|
Post by eja117 on Jul 21, 2006 15:45:05 GMT -5
NBAconomics make no sense whatsoever. I suspect every single GM in the league (especially Thomas) flunked economics or grew up rich and have no concept whatsoever of a budget.
Cases in point.
It is ridiculous to say an 18 year old can't join the league. The Constitution makes it clear that when you are 18 you have every right to seek your fortune and ruin your life as you see fit. This is the only industry in the world like this.
It is absolutely ridiculous to be able to hire a guy and not fire him. You can do that in the NFL but not the NBA. The league negotiators really dropped the ball on this.
You are the owners. They aren't. You should make more than them.
You absolutely can not sign a wing player for a max contract. Why? Because of supply and demand. Supply is plentiful. That means the price goes down. The same thing happened in the NFL. There is a reason that the best kicker that ever played the game (duh Adam Viniateri) can not possibly get paid more than Mike Vick or Peyton Manning who are two QBs who never won a thing, not Heisman or champinship, at any level. Cause a good QB is extremely rare and a guy who can kick a football isn't. In fact most kickers are about 99.9% on extra points. The Patriots know this. No NBA team has figured this out. There are 3 wings who have deserved a max contract ever. Jordan, D Wade, and Lebron. That's it. I would say Oscar Robertson but that was before the salary cap. Paying a wing top dollar is like giving the company janitor (I respect janitors by the way) CEO money cause he's really good. The NFL figured this out. Why doesn't the NBA?
Communism anyone? If Lebron gets a max contract you cannot possibly give one to Carmelo unless you want to cripple your team. Who's next? Gerald Wallace? If lebron is the best wing in the league then someone who isn't can't possibly be paid the same amount unless you always want to be worse.
Insanity I say. The Patriots are the most successful team cause they have figured out that a guard should only be paid a certain amount because it is esy to find a 300 guy that can block the sun and a d lineman. the first NBA team that figures out that a wing is the NBA equivalent of a guard or kicker will have a huge advantage.
Quality, not quantity. No wait. Other way around maybe. Duh. Wings come in three sizes in the NBA. Awesome wings that don't help you win championships. Good wings that are incidental to championships Bad wings that don't help you win championships.
The Lakers are discovering this the hard way. They are realizing that Kobe was an awesome wing that didn't really win them anything. Shaq did. So they paid Kobe like Shaq then traded him. The day that happened they traded a championship to the Heat and got back Lamar Odom who won't help them win a championship with Kobe. Together they will not lead the Lakers to a championship. so why is either one getting paid like they will? Stupidity! It would be faaaarrr better to have two good wings like Josh Howard and tayshaun Price for 9 million each than PP for 20mill. It would be faaaarrr better to pay two young wings like maybe Tony Allen and Gerald Green 2mill each and then pay a Shaq. A team with Shaq and those two guys would destroy a team with Iverson and nobody or PP and an expensive AL J or Blount even if Blount didn't make as much money as Shaq. The Celts are structured wrong. This is why the patriots don't sign replaceable players to "market value". CAUSE THEY ARE REPLACEABLE!
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Jul 23, 2006 17:36:29 GMT -5
The NFL has probably the worst players union in sports history. No union would concede for non-guaranteed contracts.
I think to make a fair assessment, you have to consider the other half of the equation. Revenue. Whether that maybe ticket sales, food/beverage sales, licensing, televevision/radio, etc.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Jul 23, 2006 20:23:51 GMT -5
Ever since Reagan when the owners of the teams stand together they always win. The baseball strike ended because of replacement players. The lockout ended. The NFL strike ended because of replacement players. I don't follow the NHL much but i get the impression the players lost this too. There is no other moral occupation on this planet other than movie star, politician, and model that allows a person to do what they love and live this kind of life. If the NBA owners stand together they can win too. I'm sure the revenue of he NBA is excellent, but comparing an 82 game season to a 16 game season has some differences. I wouldn't be surprised at all if on an hourly basis NFL players make just as much if not more. There's a reason that the worst Monday Nite football game has a bigger TV audience than the best baseball game. In the NFL there is a great thing called parity. It's good for the owners, fans, and players. It allows an NFL fan the reasonable hope that even though their team was one of the worst teams in the league recently, they could go to the Super Bowl this year. It also has nearly every team in the league in the playoff hunt until the season is over. The NBA has nothing comparable. Instead NBA fans suffer for years and in some cases generations. Expansion teams in the NFL are nearly guaranteed to make money, but two NBA teams and one MLB team have had to move in the last few years. Second, it's not exactly true that just because a union doesn't get something it hurts its membership. For example, if the MLBPA allows drug testing it will hurt the guys that take roids, but will help the guys not taking it. That can only mean that eithe rmost of the MLB players are on substances, or the union doesn't care abot protecting its members from suspicion, or the union is dominated by a few stars who are probably on roids. In the NFL the players that are productive get paid. Like in the real world. If you are an NFL player you don't have to worry about some over the hill guy keeping you from getting a roster spot. If you are better he'll be moved for you one way or another. Bad for the washed up vet. Good for the young guy. Good for the coach. Good for league revenue. Good for fans. More money for the guys that aren't washed up including the vet before he becomes washed up. In the NBA a washed up vet like Iverson can have a huge contract that can cripple a team for years and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Who would want that? Unions tend to be veteran dominated and are built on the backs of the best. They are always built on protecting the worker. There are some good things about this and some bad. It's good for some workers, bad for others, mixed for owners, terrible for consumers. I'm not saying at all that unions don't have their place. just that they aren't perfect and don;t have perfect results. Sometimes there is no need for them. I'm just saying that the NFL negotiators are clearly the best on pro sports, and the NBAconomics don't work for their teams. MLBconomics have also been criticised for the fact that the Yankees have totally unfair advantages.
