Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Don't hate the players, hate the game   ( mobile.nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Salary cap, salary cap, Free agent, 2009 NBA Playoffs, NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement, Trade union, A-League, NBA Salary Cap  
•       •       •

1109 clicks; posted to Sports » on 10 Jul 2018 at 6:20 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-07-10 06:10:16 PM  
But what about me? I was a Kings fan since 198... I ...

Sorry, lol.
 
2018-07-10 06:45:51 PM  
So there were stupid contracts signed, just watch some teams sign even more as the last batch come off the books just because they have $$$ and feel they have to spend it on someone.  I am looking at you Bulls
 
2018-07-10 06:50:46 PM  
It's simple.  Everyone moves to the big city.  For some Cleveland is the big city.  For others it's San Fran or LA.
 
2018-07-10 06:54:30 PM  
As long as there's a max contract, this is the dumb shiat you're gonna get. Granted, that's not the sole reason for what's going on in Oakland, but still.
 
2018-07-10 06:58:24 PM  
Let's all be outraged that NBA players don't commit to one team for life, and then let's be further outraged that they go to teams that are well-run and competitive. True champions don't move to better teams because reasons.

Furthermore, let's ignore that there pretty much hasn't been a single baseball player of all-star caliber to play his whole career in one place since the steroid era (yes I know there are a few but they are rare) and that this is generally true in hockey and football. Let's just be mad at basketball.
 
2018-07-10 06:59:19 PM  
Socially, I rather like that players are allowed to collude a bit, and choose where to go (within some limitations.)  Competitively, it's a bit boring to watch.  Then again, in the old days, the Celtics flat out owned all the great player contracts and crushed all the competition... also not competitive.  I'd rather err on the side of player rights.
 
2018-07-10 07:05:28 PM  

Dafatone: Let's all be outraged that NBA players don't commit to one team for life, and then let's be further outraged that they go to teams that are well-run and competitive. True champions don't move to better teams because reasons.

Furthermore, let's ignore that there pretty much hasn't been a single baseball player of all-star caliber to play his whole career in one place since the steroid era (yes I know there are a few but they are rare) and that this is generally true in hockey and football. Let's just be mad at basketball.


The difference is that is baseball, hockey, or football one or two players don't have near the impact as they do in basketball.

You put one of the best pitchers ever in your rotation, he still only pitches in 20-25% of games. Put the best hitter in your lineup, he only bats every nine hitters.

An NHL goalie is probably the closest you can come, but without good play in front of him, he can only do so much.

But in basketball, one great surrounded by some good support can win you championships, and with five people getting the vast majority of minutes (while hockey has only side players on the ice, your starters play less of the game) just getting a couple top players is far more significant.

/I don't blame any player unless they are asses about it
//up to the League and PA to see if it can be managed ins lite of the nature of the sport
 
2018-07-10 07:07:30 PM  

Dafatone: Let's all be outraged that NBA players don't commit to one team for life, and then let's be further outraged that they go to teams that are well-run and competitive. True champions don't move to better teams because reasons.

Furthermore, let's ignore that there pretty much hasn't been a single baseball player of all-star caliber to play his whole career in one place since the steroid era (yes I know there are a few but they are rare) and that this is generally true in hockey and football. Let's just be mad at basketball.


That is the key right there. You have a good organization and a good coach, the players are going to want to flock there, even if the team is in Podunk.
 
2018-07-10 07:10:35 PM  

dywed88: Dafatone: Let's all be outraged that NBA players don't commit to one team for life, and then let's be further outraged that they go to teams that are well-run and competitive. True champions don't move to better teams because reasons.

Furthermore, let's ignore that there pretty much hasn't been a single baseball player of all-star caliber to play his whole career in one place since the steroid era (yes I know there are a few but they are rare) and that this is generally true in hockey and football. Let's just be mad at basketball.

The difference is that is baseball, hockey, or football one or two players don't have near the impact as they do in basketball.

You put one of the best pitchers ever in your rotation, he still only pitches in 20-25% of games. Put the best hitter in your lineup, he only bats every nine hitters.

An NHL goalie is probably the closest you can come, but without good play in front of him, he can only do so much.

But in basketball, one great surrounded by some good support can win you championships, and with five people getting the vast majority of minutes (while hockey has only side players on the ice, your starters play less of the game) just getting a couple top players is far more significant.

