Then Gilbert should have either made his team the attractive option to pair up with or sold the team when it's value was the highest, if not losing $$ is the primary concern. He had 7 seasons to convince his meal ticket, a hometown kid at that, to stay. See the post by rpr52121 about the Pacers. The $269M is actually impressive considering all the mistakes the Pacers ownership made. They can still sell the team and recoup all of those losses. And management decisions had a lot to do with their situation. What happens with the CBA will not fix their issues.
This is a foolish and ignorant sentiment. With the way the previous CBA was structured, there was no way for Gilbert to convince Lebron to stay. Additionally, it would've been impossible for Gilbert to sell the Cavs unless Lebron was locked down to a long-term contract, and if that were the case, why would Gilbert want to sell? First of all, a lot of those issues can't be blamed on management. And secondly, it depends on how you look at the new CBA. If the luxury tax is increased, aren't those proceeds divided amongst the non-luxury tax teams? Isn't that how the Clippers maintain profitability? The Pacers could do the same thing. Also, the new CBA sounds like it'll prevent anymore "superteams" unless they take substantial paycuts. Won't increased parity be good for all the small market teams? The CBA may not fix their issues, but it's going to make them easier to fix.
Didn't the Heat operate under the same CBA? What's the difference? Oh, a GM that knows what the **** he's doing. Gilbert could sell the Cavs now. These are limited commodities. Teams are still selling for record prices. I never stated that he should have wanted to sell. That's the point....even with him losing his meal ticket he still has a great investment. But if $$ is the main thing then get out when the team is valued high or properly build around your star. Some of the ones revolving around the bad deals that they locked themselves into can. This is true. But you can accomplish the same thing with real revenue sharing. This will help but not turn then profitable. And a big factor of the Clippers maintaining profits is controlling costs. You don't see their cheap owner doing Rashard Lewis type deals, and he will happily let a dude walk when it's time to pay him.* What provision would this be? The Heat were under the cap. The Heat trio agreed to go there without a S&T. Leaving $$ on the table wasn't the issue. Unless the new CBA has a franchise tag then there's nothing there to prevent it. Taking $$ from the players will put more $$ in the owner pockets, and that should help. Agreed.
As I see it, the purpose of the increased luxury tax with a lower salary cap is to prevent "superteams". Look at the salaries due to Lebron/Wade/Bosh. Do you really think its possible that the Heat will be able to surround them with a championship caliber supporting cast in light of the new CBA? The only way would be if the superfriends took big paycuts, and do you really think that's going to happen?
1. Why can't you blame management and the owner? They signed the arena deal. They signed the TV deal. They have not gotten very many sponsorships. They have NOT forced the NBA's hand to pay off the Silna brothers and end their payoffs. 2. 3 teams currently paid the luxury tax in 2011, and amounted to ~3 million per team. Despite that the Pacers still lost $16 million in operating income and the Clipper made $11 in operating income. Clippers make money because they have a good TV contract and corporate sponsorship being in LA. They also have a super sweet arena deal having piggy backed with the Lakers on the initial costs. Even with the new luxury taxes they are looking at, you have to increase the tax a total by a total of ~$27-30 million dollars for any team to add $1 million in returns. It does not really help, nor is it way or form a substitute for revenue sharing. 3. The Pacers were a good team in the 90's. Had Mullins and Reggie. Even went to the finals. The team still lost money. Indy loves their basketball, and sold out the stadium. The team still lost money. Parity won't do much in their situation. Again explain to me why you cannot blame the management?
Depends on how much money you're talking about. If Miami offered Bosh $10mm and we offered him $15mm, I think he would've come to Houston.
Since we don't know what other deals were available, it's premature to blame the management for the Pacers' woes. If management has to make a deal, then you can't fault them for signing the best deal available, even if it was a bad deal. The Pacers also had a payroll that was $12mm higher than the Clippers', but that's mainly due to having players near the end of their back-ended contracts (Posey, Dunleavy, Ford, Foster). Actually, with a lower salary cap and steeper luxury taxes, its likely that more teams will be paying luxury tax which means that there will be more luxury tax revenue and fewer teams sharing them. Disagree. For the Pacers, parity means that stronger teams get weaker, and weaker teams get stronger. If the Pacers get better, then attendance will rise. They could even make the playoffs and make additional postseason revenue. It's not guaranteed, but its one of the options that parity allows. And Mullins? Really?
Based on what? Even you say it was common knowledge that those 3 would hook up. Bosh definately wasn't going anywhere without at least 1 of Wade/LeBron. He was clearly the tag-along guy.
Based on common sense. Think about it. You're essentially arguing that a star professional athlete in his prime would take a 33% paycut on the most lucrative contract of his career in order to play for a championship team. Does that really make sense to you? Can you think of any NBA players who have done that before?
Yes, that's essentially what I'm saying. No, I can't think of a player that has done that before. I also can't think of an instance where 3 guys have been planning to group up for 4 seasons or so (you say it was evidently in the works and common knowledge). Can you? So you should change "in order to play for a championship team" to "in order to group up with his buddies to form a championship team, and complete a plan that was in the works for years". Common sense dictates that you don't plan to play with some dudes for multiple seasons then not do it because of a paycut. Edit: Actually, Paul Pierce gave Boston a 35% paycut when he signed his extension in 2010, for 4 seasons. He could have gotten $21.5M that season and he took $13.9M instead. I think it's safe to assume he was going to get an extension from Boston whether he took that steep of a paycut or not. And when KG was traded to Boston, he was eligible to sign a 3 yr $90M extension. Instead, he only signed a $60M extension. Isn't that 33%? He clearly did this to play for a title contending team.
And? Them not being in their primes only means that they took a discount on the LAST major contract that they could get. And they did it to win. They were making superstar money and chose to take a hefty paycut for a better chance to win. I don't care if ther weren't in their prime....they still commanded $$ as if they were. Edit: And you can actually argue that KG was in his prime when he was traded to Boston. He was only 31 and put up 22, 13, 4 in his last Sota season. His numbers fell in Boston because he shared with the other big 2. Dream was his best at 31/32 (leading us to titles), and Dirk was 32 this year.
In other words, you acknowledge that youre trying to compare apples and oranges. And that would be a poor argument. A player in his prime doesn't see his minutes cut by 15% for no reason.
I acknowledge that it doesn't matter if a player is in his prime or not in this case. You are arguing that a dude won't take a hefty paycut. As far as being in your prime, the only reason it's relevant is because you can command prime $$. KG and Pierce could still command prime $$. What is your reasoning for the "in prime" stipulation? How is being in your prime relevant, in any other way besides the $$ you can demand? We are discussing guys giving up $$ to win. KG was a better player than Bosh was last year at that point of his career. There was no need to play KG 39 mpg in Boston because it wasn't necessary to win. Are you really arguing that a 31 yr old dude who finished 3rd in MVP voting, was All-NBA 1st team, All Defense 1st team and DPOY was past his prime?
It goes towards the psychology of a player. If you're a young player in the NBA, you want to make as much money as you can as quickly as you can. How would you feel if you took a paycut for your first major contract and then suffered a career ending injury? Yes. By the time Garnett joined Boston, he was without a doubt past his prime. Are you sure you know what the term "prime" means?
maybe not being in their prime is a better to get the most money you can, players past their prime or entering the last part of their prime, wants to get the most money to ensure they have money for after retirement. If they think is the last time to get big money, they want it. Bosh could got his championship last year or in the next 2 years, and then in 3 years sign a big contract with another team that isnt going to contend for a title.
