A Certain Plus-Sized Host: "The Lakers are quietly working on something big."
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
24KaratGold
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 17350

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:10 am    Post subject:

Why do I have a feeling that either

A) This report is

or

B) The major move is that Mitch convinced Marc Gasol to play for us next season
_________________
Double rings > Double rainbow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CabinCreek44
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 3855

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:12 am    Post subject:

LakerLogic wrote:
It would be hard to eliminate salary cap in basketball. In baseball, you can buy as many players you want, it doesn't guaruntee you anything. Can you imagine if a wealthy basketball team could buy any free agent they wanted? The difference is, in basketball a couple players make a big difference. Not so much in baseball where you need the entire team from pitching to hitting to defense.


NBA history is littered with more than one team that tried to put together an all-star team and failed to win a title. The Lakers had a couple of 'em as a matter of fact (the Baylor-West-Chamberlain years, the Shaq-Kobe-Malone-Payton team).

Skillful talent acquisition would not vanish from the equation. But knocking out the salary cap/lux tax would make deal-making a whole lot easier. Teams could rebuild more quickly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerRush
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1172

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:16 am    Post subject:

I had to go back to one of my older posts, where Mitch had said during a post-draft radio interview that 'the likelihood of trades going forward (I believe he said up until August) are no different than they were prior to the draft.' That comment, plus Kobe deciding to remain quiet, and the signing of Fish leads me to believe that the FO is confident that it could get a significant deal done. Thanks to Kobe, no vacations for Mitch until he gets something done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fakethefunk
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Posts: 1124

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:25 am    Post subject:

LakerRush wrote:
I had to go back to one of my older posts, where Mitch had said during a post-draft radio interview that 'the likelihood of trades going forward (I believe he said up until August) are no different than they were prior to the draft.' That comment, plus Kobe deciding to remain quiet, and the signing of Fish leads me to believe that the FO is confident that it could get a significant deal done. Thanks to Kobe, no vacations for Mitch until he gets something done.


I agree with you Kobe apologizing and the fisher signing means something is brewing.
_________________
" I have nothing in common with lazy people who blame others for their lack of success. Great things come from hard work and perseverance. No excuses."

KOBE BRYANT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CabinCreek44
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 3855

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:28 am    Post subject:

Activeverb, most owners do mind paying the tax, which is the exact reason the system was implemented. Unless you are a sole owner of a team with limitless resources (and how many of those are there still left?), you're going to have a tough time explaining to your business partners how you just squandered a few million dollars worth of their cash in taxes when if you had just adhered to the cap, they would have banked that money.

Of course the owners have to operate within the rules. But if the rule was gone, the owners could spend at their discretion. It would make trades and free agent signings so much simpler.

IIRC, Dr. Buss was initially opposed to the luxury tax but once it was voted in he decided that he would try to live by it because, as he explained at the time, it must have been pretty important as the league had almost torpedoed an entire season over it. He also decided to adhere to it, I suspect, because he doesn't like watching millions of wasted dollars bleed out the door.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RYZ
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 1393

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:44 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
RYZ wrote:
As long as it wasn't one of Joe's goofy teasers to lure people to the show, it might have some credibility.

I have to believe either Farmar or Crittenton is involved though. Even Mitch, in his obtuse MLE meanderings can't possibly have plans to run both of them out there with D. Fish this year.


Why not? If one needs to be in a trade for KG, then deal them. But otherwise, there is nothing wrong with having two young, promising PGs.


Yes, there is when they're rotting away on the bench, sitting undeveloped behind an old spot up shooter in a PG's body who was never starting material in his physical prime... 8 years ago. It's very difficult in such cases for the "promise" to ever be realized.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:57 am    Post subject:

[quote="CabinCreek44"]Activeverb, most owners do mind paying the tax, which is the exact reason the system was implemented. Unless you are a sole owner of a team with limitless resources (and how many of those are there still left?), you're going to have a tough time explaining to your business partners how you just squandered a few million dollars worth of their cash in taxes when if you had just adhered to the cap, they would have banked that money.[quote]

That doesn't make much sense to me. Whether you pay the lux tax because you make a move to improve the team, or pay much larger salaries because the salary cap is removed, owners would still have the same concern about spendning and the effect on profits. I mean, do you think an owner would say, "I am not going to pay $3 million in luxury tax, but because there is no salary cap, I will gladly pay Kobe $85 million a year, even though my team's profit is only $30 million?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:03 am    Post subject:

CabinCreek44 wrote:
LakerLogic wrote:
It would be hard to eliminate salary cap in basketball. In baseball, you can buy as many players you want, it doesn't guaruntee you anything. Can you imagine if a wealthy basketball team could buy any free agent they wanted? The difference is, in basketball a couple players make a big difference. Not so much in baseball where you need the entire team from pitching to hitting to defense.


