Phx-Suns.Net

That is the current structure.

INFORMER wrote: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.

Sure, that's what I do.

Aztec Sunsfan wrote: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.

That's the heart of the issue. If there was no l-tax, it would be more affordable for everybody to keep whatever talent they managed to gather. If you suck at drafting or make stupid trades, nothing can save you. But if you actually have showed ability to find talent, there comes a point where it gets prohibitive financially. You supress the tax, while keeping the restrictions that represent a salary cap, and you have a fairer system.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

INFORMER wrote: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.

Sure, that's what I do.

It's what you did in this instance, I'm not saying it is what you do habitually.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote: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.

That's the heart of the issue. If there was no l-tax, it would be more affordable for everybody to keep whatever talent they managed to gather. If you suck at drafting or make stupid trades, nothing can save you. But if you actually have showed ability to find talent, there comes a point where it gets prohibitive financially. You supress the tax, while keeping the restrictions that represent a salary cap, and you have a fairer system.

There are plenty of mechanisms in the CBA that give teams an advantage to retain their own players.

What you're campaigning for is not merely teams to keep their own drafted talented. You're campaigning teams for teams to collect multiple superstars/all-stars. That's essentially what we're talking about.

And besides competitive balance, it's also in the league's best interest to have a James Harden featured in a lead role rather than playing third fiddle in OKC.

INFORMER wrote: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.

Look, it is a punishment. It is not called tax because of nothing. And 'forced' is what you are when you do something against your will. You can find multiple examples. That's not subjective. If you find those words 'loaded', I'm sorry.

You have some nerve to talk about the quality of arguments when you drop stuff like that, you know?

I'd love to get in on the argument but I am a proponent of a hard cap and no guaranteed salaries. So anything I say would be dismissive.

Anyway, consider this a reminder not to pull a "me" and to keep this civil.

carey wrote:I'd love to get in on the argument but I am a proponent of a hard cap and no guaranteed salaries. So anything I say would be dismissive.

Anyway, consider this a reminder not to pull a "me" and to keep this civil.

Exactly INF and Ring, don't be a carey.

no guaranteed salaries

Who does this help, besides the owners?

The salaries are only guaranteed because the owners negotiated them that way. They don't have to offer guaranteed deals, or they could have worked out a system like the NFL where signing bonuses are where most players get their "guaranteed" money.

Indy wrote:

no guaranteed salaries

Who does this help, besides the owners?

Fans that enjoy parity.

carey wrote:

Indy wrote:

no guaranteed salaries

Who does this help, besides the owners?

Fans that enjoy parity.

How do you figure that?

Right. I don't think letting teams out of bad contracts any time they want helps parity. It allows for worse owners.

Keep in mind the teams with the highest payrolls last year were the Nets, Knicks, Heat and Lakers. One was very successful, one was somewhat disappointing, the other two were disasters.

The main advantage that teams like the Nets, Knicks, Lakers, Clippers and Bulls have is their local revenues, mostly from local cable broadcasts. Everyone offers guaranteed contracts, so there's really no competitive advantage there - the real advantage is what a player can earn outside of basketball in a market like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

You have to be an idiot (Dolan, Sterling) to operate a team in these markets and not be at least competitive every year. Markets like Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City and Memphis are more challenging for sustained success - because unless they already have major pieces in place (like OKC) there's not desirable landing spots for star players.

I disagree. I think it's a large component of why there is more parity in the NFL. I know there are a number of factors including the nature of the sport itself in which it's harder for a single player or even 2 players to completely change the fortunes of a team for a decade. I just think not being locked in to a bad player at big dollars for 4 years or more is a big reason why teams can retool faster and there is more competition.

The biggest reason that there is more parity in the NFL is because they have complete revenue sharing when it comes to broadcasting revenues. Teams like the Giants, Jets, Cowboys and Patriots don't have the advantage of huge local broadcasting deals. They've also had a much weaker union than the NBA and MLB have, so until recent years there was little movement through free agency.

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.

you misread the situation. you say "Some teams can endure the punishment like it's nothing." the luxury tax is meant to punish THOSE RICH TEAMS. just like socialist france's punitive 75% supertax on their 1% is meant to punish the rich there.

basically the luxury tax is meant to level the playing field by putting additional burdens on teams like the lakers and knicks from outspending smaller market teams and stealing their "discovered talents" (all things being equal, NY and CALIFORNIA are desired destinations, minnesota and wisconsin arent)

without these "socialist" nba rules, what you end up is an nba version of a 2-team league of real madrid and barcelona (all your talents will eventually go to them). or a manchester united or chelsea. durant will eventually move to a bigger market like NY or LAL whether you like it or not.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote: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.

That's the heart of the issue. If there was no l-tax, it would be more affordable for everybody to keep whatever talent they managed to gather. If you suck at drafting or make stupid trades, nothing can save you. But if you actually have showed ability to find talent, there comes a point where it gets prohibitive financially. You supress the tax, while keeping the restrictions that represent a salary cap, and you have a fairer system.

here's are thought experiments:

1) what happens if you abolish the luxury tax but you cap individual salaries for players?

2) what happens if you abolish individual caps on salaries but keep the luxury tax?

3) what happens if you abolish both?

carey wrote:I'd love to get in on the argument...keep this civil.

Honestly, for me it was just a debate, not an argument. Questioning how things are being referred to in a debate doesn't strike me as uncivilized. But if my comments were belligerent, then I apologize. Ring is very knowledgeable and has very well thought out posts. I wasn't attacking him, just commenting on the merits of one particular aspect of his position.

Ring_Wanted wrote: You have some nerve to talk about the quality of arguments when you drop stuff like that, you know?

If I've offended you, then I apologize. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The Bobster wrote:The biggest reason that there is more parity in the NFL is because they have complete revenue sharing when it comes to broadcasting revenues. Teams like the Giants, Jets, Cowboys and Patriots don't have the advantage of huge local broadcasting deals. They've also had a much weaker union than the NBA and MLB have, so until recent years there was little movement through free agency.

In general, I think sports collective bargaining has MLB at one end of the spectrum, the NBA in the middle, and the NFL at the other end.

MLB baseball is the worst. There is so much bad money spent, bad contracts handed out, and the players union is way too powerful and led more than a decade of the sport being overrun with performance enhancing drugs. Moreover, in regards to the teams, there is too much disparity between the haves and have-nots and it is too easy to get stuck in a vortex of sucking for decade or more.

The NFL has parity nailed and allows teams to turn things around easily. But IMO, the players are not compensated enough.

The NBA has the best CBA, though it certainly isn't perfect. Its a nice medium between the extremes of the other two major sport leagues.