A place for fans of the Phoenix Suns
https://www.phx-suns.net/
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.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.”
...and...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.”)
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.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.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.”
if there are no team salary cap and onerous luxury tax, yes.Ring_Wanted wrote:No max contracts is a bad idea for most teams. It's great for the players, though.
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....Bruiser wrote: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/
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 wrote: The l-tax is bad for everybody but those extremely rich franchises who can afford to pay it
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. *Ring_Wanted wrote: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.
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.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.
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.The goal should be parity, it is, equal opportunity, not creating artificial (because it is forced) 'balance' by distributing the assets
Interesting, you step on important issues.Ring_Wanted wrote: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.