NBA history is littered with more than one team that tried to put together an all-star team and failed to win a title. The Lakers had a couple of 'em as a matter of fact (the Baylor-West-Chamberlain years, the Shaq-Kobe-Malone-Payton team).

Skillful talent acquisition would not vanish from the equation. But knocking out the salary cap/lux tax would make deal-making a whole lot easier. Teams could rebuild more quickly.



I doubt few people, if anyone, who advocates doing away with the salary cap here really cares about what effect that would have on the state of the league. Because people here don't really care about the state of the league. They care about the Lakers and are only discussing doing away with the cap because they perceive that as a way to help the team improve more quickly. That's why the arguments are always so flawed because they are trying to pretend they are advocating something different than they are, which really is: "In my opinion, it's benecial for the league as a whole for the Lakers to be in the finals, and so the league should implement changes now that improve the Lakers chances of getting into the finals." If people were being honest, that's what most of them are really saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSanity
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:06 am    Post subject:

RYZ wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
RYZ wrote:
As long as it wasn't one of Joe's goofy teasers to lure people to the show, it might have some credibility.

I have to believe either Farmar or Crittenton is involved though. Even Mitch, in his obtuse MLE meanderings can't possibly have plans to run both of them out there with D. Fish this year.


Why not? If one needs to be in a trade for KG, then deal them. But otherwise, there is nothing wrong with having two young, promising PGs.


Yes, there is when they're rotting away on the bench, sitting undeveloped behind an old spot up shooter in a PG's body who was never starting material in his physical prime... 8 years ago. It's very difficult in such cases for the "promise" to ever be realized.


Fisher was only signed to a 3-year deal. It isn't hard to imagine that even this year, Farmar could be the starter, with Fisher closing out games, getting 20 minutes or so a game. I could imagine Crit getting something like 10-15 minutes a game either spelling Farmar/Fish at PG for 5-10 minutes a time or playing 5-10 minutes at SG behind Kobe. I think this year the Lakers will look to get Kobe's minutes down below the 40 minute mark.

Now, that's this year, next year and the year after Fisher's role will slowly decrease, with potentially Jordan and Crits' roles increasing. Fisher will be gone in three years....at that point Crit will still be under his rookie contract and it will be time to decide what kind of contract we would want to give Farmar.

Bottom Line - I see no reason why we can't develop both Crit and Farmar, the only question will be regarding if we have to eventually make a choice between the two and commit to one of them as our starting PG (trading the one that loses out). My guess is eventually Crit will be the better player, which is why Farmar is the one more likely to be traded (from the Lakers perspective) but the one less likely to be asked for in trade (from other teams' perspectives who would prefer Crit's long-term potential).
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service

Twitter: @DeleteThisPost
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144412
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:08 am    Post subject:

RYZ wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
RYZ wrote:
As long as it wasn't one of Joe's goofy teasers to lure people to the show, it might have some credibility.

I have to believe either Farmar or Crittenton is involved though. Even Mitch, in his obtuse MLE meanderings can't possibly have plans to run both of them out there with D. Fish this year.


Why not? If one needs to be in a trade for KG, then deal them. But otherwise, there is nothing wrong with having two young, promising PGs.


Yes, there is when they're rotting away on the bench, sitting undeveloped behind an old spot up shooter in a PG's body who was never starting material in his physical prime... 8 years ago. It's very difficult in such cases for the "promise" to ever be realized.


So you think Fish will play 48 mpg?
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
*Purple&Gold*
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 5863
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:11 am    Post subject:

Gimme_the_rock wrote:
ElginBaylor wrote:
They also don't have the cooperation of anyone else in the league. When a team wins 3 titles in a row there is a general consensus among the other franchises that precede all trade logic. Bring the champs down and keep 'em down.


