ago. The level of talent NBA in 1990 compared to the world will be different from 2010. The best players in the world will still be in the NBA along with most of the second tier, but the third or fourth tiers? You can't say that as easily anymore.

It's not really ironic. The USA stopped being a free market well before the NBA was founded.

I look at the whole NBA to Europe thing this way. It's been only a few years since the draft entry rules were changed, in that time only one player has skipped to Europe straight from high school. His performance in the NBA will be a huge influence on whether or not this trend continues. In that time there's only been one well known NBA player deciding to go to Europe instead signing with an NBA team.

While people might look at that and think there's nothing to worry about, consider how many free agents this season are being linked with moves to Europe as opposed to two years ago. David Lee, Nate Robinson, Ramon Sessions, Raymond Felton etc... all linked with moves to Europe, and in two of those cases (Sessions, Robinson) it is a fair possibility. The snowball effect took some time to begin, but it's gaining momentum and next season when every top 50 player in the L is seemingly off contract, I'll guarantee once teams blow their load signing LeBron and friends there'll be some decent players left with no real choice but to take the money and go overseas.

It's not necessarily a recent trend though. Joe Barry Carroll, Ralph Sampson, Dominique Wilkins and Rolando Blackman are examples of prominent players who left the NBA for Europe as far back as the 80s. I think there'll always be players who will use Europe as a bargaining chip or a Plan B if they can't negotiate a deal they're happy with in the NBA, no matter what perks the next collective bargaining agreement will win them.

Other than Carroll, they basically all went overseas after their NBA careers were more or less over. We're talking about players who leave in their primes to make more money. The third/fourth tier guys who are in a situation where the NBA can't offer enough money as they're maxing out the two higher tiers, and then they come back as they're older to sign up for less to play a role on a contender. That's the major change in the NBA we're facing that everyone seems to be ignoring.

Is it really a major change as yet though? I mean, I wouldn't be all that surprised if more players went that route but does that mean we should expect a mass exodus in the coming years as players spurn the NBA for Europe in their prime?

It will be. As I said, it's not about just the NBA, but the status of the European and America economic climates. The European one was depressed for almost the entire life of the NBA due to the War and the Soviets. It's emerged in the last few years and Europeans have played a larger role in the NBA. Now the United States is on a downward spiral into irrelevancy and Europe and Asia are growing.

The Euroleague, and European leagues have gone from where you go if you can't make it in the US to where you can make more money than the US and be a bigger part of a team. As noted, it's not the stars, it's the third/fourth tier players.

Sure I'm not saying it is pure socialism, but if it didn't exist yet and Obama would propose it then Joe the Plumber would think it's a bad idea. To me it's just ironic that such a system exists in the USA.

I don't think money is enough to attract the best players to Europe. If it would I'm very curious how the NBA will react on that, if certain rules will be changed to fight it. But to me it's like if tomorrow a salary cap would be instituted in Hollywood by the Academy for instance (no Oscar if you don't follow the cap rules ) then I still don't see Tom Cruise settling for a role in Bollywood.

I know you weren't, but "socialism" and the like is thrown around too much to the point it's just a vapid insult like "fascism" with no relation to actual positioning in our political culture. (Here in the U.S.)

I don't mean it as an insult, but when I use the term fascism I usually do.

Well, that's what makes it ironic imo. It's a tainted word, even more a word used to taint ideas, while the irony lies in the fact certain elements are present in this system and I'm sure in more aspects of American life but they seem to be ok if they're a tradition or not exposed as 'socialist' concepts.

I don't actually think it's that disparate. But now that Kobe has won his title, if that Italian team comes back offering $50 million a year for a couple years? We have to remember that for most of the post-war period, Europe couldn't even attempt to compete with the U.S. Now things are pretty even, there a lot of billionaires in Europe putting money into basketball that weren't there a decade ago, let alone five years ago. The level of talent NBA in 1990 compared to the world will be different from 2010. The best players in the world will still be in the NBA along with most of the second tier, but the third or fourth tiers? You can't say that as easily anymore.

2nd tier and 3rd is hard to say. I know first tier Dutch players still dream of the NBA and nothing else. If somebody like Kobe would go it might become a trend. It would certainly cause a shock. And maybe open other players' minds to it. There's a Dutch saying that says "After one sheep has crossed the dam, the rest will follow."

It's not really ironic. The USA stopped being a free market well before the NBA was founded.

Well, then it's ironic that they still advertise otherwise.

It will be. As I said, it's not about just the NBA, but the status of the European and America economic climates. The European one was depressed for almost the entire life of the NBA due to the War and the Soviets. It's emerged in the last few years and Europeans have played a larger role in the NBA. Now the United States is on a downward spiral into irrelevancy and Europe and Asia are growing.

The Euroleague, and European leagues have gone from where you go if you can't make it in the US to where you can make more money than the US and be a bigger part of a team. As noted, it's not the stars, it's the third/fourth tier players.

How does the NBA counteract that then (or indeed, can they)? Do they raise (or abolish) the cap or lower the maximum contracts that veterans are eligible for? Do they bite the bullet and eliminate restricted free agency so that players like Childress can freely negotiate with other teams if their current club won't meet their asking price?

