The purpose of the salary caps (and other provisions that extend from it) are intended to create parity among all 30 teams, irrespective of market, the owners' wealth, etc. If that's the case, why are team personnel (e.g. coaches and front office members) not included in the salary cap? Like players, they are all not created equally and an open market without the cap, favors bigger market teams. Clearly, the prevailing thought is that team personnel are every bit as important given the high correlation between teams being perceived as underachieving and them getting fired, as well as the frequency this turnover happens. Is the NBA just full of shit?
Eh, in theory that could matter but the player salary cap seems to have solved the issue. It's not like the big market teams are dominating the league.
Bonn1997 wrote:Eh, in theory that could matter but the player salary cap seems to have solved the issue. It's not like the big market teams are dominating the league.
Yeah, but even back in the day, that was kinda the case. The late 80's Cavs were pretty good. San Antonio was always pretty good with David Robinson. Charlotte had some intriguing talent with Alonzo Mourning, Larry Johnson, Kendall Gill and Mogusey Bogues. The Magic once rolled out Penny Hardaway, Shaq, Nick Anderson, etc. The Jazz made the playoffs for +20 consecutive years. It seemed like the need for parity has always been overstated.
Yeah, that's a fair point. I think they're worried about the NBA going in the MLB direction though.
NardDogNation wrote:The purpose of the salary caps (and other provisions that extend from it) are intended to create parity among all 30 teams, irrespective of market, the owners' wealth, etc. If that's the case, why are team personnel (e.g. coaches and front office members) not included in the salary cap? Like players, they are all not created equally and an open market without the cap, favors bigger market teams. Clearly, the prevailing thought is that team personnel are every bit as important given the high correlation between teams being perceived as underachieving and them getting fired, as well as the frequency this turnover happens. Is the NBA just full of shit?
The billionaire owners believe:
-Residents should give them money to pay for arena's
-fans in other states should give them money via revenue sharing
-the players should have their salaries tightly controlled, but the owners should be free to make as much money as they like
-they should have an equal chance of winning a championship regardless of skill and investment
Like with the banks and the bailouts, these are probably business men who spent their whole lives extolling the 'virtues of the free market', yet quite happily become socialists when the free market would bite them in the ass.
smackeddog wrote:NardDogNation wrote:The purpose of the salary caps (and other provisions that extend from it) are intended to create parity among all 30 teams, irrespective of market, the owners' wealth, etc. If that's the case, why are team personnel (e.g. coaches and front office members) not included in the salary cap? Like players, they are all not created equally and an open market without the cap, favors bigger market teams. Clearly, the prevailing thought is that team personnel are every bit as important given the high correlation between teams being perceived as underachieving and them getting fired, as well as the frequency this turnover happens. Is the NBA just full of shit?
The billionaire owners believe:
-Residents should give them money to pay for arena's
-fans in other states should give them money via revenue sharing
-the players should have their salaries tightly controlled, but the owners should be free to make as much money as they like
-they should have an equal chance of winning a championship regardless of skill and investment
Like with the banks and the bailouts, these are probably business men who spent their whole lives extolling the 'virtues of the free market', yet quite happily become socialists when the free market would bite them in the ass.
That's exactly what I was thinking but I couldn't have said it better.
Are those like dunce caps?
BasketballJones wrote:Are those like dunce caps?
Blow me.
Sincerely Yours,
NardDogNation
Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, that's a fair point. I think they're worried about the NBA going in the MLB direction though.
I don't watch baseball but I do know that the payroll disparity is ridiculous but still, how long has it been since the Yankees made the playoffs? Won the World Series? How many times have the Oakland A's made the playoffs during the same stretch?
NardDogNation wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, that's a fair point. I think they're worried about the NBA going in the MLB direction though.
I don't watch baseball but I do know that the payroll disparity is ridiculous but still, how long has it been since the Yankees made the playoffs? Won the World Series? How many times have the Oakland A's made the playoffs during the same stretch?
Well the Red Sox have been winning and they have a massive payroll too
Bonn1997 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, that's a fair point. I think they're worried about the NBA going in the MLB direction though.