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Jul 24, 2006 0:48:26 GMT -5
Guaranteed contracts are an evil I can live with in the NBA. As long as we keep a cap in place, the NBA is still light years ahead of MLB. MLB parity system is a travesty.
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Jul 24, 2006 0:49:57 GMT -5
In the NBA a washed up vet like Iverson can have a huge contract that can cripple a team for years and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Who would want that? I would hardly called Iverson washed up.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Jul 25, 2006 13:44:18 GMT -5
There is no way on Earth KG or Iverson can ever win a championship now. PP is way ahead of them in that department. By the time those teams are built they will be too old. PP has a shot in heck. The only thing they could do is get an awesome trade which is why the Wolves are probably way less likely to trade KG, cause if they ever got someone good maybe he could do it, but they tried that before with Spre and Cassel. They basically both missed their chance. Now Lebron is trying to do it with Larry Hughes. At least he has some big men and half way decent recent draft picks. He still has a ways to go. The Cavs think he'd probably look really good next to a Perk, West, or Rondo. So how about this PP, TA, Powe, Scala, and Wally for Ilgauskas, Shannon Brown, a first, and Hughes or something like that. Think PP would mind playing with Bron? Since we are giving them a championship we get something pretty good back.
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Jul 25, 2006 13:52:34 GMT -5
There is no way on Earth KG or Iverson can ever win a championship now. PP is way ahead of them in that department. By the time those teams are built they will be too old. That doesnt mean that KG and Iverson are washed up. There teams are garbage. Jordan in his prime couldnt win a title with those supporting casts. I guarantee that if Garnett and Pierce switched places, the Celtics would make a marked improvement. I dont know if I could say the same about the Wolves. Garnett is that good. That trade is horrible.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Jul 25, 2006 16:37:27 GMT -5
fresh for them they get a top top swing man, a borderline all star sg, a young big man with pword, a good young cheap swing man and a young cheap multi-purpose big. They are clearly closer to the championship making that trade. If needs be we could chip in Al J or Ratliff. It can't possibly be bad for them.
We get to ship out two large contracts and bring in a borderline all star swing, good young swing prospect, draft pick, and the all star center we really need, so it can't possibly be bad for us.
Essentially it's PP for Ilgauskas, which is win-win. then Wally, TA, Powe, and Scala for Hughes, Brown, and a 1rst, which is about even although i could see why one would want youth more than what we give up, but looking closer
Wally vs Hughes Wally isn't as good but is cheaper with a shorter contract TA vs Brown slight edge to TA as he is more proven although legal issues make it a wash Powe and Scala for a late 1rst. kinda even
It's the most even trade ever which helps both teams. Maybe add Dwayne Jones or telfaire or D West or something, but it's pretty fair. I think even the money works out pretty close.
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Jul 26, 2006 0:15:22 GMT -5
fresh for them they get a top top swing man, a borderline all star sg, a young big man with pword, a good young cheap swing man and a young cheap multi-purpose big. They are clearly closer to the championship making that trade. If needs be we could chip in Al J or Ratliff. It can't possibly be bad for them. When I said it was a horrible trade I didnt mean for Cleveland. If Danny pulled of a move of this monumental stupidity, the city of Cleveland would build a statue in his honor. We ship out two large contracts, and we get large contracts back, both of which are much worse than the ones we shipped out. And in regards to Brown, I'd rather have Allen. And if a 30 year old Garnett is washed up, what is a 31 year old ilgauskas? With your disdain for injury prone players, why would you want Z? He's been healthy lately, but i dont want to pay a 7-3 30 something with a history of injuries big bucks for the next several years. Its a win-win, if our goal is to be the worst team in the league next year. Why exactly would we be adding adding telfair or DWest to a trade in which we are already getting killed in? How does this trade help the C's in any way?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2006 11:23:29 GMT -5
Hughs and ilgauskas are both injures prone and neither are a go to guy in crunch time. Plus, I doubt this trade works with pierce and wally making 30 mil combined while hughs and ilgauskas make only 20 mil.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Jul 26, 2006 13:47:57 GMT -5
Ok let me explain.
First off PP is a swing man, and swing men grow on trees in this league. Next. Ilgauskas is a center. A 7ft 3 All Star center, which is about as rare as ... well there are unconfirmed sightings of a center in Miami, but these things went extinct about 10 years ago and the sightings are probably just flocks of geese or something.
