Around the League: October

[carey]

Lakers get blown out again.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Bresnahan/status/522970722147110913

[da_suns_fan]

Maybe they had a tough practice earlier in the day again?

When you get blown out against the Jazz....

[Superbone]

I'm not too hopeful for our first round pick from them this year.

[Mori Chu]

I think they are easily one of the bottom 5 teams in the NBA. They'll make sure they get that pick.

[INFORMER]

I generally support carey's boycott of Chris Sheridan, but I found this interview on his site to very interesting. It is with the new executive director of the NBPA, Michele Roberts. Most of her answers I found to be admirably calculated and reasonable. But this particular response I found to be ignorant and borderline ridiculous:

http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2014/10/16 ... or-issues/

CS: “What are your thoughts on the age limit, restricting the age someone can come into the NBA to 19, instead of 18, as it once was.”

MR: “The word that is troubling to me, generally speaking, is ‘restriction.’ My DNA is offended by the notion that someone should not be able to make a living because he needs to have been alive a year longer. That’s Michele, not Michele NBPA executive director.”

CS: “So you are sympathetic to 18-year olds?”

MR: “I am. I know what it means to want to be able to make a living and support your family. (Emmanuel Mudiay) can’t play in his country because he’s not old enough. That makes no sense to me.”

First, Mudiay CAN play in this country. He can play in the D-League. Secondly, saying he can't make a living is ridiculous and not even factually true. Additionally, there are plenty of industries that have all kinds of restrictions. Some jobs require to have a degree. Some jobs require a certain certification. Some jobs require tat you have a certain amount of experience in a particular field. A bartender has to be 18. The NBA's age restriction is no different than any of these situations.

Here are some other interesting responses:

CS: “Do you think it was justified by the fact that teams were losing money?”

MR: “Teams weren’t losing money.”

CS: “That was what they were telling people.”

MR: “Yes, that was the narrative. And I think recent events have proved that just wasn’t true.”

(UPDATE: The NBA is taking issue with this portrayal. From spokesman Mike Bass: ” “The NBA shared the complete league and team audited financials as well as our state and federal tax returns with the players union and those financials demonstrate the substantial and indisputable losses the league incurred during the last collective bargaining agreement.”)

...and...

CS: “Your thoughts on the max salary?”

MR: “I have difficulty with rules that suggest that for some reason, in this space, we are not going to allow you to do what is ordinarily allowed in every other aspect of American life – you can work and get compensated at the level that someone thinks you’re worth being compensated at. And for all the reasons that it might be reasonable, it still – as a base – the premise offends me. So for me, there needs to be a justification that is substantial. And I’m told that in large part it’s because there’s an inability on the part of some owners to control their check-writing habits. So that’s where I am. Now, there’s a history that led up to max contracts, and I’m not going to pretend it’s not significant. But if you ask me off the cuff, that’s my response.”

In general, I hate when she plays the "that offends me" card. It's about as stupid as the "disrespected" card players like to play when teams don't offer them the amount of money they want.

[SDC]

CS: “Your thoughts on the max salary?”

MR: “I have difficulty with rules that suggest that for some reason, in this space, we are not going to allow you to do what is ordinarily allowed in every other aspect of American life – you can work and get compensated at the level that someone thinks you’re worth being compensated at. And for all the reasons that it might be reasonable, it still – as a base – the premise offends me. So for me, there needs to be a justification that is substantial. And I’m told that in large part it’s because there’s an inability on the part of some owners to control their check-writing habits. So that’s where I am. Now, there’s a history that led up to max contracts, and I’m not going to pretend it’s not significant. But if you ask me off the cuff, that’s my response.”

teh EPL is a hypercapitalist model. anything goes. financial fair play hardly makes a dent in spending.

the nba model on the other hand is a socialist model: profit sharing (ie income redistribution from rich teams to poor teams), luxury tax (supertax on the rich), capping salaries (players can only make a certain amount of millions)

[Ring_Wanted]

No max contracts is a bad idea for most teams. It's great for the players, though.

[SDC]

No max contracts is a bad idea for most teams. It's great for the players, though.

if there are no team salary cap and onerous luxury tax, yes.

[Ring_Wanted]

Obviously LeBron and Durant are underpaid at the max, but no limitation on max contracts is an easy way to allow teams crippling themselves for second rate stars like Bosh, JJ, etc, above all with the L-tax in place.

The l-tax is bad for everybody but those extremely rich franchises who can afford to pay it, even at the more punitive levels after 2011.