I don't watch baseball but I do know that the payroll disparity is ridiculous but still, how long has it been since the Yankees made the playoffs? Won the World Series? How many times have the Oakland A's made the playoffs during the same stretch?
Well the Red Sox have been winning and they have a massive payroll too
Fair but is there a strong correlation between spending and winning? Don't the Mets suck? (These are not rhetorical questions; I generally have no idea what is happening in the sport).
In baseball there's a pretty strong correlation between spending and winning over the last 20 or 25 years. In the short-term it isn't AS great because a lot of teams are curtailing payroll with the luxury tax and revenue sharing programs. Boston and Detroit have massive payrolls and so does St. Louis. The Mets have a middle-of-the-pack payroll because even though they're in NY, their ownership was involved in the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. (I don't remember what came of that). There are always exceptions (like Tampa Bay and Oakland) AND teams that spend a lot and lose (cough, LA Angels), but having more money to absorb guaranteed contracts is generally a good thing.
Salary caps don't really benefit players. They benefit fans by creating parity (although there really isn't parity in the NBA. There's more in the NFL and MLB than the NBA).
The NFL is unique because the league basically shares all revenue. They have an ownership group that understands how to run a league. The season is short, every team is competitive, every game is an event, and lots of games are close, and the rules are designed to put the parts of the game that people want to watch at an advantage. The most important factor in the NFL cap is you don't get stuck with mistakes because contracts aren't guaranteed.
The NBA salary cap is unique because it contains a max salary. As a result, players have more incentive to team up and it's creating 4 types of players: Max player, exception player, rookies (draft pick contracts) and everyone else is making the minimum.
y2zipper wrote:In baseball there's a pretty strong correlation between spending and winning over the last 20 or 25 years. In the short-term it isn't AS great because a lot of teams are curtailing payroll with the luxury tax and revenue sharing programs. Boston and Detroit have massive payrolls and so does St. Louis. The Mets have a middle-of-the-pack payroll because even though they're in NY, their ownership was involved in the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. (I don't remember what came of that). There are always exceptions (like Tampa Bay and Oakland) AND teams that spend a lot and lose (cough, LA Angels), but having more money to absorb guaranteed contracts is generally a good thing. Salary caps don't really benefit players. They benefit fans by creating parity (although there really isn't parity in the NBA. There's more in the NFL and MLB than the NBA).
The NFL is unique because the league basically shares all revenue. They have an ownership group that understands how to run a league. The season is short, every team is competitive, every game is an event, and lots of games are close, and the rules are designed to put the parts of the game that people want to watch at an advantage. The most important factor in the NFL cap is you don't get stuck with mistakes because contracts aren't guaranteed.
The NBA salary cap is unique because it contains a max salary. As a result, players have more incentive to team up and it's creating 4 types of players: Max player, exception player, rookies (draft pick contracts) and everyone else is making the minimum.
Thanks for the reply, it was pretty informative. So, does the NFL also have a salary cap?
NardDogNation wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Yeah, that's a fair point. I think they're worried about the NBA going in the MLB direction though.
I don't watch baseball but I do know that the payroll disparity is ridiculous but still, how long has it been since the Yankees made the playoffs? Won the World Series? How many times have the Oakland A's made the playoffs during the same stretch?
Well the Red Sox have been winning and they have a massive payroll too
Fair but is there a strong correlation between spending and winning? Don't the Mets suck? (These are not rhetorical questions; I generally have no idea what is happening in the sport).
The Mets don't spend money anymore after the Wilpons took a blow from the whole Madoff incident, they're not a high payroll team anymore. In baseball a few teams dominate every year and are head and shoulders above the rest. As a Met fan I absolutely despise how the Yankees seem to get every good player available by just paying them a ridiculous amount of money, even when it doesn't work out. The a's have had some success with a small payroll but they haven't won anything, so they're not a true exception. You can maximize value with a small payroll but you will never be able to be as good as you could be using be if you had money to spend and operated the team wisely. Smart management with money beats smart management with no money every time.