Next. 31 year old pfs and centers like Garnett and Shaq win championships. 31yo swing men and pgs don't
Ilgauskas hasn't missed significant time in a long time. And guys that sat out 4 years have less wear and tear than a typical 31 year old.
larry hughes has had I think one whole injury in his career.
Wanting TA more than Shannon Brown might not be such a good idea when TA is in jail. Also TA is going to want a raise after this year. Brown can't get one.
Wally is a good deal, but it might be nice to not have to pay PP a max contract for the next 6 years, when we have other guys to pay soon.
When Gerald Green is one of the top two swings in the league we won't miss PP and his huge contract any more.
Larry Hughes can play some pg if needs be, which makes shipping out Telfair and West not as bad, both of which will want raises next year.
Wally is just as injury prone as Larry at this point in his career.
So basically you ship out a max contract, an old swing, and some guys who will want raises, and get back a good young swing, a good young swing, and a guy who can help a team win a championship. All of which are locked into deals.
try to look down the line at least one year guys. This year's team is a transitional team to next year. Next year's team is the one that wants raises and is the team we either win for the next 5 years with or lose for the next five years with. Having PP instead of an all star center is a loser.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2006 18:02:19 GMT -5
Pierce for ilgauskas isn't a wash at all. First off, ilgauskas isn't much of a paint presence he's more of a jump shooter. He isn't a good rebounder for his size infact I think piercd average more rebounds last year. Also, if you ever watch any cavs game you would have realize ilgauskas can't defend for beans not to mention his lack of mobility is a huge dissadvantage as faster big man will score on him at will.
Hugh had injury issues throughout his career. It wasn't just last year because philly got rid of him for table scraps before he went to washington becuz of injury issues.
Lets face the facts, cavs would have to swallow 10 extra mil. Last time I check mr. Lebron james was getting paid 20 mil per year like pierce. That's 50 mil committed to 3 players. Isn't the salary cap around 56 mil.
Magloire was an allstar center as well doesa that mean he's worth a paul pierce? Of course not. I'm just saying just becuz someone is 7 feet tall doesn't mean they're worth an allstar swing man.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Jul 26, 2006 19:11:33 GMT -5
In general in this league i would trade any max contract wing not named Lebron, Wade, or Gerald Green for any all star center or likely to be all star center like Bogut or Emeka or anyone like that any day and twice on Saturday.
11 Zydrunas Ilgauskas | C PPG 15.6 | RPG 7.6 | BPG 1.7
The last time he didn't play in at least 78 games was 2001-02. He also got .6 steals per game last year which was more than Shaq, Kaman, Okur, Nazr, Krstic, or even the average for Zo's entire career.
I admit i'd rather have Kaman.
So how about
PP. Telfair, Powe, Pittsnogle, Ray, Jones for
Kaman, Cassell, Livingston, Korolev, Magette
That is actually a hard trade to put together to match up talent for money but both teams have a good handful of players to make a basic trade work
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Jul 26, 2006 20:51:04 GMT -5
Its difficult to compare one sport to another. And each sport has its positive aspects, as well as negative aspects.
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Jul 27, 2006 0:33:38 GMT -5
Ok let me explain. First off PP is a swing man, and swing men grow on trees in this league. Next. Ilgauskas is a center. A 7ft 3 All Star center, which is about as rare as ... well there are unconfirmed sightings of a center in Miami, but these things went extinct about 10 years ago and the sightings are probably just flocks of geese or something. Saying Z is a all-star center is a bit misleading. Its like saying Im the best looking man in my bathroom every morning. Its true, but thats because there isnt any compition. And just because there are a lot of good swing men doesnt mean that trading a really good one for decent center is going to make you a better team. It would be like dumping Pamela Anderson for Kathy Griffen on the basis that there a lot of good looking blondes out there, but red-heads dont come along too often. And 31 year old Ildrunas Zilwhatevers dont lead there teams to more than 25 wins. Do you really put Z in the same boat as Garnett and Shaq? Would you rather pay Z a 8 figure a year salary for the next 5 years. He and Larry Hughes are going to be two of the worse contracts in the league in a couple of years. I think its tough to assume that Green will be a top 2 wing, and if he does get there, Z will be in an electric wheelchair. An old swing? Wally? He's no even 2 years older than Hughes. And I wouldnt call Shannon Brown good. He hasnt exactly proven himself yet. Also, if Brown is good, wont he eventually want a raise? Yes, bad deals. I can look a this year, next year, or five years from now, and it still sucks for the C's. First off, Choosing Z over Pierce will make your team worse, bar none. Their is not one GM in the league that would take Z over PP. Z is a all-star C. THis is true. He is probably one of the worst multiple all-star centers in the league. Compare his numbers to Rik Smits. The are pretty similair players(And this is being kind to Z. Smits actually palyed down low mostly and often demaded a double team, something that Z doesnt do.) Would you expect Rik Smts to lead a team to title? NO. Guys like him are complimentary pieces.And in regards to resigning players, Hughes contract would only hamper that, while Wally's will be off the books by the time we need to resign Green. Can you honestly say that exchanging PP and Wally for Z and Hughes makes a better team? Because this is borderline insanity to me.
|
|