Papabear wrote:

Andrew wrote:Correct that the teams do not need to use the MLE, but when that exception is available to all teams every year the larger market teams can force smaller market teams into using it to overspend. You have to choose to be less competitive in order to be profitable. Are you ok with that?

Papabear Says

Look! I believe in the baseball process. If you got the money spend it. The Knicks got all the money in the world and haven't won a championship in almost 40 years so it's got to be good management. I am really getting turned off by this whole process and watching the games and a bunch of greedy people and that's management and the players turns me off. They need to get rid of some of these teams and put them in the minor leagues.The Knicks should be able to be like the Yankees. If you can afford it then out bid the others. I thought that was the capitalistic way of doing business. Or maybe the non performing teams loosing money they should be allowed to have six players on the court. LOL

You right, but we are Knick fans.

NFL can see a team like the Lions and 49ers in two years go from worst to near first and make a run. The NFL rewards the (Most of the time) the players who are performing and can cut off those that are not. Be it injury or motivation, a player gets good upfront money and an a partial guarantee. Imagine a situation where marbury could have been cut two years sooner. He would have mada a great salary while relevant but not drag a team down while he was not. If the money was a factor, he could have proven himself with another team and maybe earned a new contract.

No system is perfect and while I prefer a team with a huge cash flow like the knicks be formatable every year I do understand that the league cannot continue with a widening gap of haves and have nots.

While contraction seems like a good idea in a very short run, there will always be weak teams and you can't just keep knocking them off. Also, when a crap team plays on the road they don't draw well so it hurts everyone.

I think Knicks will always have some natural advantage. If all things are equal, then players might want to go where the lights are bright and opportunities are greater. They will always gravitate to money.

Its always best if a superstar stays with his team. Durant in OK is a prime example. They are building something special out there.

Nalod wrote:

Papabear wrote:

Andrew wrote:Correct that the teams do not need to use the MLE, but when that exception is available to all teams every year the larger market teams can force smaller market teams into using it to overspend. You have to choose to be less competitive in order to be profitable. Are you ok with that?

Papabear Says

Look! I believe in the baseball process. If you got the money spend it. The Knicks got all the money in the world and haven't won a championship in almost 40 years so it's got to be good management. I am really getting turned off by this whole process and watching the games and a bunch of greedy people and that's management and the players turns me off. They need to get rid of some of these teams and put them in the minor leagues.The Knicks should be able to be like the Yankees. If you can afford it then out bid the others. I thought that was the capitalistic way of doing business. Or maybe the non performing teams loosing money they should be allowed to have six players on the court. LOL

You right, but we are Knick fans.

NFL can see a team like the Lions and 49ers in two years go from worst to near first and make a run. The NFL rewards the (Most of the time) the players who are performing and can cut off those that are not. Be it injury or motivation, a player gets good upfront money and an a partial guarantee. Imagine a situation where marbury could have been cut two years sooner. He would have mada a great salary while relevant but not drag a team down while he was not. If the money was a factor, he could have proven himself with another team and maybe earned a new contract.

No system is perfect and while I prefer a team with a huge cash flow like the knicks be formatable every year I do understand that the league cannot continue with a widening gap of haves and have nots.

While contraction seems like a good idea in a very short run, there will always be weak teams and you can't just keep knocking them off. Also, when a crap team plays on the road they don't draw well so it hurts everyone.

I think Knicks will always have some natural advantage. If all things are equal, then players might want to go where the lights are bright and opportunities are greater. They will always gravitate to money.

Its always best if a superstar stays with his team. Durant in OK is a prime example. They are building something special out there.

the difference between the NBA and the NFL goes way beyond their economic system. in the NBA, one superstar player can carry a franchise for years. in football, teams are larger, composed specialized pieces, and entirely less dependent on the one superstar formula.

eViL wrote:latest reports are that the small market teams are still being unrelenting *******s... and that, of all ****ing people, it's the Spurs owner who is being the biggest prick...

Holt is a prick for sure these days. Dude did put up the money and kept them winning but I doubt he made much money. Maybe he is bitter cuz he has had a nice run and nice bling but if you can't make a buck with Tim-May, how is it gonna be when the team is indecline and thru a rebuild?

Can't say he mismanaged the team or made many dumb moves. (lets not blame jefferson for all their problems!)

Naturally I can't say I am willing to sacrifice "MY" season of hoop for Peter Holts financial concerns but we all know the league model has some big holes in it and its their fight if thats what they want.

Lets hope for good news these next few days.

Andrew wrote:How many owners need to vote yes on a proposal to allow it to move forward? Majority?

i think so.