I'd go a step or two further ... this is especially true considering it's the Lakers. It's not just just a champs thing ... people will still deal with San Antonio and Detroit. It's not just an LA thing ... people will still deal with the Clips.

That's what most of it is and nothing less. Just look at all the FA's since the 2000 title that simply have to mention the idea that they're interested in playing in LA and then days later get the deal they were hoping for all along from their team or orchestrated through their team in a sign-and-trade deal.

During the Shaq-Kobe era...it got to the point where all we had to do was mention another player, and either the Mavs owner (MC) or Portlands owner (PA...I think) would immediately covet that player. It was absolutely rediculous! And yes it is true that the Lakers are indeed the most hated franchise outside of LA. Jealousy IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSanity
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:13 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
CabinCreek44 wrote:
LakerLogic wrote:
It would be hard to eliminate salary cap in basketball. In baseball, you can buy as many players you want, it doesn't guaruntee you anything. Can you imagine if a wealthy basketball team could buy any free agent they wanted? The difference is, in basketball a couple players make a big difference. Not so much in baseball where you need the entire team from pitching to hitting to defense.


NBA history is littered with more than one team that tried to put together an all-star team and failed to win a title. The Lakers had a couple of 'em as a matter of fact (the Baylor-West-Chamberlain years, the Shaq-Kobe-Malone-Payton team).

Skillful talent acquisition would not vanish from the equation. But knocking out the salary cap/lux tax would make deal-making a whole lot easier. Teams could rebuild more quickly.



I doubt few people, if anyone, who advocates doing away with the salary cap here really cares about what effect that would have on the state of the league. Because people here don't really care about the state of the league. They care about the Lakers and are only discussing doing away with the cap because they perceive that as a way to help the team improve more quickly. That's why the arguments are always so flawed because they are trying to pretend they are advocating something different than they are, which really is: "In my opinion, it's benecial for the league as a whole for the Lakers to be in the finals, and so the league should implement changes now that improve the Lakers chances of getting into the finals." If people were being honest, that's what most of them are really saying.


I agree, no salary cap would ruin the NBA. Talent in the NBA, unlike baseball (with its large rosters and huge farm systems) and football (with its large rosters and scout teams), is WAYYYYYY more saturated. Remember, in basketball there five positions (pg, sg, sf, pf, c)...in football there are 13 spots on each side of the ball, meaning that amount the 26 "starting" players talent is MUCH MORE spread out. Same with baseball where in any given game there are 3-4 pitchers playing and 8 positional players (not counting DH or pitch hitters nor the fact every team carries at least one good closer and 5 starting pitchers paid good coin).

The point is, if there was no salary cap....imagine a league full of Yankees, paying whatever they wanted for whatever players. However, a league without the fall back of young prospects who develop and can make up the talent difference. There is not enough basketball talent out there which could make a farm system that allows the lower payroll teams to still compete with the likes of the Yankees or Red Sox. The NBA would become a league of haves and have nots.... the only good teams would be those in major markets or with billionaire owners who didn't care about spending. Baseball already has problems without a salary cap, but at least they have the global talent to compensate...the NBA doesn't, most of the talent is found in a very select number of players.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service

Twitter: @DeleteThisPost
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
10scott10
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 7428
Location: Making the games you play

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:19 am    Post subject:

LakerSanity wrote:
activeverb wrote:
CabinCreek44 wrote:
LakerLogic wrote:
It would be hard to eliminate salary cap in basketball. In baseball, you can buy as many players you want, it doesn't guaruntee you anything. Can you imagine if a wealthy basketball team could buy any free agent they wanted? The difference is, in basketball a couple players make a big difference. Not so much in baseball where you need the entire team from pitching to hitting to defense.


NBA history is littered with more than one team that tried to put together an all-star team and failed to win a title. The Lakers had a couple of 'em as a matter of fact (the Baylor-West-Chamberlain years, the Shaq-Kobe-Malone-Payton team).

Skillful talent acquisition would not vanish from the equation. But knocking out the salary cap/lux tax would make deal-making a whole lot easier. Teams could rebuild more quickly.