/I don't blame any player unless they are asses about it
//up to the League and PA to see if it can be managed ins lite of the nature of the sport



That is far from the truth. Name one team in the modern era where this has been true? Every championship team has had at least 2 stars on it.
 
2018-07-10 07:22:22 PM  

ongbok: dywed88: Dafatone: Let's all be outraged that NBA players don't commit to one team for life, and then let's be further outraged that they go to teams that are well-run and competitive. True champions don't move to better teams because reasons.

Furthermore, let's ignore that there pretty much hasn't been a single baseball player of all-star caliber to play his whole career in one place since the steroid era (yes I know there are a few but they are rare) and that this is generally true in hockey and football. Let's just be mad at basketball.

The difference is that is baseball, hockey, or football one or two players don't have near the impact as they do in basketball.

You put one of the best pitchers ever in your rotation, he still only pitches in 20-25% of games. Put the best hitter in your lineup, he only bats every nine hitters.

An NHL goalie is probably the closest you can come, but without good play in front of him, he can only do so much.

But in basketball, one great surrounded by some good support can win you championships, and with five people getting the vast majority of minutes (while hockey has only side players on the ice, your starters play less of the game) just getting a couple top players is far more significant.

/I don't blame any player unless they are asses about it
//up to the League and PA to see if it can be managed ins lite of the nature of the sport


That is far from the truth. Name one team in the modern era where this has been true? Every championship team has had at least 2 stars on it.


2011 Mavericks, 2004 Pistons, 1994 Rockets
 
2018-07-10 07:23:17 PM  

ongbok: dywed88: Dafatone: Let's all be outraged that NBA players don't commit to one team for life, and then let's be further outraged that they go to teams that are well-run and competitive. True champions don't move to better teams because reasons.

Furthermore, let's ignore that there pretty much hasn't been a single baseball player of all-star caliber to play his whole career in one place since the steroid era (yes I know there are a few but they are rare) and that this is generally true in hockey and football. Let's just be mad at basketball.

The difference is that is baseball, hockey, or football one or two players don't have near the impact as they do in basketball.

You put one of the best pitchers ever in your rotation, he still only pitches in 20-25% of games. Put the best hitter in your lineup, he only bats every nine hitters.

An NHL goalie is probably the closest you can come, but without good play in front of him, he can only do so much.

But in basketball, one great surrounded by some good support can win you championships, and with five people getting the vast majority of minutes (while hockey has only side players on the ice, your starters play less of the game) just getting a couple top players is far more significant.

/I don't blame any player unless they are asses about it
//up to the League and PA to see if it can be managed ins lite of the nature of the sport


That is far from the truth. Name one team in the modern era where this has been true? Every championship team has had at least 2 stars on it.


One could make the argument that Olajuwon was the only star on the Rockets the first of their back to back titles, though 24 years ago may be playing loose with the phrase "modern era." And even then, it seems a situation where it'd be the exception that proved the rule, rather than the one that disproves it.
 
2018-07-10 07:30:10 PM  

Riothamus: 2004 Pistons


Darko?
 
2018-07-10 07:35:21 PM  

A Fark Handle: Riothamus: 2004 Pistons

Darko?


Still more NBA championships than Carmelo...
 
2018-07-10 07:35:28 PM  

Riothamus: 2011 Mavericks


Yeah, but it's not like they beat a collection of superstars. They had a pretty easy path to the Larry O'Brien.
 
2018-07-10 07:38:12 PM  

ongbok: dywed88: Dafatone: Let's all be outraged that NBA players don't commit to one team for life, and then let's be further outraged that they go to teams that are well-run and competitive. True champions don't move to better teams because reasons.

Furthermore, let's ignore that there pretty much hasn't been a single baseball player of all-star caliber to play his whole career in one place since the steroid era (yes I know there are a few but they are rare) and that this is generally true in hockey and football. Let's just be mad at basketball.

The difference is that is baseball, hockey, or football one or two players don't have near the impact as they do in basketball.

You put one of the best pitchers ever in your rotation, he still only pitches in 20-25% of games. Put the best hitter in your lineup, he only bats every nine hitters.

An NHL goalie is probably the closest you can come, but without good play in front of him, he can only do so much.

