No, I'm not only blaming one side. I'm just not improperly blaming the players. Your statement was that players are sacrificing the jobs of others. That's a false statement. Owners have shut this thing down. If anything, you only blamed one side and it was the wrong one. I agree that both sides could come to a deal. But just like you say the players could have accepted a deal that would still pay them millions, the owners could have accepted a deal that covered all of their "losses". The freedom to offer their services to the highest bidder or choose where they want to work based on their qualifications. Yes, most people in America have the freedom to work at any company that is willing to hire them.
The NBA lost money, the owners need to account for all the players trying to get to big cities to keep the league relevent so players and owners can make big money. That means restricting some movement of the players, either by a franchise tag, or a disparity on how much more money they can make by staying with their current teams. The last CBA attempted to do this but once money got so big and taking taxes into account the disparity was not enough. The poster above who pointed out that the Nuggets did EVERYTHING to keep Carmelo and he still went to a big city had it right, the owners have to right the ship, they need all the franchises in the league to have a fair shot at competing, that does not exist now, they have to fix it. And if it takes the entire season to be lost to do it, so be it. The players have no risk, they have guaranteed contracts, and they want to be able to all play where they want with whom they want...the league would not survive with that. I expect them to get a deal, but the system is broken and needs to be fixed. DD
As far as winning, how is the landscape any different and when has the league ever had parity? 1950's - 2 teams win 6 titles (Lakers-4, Celtics-2) 1960's - 1 team wins 9 titles (Boston) 1970's - No team won more than 2 titles, and this is generally considered the worst era in league history. 1980's - 2 teams win 8 titles (Lakers-5, Celtics-3) 1990's - 2 teams win 8 titles (Bulls-6, Rockets-2) 2000's - 2 teams win 7 titles (Lakers-4, Spurs-3) 2010 - Lakers repeat, beating the team that won in 2008 2011 - Record interest once a "super-team" is formed What's different? Where is this parity?
The Nuggets did keep Melo, for 7.5 seasons!!!! When should it be ok for a guy to want to leave, when his career is over?
It is ok or him to leave, but the system made it to where the Nuggets were forced to trade him. There are not multiple companies here, there is one company with multiple divisions competing for the same talent pool..... And Melo is free to go to Europe, or go into broadcasting, no one is forcing an NBA player to play basketball.... DD
The Nuggets weren't forced to do anything. They didn't want to lose Carmelo to free agency for nothing. The system actually gave Denver options to ensure they got something back. Melo was going to NY one way or another. Either by trade, or he was going to wait for the Summer. Remember, Knicks still had cap space to get him.
The Nuggets were forced to trade him IF they wanted to get something in return for him. You can't make a guy stay on your team forever. So again I ask, how many years is enough? When should a player be able to walk away scot free? How many years should a team be able to benefit from a guy they drafted? 7.5 seasons isn't enough?? The system allowed them to get something in return for a guy who had no interest in being there. A guy that was there for 7.5 years! And these teams are free to sign another 450 dudes who will happily play under the system that they want. So why don't they do that? Oh, because folks won't pay as much to watch them. No one is forcing these owners to have NBA teams either. If the business is that burdensome there are plenty of others rich guys who want a team.
Ice, The problem is that the players get to have their cake and eat it too. Melo is a great example, he whined his way out of Denver, and got max money, while the organization that drafted him, and trained him got peanuts. The system is too far skewed to the players, and they take NO risk. The NBA is one company, with different divisions. In order for the NBA to work correctly every division has to feel it can compete with the others if it is run properly. Otherwise you have 3 or 4 teams in big cities that get all the talent and the rest of the franchises lose fan interest. I have no issue with a player wanting to go play in another division of the company, they should just make that choice much harder for the player. Encourage a player to stay with their team by letting them make a lot more $$$$ by staying put, if they leave, they do not get max money, or a max contract, they have to make a tough choice. Create a bigger disparity in what teams that draft players can offer vs teams that have cap room in both years, raises and overall money, eliminate the sign and trade option - you can not have your cake and eat it too. Right now the system is broken, so broken that the owners lost $300 million last year, as has been reported. They have to fix that or else the league will start to contract and lose popularity.... Fix it....it is broken. DD
wtf?? Melo is a great example of why there is free agency freedom for players and salary cap freedoms for owners. Melo's contract was ending. He is FROM New York City. He wanted to play in his hometown. The city cleared cap space to get him He was going to sign upon completion of the contract and there was no stopping NY from getting him (and that's the way it should be). Melo deserved to go to NYC if he wanted to and if they had cap space to make it happen. He did, and they did. Denver did the trade to prevent the inevitable from happening without getting anything in return.
I have no issue with any of that except for the sign and trade, where Melo was able to force his way to the team he wanted and get max money. If he wanted to go to NY, he should not have been able to extend a max contract. DD
imo, this is irrelevant because NY had plenty of cap space to afford a max contract. What usually pisses off people is when teams who use SnTs to sign max player because they don't have cap room to get them outright. Is that what you are talking about? Because that was not the Melo situation. There was nothing you could have done to prevent Melo from getting the max and going to Knicks. Nothing. It would take a franchise tag to stop that.
This is my 3rd time asking this, but what should the team be entitled to get for a guy that stayed 7 seasons, and then decided to leave? Why should they be entitled to anything? The team that drafted him got 7 years of a star player, which included one trip to the WCF's, a lot of butts in seats and a lot of games on national TV, etc. Why should they be entitled to something after he decides to leave? It's not like he is still getting paid from them after he is with another team. Melo got max money from his new team. When a player signs a contract, they take a risk that they may outperform the contract (see Pippen), be traded or not receive the playing time they expected due to a change in mgmt or coaching. Please stop saying the players take no risk. It's a false statement. So the league hasn't worked correctly for every decade besides the 70's? I didn't realize San Antonio or Ok City were big cities. Carmelo did stay....for 7.5 seasons. The rest of your post, as with mine, is purely opinion. But there is no need to go in circles debating the rest of it. I just wanted to highlight the things from your post that are 100% false. The Oracle CEO tried to buy the Hornets and the league bought the team instead. Again, 100% false.
Ok, that is just flat out funny. Do the players still get paid? Yes they do, there is no risk on their part. We are just arguing in circles, you are looking at this from a players perspective and I don't care about the players or the owners, I am looking at it from a "What is better for the fans" perspective. We will never agree. DD
The S&T is the only way his old team could receive anything back. It's a system rule that allows the old team to receive something in return, in an instance where they typically shouldn't. As I keep asking you, why should a team be entitled to receive anything back from a dude whose contract is ending? The only reason they get something is for helping the guy get more $$ from the new team. So exactly what's broken in that scenario? Do you think the old team should be able to get something for nothing?
If the contract ended, they should not get anything back, but if they trade him before it ends, the new team should not be able to sign him to a max deal. They should be allowed to sign him but without bird rights. DD
We won't agree because you don't respect the risk that they take. Outperforming your deal is a risk, whether you want to admit it or not. Making a decision with your family to live somewhere and then being shipped off is a risk, whether you want to admit it or not.
So in that scenario how do you prevent teams from screwing players over that decide not to stay? Why shouldn't the Knicks be able to sign Melo to a max deal if they have cleared the cap space to sigh him?