I doubt few people, if anyone, who advocates doing away with the salary cap here really cares about what effect that would have on the state of the league. Because people here don't really care about the state of the league. They care about the Lakers and are only discussing doing away with the cap because they perceive that as a way to help the team improve more quickly. That's why the arguments are always so flawed because they are trying to pretend they are advocating something different than they are, which really is: "In my opinion, it's benecial for the league as a whole for the Lakers to be in the finals, and so the league should implement changes now that improve the Lakers chances of getting into the finals." If people were being honest, that's what most of them are really saying.


I agree, no salary cap would ruin the NBA. Talent in the NBA, unlike baseball (with its large rosters and huge farm systems) and football (with its large rosters and scout teams), is WAYYYYYY more saturated. Remember, in basketball there five positions (pg, sg, sf, pf, c)...in football there are 13 spots on each side of the ball, meaning that amount the 26 "starting" players talent is MUCH MORE spread out. Same with baseball where in any given game there are 3-4 pitchers playing and 8 positional players (not counting DH or pitch hitters nor the fact every team carries at least one good closer and 5 starting pitchers paid good coin).

The point is, if there was no salary cap....imagine a league full of Yankees, paying whatever they wanted for whatever players. However, a league without the fall back of young prospects who develop and can make up the talent difference. There is not enough basketball talent out there which could make a farm system that allows the lower payroll teams to still compete with the likes of the Yankees or Red Sox. The NBA would become a league of haves and have nots.... the only good teams would be those in major markets or with billionaire owners who didn't care about spending. Baseball already has problems without a salary cap, but at least they have the global talent to compensate...the NBA doesn't, most of the talent is found in a very select number of players.

mark cuban and pual allen would rule the NBA if there was no cap. while it sucks, it is necesary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ElginBaylor
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 10771
Location: Hoosier Nation

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:25 am    Post subject:

It all goes back to small markets competing with large ones. This was the issue brought up when the CBA was being developed. The threat of extinction was looming over the Charlotte's and Toronto's of the league.
_________________
Not a legend
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:25 am    Post subject:

10scott10 wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
activeverb wrote:
CabinCreek44 wrote:
LakerLogic wrote:
It would be hard to eliminate salary cap in basketball. In baseball, you can buy as many players you want, it doesn't guaruntee you anything. Can you imagine if a wealthy basketball team could buy any free agent they wanted? The difference is, in basketball a couple players make a big difference. Not so much in baseball where you need the entire team from pitching to hitting to defense.


NBA history is littered with more than one team that tried to put together an all-star team and failed to win a title. The Lakers had a couple of 'em as a matter of fact (the Baylor-West-Chamberlain years, the Shaq-Kobe-Malone-Payton team).

Skillful talent acquisition would not vanish from the equation. But knocking out the salary cap/lux tax would make deal-making a whole lot easier. Teams could rebuild more quickly.



I doubt few people, if anyone, who advocates doing away with the salary cap here really cares about what effect that would have on the state of the league. Because people here don't really care about the state of the league. They care about the Lakers and are only discussing doing away with the cap because they perceive that as a way to help the team improve more quickly. That's why the arguments are always so flawed because they are trying to pretend they are advocating something different than they are, which really is: "In my opinion, it's benecial for the league as a whole for the Lakers to be in the finals, and so the league should implement changes now that improve the Lakers chances of getting into the finals." If people were being honest, that's what most of them are really saying.


I agree, no salary cap would ruin the NBA. Talent in the NBA, unlike baseball (with its large rosters and huge farm systems) and football (with its large rosters and scout teams), is WAYYYYYY more saturated. Remember, in basketball there five positions (pg, sg, sf, pf, c)...in football there are 13 spots on each side of the ball, meaning that amount the 26 "starting" players talent is MUCH MORE spread out. Same with baseball where in any given game there are 3-4 pitchers playing and 8 positional players (not counting DH or pitch hitters nor the fact every team carries at least one good closer and 5 starting pitchers paid good coin).

The point is, if there was no salary cap....imagine a league full of Yankees, paying whatever they wanted for whatever players. However, a league without the fall back of young prospects who develop and can make up the talent difference. There is not enough basketball talent out there which could make a farm system that allows the lower payroll teams to still compete with the likes of the Yankees or Red Sox. The NBA would become a league of haves and have nots.... the only good teams would be those in major markets or with billionaire owners who didn't care about spending. Baseball already has problems without a salary cap, but at least they have the global talent to compensate...the NBA doesn't, most of the talent is found in a very select number of players.

mark cuban and pual allen would rule the NBA if there was no cap. while it sucks, it is necesary.