But in basketball, one great surrounded by some good support can win you championships, and with five people getting the vast majority of minutes (while hockey has only side players on the ice, your starters play less of the game) just getting a couple top players is far more significant.

/I don't blame any player unless they are asses about it
//up to the League and PA to see if it can be managed ins lite of the nature of the sport


That is far from the truth. Name one team in the modern era where this has been true? Every championship team has had at least 2 stars on it.


Yeah, that is a bit of an exaggeration. But the point remains: one great player has a far bigger impact in the NBA and you can far more easily build a stacked team. Which results in more complaints.
 
2018-07-10 07:43:28 PM  

Trocadero: A Fark Handle: Riothamus: 2004 Pistons

Darko?

Still more NBA championships than Carmelo...


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-07-10 07:44:14 PM  
Imbalance is freaking fantastic when its Warriors on top
 
2018-07-10 07:46:27 PM  
Carmello is the looming spectre of death to any NBA team's chapionship hopes
 
2018-07-10 07:48:02 PM  

Gonz: Riothamus: 2011 Mavericks

Yeah, but it's not like they beat a collection of superstars. They had a pretty easy path to the Larry O'Brien.


Yeah the Thunder were still young and the East was weak as always.  But Dirk did have that cough.
 
2018-07-10 08:04:21 PM  
You cap the contract so players look elsewhere for where to play.

If Cleveland could have offered 75m per year, Lebron would have stayed
 
2018-07-10 08:13:37 PM  

interstellar_tedium: So there were stupid contracts signed, just watch some teams sign even more as the last batch come off the books just because they have $$$ and feel they have to spend it on someone.  I am looking at you Bulls


I mean, if ever there was a team to sign subpar talent to ridiculous contracts in an ill-concieved attempt to win, it would be the Bulls.

/looking at you Carlos Boozer
 
2018-07-10 08:15:54 PM  

germ78: interstellar_tedium: So there were stupid contracts signed, just watch some teams sign even more as the last batch come off the books just because they have $$$ and feel they have to spend it on someone.  I am looking at you Bulls

I mean, if ever there was a team to sign subpar talent to ridiculous contracts in an ill-concieved attempt to win, it would be the Bulls.

/looking at you Carlos Boozer


They had to work off the karmic debt from Scottie's ridiculous lowball contract somehow.
 
2018-07-10 08:27:41 PM  
Can I blame both? Because I hate both. The NBA is a circus.
 
2018-07-10 08:29:35 PM  

Crewmannumber6: Can I blame both? Because I hate both. The NBA is a circus.


An MLS fan calling another league a circus?
 
2018-07-10 08:36:05 PM  

Riothamus: ongbok: dywed88: Dafatone: Let's all be outraged that NBA players don't commit to one team for life, and then let's be further outraged that they go to teams that are well-run and competitive. True champions don't move to better teams because reasons.

Furthermore, let's ignore that there pretty much hasn't been a single baseball player of all-star caliber to play his whole career in one place since the steroid era (yes I know there are a few but they are rare) and that this is generally true in hockey and football. Let's just be mad at basketball.

The difference is that is baseball, hockey, or football one or two players don't have near the impact as they do in basketball.

You put one of the best pitchers ever in your rotation, he still only pitches in 20-25% of games. Put the best hitter in your lineup, he only bats every nine hitters.

An NHL goalie is probably the closest you can come, but without good play in front of him, he can only do so much.

But in basketball, one great surrounded by some good support can win you championships, and with five people getting the vast majority of minutes (while hockey has only side players on the ice, your starters play less of the game) just getting a couple top players is far more significant.

/I don't blame any player unless they are asses about it
//up to the League and PA to see if it can be managed ins lite of the nature of the sport


That is far from the truth. Name one team in the modern era where this has been true? Every championship team has had at least 2 stars on it.

2011 Mavericks, 2004 Pistons, 1994 Rockets


2011 Mavericks had Jason Kidd, Tyson Chandler and Shawn Marion on the roster.
 
2018-07-10 08:39:41 PM  

BlueVet: Riothamus: ongbok: dywed88: Dafatone: Let's all be outraged that NBA players don't commit to one team for life, and then let's be further outraged that they go to teams that are well-run and competitive. True champions don't move to better teams because reasons.