[Bruiser]

I don't know if this has been posted here already but I found this to be a great read...

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/blake- ... -the-boss/

And if you didn't hate everything about that article you might also want to watch the following video at least until 1:20 or so, when Blake gets asked to say a few words. But do not spoil yourself and read the article first

[youtube][/youtube]

[carey]

I don't know if this has been posted here already but I found this to be a great read...

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/blake- ... -the-boss/

That was a very interesting article. Thanks for posting it. He sounds kind of level headed and it makes me dislike him a little less. I still don't like a lot of his antics on the court though....

[carey]

Hey look, Brook Lopez is injured again: http://s.sbnation.com/52e275efaf104ed4d ... wTF4SB706c

[Mori Chu]

Oof. That guy can't catch a break. It's in his previously-injured foot, too. I like Brook's game a lot but if he can't stay on the court, that Nets team has almost no talent.

[INFORMER]

The l-tax is bad for everybody but those extremely rich franchises who can afford to pay it

It really isn't actually. It's actually working. Teams are getting great paybacks at the end of the year and it even forced Miami to give up a solid role player which one could argue is a prime example of competitive balance. How much have New York and Brooklyn benefited from spending well over the tax threshold?

[Ring_Wanted]

I'm sorry, but there are too many instances of franchises forced to let go talent or make dump trades because they are scared of the tax. Phoenix and OKC are perfect examples.

The issue is not that NY can't win despite spending to no end. It is that some teams can't afford to assemble or keep their winning rosters.

The cap works well because it keeps the L from becoming european soccer, but the L-tax brings more problems than it solves.

[INFORMER]

I'm sorry, but there are too many instances of franchises forced to let go talent or make dump trades because they are scared of the tax. Phoenix and OKC are perfect examples.

Well using those two examples are problematic in itself. Phoenix had that problem essentially early in the luxury tax era. Teams have learned how to manage their payroll accordingly. Secondly, those examples again support the competitive balance principle. OKC has the second best player in the entire league and an All-Star to complement him AND a terrific, rim protecting power forward, a defensive player of the year candidate year in and year out. I'm not bothered that they can't retain the best shooting guard in the game to that already ridiculously talented core. *


*(And keeping Harden wouldn't have been so difficult if they hadn't missed on the Kendrick Perkins contract)

[Ring_Wanted]

This math is very simple. You are punishing me for finding talent at a better rate than others. Some teams can endure the punishment like it's nothing. Some others are forced to adjust and make sacrifices, and that's a fundamentally unfair situation. The goal should be parity, it is, equal opportunity, not creating artificial (because it is forced) 'balance' by distributing the assets with what essentially operates as an indirect tax.

[INFORMER]

Some teams can endure the punishment like it's nothing. Some others are forced to adjust and make sacrifices, and that's a fundamentally unfair situation.

It's not unfair because everyone is playing by the same rules, and even if you have bigger pockets, it doesn't guarantee it will be an advantage. Because at the end of the day, what counts most is being smart and calculating.

The goal should be parity, it is, equal opportunity, not creating artificial (because it is forced) 'balance' by distributing the assets

You keep using loaded words like "punishment" and "forced" that more based on perception than they are fact, and those words artificially inflate the value of your argument.

In any event, balance is balance and parity is parity. It's not like the league is putting a cap on how many years in a row you can qualify to make playoffs or advance to the NBA finals.

[Aztec Sunsfan]

This math is very simple. You are punishing me for finding talent at a better rate than others. Some teams can endure the punishment like it's nothing. Some others are forced to adjust and make sacrifices, and that's a fundamentally unfair situation. The goal should be parity, it is, equal opportunity, not creating artificial (because it is forced) 'balance' by distributing the assets with what essentially operates as an indirect tax.

Interesting, you step on important issues.

I agree specially on the side of punishing teams capable to find multiple gems at the time. If you manage to draft 3 or four studs, there's no way to keep them all, eventually you have to drop the ball on the last guy to hit the market.

What about an exemption for tax calculations only, when an extension (maybe also RFA) is given to a player drafted for the team? It would favor long term commitment for both sides.

Regarding the nature of parity, it prizes itselfs on redistribution, wether or not the recipents made the same push for the assets. And given the limited supply of "clearly above average" or "contributors", any cap on spending will always stumble first on redistribution before opportunity.

[Dan H]

You almost wonder if a graduated luxury tax wouldn't be better. IE, the more you spend over the limit, the higher the penalty.