And, to the larger issue, if the Lakers were in the finals ever year, we Lakers fans would love it, but would it really benefit the league as a whole. I mean if I were a fan or the owner of a team, I wouldn't like to hear: "Yup, your team is going to be pathetic but the finals ratings will be good, so you should be happy the league is strong."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
hoopschick29
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 12898
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:28 am    Post subject:

All professional leagues need a salary cap. What teams like ours need are guys who are effective at operating effectively within the rules. Spend wisely. Spend with a purpose. Show some ability to forecast.
_________________
So glad we gave you your flowers while you were here, Kobe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RhodyRay
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 5469
Location: A room with a view!

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:31 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
10scott10 wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
activeverb wrote:
CabinCreek44 wrote:
LakerLogic wrote:
It would be hard to eliminate salary cap in basketball. In baseball, you can buy as many players you want, it doesn't guaruntee you anything. Can you imagine if a wealthy basketball team could buy any free agent they wanted? The difference is, in basketball a couple players make a big difference. Not so much in baseball where you need the entire team from pitching to hitting to defense.


NBA history is littered with more than one team that tried to put together an all-star team and failed to win a title. The Lakers had a couple of 'em as a matter of fact (the Baylor-West-Chamberlain years, the Shaq-Kobe-Malone-Payton team).

Skillful talent acquisition would not vanish from the equation. But knocking out the salary cap/lux tax would make deal-making a whole lot easier. Teams could rebuild more quickly.



I doubt few people, if anyone, who advocates doing away with the salary cap here really cares about what effect that would have on the state of the league. Because people here don't really care about the state of the league. They care about the Lakers and are only discussing doing away with the cap because they perceive that as a way to help the team improve more quickly. That's why the arguments are always so flawed because they are trying to pretend they are advocating something different than they are, which really is: "In my opinion, it's benecial for the league as a whole for the Lakers to be in the finals, and so the league should implement changes now that improve the Lakers chances of getting into the finals." If people were being honest, that's what most of them are really saying.


I agree, no salary cap would ruin the NBA. Talent in the NBA, unlike baseball (with its large rosters and huge farm systems) and football (with its large rosters and scout teams), is WAYYYYYY more saturated. Remember, in basketball there five positions (pg, sg, sf, pf, c)...in football there are 13 spots on each side of the ball, meaning that amount the 26 "starting" players talent is MUCH MORE spread out. Same with baseball where in any given game there are 3-4 pitchers playing and 8 positional players (not counting DH or pitch hitters nor the fact every team carries at least one good closer and 5 starting pitchers paid good coin).

The point is, if there was no salary cap....imagine a league full of Yankees, paying whatever they wanted for whatever players. However, a league without the fall back of young prospects who develop and can make up the talent difference. There is not enough basketball talent out there which could make a farm system that allows the lower payroll teams to still compete with the likes of the Yankees or Red Sox. The NBA would become a league of haves and have nots.... the only good teams would be those in major markets or with billionaire owners who didn't care about spending. Baseball already has problems without a salary cap, but at least they have the global talent to compensate...the NBA doesn't, most of the talent is found in a very select number of players.

mark cuban and pual allen would rule the NBA if there was no cap. while it sucks, it is necesary.



And, to the larger issue, if the Lakers were in the finals ever year, we Lakers fans would love it, but would it really benefit the league as a whole. I mean if I were a fan or the owner of a team, I wouldn't like to hear: "Yup, your team is going to be pathetic but the finals ratings will be good, so you should be happy the league is strong."


If the Lakers were in the finals every year it would not only benefit the league but the whole world! Poverty, world hunger, crime, wars, drug addictions, abuse and hate would subside too. IF the Lakers WON every year then these things would cease to exist altogether! In time..in time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Magics80sLakersGOAT
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 2017

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:52 am    Post subject:

fakethefunk wrote:
LakerRush wrote:
I had to go back to one of my older posts, where Mitch had said during a post-draft radio interview that 'the likelihood of trades going forward (I believe he said up until August) are no different than they were prior to the draft.' That comment, plus Kobe deciding to remain quiet, and the signing of Fish leads me to believe that the FO is confident that it could get a significant deal done. Thanks to Kobe, no vacations for Mitch until he gets something done.