Yeah, I'm not saying it's a immediate thing, it's a long term trend. Ten years ago you wouldn't consider any NBA player or top level Euro player NOT trying to play in the NBA. Now you have to consider it as the NBA money shrinks and the European money (especially from Russia and the Middle East) increases. It's going to snap up those mid-level players, not the stars. (And keep the Euro stars who don't want to bet big.) The stars have the leverage to demand what they want in every market.

And Americans are fine with collectivism for the last century, certainly since 1933.

How does the NBA counteract that then (or indeed, can they)? Do they raise (or abolish) the cap or lower the maximum contracts that veterans are eligible for? Do they bite the bullet and eliminate restricted free agency so that players like Childress can freely negotiate with other teams if their current club won't meet their asking price?

They can't. Owners won't kill the limits, and the superstars wouldn't want to see a benchwarmer making more than them again (as they saw in the 90s, leading to the lockout) so they have to keep the limits. And with the US economy collapsing, the money will be elsewhere. The NBA can only operate based on the revenue it collects. If people can't attend games and buy merchandise, they can't overpay the players.

Last edited by benji on Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The NBA are looking at lowering the salary cap. A guy who posts on the Bucks forum at RealGM worked on the current CBA, he got an email/memo from the league saying they're aiming at lowering the cap to 50 mil sometime in the next few years. I don't think the NBA would care enough to counteract it, not unless the top tier of guys were the ones leaving. As long as it's the Nate Robinsons and Raymond Feltons of the World I can't see much changing as far as the L is concerned. As I said to Ben on MSN, if it does get to the point where it becomes detrimental to the league I can see the NBA implimenting their plans for European expansion sooner rather than later.

Edit: Was partially wrong. The NBA don't lower the cap (thanks Ben) the cap adjusts depending on revenue (and again). Here is that guys post from RealGM:

For whatever reason I had not checked my email in a number of hours, so I was unaware I had a pretty important email containing an official NBA memo for release this morning.

There is quite a lot of interesting data in there.

But one thing that we REALLY need to factor in when looking at what we are doing this offseason is not only what the lux tax threshold is for 09-10, but what it could be for 10-11.

We've talked about this before. Even back earlier in the season when people were dooming and glooming about the 09-10 threshold being between $65 mil to $68 mil, I said at that time that kind of drop wouldn't yet be possible because of the buffer system the CBA uses, so 10-11 was the more worrisome year.

But the NBA's current projections for the 10-11 lux tax threshold is $65 mil, factoring in a 2.5% drop in BRI from 08-09 to 09-10

There actually was NOT a drop in BRI for 08-09 ($3.608 billion) as compared to 07-08 ($3.519 billion), despite all of the economic conditions, so one or more significant TV contracts must have run out for the NBA to forecast that kind of drop.

Also, the amount of the players salaries held in escrow was for the first time not sufficient to cover the overage of salaries & benefits, which also drags the salary cap and lux tax numbers down for 10-11. Of the 9% of salary held in escrow in the 07-08 season, amounting to $184.9 mil, $163.4 mil was used to cover the overage leaving $21.5 mil that was returned to the players. For 09-10, the escrow amount of $194 mil wasn't even sufficient to cover the $219.8 mil overage, so not only was there a larger than normal overage, but there was actually a $25.8 mil shortfall. That might not seem like a big deal relative to all of the other large numbers at play here, but trust me, it is. The overage amount itself already impacts the next salary cap and lux tax thresholds, and a shortfall amount further compounds that.

The NBA also is taking an overly cautious and borderline insane approach and issuing an additional warning to teams that it would be prudent not to plan to the 10-11 projection of $53.6 mil salary cap and $65 mil lux tax, but rather to plan for a $50.4 mil salary cap and $61.2 mil lux tax, just in case.
That's going too far, IMO. Yes, things could get that bad. But we'd probably be to the point of 20%+ unemployment and lines for soup and bread handouts Great Depression style for the climate to be right for that kind of drop. I mean, what if we end up having a nuclear war with Iran and North Korea, simultaneously? Should teams be preparing for that contingency too? At a certain point contingency planning is not productive.

Personally, I think the NBA ratcheted up the doom and gloom in that memo because they didn't feel like teams were appropriately adjusting their fiscal discipline so far this offseason.

But we should for the time being use that $65 mil figure for the 10-11 lux tax threshold and keep that in mind when looking at any moves made this offseason, in addition to the 09-10 lux tax threshold.

2nd tier and 3rd is hard to say. I know first tier Dutch players still dream of the NBA and nothing else. If somebody like Kobe would go it might become a trend. It would certainly cause a shock. And maybe open other players' minds to it. There's a Dutch saying that says "After one sheep has crossed the dam, the rest will follow."

Well, that's not the 1st tier (nor the 2nd) European basketball team. Spain, France, maybe Russia and few other countries are a bit different. They are starting to show some signs of KHL example (hockey league for those who don't know). Once that amount of money will be invested in basketball, situation might change.