Furthermore, let's ignore that there pretty much hasn't been a single baseball player of all-star caliber to play his whole career in one place since the steroid era (yes I know there are a few but they are rare) and that this is generally true in hockey and football. Let's just be mad at basketball.

The difference is that is baseball, hockey, or football one or two players don't have near the impact as they do in basketball.

You put one of the best pitchers ever in your rotation, he still only pitches in 20-25% of games. Put the best hitter in your lineup, he only bats every nine hitters.

An NHL goalie is probably the closest you can come, but without good play in front of him, he can only do so much.

But in basketball, one great surrounded by some good support can win you championships, and with five people getting the vast majority of minutes (while hockey has only side players on the ice, your starters play less of the game) just getting a couple top players is far more significant.

/I don't blame any player unless they are asses about it
//up to the League and PA to see if it can be managed ins lite of the nature of the sport


That is far from the truth. Name one team in the modern era where this has been true? Every championship team has had at least 2 stars on it.

2011 Mavericks, 2004 Pistons, 1994 Rockets

2011 Mavericks had Jason Kidd, Tyson Chandler and Shawn Marion on the roster.


And the pistons had 4 all stars
 
2018-07-10 08:48:38 PM  

MugzyBrown: Crewmannumber6: Can I blame both? Because I hate both. The NBA is a circus.

An MLS fan calling another league a circus?


I'm not an MLS fan as much as i am a soccer fan but, yeah, I enjoy it more.
 
2018-07-10 08:58:50 PM  
...but when the Celtics win 8 Championships in a row and go 11-1 in Championships over 13 seasons, it's a 'legendary dynasty'.
 
2018-07-10 09:15:38 PM  

Trocadero: A Fark Handle: Riothamus: 2004 Pistons

Darko?

Still more NBA championships than Carmelo...


*cries*

/Nuggets were due damnit.
 
2018-07-10 09:22:47 PM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: ...but when the Celtics win 8 Championships in a row and go 11-1 in Championships over 13 seasons, it's a 'legendary dynasty'.

Funny how that works.
 
2018-07-10 09:42:17 PM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: ...but when the Celtics win 8 Championships in a row and go 11-1 in Championships over 13 seasons, it's a 'legendary dynasty'.


Back when starting players made $8000 a year.
There's a reason Bob Cousy, one of the key components of that dynasty, helped start the players union.
 
2018-07-10 10:14:55 PM  
There's this weird idea that fans want their team to win squeakers all the time.

The ratings and just general history say they don't.
 
2018-07-10 10:50:31 PM  

A Fark Handle: Gonz: Riothamus: 2011 Mavericks

Yeah, but it's not like they beat a collection of superstars. They had a pretty easy path to the Larry O'Brien.

Yeah the Thunder were still young and the East was weak as always.  But Dirk did have that cough.


You serious, Clark?
 
2018-07-10 11:55:20 PM  

stoli n coke: RoyFokker'sGhost: ...but when the Celtics win 8 Championships in a row and go 11-1 in Championships over 13 seasons, it's a 'legendary dynasty'.

Back when starting players made $8000 a year.
There's a reason Bob Cousy, one of the key components of that dynasty, helped start the players union.


They also drafted Wilt Chamberlain. If Philadelphia hadn't used their territorial rights to snake him Bill Russell would've shifted to Power Forward and the Celtics would have had a realistic shot at killing the league for want of competitive balance. Remember that Wilt set the single game rebounding record (55!) *against* Russell.

Put Wilt on that team and the rest of the NBA turns into the Washington Generals.
 
2018-07-11 12:19:42 AM  
I agree with the players. The owners got a spike in revenue, therefore the players should get a spike in salary. "Smoothing" the cap would just mean the owners would keep much of the original spike, then slowly up the cap to where it should be, thus screwing the players out of the extra money. It's not like they were saying they'd smooth the salary cap and then increase the percentage of the salary cap further.

Let's just say the players get 50% of the revenue overall. If the owners were to say, "Let's give you 40% (which is still higher in actual dollars than last year) this year, then increase by 2% each year for the next five years..." That would be a loss for the players. Even if they said, "And we'll keep increasing it over the five years after that until you are making 60% of the revenue..." that still screws players that are playing right now in the league that commanded an increase in TV revenue.

So players in the league right now that contributed to the increase in TV revenue would be screwed and would also probably be retired before their share of the revenue went up to the 60%.

F*ck the owners at all costs. It's the fans that dictate how much money comes in. It's up to the owners to make sure they do their part in increasing the revenue. Players play, fans watch. The owners want half of the revenue? Then they get out there and work the TV contracts. That's their job. If they don't do their job they can kiss the league goodbye.
 
2018-07-11 01:09:14 AM  

jaylectricity: I agree with the players. The owners got a spike in revenue, therefore the players should get a spike in salary. "Smoothing" the cap would just mean the owners would keep much of the original spike, then slowly up the cap to where it should be, thus screwing the players out of the extra money. It's not like they were saying they'd smooth the salary cap and then increase the percentage of the salary cap further.

Let's just say the players get 50% of the revenue overall. If the owners were to say, "Let's give you 40% (which is still higher in actual dollars than last year) this year, then increase by 2% each year for the next five years..." That would be a loss for the players. Even if they said, "And we'll keep increasing it over the five years after that until you are making 60% of the revenue..." that still screws players that are playing right now in the league that commanded an increase in TV revenue.

So players in the league right now that contributed to the increase in TV revenue would be screwed and would also probably be retired before their share of the revenue went up to the 60%.

F*ck the owners at all costs. It's the fans that dictate how much money comes in. It's up to the owners to make sure they do their part in increasing the revenue. Players play, fans watch. The owners want half of the revenue? Then they get out there and work the TV contracts. That's their job. If they don't do their job they can kiss the league goodbye.


The way it came across to me was that the players would get the 50% but paid as a 40% in salary and 10% in lump payment to divide amongst themselves. So the same revenue % of an un-smoothed cap would still be paid out.
Let me know if thats incorrect.

Not being a huge NBA fan the way it worked out is fine with me, they put on a good show and should get all they can.

/Baseball does have a salary cap, its just a soft cap.
 
2018-07-11 07:12:14 AM  

MugzyBrown: You cap the contract so players look elsewhere for where to play.

If Cleveland could have offered 75m per year, Lebron would have stayed


Not necessarily.  Given the momey he makes off the court, which gets increased by playing in LA, and what he wants to do with the rest of his life and where he wants to do it, $75m may not have been enough to keep him in Cleveland.
 
2018-07-11 08:27:55 AM  

FreeLawyer: MugzyBrown: You cap the contract so players look elsewhere for where to play.

If Cleveland could have offered 75m per year, Lebron would have stayed

Not necessarily.  Given the momey he makes off the court, which gets increased by playing in LA, and what he wants to do with the rest of his life and where he wants to do it, $75m may not have been enough to keep him in Cleveland.


This I do not get. What is the advantage of playing in LA? He saturates the NBA market from Cleveland it's not like the eyeballs he reaches increase with that move. A smarter move would be to move to Madrid or Barcelona and try to get basketball on the same level as soccer globally.
 
2018-07-11 08:40:06 AM  

damn yanks: FreeLawyer: MugzyBrown: You cap the contract so players look elsewhere for where to play.

If Cleveland could have offered 75m per year, Lebron would have stayed

Not necessarily.  Given the momey he makes off the court, which gets increased by playing in LA, and what he wants to do with the rest of his life and where he wants to do it, $75m may not have been enough to keep him in Cleveland.

This I do not get. What is the advantage of playing in LA? He saturates the NBA market from Cleveland it's not like the eyeballs he reaches increase with that move. A smarter move would be to move to Madrid or Barcelona and try to get basketball on the same level as soccer globally.


I don't think Lebron going to Madrid makes basketball a global sport like soccer. First, basketball is pretty global already and Lebron is world famous.

I'm sure if he really wanted to he could have played in China and some rich dude out there would have paid him a few hundred million to do so.  But he's still on the edge of his prime. he's not ready to go out to pasture like some of the soccer players are doing.
 
2018-07-11 10:26:38 AM  

jaylectricity: I agree with the players. The owners got a spike in revenue, therefore the players should get a spike in salary. "Smoothing" the cap would just mean the owners would keep much of the original spike, then slowly up the cap to where it should be, thus screwing the players out of the extra money. It's not like they were saying they'd smooth the salary cap and then increase the percentage of the salary cap further.


The players are guaranteed 51% of revenue no matter what. They never would have lost any money with 'smoothing' the cap.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report