I agree with you Kobe apologizing and the fisher signing means something is brewing.


Or it means he got Fish because it was a no brainer, and Kobe felt bad for his skitzo rants on national radio and after talking to his agent, family, friends, he was embarrassed and humiliated for his immature actions and thus the apology. :roll:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CabinCreek44
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 3855

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:01 am    Post subject:

activeverb, the owner is going to pay Kobe et. al. whatever the market will bear under any system. But with the salary cap, he is going to try to stay under it, or as close to even with it as possible, because the overages are waste. I see what you are driving at..."they're going to spend the money anyway so what difference does it make"...but with the system in place, if they go $3 million over the cap to pay Kobe they are very likely going to attempt to trim the payroll somewhere else to get back around the cap. Or, under the current system, having a bench player that isn't contributing but keeping him anyway because if you release him you're still on the hook for his guaranteed salary, and the $600,000 it's going to cost you to acquire someone to replace him will actually cost you $1.2 million if you're over the cap. These are all things that Dr. Buss has been attacked for doing in this space ad infinitum.

If the money is going toward something tangible, i.e. paying Kobe what the market will bear, ownership/management can make that decision. When the $3 million is vanishing in taxes because ownership/management failed to stay within the cap, that is going to be viewed as waste. Plain and simple. Executives lose their jobs over matters such as those.

I do care about the game, I've been following it for close to 40 years God help me. I have already acknowledged that of course my main concern is the Lakers but anyone who can look at this league right now and say it's in good shape I would have to disagree. The franchises, not just the Lakers, who made the league great are struggling and as a result public interest in the product is waning. There are far too many teams and once a team gets down it is very very difficult for it to recover under the current rules.

No salary cap/lux tax, less superfluous teams would equal a much better product. Of course I'm sure it will never happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSanity
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:07 am    Post subject:

^^^I think the league could be retracted, but for there to be no salary cap, it would have to be retracted to 1960s like numbers, otherwise the majority of the league would be left behind. A league of 14 or so teams would not be beneficial, you would lose a lot of audience simply because you would lose local audiences.

What you are really asking for are changes under the current system...i.e. more cap forgiveness. This is something that has been debated for a while. My proposal would be (that like the bi-annual exception) every other year a team would be allowed to waive a player who (although still getting paid by the team) would be then taken off the team's cap figure and for luxury tax purposes. There could even be a limitation on the amount of salary (like maybe $10 million, with any amount over that still counting towards the cap/luxury tax).

What you want is more mobility, no cap doesn't actually increase that either....because in fact it limits mobility for teams, in that free agents would only go to those teams with the resources to give them top dollar. Only 5-6 teams in the league can currently offer that, which would leave all the other teams fighting for scraps.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service

Twitter: @DeleteThisPost
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CabinCreek44
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 3855

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:10 am    Post subject:

RhodyRay wrote:
activeverb wrote:
10scott10 wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
activeverb wrote:
CabinCreek44 wrote:
LakerLogic wrote:
It would be hard to eliminate salary cap in basketball. In baseball, you can buy as many players you want, it doesn't guaruntee you anything. Can you imagine if a wealthy basketball team could buy any free agent they wanted? The difference is, in basketball a couple players make a big difference. Not so much in baseball where you need the entire team from pitching to hitting to defense.


NBA history is littered with more than one team that tried to put together an all-star team and failed to win a title. The Lakers had a couple of 'em as a matter of fact (the Baylor-West-Chamberlain years, the Shaq-Kobe-Malone-Payton team).

Skillful talent acquisition would not vanish from the equation. But knocking out the salary cap/lux tax would make deal-making a whole lot easier. Teams could rebuild more quickly.



I doubt few people, if anyone, who advocates doing away with the salary cap here really cares about what effect that would have on the state of the league. Because people here don't really care about the state of the league. They care about the Lakers and are only discussing doing away with the cap because they perceive that as a way to help the team improve more quickly. That's why the arguments are always so flawed because they are trying to pretend they are advocating something different than they are, which really is: "In my opinion, it's benecial for the league as a whole for the Lakers to be in the finals, and so the league should implement changes now that improve the Lakers chances of getting into the finals." If people were being honest, that's what most of them are really saying.


I agree, no salary cap would ruin the NBA. Talent in the NBA, unlike baseball (with its large rosters and huge farm systems) and football (with its large rosters and scout teams), is WAYYYYYY more saturated. Remember, in basketball there five positions (pg, sg, sf, pf, c)...in football there are 13 spots on each side of the ball, meaning that amount the 26 "starting" players talent is MUCH MORE spread out. Same with baseball where in any given game there are 3-4 pitchers playing and 8 positional players (not counting DH or pitch hitters nor the fact every team carries at least one good closer and 5 starting pitchers paid good coin).

The point is, if there was no salary cap....imagine a league full of Yankees, paying whatever they wanted for whatever players. However, a league without the fall back of young prospects who develop and can make up the talent difference. There is not enough basketball talent out there which could make a farm system that allows the lower payroll teams to still compete with the likes of the Yankees or Red Sox. The NBA would become a league of haves and have nots.... the only good teams would be those in major markets or with billionaire owners who didn't care about spending. Baseball already has problems without a salary cap, but at least they have the global talent to compensate...the NBA doesn't, most of the talent is found in a very select number of players.

mark cuban and pual allen would rule the NBA if there was no cap. while it sucks, it is necesary.



And, to the larger issue, if the Lakers were in the finals ever year, we Lakers fans would love it, but would it really benefit the league as a whole. I mean if I were a fan or the owner of a team, I wouldn't like to hear: "Yup, your team is going to be pathetic but the finals ratings will be good, so you should be happy the league is strong."


If the Lakers were in the finals every year it would not only benefit the league but the whole world! Poverty, world hunger, crime, wars, drug addictions, abuse and hate would subside too. IF the Lakers WON every year then these things would cease to exist altogether! In time..in time.


RhodyRay, still making sense after all these years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CabinCreek44
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 3855

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:21 am    Post subject:

LakerSanity wrote:
^^^I think the league could be retracted, but for there to be no salary cap, it would have to be retracted to 1960s like numbers, otherwise the majority of the league would be left behind. A league of 14 or so teams would not be beneficial, you would lose a lot of audience simply because you would lose local audiences.

What you are really asking for are changes under the current system...i.e. more cap forgiveness. This is something that has been debated for a while. My proposal would be (that like the bi-annual exception) every other year a team would be allowed to waive a player who (although still getting paid by the team) would be then taken off the team's cap figure and for luxury tax purposes. There could even be a limitation on the amount of salary (like maybe $10 million, with any amount over that still counting towards the cap/luxury tax).

What you want is more mobility, no cap doesn't actually increase that either....because in fact it limits mobility for teams, in that free agents would only go to those teams with the resources to give them top dollar. Only 5-6 teams in the league can currently offer that, which would leave all the other teams fighting for scraps.


In today's agent-driven world, a player may not want to go to a team that is already loaded because it will mean less shots, points, pub, etc., which of course will hurt his future marketability. Even with less teams, I would think they'll all be able to acquire good players.

It's all whistling in the dark anyway because Stern somehow keeps getting huge TV money out of the networks for games the public is ignoring in increasing numbers. Until that ends, nothing will change.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Kobe Jocker
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 3754

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:26 am    Post subject:

The Salary Cap is fine and needed, BUT, it's too low. It needs to be around 65-68 mil, enough for 2 star players and quality starters, or a balanced team like Detroit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
Mike@LG
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:52 am    Post subject:

I'd don't think the salary cap is too low. Maybe a smidge, but not off by $10-15mil.

The luxury tax "cap"? I have an issue with it. I mean say there's a playoff team that keeps its veterans and resigns its own players over the cap and that takes them over the current salary cap, but then 2 years of MLEs take them right into luxury tax territory? I don't think that's fair.

No wonder why elite teams can't improve much. Spurs are looking to cut costs. Phoenix is looking to cut costs. Not every owner out there has the funds like Paul Allaen and Mark Cuban.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.

https://lakersdraft.substack.com/

I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSanity
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:57 am    Post subject:

^^^I think that was their plan....the league wanted to limit the ability of elite teams to get even more "elite." They wanted parity. The real question is - is parity good for the league? I think some is, but I am not so sure a lot of it is.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service

Twitter: @DeleteThisPost
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB